Crazy Mountain Trespassing case

Hi Folks,

Brett French wrote an article on my ticket being settled. http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...cle_093df384-0564-515f-ba73-7a5958ab0508.html


The article could be interpreted as saying that I'm walking away from this. Nothing could be further from the truth! We are on a path forward, and if I had to do it all over again there is little I would do different. We HAD to continue using that trail or we would have lost access for sure. I joined the list of people who had used it since the Hailstone posted it. The ticket changed the game, but we played that hand well, and now we are taking the next step.

The next step is to force the landowner into an agreement that favors the public. The landowner is negotiating with the USFS and several of us are monitoring the progress. At the same I am continuing to meet with PLWA and Friends of the Crazies to determine the best way to put the pressure on the landowner to reach an agreement.


The thing that causes me the most stress is being entrusted with the money you have given me. I have not see the final bill but it will be less than half of what has been raised. When I get the bill I will give a full accounting and we can decide what to do with the excess at that time.


If anyone has questions or concerns please contact me. The last thing I want is someone thinking I'm using their money improperly or running from this issue.

MTGomer said:

Would there be any purpose of an organized hike on this trail?


If there would be, it would be easy to encourage participation. I will start by offering up a $100 REI gift card as a "door prize" at the end of the hike.

I bet 100 hikers would be an easy goal to reach.


By the way... this is in the Gazette.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyl...&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC+

Click to expand...

The idea sure comes up in conversations a lot. For proving a prescriptive easement it is probably more important to show that it has been used in the past rather than after a landowner makes a claim that it hasn't been used. However, I think an organized hike could have uses in some instances.

Hiking groups should document the hikes they take. It provides an important record.

rg

I bet 100 hikers would be an easy goal to reach.

Click to expand...

Rather than a 100-hiker one-and-done event, I suggest a continuous series of small group hikes throughout the summer and fall to demonstrate the resolve of the public to maintain access to public land and to keep pressure on the landowner(s) to collaborate in finding a public access to public land solution on the east side of the Crazies.

Thanks to Rob and Kat and all those sacrificing for this. I know it's been mentioned on here that Forest Service Employees have an unwritten rule to not rock the boat, but when I read this I become infuriated. This is on the Forest Service.

Joe Rookhuizen tried to utilized this trail, marked on his Forest Service map as “open to bike, stock & foot travel.” Yet, the access was obstructed when he got there. Contacting the Forest Service and Fish, Wildlife and Parks about the lock produced no results. Frustrated, Rookhuizen wrote a letter to U.S. Sen. Steve Daines: “I am very discouraged as our government agencies don't seem to be able to do what they were created to do… The Ranch that the forest service trail goes through is called Hailstone Ranch owned by the family Langhus… we need help opening these accesses up. They continue to shut out more land every year.”

Daines wrote Forest Supervisor Mary Erickson, who replied, "It is a historic trail that dates back a century or more. The Forest Service maintains that it holds unperfected prescriptive rights on this trail system as well as up Sweet Grass Creek to the north based on a history of maintenance with public funds and historic and continued public and administrative use. The process for resolving this and other comparable access disputes is expensive, lengthy and time consuming. With limited staff and budget, the Forest is unable to immediately address these complex property law issues and often times these disputes remain unresolved until brought before a court of law.”


What is to keep a landowner from shutting down any trail any where, and just leave it up to the public to sort it out? What separates this trail easement from any other we all use that passes through private land?

Nameless Range said:

What is to keep a landowner from shutting down any trail any where, and just leave it up to the public to sort it out? What separates this trail easement from any other we all use that passes through private land?

Click to expand...

Only us. As long as it is private land and there is no recorded easement the only thing stopping the landowner from posting the trail is public activism. I have a memo from 2002 from Gallatin National Forest, prior to merging with Custer National Forest. 200-250 miles of the trails cross private land. The majority of those and have no recorded easement so they are at risk. In addition to the Crazy Mountains, the situation exists in Paradise Valley, North Bridgers, Cinnabar/Tom Miner Basin, and north Madison.

RobG said:

Only us. As long as it is private land and there is no recorded easement the only thing stopping the landowner from posting the trail is public activism. I have a memo from 2002 from Gallatin National Forest, prior to merging with Custer National Forest. 200-250 miles of the trails cross private land. The majority of those and have no recorded easement so they are at risk. In addition to the Crazy Mountains, the situation exists in Paradise Valley, North Bridgers, Cinnabar/Tom Miner Basin, and north Madison.

Click to expand...

Wow. And that is just the Gallatin portion of the Custer-Gallatin? It would probably be pretty horrifying to find out all the "public" trails for which there is no recorded easement across Montana. Reading your summary, it seems like a lot hinges on the whims of the local Prosecutor.

There is no question the agencies are not properly funded or there wouldn't be the huge back-log of work that we currently have.

Click to expand...

This statement by Buzz in the Zinke thread emphasizes the back-log of public land work which is the usual work you would expect to be accomplished to manage and maintain our public lands. Obviously there is a shortage of funding available for the respective agencies to pursue such easements and to maintain public access, particularly when it involves such closures and push-back from landowners. If it weren't for PLWA and determined principled citizens like Rob, then there would be a lot more closed trails and access roads.

There are public employees who are principled stewards of our trust, but they get gagged and handcuffed most of the time by private interests and bureaucratic superiors.

This administration's DOJ would not let Sankiewicz or Erickson testify at Rob's trial. PLWA began with some of those agency guys, some of the current leadership are retired FS. Dave Campbell, retired FS still works his ass off in the Bitterroot for access.

There are currently Sweetgrass County residents who have been targeting Sankiewicz, complaining to superiors, trying to get him fired because he does his job, which includes access and maintenance. Then Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers sent opeds to quite a number of Montana papers about this case and were named in the first deal offered to Rob. I find that deal including the stockgrowers and farm bureau extremely disconcerting.

For over a year I attended a Custer Gallatin National Forest working group, created and controlled by the ranching county commissioners, originally from 6 southern MT counties. Per one of their statements, which I have on audio, their group was created to increase logging of the forest and increase cattle grazing. They began inviting other groups to their table, which only they would approve, to make it appear more diverse in stakeholders. Timber companies, grazing associations, ranchers, mining companies, Kerry White's Citizens for Balanced Use, motorized recreation use (yes, they get representation twice), mountain bike group, agriculture, the Red Lodge Mountain Resort which I mentioned on the Beartooth "Public Lands" meeting previously, etc. They are not there to advocate for backcountry trails or restored or maintained public access on trails.

This is a pattern playing out all over. For a public employee to do their job, they take a risk and incur a target on their chest by special interests. People more frequently send in complaint letters, but we need to take time from our schedules to thank and support our public employees, on the official records, carboning a copy to the employee for their records, who truly do work for us and the Trust. They need our cover from the organized special interest campaigns against them.

Well, I just got notification, Alex Sankiewicz, the FS District Ranger of Livingston, was removed from this position on Friday because of the PERC and Sweetgrass County pressure. He was moved to another position, not a promotion.

This is what this administration's $hit rolling downhill looks like for public lands and access.

katqanna said:

Well, I just got notification, Alex Sankiewicz, the FS District Ranger of Livingston, was removed from this position on Friday because of the PERC and Sweetgrass County pressure. He was moved to another position, not a promotion.

This is what this administration's $hit rolling downhill looks like for public lands and access.

Click to expand...

I figured this was coming. The Sweet Grass crew has been pressuring our delegation. For those that don't know, Alex has been the number one advocate for keeping these trails open to the public. I hope he moved to a decent job and I hope the new District Ranger is on our side.

rg

katqanna said:

Well, I just got notification, Alex Sankiewicz, the FS District Ranger of Livingston, was removed from this position on Friday because of the PERC and Sweetgrass County pressure. He was moved to another position, not a promotion.

This is what this administration's $hit rolling downhill looks like for public lands and access.

Click to expand...

This is corruption. Plain and Simple.

A public employee acts on the interests of the public and he is backhandedly reprimanded? WTF

Feudalism is alive and well in Montana.

Son of a Bitch, you mean elections actually have consequences, who woulda thunk..

Trickle down economic may not work, but trickle down corruption is alive and well.

Nameless Range said:

This is corruption. Plain and Simple.

A public employee acts on the interests of the public and he is backhandedly reprimanded? WTF

Click to expand...

Agree, that is one of the most disappointing things I've seen in a while.

I just finished a FOIA request involving this and spoke with some journalists.

And here is a link to the pdf of the first deal Sweet Grass County Attorney Pat Dringman offered Rob involving the Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers Assoc. and the MT Farm Bureau, so you can see for yourself. It's page 2, point 6.

District ranger faces internal investigation over Crazy Mountain access dispute

Erickson said allegations from an assortment of landowners in the Big Timber area were “raised to the level” of the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, and Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont.

Click to expand...

This confirms what I included in my FOIA to prove, that the new USDA Secretary, with Sen. Daines, involved themselves in a local District Ranger issue, where the FS Ranger was actually doing his job with maintaining the FS Trail 115/136 and letting the public know it was on maps and part of the Travel Plan so they could utilize it for public access recreation.

So what is the path forward to have this trail declared public once and for all? Rob said the fight is not over, but I'm seeing what appears to be a lack of cooperation from the highest of levels in DC.

I guess I'm baffled about the way forward?

katqanna said:

District ranger faces internal investigation over Crazy Mountain access dispute
This confirms what I included in my FOIA to prove, that the new USDA Secretary, with Sen. Daines, involved themselves in a local District Ranger issue, where the FS Ranger was actually doing his job with maintaining the FS Trail 115/136 and letting the public know it was on maps and part of the Travel Plan so they could utilize it for public access recreation.

Click to expand...

Edit: never mind.

Supporter of RobG, following this w much interest. One way forward would be to increase user challenge to the closure, making the individuals and agencies pushing the landowners' agenda more active and more obvious to the voting public. Public scrutiny of (IMO) illegal shenanigans @ the local, regional and national level is really the only influence that can bring enough pressure to bear. Some national media coverage would be useful.