Am I Taking Crazy Pills?

EDITOR'S NOTE: David Tucker is a freelance journalist covering conservation, recreation and the environment in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The following op-ed is an opinion piece written by Tucker referencing concern over the East Crazy Inspiration Divide Land Exchange. 

On the northeastern edge of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, a controversial land exchange is entering its final phase. Access issues have plagued this corner of the public domain for decades, and the East Crazy Inspiration Divide Land Exchange is being billed as a resolution.

The public gets clarity and expanded access. Private landowners consolidate their holdings. The Forest Service eliminates a longstanding headache. And a luxury resort expands its ski terrain.

Sounds like a win-win-win-win, so why do I feel like the public is getting a raw deal?

At first glance, things don’t seem all bad. Low-lying public acreage in the Crazies would be swapped for higher-elevation private sections. The Yellowstone Club would pay for the construction of a 22-mile trail connecting Big Timber and Sweet Grass creeks, nearly all on public land. Private landowners would receive piece of mind that their property was safe from public use—legal, but disputed, public use. And in the Madison Range, the YC would get their new ski terrain and the public would retain valued access on Buck Ridge and the Inspiration Divide trail.

When you consider that the 11.5-mile East Trunk trail is being swapped for the to-be-constructed 22-mile Sweet Trunk trail; roughly 6,000 acres of private land are being swapped for roughly 4,000 acres of public land; undeveloped private land is being de facto preserved through newly established Forest Service management; and public access is being augmented through additional acreage in the Madison Range, it could be argued that the math favors the public and the habitat.

However, nothing is quite that simple and the parcels involved are not apples to apples. The considered country is prime wildlife habitat valuable for hunters in the fall, and high-elevation “rock and ice” that, while beautiful and sought after by the public, does not have the same recreational value. This is a somewhat subjective perspective, although biologists would tell you that the lower-lying parcels provide critical winter range and forage for elk and deer.

It is also unclear to me whether the public is getting equal value for the lands they will receive, a requirement of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Contiguous land, regardless of deed restrictions or easements in place, can be more valuable than checkerboarded parcels—think the exchanges in the Madison and Gallatin ranges that allowed for the creation of the Yellowstone Club—especially when the deed restrictions are ambiguous and conservation easement contracts are not in place, as is the case here.

The landowners involved further complicate the calculous. In 2021, Lone Mountain Land Company, a subsidiary of CrossHarbor Capital Partners, owners of the Yellowstone Club, purchased the Crazy Mountain Ranch on the range’s western flank. This raised concerns about the real-estate developers’ intentions in the range. The Club also paid lobbyists to pitch this project across the state, getting key stakeholders on board.

While nothing nefarious has happened as of yet, the process to this point doesn’t feel particularly transparent. Yes, the Forest Service checked their outreach boxes, announcing the exchange in the necessary paper of record, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. And yes, public meetings were held and a coalition of stakeholders was assembled. Conservation and environmental nonprofits even supported a version of the proposed exchange—until they didn’t.

Maybe nothing additionally detrimental comes of this, but I share an uneasiness felt by many who have taken the time to dig in. It feels like the public is getting a raw deal and that a precedent is being set for future land disputes.

What guarantees do we have that these newly established private lands will not forever change the wild character of the Crazies? Is the Forest Service appropriately positioned in the matrix of this exchange? Are the lands of roughly equal value, and how is that value being determined? Is this generally in the public’s best interest?

While the East Crazy Inspiration Divide Land Exchange is surely more complex than this brief synopsis lays out, it is clear to me that the public needs to know more and get more involved with the outcomes on our public lands. The official comment period for this issue is over, but we now have an opportunity to appeal directly to our elected representatives and let them know our concerns, if you share them as I do.

We cannot afford to take access to public lands for granted. People have fought for this access, and we need to carry that legacy forward. We won’t win every dispute, but if we don’t speak up, we will surely lose most.

Join me in opposing the land exchange as currently outlined by the Forest Service. The deadline to submit a public comment is Wednesday April 3.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mountain Journal is the only nonprofit, public-interest journalism organization of its kind dedicated to covering the wildlife and wild lands of Greater Yellowstone. We take pride in our work, yet to keep bold, independent journalism free, we need your support. Please donate here. Thank you.