Wilks brothers true colors are shining through.....

[katqanna]

But BigSky, just what did the Sen. office communicate? Wingman had a longer drive back than I did, but he has some hunting stories to tell y'all of what that fence did to one elk herd they were hunting and what the Wilks employee in a truck did to their last morning hunt.

I saw the BLM truck parked on the Wilks side and just through the gate, a trailer used to haul an atv with tracks coming out of the trailer. I assumed it may be the surveyors. They were seen driving later by the hunters.

I changed my mind last night and decided to stay home, process that hind quarter and get to work on the videos and pics. I have some other friends I trust going to the GYCC meeting, but I want these pictures and such available on what is going on with the fencing situation.

Oh, and I found an older elk shed that I am going to work into a gourd piece, with wood burned elk on it. Flying in and out (both flights) we saw lots of elk herds the closer we got to the Durfees. There definitely are some impressive elk herds out that way.

Here is an example of why we need this fence to be in compliance with BLM fencing, which thankfully takes wildlife into consideration. Both of these shots are from the eastern fence of that bottom 40 acre BLM parcel. There were quite a number of places with caught hair.

What I typically found was if the fence was higher in the 47"-51" range, the bottom wire would be higher off the ground about the 10"-12" range. If the fence was in the 46"-44" range, then the bottom wires would be about 7"-9" range, so the top to bottom wire spread of the 5 wires remained pretty consistent, but definitely not in compliance with BLM's 3-4 wire fence which involves top height of 38"-40", bottom wire a smooth wire at 16" with a larger gap between top and lower wire.

Top shot is lower than most at 45" (BLM reg is 38"-40"), yet still catching hair. Just a few yards away, the fence is unusually high for the lower wire - 18", which is barbed (supposed to be smooth). There was a dip in the ground causing this much height. This is why we need the fencing to be in compliance to facilitate wildlife movement. This bottom 40 acre parcel is the one I was mentioning about being totally fenced in.

 

[1_pointer]

According to the BLM map, the BLM parcel with the red arrow pointing to it is in a different grazing allotment. The county line is the allotment boundary. The Jones Creek Allotment (the 40ac BLM piece) permit is held by Wilks Ranch Montana LTD. The grazing permit is for 1 cow. My guess is that it is fenced seperate from everything else so they don't have to bother with a grazing trespass issue in the chance cows wander there from the surrounding private. It has to have a fence on the north side to separate it from the other grazing allotment. That 40ac is the only BLM in that allotment.

 

[katqanna]

That 40 acre parcel only had some old fencing on part of the northern side before. Part of the north, east, south and west fencing is new. I will get pictures up after I run an errand and drop off my early voting I forgot to do in my rush to pack for the Durfees (forgot a few things). So having that totally fenced for 1 cow seems odd since it has not been totally closed in for years until now.

 

[1_pointer]

Not too odd IMO. That piece has to be fenced from the BLM on the north as it is a different grazing allotment. By putting the fencing around the other 3 sides, they could be just trying to prevent accidental grazing trespass. I realize that they may have other, larger motives, but if I owned that ranch, I'd fence that 40 off unless it had the only water for a couple of miles.

 

[katqanna]

I just got an email in from Clive Rooney, DNRC, in response to my office visit last week and the official complaint he needed to begin looking into the DNRC parcel 36.

Kathryn, BLM has agreed to include a survey of the northern boundary of the state parcel as part of their larger survey area. Turns out the pin on the state / blm corner will be the start of the survey and running the state line was necessary anyway. Results in a couple weeks. Clive

 

[starvingoutdoorsman]

I get the impression that the majority of contributors to this thread have never met Dan or Farris Wilkes, or stepped foot in the Durfee Hills. And, sadly, I think many of these folks are the loudest voices on the bandwagon to villianize them.

I may not align with them politically, I may not agree with the design of their fence, and I may not support their attempt at a land exchange, but I do not believe they are as terrible as often made out.

As a hunter that has spent time in the Durfees and other public lands bordered by Wilkes Ranch and personally seen the fence construction, I have this to say. When you are dealing with the quantity of elk as found in these herds, a fence doesn't stand a chance. The elk have their crossings, and while the leaders may bear some bumps and bruises from the process, the crossings will once again open up with broken wires and bent posts. Additionally, the Wilkes aren't the only ones building fence like this. This past weekend while hunting a private ranch in the area (that allows public access for those that ask), I encountered a fence very similar. My point is...there are A LOT of fences out there, old and new, that aren't wildlife friendly.

And, I would also like to bring to everyones attention that the Wilkes brothers have authorized their employees to assist any hunter that knocks on their door to recover game that has crossed onto Wilkes deeded land. Of which the employees have assisted with multiple recoveries this year, even volunteering to help with the quartering and packing.

I have never met or stepped foot there. And I would not mind meeting the guys either. I would assume that they are not all that bad. I just have heard more bad stories than good. Awesome that they will at least allow hunters to retrieve game that may cross the fence.

 

[double_a85]

Any new updates on how the survey is progressing?

 

[Big Fin]

Any new updates on how the survey is progressing?

BLM hopes to have it completed by the end of this week.

 

[katqanna]

As Randy stated the BLM cadastral survey is about completed. They will have to report and do the official filing, which may take about 2 weeks to have something official to share.

I finally got some of the foundation page (including link to this thread) created for those that have not been reading everything on this thread and are up to speed.

Additionally the bigger project was the Wilks Fencing Durfee Hills Interactive Map. It is not completed, I still have numerous pictures along the border and video to process and link, (just hit refresh on the page to upload the updated version).

I also filed the first BLM FOIA involving the Wilks and the Durfee/Bald Butte, including citations issued, LE field logs, forms filed as a result of complaints, etc., to see if there is a pattern of public hunter harassment. Still a lot of work to do.

 

[katqanna]

I just finished that section 25 portion straight north from the tri corner loaded on the map. I feel like Billy from those old Family Circus cartoon maps.

Fencing that begins the trench.
Corner video - the debris was too big for one detailed photo so I shot it from south of the corner, in front and then went uphill a wee bit to the west.

I also added the section on the north that has a satellite photo with gps coordinates that a hunter took and sent to BLM. The cat tracks go on BLM land for about .8 mile.

Interactive map.

Not sure if the plane video was loaded last time but it is now. Slowly but surely getting all this data up.

 

[kansasdad]

That is a ton of info all rolled in to one map Kat..........and I think I imagined your voice just about right.

 

[katqanna]

Well theres a ton of sh*t going on here, I dont know any other way to break this down. I figured this way it might be presented in bite size chunks. I have never done a map like this before, so this is a learning experience for me.

As to my voice, I normally speak faster, rowdier, and people continually ask me to slow down, that I may be able to drink from a fire hose with data, but they cannot. So unfortunately I sound like frickin NPR. I notice more of the southern is creeping in as I get older. I am saving the rowdy expletives for after the survey and trespass report get released. Right now the audio is getting the calm, benefit of the doubt.

 

[Nameless Range]

Any news on this? Starting to feel like the BLM is hoping people forget that they claimed to have "checked" the boundaries themselves in their initial reaction to complaints. It's been 3 weeks since they supposedly finished the survey.

 

[RobG]

Any news on this? Starting to feel like the BLM is hoping people forget that they claimed to have "checked" the boundaries themselves in their initial reaction to complaints. It's been 3 weeks since they supposedly finished the survey.

I was going to ask today too. I know the fire has left my belly. Credit the BLM, they did a good job at diffusing the situation so I doubt if they got enough heat to fix whatever caused them to stifle the hunters and cover for the Wilks in the first place.

 

[katqanna]

Nameless, I sent an email to Stan Benes on Nov. 21st asking about the status of the survey which should have been completed by that time. He replied:

As for the survey, it is in the cadastral shop for record construction, review, and approval, prior to going to the Federal register for I believe 30 days. Until that process is complete, as our lead suveyor says, there are no results to share.

I thanked him for the information and asked, "Is the investigation into the other aspects of suspected trespass such as the caterpillar, vegetation destruction, etc., tied into, awaiting the cadastral survey report?" I havent gotten a reply back yet.

I have also sent in my FOIA request and received a reply back on the 21st assigning a FOIA number, telling me that I needed to send additional justification for the waiver and information,

Your initial fee waiver request does not include sufficient justification for our office to make a determination. In deciding whether your fee waiver request meets the Department of the Interior FOIA regulations, the BLM will consider the criteria listed on Enclosure 1. Please address each of these criteria. The burden is on you to justify entitlement to a fee waiver. Requests for fee waivers are decided on a case-by-case basis. 43 CFR 2.45 and 2.48

There were two pages of specificity I had to go through and address, like how disclosure was likely to contribute to public understanding, my identity, vocation, qualifications and expertise regarding the requested information, what was my interest in this, how I was going to use the information, how would I disseminate the information, whether the requested information was new, had it been released previously and why I was requesting a fee waiver. At which point I was feeling a wee bit snarky about all this. I have placed dozens of FOIAs to APHIS (you might say an antagonistic agency concerning brucellosis) and never received this redirect and delay. They said they viewed my request as complex and once they received my reply, if it was accepted, 21 and 60 workdays days to process. Upset at how much the public has been investing and paying to get this addressed, my reply about the fee waiver section was:

Since EMWH is a public trust advocacy organization (supported minorly by contributions from concerned public, primarily by my own dollars), freely making public documents available to the public, I am requesting the fee waiver. I have already gone to lengths to collect documentation to provide to the BLM to show just cause for a cadastral survey and investigation, paying for the trips to the area in question ($150.00 just for gas on two trips) and my expenses out of my own pocket, as well as public hunters that were pilots bearing the plane fuel cost to fly me in for documentation. Additionally I have invested numerous hours of my time and web development to make this information available to the public at my own cost. The public has borne more costs than we should have at this point to bring this to BLM's attention and receive compliance with your regulations. I have also been contacted by attorneys anxious to take this case on, since this is a federal agency that litigation would re-numerate the attorneys fees should they be successful, yet I have told them I desire to go through this public process, hoping to avoid our taxpayer dollars being spent on litigation that could be avoided by simply following regulations. As our taxpayer dollars have already paid for the reports, emails, communications, logs, etc., I do not see that I should be required to pay, yet again, to help support our BLM public land management.

I apologize for the time I have had to take to hunt and process these does (I am quite carnivorous and needed wild meat). I got a few new points on the interactive map added, like Wingmans trespass sign that is clearly on BLM land, violating Montana law by posting on fed or state public lands and the bad trench on section 23/24 border. I just got permission from Hank last night for the calf in the fence picture, so that can be added and I need to get back to processing the additional pictures and video I took.

I need a cup of English tea and I hear the jerky beckoning.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks for the information RobG and Kat.

Because I once worked for the D.O.R. which is where the State of MT's cadastral information is created and managed, I wonder what the "cadastral shop" is.

In my limited experience with altering parcel boundaries(I recently was involved in the surveying of a mine claim my brother owns), a surveyor surveys, you submit it to the County(at which a D.O.R cartographer says yay or nay), and the survey is stamped by the Clerk and Recorder thereby making it official. It may not be reflected on the state's gis.mt.gov site for up to a year, but the data will exist long before that. Maybe it is different for surveys on federal land.

 

[howler]

Thanks to all who are working constructively on this ordeal, Montana sportsmen applaud you

 

[EagleEye]

Frustrating process indeed. Thank you all for your efforts to protect our public lands! Impressive. Thanks for taking the time to keep us up-to-date.

 

[katqanna]

I just got back another notice from BLM. They are requesting more specifics that could have been asked the first time. So I have to detail more before they begin processing my request.

I got to a few more of the fencing pics on the map and am working on some of the video clips (one is up, the one by the corner - blue dots) that were too large for one pic to show the tree piles.

Dont know if y'all saw this, but the Wilks bought another ranch (24,500 acres), the Diamond Ranch in Rosebud and removed it from Block Management, which is their right. But this reinforces our need for public lands that we have guaranteed access on, because any landowner or new landowner, can pull out of Block Management.

 

[RobG]

I just got back another notice from BLM. They are requesting more specifics that could have been asked the first time. So I have to detail more before they begin processing my request.

This is bull%#$.