Wilks - BLM land swap
- Thread starter whiskeydog
- Start date
Nameless Range
Well-known member
With a history of being bad neighbors, fiddling with public land and hunters, and trying to screw the public with bad deals, what could go wrong?
These guys are the largest land owners in Montana and are continuing to grow their empire.
I've said it before, the filthy rich are a problem.
These guys are the largest land owners in Montana and are continuing to grow their empire.
I've said it before, the filthy rich are a problem.
katqanna
Well-known member
Forgive me, but I have a multiple impact concussion I have been struggling with, which is slowing my brain down (brain has got a limp) or I get all the points I researched before up here. After leaving a couple phone messages with the BLM Cadastral division I sent an email this afternoon. I just got a reply back, confirming the investigation. This is not just a survey, there was evidence of trespass- no small amount.
H-9232-1 Realty Trespass Abatement, Chapter IX, IX-3 (page) states:
Backing up to Chapter II (2), section A. Employee Responsibilities.
Chapter IV. Realty Trespass Case Investigation, Documentation, and Processing.
That chapter lists all the steps of the investigation, which include, if necessary, a cadastral survey.
So according to this manual, they cannot deal with a land trade or sale until the trespass is resolved and it has not been resolved, it is still being investigated, per the BLM responses I have been receiving.
Now here is another concern, I dont know if BLM can add another alternative to the scoping process towards the end of it, or without notifying the public beforehand. I was reading through some BLM scoping procedure regulations and they stated that what begins the process is the Notice of Intent (NOI) which has to filed with the Federal Register (same place the cadastral survey gets registered that I have been watching everyday since mid November - no BLM NOI's for this Bullwhacker Road issue.) Since the BLM put out a news release notice on Sept. 26th about this on the MT/Dakotas page, I went back into the Federal Register and checked from mid Sept thru mid Oct., still no NOI on the Bullwhacker. The NOI is encouraged to be placed in other public sources, like newspapers emails, etc, but is required in the Federal Register. The press release said the 60 day scoping would begin Dec. 2nd. Not NOI in Dec to present on the Bullwhacker. I havent found it, but I might have made a mistake.
I did find that they can do a pre scoping before the NOI, but that it cant replace the other scoping process that is part of the EIS after the NOI.
The previous press release of the scoping process in Sept. said, "A proposed land exchange to restore access was considered, but was determined to be not in the best interest of the American people who have entrusted the BLM to manage their public lands for them. " A Wilks land trade was not listed on the maps passed out at the 3 previous scoping meetings as an alternative. Nor was it listed in the Dec. 24th press release for the Billings Jan. 15th meeting, again stating, "A proposed land exchange to restore access was considered, but was determined to be not in the best interest of the American people who have entrusted the BLM to manage their public lands for them."
H-9232-1 Realty Trespass Abatement, Chapter IX, IX-3 (page) states:
Backing up to Chapter II (2), section A. Employee Responsibilities.
Chapter IV. Realty Trespass Case Investigation, Documentation, and Processing.
That chapter lists all the steps of the investigation, which include, if necessary, a cadastral survey.
So according to this manual, they cannot deal with a land trade or sale until the trespass is resolved and it has not been resolved, it is still being investigated, per the BLM responses I have been receiving.
Now here is another concern, I dont know if BLM can add another alternative to the scoping process towards the end of it, or without notifying the public beforehand. I was reading through some BLM scoping procedure regulations and they stated that what begins the process is the Notice of Intent (NOI) which has to filed with the Federal Register (same place the cadastral survey gets registered that I have been watching everyday since mid November - no BLM NOI's for this Bullwhacker Road issue.) Since the BLM put out a news release notice on Sept. 26th about this on the MT/Dakotas page, I went back into the Federal Register and checked from mid Sept thru mid Oct., still no NOI on the Bullwhacker. The NOI is encouraged to be placed in other public sources, like newspapers emails, etc, but is required in the Federal Register. The press release said the 60 day scoping would begin Dec. 2nd. Not NOI in Dec to present on the Bullwhacker. I havent found it, but I might have made a mistake.
I did find that they can do a pre scoping before the NOI, but that it cant replace the other scoping process that is part of the EIS after the NOI.
The previous press release of the scoping process in Sept. said, "A proposed land exchange to restore access was considered, but was determined to be not in the best interest of the American people who have entrusted the BLM to manage their public lands for them. " A Wilks land trade was not listed on the maps passed out at the 3 previous scoping meetings as an alternative. Nor was it listed in the Dec. 24th press release for the Billings Jan. 15th meeting, again stating, "A proposed land exchange to restore access was considered, but was determined to be not in the best interest of the American people who have entrusted the BLM to manage their public lands for them."
Last edited:
bigskyblueman
Member
Received an e-mail from Stan Benes recently. The investigation is still ongoing and will be made public in several months when it appears in the Federal Register.
300stw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 843
I had an email from stan from the beginning that said , blm found no wrongdoing but was investigating hunters that were apparently doing some wrong things,,,
how does the agency flip flop over this deal, wheres the warden that wrote the citation for not tagging soon enough,,, maybe he would cite someone,,,,
how does the agency flip flop over this deal, wheres the warden that wrote the citation for not tagging soon enough,,, maybe he would cite someone,,,,
What a surprize that they are bending over backwards for the rich land owners. Now we're the bad guys.
RobG
Well-known member
In the beginning the BLM tried to blame the hunters but the agency flip flopped because the people here knew the BLM was covering things up so they kept the pressure on them until they had no other choice. I'm not sure what to think of this new twist. I've been saying all along that there is a rotten body in that office but nobody seems to want to do anything that would fix the underlying problem. Guess they know something I don't...
Once again, the Wilks are trying to salvage some value out of the white elephant they bought in the form of the Anchor Ranch that controls access to the Bullwhacker. Their only hope of salvaging anything is to try connect the Bullwhacker access to the Durfee Hills they covet so dearly. They want the public to bail them out for a bad business move their advisers talked them into and in the process, leverage that dead horse toward their end goal of acquiring the elk rich grounds of the Durfee Hills. Not that a few million dollars wasted on the Anchor Ranch hurts their portfolio, but the advice to overpay for the Anchor sure makes their advisers look like amateurs in the world of real estate and public land policy.
The Bullwhacker and the Durfees are complete and separate issues. For the BLM to even consider ideas that connect the two would be disappointing.
The BLM knows they have commitments for funding to help build the road that solves the Bullwhacker access issue. That hurdle has been cleared. The Wilks know that funding issue has been solved also, so they have to act fast to salvage what little they can. If the BLM goes forward with any alternative access plan, which they should, the Wilks are sitting on a junk bond that just defaulted.
If the BLM is worried about the cost of maintaining a road, make it an ATV trail, rather than a road. Make it open to foot, horse, or ATVs. Then the maintenance issue goes away and it still provides a high level of access. I say that, given I am probably the only hunter in Montana who does not own an ATV, so I am comfortable that an ATV trail would provide almost the same level of access as an open road, without all the maintenance worries/costs. Problems solved.
As the public, we cannot let these two issues be connected. They have nothing to do with each other. The Wilks are sitting on a dud hand as it relates to the Anchor Ranch and the Bullwhacker access. They are playing it like they hold four aces. The public/BLM has the Royal Flush. Now is not the time for the public/BLM to fold that hand.
When it comes to the Durfees, the Wilks have already demonstrated how badly they covet that property. Given the time, energy, and public capital they have invested to devalue the Durfees, they obviously covet it more than any other piece of Montana land. The public/BLM is sitting on the gold mine. The original offer by the Wilks was a laugher, a non-starter. If they want the public to even consider an exchange, they better be ready to offer up one hell of a big proposal with premium elk hunting. Even if they sweetened the offer, their behavior over the last year makes any proposal hard for the public to accept.
Their advisers gave them some more bad advice by suggesting they throw dirt in the face of public hunters last hunting season. All people want to do is just go hunt the public's elk and these guys have to go out of their way to kick the public hunter in the crotch. Not a good way to gain favor with Montanans, including Montana hunters.
If they want to continue taking advice from such folks, fine. Their money, spend it how they want. Their private land, do as they please. Yet, the public is under no obligation to even consider what they might offer. Right now, I know very few hunters that would even give them the courtesy of a meeting, let alone consider any offer they might present.
With the jackass things they were advised to do last hunting season to disrupt elk movements and the public hunting on the Durfees, all they accomplished was to raise the height of the hurdles they will have to clear to sway the public to even listen to any proposal for the Durfees. If that is how they want to operate, and it seems like the preferred tact, that is their choice. None of this happens in a vacuum, even if their advisers seem to think otherwise.
As you real estate people always say, "Location, location, locations." Well, the location of the Durfee Hills and its juxtaposition among the Wilks properties makes is the most prime location in all of the Rockies. They want it bad, real bad.
The price to acquire the Durfees gets higher with each passing day and with each jackass stunt that gets directed toward the public hunter. Their attempts to make the Durfees void of elk, and devalue the Durfees as public elk ground has had the opposite effect on those who at one time may have considered a trade with the Wilks.
The public needs to keep an eye on this one and not let the BLM be swayed by the Wilks to join the Bullwhacker and Durfees as related topics. Rather, the public should put pressure on the BLM to solve the Bullwhacker access as soon as possible, even if it means just an ATV trail. That eases pressure on the BLM, as one issue is solved. We can then focus on the lands most coveted by the Wilks.
The Bullwhacker and the Durfees are complete and separate issues. For the BLM to even consider ideas that connect the two would be disappointing.
The BLM knows they have commitments for funding to help build the road that solves the Bullwhacker access issue. That hurdle has been cleared. The Wilks know that funding issue has been solved also, so they have to act fast to salvage what little they can. If the BLM goes forward with any alternative access plan, which they should, the Wilks are sitting on a junk bond that just defaulted.
If the BLM is worried about the cost of maintaining a road, make it an ATV trail, rather than a road. Make it open to foot, horse, or ATVs. Then the maintenance issue goes away and it still provides a high level of access. I say that, given I am probably the only hunter in Montana who does not own an ATV, so I am comfortable that an ATV trail would provide almost the same level of access as an open road, without all the maintenance worries/costs. Problems solved.
As the public, we cannot let these two issues be connected. They have nothing to do with each other. The Wilks are sitting on a dud hand as it relates to the Anchor Ranch and the Bullwhacker access. They are playing it like they hold four aces. The public/BLM has the Royal Flush. Now is not the time for the public/BLM to fold that hand.
When it comes to the Durfees, the Wilks have already demonstrated how badly they covet that property. Given the time, energy, and public capital they have invested to devalue the Durfees, they obviously covet it more than any other piece of Montana land. The public/BLM is sitting on the gold mine. The original offer by the Wilks was a laugher, a non-starter. If they want the public to even consider an exchange, they better be ready to offer up one hell of a big proposal with premium elk hunting. Even if they sweetened the offer, their behavior over the last year makes any proposal hard for the public to accept.
Their advisers gave them some more bad advice by suggesting they throw dirt in the face of public hunters last hunting season. All people want to do is just go hunt the public's elk and these guys have to go out of their way to kick the public hunter in the crotch. Not a good way to gain favor with Montanans, including Montana hunters.
If they want to continue taking advice from such folks, fine. Their money, spend it how they want. Their private land, do as they please. Yet, the public is under no obligation to even consider what they might offer. Right now, I know very few hunters that would even give them the courtesy of a meeting, let alone consider any offer they might present.
With the jackass things they were advised to do last hunting season to disrupt elk movements and the public hunting on the Durfees, all they accomplished was to raise the height of the hurdles they will have to clear to sway the public to even listen to any proposal for the Durfees. If that is how they want to operate, and it seems like the preferred tact, that is their choice. None of this happens in a vacuum, even if their advisers seem to think otherwise.
As you real estate people always say, "Location, location, locations." Well, the location of the Durfee Hills and its juxtaposition among the Wilks properties makes is the most prime location in all of the Rockies. They want it bad, real bad.
The price to acquire the Durfees gets higher with each passing day and with each jackass stunt that gets directed toward the public hunter. Their attempts to make the Durfees void of elk, and devalue the Durfees as public elk ground has had the opposite effect on those who at one time may have considered a trade with the Wilks.
The public needs to keep an eye on this one and not let the BLM be swayed by the Wilks to join the Bullwhacker and Durfees as related topics. Rather, the public should put pressure on the BLM to solve the Bullwhacker access as soon as possible, even if it means just an ATV trail. That eases pressure on the BLM, as one issue is solved. We can then focus on the lands most coveted by the Wilks.
RobG
Well-known member
With Schlueter (another wealthy person who tried to block off a road near Big Sky) there was talk of allowing access via Block Management as a trade but it turned out that you couldn't make BM a permanent deal. That is, Schlueter could stop BM at any time. Perhaps Ben or Kat can remember the reason why.
Any promises of public access via Block Management aren't worth the breath it took to say it, unless it is permanent; permanent as in perpetuity.
A land trade is in perpetuity. I'm not interested in Block Management that might provide access for two years, five years, or even the 20 years I might have left to hunt. I'm interested in access for perpetuity; for the hunters who will be here a century from now. What would be given up is a loss of public access in perpetuity. What is received would need to be the same. The odds of perpetual access being provided are zero.
If they want to put that Block Management bait out there, then they can do so via a deed change that provides public hunting access in perpetuity. Otherwise, their promises of Block Management are a waste of their time and ours.
RobG
Well-known member
I agree about perpetuity, but there was a legal reason why access in perpetuity wouldn't work in Schlueter's case - maybe it was the conservation easement, I forget. I guess it is tangential to the issue here so not important. The main take away is that Block Management will not be around forever so it is another disingenuous promise by the Wilks.
katqanna
Well-known member
I just got off the phone with the BLM Monument manager Mike Kania to ask some clarifying questions. I went back to the beginning of Sept. and again, day by day, all the way thru the Federal Register to present and there was no Notice of Intent concerning the Bullwhacker process. But, if they decided to use the previous EIS when the Monument was created in 2009, pursuing an EA, they would still according to the BLM NEPA Handbook and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook have to provide the public with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which was not supplied at the scoping meetings. So I wanted to know which route they were going or if this was the preliminary.
Mike informed me that they arent even to that point, they have not started any official process yet. So the scoping they are doing is from the quote in my post above, Use of Scoping Before Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS. This scoping, according to BLM's site cannot replace the process scoping unless stated otherwise, which it was not.
BLM's press release, giving the illusion that this scoping was part of an official process that was begun, not a preliminary, on Sept. 26th stated,
I think the majority of the public is under the impression that this is an official process occurring as it was not stated to be preliminary. So while the preliminary process can add a land trade to the scoping alternatives (official process is going to take longer since it is only being viewed as preliminary - 3 1/2 months now), the Durfees cannot be part of that land trade because of the trespass regulations.
When I went back trough my Trespass Manual notes there was a section I missed to post about the rehabilitation/stabilization.
I just sent an email to BLM's Connell, Benes and Beyersdorf with the points about the Durfees and the Trespass Handbook regulations asking if I am in error in understanding to please clarify, if not, then to please inform the public that the Durfees are off the table so they dont muddy the Bullwhacker Access process, diverting attention and energies better spent otherwise.
Mike informed me that they arent even to that point, they have not started any official process yet. So the scoping they are doing is from the quote in my post above, Use of Scoping Before Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS. This scoping, according to BLM's site cannot replace the process scoping unless stated otherwise, which it was not.
BLM's press release, giving the illusion that this scoping was part of an official process that was begun, not a preliminary, on Sept. 26th stated,
I think the majority of the public is under the impression that this is an official process occurring as it was not stated to be preliminary. So while the preliminary process can add a land trade to the scoping alternatives (official process is going to take longer since it is only being viewed as preliminary - 3 1/2 months now), the Durfees cannot be part of that land trade because of the trespass regulations.
When I went back trough my Trespass Manual notes there was a section I missed to post about the rehabilitation/stabilization.
I just sent an email to BLM's Connell, Benes and Beyersdorf with the points about the Durfees and the Trespass Handbook regulations asking if I am in error in understanding to please clarify, if not, then to please inform the public that the Durfees are off the table so they dont muddy the Bullwhacker Access process, diverting attention and energies better spent otherwise.
sneakypete
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,868
Big Fin, great knowledge passed again about the Durfee property ! Thanks again!
bigskyblueman
Member
To comment on this attempted fleecing of the public of our own lands, the e-mail comment address is [email protected] Sen. Tester's office contacted me this a.m. with an update on the situation. The BLM needs to hear what public land hunters think of this.The Block Management offer is just a straw man, as Act III of this charade continues.
Last edited:
bigskyblueman
Member
A second survey is to be conducted this spring.
RobG
Well-known member
Why? Is the first one being challenged?
bigskyblueman
Member
Part of the groundwork for legal proceedings. Whether it is trespass/damage related or in anticipation of a possible land trade, is not clear.
Last edited:
katqanna
Well-known member
Heres the situation - the survey that was conducted, per BLM in CO and here, what survey teams normally do in these northern climes, is survey in summer to fall. Then over the winter they process their surveys and submit them to the Federal Register for their 30 days.
But this survey was not a general land survey on their normal list. This survey involved a report of trespass and our requests, which were answered by BLM, put it on a priority schedule, so they inserted a survey into a time period involving weather and such that was not part of their normal schedule. The last day of my second trip into the Durfees, BLM was surveying at that time, a major cold front had blown in.
So I just got off with Cadastral to find out about the spring survey issue. They began the survey at what I call the tri-corner area where the DNRC, BLM and Wilks land all meet - the corners of sections 25, 30, 31 and DNRC's 36, then proceeded north. They completed survey of sections 23, 24 and 25 and the southern portion of section 14. They will have to go back in the spring to begin the rest. Those sections they have completed are being treated as a segment.
They do need to go back and survey the rest of the sections. This survey of these sections 23, 24, and 25 has not been filed with the Federal Register yet, which is the 30 day period any contesting can be done by the public or the landowner. The spring survey is not because this segment has been contested.
Now, on the Bullwhacker access meetings in Billings, I sent out an email to Connell, Benes and Beyersdorf about the Durfee Hills land trade being brought back to the table. I got a reply back yesterday morning from Benes stating
But I have audio I received last night that clearly shows that a Wilks land exchange alternative was presented, even by mentioned by Stan Benes. I need to edit the audio volume of the meeting, get it converted and uploaded for people to be able to hear, but it is there. I hope to have this done by this evening.
He did not address my question about the realty trespass regulations stating no land exchange can occur until the trespass is resolved. So I sent an email to one of their Realty Specialists who is out of office till the 26th with my question. I also found the regulation section dealing with BLM land exchanges, should it get to that point.
But this survey was not a general land survey on their normal list. This survey involved a report of trespass and our requests, which were answered by BLM, put it on a priority schedule, so they inserted a survey into a time period involving weather and such that was not part of their normal schedule. The last day of my second trip into the Durfees, BLM was surveying at that time, a major cold front had blown in.
So I just got off with Cadastral to find out about the spring survey issue. They began the survey at what I call the tri-corner area where the DNRC, BLM and Wilks land all meet - the corners of sections 25, 30, 31 and DNRC's 36, then proceeded north. They completed survey of sections 23, 24 and 25 and the southern portion of section 14. They will have to go back in the spring to begin the rest. Those sections they have completed are being treated as a segment.
They do need to go back and survey the rest of the sections. This survey of these sections 23, 24, and 25 has not been filed with the Federal Register yet, which is the 30 day period any contesting can be done by the public or the landowner. The spring survey is not because this segment has been contested.
Now, on the Bullwhacker access meetings in Billings, I sent out an email to Connell, Benes and Beyersdorf about the Durfee Hills land trade being brought back to the table. I got a reply back yesterday morning from Benes stating
But I have audio I received last night that clearly shows that a Wilks land exchange alternative was presented, even by mentioned by Stan Benes. I need to edit the audio volume of the meeting, get it converted and uploaded for people to be able to hear, but it is there. I hope to have this done by this evening.
He did not address my question about the realty trespass regulations stating no land exchange can occur until the trespass is resolved. So I sent an email to one of their Realty Specialists who is out of office till the 26th with my question. I also found the regulation section dealing with BLM land exchanges, should it get to that point.
bigskyblueman
Member
I suspect the land exchange is still front and center, and that is why Sen. Tester's office was so adamant about the public commenting. Agencies break their own rules all the time. Nothing new. Thanks Kat
Last edited:
katqanna
Well-known member
I got the Billing BLM scoping meeting audio done but had to wait until I could get clarification on something on the audio before I could post it.
I believe about the first 10 minutes of introduction is missing before the audio taping began. But at the 27:18 point, this is the statement Benes made after Mike Kanya pointed out the 3 alternatives: east side road, west side road and no action.
"As Mike mentioned we've got the 3 alternatives. We got the east side, we got the west side, we have No Action and we are considering No Alternative of Trails. I think thats a non motorized what they've suggested. And the other one is to entertain a land exchange. Again, not necessarily the same one that came up, but if we go to that alternative, we need something that will work. Thats why Im saying we need to get opinions together. Blaine County, Fergus County, the ranchers, the folks may call it collaboration. It can work, but it takes a lot of effort. So we're willing to entertain that exchange thing again and it might well be one of the alternatives. Is that fair, Mike?"
After that at 28:10 Benes introduced a representative of the Wilks, Darryl James, with an offer to the discussion of entertaining a land exchange. James then discusses that the Wilks are interested in pursuing a land exchange, mentioning, "...when the Wilks approached the BLM, a couple years ago, it really was about, how can we get rid of this nuisance inholding, within the N Bar, we'd just like to consolidate our ranching operation, get rid of these inholdings,..." Y'all should listen and see how they want to help the public out.
Part of that "inholding" are the 9 parcels, 2777.97 acres, that make up what is generally referred to as the Durfee Hills. This land trade discussion without involving the public is what prompted a petition, the total of which produced about 1600 petition signatures, which were then submitted last spring to BLM State Director Jamie Connell and to which BLM's 2 press releases referred to, which I quoted in my original email to the BLM - "A proposed land exchange to restore access was considered but was determined to be not in the best interest of the American people who have entrusted the BLM to manage their public lands for them."
No one from BLM replied to my question about their trespass regulations precluding a land exchange involving the Durfees. I did email their Realty Specialist woh is out of town till the 26th with the question. I also called an out of state retired BLM LE that dealt with trespass and some out of state BLM Realty Specialists to get their take. One from WY or CO dealt with power companies and was not familiar with the private property side of things and could not offer an opinion. I left messages with the others and two stated I was correct in my understanding of the regs. I may have to call Washington to find out Monday.
I believe about the first 10 minutes of introduction is missing before the audio taping began. But at the 27:18 point, this is the statement Benes made after Mike Kanya pointed out the 3 alternatives: east side road, west side road and no action.
"As Mike mentioned we've got the 3 alternatives. We got the east side, we got the west side, we have No Action and we are considering No Alternative of Trails. I think thats a non motorized what they've suggested. And the other one is to entertain a land exchange. Again, not necessarily the same one that came up, but if we go to that alternative, we need something that will work. Thats why Im saying we need to get opinions together. Blaine County, Fergus County, the ranchers, the folks may call it collaboration. It can work, but it takes a lot of effort. So we're willing to entertain that exchange thing again and it might well be one of the alternatives. Is that fair, Mike?"
After that at 28:10 Benes introduced a representative of the Wilks, Darryl James, with an offer to the discussion of entertaining a land exchange. James then discusses that the Wilks are interested in pursuing a land exchange, mentioning, "...when the Wilks approached the BLM, a couple years ago, it really was about, how can we get rid of this nuisance inholding, within the N Bar, we'd just like to consolidate our ranching operation, get rid of these inholdings,..." Y'all should listen and see how they want to help the public out.
Part of that "inholding" are the 9 parcels, 2777.97 acres, that make up what is generally referred to as the Durfee Hills. This land trade discussion without involving the public is what prompted a petition, the total of which produced about 1600 petition signatures, which were then submitted last spring to BLM State Director Jamie Connell and to which BLM's 2 press releases referred to, which I quoted in my original email to the BLM - "A proposed land exchange to restore access was considered but was determined to be not in the best interest of the American people who have entrusted the BLM to manage their public lands for them."
No one from BLM replied to my question about their trespass regulations precluding a land exchange involving the Durfees. I did email their Realty Specialist woh is out of town till the 26th with the question. I also called an out of state retired BLM LE that dealt with trespass and some out of state BLM Realty Specialists to get their take. One from WY or CO dealt with power companies and was not familiar with the private property side of things and could not offer an opinion. I left messages with the others and two stated I was correct in my understanding of the regs. I may have to call Washington to find out Monday.
