Crazy Mountain Trail Proposal Scoping!

[300stw]

sec 25, 35 and 11 have 3 different landowners than the sec 15,22 landowner, what is the legal status of the trails in these 3 sections vs, the section of trail in 15, 22 which are the same landowner,

wonder what these other 3 landowners are saying, really want to know the exact legal status of the other trails on private land,, is there another fight coming, or another situation of no trespassing signs coming,

if there are issues it would seem that curing all issues in that small area would be best,,,,

 

[300stw]

Then why the issue? Why all the time and effort at collaboration and the serious consideration of litigation for prescriptive easement?

But good question with respect to access to the State land in Section 16.

I would say if we ,public, never assert or protect or take back a prescriptive easement, more signs are coming in these grey areas,,,,

 

[RobG]

sec 25, 35 and 11 have 3 different landowners than the sec 15,22 landowner, what is the legal status of the trails in these 3 sections vs, the section of trail in 15, 22 which are the same landowner,

wonder what these other 3 landowners are saying, really want to know the exact legal status of the other trails on private land,, is there another fight coming, or another situation of no trespassing signs coming,

If there are issues it would seem that curing all issues in that small area would be best,,,,

I asked this question some time back and I'm 99% certain the trails on Section 25 and 11 have easements. Trail 267 on Section 35 does not, but the landowner (Guth) will grant a permanent easement for the proposed trail. The other landowner (Zimmerman) will also grant a permanent easement on the proposed trail on section 15.

FWIW, I know for a fact that trail 123 has easements to go through the private lands shown. Most of the interior trails are protected by easements until you get to section 7 of trail 122 on the Sweetgrass.

I would say if we ,public, never assert or protect or take back a prescriptive easement, more signs are coming in these grey areas,,,,

True, but the problem is we have way more opportunities to "take back by prescriptive easement" than we have resources to do it. PLWA has won many lawsuits, but they have limited bandwidth. The Wonder Ranch was opened up when the Forest Service sued (and that one cost $1 million and they are expecting an appeal that will cost another million). In that thread Kat mentioned "PLWA was grateful the FS took this [Wonder Ranch] case on, as they did not have the funds,..."

What this boils down to is we have two options: 1) Litigate to open the existing trails in their present location. 2) Reroute. The question is, which one of these serves the public interest the best?

 

[RobG]

Quit playing the access card. The trail will not provide access to public lands that aren't already accessible.

It provides easier and quicker access.

Does the existing trail provide access to that half section of state land? I'm guessing it doesn't since no one has mentioned it, but if it does, the proposal decreases access to public lands.

If it did you can be assured Kat or Brad would be telling us. Instead, they are trying to say this new trail will hurt cutthroat and wildlife habitat. Pretty strange since trail 267 currently runs through prime elk habitat and more vulnerable stream segments, and it is designed to allow motorized vehicles.

 

[300stw]

I asked this question some time back and I'm 99% certain the trails on Section 25 and 11 have easements. Trail 267 on Section 35 does not, but the landowner (Guth) will grant a permanent easement for the proposed trail. The other landowner (Zimmerman) will also grant a permanent easement on the proposed trail on section 15.

FWIW, I know for a fact that trail 123 has easements to go through the private lands shown. Most of the interior trails are protected by easements until you get to section 7 of trail 122 on the Sweetgrass.


True, but the problem is we have way more opportunities to "take back by prescriptive easement" than we have resources to do it. PLWA has won many lawsuits, but they have limited bandwidth. The Wonder Ranch was opened up when the Forest Service sued (and that one cost $1 million and they are expecting an appeal that will cost another million). In that thread Kat mentioned "PLWA was grateful the FS took this [Wonder Ranch] case on, as they did not have the funds,..."

What this boils down to is we have two options: 1) Litigate to open the existing trails in their present location. 2) Reroute. The question is, which one of these serves the public interest the best?

i wonder how the hit and miss easment system on the trails came about,,,,, these trails arent to far apart, wonder when they were built, ect very interesting , thanks rob

 

[RobG]

i wonder how the hit and miss easment system on the trails came about,,,,, these trails arent to far apart, wonder when they were built, ect very interesting , thanks rob

The Forest Service has to negotiate with the landowners for a permanent easement. Some landowners accepted, others did not.

 

[300stw]

i typically wonder,
how come the forest service , federal government wont take up these fights, they have lawyers somewhere that are allready being paid, federal government works for all taxpayers, not just the millionaire landowners, if those trails have such hit and miss easements, someone must of not of been doing the paperwork at one time
when states want a new highway built, i have first hand seen the approach agencies can take, and how fast they can condem land and take it ,,,,,was involved in these issues in the boise valley,,,,

again, reroutes can be part of the solution, but i do believe we are laying the ground work for any landowner that do not want public on their property to jump on the bandwagon. We know its happening all over, the more of these public cases are in the news, landowners see how easy it is to get away with blocking access, they really dont have much to loose

continued saying , we dont want to force taking easements on landowners, makes bad publicity , landowners wont agree to help, right know how many are at the table helping in this particular mtn range, then how many are willing to work in the rest of the mtn ranges,,,, these trails , can and do relate to roads also,,,,,

i wonder about the lawyers that help keep these places out of the publics hand, are they getting more buisness, more money, or less

wheres johnny cochran when you need him,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[RobG]

i typically wonder,
how come the forest service , federal government wont take up these fights,

Priorities, expense, and political fallout. They recently took on the Wonder Ranch and won, but it cost $1 million in spite of it being an extremely strong case for prescriptive easements. Furthermore, the right wing nuts are using the case as an example of government overreach.

This is an old, old problem. In 1940 Paul Van Cleve started blocking the Big Timber access to the Crazies (now Half Moon Campground). He eventually threatened some FS employees with a gun so the whole thing was taken to court and they eventually proved the road was public. Ironically, it was the Van Cleves that eventually granted easements on most of the trails on the Crazies, including the first section of "my" trail. Those lands are now either Carroccias or Switchback.

Look at the 1964 letter to Senator Mansfield from a sportsman "referring to the habit the ranchers have now of putting padlocks on most of the gates on county and forest roads leading to forest and wilderness areas." The FS has had their hands full for a long time.

 

[RobG]

268 trail goes thru private also, better reroute that also, while we are rerouting, what is the legal status on 268,, legal recorded easement or ?

Got some info. Trail 268 has a foot and horse easement through Section 25. Trail 258, which heads northeast out of Section 10, was rerouted in 2005 and no longer goes through private.

 

[RobG]

A couple updates:
1) The USFS updated their FAQ with some info about Categorical Exclusions, etc.

Also note that the proposed trail location is not exact - if you have a good reason why it should be moved a bit send in a comment.

2) Kat put "the facts" presented at the meeting she and Brad hosted in Livingston last week on her website. I honestly don't see anything that isn't already widely acknowledged: In fact, the landowner admits he is coming forward with a proposal because he might lose a lawsuit. That doesn't mean we should spend all our capital litigating something we can negotiate a solution to.

Her talking points don't hold water either.
1) Several knowledgeable people think the CE is appropriate, and in fact a new trail will be less harmful to cutthroat than the old motorized trail. Truthfully though, Google earth shows these streams dry in 9/2013 so I don't think they are very good cutthroat streams.

2) We "get" there is much historical data indicating this trail meets the criteria for a prescriptive easement. The litigation option does not go away if we can't negotiate something acceptable. As I said, the landowner freely admits he is making this proposal because he might lose a lawsuit.

3) "The Forest Service just needs to defend the public access we already have..." Yeah, that's a pipe dream. We have to operate in the real world with a current administration. Furhermore, in most cases the Forest Service tries to negotiate with the landowner (even Wonder Ranch).

4) The motorized folks have quite a dilemma here. I would love to hear Kerry White's perspective on allying with Kat to sue a landowner to open his private land to motorized use! That said, there is nothing wrong with suggesting the easements the landowner is granting across his private land include motorized use.

5) The FS can get money for a landowner willing project like this. RMEF and the State thought they could get some money to pay for parts of the trail. A few other sources were identified in the meeting. I think the landowner should kick in some, and possibly the stockgrowers, etc. This is supposed to be a collaborative effort.

And if they can't get the money, we litigate for the old trail. There seems to be this myth being propagated that we will be committed to this option... we are just investigating the feasibility of it at this time and are looking for possible issue that hadn't been thought of. Every time there is a pause someone mumbles we can't let this be another Bullwacker (where the road wasn't built after giving up rights) so people have their eyes wide open on making sure this is practical.


So... on the constructive comment side, I'm really not liking the proposed trails deep incursions into the South Fork Elk Creek and SF Daisy Dean drainages. The trail should stay as far west as possible across sections 23 and 26 even if we have to make short incursions onto Zimmerman's land. I've sketched out a couple options and it is quite doable to mostly follow the 7600 or 7700' contours. That's only 5-600' higher than the highest point on the old trail.

So stay tuned, a little less than two weeks to gather info and tell the FS how you could make the proposal better.

 

[RobG]

Friends of the Crazy Mountains - a group that is basically Kat and Brad Wilson, linked this study on elk and trail avoidance. http://www.emwh.org/public access/Crazy Mountains/mtg/Trail use and elk Wisdom et al 2018.pdf

I honestly don't know if they just don't expect people to read this stuff or what... The study shows ATV use causes way more disruption than hiking, yet they are promoting reopening the lowline trail to motorized use including snowmobiles when it goes right through prime wintering grounds.

 

[300stw]

this isn't about elk hunting its about protecting a trail that should of had an easement on it,,, if there was motorized use before it should remain open to motorized use

the trail is on private so if I ride my motorcycle down it, the elk run 1/2 mile away from me there still on private ground, doesn't effect the general public,
the whole argument has been to get the trail off private ground, now its ok for short incursions on to private,,, doesn't make since,,, there is a trail that exists,,,,,

I have no problem, mumbling about bullwacker, if the federal government wants to do away with the environmental studies, they could of done it a bullwacker, and had federal employees build the road, there already geing a salary,,, one summer the road would of been built and a non issue,,,,

I will ride my motorcycle through the old trail and scare the elk out to you on public,,,,

 

[shoots-straight]

Rob, I don't think Kat's advocating for motorized travel, I think she's pointing out the FACTS of the situation. Those existing trails had historic use from Motorized travel. Correct? IF that's the case then how can the new trail not be allowed that use? Also, I saw where the new trail was to be built. IMO that goes through a lot of security cover Elk use to hide out during hunting seasons. Trails displace game animals especially ones used by Bikers and motorized vehicles. I don't like letting landowners get away with locking trails and gates to access points. I certainly don't like degrading the existing lands for their benefit.

 

[shoots-straight]

Here's a completed study that addresses the potential side effects from this new trail proposal. Ooops!

 

[RobG]

Rob, I don't think Kat's advocating for motorized travel, I think she's pointing out the FACTS of the situation. Those existing trails had historic use from Motorized travel. Correct? IF that's the case then how can the new trail not be allowed that use? Also, I saw where the new trail was to be built. IMO that goes through a lot of security cover Elk use to hide out during hunting seasons. Trails displace game animals especially ones used by Bikers and motorized vehicles. I don't like letting landowners get away with locking trails and gates to access points. I certainly don't like degrading the existing lands for their benefit.

These are great points. I think we need to build the trail farther west, going onto private land in a couple spots. I've sketched it out and it is quite doable. You have to bear in mind this proposal had to be put together very quickly because Kat and Brad were making it public before the details were finalized and they weren't being honest about what went on in the meeting. If we ID problems we need to try and correct them.

300stw - Originally the trail only went through about 300 yards of his land. When I pointed out that the proposed location would put a bunch of hunters onto the land just north of Elk Creek the landowner proposed granting an easement across 1 mile of his property to avoid that issue. The landowner is obviously open to having parts of the trail on his land, and we have a lot of leverage to "encourage" him to be equitable if he doesn't.

The Forest Supervisor says the trail was only open to motorized for a short period before it was posted. I haven't verified. Elk Creek and Trespass used to be motorized but that changed.

Check your email...

rg

 

[2ski]

Rob, you seem to have a really good approach to this. I think you're on the right track.

Too much "all or nothing" in this world. When we work together we accomplish much more, and for better.

 

[mdunc8]

Why are we wasting everyone’s time with this? If you want to cave to the landowner, go ahead and let him have the existing trail. If you don’t care about the principle of the matter, it doesn’t really matter if a new trail gets built because we can still access everything without. The relative costs of litigation vs. building a trail keeps getting tossed around. Simple solution, quit wasting time and money on the issue if you’re not going to hold the landowner accountable and move on to something else.

 

[tjones]

Why are we wasting everyone’s time with this? If you want to cave to the landowner, go ahead and let him have the existing trail. If you don’t care about the principle of the matter, it doesn’t really matter if a new trail gets built because we can still access everything without. The relative costs of litigation vs. building a trail keeps getting tossed around. Simple solution, quit wasting time and money on the issue if you’re not going to hold the landowner accountable and move on to something else.

This,,,,,punching a new trail through undisturbed elk cover is not a good thing. With a trail comes people and apparently motorized use. Fight for the old trail, or leave it alone. The new trail will do more damage then good to that country.

 

[RobG]

Why are we wasting everyone’s time with this? If you want to cave to the landowner, go ahead and let him have the existing trail. If you don’t care about the principle of the matter, it doesn’t really matter if a new trail gets built because we can still access everything without. The relative costs of litigation vs. building a trail keeps getting tossed around. Simple solution, quit wasting time and money on the issue if you’re not going to hold the landowner accountable and move on to something else.

Because we don't have the resources to sue to gain access to five of these trails. There are issues on the east side. Also, leaders in PLWA say these court cases can take 10-15 years and during that time the trail won't be open. In this case, litigating would the waste of time and money.

rg

 

[mdunc8]

Then go over to the east side and spend the limited time and resources to open country that we don’t already have access to.