BHA threatens Forest Service with lawsuit over public access

[stlusn30-06]

It's pretty clear to see the trend here, landowners are picking up access points to public land and closing that to use the public land for their exclusive use.  They do this by buying up small pieces of timber company land at access points, encircling public land with a single landowner and closing historical access points as well as a few nefarious activities like illegally posting public property as no-tresspassing and erecting giant fences to control animal migration away from pubic land.

I wish it were a world where we can sit down with a landowner, have a cup of coffee and a handshake, but that is not the reality of today.  Sure, there are some that are like that, but using my example above, much of the action is a direct, unmistakable attempt at securing public land for their exclusive use.  That is the rule across the west, not the exception.

There are several effective ways to combat this - and by that I don't mean taking private property rights, I mean maintaining public property access rights.  RMEF and others buy land and sell it at a discount or give it to the state to maintain or gain access points.

Second, use the court system to enforce land and access laws.  There are laws on the books in every state that govern easements and historical use. If the landowner is found to be breaking these laws, that is a great use of the rule of law, not taking rights away from the landowner.  They never had those rights.

The forest service is historically underfunded and undermanned.  They can't sell timber for political reasons and thus cannot even maintain the access and roads they have now, much less increase them.  To expect them to make major headway or pretend they are is simply not reality.

Will some landowners prevail in court?  Quite possibly, it won't be perfect. It isn't the perfect solution, but there aren't many available when there is a group of wealthy individuals who are absolutely trying to keep the public of public land.  Their position is they buy their way in, gate it and our only options are to stay off public land or sue them for maintaining our rights as public landowners.

You didn't read my post did you.

https://montanapioneer.com/usfs-claims-easement-land-owners/


these landowners allowed access for years, 80+ then the new land owners also allowed access.   

USFS gets a new director and came in and wanted an easement, the landowners tried to negotiate a better trail away from their house  (the existing trail was 15 feet away from their house, they wanted it rerouted)   the USFS instead just abused their authority and slammed down a prescriptive easement forcing the land owners into very expensive court battle with the federal government.   

Why couldn't the FS just re-route the trail and get a friendly easement???

So now guess what, every landowner with a similar trail is like OMG I gotta block access or USFS will abuse me too!!!

Seems like a lot of supposition, and fails to take into account a lot of additional history in the subject to state that "every landowner with a similar trail is like OMG I gotta block access or USFS will abuse me too". There has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades. There have been numerous legal fights over water access laws, easements, gates etc...Seems like you are implying that these issues don't actually exist. The millions of dollars, numerous lawsuits and formation of dozens of advocacy groups to fight the more and more regular occurrence of these acts would beg to differ. Blocking access to these trails, that have in some cases existed for a century, is a new thing. For the better part of a hundred years there was no problem. Then the land owners took it upon themselves to put up gates, no trespassing signs, and said there would be no more access. In the land owners words "....it is on the public to prove that an easement exists". That means lawsuit in layman's terms. In these cases it is the Forest Service that has to represent the Public and they are not doing so. Hence BHA's actions.
Some further info:
-"The public has a right to access each of these five trails. When the Northern Pacific Railroad deeded its sections of the checkerboard land to private parties, on both the west side and east side of the Crazies, an easement for “public use” of these five existing routes across the property was expressly reserved".
-https://www.outsideonline.com/2263356/crazy-mountains

[KFhunter]

You've proved my point.

There has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades.

because radical environmental groups have been suing, and now they want to force USFS to do it too.

For the better part of a hundred years there was no problem.

Exactly, then people like you and Idahohunter came along and mucked it up for everyone.

[stlusn30-06]

You've proved my point.

There has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades.

because radical environmental groups have been suing, and now they want to force USFS to do it too.

For the better part of a hundred years there was no problem.

Exactly, then people like you and Idahohunter came along and mucked it up for everyone.

No I think you have proven my my point. By making another statement that is patently false, and then snipping a quote that takes the whole statement out of context.

The attitude shift has come because of the change in landowner demographic. Namely out of state (usually wealthy) buyers closing off access. This is well documented and there are numerous examples of Montana court cases covering this. I am not going to link a bunch to prove my point. Just google it if you don't believe me. Also, this isn't a matter of "wanting" the FS to sue. The FS is mandated by law to protect the trails, since the trails are under their care. Again, the land owners have put up the gates/signs knowing that for the trails to remain open, it'll have to go to court. The land owners are fully aware of what is to come when they put up gates/signs. They are just betting that either they can keep people off their property for 5 years or that they can win in court. They are willing participants in  the process. Not hapless victims caught off guard  by the Big Money Federal Lawyers coming to steal their land.

As to your second snippit. Read the next sentence. It was ppl like me and Idahohunter that were using the trail over the last 100 years. Not the ones putting up the gates and expecting a court fight.

[idahohuntr]

You've proved my point.

There has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades.

because radical environmental groups have been suing, and now they want to force USFS to do it too.

For the better part of a hundred years there was no problem.

Exactly, then people like you and Idahohunter came along and mucked it up for everyone.

That's hilarious...your order of events is backwards.

Changing values and priorities regarding land, hunting access, and ownership are what necessitated groups like BHA and many others that are necessary to fight for our public lands.  If things were still like 1950 these access groups wouldn't exist...there would be no need.

You clearly have extremely limited experience hunting any western US state where there are lots of public/private interfaces.  I hope you consider broadening your hunting experience so you can be more informed in these types of discussions in the future.

[KFhunter]

And they are winning in court, they've been closing off trails for longer than 5 years when some of the first law suits came forth.   USFS knows they won't win going forward and could have more success by working with landowners.   Why doesn't BHA do like RMEF and buy lands to guarantee access?  Why doesn't BHA assist FS in coming up with easement deals? 

BHA doesn't like rural land owners, they believe in agenda 21...make everyone live in a city and everything rural be wilderness.


in the article I posted above we had a rural land owner with a trail through their property, literally IN their backyard, they bent over backwards to work with USFS but got the shaft, now it's being appealed (but sadly it's being appealed in the 9th circuit) 

When it makes it to the supreme court in 5 years and gets shot down sending shock waves through all prescriptive easements don't come crying to me, I tried to show you all a better way.

[KFhunter]

You've proved my point.

There has been a fairly dramatic shift in private landowner's attitudes regarding access to public lands in Montana over the past couple of decades.

because radical environmental groups have been suing, and now they want to force USFS to do it too.

For the better part of a hundred years there was no problem.

Exactly, then people like you and Idahohunter came along and mucked it up for everyone.

That's hilarious...your order of events is backwards.

Changing values and priorities regarding land, hunting access, and ownership are what necessitated groups like BHA and many others that are necessary to fight for our public lands.  If things were still like 1950 these access groups wouldn't exist...there would be no need.

You clearly have extremely limited experience hunting any western US state where there are lots of public/private interfaces.  I hope you consider broadening your hunting experience so you can be more informed in these types of discussions in the future.

You do realize it's not the 1950's anymore because of liberals and environmentalists right? 

(you have no idea where, when or how I hunt so stop with the attacks already.  I've warned you many times to stop)

[headshot5]

I'm with KF.  This is going to make things worse.  If BHA gets these 5 trails, opened back up to the public do you think the group will just disperse?  No, they are going to go after other landowners that have allowed the public through their property without an easement. 

So right now, other private property owners (ranches, and forestlands) are clamping down on public access through private property so they don't get bit. 

[Stein]

I'm with KF.  This is going to make things worse.  If BHA gets these 5 trails, opened back up to the public do you think the group will just disperse?  No, they are going to go after other landowners that have allowed the public through their property without an easement. 

So right now, other private property owners (ranches, and forestlands) are clamping down on public access through private property so they don't get bit.

What is the alternative?

1.  Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
2.  Lose our public trails to owners and give up access to untold acres of public land?

The point that those trails are public land seems to be lost.  The court has agreed, the trails belong to the people and private landowners are attempting to gate off what doesn't belong to them.

Even if you have a handshake deal with a landowner, what happens when he gives it to his kid or sells it to another guy from Texas that thinks he now owns the FS trail that has been there since Grover Cleveland was president?  At some point, every one of those trails will end up in court to settle.

Forcing an easement that is legally owned by the public is a permanent solution to maintain a true treasure, public land access to amazing country that is owned by everyone, not just the rich few.

[headshot5]

What is the alternative?

1.  Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
2.  Lose our public trails to owners and give up access to untold acres of public land?

The point that those trails are public land seems to be lost.  The court has agreed, the trails belong to the people and private landowners are attempting to gate off what doesn't belong to them.

Even if you have a handshake deal with a landowner, what happens when he gives it to his kid or sells it to another guy from Texas that thinks he now owns the FS trail that has been there since Grover Cleveland was president?  At some point, every one of those trails will end up in court to settle.

Forcing an easement that is legally owned by the public is a permanent solution to maintain a true treasure, public land access to amazing country that is owned by everyone, not just the rich few.

Buy property to preserve access to public lands, that's the best answer...  Heaven knows they waste tax dollars on dumber things.   

Work with private property owners to write new easements (in writing, no handshake deals...).   

These groups BHA etc, could be using money to buy properties and then allowing the public unfettered access through it.

Just because a landowner was generous and allowed access through their property to the public for any amount of time, shouldn't make it legal for the public to continue access (with no written easement). 

[headshot5]

1.  Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?

Heck yes bribe them.  With money, and have it notorized.  In writing (an easement)…  Then there is no question going forward.

[KFhunter]

I'm with KF.  This is going to make things worse.  If BHA gets these 5 trails, opened back up to the public do you think the group will just disperse?  No, they are going to go after other landowners that have allowed the public through their property without an easement. 

So right now, other private property owners (ranches, and forestlands) are clamping down on public access through private property so they don't get bit.

What is the alternative?

1.  Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
2.  Lose our public trails to owners and give up access to untold acres of public land?

The point that those trails are public land seems to be lost.  The court has agreed, the trails belong to the people and private landowners are attempting to gate off what doesn't belong to them.

Even if you have a handshake deal with a landowner, what happens when he gives it to his kid or sells it to another guy from Texas that thinks he now owns the FS trail that has been there since Grover Cleveland was president?  At some point, every one of those trails will end up in court to settle.

Forcing an easement that is legally owned by the public is a permanent solution to maintain a true treasure, public land access to amazing country that is owned by everyone, not just the rich few.

There is no existing easement, the trails are not public property!   

That's why it's called prescriptive, it's assumptive, its hostile, there's nothing on the property owner's property deeds saying there is a trail through their property.

[headshot5]

There is no existing easement, that's why it's called prescriptive, it's assumptive, its hostile, there's nothing on the property owner's property deeds saying there is a trail through their property.

I don't know, if you are writing that to me  , I understand, and don't think the public deserves access just because of a landowners generosity in the past.

Edit.  Nevermind, I re-read it.

 

[stlusn30-06]

I'm with KF.  This is going to make things worse.  If BHA gets these 5 trails, opened back up to the public do you think the group will just disperse?  No, they are going to go after other landowners that have allowed the public through their property without an easement. 

So right now, other private property owners (ranches, and forestlands) are clamping down on public access through private property so they don't get bit.

What is the alternative?

1.  Bribe landowners to maintain our rights to use public trails?
2.  Lose our public trails to owners and give up access to untold acres of public land?

The point that those trails are public land seems to be lost.  The court has agreed, the trails belong to the people and private landowners are attempting to gate off what doesn't belong to them.

Even if you have a handshake deal with a landowner, what happens when he gives it to his kid or sells it to another guy from Texas that thinks he now owns the FS trail that has been there since Grover Cleveland was president?  At some point, every one of those trails will end up in court to settle.

Forcing an easement that is legally owned by the public is a permanent solution to maintain a true treasure, public land access to amazing country that is owned by everyone, not just the rich few.

There is no existing easement, the trails are not public property!   

That's why it's called prescriptive, it's assumptive, its hostile, there's nothing on the property owner's property deeds saying there is a trail through their property.

That's just it. There is according to what I'm reading. There likely is something in the property owners deeds stating they need to preserve any pathway being used by the public. That is what was originally required when the Northern Pacific Railroad deeded these parcels to private land owners, and it is why when these things do go to court the land owners lose. This isn't something new either. The glory days of yesteryear are a myth. The battle to keep access to Public lands goes way back. Linked below is a court case from 1948 fighting the exact same scenario The Crazy's are seeing today. The case was founded and won on the original language in the rail road deed. See page 58 in the document for the original language. There is a lot of legal precedent on this issue. Again, this isn't something new, and this isn't some case of the "environmentalist" bad guys coming to steal land. Just another fight to keep access, in a series of fights that goes back decades upon decades.

Enjoy the read. Lots of great info on what the law actually says and how these issues play out in court.

https://www.emwh.org/public%20access/Crazy%20Mountains/big%20timber%20legal.pdf

[KFhunter]

You're taking a very narrow set of circumstances and applying it very broadly, the example I posted doesn't have an old railroad, there's no rail to trail or anything like it. 

[stlusn30-06]

You're taking a very narrow set of circumstances and applying it very broadly, the example I posted doesn't have an old railroad, there's no rail to trail or anything like it.

A couple of things:
1. The example article you posted is a narrow circumstance and doesn't have anything to do with the Crazy Mountains, or BHAs actions.
2. None of these properties ever had a railroad. That isn't the point. I suggest you read the case I linked to. Some quick background; the Federal Government gave a bunch of land to the Northern Pacific. Including land the rail never passed through. When the Northern Pacific deeded these lands over to private land owners they included language that stated any public pathways had to be preserved. The land, and the pathways that BHA are pushing the FS to preserve came from the same rail road deeds. So it is in fact a circumstance that applies directly to the issue at hand with the Crazy Mountains. I have no intention of addressing the article you posted since it has nothing to do with the actual announcement that was originally posted to start this thread.