El Jason
Well-known member
I sincerely hope this is not your best foot forward. Introspection might be warranted.
Californians build house in GNP. FCD demands halt and removal.
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Highly likely as many tourist rentals in the area. May be why nobody really recognized a problem until construction progressed to point of the structure as as shown on images on this thread.
Someone was not doing their job to not see this progression. Moot point if it is all legal anyway. AGAIN, I don't agree with it. But I am not going to second guess what occurred. What if it was a generational Montanan building that home? mtmuley
trackerbacker
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2023
- Messages
- 531
Wait, I thought excavators were in the water? How'd they go unnoticed?
I mean, how could fcd, knowing exactly what when and where something was built, even okayed it, and continued their own personal record of continual incompetence.
Perhaps introspection is more fitting for those hoping destruction on others?
My best foot forward was informing chief falling wind long before judgement, what was correct, objectively, legally, and how things would play out
Everything after that was specifically for the losers that I noticed you have informed they should seek introspection.
One could concluded you're like one of those pieces of garbage who thinks someone's personal house should be destroyed because it interrupts the view you don't own, simply based on the lack of your stating the same to those who've said and begged for worse things to happen to innocent people.
But you're right, the individual correct on this whole thing should seek introspection.
Loser. Hahah
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,898
If any of you need help on how to have conversations, debates, or disagreements without personal attacks, please let me know.
El Jason
Well-known member
I’m torn to pieces by your words. How did you ever see into my soul like that.
Carry on.
Nick87
Well-known member
You're gonna be pretty busy for a while.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,898
You’re not wrong.
I’m gonna change my name to “thorn bush”. I’m going to be a “prick” with these couple day cooling period bans, but people will just keep walking through them.
I imagine this applies to those popular here as well. I appreciate your moderator status. Hopefully, moving forward with your active status people understand they too must refrain from school yard bully b.s. personal attacks.
I look forward to calling them out when they opt towards personal attacks.
**It is far too simple to rail on a person who's not well known. People tend to pom pom cheer on the well known while they ridicule others that may hold differing opinions.
It's clear I'm far from a fan of this guy, as is or should be evident though I expect this to apply towards ALL Hunt Talk members.
Appeal filed in Glacier Park home case
The Flathead Conservation District and Friends of Montana Rivers and Streams have filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of a home built on private land along the banks of McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park.
"...which is literally pinned into the streambank by a concrete retaining wall."
If the appeals court rules that federal law does apply, it could potentially send the matter back to the National Park Service for a full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Appeal of this District Court decision was predictable. As pointed to by the judge, construction such as this house is subject to federal environmental laws. Although the National Park Service ostensibly seemed to grant an okay essentially by inaction, the question of a formal permit remains a legal question as well.Appeal filed in Glacier Park home case
The Flathead Conservation District and Friends of Montana Rivers and Streams have filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of a home built on private land along the banks of McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park.dailyinterlake.com
"...which is literally pinned into the streambank by a concrete retaining wall."
If the appeals court rules that federal law does apply, it could potentially send the matter back to the National Park Service for a full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
As they say about multi act operas, "it ain't over til the fat person sings!"
sapperJ24
Well-known member
Ninth Circuit rules state has no jurisdiction
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in the case of a private home that was built on the bank of lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park, ruling the Flathead Conservation District has no jurisdiction in the matter.
The Conservation District previously found the house, owned by John and Stacy Ambler of California, was built in violation of the Montana Streambed Protection Act and at one point ordered the Amblers to removed the house.
The Conservation District and intervenors Friends of Montana Streams and Rivers, in turn, appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.
“The Streambed Act is not assimilated into federal law as part of the same basic scheme in effect at the time of cession,” the higher court found in its April 15 ruling.
The District and the Friends group also argued the Streambed Act had a criminal enforcement element and should be considered as such.
But the higher court rejected that argument as well, noting the Act is largely regulatory and allows for permits for people and property owners working and building near Montana’s streams and rivers. The Amblers never did get a permit from the Conservation District to build the house, known as a 310 permit, which set off the entire case to begin with.
“The Streambed Act is not a criminal law and therefore was not assimilated into federal law when (the Act) was enacted in 1975,” the Appeals Court found, later adding, “Because Montana lacks concurrent legislative jurisdiction, there is no basis to apply the Streambed Act to the Amblers’ property.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling in the case of a private home that was built on the bank of lower McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park, ruling the Flathead Conservation District has no jurisdiction in the matter.
The Conservation District previously found the house, owned by John and Stacy Ambler of California, was built in violation of the Montana Streambed Protection Act and at one point ordered the Amblers to removed the house.
The Conservation District and intervenors Friends of Montana Streams and Rivers, in turn, appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.
“The Streambed Act is not assimilated into federal law as part of the same basic scheme in effect at the time of cession,” the higher court found in its April 15 ruling.
The District and the Friends group also argued the Streambed Act had a criminal enforcement element and should be considered as such.
But the higher court rejected that argument as well, noting the Act is largely regulatory and allows for permits for people and property owners working and building near Montana’s streams and rivers. The Amblers never did get a permit from the Conservation District to build the house, known as a 310 permit, which set off the entire case to begin with.
“The Streambed Act is not a criminal law and therefore was not assimilated into federal law when (the Act) was enacted in 1975,” the Appeals Court found, later adding, “Because Montana lacks concurrent legislative jurisdiction, there is no basis to apply the Streambed Act to the Amblers’ property.”
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
I hope 25 fisherman line up in the water out front of their place to catch brook trout every single day all summer long…
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I hope 25 fisherman line up in the water out front of their place to catch brook trout every single day all summer long… naked, wearing only assassins' masks!
