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

[sneakypete]

Road hunter, I haven't been there yet, and don't know if my pilot friends plane can land there ? After reading all this stuff about what the Wilkes are up too. I am heading out to the area on the 22nd for a week +. I just hope Randy airs all what's happening out there.

 

[wingman1]

The long strip is blocked by the RV. I have been landing on the 400 footer up around the corner. If they block this one too I have many more on standby.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Keep on 'em.

Folks are paying attention.

 

[katqanna]

Found a legal document that referenced Unlawful Inclosures of Public Land, had to find the full code. This is US Code Title 43, Chapter 25, Sec 1061-66.

Inclosure of or assertion of right to public lands without title - All inclosures of any public lands in any State or Territory of the United States, heretofore or to be hereafter made, erected, or constructed by any person, party, association, or corporation, to any of which land included within the inclosure the person, party, association, or corporation making or controlling the inclosure had no claim or color of title made or acquired in good faith, or an asserted right thereto by or under claim, made in good faith with a view to entry thereof at the proper land office under the general laws of the United States at the time any such inclosure was or shall be made, are declared to be unlawful, and the maintenance, erection, construction, or control of any such inclosure is forbidden and prohibited; and the assertion of a right to the exclusive use and occupancy of any part of the public lands of the United States in any State or any of the Territories of the United States, without claim, color of title, or asserted right as above specified as to inclosure, is likewise declared unlawful, and prohibited.

After I make dinner, I have a couple of these court cases that involved fence obstruction wildlife on public lands by private fences that cited this unlawful inclosures law. I will get them noted and uploaded for y'all. Another of the Butte guys said 4 wires this evening, I was trying to look through ARM, but their search sucks.

Here are a couple of the legal cases I was reading through last month when I heard the rumor and began compiling the fencing resources.
Cheyenne Journal; When Antelope Don't Roam Free
Free At Last (1992)
Camfield V United States

 

[RobertR]

This involves more than the fence, did they have to ok from BLM, was there the ok by archeologist to disturb the ground, was FWP involved. Was silt fences not required for run off of sedimentation of any streams, was there an EIS filed?
There are a lot of unanswered questioned and the Wilks Bros. need to make a public statement. If Western Watersheds finds out this will go viral.

 

[wingman1]

No silt fence here or anywhere else.

 

[wingman1]

Think this will washout?

 

[katqanna]

Found it - the BLM Fencing Standards Handbook
pg. 13 - Fences Along Public-Private and Public-State Land Boundaries

The Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 (UIA), as amended, is applicable to fencing constructed along or adjacent to public lands. This law states, in part, that "No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or enclosing, or other unlawful means...shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands..." The courts have ruled that the UIA guarantees access to public lands for all lawful purposes and that wildlife access to and use of Federal lands is a legitimate use.

pg. 14 Taylor Grazing Act

"The [Taylor] Grazing Act regulates fencing on public land, and unless fences on private land conform to those standards, the UIA prevents fences which wrongfully enclose public lands."...In summary, the "Red Rim" fence decision (United States v. Lawrence) establishes that legal action may be taken against parties who construct fencing on private lands that could enclose or block access by wildlife to public (Federal) lands.

Chapter 4 has the fencing descriptions. Pg. 18 Standards for Big Game Habitat and pronghorn antelope, continued on Pg. 20, Deer, Elk or Moose Habitat

(1) Woven wire, 5- or 6-strand barbed wire fences and fences exceeding 42 inches in height all pose serious negotiation problems for deer...Other factors affecting negotiation of fences include the age and condition of deer and elk, wire tautness, and the physical setting of the fences. Fences constructed next to borrow pits, on steep slopes, and in areas where snow accumulates, may not be negotiable by deer, elk, or moose....When the lower strands of wire are both close to the ground and to each other, they impede the movement of fawns and yearlings which tend to go under or through a fence.

Cont. on pg. 21 Normally deer jump with their hind legs forward. If the top two wires are too close together or loose, deer often entangle their hind legs, resulting in broken legs, entangled animals dying of starvation or shock, and broken fences. Elk jump the same way, but usually move on after breaking the fence or injuring themselves. Within elk herd movement areas, fence damage can be extensive.

Pg. 21 explains big game ranges fencing at top height of 38", smooth bottom wire with a space of 16", continued on page 22, listing 3 wire fence or post-pole-and-wire fence.

Pg. 25 lists domestic livestock for cattle only is 4 wire barbed fence top height of 42 inches.

Pg. 40 has the charts with number of wires and wire spacing. Anything with antelope, deer, elk and moose is 3-4 wire. Illustrations are on pg. 41.

 

[sneakypete]

Great work Wingman!

 

[Muskeez]

This is all very interesting, but Wingman, don't forget to enjoy yourself and your hunt. I got caught up in some drama with some real unethical jerks in a fishing tournament years ago and it zapped all the fun out of my trip. It took me out of my "game" and I lost my focus and it still bothers me. So enjoy the sunrises and sunsets and the sounds of bugling elk. Hopefully those sounds will outweigh the helicopters and dozers! Happy hunting!!

 

[bigskyblueman]

Posting off their property , flyovers. Apparently the harassment has begun. False trespassing allegations and staff disguised as hunters roaming the BLM on phony hunts designed to spoil elk hunting for the public , next? Pure speculation , of course.

 

[wingman1]

This is all very interesting, but Wingman, don't forget to enjoy yourself and your hunt. I got caught up in some drama with some real unethical jerks in a fishing tournament years ago and it zapped all the fun out of my trip. It took me out of my "game" and I lost my focus and it still bothers me. So enjoy the sunrises and sunsets and the sounds of bugling elk. Hopefully those sounds will outweigh the helicopters and dozers! Happy hunting!!

So true! I missed a bull of a lifetime yesterday evening. I wasn't on my game. I'm not going to make excuses but I have made the same shot many times in the past. I did manage to enjoy this sunset on my favorite rock ridge.

 

[wingman1]

Found it - the BLM Fencing Standards Handbook
pg. 13 - Fences Along Public-Private and Public-State Land Boundaries


pg. 14 Taylor Grazing Act


Chapter 4 has the fencing descriptions. Pg. 18 Standards for Big Game Habitat and pronghorn antelope, continued on Pg. 20, Deer, Elk or Moose Habitat


Pg. 21 explains big game ranges fencing at top height of 38", smooth bottom wire with a space of 16", continued on page 22, listing 3 wire fence or post-pole-and-wire fence.

Pg. 25 lists domestic livestock for cattle only is 4 wire barbed fence top height of 42 inches.

Pg. 40 has the charts with number of wires and wire spacing. Anything with antelope, deer, elk and moose is 3-4 wire. Illustrations are on pg. 41.

This is priceless in the right hands. Thanks for posting

 

[devon deer]

I don't really feel qualified in any way to comment on what's happening, but it does get my back right up when the wealthy run rough shod offer the public and their rights.
Wire and deer do not mix

Cheers
Richard

 

[mdunc8]

Found it - the BLM Fencing Standards Handbook
pg. 13 - Fences Along Public-Private and Public-State Land Boundaries


pg. 14 Taylor Grazing Act


Chapter 4 has the fencing descriptions. Pg. 18 Standards for Big Game Habitat and pronghorn antelope, continued on Pg. 20, Deer, Elk or Moose Habitat


Pg. 21 explains big game ranges fencing at top height of 38", smooth bottom wire with a space of 16", continued on page 22, listing 3 wire fence or post-pole-and-wire fence.

Pg. 25 lists domestic livestock for cattle only is 4 wire barbed fence top height of 42 inches.

Pg. 40 has the charts with number of wires and wire spacing. Anything with antelope, deer, elk and moose is 3-4 wire. Illustrations are on pg. 41.

According to the second line of the document, the handbook "identifies standards and provides guidance related specifically to construction of fences on lands managed by the BLM." Moreover, it states in the first chapter that "some flexibility exists to match fence design with multiple use objectives in most situations. Since this Handbook does not describe every fence design found to be satisfactory in certain situations, managers may authorize the use of other fencing..." But I guess the NBar might be subject to these standards if they accidentally built the fence on BLM

 

[1_pointer]

While all of this does indeed make the bros. Wilks look like some not so nice guys. I hope that if they are building that fence on their Deeded Property, that the sportsmen, state and federal agencies will leave them alone. If they bought it, I support their right to fence it however they see fit. Mean that, 7 strands, woven wire, or razor wire. (even if I don't personally like it) It's their private property not mine. There is a rather nasty pile on mentality going on among the ranks of the hunting crowd on the forums these days and it will probably do more harm than good.
Hope everyone here can take the high ground on this issue.

I don't disagree. That said, an exchange of use agreement for a grazing permit, which can be broken by either party at any time, requires that the landowner abdicate some of those property rights to the other party. If you have land in such an agreement with the BLM, you have to follow their rules in regards to how it's grazed. Numbers, kind, and dates for example. It's been a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't at least a bit of language in that agreement pertaining to the construction standards of fences and the like.

 

[1_pointer]

I have been following this thread and trying to get my thoughts on the subject in order. I am definitely a public property rights advocate but also think private property rights are equally important. It seems the Wilks may be vindictive in some of their actions and I don't trust them one bit. I think they have tried and will continue to try and benefit themselves at the cost of the public. Given this, the fence doesn't seem like that big of a deal. If they didn't build it and turned out a thousand head of cattle that then grazed the BLM ground without a grazing lease that would be illegal. I agree with twodot and think good fences make good neighbors although they could have helped themselves as well as the wildlife by looking into wildlife friendly fence. I do think that it should be legal to shoot at aircraft with a bow - if they are that low then they are harassing. It would surprise me if the fence was not surveyed in and that the brace is across the line. If it is it seems trivial but I assume that the wilks will have to move it since they have stirred up a hornets nest. The wilks could also be looking at some trouble for disturbing the BLM ground. Although I am sure authorities will be reluctant to press any charges knowing what a fight they will be up against.
Wingman - I do appreciate the updates and pictures and hope that the next one is a dead bull. good luck

If wingman is where I think he his, the Wilks have the grazing leases for those BLM allotments. Therefore, depending on the exact location of many of the document actions, the BLM may be able to pursue either civil or criminal penalties as many of these are Prohibitive Acts (as labeled by the Code of Federal Regulations) for grazing permit holders. Though I doubt the loss of the grazing permit is all that big of an issue for them, IMO it makes what comes of this a bit more interesting...

 

[Big Fin]

Holy crap. I am just back from an abbreviated trip to NV and UT and have paged through this entire thread. Not sure what to say, that hasn't already been said.

Looking at those pics and knowing the lay of that landscape and ownership configuration, I struggle to see how some of that was done without creating some damage on BLM lands. That chopper they have seems to be reported in more hunter-related incidents than any aircraft in MT.

Thanks for posting all of this Wingman. Very disturbing if this has happened on public lands. Glad you have photos of all of it.

I will be there with video cameras, soon enough. I wish I was there right now.

I hope you get another shot at that big bull.

 

[twodot]

pointer, I do totally understand about entering into agreement with Gov. agency and the need to do things by the book. The whole question is, do they hold title to the land on which the fence is built? If they do, we sportsmen have to suck it up and leave them be. If they have indeed run over their property line onto public, then they have opened themselves up to all kinds of problems. Someone please show me a law that say's if you own a piece of land adjoining BLM you can't fence it in any fashion you see fit. (as long as the fence is on your property.

 

[katqanna]

Twodot, even if the Wilks built the fence on their land, pg. 13 of the BLM Handbook stated - The Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885 (UIA), as amended, is applicable to fencing constructed along or adjacent to public lands. This law states, in part, that "No person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any fencing or enclosing, or other unlawful means...shall prevent or obstruct free passage or transit over or through the public lands..." The courts have ruled that the UIA guarantees access to public lands for all lawful purposes and that wildlife access to and use of Federal lands is a legitimate use.

Wingman, you are welcome and thank you for all your documentation, boots on the ground. I was hoping one of y'all would be there to see if the earlier fence rumors were true.

Now, the link I provided above on the Unlawful Inclosures Title 42, the second section 1062 states,

It shall be the duty of the United States attorney for the proper district, on affidavit filed with him by ANY citizen of the United States that section 1061 of this title is being violated showing a description of the land inclosed with reasonable certainty, not necessarily by metes and bounds nor by governmental subdivisions of surveyed lands, but only so that the inclosure may be identified, and the persons guilty of the violation as nearly as may be, and by description, if the name cannot on reasonable inquiry be ascertained, to institute a civil suit in the proper United States district court, in the name of the United States district court, or territorial district court, in the name of the Untied States, and against the parties named or described who shall be in charge of or controlling the inclosure complained of as defendants;...In any case if the inclosure shall be found to be unlawful, the court shall make the proper order, judgement, or decree for the destruction of the inclosure, in a summary way, unless the inclosure shall be removed by the defendant within five days after the order of the court.

I had to laugh at section 1065 - "The President is authorized to take such measures as shall be necessary to remove and destroy any unlawful inclosures of any of the public lands mentioned in this chapter, and to employ civil or military force as may be necessary for that purpose."