East Crazy Mountain Land Exchange

[Irrelevant]

Forest Service tentatively approves Crazy Mountain land swap

The proposal involving more than 15 square miles and seven landowners drew more than 1,000 public comments.

montanafreepress.org

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Forest Service tentatively approves Crazy Mountain land swap

The proposal involving more than 15 square miles and seven landowners drew more than 1,000 public comments.

montanafreepress.org

Unreal, sure seemed like public comment was majorly opposed to this. Have to wonder what the hell went on behind the scenes.

 

[Nameless Range]

This issue is confusing as hell to me. Folks I respect disagree with one another, and when stating their cases seem reasonable in their polars. I don't know the geography, and frankly don't have the time to dig in, which leaves me kind of ambivalent.

Genuine question - what do those who know the landscape there think the Yellowstone Club will do with their acquisitions? I get whey ranchers and such may want to consolidate and acquire more foothills and less mountains, but what does that most cancerous contingent of the Madison Range want with the Crazies? Not that it's obvious it should matter to the exchange being proposed - land ownership changes all the time and is not static - just curious.

 

[RobG]

This issue is confusing as hell to me. Folks I respect disagree with one another, and when stating their cases seem reasonable in their polars. I don't know the geography, and frankly don't have the time to dig in, which leaves me kind of ambivalent.

Genuine question - what do those who know the landscape there think the Yellowstone Club will do with their acquisitions? I get whey ranchers and such may want to consolidate and acquire more foothills and less mountains, but what does that most cancerous contingent of the Madison Range want with the Crazies? Not that it's obvious it should matter to the exchange being proposed - land ownership changes all the time and is not static - just curious.

This is basically two swaps combined into one: one around the YC resort which doesn't seem controversial, and the one in the Crazy Mountains. The YC is involved in the Crazies to help equalize the swap around their resort. The swap isn't giving the Yellowstone Club any lands in the Crazies. In fact, it is the opposite: the YC gave up a section of land with Smeller Lake on it, and are paying for a new trail. But their involvement tainted the whole exchange even if it added value.

A little more detail about the swap is here. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/storie...2-4juqqqFzbiL8jzyERBOV7CnEwqq8mwo3LTFh4-uEEZM

I haven't looked at it enough to comment in depth, but I did see they addressed the comments about wetlands, conservation easements, and water rights.

 

[tjones]

If this goes through that new trail will be the death of that country.

 

[rogerthat]

If this goes through that new trail will be the death of that country.

I agree but the crazies died along time ago for me due to their “convenient” location between the two biggest cesspools in Montana - Billings and Bozeman. They were doomed by geography

 

[Nameless Range]

This is basically two swaps combined into one: one around the YC resort which doesn't seem controversial, and the one in the Crazy Mountains. The YC is involved in the Crazies to help equalize the swap around their resort. The swap isn't giving the Yellowstone Club any lands in the Crazies. In fact, it is the opposite: the YC gave up a section of land with Smeller Lake on it, and are paying for a new trail. But their involvement tainted the whole exchange even if it added value.

A little more detail about the swap is here. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/storie...2-4juqqqFzbiL8jzyERBOV7CnEwqq8mwo3LTFh4-uEEZM

I haven't looked at it enough to comment in depth, but I did see they addressed the comments about wetlands, conservation easements, and water rights.

Thanks for that. The article does mention increasing their access to USFS lands adjacent to the YC. I just didn't connect the dots.

 

[Irrelevant]

I mean, there's definitely a lot to not like about this swap. There's even more to not like about how the FS is operating. But there are some benefits. Maybe one day the LWCF will acquire one of those lower ranches and we can have our cake and eat it too.

 

[Elky Welky]

I mean, there's definitely a lot to not like about this swap. There's even more to not like about how the FS is operating. But there are some benefits. Maybe one day the LWCF will acquire one of those lower ranches and we can have our cake and eat it too.

I love your enthusiasm @neffa3, but I predict FWS will reintroduce wooly mammoths and unicorns onto the landscape before the day ever comes that a ranch on the east crazies gives up what they rightfully took for themselves a few generations ago.

 

[Irrelevant]

I love your enthusiasm @neffa3, but I predict FWS will reintroduce wooly mammoths and unicorns onto the landscape before the day ever comes that a ranch on the east crazies gives up what they rightfully took for themselves a few generations ago.

Sounds like a bet? Loser buys the beer.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

By in large, the conservation community asked the CGNF to achieve the following in order to earn support for the land swap:

1) Preserve historic legal access on Sweet Grass Trail #122.
Members of the Crazy Mountain Access Project/PCEC/YC swore up and down there would be no change to Sweet Grass Trail. Many of us knew they were wrong. The historic Sweet Grass Trail #122 is completely gone in the new maps, leaving no option for the public to defend our legal historic access.

2) Permanent Conservation Easements on the lands leaving federal ownership. We were told by the Crazy Mountain Access Project and the CGNF that they were pursuing permanent conservation easements on the lands leaving federal ownership. That didn’t happen. They celebrate "deed restrictions" on the parcels along Sweet Grass Creek which are not permanent and allow the subdivision and development of those sections. These new private lands will be perfect for little ranchettes.

“The lands leaving federal ownership in Sweetgrass Canyon (Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4) will be placed under a deed restriction agreement monitored and enforced by the Sweet Grass County Conservation District. The deed restriction or restrictive covenants would prohibit subdivision into parcels under 160 acres.”

The lands leaving federal ownership in the Yellowstone Club property are not protected either:

“The lands leaving federal ownership in the Inspiration Divide area (Parcels 8, 9, and 10) will be protected from development by a conservation easement that will be managed by Montana Land Reliance. The conservation easement protects open space and preserves scenic views. The easement allows for skiing, ski resort structures and improvements, and other appropriate outdoor recreational uses…”

The CGNF’s inability to get permanent protections placed on these lands is appalling.

3) Disclose real estate land values. Disclosing real estate land values is required by law and the lands swapped must be equal in value. The CGNF has not provided the public with this information. Not only is this a requirement under the law, but it’s an important piece of information for the public to use when analyzing the pros and cons of the action.

4) All Mineral Rights should be conveyed to the public on lands that enter federal ownership. This was not achieved. This swap will allow private parties who own the surface mineral rights the opportunity for mineral development on public lands. Mineral rights supersede almost all other land rights and are very difficult to stop.

5) Wetlands must be balanced in the trade. The law requires no net loss of wetlands. It appears this was achieved so that is good.

 

[Irrelevant]

^Well that's a laundry list of BS that definitely should have happened. I mean #5 is the least of my concerns.

 

[RobG]

By in large, the conservation community asked the CGNF to achieve the following in order to earn support for the land swap:

1) Preserve historic legal access on Sweet Grass Trail #122.
Members of the Crazy Mountain Access Project/PCEC/YC swore up and down there would be no change to Sweet Grass Trail. Many of us knew they were wrong. The historic Sweet Grass Trail #122 is completely gone in the new maps, leaving no option for the public to defend our legal historic access.

John - this is incorrect. I don't speak for them, but the CMAP website is clear that the access is contested, meaning there is no current legal access. What was promised was the "status quo," that is, it will remain contested and access will continue to be permissive use. To me, that meant that you could still litigate and perfect a prescriptive easement if it existed. Only after that legal action could the public obtain legal access if what you say about the history is true. There is a huge difference.

Where I went wrong was not knowing that Forest Service would give up their claim to rights on their property and I regret that oversight. I don't know if that alone will prevent successful litigation, but that error is on me, not the CMAP.

I have to say, that if nobody is willing to litigate this, and they've had nearly 30 years to do so, it is a moot point. Legal access can only be obtained by litigation. Furthermore, I'm told Rein Lane has been petitioned twice to be a county road and failed. If you can't get Rein, you can't get Sweet Grass so again it is a moot point.

 

[MTTW]

I agree but the crazies died along time ago for me due to their “convenient” location between the two biggest cesspools in Montana - Billings and Bozeman. They were doomed by geography

I used to spend a lot of time in the Crazies hunting, trapping, fishing, and wood cutting but today I see them in the same light as a sacrificial anode. The current lack of G bears dooms them also. It makes me sad but "progress" marches on.

 

[Horseman]

I heard from a friend that I am very inclined to believe (still just hearsay of course) that there are two golf courses already being built on some of those privately owned sections that are adjacent to the public sections the FS will swap. Billionaires get to count their chickens before they hatch

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

I heard from a friend that I am very inclined to believe (still just hearsay of course) that there are two golf courses already being built on some of those privately owned sections that are adjacent to the public sections the FS will swap. Billionaires get to count their chickens before they hatch

The Yellowstone Club purchase the Marlboro Ranch in the south east Crazies and they made this.... https://crazymountainranch.com/

We would be fools to think the Yellowstone Club would spend years, lots of money, hire out-of-state consultants, and a PR firm to sell this east crazies land swap to the public without having future plans.

The additional tragedy to this is the public sees through YC's attempts to mislead. The comments on the draft proposal were overwhelmingly opposed to their proposal. Right now is our final opportunity to submit thoughtful comments.

 

[RobG]

The documents related to the proposal are at https://usfs-public.app.box.com/v/PinyonPublic/folder/179964720429

In particular, the concerns John brought up are addressed here: https://usfs-public.app.box.com/v/PinyonPublic/file/1319199217843 (The value of the lands will be published in the final decision.)

 

[Elky Welky]

Speaking of thoughtful comments, how about we stick to the facts and stop the innuendo? The Yellowstone Club is not acquiring any acreage in the Crazies from this swap; in fact, they are giving away a jewel with Smeller Lake. Their agenda is to acquire the land next to their ski area, not in the Crazies.

There's a pretty big difference between innuendo and drawing a logical conclusion based upon facts, evidence, and the actions of the Yellowstone club by purchasing a ranch in the Crazies.

Also, speaking of innuendo, I think it is odd that the CMAP website would claim to be the authority on the trails in the east crazies while also saying that only a court has the ability to declare whether or not those trails are public. That means the court is the authority, not CMAP. That makes the source inherently lose all credibility, and in many ways, it is more reliant on innuendo to try and make a point here. No matter what, it's certainly not an unbiased source.

Those trails were and had been public for many years, listed on public maps, and held out as public by the forest service until the FS decided to no longer represent the public, and not maintain what they had already held out as public. It isn't only the party bringing them, as has actually been and continues to be litigated, the FS could have (and in the view of many) perfected their rights on behalf of the public for a long time.

 

[Hayes Goosey]

The additional tragedy to this is the public sees through YC's attempts to mislead. The comments on the draft proposal were overwhelmingly opposed to their proposal. Right now is our final opportunity to submit thoughtful comments.

From my perspective, Alternative 1 tells the unfortunate tale that no one in the room was qualified to represent and negotiate on behalf of the public and public lands. There still is, however, a select group of people, businesses, and green decoy non-profits who continue to collect cash off the Crazy Mountains. All while 60% + of Montanans live pay check to pay check and stand to lose some of the best elk hunting ground in the state as a location to secure food for their freezers.

The common folk have won this fight so far with an overwhelming majority of opposition and what is really impressive is the diverse set of groups and interests who came together to demand changes to the first draft. The CMAP advertised diversity but it was the thoughtful opposition who banded together, found common ground, and presented a unified front. That was, and still is, impressive! I would like to say thank you to all those who have stood together thus far with the integrity and fortitude to demand better and for resisting the pressure to conform. There is still work to be done and as Shakespeare’s King Henry said: Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!

 

[Dust Rider]

This issue is confusing as hell to me. Folks I respect disagree with one another, and when stating their cases seem reasonable in their polars. I don't know the geography, and frankly don't have the time to dig in, which leaves me kind of ambivalent.

Genuine question - what do those who know the landscape there think the Yellowstone Club will do with their acquisitions? I get whey ranchers and such may want to consolidate and acquire more foothills and less mountains, but what does that most cancerous contingent of the Madison Range want with the Crazies? Not that it's obvious it should matter to the exchange being proposed - land ownership changes all the time and is not static - just curious.

They want to build another private ski resort with the emphasis on heli skiing.