The fight over preserving public land takes a twist in Montana’s mountains • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by JBlue42 » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 2:57 AM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #118

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've lived in Livingston for nearly 20 years and I know Alex, and his kids are classmates of mine. This has been big news locally for a while but interesting to see it hit the national wires. However, I grew up in Scotland where we have a somewhat longer history of dealing with access to land and rich people ;) The solution there is that there is a legal right to access wild land. Note this doesn't just apply to "pub…

Same in Scandinavia

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

#132

Post by jjoonathan » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 3:05 AM UTC

borkt wrote: post #88

wavefunction wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pub…

I really have no expertise in this area but with the amount of lawsuits that occur these days it feels like as soon as someone was paralyzed or killed accessing this land you would be on the hook for not preventing them from accessing it. I would hope that this isn't the case but it just feels like the way thinks are going.

"They'll sue us if we're not assholes" is a common rationalization/excuse from assholes. Every time I've done a deep dive on one of these (only a few times, not a lawyer) I've found them to be a complete fabrication and on one occasion the actual inverse of the truth, in that the activity being rationalized was in fact illegal.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the claim is legitimate, but there are more than plenty where it's not.

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

#133

Post by wavefunction » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 3:20 AM UTC

justinator wrote: post #125

wavefunction wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pub…

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. Which ones? I just did all the 14ers this year, and didn't have problems with access to any. (Culebra was one I paid for a reservation)

Culebra has always been the problematic one but I guess I am quite behind the times after I've checked the current situation. Culebra is only open one week a year from when I checked last year.

Lincoln, Bross, Democrat and Cameron had their access blocked in 2005 by people who acquired land via old mining claims. It appears a happy impasse has since been reached with the town of Alma leasing the land and taking on the risk of litigation, which is limited by the town's governmental immunity.

So it was only a temporary blocking, but I guess I'm still unhappy it occurred at all.

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

#134

Post by wavefunction » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 3:22 AM UTC

heiuwei8 wrote: post #113

wavefunction wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pub…

"You get some rich people from somewhere else who move in and throw all local culture and tradition away." In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

There are many historical examples of cultures murdering and taking over areas from the traditional inhabitants. Even the current Native Americans apparently killed off/supplanted earlier peoples.

Anyways, the tradition of access to the open range extends back to the indigenous Americans who didn't necessarily possess the concept of owning land or fencing it, so I think that weakens that argument.

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

#135

Post by blackguardx » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 3:30 AM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #44

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…

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 pub…

Have you heard of the Access Fund? They help work out access issues for climbers. They mainly deal with rock climbing issues but might do other stuff as well. They have been successful negotiating with property owners in the past. They sometimes even buy land to ensure access forever.

I live in CO and climb but don't do much mountaineering. Is anyone working on this issue? I'm shocked this has happened because climbing 14ers is one of the most authentically Coloradan things one can do.

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

#136

Post by blackguardx » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 3:37 AM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #66

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?

Some of these are intentionally deemed "not easements" by the government because it would make them responsible for maintenance. I once called the Bureau of Land Management about repairing a dirt roads they liked to use that crossed private land. They made it crystal clear that it was an "abandoned mining trail" and not actually a road or easement, which in their mind relieved them of any obligation.

That just means that a private mining company built the road to access a mining claim. Once the claim is abandoned, no one has the obligation to maintain it.

If you used it to access your land, you could start maintaining it.

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

#137

Post by davidw » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 3:46 AM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #107

davidw wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been pretty consistently anti MTB over the years. There are absolutely wilderness areas where there should not be bikes, but it should be decided locally, just as certain trails outside of wilderness areas are, justly, hiker only. For instance, this is a Wilderness area east of Bend, Oregon. It is not, however a "wilderness" - indeed many of the trails are former jeep roads: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.00…

Give me bikes over horses every day. Not sure exactly why hiking in a bit of horseshit, here and there, bothers me so much. I think it mostly is that I imagine that when you are on a horse you are much higher off the trail and don't have to deal with the stink your horse created.

I'm happy to share, and happy for local decision makers to decide which users should get access to which trails. There are some that even hikers damage, let alone adding bikes and horses. Others are fine for everyone. Some places (not in Wilderness areas) should have some room for ATV people and so on.

I guess besides being a housing YIMBY, I'm a trail YIMBY too.

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

#138

Post by enraged_camel » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 3:53 AM UTC

takk309 wrote: post #68

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…

Gianforte is the best example of wealthy land owners blocking access. He came from out of state, got luck with his tech company when Oracle came knocking, and now he wants to pretend he is the embodiment of Montana. All the while he is more than happy to block access to others whenever he can.

Forget about being an absentee wealthy landowner. The dude chokeslammed a Guardian journalist for having the audacity to try to get him to answer some questions. Then he got elected to Congress!

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

#139

Post by barsonme » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 4:52 AM UTC

nickik wrote: post #116

barsonme wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ). Sadly, the…

I don't think 'the right' (whatever that means) has abandoned the environment. At least libertarians have not. Check out www.perc.org, these are free market people who are extremely passionate about the environment and they are quite popular and have made great inroads to provide an alternative way of thinking about the environment compared to the leftist big government bureaucracy style of protecting it. They suppor…

We at ACC like PERC :-) And we do partner with other eco-right groups: https://www.acc.eco/founding-coalition/

Obviously I'm generalizing a bit, but I don't think it's unfair to say the right has lagged far behind on environmental issues since at least the '80s.

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

#140

Post by microcolonel » Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 5:06 AM UTC

JBlue42 wrote: post #129

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but they have some influence with the EPA. They will at least be able to get a meeting with someone reasonably high up at the EPA and if that fails they can introduce legislation to force the EPA to change the regulations.

Rural Americans don't tend to think that the government is a functional entity and that going through that chain will net anything. They may have a valid point since only money talks in government these days.

Money was the only thing that ever talked in government, the problem is that people have allowed the mandate to grow so outrageously that it's gotten out of hand. I love the original mission of the EPA, which was to do through regulation what was, owing to scale, not feasible in the courts: To assess tangible damage to the property of everyone downwind or downstream of you, and limit it at the source.

Every expansion of that mandate seriously perverts the whole institution, and allows them to justify basically any course of action through a vague mental framework, by means of a network of suggestible and mentally soft bureaucrats who want more than anything to keep their job, no matter how immoral the duties of their office are or have become.