Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#91

Post by typeformer »

corpMaverick wrote: post #31
drewnick wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Yeah, there could be a good idea there! Things have to happen at the cultural level too, but I'm all for experiments!

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#92

Post by s0rce »

derefr wrote: post #85
ewhanley wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in central Montana but now live on the west coast too, and I’m astonished at how quickly it’s changing. The bellwether for me is the fact that stream access law* is being challenged (most notably by Gianforte and other wealthy, often absentee landowners). If public stream access is lost, I’ll know the state and it’s civic makeup has changed irreversibly. *Everything below the high water mark is publicly acc…

> Everything below the high water mark is publicly accessible per Montana state law Huh, does that mean you can legally travel through someone's private property by walking/wading the length of a stream that passes through it? (i.e. the stream is effectively a public footpath?)

I'm not from MT but I believe that is the correct interpretation, similiar to the laws surrounding California coastline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Stream_Access_Law

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#93

Post by boldlybold »

stevenwoo wrote: post #62
googlryas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Something being blatantly illegal never stopped anybody from taking from the public easement. There's a pretty infamous little county road that the locals stole near Silicon Valley. http://blog.sfgate.com/bicycle/2016/03/22/road-thieves-of-th...

Thanks for that link. I'm just starting to explore the biking roads around here and the history is interesting.

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#94

Post by prawn »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #45

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 u…

Did you ever communicate your frustrations on that first point to your local representatives? Seems like there could be softened regulations for certain situations to ease maintenance - e.g., like-for-like maintenance. If there's a sealed road, you can re-seal potholes without any more than advance notice. If it's unsealed, you can regrade it. But if you want to adjust the route or seal an unsealed road, the process is a bit more involved?

You have some incredible wildlife and cultural history in America, so I can understand trying to protect it.

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#95

Post by prawn »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #54
takk309 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 wh…

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.

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#96

Post by s0rce »

rdiddly wrote: post #56

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

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.

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#97

Post by s0rce »

typeformer wrote: post #89
ihuman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#98

Post by panopticon »

typeformer wrote: post #40

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 f…

I spent a few years in West Yellowstone before also ending up on the west coast. I miss the area dearly, and the idea of being able to find a good tech gig in Bozeman seems to be more real every year. But then I feel like I'd only contribute to the erosion of what makes it a great... At least I've been able to fly directly into West Yellowstone now?

Re: The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains

#100

Post by djrogers »

prawn wrote: post #94
jandrewrogers wrote: post #45

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 u…

Did you ever communicate your frustrations on that first point to your local representatives? Seems like there could be softened regulations for certain situations to ease maintenance - e.g., like-for-like maintenance. If there's a sealed road, you can re-seal potholes without any more than advance notice. If it's unsealed, you can regrade it. But if you want to adjust the route or seal an unsealed road, the process…

Local representatives don’t get to counter the almighty EPA, which writes and enforces all of the environmental regulations affecting this kind of thing.
Post reply on HN