East Crazy Mountain Land Exchange

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,453
Location
Bozeman, MT
When it comes to the Sweet Grass trail access, we can't give up what we don't have. That sucks, but it is the reality. Yes, there is ample evidence that the trail is public. However, the landowner has ample evidence that it is not. When this happens the law is very clear: Access control belongs to the landowner and will remain that way unless it is litigated and a judge decides that the public's evidence is more compelling than the landowner's evidence.

The terms of this exchange are very clear on this topic: if someone wants to litigate they can do it now or after the exchange. Furthermore, the U.S. will not forfeit any interest in the trail like they did on the west side. Support by public representatives is conditional on that remaining.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,453
Location
Bozeman, MT
In the first post I inadvertently posted a screenshot of S10 twice instead of separate screenshots of S8 and S10. I corrected that and added descriptions. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
4,880
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
The terms of this exchange are very clear on this topic: if someone wants to litigate they can do it now or after the exchange. Furthermore, the U.S. will not forfeit any interest in the trail like they did on the west side. Support by public representatives is conditional on that remaining.
Thanks, Rob. That is important information for those with wavering support.
 

goodhunt

Active member
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
37
I'm curious as to how the recent ruling impacts this land exchange. For those of you in the know, do you expect the result of that lawsuit to have a detrimental impact to the exchange?
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,453
Location
Bozeman, MT
I'm curious as to how the recent ruling impacts this land exchange. For those of you in the know, do you expect the result of that lawsuit to have a detrimental impact to the exchange?

The chances of winning were so small that it wasn't a consideration in creating the exchange.

What bothers me is that BHA et al sued to stop the Porcupine trail from being rerouted because it was negotiated by collaborating with the landowner (with public input). If BHA had won then I don't see how they could support this exchange because it was crafted using the same tactics of the public and FS working with the landowners. Perhaps now that they lost they will change their position on this sort of collaboration???

BTW Neffa3, that article sucks. I need to drop Brett a note saying access advocates didn't suffer a blow any more than free gift advocates suffered a blow when they were informed Santa was fake. ;)
 
Last edited:

R.K.

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
574
Location
MT
I'm curious as to how the recent ruling impacts this land exchange. For those of you in the know, do you expect the result of that lawsuit to have a detrimental impact to the exchange?
Has there been a ruling in the blocked access on the East Side of the Crazies?
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,453
Location
Bozeman, MT
Has there been a ruling in the landowners illegally blocking the public road and public access to public lands?
That wasn't part of the lawsuit. To open those roads up somebody would have to sue the people who are blocking the roads and prove to a court that the landowners are illegally blocking the roads. It's a pretty big deal to do that.
 

rogerthat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
809
I have to say I have read that article on the ruling and this thread about 3 times and it all is about as clear as mud to me on the whole issue. West side/east side/new trails/roads. What a cluster
 

rogerthat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
809
It would seem like to my simple mind that under Montana law all a landowner has to do is shut off access to anything that was historic access without a formal easement. If the forest service isn’t going to fight it, than the public is pretty much screwed.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
5,453
Location
Bozeman, MT
It would seem like to my simple mind that under Montana law all a landowner has to do is shut off access to anything that was historic access without a formal easement. If the forest service isn’t going to fight it, than the public is pretty much screwed.
Not quite, the public still has the option to fight it, but they have to do it on their own dime.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
101,638
Messages
1,624,915
Members
31,788
Latest member
RockyMnt Hunter
Top