Understanding Public Land Parcels/ SUN Ranch

[Addicting]

I have been following this forum and the discussions on Federal land sales to State then to Private and how it ties to money. I also have been listening to the Podcasts. I want to make sure that I am understanding everything. I took a screen shot of the 648 acres of state land and 40 acres of BLM that is surrounded by the Sun Ranch. I thought this would be a good snapshot to help explain it.




The Owners of the Sun ranch spent a lot of money to purchase it. Spending that kind of money tells me they genuinely wouldn't want Joe Public walking around on it. So is this State Property one that would be "non Productive" and be placed up for sale as it is land locked. It appears they would control the road going into it. You will have to take your chances on the corner crossing from BLM. If it did get nominated for sale, none of us would likely be able to buy it before the Sun Ranch engulfed it and at that point there isn't much use for that 40 acres of BLM.

Again I am new at this so I am trying to understand, Teach me and don't criticize, this is just a scenario and not actually happening.

SO,

Thought #1 That spot could likely hold a decent whitetail because there is agriculture NE of it. Deer are public property assests and we should be allowed to harvest it if it is within those boundaries. This would be a good spot to recreate or view wildlife because of the wildlife that surrounds it. Crucify anyone who dares mention the word sell.

Thought #2 Due to access, public / land owner disputes, money spent on enforcement. Sell this property to the ranch for a high dollar amount and use those funds in areas that are more conducive to the public. Improve trail systems so kids/aging/veterans/people with disabilities can access and see what they are missing. Improve the schools by getting the new generation out from behind a computer and seeing what available to them.

Thought #3. Sell at a reduced price and the Sun Ranch must provide a ROW easement to NFS/State of Montana to Wolf Creek Trail. What potential the public looses on that 680 acres is gained + some by getting access back to a established trail system.

Thought#4. They sell it based on false promises and piss away the money and the public gets nothing in return.

Who manages this decision at the land boards and why don't we the public get a say in how transactions get best executed? Seems like we vote on everything else these days from tax millage to pot dispensaries.

Thanks Tony

 

[Addicting]

Guess no teachers on here today!

I just finished all of Randy's videos on this so I have good understand on that platform, I agree with not transferring Federal lands.

I do wonder about land management at the State level still. There has to be more to this than "dark money" and back door deals. Not for a min do I think that those don't actually happen, as greed goes a long way. At the end of the day, there has to be some good that comes out of the sale of some of these properties. As sportsman and women we adapt to change and have a way of finding the silver lining on crap storm. Is there any out there? What about the SRI River holdings land exchange? http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/docs/real-estate-management/FinalApprovalSRIRanchLandExchange.pdf

This appears to of given the public 2 years worth of notice and hearings and benefits the schools more than the current situation. Or am I looking at this wrong?

 

[Big Fin]

Lots of complexities to that scenario. I am disinherting the Federal Treasury today, but when I get home tonight, I will try to chime in with some of the complications.

 

[Addicting]

I am just try to get a Barney level of understanding. Thanks for looking into it.

 

[JBS]

That is an interesting scenario. The road also appears private. Without corner crossing or a change in legal access to state land (legalizing access from the air) the state section appears inaccessible. Potentially land ownership adjacent to the section could change and permission could be granted.
As far as the 40 acres of BLM it provides access to the Madison from highway 287 and could also be used for a river camp.
I look forward to a more knowledgeable reply.

 

[brendog84cj8]

Can you walk up what looks to be Moose Creek(staying below the high water mark) until you get to the (probably non marked) state section boundary?

 

[Southern Elk]

That road is private and there's a ranch house on the private land right by the private road.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Can you walk up what looks to be Moose Creek(staying below the high water mark) until you get to the (probably non marked) state section boundary?

Doesn't matter. I don't think you can use the stream access law for hunting access.
There would need to be a public road abutting the state section boundary for it to be accessible. The up the stream or cross the corner tricks are not presently legal for access.

 

[Schaaf]

As SA said, I don't believe stream access is legal when using to access State lands for hunting. Am I correct in thinking you can use the Stream Access for Federal lands?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I moved to Montana from CO so have and have talked to numerous wardens about this, it is 100% legal to use the stream to access this property as long as you are waterfowl hunting or fishing, put a three piece rod in your bag and walk up there with a rifle and you are legal with any warden. You also could paddle up the stream with a boat. There are numerous places in Montana with river only access that are incredible places to hunt. My favorite duck and whitetail spot is just like this also happens to be a spot that rinella hunted a bunch when he was in the area.

 

[antlerradar]

It would depend on if Moose Creek is considered a navigable stream by the state.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I can guarantee you that photo is not of a canoe on Moose Creek. Of all the places in Montana where you might be tempted to put your fly rod in your bag and your rifle on your pack to access between high water marks to test the access laws to landlocked public lands for hunting ... the Sun Ranch area of Madison Valley is the last place I would recommend, for a number of reasons.
Having said that, I do believe that similar to the restriction to landlocked state sections, you cannot use the stream access law to access USFS or BLM for big game hunting ... permission from "numerous wardens" or not.

 

[onpoint]

"...... and you are legal with any warden".

Respectfully, every time I hear that or something similar,
As a wise older gentlemen I knew used to love to say with a wry smile - "lemme know how that works out for you".

 

[Deleted member 28227]

No it is not on moose creek... just a navigable but extremely small creek in Montana to demonstrate the point, you definitely can't do this with moose creek and Straight Arrow you absolutely can use the stream law that way, the law says that you can use stream access to boat, hunt waterfowl, and fish. You cannot hike stream access for the sake of hiking through or to hunt big game, but in the same way you can float the river to access private locked parcels you can walk up with a rod to hunt and fish.

I didn't just get a wink wink from my local warden on this, in 2015 I called the Helena, Bozeman, and Missoula office and tried to get up as high the food chain I could to get an answer and also called the local USFS office as well as got the ok from the them.

Colorado stream law is very different and doesn't allow you to touch bottom at all I had a buddy get a trespassing ticket for holding his drift boat in place by putting his foot on a rock in the middle of the river, I was therefore super paranoid and called a bunch of people to see if there was consensus.

Generally speaking I think you have to be very careful with land transfer because each piece of land may have it's own caveats, what if this same piece abuted a landowner that allowed access through permission or even a BMA on one side... on a map it might look landlocked but it's actually getting lots of public use.

There are definitely parcels that could be swapped for the common good, but in my mind there are far too many people who would take advantage of the system and try to pass off parcels of value as useless to the public for their own gain.

 

[Addicting]

It is not navigable unless you are a muskrat. This has a tube under the road from what google earth shows, your not going to canoe that. That is one of the reasons I chose this piece. How many people try accessing it or use the Wardens time trying to find ways to access it. At what point does this piece show a profit that it would be deemed productive as explained in the land board terms?

As a NR I am forced to pay that $10 fee when I buy my license to use that land even though I cannot step foot on it to even hike. At that point wouldn't the sale of that piece be worth more to the public in a different venue?

 

[Straight Arrow]

You cannot hike stream access for the sake of hiking through or to hunt big game ....

That is the point I was making. The original post was regarding big game hunting on a parcel landlocked on the Sun Ranch. The question did not seem to be about fishing or waterfowl hunting.

 

[MTGomer]

The state has defined by name which water bodies are 'navigable.' It's not a subjective term based on your vessel and stream flow.

 

[RobG]

I moved to Montana from CO so have and have talked to numerous wardens about this, it is 100% legal to use the stream to access this property as long as you are waterfowl hunting or fishing, put a three piece rod in your bag and walk up there with a rifle and you are legal with any warden. You also could paddle up the stream with a boat. There are numerous places in Montana with river only access that are incredible places to hunt. My favorite duck and whitetail spot is just like this also happens to be a spot that rinella hunted a bunch when he was in the area.

A few years ago I talked with the Bozeman office of FWP about doing this on the Gallatin and I was pretty sure I was told I had to use a boat or an inner tube, etc. Specifically, I couldn't just fish my way down the river and start hunting when I hit public. This struck me as strange since the Gallatin is one of the listed navigable rivers and I read elsewhere that you could use the areas below the high water mark for access if listed.

At any rate, Moose Creek isn't listed as navigable so trying the cast/blast thing to access that state land might not end favorably.

 

[Addicting]

Generally speaking I think you have to be very careful with land transfer because each piece of land may have it's own caveats, what if this same piece abuted a landowner that allowed access through permission or even a BMA on one side... on a map it might look landlocked but it's actually getting lots of public use.

There are definitely parcels that could be swapped for the common good, but in my mind there are far too many people who would take advantage of the system and try to pass off parcels of value as useless to the public for their own gain.

I agree with this, that is why I started this thread. A month ago I, as many NRs did not know about any of the issues that most of you have been fighting for a while now. It is not put in front of us and our daily lives are focused on our local environment. So as I am trying to learn about this issue, I don't want to cast a stone saying this is all bad and you shouldn't do any of it until I understand all of the basics. Land Management seems to be a complex issue that needs public oversight. What I am not understanding is how in general this State portion works. Randy's video talk about the millions of acres that the States have sold and the complexities that are imposed on what remains in their control. I just have a hard time believing that all of this is bad. There has to be a way that some good would come out PROPER land management.

Just using this piece as an example, why is the State of Montana funding 640 acres that the Sun Ranch gets to exclusively hunt and fish on for their paying clients? When that funding could be put to use in so many other areas that is accessible to the rest of the public that pays for it.

And I am not advocating one way or the other, I am just trying to understand this.

 

[Southern Elk]

I'm sure the state get's grazing fees by leasing that section. It's not like it has no value. I'm against selling it or any other public parcel. If corner crossing is ever proven to be legal, that parcel can be accessed from the BML. It would be a good test case, if someone wants to challenge corner crossing. I bet the Sun Ranch would gladly prosecute anyone they found there.