Damn carpetbaggers!

[Zach]

<snip>Seems like you guys have rules for the rich and rules for the 'common' person.

Back under the rule of the crown....

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

I just noticed Google Earth has a 1995 view of the place so you can see he literally built his place in the middle of the road.

And for you folks that think he was dumb... trust me, this crap goes on all the time. It would be unusual if it was a mistake. It is pretty easy to get forgiveness after the fact because the Forest Service (or any Gov agency) is so underfunded and toothless that they can't do much about it. And if he doesn't win, the FS will just build a cut-across road and not prosecute Schlueter as part of the settlement.

I agree with RobG here, as usual it seems to be all about the money out there ( and everywhere). Seems nobody has a backbone and it would almost seem to the outsider looking in that plenty of pockets are getting lined to "over look" this infringment. . . crooked bast***s!!

 

[jlmatthew]

You guys will have Colorado style hunting in no time

 

[noharleyyet]

Good ol boy Influence run amok....another ambassadorial asshat from Austin

The Schlueter Group provides consulting services for legislative and regulatory representation in Texas. We have long established relationships with elected officials at all levels of Texas Government.

Given the depth of the backgrounds of our consultants and our competitive fee structure, we are well positioned to provide superior advocacy and full-service government relations services to our clients.

The Advocates and Strategists of the Schlueter Group have an impressive combined 130 plus years of Texas Legislative and Regulatory experience.

We have experience in introduction, management and passage of landmark and high profile legislation.

Through our coordinated approach we effectively utilize a multipronged strategy employing innovative communications, Political Action Committee and legislative/regulatory strategies.

Our relationships and experience, coupled with our proximity to the seat of Texas Government, provides our clients.

http://schluetergroup.com/

 

[Big Fin]

Good ol boy Influence run amok....another ambassadorial asshat from Austin



http://schluetergroup.com/

I am thinking hard about ways to re-size him for a much bigger asshat. Not sure 3XL would even suffice for someone who does this sort of stuff.

Also, I am really pissed that Brian Kuehl would sell us down the river. He was previously the attorney for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, supposedly some great ambassador for the wonderful public landscapes of the Greater Yellowstone Region.

Evidently the air or water in DC does something to people. I hope GYC is jumping up and down, screaming like hell, as they do with some other issues, and hopefully calling their former pal and telling him to keep his nose out of this.

The best thing Baucus could do is come out very strongly against any backdoor dealings, given Kuehl was once his chief of staff, and is now the guy who the "Austin Ambassador" has employed to work the political angles to this deal. If this deal gets struck, the long list of public land projects Max has helped get funding for would have a very foul smell, tainting what would otherwise be a very positive public land and access legacy.

 

[RobG]

Also, I am really pissed that Brian Kuehl would sell us down the river. He was previously the attorney for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, supposedly some great ambassador for the wonderful public landscapes of the Greater Yellowstone Region.

I don't know what Kuehl's story is - but he isn't the only conservation type who supported it. Perhaps it was because part of the deal on the table is a conservation easement that would be a net win for wildlife and prevent further subdivision. Also, some surrounding area was to be enrolled in Block Management. Sounds like a Win-Win at first glance, unfortunately BM was voluntary and the owners (not just him) could close off trail access to public which would be a net loss to the public.

If Block Management was a requirement in perpetuity this could possibly have been a good deal with the better hunting opportunity offsetting the longer hike to public land. I have no first hand knowledge of the area, but based on Google Earth the good public land elk habitat looked to be pretty small so I'd guess the animals get chased down to private land now given the good access. [edit... disregard this paragraph - after remembering a few more details even with Block Management access this deal is a loser for the public and a gainer for the landowners IMO. perhaps it started out fair, but Bad, Bad, Bad in its final form.]

Of course he is basically playing the system and extorting us to increase the value of his land. Cuz that is how those types roll.

 

[katqanna]

Rob, I dont know how much of a win BM would be here, and as you point out, it is voluntary and can be stopped at any time. I have been going through charts on the elk situation in Region 3, especially in the DSA. This property is nearly right in the middle of a group of elk hunting districts that are all below objective. HD 301 (2012) had 1232 hunters with 114 harvests, which included the out of state stats.

 

[RobG]

The BM carrot is an absolute loser since he and the other landowners could pull out! Even worse is that he'd retain the roaded access to the FS land, thus giving him a sweet outfitting opportunity. Bad bad bad....

rg

 

[theat]

So who do we need to contact to make a fuss about this mess?

 

[hunter47025]

Very Troubling

 

[katqanna]

I let Public Lands and Water Access know yesterday. Lee Gustafson said he was forwarding it to others. PLWA is a great organization fighting to protect our public access. Gallatin National Forest's Mary Erickson's email is [email protected]

 

[Bulldog0156]

Sounds like an "orange vest gathering" is in order at those coordinates

 

[Big Fin]

So, you wanna know why GYC and the enviro crowd is in favor of a back room deal? Go to this link of who is on the board of GYC. If a hunting group had one-tenth the political stench this deal has, GYC and their pals would be hanging us out to dry out in the streets of Bozeman.

Link to the GYC B.O.D - ------> http://www.greateryellowstone.org/about/board.php

You will see a guy named Brian Kuehl as a director. The same Brian Kuehl who is the highly paid hack pulling political strings to screw the public out of access and put a few million more of land value on the balance sheet of his client. Wonder what Brian is going to get paid for this, if he can pull it off?

I wonder why GYC, the self-proclaimed guardians of the lands in this area, is so quiet. I wonder why their folks were out trolling for support from me, and others, last winter? Surely it wasn't because their buddy Brian had anything at stake as a result of this position.

I'm beyond pissed right now. I am off filming for ten days, which should give me prime opportunity to chew on ideas of how to make life difficult for all those trying to screw us over.

Best thing Baucus, Tester, and Daines could do right now, is come out and publicly blast this idea and all that it represents.

 

[elk_hunter]

Slimey. Slimey all around. This kind of $#!* sure gets a guy fired up!

 

[shoots-straight]

Thanks for the heads up. With more and more of the rich elite showing up in Montana, we are bound to run into this more often. It's time to put a stop to it.

 

[katqanna]

Randy, thanks for the heads up. Found this article by Brett French with map links on the right..
Existing Roads
Proposed Trail

If you go to the Gallatin National Forest link and put in FR166B as the query, this comes up Potential Exchange of Rights near Big Sky

The United States currently holds full and perpetual public easements for Forest Road 166B (West Fork Loop Road), Forest Road 166D (Basin Road), National Forest Trail #16 and for the North Fork Trailhead, which serves North Fork Trail #16. These easements and facilities are held by the Forest Service and are on private lands held subject to these easements.

Under the current proposal, the North Fork Trailhead would serve both the North Fork Trail #16 and a new 6.8-mile trail loop that would be constructed in sections 20, 21, 22, and 27 on private land that would eventually connect to National Forest Trail #403. This new trail would be located on a perpetual, public, year-round easement held by a public trail management entity for all non-motorized public uses, granted by each private land owner. Trail #403 is also accessible from the north via Beehive Basin.

The United States would continue to hold an easement on Forest Road 166B on the east side of the loop from Highway 64 to the North Fork Trailhead. The Forest Service would hold an easement for administrative use only from Highway 64 on Forest Roads 166B and 166D to National Forest System lands on the west side of the loop with an adequate reroute around the home on Forest Road 166B.

Just called the Bozeman FS Disrict Rangers office and the GVLT to get a copy of the proposed easement. Might help to see the actual proposal.

 

[RobG]

Randy, thanks for the heads up. Found this article by Brett French with map links on the right..

That article is a must read on the subject, especially the maps. Basically instead of being able to drive to the FS boundary users will now have to walk about 3 miles across an ugly logged forest with a significant elevation gain before they can even hunt.

 

[dalbo]

It would be a real shame if lightning struck that house and it burned down to the foundation.

 

[sweetnectar]

I'm good with keeping the current easement that allows me to park in his garage or is it his living room. Either way my truck should fit.

 

[Dave N]

It would be a real shame if lightning struck that house and it burned down to the foundation.

Then he'd just collect the insurance money and build a BIGGER one.