Wilks brothers true colors are shining through.....

[Topgun 30-06]

I also checked those coordinates on my Delorme Topo program and it does appear to be close to 100 yards onto the BLM!

 

[wingman1]

More BS. Dozer ran up this hill for 300 yards well on BLM.

 

[bigskyblueman]

I spoke with the Lewistown BLM Field Office today about ongoing Wilks activity . They were already aware that wingman is onsite and they plan an aerial inspection of Durfee Hills next week to get a birdseye view of what is transpiring there.

 

[RobertR]

The BLM also needs to be held accountable and needs to make a public statement as to why this has been let go so far. It's very rare that BLM makes a right of way for any fence.

 

[Bugle 'Em In]

Sadly gentlemen, I think we're all about to be reminded that $$$ will get you whatever you want in this country.

Like everyone else on here, I'm patiently waiting to see what (if anything) the BLM does to stop / correct this IF illegal activity has taken place on public property.

 

[1_pointer]

Dunc, on PDF page 13 (II-7 of the BLM handbook numbering) of the BLM Handbook ,

So even though the fence is on private land, they cannot obstruct the passage of people or wildlife to the public lands. On the next page, PDF page 14 (II-8) sub points, paragraph 3, concerning the Wyoming Red Rim case (United States v. Lawrence - a private landowner), the opening sentence states, "In summary, the 'Red Rim' fence decision (United States v. Lawrence) establishes that legal action by be taken against parties who construct fencing on private lands that could enclose or block access by wildlife to public (Federal) lands."

I just had Staples print and bind the handbook to have a hard copy with me. I was talking with Jack Jones (one of the Butte guys involved in the Turner fence case) last night. I had seen a 2002 Montana Standard article quoting him concerning the BLM Handbook. Searched for a couple hours before I took off for the commissioners work group meeting. It took a couple more hours of digging through additional search phrases before I found it and not on the BLM site. When I spoke with Jack, he said that it was a fluke that he found it many years ago. It was referenced in an old book in one of his range management classes, but no one spoke about the fencing laws involving public lands. He went to BLM to get a copy of the Handbook and they said they didnt know what he was talking about. He eventually got a hold of a copy somewhere else, but feels if more people knew what was in the law, especially from the public hunter perspective, we could be fighting back and protecting our wildlife and Public Lands better. I told him how much I appreciated all their work before and I would make sure to get this to the public.

The thing is, I am wondering if this is applicable to Forest Service lands as well, because I saw a FS EIS when I was searching that had an appendix page referencing the BLM Handbook and showed the fencing diagram from page 41. The above quotes from the manual state Federal Public Lands, not just BLM lands. I am going to look into it.

IME, unless both the BLM and USFS (or other agency such as NRCS) are listed on the handbook as being co-authored or the handbook being a joint agency project it is not applicable to the non-listed agency. However, the USFS Manual (FSM 2200) states the following policy for "Structural Range Improvements":

2242.03 - Policy

Regional Foresters shall provide structural improvement specifications. Such specifications must consider cost-effectiveness and state-of-the-art technology.

I read this to mean that the Regional Forester could addopt the BLM handbook as being the source for the fencing specifications. The downside is that I have yet to find a national policy like the BLM handbook for the USFS.

I did find these though...
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr250/pnw_gtr250a.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/php/library_card.php?p_num=8824 2803

The second link is the one I've seen referenced most often. Both give specs for a lot of different types of fencing. A quick look shows that the 48" height as listed in the BLM handbook is generally the max height listed in the USFS publications. Bottom wire heights listed in the specs go as low as 6" (sheep with lambs 4 wire) but the majority mirror the BLM handbook as recommended something in the 16-18" range.

 

[johnp]

Here's an attention getting scenario. What if I or anyone with a gps and Onx map ( same one f&g uses)
crossed that shiney new fence where it is well onto blm and set up camp or just hung out in plain view of said bros crew but still on the blm.even in a non hunting but well documented situation.
Since Wilkes cannot issue trespass citations , a very interesting(episode) would develop.

 

[Bambistew]

To play the Devils Advocate... What specifically are the penalties for building said fence?

IMO The fence will not come down anytime soon. If it has to to go court it will be years before anything happens. Fines? I doubt they're much for a couple Billionaires. Consider it rent.

Folks that live around there should think about running the Wilks out of town, more specifically everyone that works for them.

 

[1_pointer]

To play the Devils Advocate... What specifically are the penalties for building said fence?

IMO The fence will not come down anytime soon. If it has to to go court it will be years before anything happens. Fines? I doubt they're much for a couple Billionaires. Consider it rent.

Folks that live around there should think about running the Wilks out of town, more specifically everyone that works for them.

My guesses on the penalties: have to remove and rebuild fence on correct line, possible loss of grazing permit, fines, stabilization/rehab of what they tore up. I imagine there's a few things they can be charged with criminally, but I can't imagine it's not something that wouldn't be settled with a fine. As you said, nothing I'd think that would concern a billionaire...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sometimes you do things because you can only take so much.

Regardless of fines, etc, the Wilks brothers cannot act like cattle barons from the 1880's.

 

[RobG]

Bad publicity will be their only meaningful penalty.

 

[jryoung]

It's called "f@#$ you money" for a reason.

 

[noharleyyet]

Folks that live around there should think about running the Wilks out of town, more specifically everyone that works for them.

..seriously?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Sometimes you do things because you can only take so much.

Regardless of fines, etc, the Wilks brothers cannot act like cattle barons from the 1880's.

Clive Bundy did.

 

[katqanna]

Pointer, thanks for the links.

This is more than just fines or removal/modifications of fence if found guilty, it would be law on the books that could strengthen future cases, bad publicity they probably dont want, warning to others that they dont own and control our Public Trust Lands, empowerment and mobilization of the Public to fight back.

One of the documents and cases Jack sent me involved a corner crossing situation with some Butte Montana elk hunters and they won their case because they knew the law, where the private landowner and the FWP warden that was called to the scene did not. So from my perspective, knowledge is power here.

 

[Muskeez]

I was thinking the same thing as John. If you want to draw attention to the situation after your hunt, hop the fence and pitch your tent on BLM land, and wait for them to come chat. Hopefully they will bring Law enforcement with them, and then LE can see what the Wilks' crews have done and damaged.
Lots of comments about their money here but right is right and wrong is still wrong, so I hope someone will follow through on this and that a thorough investigation will take place. If they have so much money, let them spend it on lawyers. If they have a conscience and believe in doing what's right then there shouldn't be a problem, and all work should be done from their own side of the actual property line.
Kill a big bull Wingman and enjoy the results of your hard work!
Stay safe out there!

 

[Oak]

..seriously?

Did Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday just run Curly Bill Brocius and Johnny Ringo out of town? No...they ran all of the Cowboys that worked for them out, too.

Clive Bundy did.

We will see how that works out for him.

 

[RobG]

Did Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday just run Curly Bill Brocius and Johnny Ringo out of town? No...they ran all of the Cowboys that worked for them out, too.



We will see how that works out for him.

I believe it is business as usual with Bundy back illegally on BLM. The BLM is easily bullied in spite of popular belief. This is different in that Wilks are trying to block out and harass the public so they will get less sympathy. However, like Bundy, we will have to put a lot of pressure on the BLM to get meaningful action. I also think it is a good idea to get our legislative and congressional candidates to condemn this action or be exposed as being puppets of the Wilks. I'm anxiously waiting for the BLM to visit the place and report back.

 

[roadhunter]

I believe it is business as usual with Bundy back illegally on BLM. The BLM is easily bullied in spite of popular belief. .

Wow. I did not know that. Wonder if that would have worked out differently if it was state land he was trying to use for free.

 

[RobG]

Wow. I did not know that. Wonder if that would have worked out differently if it was state land he was trying to use for free.

I don't want to go on a tangent state/vs fed, but the bullying comes from the local politicians and industries. The state land is already under their control so no bullying is necessary. Therein lies the problem with "local control." This case is probably different since it isn't "old farmer Joe" trying to make a living and getting pushed around by the feds. If they are posting and building roads on public land I think this changes everything. I have a feeling Wilks will lose local support quickly, but the agenda of the ultra wealthy trying to lock up our public land will continue unless we make a big deal out of it.JMO.