Another Crazies Land Swap?

[MTGomer]

You can't release or give up what you don't already possess!

You can quit claim anything.

From time to time at work, I quit claim my company’s interest in a piece of land where the title is cloudy and we have no desire to have an interest in said land and the land owner has asked us if we’d release it. It’s easier and faster to write a QC than it is to pour over decades of research.


This is an interesting situation here in the crazies. I see good points being made by people on both of the pro public access sides.

 

[Sytes]

I see good points being made by people on both of the pro public access sides.

Same.
I'm leaning towards the swap.
So long as the discussion stays the course with debating the topic versus the rant type attacks on the person, I'm appreciate both sides of this public land debate.
Good info shared vs instant kool-aid party tribal thumbs up HT buddy bs.
Thanks for the info Kat and Rob, along with others.

 

[Redside]

Yes thank you all for the info. Not an easy choice.

 

[katqanna]

Per someone at the Livingston meeting last night, those tabling the event stated the Sweet Grass Trail #122 is open to the public now and has never been limited. This is absolutely not true that the landowners have not limited public access. From my Forest Service documents I have a copy of their sign, where the Carroccias stated it was permissive access only, you had to ask for their permission and sign in.

Some members of the public who had parked in the trailhead area, knowing it was public access, and went thru without their permission or signing in, were harassed. An example was written up in article with this photo.

 

[RobG]

I agree that the Carroccia's require permission to use the trail and have been doing so for something like 30 years. I'm not sure who "someone" was, but I don't know of any team members denying permission is required. The website even says that.

If you tell me who "someone" was I can talk with him/her.

I feel it is important to be honest about the current situation. During the summer gaining permission is very easy. Will it stay that way? I cannot say. However, access during hunting season isn't as easy as the website suggests. Years ago I asked Tony Carroccia about access during hunting season and he said it was a pain because you need permission from five different people that claim the right to control the road and trailhead.

Truthfully, I don't know what point they are trying to make bringing it up. In fact, if access was truly easily accessible (and not in danger of being revoked) there isn't a need for the new trail.

 

[MTGomer]

I wish somebody would do that to me. Nothing 4 low and two steel bumpers couldn’t fix.

 

[geetar]

I wish somebody would do that to me. Nothing 4 low and two steel bumpers couldn’t fix.

It’d be like Austin Powers stuck in the hallway for a minute but you could get out.

 

[Zac-K]

Contrary to statements on this thread...

1. Not "virtually everyone" is in favor of the proposal. Once people understand the issue, they overwhelmingly the become opposed. They realize trading away two legal public trails for one trail is not win for public access. The result of the proposal will be one trail in the entire east crazies. Once folks see they are being asked to trade away legal quick access to the best elk-hunting in the east crazies (Sweetgrass) for a 22 mile walk into the same area, they understand this is not a win for the public.

2. The problem in the crazies isn't the checkerboard land, the problem is the landowners have decided to start blocking the public's legal access to trails and this swap does nothing to solve that. This swap trades public low-country (including the last few public parcels on Sweetgrass Creek) for high-country and forces the public to walk around the ranchers. It is a huge win for those blocking legal public access.

3. Trails can't be both "public" and private at the same time. You can't have it both ways. The trail can't be public and also subject to the landowners permission, which is how it currently sits. Without a guarantee in the proposal, the public should assume the status quo and access into Sweetgrass Creek given by permission only. See the attached letter from the Forest Supervisor to Sen Daines asserting the USFS maintains that it holds unperfected prescriptive rights on this trail system [East-Trunk] as well as Sweet Grass Creek up to the north based on a history of maintenance with public funds and historic and continued public and administrative use." This big land swap proposal it the perfect time for reasonable landowners to work with the public to restore the public's rightful access along the historic Sweetgrass Trail. Unfortunately these landowners have been given cover by MWF and PCEC and feel no obligation to work with the public.

4. The issue is actually being litigated in spite of a statement to the contrary on this thread and this swap potentially undermines that litigation and as such, is harmful to public access. Don't be fooled by statements that say, "no change" is a good thing. The status quo is that a private landowner has blocked a public trail. No change to that is a bad outcome.

5. Don't be fooled by statements that say "being able to litigate is specifically left on the table." Being able to litigate is not a gift from the landowners and those providing them with cover to keep illegal gates up. Litigation is a right that can be used by the public at anytime and any half-way decent attorney will tell you this swap undermines the potential to win litigation and as such, public access. This negation is the perfect time to demand what is rightfully ours and we can negotiate relocation of trails only after our public trails are open.

5. The absolute worst place to get information is the "public open houses" hosted by those who are shoving this into the public. Ive attended and that is where you should go if you want to get "sold".

6. Lots of people believe the litigation will be successful in spite of statements to the contrary. I would simply point out that after roughly 100 years of no progress on this issue, there have been 3 land swap proposals since the lawsuit was filed. One could easily conclude that it is precisely the possibility of a victory that has all this activity after a century of inactivity.

 

[katqanna]

Who is funding the Crazy Mountain Access Project?

"The above loophole in state campaign finance law allows the Crazy Mountain Access Project to keep the public in the dark about its funding sources. I was able to verify, however, this group has the same postal address used by the Park County Environmental Council... "

 

[RobG]

who's funding this? I thought you knew George Soros teamed up with the Koch brothers and bought out PCEC. Erica has been microchipped and now is a Trump agent working to finalize this deal so they can ship arms to the UN troops stationed in Melville. Once they are armed they will take it all back and outfit it. That's no secret.

Regarding a legitimate issue, I have been thinking about the "precedent" concerns. By and large the precedent has been to sit on our hands and let the landowners close the trails without objection.The entire Crazy Mountains used to be surrounded by a trail, and most of it was just handed over to the landowners when they asserted it was theirs. At least with this (and the west side) exchange we get something in return, and access to a lot more land. Like I say, if you don't like it, sue the landowners to prove those trails are public. Your current "litigation" to get someone else to litigate Sweet Grass trail is a joke.

Nobody denies the Yellowstone club is funding the trail and negotiations so this swap can be included with a smaller one that they want, but yeah, I guess they could be acting as a cover for a more insidious group, probably run by Clinton so expect some "suicides" when this is all over. roll eyes...

 

[katqanna]

who's funding this? I thought you knew George Soros teamed up with the Koch brothers and bought out PCEC. Erica has been microchipped and now is a Trump agent working to finalize this deal so they can ship arms to the UN troops stationed in Melville. Once they are armed they will take it all back and outfit it. That's no secret.

Regarding a legitimate issue, I have been thinking about the "precedent" concerns. By and large the precedent has been to sit on our hands and let the landowners close the trails without objection.The entire Crazy Mountains used to be surrounded by a trail, and most of it was just handed over to the landowners when they asserted it was theirs. At least with this (and the west side) exchange we get something in return, and access to a lot more land. Like I say, if you don't like it, sue the landowners to prove those trails are public. Your current "litigation" to get someone else to litigate Sweet Grass trail is a joke.

Nobody denies the Yellowstone club is funding the trail and negotiations so this swap can be included with a smaller one that they want, but yeah, I guess they could be acting as a cover for a more insidious group, probably run by Clinton so expect some "suicides" when this is all over. roll eyes...

Misdirect to obfuscate much?

Royston is asking about funding for the website, the open houses, printed material, flyers with the PCEC P.O. Box. We already know about the Yellowstone money for the trail and such.

BTW, March 20, 2020 CV-00066-SPW-TJC Memorandum In Support of Motion To File Supplemental Complaint to add parties (private landowners) that participated in those events as additional Defendants.
So you see, we already filed to enjoin west side landowners in the lawsuit, months ago.

 

[RobG]

Whatever Kat. I'll bring the tin foil to the next FOC meeting.

 

[d-edward]

Perhaps it's just me that is getting lost in the minutia, but I would like to ask a dumb question so I can better assess what is being "given up" from the status quo and the elements being negotiated as part of the proposed swap. I don't believe I've been to this particular access area, so apologies in advance.

If I park my truck on trail #136 and start walking, what would happen? Should I expect my truck to be blocked in by landowners and cited with a trespassing ticket?

 

[RobG]

Sorry for that diversion...

First, there are two trails: 122 and 136 (115 on older maps). The east trailhead for trail 122 and the north trailhead for trail 136 are on Sweet Grass Ranch property. They currently allow anyone to park there and use trail 122 if you sign in at their house. I doubt if they would let you use trail 136 but they might. This is the trailhead where the car was blocked in. They could also have you cited for criminal trespass since it is posted.


The south end of trail 136 is where I got my criminal trespass ticket. The trailhead is on public land, however most of the trail is on the Hailstone ranch. They monitor the trail with cameras and when I went in there I got the criminal trespass ticket.

 

[RobG]

A group of organizations including BHA published an editorial in the Missoulian not supportive of the swap. I think the issue is more complicated than they describe and even opening up the trails won't gain us a lot. However, it expresses another side to the argument. https://missoulacurrent.com/opinion/2020/08/voices-public-access/

As I understand BHA's position, they think access from the east side must be secured before they will support the swap. It doesn't have to be the Sweet Grass trail itself, but it should function similarly for access. As far as I know, that option isn't on the table. Do the landowners want this swap bad enough to change that stance? The truth is that they have it pretty good right now so it seems doubtful to me.

Regarding submitting comments for or against this proposal... the parties involved, which will eventually include the USFS, are interested in "substantive" comments. That means the comments should be meaningful and relating to issues within the swap. You comments will be dismissed if you just rant about PCEC paying for the open houses or hidden agendas or Steve Daines, etc.

rg

 

[RobG]

Here's another one... https://billingsgazette.com/opinion...cle_4149aa97-d1e6-564a-8816-8d9e471a5246.html

The opposition is obviously mobilizing. This is disappointing because it isn't really an accurate portrayal of the facts, but it is what it is. It would have been nice if these groups had focused this much effort into opposing the south Crazy Mountain swap which was a huge loser. [edit - Daggett is wrong in saying the new loop trail could be blocked the first time it enters private land. There are already recorded easements on that land. This type of misinformation is really harmful to having decisions made by an informed public but that is how some roll . ]

 

[katqanna]

"The current east side proposal is the perfect time for the public to draw a line and demand what is rightfully ours. Montanans will happily negotiate trail relocation, but only after our public rights are recognized on existing trails."

These are the groups that signed on to this oped (pretty substantial group of Montana hunting & angling conservationists):
Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers;
Park County Rod & Gun Club;
Enhancing Montana’s Wildlife & Habitat;
Skyline Sportsman;
Montana Bowhunters Association;
Hellgate Hunters & Anglers;
Montana Sportsmen Alliance;
Traditional Bowhunters of Montana;
Helena Hunters & Anglers; and
Friends of the Crazy Mountains.

 

[katqanna]

Regarding submitting comments for or against this proposal... the parties involved, which will eventually include the USFS, are interested in "substantive" comments. That means the comments should be meaningful and relating to issues within the swap. You comments will be dismissed if you just rant about PCEC paying for the open houses or hidden agendas or Steve Daines, etc.

100% of the problem with this process is that you are deciding what "substantive" is.

The public decides what "substantive" is.

Those comments are going to PCEC's P.O. Box, not a public agency (state or federal) with accountability and transparency in the process, and they can throw out/dismiss any comments they don't agree with.

 

[Zac-K]

In response to this statement, “The opposition is obviously mobilizing. This is disappointing because it isn't really an accurate portrayal of the facts, but it is what it is”,

Fact #1
The Crazy Mountain Working Group is an invite only group. The general public is not invited. No public notes of what is said, who was there, is available. Furthermore groups that showed ideas/objectives counter to what is left of the Crazy Mountain Working Group were early on not invited back, such as park county rod and gun club and backcountry hunters and anglers. They pushed to secure the sweetgrass access first, then discuss land swapping.

I am not represented by any of the groups that compromise the Crazy Mountain Working Group as I suspect most of the American public is not in line or members of the groups that compromise it. I am talking about ALL Americans who are owners of our public lands should have a seat at the table and know what it is being said when it is being proposed to trade our lands. Not invite only, closed door, no public record meetings......this is NOT a “made in Montana” deal, this is shady, big money, threatening to circumvent the public process.

Fact #2
There is a process already in place that ALL of the public voice is heard and not just “substantive” comments......that is a really scary thing that a private group gets to decide what they want to hear, don’t trust this process!
The US Forest Service has yet to even formally accept this proposal to begin the Environmental Assessment process and then, in turn provide a true transparent public comment process.
There is a lot of confusion that is being caused by these “public open houses”, THIS IS NOT the process.

Fact #3
Legislation such as “The Great American Outdoors Act” which provides $900 million annually to secure easements, buy land for the public, etc. This is exactly why it is short sighted to give up access ( as much as some on this forum say that this proposal does not do formally, it is inadvertently giving up access).
Also corner crossing bills continue to gain traction and it is my belief (maybe I am crazy) we will see it pass in my lifetime.
There is no need to settle for a 22 mile trail when we should be fighting for access the public already has, it’s worth the fight.

 

[MTGomer]

I hate to create more work for the guy, but I nominate @Nameless Range to build a GIS story map of what’s going on in the entire mountain range. I try to keep up on all the happenings there and it is a lot to keep straight between the different accesses, ownerships, ideas, partnerships etc

we could crowd find a little compensation for him, and then he’d feel obligated