Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 129
  1. #51

    Default

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...nger-your-land

    Great article in Bloomberg this morning.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerky View Post
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...nger-your-land

    Great article in Bloomberg this morning.
    I feel that is debatable.

    They missed the key threat against our prescriptive easement process and roads/trails being removed from future maps/publications nationwide. Instead, they went off against "elitist big game trophy hunting" with Trump Jr., Daines, Gianforte and the Dallas Safari Club.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    4,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerky View Post
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...nger-your-land

    Great article in Bloomberg this morning.
    Cool. I knew it as coming out Monday but couldn't find it online.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    Just a reminder, the Friends of the Crazy Mountains will be having their fundraiser and raffle tomorrow evening.
    Katabatic Brewing Company in Livingston from 4-8 pm
    117 W. Park St., Livingston

    Name:  FOCM poster 800.jpg
Views: 828
Size:  77.4 KB

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    1,054

    Default

    That Bloomberg article makes my blood boil. Where's my pitchfork there's a barn burning to be done (metaphorically of course).
    Elitist Hunter

    "Never let schooling [work] get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    I prefer to fight them with documentation. Spent another afternoon at county records, this time looking up railroad grants. They have this beautiful sentence in there about public access roads/trails being retained when they sold those grant parcels to individuals or companies.

    Afterward, I was at the FOCM fundraiser. We were joined by 4 of PLWA's directors: Bernard Lea, John Gibson, Ray Pearson and JW Westman, two of which took the mic and shared about public access.

    It was great to meet some locals who live out there and have used these trails that have been sticking up the no forest service access signs recently.

    Met a member of the public that was up at the same trail Brad and I had been with the locked gate. A new No Trespassing sign is up, she got pictures and thankfully used the trail despite the sign, has been for years. So they are going to write out an affidavit for the records, send pictures, as well as write our congressmen. Nice to meet people willing to get engaged.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    Another one bites the dust...

    After having shown one of the Parks County Road department officials my pictures from the first west side Crazy Mountains trip I made with Brad (Friends of the Crazy Mountains), especially the signs saying "No Forest Service Access", and speaking with one of the county commissioners, we were wanting all the documentation together to present before moving forward.

    But, I just got an update from Park County Roads that they did already deal with one of the illegal signs, removing it and are looking into the encroaching archway. A landowner had illegally attached their privately made sign to a Park County sign post, trying to make it look official. Their "No National Forest Access" sign has now been removed.

    Name:  illegal no access sign west side.jpg
Views: 585
Size:  98.4 KB
    This image is the property of EMWH and cannot be reproduced without EMWH's permission (have to put a disclaimer up due to poaching of work by organizations not actually doing the work and using them for different objectives, which sucks.)

    Brad Wilson, who has assisted in some of this documentation I have been amassing (when I say amassing, I am not exaggerating, and I just got another dump of documents from an anonymous source, on top of all of my records research), just put out an oped on the Crazies work.


    Protect access rights in the Crazy Mountains


    Absent from the Losing Ground "Portfolio" report is any mention of historic roads and trails in the Crazy Mountains, which is at the heart of these access conflicts. While the report notes that landowners and recreationists are looking for ways to improve access in the range, the first step to finding a solution is for the U.S. Forest Service to follow its direction and policy and take action necessary to protect these existing access rights to National Forest Service land.
    I would add that documenting, especially the legalities, what we already have, is foundational towards protecting any access.

    Hell, I just spent time at two access areas already fought for in Teton County last week and a number of hours at their courthouse copying some records. One of the roads has signs up saying no public access on the road when there is. I had to send the pictures and GIS coordinates to the Teton County road department so they can be removed, and will need to make sure that they are removed. Those damn signs were up during the hunting season, when they shouldn't have been. So even when you win the cases, you have to keep an eye on things to make sure they don't slip back to obstructed.
    Last edited by katqanna; 12-27-2017 at 06:14 PM.

  8. #58

    Default

    Kat, is there any legal penalty for putting up those signs?
    "The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    4,260

    Default

    Where was that sign at and who was the landowner?

  10. Default

    Those putting up those ILLEGAL signs need punished... interrupt that how you will.
    "Hunt when you can. You're gonna run outta health before you run outta money."

  11. #61

    Default

    Minus a confession, near impossible to prove who put up the sign(s).

    Yes, really pisses a guy off with the actions of these holier-than-though landowners.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    Southern Elk, below is the law and penalty. The problem is that there are several landowners involved, we might not know who exactly attached the sign, as it is not likely they are going to claim ownership for something that is illegal. Signs like these can be ordered online. The fines are a pittance compared to the obstruction of the public.
    After discussions with an attorney on this work, unfortunately had to add a photo disclaimer, since there are groups poaching access images, not doing the work and using them for different objectives, which sucks.

    61-8-210. Display of unauthorized signs, signals, or markings. (1) A person may not place, maintain, or display upon or in view of a highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking, or device that purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic control device, that attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or that hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic control device or flag person.

    (2) A person may not place or maintain and a public authority may not permit commercial advertising on an official traffic control device on a highway, except for business signs included as a part of official motorist service panels or roadside area information panels approved by the department of transportation.

    (3) This section does not prohibit the erection of signs upon private property adjacent to highways that give useful directional information and that are of a type that cannot be mistaken for official signs.

    Penalty:
    Violation Of Chapter -- Penalty
    61-8-711. Violation of chapter -- penalty. (1) It is a misdemeanor for a person to violate any of the provisions of this chapter unless the violation is declared to be a felony.

    (2) Each person convicted of a misdemeanor for a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter for which another penalty is not provided shall for a first conviction be punished by a fine of not less than $10 or more than $100. For a second conviction within 1 year after the first conviction, the person shall be punished by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $200. Upon a third or subsequent conviction within 1 year after the first conviction, the person shall be punished by a fine of not less than $50 or more than $500.

    (3) Except as provided in subsection (4), failure to pay a fine imposed under this chapter is a civil contempt of the court. On failure of payment of a fine, the court may:

    (a) order enforcement of the fine by execution in the manner provided in 25-13-204 and under the provisions of Title 25, chapter 13; or

    (b) if the court finds that the person is unable to pay, order the person to perform community service.

    (4) If property is not found in an amount necessary to satisfy the unpaid portion of the fine and if the court makes a written finding that community service is inappropriate, the person shall be imprisoned in the county jail in the county in which the offense was committed, and the imprisonment shall be the number of days that the fine is divisible by the dollar amount of the incarceration credit contained in 46-18-403.

    (5) Upon conviction, the court costs or any part of the court costs may be assessed against the defendant in the discretion of the court.
    Last edited by katqanna; 12-27-2017 at 06:15 PM.

  13. #63

    Default

    ^Thank you for the explanation.
    "The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    I just got a call back from MDT and he said in addition to the MCA I already cited that another is applicable:
    MCA 60-6-101 thru 105 - Encroachments.

    60-6-101. Highway encroachments -- immediate removal. (1) If any highway under the jurisdiction of the transportation commission is encroached upon by a fence, building, structure, sign, marker, mailbox, newspaper delivery box, or other obstruction, the department of transportation may give notice in writing to the person erecting or maintaining such encroachment requiring the same to be removed.

    (2) The department shall adopt rules pertaining to the accommodation of mailboxes and newspaper delivery boxes on public highway rights-of-way. The rules must ensure that the location and construction of mailboxes and newspaper delivery boxes conform to the rules and regulations of the U.S. postal service.

    (3) If the encroachment obstructs and prevents the use of the highway for vehicles, the department may immediately remove the same without the notice required by 60-6-102.
    We also talked about their historical maps and the fact that these roads are receiving fuel tax, which requires "open to public travel", whether the road is public or private. When I get back to Helena, I will be going to check out their historical maps, since Sweet Grass County did not have them in the Clerk & Recorders office and didn't know where they were or what happened to them.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    4,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by katqanna View Post
    We also talked about their historical maps and the fact that these roads are receiving fuel tax, which requires "open to public travel", whether the road is public or private. When I get back to Helena, I will be going to check out their historical maps, since Sweet Grass County did not have them in the Clerk & Recorders office and didn't know where they were or what happened to them.
    I wonder who is in charge of safeguarding the maps? /softball


  16. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Gallatin Gateway, MT
    Posts
    2,407

    Default

    Terry Anderson is a highly educated and articulate advocate of private property rights, privatization of lands, and applying capitalistic principles to every land management issue, but much of which he writes and speaks is derived from ideology rather than pragmatism and the reality of public land ownership and management challenges.

  17. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    4,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Arrow View Post
    Terry Anderson is a highly educated and articulate advocate of private property rights, privatization of lands, and applying capitalistic principles to every land management issue, but much of which he writes and speaks is derived from ideology rather than pragmatism and the reality of public land ownership and management challenges.
    Actually, much of what he writes is derived from false premises.

  18. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    I got a call this morning with some interesting information about a meeting being set up.

    Some details involved:
    1. HD 580 (eastside Crazy Mountains) has an elk objective of 975, yet 580's 2017 elk count was 4846. Based on "FWP's Estimated Elk Numbers Assuming 80% of Elk Are Observed" – that would make the elk population about 6058. This is a huge problem to landowners with agriculture to have losses due to the over populated elk and potential property damage, for example fences.
    2. One of FWP's season setting public meetings is in Big Timber, Jan. 18th, 7 pm at the library.
    3. In Brett French's article in the Billings Gazette, FWP, some commissioners at odds over Montana's extended elk season, FWP Commissioner Dan Vermillion addressed HD 580, "Vermillion pointed to Hunting District 580, on the east side of the Crazy Mountains, as an example of why Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks should go to a cow-only elk hunt in specific areas. He said elk populations for the district are 200 percent over objective. The objectives are based on landowner tolerance."
    4. Chuck Rein is a Crazy Mountain landowner; Vice-President of Montana Outfitters and Guides Association; an outfitter that profits from public resources (like antlered bull elk) and public lands; a member of the state and local stockgrowers associations; aggressively pursued actions against Yellowstone District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz for doing his job, following policy on multiple use in the Crazy Mountains, including meeting with officials, bringing Sienkiewicz up to the Stockgrowers meetings, resulting in letters from both the local Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers and Montana Stockgrowers Association to Senator Daines, USFS Chief Tidwell; Rein was also part of a landowner group letter to the same legislator and officials, including USDA Sec. Perdue - resulting in Sienkiewicz' removal and investigation (thankfully, he was reinstated).

    So Chuck Rein calls FWP Commissioner Richard Stucker recently (the Ag representative) from Chinook, about the antlerless comment/season setting, to set up a meeting. The meeting is scheduled the day before FWP's public meeting. You might think that if Rein had questions or concerns, he could participate in the public process on the 18th, like everyone else.

    A meeting has been set up for Jan. 17, 1:00 pm, at the NRCS Bldg in Big Timber, which I confirmed all these details with FWP Bark Beck and Dan Vermillion.

    What is really interesting is who all is invited:
    Chuck Rein - landowner/outfitter/Vice-President of Montana Outfitters & Guides Association/Stockgrowers members
    Nathan Anderson - landowner, also President of the Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers Association and signer to the letters and efforts against FS Sienkiewicz
    Jay Bodner - Montana Stockgrowers Association
    Richard Stuker - FWP Commissioner
    Dan Vermillion - FWP Commissioner
    Nels Swandal - Senator SD 30 (R)
    Alan Redfield - Representative HD 59 (R)
    Barb Beck - FWP Reg. 5 Supervisor
    Justin Paugh - Reg. 5 FWP Wildlife Biologist

    Rein didn't just suggest that since these people might happen to be in the area for the public meeting on the 18th, let's meet to have a beer and shoot the shit! And why the Legislators, when this isn't a legislative matter?

    Now, when you look at Montana open meeting laws, this many Executive branch officials and 2 State legislators (and if any public monies are spent for them to attend) - discussing policy/actions, or conducting business, you have an open meeting, which the public can attend. Montana Open Government Guide states, "Indeed, any time the body meets to hear, discuss, or act on any matter, the meeting is deemed to be open regardless of the matter to be discussed."

    This subject involves three issues: public resources (and their management), and at times public access and public lands - which should be open and transparent.

    This meeting smacks of the same Rein manuervering/alignment he used against Yellowstone District Ranger Sienkiewicz to get him removed. So what exactly is going on here?

  19. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Wyoming
    Posts
    649

    Default

    Keep up the good work Kat. I can't believe this kind of blocking public lands is still happening. I just wish the Feds had the balls to do something about it...

    Hang in there Rob, maybe your case will get thrown out at the least.
    Coal. Guns. Freedom.

  20. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by katqanna View Post
    I got a call this morning with some interesting information about a meeting being set up.

    Some details involved:
    1. HD 580 (eastside Crazy Mountains) has an elk objective of 975, yet 580's 2017 elk count was 4846. Based on "FWP's Estimated Elk Numbers Assuming 80% of Elk Are Observed" – that would make the elk population about 6058. This is a huge problem to landowners with agriculture to have losses due to the over populated elk and potential property damage, for example fences.
    2. One of FWP's season setting public meetings is in Big Timber, Jan. 18th, 7 pm at the library.
    3. In Brett French's article in the Billings Gazette, FWP, some commissioners at odds over Montana's extended elk season, FWP Commissioner Dan Vermillion addressed HD 580, "Vermillion pointed to Hunting District 580, on the east side of the Crazy Mountains, as an example of why Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks should go to a cow-only elk hunt in specific areas. He said elk populations for the district are 200 percent over objective. The objectives are based on landowner tolerance."
    4. Chuck Rein is a Crazy Mountain landowner; Vice-President of Montana Outfitters and Guides Association; an outfitter that profits from public resources (like antlered bull elk) and public lands; a member of the state and local stockgrowers associations; aggressively pursued actions against Yellowstone District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz for doing his job, following policy on multiple use in the Crazy Mountains, including meeting with officials, bringing Sienkiewicz up to the Stockgrowers meetings, resulting in letters from both the local Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers and Montana Stockgrowers Association to Senator Daines, USFS Chief Tidwell; Rein was also part of a landowner group letter to the same legislator and officials, including USDA Sec. Perdue - resulting in Sienkiewicz' removal and investigation (thankfully, he was reinstated).

    So Chuck Rein calls FWP Commissioner Richard Stucker recently (the Ag representative) from Chinook, about the antlerless comment/season setting, to set up a meeting. The meeting is scheduled the day before FWP's public meeting. You might think that if Rein had questions or concerns, he could participate in the public process on the 18th, like everyone else.

    A meeting has been set up for Jan. 17, 1:00 pm, at the NRCS Bldg in Big Timber, which I confirmed all these details with FWP Bark Beck and Dan Vermillion.

    What is really interesting is who all is invited:
    Chuck Rein - landowner/outfitter/Vice-President of Montana Outfitters & Guides Association/Stockgrowers members
    Nathan Anderson - landowner, also President of the Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers Association and signer to the letters and efforts against FS Sienkiewicz
    Jay Bodner - Montana Stockgrowers Association
    Richard Stuker - FWP Commissioner
    Dan Vermillion - FWP Commissioner
    Nels Swandal - Senator SD 30 (R)
    Alan Redfield - Representative HD 59 (R)
    Barb Beck - FWP Reg. 5 Supervisor
    Justin Paugh - Reg. 5 FWP Wildlife Biologist

    Rein didn't just suggest that since these people might happen to be in the area for the public meeting on the 18th, let's meet to have a beer and shoot the shit! And why the Legislators, when this isn't a legislative matter?

    Now, when you look at Montana open meeting laws, this many Executive branch officials and 2 State legislators (and if any public monies are spent for them to attend) - discussing policy/actions, or conducting business, you have an open meeting, which the public can attend. Montana Open Government Guide states, "Indeed, any time the body meets to hear, discuss, or act on any matter, the meeting is deemed to be open regardless of the matter to be discussed."

    This subject involves three issues: public resources (and their management), and at times public access and public lands - which should be open and transparent.

    This meeting smacks of the same Rein manuervering/alignment he used against Yellowstone District Ranger Sienkiewicz to get him removed. So what exactly is going on here?
    kat- thanks for your vigilance. Are those landowners in the permit portion of 580?

  21. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    4,260

    Default

    The attack is on.... At the region 3 regulation meeting Kerry White was threatening FWP with landowner kickback because "A certain commissioner is trying to make 580 cows only." The last time they tried this sort of an attack with Sienkiewicz they lit their own underwear on fire. Maybe we should offer to supply the meeting with snacks.

    580 needs to go cow only for a lot of reasons unless they start making some concessions. We should make it happen.

  22. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    1,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBass View Post
    kat- thanks for your vigilance. Are those landowners in the permit portion of 580?
    Yes, and Rein has a FS outfitting permit for the bulk of that area.

  23. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    4,260

    Default

    Nathan Anderson (Billy Creek Ranch) is just south of Sweet Grass Creek so he is in the 580-20 permit zone. He sells access. Rein is on the north side of Sweet Grass creek so he is either sex elk. He is a full-blown outfitter.

  24. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Bitterroot Valley, MT
    Posts
    1,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RobG View Post

    580 needs to go cow only for a lot of reasons unless they start making some concessions. We should make it happen.
    X2.
    "There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm." ~TR

    "He was a mighty hunter before the Lord." ~Genesis 10:9

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •