East Crazy Mountain Land Exchange

[Horseman]

What is stopping them from developing one of the private sections with infrastructure and leasing the checkerboard public around it to accomplish it?

HOPEFULLY the Forest Service. I imagine the only entity that could possibly throw a wrench into the gears of the Yellowstone Club excavators will be the USFS/Federal Government…but I wouldn’t be surprised if the YC already has the FS stacked with their people and padded with their filthy money. I’m all for BHA style lawsuits on this one. I imagine the only way to make an elite ski resort unprofitable these days would be if the only way to get there was by helicopter.

 

[sclancy27]

HOPEFULLY the Forest Service. I imagine the only entity that could possibly throw a wrench into the gears of the Yellowstone Club excavators will be the USFS/Federal Government…but I wouldn’t be surprised if the YC already has the FS stacked with their people and padded with their filthy money. I’m all for BHA style lawsuits on this one. I imagine the only way to make an elite ski resort unprofitable these days would be if the only way to get there was by helicopter.

I think the plan would actually be to have a private heli-skiing resort. They could already accomplish this with the available checkerboard private lands in that area.

 

[Horseman]

I think the plan would actually be to have a private heli-skiing resort. They could already accomplish this with the available checkerboard private lands in that area.

Can the Yellowstone Club accomplish the same scale of wreckage as they did in the Madisons with helicopters? I doubt it-but that’s just my guess and hope-but YC spending power and influence never ceases to amaze me. I imagine these developers would need a large road to accomplish what they really want and that would need to be permitted by the USFS with the current map of land ownership. However, it looks to me like the consolidation of FS lands in the manner proposed by the FS would give YC an immediate green light for the next massive project of their dreams

 

[Gerald Martin]

Am I correct in summarizing that all parties on the conservation front are now opposed to this deal even though there is disagreement over the main points of opposition?

 

[Horseman]

And I’d bet that many if not all of the private landowners along the upper sweet grass/NE crazies forest boundary have already given the Yellowstone Club money men a handshake to sell at their premium price if the land exchange takes place as proposed.

 

[Southern Elk]

I'm really confused by all of this, but I am against anything Yellowstone Club. I hate the thought of the Crazies being developed like the Madisons. I guess that's going to happen whether we like it or not.

 

[Horseman]

Am I correct in summarizing that all parties on the conservation front are now opposed to this deal even though there is disagreement over the main points of opposition?

I’d say say anyone who appreciates open land, wildlife and small towns should hurry up and voice a well thought opposition. If you are someone that doesn’t mind seeing a whole mountain range turned into a playground for the worlds wealthiest or small MT towns turned into unaffordable sprawling subdivisions with traffic jams of luxury vehicles go ahead and be a proponent of this proposal. To me the choice to oppose seems obvious.

 

[sclancy27]

Can the Yellowstone Club accomplish the same scale of wreckage as they did in the Madisons with helicopters? I doubt it-but that’s just my guess and hope-but YC spending power and influence never ceases to amaze me. I imagine these developers would need a large road to accomplish what they really want and that would need to be permitted by the USFS with the current map of land ownership. However, it looks to me like the consolidation of FS lands in the manner proposed by the FS would give YC an immediate green light for the next massive project of their dreams

Wouldn't trading the higher elevation land to the FS for lower elevation land remove the ability to create a massive private ski resort?

Also, now that FS has changed some important details for the land swap, it doesn't really make sense anymore. I was in support of an earlier revision of the swap.

 

[Horseman]

Wouldn't trading the higher elevation land to the FS for lower elevation land remove the ability to create a massive private ski resort?

Also, now that FS has changed some important details for the land swap, it doesn't really make sense anymore. I was in support of an earlier revision of the swap.

Ultimately probably none of us know what the YC plans to do with the land after the proposed exchange. But considering the fact that under the current proposal they get creek bottom sections (major roads) and all land conveyed without conservation easements (luxury homes), I’m pretty confident in my prediction of where they plan to build the hundreds of luxury mountain mansions. The fact that crazy mountain ranch and switchback ranch (for all intents and purposes both of these entities are YC) own all of the private, alpine, ski terrain sections definitely scares me…BUT if the YC gets their proposed land exchange they WILL build a subdivision and eventually have the largest stake and ‘say’ in the future of the Crazies-and a massive footprint on the watershed and rural ag lands below. Don’t forget about the impact that the original Yellowstone Club has had on the Gallatin river, Gallatin valley and quality of life in and around Bozeman/Belgrade. As of now they’re landlocked out of their desires for the Crazy Mountains just like we are.

 

[Tlrussell]

Can the Yellowstone Club accomplish the same scale of wreckage as they did in the Madisons with helicopters? I doubt it-but that’s just my guess and hope-but YC spending power and influence never ceases to amaze me. I imagine these developers would need a large road to accomplish what they really want and that would need to be permitted by the USFS with the current map of land ownership. However, it looks to me like the consolidation of FS lands in the manner proposed by the FS would give YC an immediate green light for the next massive project of their dreams

Not sure where you live, but you should slide over to Clyde park and see the road they have been building for the last few months. Buy me a beer when you come over

 

[sclancy27]

Ultimately probably none of us know what the YC plans to do with the land after the proposed exchange. But considering the fact that under the current proposal they get creek bottom sections (major roads) and all land conveyed without conservation easements (luxury homes), I’m pretty confident in my prediction of where they plan to build the hundreds of luxury mountain mansions. The fact that crazy mountain ranch and switchback ranch (for all intents and purposes both of these entities are YC) own all of the private, alpine, ski terrain sections definitely scares me…BUT if the YC gets their proposed land exchange they WILL build a subdivision and eventually have the largest stake and ‘say’ in the future of the Crazies-and a massive footprint on the watershed and rural ag lands below. Don’t forget about the impact that the original Yellowstone Club has had on the Gallatin river, Gallatin valley and quality of life in and around Bozeman/Belgrade. As of now they’re landlocked out of their desires for the Crazy Mountains just like we are.

You realize that YC in the Gallatin was created with a land swap with FS...? The choice was between the current location or the Taylors Fork (I believe). FS traded lands near Big Sky and got lands on the Taylors Fork.

And the reason the current land swap is DOA now is the removal of CE's on some of the swapped land (a method for avoiding subdivisions) and the removal of the ability to fight for access to Sweet Grass Cr through the contested road/trail corridor.

Funny enough, I have accessed Sweetgrass Cr and the trail way back in the day when the owners were different. We called them up and they allowed us to access through their land.

And, they are not landlocked out of any of their desires. Sure, if they want a road they are. But you don't think that YC-type people have enough money to be helicoptered to a private inholding in the Crazies where there is a big ol house/lodge on lake.....

 

[Horseman]

The Yellowstone dam is a horrible analogy. The only way it would match would be to base conditional support based on an unrelated matter. Furthermore, the fate of that unrelated matter would have nothing to do with the status of the dam. The Sweet Grass was purposely left unresolved so that if people want to resolve it, they can do so at any time.

I also see that the antis already trying to set the narrative that this is all about the Yellowstone club, instead of the merits of the swap, or even the actual role of the YC. In today's paper John claimed the swap was created by the Yellowstone Club. False. It was created by an independent group with involvement of other stakeholders, and I was personally invited to review it by John Tester's land guy, Erik Nylund. Erik told me the people who did it were straight shooters.

Everything I have seen indicates the Yellowstone Club's involvement is benign. In fact they have now included Smeller Lake. The real threat is if it doesn't go through as this would invite the YC and others to develop their inholdings. It would also likely get passed anyway by the alternate route of Congress, and you can bet it will be a lot worse if it does that.

Also, I don’t see the YC having a real shot at ‘an alternate route of congress’ (whatever you mean by that?) unless they can show congress that they’ve made a far more substantial investment than the purchase and holding of landlocked private sections that have not changed since the inception of the USFS. If they get their subdivision, roads and infrastructure along the east crazies I would view ‘an alternate route of congress’ being a real possibility in their push to create another massive private ski area in the crazies just like big sky resort.

 

[Horseman]

You realize that YC in the Gallatin was created with a land swap with FS...? The choice was between the current location or the Taylors Fork (I believe). FS traded lands near Big Sky and got lands on the Taylors Fork.

And the reason the current land swap is DOA now is the removal of CE's on some of the swapped land (a method for avoiding subdivisions) and the removal of the ability to fight for access to Sweet Grass Cr through the contested road/trail corridor.

Funny enough, I have accessed Sweetgrass Cr and the trail way back in the day when the owners were different. We called them up and they allowed us to access through their land.

And, they are not landlocked out of any of their desires. Sure, if they want a road they are. But you don't think that YC-type people have enough money to be helicoptered to a private inholding in the Crazies where there is a big ol house/lodge on lake.....

By DOA, do you mean dead on arrival? Because the comment period for this terrible land exchange proposal isn’t over and the proposal isn’t dead until the Custer Gallatin NF reads our comments and hopefully and officially says it’s dead. Btw I know what conservation easements (CE) are-they are f***ing awesome at preventing unspoiled productive land from being destroyed by the greediest in our society…in my comments to the NF I specifically said that I was absolutely opposed to the east crazies inspiration divide land exchange because under their proposal the public would forever lose claim/access to the sweetgrass easement (terrible precedent to set) and none of the transferred FS lands would be protected by conservation easements

 

[Zac-K]

RobG it has been quite some time since I got up to speed on this thread but reading the past five pages of thread one thing that has had me laughing out loud is your insistence that if people’s comments on this proposal don’t match yours “they will be discarded”! This time around it’s the real deal PUBLIC comment period and not the exclusive invite that I for one was never represented in or invited to “East Crazy Mountain Working Group” or is it “Crazy Mountain Access Project” now?, regardless you or any other exclusive invite to those groups now don’t get to dictate what is “substantive comments” or not. It’s refreshing not to get kicked out when I have a dissenting opinion, I rather like democracy.

Sorry bud that’s not how this works. Everybody gets their say, it’s the beauty of this grand PUBLIC land system we all pay taxes on and all get to have a voice on how they are used or in this case if they get bartered and traded.

Chalk me up as vehemently opposed to this land swap, you can read my PUBLIC comment on the PUBLIC “reading room” when I finish it in a couple of days if you’re curious. It will be right there with the rest of all of them, for all of the PUBLIC to read. Not discarded to the side

 

[Tlrussell]

Home

CRAZY MOUNTAIN RANCH IS A PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP EXPERIENCE SET ON 18,000 EXTRAORDINARY ACRES IN THE STATE OF MONTANA. TAKE ONE PART WORKING RANCH, COMBINE WITH GOLF, LODGING, GREAT FOOD & DRINK, PLUS EVERYTHING ELSE THERE IS TO SEE & DO HERE, & YOU’VE GOT SOMETHING BEYOND SPECIAL. THIS IS A PLACE

crazymountainranch.com

 

[Irrelevant]

 

[Zac-K]

Also after read through the chain and folks here have written that the proposal has changed, and that change caused them to change their position from support to opposition. Other than the addition of Smeller Lake, I don’t see anything different from the proposal that was shopped around by the Western Lands Group in 2020. PLWA, MWF and BHA submitted letters of conditional support in 2020 which highlighted major issues that needed to be addressed to gain support. All were rejected. Many of the major problems being discussed here were highlighted back then on this this very Hunt Talk thread.

To my knowledge, no conservation organization has ever been in favor of this swap. The following organizations are and have been publicly opposed: PLWA, Friends of the Crazy Mountains (Local), Park County Rod and Gun Club (Local), Wild Montana, EMWH, Montana Sportsman’s Alliance, Helena Hunters and Anglers and Hellgate Hunters and Anglers and Montana BHA. More appear to be in the process as the details emerge.

Some of those who signed on to this exchange early were hand-selected to create the appearance support and collaboration, however they were clearly not qualified to be in the room “representing” conservation or the hunting public.

I have seen people recommend submitting support the land swap, but with changes. The USFS doesn’t give you that option under the preliminary EA for this comment period. There are only two options: (1) Accept as is or (2) Reject with comments.

 

[RobG]

Also after read through the chain and folks here have written that the proposal has changed, and that change caused them to change their position from support to opposition. Other than the addition of Smeller Lake, I don’t see anything different from the proposal that was shopped around by the Western Lands Group in 2020. PLWA, MWF and BHA submitted letters of conditional support in 2020 which highlighted major issues that needed to be addressed to gain support. All were rejected. Many of the major problems being discussed here were highlighted back then on this this very Hunt Talk thread.

To my knowledge, no conservation organization has ever been in favor of this swap. The following organizations are and have been publicly opposed: PLWA, Friends of the Crazy Mountains (Local), Park County Rod and Gun Club (Local), Wild Montana, EMWH, Montana Sportsman’s Alliance, Helena Hunters and Anglers and Hellgate Hunters and Anglers and Montana BHA. More appear to be in the process as the details emerge.

Some of those who signed on to this exchange early were hand-selected to create the appearance support and collaboration, however they were clearly not qualified to be in the room “representing” conservation or the hunting public.

I have seen people recommend submitting support the land swap, but with changes. The USFS doesn’t give you that option under the preliminary EA for this comment period. There are only two options: (1) Accept as is or (2) Reject with comments

RobG it has been quite some time since I got up to speed on this thread but reading the past five pages of thread one thing that has had me laughing out loud is your insistence that if people’s comments on this proposal don’t match yours “they will be discarded”! This time around it’s the real deal PUBLIC comment period and not the exclusive invite that I for one was never represented in or invited to “East Crazy Mountain Working Group” or is it “Crazy Mountain Access Project” now?, regardless you or any other exclusive invite to those groups now don’t get to dictate what is “substantive comments” or not. It’s refreshing not to get kicked out when I have a dissenting opinion, I rather like democracy.

Sorry bud that’s not how this works. Everybody gets their say, it’s the beauty of this grand PUBLIC land system we all pay taxes on and all get to have a voice on how they are used or in this case if they get bartered and traded.

Chalk me up as vehemently opposed to this land swap, you can read my PUBLIC comment on the PUBLIC “reading room” when I finish it in a couple of days if you’re curious. It will be right there with the rest of all of them, for all of the PUBLIC to read. Not discarded to the side

Zak, I mean this respectively, but you keep misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I say about comments needing to be relevant (aka substantive or actionable) for them to be utilized by the USFS. I'll leave it at that.

 

[RobG]

Also after read through the chain and folks here have written that the proposal has changed, and that change caused them to change their position from support to opposition. Other than the addition of Smeller Lake, I don’t see anything different from the proposal that was shopped around by the Western Lands Group in 2020. PLWA, MWF and BHA submitted letters of conditional support in 2020 which highlighted major issues that needed to be addressed to gain support. All were rejected. Many of the major problems being discussed here were highlighted back then on this this very Hunt Talk thread.

To my knowledge, no conservation organization has ever been in favor of this swap. The following organizations are and have been publicly opposed: PLWA, Friends of the Crazy Mountains (Local), Park County Rod and Gun Club (Local), Wild Montana, EMWH, Montana Sportsman’s Alliance, Helena Hunters and Anglers and Hellgate Hunters and Anglers and Montana BHA. More appear to be in the process as the details emerge.

Some of those who signed on to this exchange early were hand-selected to create the appearance support and collaboration, however they were clearly not qualified to be in the room “representing” conservation or the hunting public.

I have seen people recommend submitting support the land swap, but with changes. The USFS doesn’t give you that option under the preliminary EA for this comment period. There are only two options: (1) Accept as is or (2) Reject with comments.

Zak - the agreement was built on a foundation of not giving up the rights to Sweet Grass Creek. Also, there was an assumption of conservation easements that isn't present. Those are two huge changes that killed all support.

MWF, Montana Wilderness Society (now Montana Wild), and PCEC (local) are much more influential than any of those groups, except BHA in the last few years. (Interestingly enough, when this started 5-6 years ago I had a hard time finding anyone working on this who was familiar with BHA as they were very small back then.)

But again, given the changes, nobody supports this proposal.

John Salazar, who is on the board of MWF and lives in Livingston, has a few good points. I especially agree that it would be better to use LWCF money for the trail to get that out of the equation.

 

[RobG]

@John B. Sullivan III
Regarding fisheries, I have been focused on the Crazies. Sweet Grass Creek would be the major "loss" but it is dry on the public sections. Rock Creek in the South Crazies also goes dry in some sections, and these sections are fishless even when there is water. Therefore, I am not too concerned about it.

I haven't looked into the Inspiration Divide part of the swap. Presumably you are concerned about the headwaters of the SF of the WF Gallatin River. The PEA describes that fishery as one that might contain sculpin, but sampling is needed to verify that they are present. Losing a potential sculpin fishery isn't too concerning to me.

Page 51-52 describes the loss in stream fishing opportunity as "minor," and there will be an increase in lake fisheries.