Crazy Mountains Public Access & FS Management Lawsuit Filed Today

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,673
Location
Bozeman, MT
This was the podcast I referenced... just dont think they have the experience with these kinds of cases to make some of the claims they do. They also don’t understand natural resource policy all that well either. Not doubting they’re intelligent guys but they need to step back and realize there are lots of people with lots of experience in these issues. Some have been doing this stuff longer than they’ve been alive...in some cases, a lot longer.
I found it interesting either Mike or David, stated they had not read through the whole case, perhaps would delve into it deeper and possibly do another episode. The other two had not read through it all and this podcast was aired before we filed our Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Thanks for mentioning it Buzz.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,582
Location
Bozeman, MT
This may not be the podcast, but there are similarities and they spoke with Rob.
These “untruths” are the reason I won’t engage with Kat. I’ve never heard of these guys, and there is nothing in the podcast that suggests they talked with me.

I got my info from a group that isn’t afraid to sue the government over NEPA, etc and the podcast guys just reaffirmed what I was told.
 

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,673
Location
Bozeman, MT
Going back to the audio to get the time stamp of where they gave details about the hunter who received the citation, what sounded like "we visited with", made since if they are being thorough with their reporting, details not mentioned in our case. You have been interviewed by a number of people before. At the 32:00 point, playing it back louder several times, they may be saying "he visited with", in relation to you and the District Ranger, not themselves for the podcast. There was nothing accusatory in what I wrote. I apologize for the auditory error, I thought it was simply another interview with you.
 

Drake4

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
700
Location
Churchill, MT
Sounds like this was intentional to me and they probably deserved the charge. That trail is not hard to follow.
 

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,673
Location
Bozeman, MT
Sounds like this was intentional to me and they probably deserved the charge. That trail is not hard to follow.
That junction of Secs. private 35 to public 2 is the worst. I couldn't even find #267 on satellite in that one spot.
 

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,673
Location
Bozeman, MT
Found some interesting information out last week, while doing more research on Northern Pacific Railroad grant deeds. NPR wasn't just railroad, they also had natural resources, some of which helped the railroad, like coal or timber for tracks.

After the Burlington Northern merger, Burlington Resources was created in 1988 as a stand-alone resource company from Burlington Northern. Then in 1989, Plum Creek Timber was spun off of that.

I found this out, because I found 4 deeds online from Plum Creek (example, pg. 11), which had the original Northern Pacific "easement in the public" language that is on the deeds I have been researching in Park and Sweet Grass counties.

This got me to wondering. I remember years ago, reading about public access on Plum Creek properties and recreationists worried that new buyer Weyerhaeuser might not allow that same public access. One of the articles even said Bullock was trying to negotiate with them to retain the public access.

So my wondering is, if we look at the deeds, and older maps, are we going to see that public access was already deeded there, not permissive, in a number of locations?
 

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,673
Location
Bozeman, MT
Let’s be honest about who’s at fault in Crazy Mountain trail troubles
by Joseph Bullington, journalist
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,582
Location
Bozeman, MT
The court has made a decision (July 10th) and I was wrong about the NEPA argument possibly having merit: Even that was rejected.

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/environment/judge-denies-injunction-to-stop-crazy-mountain-trail-work/article_71dfaedc-35fb-5607-92c7-c801bb898ede.html

The decision also rejects the idea that the easement on the deed makes these trails public, just as I've been trying to say. Trust me, I wish that wasn't the case but it is the truth. The parties may appeal but I just see this as obstructionism to prolong the inevitable. That's my opinion. The USFS has been trying to negotiate this trail since 2002 and they finally reached an agreement. While I don't agree with the compromise entirely, I think the resources would be better spent getting the east side trails (and roads) open.

Let's be clear: I was one of the original people who wanted to sue the Forest Service to open the trails before I even went in there and got the ticket. However, I could not find any hook to sue them on.

Here's some of the decision:
Second, Plaintiffs assume without any evidence that USFS possesses “valid existing rights” on Trails 267 and 195. Br. 19-20, 25, 30. Yet Plaintiffs cannot dispute the trails cross private property, and that no express, recorded easement authorizes USFS or public use. See, e.g., Doc. 7-10 at 11; 7-15 at 1-2. Plaintiffs cite 1934 and 1940 Northern Pacific deeds reserving easements for any “public roads heretofore laid out.” Doc. 7-17. But Plaintiffs fail to establish the relevant
Case 1:19-cv-00066-SPW-TJC Document 8 Filed 07/10/19 Page 28 of 40
19
parcels contained any “public roads” within the meaning of Montana law as of 1934 or 1940. See Reid v. Park Cty., 192 Mont. 231, 234 (1981). Second, the railroad deeds fail to define the location of any “public roads heretofore laid out.” Given the undisputed evidence the trails are now in different locations (Exh. 38, ¶3), it would be impossible to perfect access rights under those deeds.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,095
Location
Wenatchee
I cannot for the life of me figure out this issue. I have never seen one such as this were there appears to be such ambiguity between right and wrong, good and bad, pro-sportsman and anti-sportsman. It's like some kind of crazy love triangle. The private land owners are clearly trying to reduce/eliminate public access, so that's no bueno, but then there's these two sides the seem to be very vocally against each other with all kinds of allegations being thrown at each other (mostly that the other side is in some conspiracy pack with the landowners). Compromise to reduced or different access or fight for the original and best access....

talk about shooting ourselves in the foot and handing a present to the landowners. We sportsmen can't even get on the same team.
 
Last edited:

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,582
Location
Bozeman, MT
Neffa, that is pretty much the consensus if the group I align with. I probably take more personal shots than I should but I’ve been hurt pretty bad by some of the accusations against me and it is hard to be measured. Other people (like Erica) have been careful not to take personal shots, a skill I am jealous of.

I was remiss in not pointing out that the lawsuit extends beyond this part that they lost (and they could win on appeal). And i am more supportive of getting action done on the east side which is part of the lawsuit, although I cannot throw my support behind it yet.

I prefer a solution that is agreeable to the landowners if at all possible. If not, let’s get this over with by going to court.
 

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,673
Location
Bozeman, MT
Here's some of the decision:
Your statement is incorrect.

Judge Watters' Order CV 19-66-BLG-SPW, filed on July 29, 2019 did not include your quote, nor reference it at all. She did not address the railroad grant deeded easements.

Your quote is from the DOJ's PI Response CV 19-66-BLG-SPW-TJC, filed on July 10, 2019, page 18 (pdf pg 28) & 19. The screenshot for page 18 is attached, in which anyone can see the filed case reference and date at the top of the page screenshot in blue.

Watters' ruling is a preliminary ruling based on a limited record. We are evaluating our options at this time, the deadline for filing a PI appeal is 60 days.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,673
Location
Bozeman, MT
Deal gives public, rancher access to land in Crazy Mountains
This is not a part of our Crazy Mountains lawsuit with the Custer Gallatin, but eastside, Helena Lewis and Clark National Forest portion, a little bit further north. I thought y'all might be interested in the increased public access in this area.

The U.S. Forest Service and a rancher have signed an agreement that gives the public an entry point into the eastern side of the Crazy Mountains, a rarity, and the landowner motorized access to property he owns surrounded by national forest...Under the agreement, the Forest Service and the public will be allowed non-motorized access crossing 2.5 miles of White’s land to reach thousands of acres of public land in Big Elk Canyon, a remote and rugged area in Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest.
1565968126386.png
 

WyLionHunter

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
27
Location
Sheridan Wy
I was saddened and a little angered when Rob Gregoire caved in and plead out. I thought he was going to take it all the way to the SCOTUS. I'm sure he had his reasons but dayum, running your mouth, gathering support, promising to do this or do that ended up being a waste of all of our time
 
Last edited:

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,490
Location
Montana
Deal gives public, rancher access to land in Crazy Mountains
This is not a part of our Crazy Mountains lawsuit with the Custer Gallatin, but eastside, Helena Lewis and Clark National Forest portion, a little bit further north. I thought y'all might be interested in the increased public access in this area.

The U.S. Forest Service and a rancher have signed an agreement that gives the public an entry point into the eastern side of the Crazy Mountains, a rarity, and the landowner motorized access to property he owns surrounded by national forest...Under the agreement, the Forest Service and the public will be allowed non-motorized access crossing 2.5 miles of White’s land to reach thousands of acres of public land in Big Elk Canyon, a remote and rugged area in Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest.
View attachment 112421

Great to see RMEF, U.S. and, Stockgrower's Assoc, among others get together to add access.

 

Schaaf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
1,928
Location
Fort Peck, MT
Great to see RMEF, U.S. and, Stockgrower's Assoc, among others get together to add access.

Sounds like extortion to me, Sytes.
 

300stw

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
356
Deal gives public, rancher access to land in Crazy Mountains
This is not a part of our Crazy Mountains lawsuit with the Custer Gallatin, but eastside, Helena Lewis and Clark National Forest portion, a little bit further north. I thought y'all might be interested in the increased public access in this area.

The U.S. Forest Service and a rancher have signed an agreement that gives the public an entry point into the eastern side of the Crazy Mountains, a rarity, and the landowner motorized access to property he owns surrounded by national forest...Under the agreement, the Forest Service and the public will be allowed non-motorized access crossing 2.5 miles of White’s land to reach thousands of acres of public land in Big Elk Canyon, a remote and rugged area in Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest.
View attachment 112421
how many elk hunters can we fit in that section
 

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,673
Location
Bozeman, MT
Top