Some things...
PCEC stands for Park County Environmental Council. They are the ones that found the easement on the road that crossed the Crazy Mountain Ranch that put serious hurt on the bad part of the South Crazy Landswap. The CMR was claiming no easement existed and were trying to leverage that false claim to further a very one-sided land swap called the South Crazy Mountains Land Exchange. If the SCMLE is stopped, you can thank PCEC for finding the most substantive issue raised. It is pretty silly that they are somehow cast as a shady organization because they are paying for the public meetings.
The Crazy Mountain Working Group are similarly being unfairly marginalized, especially considering they are not the ones driving this swap, although many of the members are in both groups. CMWG was invitation only because they wanted people interested in solutions. Without getting personal, the people complaining the loudest about not being included had proven they weren't going to be helpful.
One person involved in the access issue recorded a public meeting and went to the press with it trying to generate discord. That is not helpful so she is no longer welcome.
In another case, the USFS reached out to several interested parties to float the west side proposal by them. They were asked to keep it under their hat. Instead they tried to sabotage the process by publicizing misinformation in newspapers, newsletters and websites. That is not helpful.
These are the reason these people are left out of the preliminary processes until it goes public for comments.
The public was represented in the working group. Eric Hull from RMEF was an original member of the CMWG. John Sullivan at Backcountry Hunters and Anglers was invited at the same time as John Salazar from Montana Wildlife Federation. Sullivan claims he wasn't invited which is not true, but living in Missoula made it hard for him to attend. Salazar is still part of the group, and Sullivan could have been had he stuck it out, although had they known BHA was on the verge of suing to stop the work of the group I'm sure he would not have been invited.
The people driving this particular swap are a private group separate from the CMWG. The details were worked out by a firm named Western Skies Strategies. Eric Nyland, Regional Director and Natural Resources Liason for Senator John Tester recommended they contact me. I have worked a fair amount with Eric. Here is what Eric said to me:
"Jess Peterson [of Western Skies Strategies] is an old friend of mine who works on a variety of issues. To be blunt, he’s a no bullshit guy who has built a reputation around the state as an honest broker. He’s the sort of Montanan we grew up around who tells the whole story and doesn’t just spread the magic fairy dust to make things sound better than they are. These guys have come up with something that looks like it could be a pretty good product. Being a Montana guy, Jess also talked about the opportunity to maybe mend some fences in the process. I think your pragmatic views on the world could help with that in the long run. I haven’t seen a proposal quite this comprehensive, so this might be a good foundation to put some of the old battles to rest."
I especially like the part about fairy dust... and the fact that Tester's staffer thinks enough of me to get me involved early on.
The lack of public input is a consistent "belly ache" about this. Yes, they have learned to exclude those who have tried to sabotage previous work. What is not being told is when an acceptable solution is reached it will be handed off to the Forest Service for another round of public comment. This belly ache is a diversion.
Even so, the swap drivers have reached out for public input about this east side swap. Even Kat was briefed early on. That part is also not being told. Virtually everyone (except the usual suspects) were supportive of the main aspects of it, although some details concerned them. Now it is a question of what they would give up to accept the swap. They will put their conditions down, without fairy dust, and if possible will be included. If enough legitimate points are raised, I guess it will be killed and we will be left with the sh*tty status quo.
When/if a publicly acceptable solution is found it will be handed over to the USFS for evaluation and the necessary things like NEPA will be done if they haven't already. I think it is possible that congress could take it on without USFS but I don't know how that works. Unactionable belly aching is your right, but the people making the decisions know the full story and won't take seriously belly aching about PCEC paying for the public meetings, Steve Daines, or other unactionable rants. This will also be true when the USFS puts it out for public comment.
Right now if you have better ideas I can assure you that they will be considered. PCEC communicates regularly with BHA, and their condition of getting secured access up the Sweet Grass has been presented to the landowners. Unfortunately at this time it is a non starter. What can I say? Both sides need to agree to the swap terms and the landowners have little incentive to bargain.
The current lawsuit against the Forest Service is not expected to produce results other than dragging out the process. Matt Bishop of the
Western Environmental Law Center is the lawyer taking the case. Talk about strange bed fellows. Google him. You may recall that the people who donated to WELC at Kat's request were thanked with an assurance that they would fight the delisting of grizzly bears.
There have been some legitimate points raised here, and you should focus on those points rather than the innuendo and fairy dust. One thing that has been raised is using the LWCF to buy the lands. That has been brought up several times and it would be a great solution (except the trails would still be unresolved). I can't say that won't happen, but at this time there are no willing sellers. I was told the Yellowstone Club approached the landowners with a big pot of money to resolve the issue but the landowners weren't interested. That is not to say that it won't happen in the future, but consider this: The Switchback ranch came up for sale and if those blocks of land were acquired much of the checkerboard would have been eliminated. Unfortunately, the USFS couldn't raise the money before the billionaire Leuchen snatched it up. I think there is significant risk in holding out for them to sell, but it is a valid viewpoint.
MWF proposed conservation easements on the properties transferred as well as first right of refusal if they ever become for sale (meaning the public would have first shot at buying it). Conservations easements can be done, but I guess first right of refusal has issues that I don't understand.
Corner crossing? Do it if you want but you are giving up 1/2 of the land that could be yours.
As mentioned earlier, BHA opposes it without securing access up Sweetgrass. That is more complicated than it sounds for a couple of reasons.
1) Even if their lawsuit were to succeed in making the USFS litigate that trail, the road to that trail still has to be litigated. Previously the road could be proven public if public money could be shown to have been used for maintenance, which is apparently the case on this road. However, last session the Rs introduced a bill that would remove that ability. According to a legislator in the same county as the Sweet Grass trail, the bill was pulled because it didn't accomplish what they wanted it to do. I'm certain that meant it didn't fully protect that particular road from being successfully litigated. You can be sure if Gianforte gets into office that bill will be signed which will make the landowners even less likely to negotiate.
2) Another option BHA has floated is putting in an access point about half way through the proposed trail using a private road. The landowner said no. Furthermore, I think it is a horrible idea because that easy access to the most remote area would do nothing but drive the elk down to private property.
Reasonable people can disagree about litigating to open up these trails with litigation, but I think the public has to think really hard about the wisdom of that route because it will only gain access to islands of public land, assuming we don't lose everything. Consider the map below. Securing access to sections 10 and 8 would require winning two lawsuits, one to secure the trail, another to secure the road. There is interest in doing this but nobody wants to spend the money. I have not heard enough interest in a third lawsuit that would so gaining to sections 12, 24, and 36 is probably unrealistic.
Therefore, I think the public gains more from the swap than gaining S8 and S10 (or possibly S12, S24, S36) because you gain the huge block of public land in the center without risk - but reasonable people can disagree and I won't pretend I'm 100% excited the tradeoffs.
Zac-K is articulate, but not knowledgeable of some of the complicating factors. For example regarding point 2, that process will happen in the future, thus it is a diversion. What is happening now is a voluntary reaching out to the public, even Kat, which is over and above the normal process. Zac-K seems level headed and if he were to reveal himself we could know who he is representing and better inform him and that group. Who are you Zac-K?
This has taken long enough to write I forgot what else I was going to say. I have tried my best to be honest but I may have made mistakes. If I have, be assured I wasn't trying to hide anything.
[edit - let me try to find out exactly how the public process could proceed after this initial commenting. I know one way would be to go through the USFS normal procedure, but I'm not sure if there is a way the normal process could be bypassed]
www.crazymountainproject.com
), but your name is synonymous with MWF so just want to make sure I'm making the correct distinction. 
