Sitka Gear Turkey Tool Belt

Forest service sued over failing to protect MT public access TODAY

" This notice is provided by WELC on behalf of the Montana Chapter of
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Friends of the Crazy Mountains,
Enhancing Montana’s Wildlife and Habitat, the Skyline Sportsmen
Association, John Daggett, Tony Schoonen, Harold Johns, Justin Mandic, and
the John Gibson (collectively “the Coalition”)."
 
I receive a 404 error when clicking your link Elkduds. Is the link accurate or maybe recently taken down?

I support the idea of placing pressure to enforce public legal access - looking to read the info you are sharing.
 
It is not a lawsuit yet. Just the intent to sue if not addressed preferably in 30 days. I hope they get the forest service to act. If no action, I hope they bring forth the lawsuit and win.

"Prior to doing so, however, we would welcome the opportunity to meet
and discuss these issues further with you and Service personnel – preferably
within the next thirty (30) days and before the Service relinquishes any
public access rights on public trails or begins any on-the-ground work on a
proposed re-route in the Crazy Mountains."
 
Rob, What is your take on the strength of their case? Is it actually going to work? It seems like a slam dunk after reading the letter, but I'm sure it was meant to sound that way.
 
I certainly don’t know any details here but I worked for the Forest Service and was involved in several right of way and easement issues. Even though there is a claim here that the public has a right to cross the private land I would want to see the actual right of way agreement before saying that was true. There are many Forest Service roads and trails on private land with no legal access. As well as many private roads crossing public land with no legal access. One reason for this is that for most of the existence of the Forest Service district rangers spent their whole career on the same district and they were good buddies with the local land owners. This resulted in a lot of hand shake deals that didn’t bother with legalities. Now the rangers are gone, and the landownership has changed and the new land owners are exercising their legal right.

Like say I don’t know if that is the case here but if the public does indeed have a right to cross the private land it would seem like they should be suing the landowner rather than the forest service.
 
I certainly don’t know any details here but I worked for the Forest Service and was involved in several right of way and easement issues. Even though there is a claim here that the public has a right to cross the private land I would want to see the actual right of way agreement before saying that was true. There are many Forest Service roads and trails on private land with no legal access. As well as many private roads crossing public land with no legal access. One reason for this is that for most of the existence of the Forest Service district rangers spent their whole career on the same district and they were good buddies with the local land owners. This resulted in a lot of hand shake deals that didn’t bother with legalities. Now the rangers are gone, and the landownership has changed and the new land owners are exercising their legal right.

Like say I don’t know if that is the case here but if the public does indeed have a right to cross the private land it would seem like they should be suing the landowner rather than the forest service.

There doesn’t have to be a right of way agreement for there to be access.
 
No, but there does need to be some kind of documentation. Government can't just say that people have the right to trespass on private land.
 
Rob, What is your take on the strength of their case? Is it actually going to work? It seems like a slam dunk after reading the letter, but I'm sure it was meant to sound that way.
I don't know the details of the case. Note that they are suing the Forest Service to force them to get these trails open; they are not suing the landowners. This is what I wanted to do from the start as an alternative to getting the ticket, but these things take time and I felt it was important to keep the trail used until then. Turns out the prosecutor was serious about assisting this landowner block a trail that happened to also go through the prosecutor's land (conflict of interest!). This collusion makes it really hard to use the trail adversely to maintain the claim to a prescriptive easement so this (in my opinion) is a next step.

I talked to John Sullivan at BHA and it was very obvious the coalition has put a lot of thought into it. They aren't going to take something on they can't win. Hopefully it will spur the working group into an agreement that will give the public access. The working groups has been talking for two years now.

Here is the best story on the subject: https://www.greatfallstribune.com/s...t-ensuring-access-crazy-mountains/2871391002/


rg
 
Last edited:
I certainly don’t know any details here but I worked for the Forest Service and was involved in several right of way and easement issues. Even though there is a claim here that the public has a right to cross the private land I would want to see the actual right of way agreement before saying that was true. There are many Forest Service roads and trails on private land with no legal access. As well as many private roads crossing public land with no legal access. One reason for this is that for most of the existence of the Forest Service district rangers spent their whole career on the same district and they were good buddies with the local land owners. This resulted in a lot of hand shake deals that didn’t bother with legalities. Now the rangers are gone, and the landownership has changed and the new land owners are exercising their legal right.

Like say I don’t know if that is the case here but if the public does indeed have a right to cross the private land it would seem like they should be suing the landowner rather than the forest service.

Ah, you picked up on a subtle point. I do not know how the lawsuit addresses this, but the Forest Service has a protocol, in writing, that spells out what they are supposed to do when a private landowner blocks a trail. If all else fails they should file a "Statement of Interest" that puts a claim on the trail. Then if the landowner wants a clean title they can sue the Forest Service. This is what happened in the Wonder Ranch case in the Madison Valley.

rg
 
Back
Top