
The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains - petethomas
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-25/this-land-is-no-longer-your-land
======
jandrewrogers
This is a complicated topic. I used to own the lower part of a mountain valley
(out west but not in Montana). There were two dirt "roads" into the valley,
both immediately against the titled property; the rest of the valley was
Federal (BLM) land encircled by mountains that were effectively impassable.
Americans generally have a right to use and temporarily occupy these Federal
lands without permission, so if I put up a gate/sign it would effectively be
like owning the entire valley.

There are three big issues when you own land like this that people overlook,
both of which can be described as "tragedy of a pseudo-commons":

\- The Federal government likes to use these roads across private and public
land but not only doesn't do maintenance but enforces a stack of regulations
that actively prohibits others from doing repairs to damage caused by their
traffic. Filling in a pothole requires environmental impact studies,
archaeological assessments, thousands of dollars in fees, etc. The nice dirt
roads you find up in ranch country in Federal wilderness areas _are often
maintained illegally by locals_ because the government won't do it and the
cost of doing it legally is completely unjustifiable. For some people, it is
easier to just disallow road access.

\- Most ranchers do not own the mineral rights of the land, and mineral rights
come with privileges that allow mineral exploration companies to abuse your
land for the purpose of mineral extraction with little recourse. An effective
strategy to prevent this is to actively prohibit the mineral exploration
companies from trespassing to establish that there is mineral worth
extracting. I've dealt with this twice. Among other things, it requires
aggressive enforcement of a "no trespassing" policy that mineral companies
will try to ignore or subvert.

\- People thinking that the private land is Federal and acting under those
assumptions, including vandalizing, stealing from, and generally trashing
things as Federal agencies do very little to police this. Unfortunately, this
is a really common problem in wilderness areas. They tend to avoid areas that
look like they are actively managed lest a rancher show up -- well-maintained
signs and gates are a good proxy.

How this plays out in practice when these issues become a big enough problem
that the ranchers start putting up signs and gates everywhere, with the common
understanding that these are not for the locals.

After years dealing with the above issues, we eventually did like everyone
else and prohibited use of the roads (except for locals of course). I would
say it was only marginally effective but it was better than the previous
situation.

~~~
takk309
The whole "locals only" thing is just as bad. How do you communicate to the
locals what is okay and what is not? How do you define locals? Is it just
those that live on the same road, those that you run into at the store? It has
to be all or nothing. That is really what sucks with the whole situation.

~~~
jandrewrogers
Yes, it does suck.

You are taking "locals" a bit too literally. It is just a social convention
and these are small communities, it is generally understood that unless the
property owner has socialized something different, those signs are for mining
companies, yahoos from the city, etc. A lot of times if you are not from the
area, you can often ask one of the local people the purpose of a sign in some
area based on what you want to do. They'll often tell you that you can ignore
it as long as you are just passing through. The signs are there to discourage
people. In fact, they'll appreciate that you bothered to ask.

~~~
prawn
I'd share your frustrating with mining companies, but is "yahoos from the
city" a bit unfair? Your country has brilliant appreciation of the outdoors,
including city-dwellers who travel out on weekends or holidays. Signage that
informs and guides them rather than bars them might help.

I imagine 99% of people just want to pass through carefully rather than dump
trash or graffiti anything.

~~~
jeffdavis
Guidance is really the job of the parks services. The problems come when the
burdens get thrust upon the landowners.

~~~
prawn
Elsewhere in these comments are people saying that landowners will remove
(public) signage(!), which might impact what the parks people can do?

Maybe a well-publicised term for a private easement that people recognise is
treated in a particular way? I like that in the States, National Park means
something, BLM means something, etc. Our designations in Australia don't seem
as clear. We have Crown land, but I have no idea where to find out about it.

Private easement guides would be: You are a guest here on private land. Don't
stray from the road, leave gates as you found them, livestock has right of
way, no camping, etc.

Surely there's a balance in making reasonable land access available to people.

~~~
jeffdavis
I agree as long as the rules are enforced and landowners aren't forced to deal
with the consequences of people that break them.

Really this is called "sharing" and it's sad that it's causing so many
problems.

------
typeformer
I grew up in Livingston MT just a 20 min drive from the Crazies, I know these
trails, and this is one if the saddest things I have ever read on HN. Now I
live on the West coast but I miss Montana all the time and visit whenever I
can. To be honest, I really can't fathom how terrible things have gotten
politically with the likes of the despicably corrupt Zinke and Gioforte.
Personally, I watched everything change so fast, 7 years maybe, it started
with the spec houses and the big money from the Yellowstone Club in Big Sky.
My father was a carpenter on a ugly 12 million dollar monstrosity, complete
with a heated fucking driveway, cut out of what use to be public land, and
used solely by Microsoft execs a for a few days a year. This big money then
led to Bozeman blowing up with no smart growth plan, just all sprawl and box
stores now. And already it has become the next Boulder, with it slew of
bourgeoisie shops downtown, and yes, a great outdoorsy place to live, but only
if you've got the Do Re Mi. Oracle is there in Bozeman now, and Google and FB
are rumoured to be coming soon too...but tech per se isn't the main force
killing MT, or the west, it's mostly our values that are. Perhaps, I can write
a geat Montana story about a forrest service ranger, who leads a double life
cutting fences, torching wasteful vacation mansions, and getting into
conflicts with poachers, extractors, and rich asshole "ranchers" and
developers. Maybe one day soon the beauty, majesty and stillness of MT will
only be saved in stories, or maybe there is still a chance we can change out
values and change our ways.

~~~
wavefunction
You get some rich people from somewhere else who move in and throw all local
culture and tradition away.

It's happening in Colorado. Every Fourteener (14,000+ foot mountains) used to
be publicly accessible but we got some greedy folks who moved in and shut down
that traditional access to at least five of them so far.

If I ever come into a sizable fortune my plan is to acquire these lands and
turn them over to the public. I would be happy to legally harass these folks
into selling as well, if that's what it took. Maybe buy up the land
surrounding theirs and cut off public access.

~~~
sliverstorm
I share your dream plan, but with the public lands transfer movement fear the
Fed would one day soon turn around and sell the bequeathment for a song. It
might not happen today or this decade, but public lands are not immutable.

So then I wonder if the best option is to set up some kind of management
trust.

~~~
wavefunction
You're probably right considering that clown Zinke, who wasn't even born in
Montana and doesn't appear to appreciate the real sentiments of many in the
American West.

------
njarboe
As a research geologist, working in the western US has generally been great
because of so much easy access to a large amount of public land. But, over the
last 5 years or so, I have noticed more ranchers gating off roads going
through their land. This is especially annoying when they have a small in-
holding in a national forest or BLM land and the road that has been used for
over 100 years is now blocked. Most times there is a new (closed, but not
locked(that would be illegal)) gate and a big sign that says no trespassing.

One can legally open the gate and use the road and it won't be trespassing,
but most people won't know this. Even if you think you are in the right in
going onto someones land, confronting an armed rancher is something most
people will not risk doing. I generally don't. It would be nice if there were
signs that made it clear that it is legal to pass through such gates, but I
imagine they would be removed by the ranchers immediately. I'm glad at least
some forest service employees are pushing back on this practice.

~~~
googlryas
Should it be illegal to put up 'no trespassing' signs when there is clearly a
longstanding public easement?

~~~
njarboe
I imagine it is, but they put up the signs on the fences on both sides of the
road, which is their property and it is illegal to trespass. IANAL, but on
undeveloped land in the US you have to put up 'no trespassing' signs generally
before enforcing people not to trespass on your land.

I reality the ranchers(in reality they are usually rich sport ranchers that
live in a city and recently bought the property) don't even need the closed
gate in most cases. If you are in the middle of nowhere going down a dirt road
and you come up to a fence that crosses the road with a cattle guard and on
both sides of the road it say no trespassing, what do you do?

~~~
tertius
Assuming a 'no trespassing sign.'

Closed gate with no lock, can't pass.

Closed gate with locked lock, can't pass.

Closed gate with unlocked lock, can pass.

~~~
njarboe
"Closed gate with unlocked lock, can pass." Never seen one of those.

Usually a cattle guard means no gate at all.

------
hellogoodbyeeee
I feel pretty passionately about protecting national land. Are there any
recommendations on how to best support it? I don't live near any federal lands
and I'm generally don't trust lobbyist groups. Should I be donating to the
Sierra Club? Or are there other alternatives?

~~~
barsonme
Other than using the federal lands more _and_ contacting your representatives
(via phone!!) to express your support for keeping public federal lands, yes,
donate.

While your money probably won't be ill-spent with your run-of-the-mill
environmental groups, I'd really recommend searching out right-leaning groups
that support public federal lands, like the American Conservation Coalition
([https://acc.eco](https://acc.eco)).

Sadly, the right has—for a variety of reasons—all but abandoned
environmentalism and that's been a major hurdle for those of us who want to
protect the environment. Eco-right groups have a _much_ better shot at
changing the opinions of right-leaning folk than progressive groups like the
Sierra Club do.

Full disclosure: I'm one of ACC's 42 unpaid volunteers.

~~~
kharms
Why do you recommend seeking out right-leaning groups?

~~~
cbcoutinho
I would recommend right-leaning groups as well, but that's mostly because of
the hunting communities are usually associated with the actual 'use' of public
lands, and have been supporting most of the ecological/wildlife research.
There's recently been a big push towards historically sustainable wildlife
systems, and that's a topic that resonates with most of the more conservative
hunting communities.

~~~
dbcurtis
Yup. A lot of people don't want to admit that hunters were the original
conservationists. And also, a lot of non-hunters don't support hunting-
oriented conservation methods. For instance, just because you buy a duck stamp
it doesn't mean you have to go duck hunting. Duck stamps support the
preservation of duck habitat and other wetlands. Buying a duck stamp is an
easy way to directly contribute targetted money to wetlands preservation. Just
for an example.

~~~
eonw
hunters originally only wanted to 'preserve' what they wanted to kill...
otherwise we'd still have wolves, grizzlies, and other predators of all sizes,
at their historic populations. likewise, certain hunters favorites wouldn't be
dealing with population issues now. the ranchers have done the most harm
though, they seem to want to kill everything, imo.

~~~
cdoxsey
Ironically one of the consequences of strict laws protecting endangered
species is it actually leads to more destruction not less. A rancher notices a
protected animal on his land and gets rid of it to avoid getting harangued by
the government. "Shoot, Shovel and Shutup"

------
dredmorbius
By coincidence, "Freedom to Roam" came up in a recent HN thread:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)

 _the general public 's right to access certain public or privately owned land
for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public
access to the wilderness or the "right to roam"._

 _In Scotland, the Nordic countries of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden,
the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and the Central European
countries of Austria, Czech Republic and Switzerland, the freedom to roam
takes the form of general public rights which are sometimes codified in law.
The access is ancient in parts of Northern Europe and has been regarded as
sufficiently basic that it was not formalised in law until modern times.
However, the right usually does not include any substantial economic
exploitation, such as hunting or logging, or disruptive activities, such as
making fires and driving offroad vehicles._

~~~
drewnick
New Hampshire also has a pretty unique culture regarding hunting on others'
and public land:

"Based on long-standing tradition, nearly all lands in the state of New
Hampshire are open to hunting. The "rule of thumb" in New Hampshire is: all
state, federal, municipal, county and private land is open to hunting unless
it is posted against hunting."

[http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/hunting/where-
hunt.html](http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/hunting/where-hunt.html)

~~~
corpMaverick
Not sure if this is how it works in NH. But, IMHO private land owners should
pay more taxes for their land if they post against roaming. Or the reverse,
pay less land taxes if they allow roaming.

~~~
jpindar
That is already the case in NH.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_use)

------
takk309
I live in Bozeman and have made many trips to the Crazy Mountains over the
years and can say that this article hits the nail on the head. This isn't just
an issue in the Crazies either. Almost every mountain range in the region has
some sort of land access issue. In the Bridger Range, just west of the
Crazies, the Forest Service choose to reroute a trail to avoid a legal battle.
Other examples include places that the trail cuts across the corner of
someones land for 10 to 20 feet, yet the land owner gates off access. It is a
shame that wealthy land owners are able to buy their way into closing these
trails through the threat of expensive litigation.

~~~
jhauris
Are there places they can't reroute the trail? That seems like the natural
solution.

~~~
takk309
If you look at the map in the article, you will see the checker boarding. That
usually means that if you move a trail off of one section, it ends up on
another section. Sometimes it is a matter of the length of trail that needs to
be rerouted. The example I gave in my previous comment was a short section of
road and it was a reasonable solution.[1] In the situation in the Crazies,
most of the range is surrounded by private land. It is a unique situation.

[1]
[https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/environment/fores...](https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/environment/forest-
service-plans-road-relocation-to-solve-bridger-mountains-
access/article_27c7376b-b56f-5388-88ff-0b47060f9b4c.html)

------
makomk
Wow. I'm pretty sure the idea of public rights of way as a legal right of
access across private property predates the entire US. That's a hell of a
thing for the government to try and eradicate for the benefit of private
landowners.

~~~
maxerickson
It just wasn't ever well established in the US. States generally give
themselves the right to build roads though.

------
CalChris
This is very similar to Vinod Khosla locking off Martins Beach in Half Moon
Bay. California state law (California Coastal Act) vs federal law (dunno the
law) but otherwise very similar.

[http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/18/sheriff-martins-
beach-...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/18/sheriff-martins-beach-gate-
remains-locked-but-visitors-wont-be-cited/)

------
davidw
This oddly shaped trail just outside of Bend does so to skirt a chunk of
private land in the Deschutes National Forest:

[https://bendtrails.org/trail/sector-16/](https://bendtrails.org/trail/sector-16/)

------
tomohawk
If you own land and let people traverse it without any control, it does
eventually become a public right of way. The government has pushed this,
effectively taking control of private land.

The only sane response is to exercise control of your land by putting up
signs, fences, etc.

~~~
eonw
can you cite any sources of where control of large tracts of land were seized
simply due to a road or trail crossing them? i would be interested to read the
cases.

------
_Codemonkeyism
It's always funny reading this stories when you remember all the land was
stolen from the natives. One thief bickering with the other.

------
jakhead
In addition to calling your representatives, the [1]Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership and [2]Backcountry Hunters and Anglers are great
organizations to support.

[1] [http://www.trcp.org/](http://www.trcp.org/)

[2] [https://www.backcountryhunters.org/](https://www.backcountryhunters.org/)

------
conservajerk
I submit that there was a time and place for these landowners to consider the
public access issue on their land - when they bought the land! I would assume
they would have done their research and such factors would have played into
the price they paid. To change this now is disingenuous.

------
nickik
For those interested in calling their own believes and get a market
perspective on public land and private ownership, I highly recommend PERC, The
Property and Environment Research Center [1].

They are not evil capitalist but rather passionate environmentalist with a
head quarter in Bozeman Montana.

This podcast is quite good with one of the main people from there:
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/08/terry_anderson.html](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/08/terry_anderson.html)

[1] [https://www.perc.org/](https://www.perc.org/)

------
tryingagainbro
seems to me like eminent domain might work. It's my property and I do not want
you to pass through it, seems kinda simple. And the law backs it.

Now the Gov can catch them breaking a law or five in Fed land and make deals
for access but that's not scalable.

So, go to court and force them to sell a 20 yard strip of land to be used as a
road to the Fed property. Or offer them 10x in fed land on the other side of
their property.

------
rdiddly
Business idea: Charge a fare to take people into the federal land via
helicopter loudly flying over private land.

~~~
s0rce
Its too expensive and you can't land in designated wilderness areas. Also, if
the area is a patchwork of public and private land you can't move around once
you land, you'd just have to keep flying from public spot to public spot.

------
ckamin5
Lately just about every single Bloomberg article I've tried to read has been
behind a paywall. Any way around it?

~~~
ihuman
It's not the answer you want to hear, but you could pay for access.

~~~
typeformer
We do, it's called taxes. The noble economist Elinor Olstrom refuted the
Tragedy of Commons by showing that the communities who are the most dependent
on a resource are best folks to manage it. We need more local advocates
engaged, and more pushback, we need to shame these fuckers and I hope this
article gets people angry.

~~~
s0rce
If you read the comment above it was referring to paying for the article on
Bloomberg and not for access to public land, although, the confusion is
understandable.

