Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That is a good thing, smithrmk ... and a typical traditonal rural Montana neighborhood dynamic. However, free beer and burgers is a far cry from "help at a moment's notice".
Save Our Durfee Hills Public Lands Petition
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
double_a85
Member
Your right, it was. How many people do the Wilkes let use their landing strip they built? That is where this plane landed.
Bugle 'Em In
Well-known member
Kat- what is your target # of signers before you do something with the petition? When is the point driven home that there are a lot of people opposed to either the current proposal or the proposal at all?
It would be interesting if the Wilks generated their own petition, to see what kind of numbers it would generate.
In all honesty, to me it feels like it's already a done deal....but I've misread things before.
It would be interesting if the Wilks generated their own petition, to see what kind of numbers it would generate.
In all honesty, to me it feels like it's already a done deal....but I've misread things before.
double_a85
Member
So I was in the area Saturday chasing antelope with my bow and trying to find a covey of sharptail for the dog... Talked to a great local landowner near the Durfee Hills who lent some tools to some guys who was having plane trouble... was it anyone on this site?
katqanna
Well-known member
Bugle, I helped the CMO hunters set it up that night, so it is theirs to control for end date and such, I also did some networking of the petition. They are also collecting hand signatures from all the technophobes.
An interesting development just happened, when I requested all the sign in sheets, minutes of the scoping meetings and the public comments, had to do it as a FOIA because they wouldnt give me the public information, they didnt give me all the public comments. They are missing mine and a bunch of others from a federal public record. So I had to send an official email to a bunch of higher ups asking where our comments were, the common denominator being that we all advocated for an east or no road, but no Wilks Durfee Hills land exchange.
Ive got people calling me telling me that is against the law. They cant withhold public information or delete it from the record. So now I have to look that up too. I was so busy with game damage and elk shoulder season, and that sneak documentation trip, that I forgot to make time to get back in touch with the Washington attorney that wanted to be kept apprised of what was going on. So that is on my to do list when I get back from 2 days at the Helena EQC meeting. Maybe I can squeeze that in tomorrow before I go.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
...
Last edited:
katqanna
Well-known member
I received an email from Lewistown BLM Sept. 8th saying they were doing some redecorating, so it might take some time to find the missing comments, that he would get back with me possibly by the end of the month. Then I got an email on the 29th stating they had found approx. 197 missing comments and they were sending them to me. I just received my certified mail CD yesterday from the MT FOIA office. I need to compare the duplicates to the first batch and see who is duplicated again and remove them from the total (I'll get to that in a couple days, have some tax stuff to deal with today and tomorrow).
There were 141 comments on 191 pages. Here is the rough breakdown.
There were 4 that wanted an access road restored, but didnt stated exactly what they wanted, just access. 20 stated they wanted a road, either on the west or east side, which ever was better, just get it done. 78 were specific to the east side road access being built. 11 didnt want any road at all, feeling that other access points or removing roads was best. 22 were for a Wilks land exchange ( a number of these are duplicates from the first batch) and 3 wanted eminent domain. 2 were verbose comments that really didnt really specify anything but spoke about a number of issues. So that makes 98 total for east side road on this CD. I'd call that a majority.
There are some interesting things with this batch, except for 1 comment that looks like one of the scoping meeting forms, all the rest are emails, no hand written notes, no mailed notes with the BLM stamps on them when they received them. The reason I point this out is that I deal with computers. I have built mine and others, repaired, restored computers for decades. You can retrieve deleted data from a server or and computer hard drive. There were some emails in the first batch, so it wasnt like all the emails got put in one batch and simply separated. But you cant retrieve comments, from lets say, "losing" them in a real word trash can after months, like you can a hard drive.
One of the interesting emails in this batch may help explain why the Friends of the Monument are so willing to throw other habitat and abundant wildlife under the bus for their special interests.
Ryan Kuehn wrote strong opposition to a road, cited BLM's statement about cost and trouble, then brought up their personal interest, "We are wondering where the money is going to come from. Given that BLM operates on tight budgets, we would be curious to know what projects, programs or focus areas will be cancelled or delayed due to this road-building project. The Friends and our volunteers are particularly concerned about the fate of our cottonwood restoration collaborative with the Friends, BLM and the Conservation Districts Council if BLM has to pay for and staff this road building project."
There were 141 comments on 191 pages. Here is the rough breakdown.
There were 4 that wanted an access road restored, but didnt stated exactly what they wanted, just access. 20 stated they wanted a road, either on the west or east side, which ever was better, just get it done. 78 were specific to the east side road access being built. 11 didnt want any road at all, feeling that other access points or removing roads was best. 22 were for a Wilks land exchange ( a number of these are duplicates from the first batch) and 3 wanted eminent domain. 2 were verbose comments that really didnt really specify anything but spoke about a number of issues. So that makes 98 total for east side road on this CD. I'd call that a majority.
There are some interesting things with this batch, except for 1 comment that looks like one of the scoping meeting forms, all the rest are emails, no hand written notes, no mailed notes with the BLM stamps on them when they received them. The reason I point this out is that I deal with computers. I have built mine and others, repaired, restored computers for decades. You can retrieve deleted data from a server or and computer hard drive. There were some emails in the first batch, so it wasnt like all the emails got put in one batch and simply separated. But you cant retrieve comments, from lets say, "losing" them in a real word trash can after months, like you can a hard drive.
One of the interesting emails in this batch may help explain why the Friends of the Monument are so willing to throw other habitat and abundant wildlife under the bus for their special interests.
Ryan Kuehn wrote strong opposition to a road, cited BLM's statement about cost and trouble, then brought up their personal interest, "We are wondering where the money is going to come from. Given that BLM operates on tight budgets, we would be curious to know what projects, programs or focus areas will be cancelled or delayed due to this road-building project. The Friends and our volunteers are particularly concerned about the fate of our cottonwood restoration collaborative with the Friends, BLM and the Conservation Districts Council if BLM has to pay for and staff this road building project."
katqanna
Well-known member
Well, I just called Lewistown BLM to get my periodic update from Stan Benes about the Durfee Hills trespass investigation and Stan is no longer with the BLM, he left on Friday. That makes two that have been involved with this issue that are gone, and still the investigation is "ongoing".
On Oct. 1st, I received a 2nd CD certified with 191 pages of public comments they found after my email to them that there were substantial missing public comments.
Here is a PDF breakdown of the date the comment was submitted or received by the BLM office, if it had either, the name, and general preferences indicated.
GA – General Access, not specific to how
R – Road, doesn't matter whether or both east or west, just put a road in
ER – East side road built
NR – No Road being built
LE - Wilks Land Exchange
ED – Eminent Domain
Removing the duplicates with the same date with the same message, either on the same disk or spread out between the two disks, there were a total of 189 individual comments, but one was actually a question, leaving 188 actual comments. 1 comment did not advocate for any alternative, simply stated NO Wilks Land Exchange. That left 187 comments that fell within the above categories. Below is the tally and percentage.
General Access – 7
Road – 27
East Road – 87
No Road – 15
Land Exchange - 48
Eminent Domain – 3
The 48 Wilks Land Exchange comments equals only 25.67% of the total. Adding the 27 Road (either side) to the 87 East Road, you get 114, which is 61% wanting a road to be built to restore Bullwhacker Access, clearly a majority. How does BLM justify making such erroneous public statements, "The public overwhelmingly said they wanted us to reconsider a land exchange as a possible alternative," when basic math shows the public has once again stated they do not want the Wilks Land Exchange, they want a road to restore the Bullwhacker Access.
If you havent signed the current petition (almost at 2,800), please sign to retain a public presence involved with one of our largest elk herds in Montana and the public use of some gorgeous elk habitat.
On Oct. 1st, I received a 2nd CD certified with 191 pages of public comments they found after my email to them that there were substantial missing public comments.
Here is a PDF breakdown of the date the comment was submitted or received by the BLM office, if it had either, the name, and general preferences indicated.
GA – General Access, not specific to how
R – Road, doesn't matter whether or both east or west, just put a road in
ER – East side road built
NR – No Road being built
LE - Wilks Land Exchange
ED – Eminent Domain
Removing the duplicates with the same date with the same message, either on the same disk or spread out between the two disks, there were a total of 189 individual comments, but one was actually a question, leaving 188 actual comments. 1 comment did not advocate for any alternative, simply stated NO Wilks Land Exchange. That left 187 comments that fell within the above categories. Below is the tally and percentage.
General Access – 7
Road – 27
East Road – 87
No Road – 15
Land Exchange - 48
Eminent Domain – 3
The 48 Wilks Land Exchange comments equals only 25.67% of the total. Adding the 27 Road (either side) to the 87 East Road, you get 114, which is 61% wanting a road to be built to restore Bullwhacker Access, clearly a majority. How does BLM justify making such erroneous public statements, "The public overwhelmingly said they wanted us to reconsider a land exchange as a possible alternative," when basic math shows the public has once again stated they do not want the Wilks Land Exchange, they want a road to restore the Bullwhacker Access.
If you havent signed the current petition (almost at 2,800), please sign to retain a public presence involved with one of our largest elk herds in Montana and the public use of some gorgeous elk habitat.
Last edited:
RobG
Well-known member
They have never expected anything like "The Kat."
I hope the ones that left are the ones that were behind all this garbage.
Similar threads
