Southern Elk
Well-known member
@RobG, is everyone opposed to this at this point? Is it time to make comments? Is there a link for comments?
East Crazy Mountain Land Exchange
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
RobG
Well-known member
US Forest Service NEPA Projects Home
Here is the link to the main page: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=63115
I'm creating my comments right now so if you want to see them first hold off.
Yes, I think your opportunity to comment will be gone 12/23. There is a link to comment from elkduds on page 7. Every conservationist is opposed to this… I don’t see why you should copy RobG’s response like he suggested-come up with your own! I think every argument from everyone opposed to this proposal is valid. There are many, many valid reasons to oppose a FS land swap that exclusively benefits a luxury real estate developer.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Public Land Hunters Object to Land Swap in Montana’s Crazy Mountains
A proposed land exchange and new trail could change public access in the eastern Crazies. The public comment period is open until Dec. 23.
www.outdoorlife.com
RobG
Well-known member
Definitely don't copy anyone's response! And also don't say you are commenting because an organization told you so! However, I have some points that haven't been covered that people might want to consider. If you don't bring them up now I doubt if they will be considered later.
FWIW, I also wouldn't comment that the exchange exclusively benefits a luxury real estate developer unless you have very specific evidence. That's the kind of comment that accomplishes nothing. The land swap associated with CMR and Switchback is clearly in favor of the public. (Ward and Parker and Carroccias around Sweet Grass, not so much). I hadn't heard of any major concerns about the Inspiration Divide swap, especially since they offset it with large gains for the public in the Crazies.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Does the exchange benefit a luxury real estate developer?
I opposed a state land exchange in Wyoming because the OSLI office commented in the detailed analysis, that the land they would acquire would be great for future home/ real estate development.
I wouldn't hesitate in my comments that a luxury real estate developer was going to benefit if it were a true statement.
Real estate development is serious threat to wildlife, wildlife habitat, intrinsic values of surrounding lands, etc. why hide from the facts?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Every land exchange that I was part of (Bitterroot Valley) ended up with dozens of new home developments in prime Wildlife winter range. Even though you gain a net amount of positive acres in the exchange does not mean they are close to equal.
A positive response to this deal may very well accelerate more piss poor deals down the road.
A positive response to this deal may very well accelerate more piss poor deals down the road.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
Well, I see potential problems with the status quo, but at any rate there is virtually no support for this without conservation easements that protect against such development and I would encourage people to phrase it that way rather than categorically opposing the swap because of hypothetical development.
RobG
Well-known member
Honestly, as I said before, in sum the swap by the YC, Switchback, and Crazy Mountain Ranch is decidedly in favor of the public, even before Smeller lake was thrown in. Really, all the "developers" (Leuchen in this case) get is section 2, which is already developed along the road, and the YC gets the land in Big Sky.
Show me on the map the sections you are talking about that the developers will get.
Legend:
CA: Carroccias, ranchers and also guest cabins.
WP: Ward Parker (long time local... don't know much else)
HS: Hailstone, longtime rancher.
SB: Switchback Ranch (Leuchen, wealthy individual, member of Yellowstone club)
[edit]... PS, Switchback ranch is already developing this inholdings. He put a cabin on the section just south of Twin Lakes in the lower left of this map. Presumably it is a winter cabin for helicopter skiing. This is why I see much bigger potential for development of inholdings than the land they get, even without conservation easements.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
RobG,
Just answer the question, I don't need a term paper or a detailed explanation with you asking me questions.
Does the exchange benefit a luxury real estate developer? Yes, or no?
I'm not taking a position one way or the other on the exchange. Just trying to sort out why you're so fearful of the truth if some of the exchanged lands will be developed.
I'm sick and tired of having to "toe the line" so someone/some entity (landowner, real estate agents, politicians, clubs, outfitters, etc.) aren't offended by the truth and their intentions.
IMO/E, whether or not I support or oppose a land exchange hinges on the intent of those championing/opposing the exchange. Just an FYI, development doesn't just impact the footprint of the development. It can impact, significantly, migration corridors, how animals use surrounding public and private lands, increase stress on big-game, and a host of other considerations.
It's a fair question that deserves a yes/no answer...its not up to you to pontificate on why someone may oppose or support an exchange that benefits a real estate development. That's up to those commenting to decide.
Last edited:
RobG, I don’t trust any of the private landowners on the map above to not develop or eventually sell to the developer (YC, Leuschen, maybe someone else!). Sections 2 and the section 14 corner seem like obvious routes for a road which would make these sections extremely valuable real estate to any profit driven landowner who is intent on developing or selling to a developer some day in the future. Also, since none of the FS sections to be exchanged would be protected by conservation easements assuredly screams at me, ‘hundreds of mountain mansions’. To me, it doesn’t matter who the private land owners are at this moment because I am confident if this consolidation occurs, the land we’ve been examining for so long will eventually be a giant luxury subdivision. Multiple private landowners being involved with this proposal seems like nothing more than convenient smoke and mirrors for the Yellowstone Club (I’ll bet the YC and Leuschen have hundreds of land ‘holders’ and business entities that they indirectly own and control). I mean for f**** sake if the Yellowstone Club or David Leuschen are involved in the tiniest way they are maneuvering for a place to build a luxury subdivision and ski resort.
CA: Carroccias, ranchers and also guest cabins.
WP: Ward Parker (long time local... don't know much else)
HS: Hailstone, longtime rancher.
SB: Switchback Ranch (Leuchen, wealthy individual, member of Yellowstone club)
RobG, all of the most beautiful, productive farms and ranches that I have had to watch get destroyed by real estate developers, were originally owned by trusted ‘locals’, ‘longtime ranchers’ and farmers. Not coincidentally the US Forest Service has also provided more than its fair share of pristine land to real estate developers.
WP: Ward Parker (long time local... don't know much else)
HS: Hailstone, longtime rancher.
SB: Switchback Ranch (Leuchen, wealthy individual, member of Yellowstone club)
RobG, all of the most beautiful, productive farms and ranches that I have had to watch get destroyed by real estate developers, were originally owned by trusted ‘locals’, ‘longtime ranchers’ and farmers. Not coincidentally the US Forest Service has also provided more than its fair share of pristine land to real estate developers.
RobG, I imagine the development of land for subdivisions and ski resorts is made exponentially more difficult when that land is an inholding within the USForest boundary versus when that land-to-be-developed is all adjoining and outside the forest boundary. Even with all of that big YC $, the YC investors are still going to demand a return on their investment. I imagine a return on investment will be much harder to achieve when the only form of transportation to and from that real estate investment is by helicopter.
And what happens to the long term ROI of YC heli skiing if you have to get clients on the helicopters in Big Sky or Belgrade versus walking out to the helipad a few hundred yards below your mansion on Sweetgrass Creek.
RobG
Well-known member
Guys... make support conditional on having conservation easements on these parcels. That's what everyone else is doing. It will be a net gain in protection over what exists now. End of story.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,036
I could be wrong, but the conservation easements might be deal breakers for the private interests involved in the trade.
There is some reason they are not there presently. It did not just happen.
At the root of this is that as agricultural land, it is of minimal value. It has tremendous value for other uses. Sadly wealthy interests can pay a higher price to satisfy their interests than most anyone else.
There is some reason they are not there presently. It did not just happen.
At the root of this is that as agricultural land, it is of minimal value. It has tremendous value for other uses. Sadly wealthy interests can pay a higher price to satisfy their interests than most anyone else.
BuzzH
Well-known member
RobG
Well-known member
Buzz, uh, no. Show me on the map where it hurts you.
peterk1234
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 484
Ya, I'm with you. There is no way that the private interest is doing this for the public good.
I heard that two of the ranch owners are members of YC. Anyone know if that is truth?
Drake4
Well-known member
I’m 100% against this. My comments are submitted.
If I get anything out of this thread…you better not have a different opinion than Rob!
If I get anything out of this thread…you better not have a different opinion than Rob!
Similar threads
