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

[Cornell2012]

...Once a survey is done...

How long will the survey take? How will we even know if they even decide to do a survey? Would it be done by the end of the year? What about by next hunting season? If there is already one in the pipeline, those letters everyone sent sure got some gears turning quickly.

In any case, whoever hunts this region this year should be extra careful to stay wide of the boundaries, just in case.

 

[DGF]

Yes, a survey is needed to tell boundary and establish exactly where the fence stands, one way or another. But, regardless of where that fence stands, it is still illegal as far as the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act and it is in violation of the BLM fencing standards, as well as Montana Legal Fencing Standards.

And since the Wilks did not consult the BLM about the fence, before erecting it, there may be ground disruption issues involved. Once a survey is done, then we see if there is encroachment, posting, etc. issues involved as well.

I agree with what you are saying, however didn't the BLM already check it out and find no violation at that point in construction? This could just as easily end up that folks were guilty of trespassing unknowingly or not. The Wilks may be erecting the fence out of spite, or a fence was planned all along and once they had no land swap they decided to go through with the project. I don't know, but really can anyone at this point given the BLM has not had the land they hold surveyed in the recent past? I'm interested to see how this pans out if a proper survey is done. Until then I'm going to try and not rush to judgment.

I will say with certainty if all they are trying to do is establish a boundary between lands for trespassing reasons they sure haven't done it in a responsible manner.

-Dan

 

[Straight Arrow]

Having sent a message to the BLM expressing concern over this fence, the following reply was received and may clarify the agency's latest position on this issue. It is refreshing to re-instill confidence in a federal agency and public servants at a time when political rhetoric includes so much cynicism and negativity..

My name is Stan Benes and I am the District Manager for BLM in Central Montana. The Durfee Hills is part of my management area. Thought I would send a note back to thank you for your concern about the management of our public lands. The fencing near Durfee Hills has become a real issue of late, and our Field Manager, Geoff Beyersdorf , has been out on site to assess what is being done. It appears the fencing does not meet Montana Code 81-4-101 which defines a legal fence in Montana, nor does it meet BLM fencing standards. Although it appeared to have a commercial survey, that has proven not to be the case. So, yes, the situation is not acceptable and we will be contacting the ranch owners to get necessary changes made. If you would like to discuss further, please feel free to give us a call. Thank you...

 

[The Hedgehog]

Good to hear - for the elk. Those guys don't care if they have to move a fence. And the guys they pay to build it don't care either.

What I do hope, is you guys slam some monster bulls on this piece every year, and be sure to do a "victory lap" around the Wilks campsite with your trophy bulls dangling from the a cable on the chopper, because, that I'm sure will give these DBs some heartburn.

 

[katqanna]

Having sent a message to the BLM expressing concern over this fence, the following reply was received and may clarify the agency's latest position on this issue. It is refreshing to re-instill confidence in a federal agency and public servants at a time when political rhetoric includes so much cynicism and negativity..

Straight Arrow, thanks for posting your reply. Since mine was the first and had the documentation that they were confirming, they did not have a position reply firmed up yesterday afternoon. My reply had other information and discussion which I did not feel appropriate to post at this time.

Cornell, I have those questions being asked and have two calls due back. As soon as I hear anything, I will let the forum know. I assume, the greater the letter presence, the sooner we might know something. Some of this is pretty straightforward from the legal fencing and regulations perspective. I received two calls that involved attorneys asking about suits. I told them that I would like BLM to have a chance to address the public requests before even considering a suit. I feel that given the public concern and awareness of the issues that they will follow through and we wont need a lawsuit against them. But that doesnt preclude an attorney from finding someone else to deal with a suit. I am not the keeper on this issue and dont control the actions of others.

On a good note, I have had quite a number of bcc or forwards of letters being sent from a wide diversity of the public and groups, so hopefully that sends a message of broad concern and public participation.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Another message was sent to me afterward, expressing even more positive action.

Thank you .... for your very positive reply. I often smile and say, "some days being a public servant is not all it is cracked up to be." The Durfee Hills has provided a fairly challenging issue, but I am sure we will get through it. Since I sent the note this morning, I contacted our Surveyor Cadastral Branch in Billings. It appears we may be able to get their support to establish the very accurate and legal boundary between the public and private lands. Upon completion of that survey, we can legally establish if any fences that were built this past summer are in fact encroaching on public lands. Feel free to contact me again in a couple weeks for an update.

 

[Don K]

I find this whole thing very interesting and thank all those that where involved bringing this to everyone's attention.

Thanks to Randy for having a site like this for everyone to meet, and thanks to those that backed off on the infighting allowing this thread to move on

 

[cowboy]

I find this whole thing very interesting and thank all those that where involved bringing this to everyone's attention.

Thanks to Randy for having a site like this for everyone to meet, and thanks to those that backed off on the infighting allowing this thread to move on

My sentiments exactly. Irrelovent of who is right/wrong I think that there has been enough publicity both negative/positive/or questionable that "our public servants" will now move this issue to the top of their priority pile.

And to Wingman: You sure opened up a can of worms - THANK YOU AND GOOD JOB.

PS: I now have reestablished confidence in my hand held GPS.

 

[katqanna]

I just got a call from BLM, Geoff Beyersdorf. They spoke with the Wilks and received permission to send a professional survey crew. It will be a Cadastral Survey and produce the Certificate of Survey and Corner Recordations. They will take notes and document if there are cases of encroachment. I asked specifically while they investigate the fence, if there is encroachment, that they would note if there has been any signage posting in the areas of encroachment.

They hope to get a crew out there about mid next week, the survey crew is finishing up another job. As to how long that takes, he could not say, but a professional surveyor that I spoke with a couple days ago that was looking at the Montana Cadastral while we were talking gave a rough estimation of 5-10 days, but that varies with crew numbers and other factors. I just mention this to say I dont think the BLM is going to drag this out months.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks to all that have taken the time to sort this out.

I talked with a good friend of mine last night about this issue and we both came to the conclusion that there were some serious mistakes made and/or a general lack of "facts" surrounding this event. Glad to see more facts are now emerging.

IMO, the most troubling parts of the entire story to this point is that the Wilks apparently didn't bother to survey the boundaries before building the fence and appeared to build the fence without much regard for wildlife.

Shallow thinking...as a best case.

 

[Trigger50]

I have been reading all these posts over the last month or so. But I haven't commented yet. In general I don't have a lot of faith in our governmental system. Although there r some good people trying to help sportsmen & the outdoors, many times they r limited in what they can do. But I have come to realize something from this situation w the Wilks. There are a lot of wrongs being done to the sportsmen of America. Case in point, last week in WY I saw where ranchers have posted public land or removed signage from public land. But if enough people speak up, government will take notice.

 

[wingman1]

Quote:
My name is Stan Benes and I am the District Manager for BLM in Central Montana. The Durfee Hills is part of my management area. Thought I would send a note back to thank you for your concern about the management of our public lands. The fencing near Durfee Hills has become a real issue of late, and our Field Manager, Geoff Beyersdorf , has been out on site to assess what is being done. It appears the fencing does not meet Montana Code 81-4-101 which defines a legal fence in Montana, nor does it meet BLM fencing standards. Although it appeared to have a commercial survey, that has proven not to be the case. So, yes, the situation is not acceptable and we will be contacting the ranch owners to get necessary changes made. If you would like to discuss further, please feel free to give us a call. Thank you...


Reading that right there brought me more joy than any monster bull could ever do.

Keep it up hunt talkers. We will prevail. Kat...you have gone above and beyond. Thanks for not letting this issue go to the wayside.

 

[Not My Time]

Way to get this thread going Wingman! And thanks everyone else for not letting it go to the wayside!

 

[Jorgy]

So, whomever wrote this press release is completely full of chit

BLM investigates alleged trespass in Durfee Hills

(LEWISTOWN, Mont.) – BLM staff were granted permission last week by a private landowner to investigate recent reports from members of the public of that owner’s alleged encroachment on BLM-managed land in the Durfee Hills area. After BLM staff conducted a fly-over and ground visits using a survey-grade GPS, no encroachment was found.

A survey of newly constructed fencing and roads were found to be located on private property. Markings found during the ground visit indicate the private landowner likely had the site professionally surveyed prior to construction.

BLM staff found that in some instances when a personal-use recreational GPS was compared to the more accurate survey-grade GPS, the recreational GPS errantly showed some areas to be on BLM-managed land.

The BLM thanks the landowner for their permission and cooperation.

Fly-in hunters have historically used the Durfee Hills area to hunt one of the state’s largest elk herds. During the investigation, aircraft landing and take-off tracks were found off-road on BLM-managed lands in the area, caused by fly-in hunters not affiliated with the land owners.

“No permanent damage was caused, but the BLM is stepping up our efforts to educate pilots and others on our travel management policies, which require motorized vehicles to stay on existing roads and trails with few exceptions,” explained Geoff Beyersdorf, Field Manager of the BLM Lewistown Field Office.

The Bureau of Land Management takes any report of unauthorized activities on BLM-managed lands seriously and appreciates the eyes and ears of the public in reporting to the BLM potentially illegal or inappropriate use on public lands.

With increased visitation expected during hunting season, BLM Law Enforcement Rangers have increased patrols in the area. The BLM encourages the public to responsibly enjoy their public lands while respecting the rights of private land owners and other recreationists.

If anyone has any questions on BLM’s travel management regulations or how to access their public lands, maps are available at your local BLM office and we are here to answer questions so visitors can plan a safe and successful hunting trip.

For more information, contact Lewistown Field Manager Geoff Beyersdorf (406) 538-1918. For the latest BLM news and updates, visit us on the web at www.blm.gov/mt, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BLMMontana, or follow us on Twitter @BLM_MTDKs.

 

[Zach]

So, whomever wrote this press release is completely full of chit

You have summarized the way the government handles most situations...

 

[Straight Arrow]

So, whomever wrote this press release is completely full of chit

Not necessarily, as it was preliminary information and likely offered in an attempt to diffuse the issue. When more information became available, due to the efforts of Wingman and others, then the situation changed and BLM realized a requirement to more closely scrutinize the situation. As Mr. Benes expressed, BLM had assumed there was a commercial survey prior to the fencing project, then later determined that was not the case. Further more specific information regarding the fencing also allowed determination that it apparently does not meet the requirements.

So when better, more accurate "chit" became available, BLM reacted appropriately. I think we should thank them for doing so. Retrospective criticism is not helpful.

 

[katqanna]

I think we should thank them for doing so.

I agree, I have already sent a thank you to Connell and Benes thanking them for responding to our requests so quickly by initiating a survey and fence investigation. This gets the ball rolling and I would like to focus on that forward momentum.

 

[wingman1]

Not necessarily, as it was preliminary information and likely offered in an attempt to diffuse the issue. When more information became available, due to the efforts of Wingman and others, then the situation changed and BLM realized a requirement to more closely scrutinize the situation. As Mr. Benes expressed, BLM had assumed there was a commercial survey prior to the fencing project, then later determined that was not the case. Further more specific information regarding the fencing also allowed determination that it apparently does not meet the requirements.

So when better, more accurate "chit" became available, BLM reacted appropriately. I think we should thank them for doing so. Retrospective criticism is not helpful.

This is not entirely true. This thread and all the emails and complaints from this thread are what sparked the initial investigation. They had all the evidence at hand prior to releasing the first press release and chose to ignore or overlook it. Better late then never. We will revisit this at another time.

 

[RobG]

Not necessarily, as it was preliminary information and likely offered in an attempt to diffuse the issue. When more information became available, due to the efforts of Wingman and others, then the situation changed and BLM realized a requirement to more closely scrutinize the situation. As Mr. Benes expressed, BLM had assumed there was a commercial survey prior to the fencing project, then later determined that was not the case. Further more specific information regarding the fencing also allowed determination that it apparently does not meet the requirements.

So when better, more accurate "chit" became available, BLM reacted appropriately. I think we should thank them for doing so. Retrospective criticism is not helpful.

Actually, I am far more disturbed about that article than the location of the boundary lines. At the time that article was written it was well documented that
a) the fence was illegal according to BLM's own rules,
b) the fence was probably far onto BLM land,
c) the dozer had been driven on BLM land, and
d) the driver of a four-wheeler had driven off road onto BLM property, taken a dump, and left a mess of toilet paper.

In spite of all this the only violations found were that pilots were landing off road and corrective action was to be taken against future violators. Furthermore, the BLM claimed that our GPS readings were off. We now know this is bull because they had no survey data to conclude that it was off. This was a clear shot across our bow trying to make us go away.

Luckily, a few here were not intimidated and their perseverance has caused the BLM to admit some fault. But in reality this admission is just a diversion from what I feel is important. How did they get it so wrong the first time? Why were the hunters the only ones singled out as violators?

The survey is nice and the fence will be made to code saving a couple elk, but the real problem is that whoever was sent out there from the BLM office was covering for the Wilks and trying to intimidate hunters with more enforcement threats. There needs to be some powerful eyes put on that office from the offices of Tester, Baucus, and Daines. And there needs to be some honest reporting going on. (Who the hell wrote that article?)

Don't let this concession from the BLM cloud the bigger problem. Moving the fence a few feet won't change a thing. They tried the shot across the bow, now they'll move a few fences and hope we won't bother to ask why they are covering for the Wilks. It seems to me that we need to keep asking that question until all hunters know the answer.

JMO
rg

[edit, I thought the article Jorgy quoted was from the Billings Gazette (http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_2f1e5ea8-06e3-50ae-a350-deeabfb42cd4.html) but it is the BLM press release (http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/info/newsroom/2014/september/blm_investigates_alleged.html). ]

 

[buglum]

I like where this is headed. Lets keep our public lands in sight and not forget about the future. Good work to all involved.