Addicting
Well-known member
Done, thanks Kat
Crazy Mountains Public Access & FS Management Lawsuit Filed Today
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
JohnCushman
Well-known member
Katqanna!!!!! Where in the heck have you been? We missed you!!
katqanna
Well-known member
If it does, there should be a unsubscribe. If you still receive something, let me know and I will bring it up, but I doubt you will receive other emails.
katqanna
Well-known member
Thank you very much
katqanna
Well-known member
Thanks so much, this is a big undertaking.
katqanna
Well-known member
Some of y'all know how curious I am, so yesterday, wondering if the FS put out a Solicitation request for work, found it online.
The last page of the PDF had a map for the trail relocation which is significantly different from that on the scoping process, much higher and steeper, they are obliterating more of #195 that they said they were piggybacking on, that was more gradual, in the valley.
They awarded the contract today.
Some additional info here, and below the various ways they have been moving the goalposts through this process, all without public input and oversight.
The last page of the PDF had a map for the trail relocation which is significantly different from that on the scoping process, much higher and steeper, they are obliterating more of #195 that they said they were piggybacking on, that was more gradual, in the valley.
They awarded the contract today.
Some additional info here, and below the various ways they have been moving the goalposts through this process, all without public input and oversight.
- They removed the Yellowstone District Ranger for doing his job, following FS policy June 2017. After public outcry, he was restored Oct. 2017.
- During the March 2018 scoping process, the FS didn't hold any public meetings. Friends of the Crazy Mountains and Enhancing Montana's Wildlife & Habitat had to hold a public meeting in Livingston, at our own cost, inviting the FS and landowner to speak - a meeting the FS should have held. We video recorded it, made that and all the PDF documents on a variety of subjects, available online.
- The Forest Service did not allow their line officers to attend the public meeting to answer the public's questions.
- The Forest Service changed the category to a CE, then stated this was part of the 2006 Record of Decision Travel Plan.
- About a week, after the scoping deadline, the FS removed the public comments from the online reading room.(BTW mine was surprisingly missing from the zip file, but I took a screenshot of the submission window for proof, if needed).
- The FS had the Proposed Porcupine Ibex Trail Project on the SOPA (Schedule of Proposed Actions) quarterly PDF's for 2018: 2nd, 3rd & 4th. Then in 2019, it is gone.
- The FS is charging ahead, issuing a Solicitation for construction. Trail #267 Phase 1 will obliterate 1300ft of current trail #267 on 4N10E Sec. 10 and another 1200ft of Trail #195 on Sec. 15 (don't forget, we have a Railroad grant deed with "easement in the public language on Sec. 15 for those 2 trails) , which they previously stated the proposed relocation would piggyback- again moving the goalposts, with a Solicitation map different than previously presented to the public: a steeper and higher route, limiting children, impaired and older users. The contract was awarded today.
katqanna
Well-known member
I was adding the Solicitation pkg trail to my Google Earth Pro program that I had the other trails mapped out on in Jan 2018. Here is one angle. I chose this angle because I am concerned by this zigzaggy stuff at the beginning of the trail (downhill slope) where it is not a switchback and not necessary for the terrain. I have walked and documented this area, I know what it is like on the ground. I checked with Brad who just hiked the flags a couple weeks ago, asking what was on the landscape to warrant all that curvature? If there was something I didn't remember or the satellite wasn't picking up. No matter how I tiled or the direction of view, there does not appear to be a reason for it. He said there wasn't anything and had complained to his partner that it was all unnecessary.
I am wondering if it has more to do with one of the major advocates boasting this would be a "world class mountain bike trail" and the fact the FS awarded the contract to BO Trails, Grant Best does mountain bike, BMX parks and just this spring was finishing the Merry Widow trail at the Copper City Trails mountain bike area just north of Three Forks.
This is not going to help elk habitat security and who, packing out an elk, wants to walk all that unnecessary zizaggy stuff?
I am wondering if it has more to do with one of the major advocates boasting this would be a "world class mountain bike trail" and the fact the FS awarded the contract to BO Trails, Grant Best does mountain bike, BMX parks and just this spring was finishing the Merry Widow trail at the Copper City Trails mountain bike area just north of Three Forks.
This is not going to help elk habitat security and who, packing out an elk, wants to walk all that unnecessary zizaggy stuff?
katqanna
Well-known member
We filed our Motion for Preliminary Injunction today. 19-CV-00066-SPW-TJC
"Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs, Friends of the Crazy Mountains et al., respectfully move this Court for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Federal-Defendants (“the Service”) from implementing and authorizing work on the Porcupine Ibex Trail Project (“Ibex project”) pending a final decision on the merits."
"Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs, Friends of the Crazy Mountains et al., respectfully move this Court for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Federal-Defendants (“the Service”) from implementing and authorizing work on the Porcupine Ibex Trail Project (“Ibex project”) pending a final decision on the merits."
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,670
The yellow route looks like a lot more 'fun' if you are out there mtb'ing or sight-seeing, but definitely looks like a lot more work if you're just trying to get from point A to B.
katqanna
Well-known member
I would like to clear up a point of confusion.
As I posted above, WELC set up a dedicated page for contributions to the Crazy Mountains case, after one of y'all asked. I asked them to make it specific for this case, knowing they deal with other issues. They did not change the thank you message or their normal process of advertising their current big cases, which includes grizzlies. After I was informed by one of y'all of the info on the grizzly case, I replied that no part of any of the contributions go to anything but the Crazy Mountains. I also immediately asked the PR guy to make sure a specific thank you was constructed for our case, omitting any other issues except the Crazy Mountains. This is being done.
I understand and respect the diversity of opinions on other issues, such as grizzlies, that may be held by other Hunttalkers.
It is normal for firms and attorneys to take on diverse cases. Our attorney has also previously represented Helena Hunters & Anglers in an elk habitat security case with the Helena National Forest.
Please understand, the Crazy Mountains Public Access case is only the Crazy Mountains. I apologize for any confusion or angst that WELC's general thank yous may have evoked. And again, thank you to those that contributed. Be assured, your contribution is strictly for the Crazy Mountains Public Access case, nothing else.
As I posted above, WELC set up a dedicated page for contributions to the Crazy Mountains case, after one of y'all asked. I asked them to make it specific for this case, knowing they deal with other issues. They did not change the thank you message or their normal process of advertising their current big cases, which includes grizzlies. After I was informed by one of y'all of the info on the grizzly case, I replied that no part of any of the contributions go to anything but the Crazy Mountains. I also immediately asked the PR guy to make sure a specific thank you was constructed for our case, omitting any other issues except the Crazy Mountains. This is being done.
I understand and respect the diversity of opinions on other issues, such as grizzlies, that may be held by other Hunttalkers.
It is normal for firms and attorneys to take on diverse cases. Our attorney has also previously represented Helena Hunters & Anglers in an elk habitat security case with the Helena National Forest.
Please understand, the Crazy Mountains Public Access case is only the Crazy Mountains. I apologize for any confusion or angst that WELC's general thank yous may have evoked. And again, thank you to those that contributed. Be assured, your contribution is strictly for the Crazy Mountains Public Access case, nothing else.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 3,122
Have followed and donated to Rob’s case last year and been very impressed and thankful for Kat’s work.
That said, I would be quite mad to get a thank you that referenced anything relating to contributions helping keep GYE griz listed, reintroducing wolves, and stopping CO predator controls. It’s a damn shame such a just cause generates additional support to a non-profit teamed up with enemies of hunting like the center for biological diversity and WildEarth guardians!
That said, I would be quite mad to get a thank you that referenced anything relating to contributions helping keep GYE griz listed, reintroducing wolves, and stopping CO predator controls. It’s a damn shame such a just cause generates additional support to a non-profit teamed up with enemies of hunting like the center for biological diversity and WildEarth guardians!
katqanna
Well-known member
Wind Gypsy, I understand.
When two other coalitions broke down because of politics, I contacted Matt to see if he would handle Brad (FOCM) and my (EMWH) case. He had previously worked with Helena Hunters & Anglers on elk habitat security, which was partly involved in this case. Matt had previously explained he had represented private landowner ranchers and grew up with Jim Posewitz, that added other factors for my trust in asking him. He took us on as clients, then added two sportsmens groups, creating the new coalition.
We needed an attorney who would not reject our case because of Montana politics. He didn't.
We needed an attorney who didn't have his own personal landowner connections access, dismissing our public access. He didn't.
We needed an attorney who had experience with federal government regulations and policy. He does.
We needed an attorney who understood the various biopolitical issues, including mountain bikes. He does.
We needed an attorney who would understand the key components of public access and the research I have. He does.
We needed an attorney who understood and valued the Public Trust Doctrine. He does.
It has been an absolute pleasure working with Matt, providing documentation, learning his perspective/experience of what he knows a judge will look for. Because that is what this case is about - the law, the federal agency regulations and policy, not someone's opinions or their own personal landowner (certain ones) connections to the Crazy Mountains, affecting agencies, organizations and individuals. This includes the political and money connections. This case, more than anything I have seen or read about in years, is causing division between friends, some civil wars within organizations or issues with their membership. Matt was not tainted by any of that. I laid all those cards on the table before he agreed to take our case. I fully trust Matt to properly handle this case.
The firm created a separate, dedicated account, as I requested, to accommodate anyone's concerns about other cases. They set up a separate contribution page. An oversight was made in not changing their normal thank you response, which they are doing now, out of consideration. But even with that oversight, I do not waiver or question the ability or dedication of my attorney to properly handle this Crazy Mountains Public Access case and if you have actually read the case and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, you would see we are not fighting for CBD or WEG or involved with them; many of us are hunters and we are fighting for our public access, for agency regulation/policy compliance, for the public and for future generations.
https://www.emwh.org/public access/Crazy Mountains/Crazy Mountains Public Access Legal.htm
When two other coalitions broke down because of politics, I contacted Matt to see if he would handle Brad (FOCM) and my (EMWH) case. He had previously worked with Helena Hunters & Anglers on elk habitat security, which was partly involved in this case. Matt had previously explained he had represented private landowner ranchers and grew up with Jim Posewitz, that added other factors for my trust in asking him. He took us on as clients, then added two sportsmens groups, creating the new coalition.
We needed an attorney who would not reject our case because of Montana politics. He didn't.
We needed an attorney who didn't have his own personal landowner connections access, dismissing our public access. He didn't.
We needed an attorney who had experience with federal government regulations and policy. He does.
We needed an attorney who understood the various biopolitical issues, including mountain bikes. He does.
We needed an attorney who would understand the key components of public access and the research I have. He does.
We needed an attorney who understood and valued the Public Trust Doctrine. He does.
It has been an absolute pleasure working with Matt, providing documentation, learning his perspective/experience of what he knows a judge will look for. Because that is what this case is about - the law, the federal agency regulations and policy, not someone's opinions or their own personal landowner (certain ones) connections to the Crazy Mountains, affecting agencies, organizations and individuals. This includes the political and money connections. This case, more than anything I have seen or read about in years, is causing division between friends, some civil wars within organizations or issues with their membership. Matt was not tainted by any of that. I laid all those cards on the table before he agreed to take our case. I fully trust Matt to properly handle this case.
The firm created a separate, dedicated account, as I requested, to accommodate anyone's concerns about other cases. They set up a separate contribution page. An oversight was made in not changing their normal thank you response, which they are doing now, out of consideration. But even with that oversight, I do not waiver or question the ability or dedication of my attorney to properly handle this Crazy Mountains Public Access case and if you have actually read the case and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, you would see we are not fighting for CBD or WEG or involved with them; many of us are hunters and we are fighting for our public access, for agency regulation/policy compliance, for the public and for future generations.
https://www.emwh.org/public access/Crazy Mountains/Crazy Mountains Public Access Legal.htm
RobG
Well-known member
Since my name is closely associated with the issue of access in the Crazy Mountains I should say that most of the people that have been closely involved in this from the start are very concerned about this lawsuit as it pertains to stopping the rerouted trail from being built on the west side (which is what the aforementioned injunction does). A lot of collaboration was done to reroute that trail. Among the collaborators were RMEF. Furthermore, the success of the collaboration will help us with solutions on the east side, which is a much harder problem.
I get it that some people are upset that the process wasn't as public as people would want, but there are reasons for that. I get it that the USFS should be actively keeping these contested trails open, but there are reasons they can't. I also get that the Forest Service shouldn't cave to the landowners, but, again, there are reasons for that. It's much easier to poke holes in the results than to explain the facts and background that generated the results. We had a solution and this throws it out. Are we for access or something else?
The people I've talked to believe the only claim of Kat's lawsuit that has any merit is that the NEPA work might be inadequate. However, if the USFS have to do more NEPA they will get it resolved and the project will proceed. The fact is, the old trail had a lot more stream crossings than this one and was open to motorized use so it is hard to believe it was better for the environment.
It important to note that the suit is against the government , not the landowners, so even if they win it won't open access - in fact if they win it will close access it until someone sues the landowner which will takes years to resolve.
Regarding WELC, I'm not positive, but since the lawsuit is against the government they may get reimbursed by EAJA money. By all means support them if you agree with their mission and tactics, but here are some examples:
https://www.westernwatersheds.org/2018/12/advocates-target-bear-baiting-in-grizzly-country-in-id-wy/
https://westernlaw.org/category/cases/wildlife/protecting-grizzly-bears/
https://westernlaw.org/protecting-wildlife/
https://westernlaw.org/protecting-wildlife/all-cases/
I was surprised that these guys were picked as I was well aware of their work.
As I mentioned, I have concerns about this lawsuit and am taking a wait and see approach on this.
To be honest, if you want to support access give to PLWA. https://plwa.org/ They could do so much more if they had more money. As it is they are living paycheck to paycheck. I've given them over $1500 the last couple years and highly recommend people put them high on their donation list.
Sorry I don't have a lot of time to get in a discussion about this on this site, but I wanted to at least make it known there are access advocates concerned about this approach.
I get it that some people are upset that the process wasn't as public as people would want, but there are reasons for that. I get it that the USFS should be actively keeping these contested trails open, but there are reasons they can't. I also get that the Forest Service shouldn't cave to the landowners, but, again, there are reasons for that. It's much easier to poke holes in the results than to explain the facts and background that generated the results. We had a solution and this throws it out. Are we for access or something else?
The people I've talked to believe the only claim of Kat's lawsuit that has any merit is that the NEPA work might be inadequate. However, if the USFS have to do more NEPA they will get it resolved and the project will proceed. The fact is, the old trail had a lot more stream crossings than this one and was open to motorized use so it is hard to believe it was better for the environment.
It important to note that the suit is against the government , not the landowners, so even if they win it won't open access - in fact if they win it will close access it until someone sues the landowner which will takes years to resolve.
Regarding WELC, I'm not positive, but since the lawsuit is against the government they may get reimbursed by EAJA money. By all means support them if you agree with their mission and tactics, but here are some examples:
https://www.westernwatersheds.org/2018/12/advocates-target-bear-baiting-in-grizzly-country-in-id-wy/
https://westernlaw.org/category/cases/wildlife/protecting-grizzly-bears/
https://westernlaw.org/protecting-wildlife/
https://westernlaw.org/protecting-wildlife/all-cases/
I was surprised that these guys were picked as I was well aware of their work.
As I mentioned, I have concerns about this lawsuit and am taking a wait and see approach on this.
To be honest, if you want to support access give to PLWA. https://plwa.org/ They could do so much more if they had more money. As it is they are living paycheck to paycheck. I've given them over $1500 the last couple years and highly recommend people put them high on their donation list.
Sorry I don't have a lot of time to get in a discussion about this on this site, but I wanted to at least make it known there are access advocates concerned about this approach.
katqanna
Well-known member
Rob, Per our case, part of the FS abdication of responsibility is the upholding of the 2006 Travel Management Plan, which provides access for seasonal snowmobiles and motorcycles on the current Trail #267.
If you are for public access, why would you advocate FS actions against 36 C.F.R. §§ 212, 251, 261, 295, which provided for this motorized access in the Crazy Mountains, as printed on their latest (2016) Motor Vehicle Use Map, cutting out a valid stakeholder? Why do these public access users not count, as well as the rest who should be able to access #267 and the other trails?
On October 30, 2006, the FS issued a final ROD approving a final travel plan for the Crazy Mountains. Certain landowners appealed the decision. The FS defended the public access. In 2007, some of the landowners joined a lawsuit against the FS on the Travel Plan.
On November 26, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, agreeing with the FS that they held these public access rights.
On September 30, 2008, the Court entered its final judgment in the Service’s favor on this public access claim, upholding the FS’ position that it has an “easement interest” in the National Forest System roads and trails identified in the travel plan and depicted on the Service’s travel plan maps.
You believe the only claim in our case that has merit is NEPA, yet you disregard this previous Travel Plan suit, in which the court defended these particular points. You also ignore the Railroad Grant Deeds with "easement in the public" language, also used in another Crazy Mountains case, 1948, which was the whole foundation of the case and the Judge approved injunction against the public access obstruction. Deeded easements cannot be "reverse adverse used". And no landowner has filed a quiet title, as the Hudson's tried and failed on the Wonder Ranch Indian Creek Trail case.
I don't know who the "people" are you've talked to, about the merits of the case, but I don't believe my attorney, who has won almost all of his 50 some-odd cases as lead counsel, would have taken this case on, or addressed so many specific points, if he was not confident in the merits of the case.
If you are for public access, why would you advocate FS actions against 36 C.F.R. §§ 212, 251, 261, 295, which provided for this motorized access in the Crazy Mountains, as printed on their latest (2016) Motor Vehicle Use Map, cutting out a valid stakeholder? Why do these public access users not count, as well as the rest who should be able to access #267 and the other trails?
On October 30, 2006, the FS issued a final ROD approving a final travel plan for the Crazy Mountains. Certain landowners appealed the decision. The FS defended the public access. In 2007, some of the landowners joined a lawsuit against the FS on the Travel Plan.
On November 26, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, agreeing with the FS that they held these public access rights.
On September 30, 2008, the Court entered its final judgment in the Service’s favor on this public access claim, upholding the FS’ position that it has an “easement interest” in the National Forest System roads and trails identified in the travel plan and depicted on the Service’s travel plan maps.
You believe the only claim in our case that has merit is NEPA, yet you disregard this previous Travel Plan suit, in which the court defended these particular points. You also ignore the Railroad Grant Deeds with "easement in the public" language, also used in another Crazy Mountains case, 1948, which was the whole foundation of the case and the Judge approved injunction against the public access obstruction. Deeded easements cannot be "reverse adverse used". And no landowner has filed a quiet title, as the Hudson's tried and failed on the Wonder Ranch Indian Creek Trail case.
I don't know who the "people" are you've talked to, about the merits of the case, but I don't believe my attorney, who has won almost all of his 50 some-odd cases as lead counsel, would have taken this case on, or addressed so many specific points, if he was not confident in the merits of the case.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I listened to a podcast last night that was almost verbatim to Rob’s post. Including the NEPA argument having the best chance in this case. I disagree with both the podcast and Rob.
Schaaf
Well-known member
What was the podcast Buzz?
RobG
Well-known member
Kat - I'm not going to engage you. I've said my piece and people can take it or leave it (or PM me with concerns).
Last edited:
katqanna
Well-known member
This may not be the podcast, but there are similarities and they spoke with Rob.
Your Mountain
Podcasts | Pandora
Discover your favorite Podcasts from a variety of categories including Daily News, Music, Business, True Crime, Comedy, Politics and more. Listen to Podcasts on Pandora.
Michael McGrady - WY Dep. Att. General
David Willms - Sen. Dir. Western Wildlife for Nat. Wildlife Federation attorney
Schaaf
Well-known member
Thanks Kat
BuzzH
Well-known member
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.
