24 ms·
The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains
- dredmorbius 9y agoBy 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 9y agoNew 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
- greensoap 9y agoThis was the default rule for most of the frontier states. The east coast states (early states) adopted a default rule of no trespassing while the frontier states had such huge expanses of land privately owned that no trespassing as the default was impractical. Instead, the default was trespassing was allowed unless otherwise posted (hence the plethora of no trespassing signs in the Western states).
- megaman22 9y agoI know that it is the same in Maine (or it was), and I believe Vermont. It's generally considered common courtesy to get permission from the landowner first. It's one of those situations where a few yahoos can ruin it for everybody else. Or on the other hand, the influx of people "from away" who are ignorant of or opposed to the mostly unspoken way of doing things.
- corpMaverick 9y agoNot 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.
- typeformer 9y agoYeah, there could be a good idea there! Things have to happen at the cultural level too, but I'm all for experiments!
- jpindar 9y agoThat is already the case in NH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_use
- dboreham 9y agoI used to do a fair bit of hiking and mountaineering in Scotland and England and the only time I was ever challenged by a landowner (while eating my picnic lunch) was in Somerset where he claimed that I might spread Swine Fever to his pigs from the Pork Pie I was eating.
- hellogoodbyeeee 9y agoI 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?
- Diederich 9y agohttps://www.nature.org/ https://www.nature.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_Conservancy
- KGIII 9y agoNot Federal and I am going to just quietly link to an option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Trust_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Trust_Alliance
- trafficlight 9y agoDefinitely. We have a lot of different alliances around Montana. http://www.montanalandtrusts.org/memberdirectory/ http://www.montanalandtrusts.org/memberdirectory/
- KGIII 9y agoOne of the great benefits about living where I do (Maine) is that so much land is open for public use. I don't want to derail the thread so I will simply point out that it is really easy to cede your land to a trust, in many areas where that's actually beneficial. Some trusts are set up to accept donations in cash, as well. So, either way helps preserve land for public access in perpetuity.
- sliverstorm 9y agoI don't really know either. For clothing you were going to buy anyway, you can spend money with Patagonia & company, who are wading into the fray. You can try to connect with sportsmen's groups and donate or get involved; I'm not a sportsman, but they have been the most effective political force defending public land this year.
- makomk 9y agoWow. 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.
- mindslight 9y agoThe main function of the modern government apparatus is to divide up the commons and parcel them out for private ownership. Coase was just another power-supplicating priest.
- nickik 9y agoYour understanding of Coase is pathetic and you should be ashamed of yourself.
- dang 9y agoPlease don't post like this regardless of how lame another comment was. It only makes this place worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: I'm sad to see that you've posted nastily uncivil comments before this too. We ban accounts that do that, so would you please read those guidelines and err on the side of civility when posting here?
- dang 9y agoWould you please stop using HN for ideological battle? It's emphatically not what this site is for: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- davidw 9y agoThis 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/
- njarboe 9y agoAs 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 9y agoShould it be illegal to put up 'no trespassing' signs when there is clearly a longstanding public easement?
- takk309 9y agoI think it should be illegal. At the same time, it would be nice if the Forest Service would place signs on these trails clarifying that access is allowed and list the contact information for the proper authorities. That would, however, be expensive and the land owners would no doubt remove the signs.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoRemoving the signs would be theft of government property, and is punishable by up to one year in jail. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641 Edit: I'm happy to hang out in an old pickup truck with a coffee and a shotgun and wait for someone to steal the signs. Just point me in the right direction and give me a number to call with the forestry service, national parks, or the bureau of land management when someone snags a sign.
- ckamin5 9y agoLately just about every single Bloomberg article I've tried to read has been behind a paywall. Any way around it?
- ihuman 9y agoIt's not the answer you want to hear, but you could pay for access.
- typeformer 9y agoWe 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 9y agoIf 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.
- ghaff 9y agoFrom what I’ve seen it’s not a paywall but you do have to register.
- takk309 9y agoI 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 9y agoAre there places they can't reroute the trail? That seems like the natural solution.
- takk309 9y agoIf 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/forest-service-plans-road-relocation-to-solve-bridger-mountains-access/article_27c7376b-b56f-5388-88ff-0b47060f9b4c.html https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/environment/fores...
- jakhead 9y agoIn 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/
- typeformer 9y agoI 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.
- xeromal 9y agoThat story is called "Longmire" and its on netflix except it's WY not MT.
- typeformer 9y agoCool, I will check it out.
- wavefunction 9y agoYou 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.
- jandrewrogers 9y agoThis 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 9y ago
- CalChris 9y agoThis 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-gate-remains-locked-but-visitors-wont-be-cited/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/18/sheriff-martins-beach-...
- rdiddly 9y agoBusiness idea: Charge a fare to take people into the federal land via helicopter loudly flying over private land.
- s0rce 9y agoIts 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.
- prawn 9y agoProbably cheaper to try and quietly buy just enough blocking land to create a road in, and then bequeath it to a foundation.
- dboreham 9y agoThe inverse concept (helicopter over public land to access a private inholding) has been tried by the Sievers : https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/lawsuit-seeks-to-build-road-into-wilderness/article_91245eb3-c0eb-5386-a434-63a97b487943.html https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/lawsuit-seeks-to-build...
- nickik 9y agoFor 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/
- tomohawk 9y agoIf 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 9y agocan 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 9y agoIt's always funny reading this stories when you remember all the land was stolen from the natives. One thief bickering with the other.
- tryingagainbro 9y agoseems 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.
- conservajerk 9y agoI 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.