# Roadless area lawsuit settled



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Roadless area lawsuit settled
Out-of-court settlement could eliminate Roadless Area designation on National Grasslands in North Dakota

By Neal A. Shipman
Farmer Editor

Five years of legal wrangling over whether or not the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service had the authority to classify nearly 265,000 acres of National Grasslands in North Dakota as "Roadless Areas" appears to be heading to an out-of-court settlement. And according to Roger Chinn, McKenzie County commissioner, the out-of-court settlement paves the way for McKenzie County to request that 73,060 acres of the Little Missouri National Grasslands in McKenzie County be removed from "Roadless Area" classification as part of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands land use management plan. In addition, other affected counties within the state can also request that the U.S.D.A. remove an additional 191,940 acres of

ROADLESS AREA LAWSUIT SETTLED
Keith Winter and Roger Chinn are shown with folders containing over 16,000 pages of legal transcripts and research documents on the county's lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture.

national grasslands from being classified as roadless areas.

"All of the original parties of the lawsuit, including the State of North Dakota, have agreed to this settlement," states Chinn. "All we are waiting for is Federal District Judge Hovland to sign the joint motion of dismissal, which we are anticipating will happen within the week."

The lawsuit, which was filed by McKenzie, Billings, Slope and Golden Valley counties, as well as a coalition of interests including grazing associations, the North Dakota Stockmens Association and the North Dakota Oil & Gas Association, in May of 2001 was joined by a separate lawsuit filed by the State of North Dakota in September of 2001, challenged the U.S.D.A.'s Inventoried Roadless Area Conservation Rule, the Forest Development Transportation System final rule, and the Off-Highway Vehicle Decision as they pertained to the National Grasslands.

"McKenzie County was part of the lawsuit based on three primary points," states Chinn. "First, we believed that the rules restricted the public's access and mineral development within the National Grasslands. McKenzie County has thousands of acres of mineral royalty within these lands and the county's royalty income would have been significantly reduced."

The rules, according to Chinn, also restricted public access along section lines through those identified roadless areas. "This restriction of section line access was just one of the reasons why the State of North Dakota joined the counties in the lawsuit," stated Chinn. "They were also very concerned about the economic impact that these rules would have on the State of North Dakota and the development of natural resources on State School lands.

The third main reason that the counties filed the lawsuit was because the Forest Transportation Rule assumed that the federal government owned many of the county-owned roads across the National Grasslands.

"There are 503,000 acres of National Grasslands in McKenzie County," states Chinn. "Of that amount, only 64,000 acres are public domain lands, which means that they have always been owned by the federal government. The balance of the acres were obtained by the federal government either through eminent domain process or were acquired outright or traded."

It is that uniqueness of how the federal government acquired the property that makes the National Grasslands different than the other lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

"Because of the rights that the county had to the land prior to the acreage being acquired by the federal government in the 1930s," states Chinn, "it means that those 439,000 acres in McKenzie County may have roads that were opened before federal ownership."

And it was the federal government's final recognition of state and county rights on these acquired acres that finally allowed for the parties to reach the settlement.

"The most important aspect of the settlement is that it forces a resolution as to who owns the rights to the roads," states Connie Brooks of Denver, CO, who was assisted by Dennis Johnson, McKenzie County States Attorney, who handled the counties' lawsuit. "The bottom line is that it gives all interested parties (the Forest Service and the counties) the ability to determine access rights and it gives the public the right to determine roadless areas."

According to Keith Winter of the McKenzie County Grazing Association, who along with Chinn was appointed by the McKenzie County Commissioners to monitor the lawsuit, the settlement also provides a process by which the Dakota Prairie Grasslands management plan can be corrected.

"The plan was hastily put together," states Winter. "It is our hope that the U.S.D.A. Forest Service will reclassify all the effected acreage as not roadless areas and then change the management plan accordingly."

Under the terms of the settlement, the counties have 90 days from the date that the federal judge signs the dismissal order to submit to the U.S.D.A. a listing of the acreages that they believe should be removed from roadless area classification.

"On the inventoried roadless areas where research has been completed, we have found significant tracks of land where roads and royalties were recognized when purchased by the federal government," states Winter and Chinn.

The U.S.D.A. will then remove or modify the inventory roadless area classification where they acknowledge the section line easements.

"What we hope to be able to show through the inventory process is that the county will to prove that there are roads scattered throughout the impacted areas of the National Grasslands that makes it unsuitable for the Forest Service to manage them as roadless areas," states Chinn.

Chinn believes that the settlement is a big win for the counties involved with the lawsuit, however there are still some issues of the lawsuit that have not been resolved.

"To me this is an economic issue for McKenzie County," states Chinn. "The ability to explore and develop the minerals under the National Grasslands is critical to our economy. We've always maintained that the county had rights to the minerals and this settlement will allow those minerals to be developed."

Additionally, according to Chinn, what the roadless rule did was say that the state's section line law stopped at the Forest Service boundary line.

The settlement will ensure the public access to the grasslands.

"The settlement recognizes the state's section line law and keeps these section lines on the grasslands open to public access," states Chinn. "It is not a road building issue, but a public access issue."

Bob


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

So Bob, in your opinion is this a good thing for hunters or not??

Does this help the freelance bird hunter? I've never been there and always wanted to go but always was shortstopped in eastern ND.

Is it worth going to hunt, whats out there for a bird hunter ( I wouldn't go across the street to shoot a deer :lol: )


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

bump


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bob

This is good in the respect that Sectionl ines will be open and established trails will be able to be used with permission.

The reality of the situation is that access has been and will continue to be difficult in that part of the state.

There are some really nice ranchers out west that will do anything they can to help, There is also a good number of acres tied up for Trophy Hunting.

A good share of the country out there is rugged, remote and wild. The greatest impact will come from oil, gas and coal.

Bob


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I see this as a major gain for a few sportsmen and industry interests and a major, major loss for a rare resource in the state of ND. How many places are there in a state like the Dakotas where if you make the effort you can put yourself all alone in a place where you literally cannot hear a vehicle? the wilderness experiance is something that is going to become a more and more difficult thing to achieve, and anyone who has hunted mule deer out there shouold be able to tell what that has meant to the quality of the experiance over the last 4 decades.

Why can't 1% of a state be set aside so that hunters who choose not to use motorized vehicles can experiance the benefits that follow along with that. I have never done it, but would love to have the chance. But the good news for the counties out there is that there will be even more oil and gas developement, and even less areas where animals can get away from humans.

a very very very sad day for me.

Tom


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I see your point and agree with your sadness about losing another (no vehicles allowed) type place.

However apparently that battle is already lost so I still would like to know if the area will have

1) more accessible places for bird hnters

2) are there huntable populations of game birds in the accessible areas

3) more areas for freelance hunters would be nice with all the posting happening in the rest of the state

4)is it too rugged an area

I won't be hunting deer by the way just birds.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

THis is goin to be offensive to you, and I apologize ahead of time for it, but I think it is worth saying anyway.....

This is exactly the kind of thing the NRA says that they have been fighting for.... That those communist libs are wanting to restrict your "right" to be able to drive to within a hundred yards of the spot you want to hunt and pop it from the window. I just cant get why people dont understand that even in America, we can have some wild places left.... Yes there are birds on these lands, and yes the access will be easier. And yes, after the wells are drilled and the roads are built this will be lower quality wildlife habitat.

We are talking about tracts of land that in the grand scheme are very small. They may be locally large, but they were not being made off limits. Everything that I have read said grazing was going to continue, and the ranchers doing so would continue to have some vehicle access for doing management. That may be incorrect, but that is the way I understand it.

I talked to an old guy one day who had walked two miles back into the Cheyenne grasslands and shot a deer, and was now complaining that his health did not allow him to get it out. Those communist Forest Officials were not letting him drive back in there to get his deer!!!! Well, why did you shoot it back there sir??? Well, because the deer hunting is so good back there where so many people wont walk to. Well......

uke:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Tom I have mixed emotions on this issue, one being that the rules excluded some because of health from using public lands. On the other not having a 4x4 drive though an area adds to the day!

Like a lot of things that came of the roadless rules black and white rules where put in place when a combination was really needed!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Not offensive in the least I agree 100%.

I am just realistic about the fact that its going to be hunted and it sounds like a place I would like to hunt for the very reasons you morn its loss.

I like the lonely spots.

IF 4 wheelers,snow mobiles, gps, ect ect ect and all sorts of modern make hunting easy gimmicks could be banned I would vote to ban it all. BUt it can't be money talks always.

WHat kind of birds are out there and do you need afour wheel drive to get around in the grasslands on section lines


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Bob

Pheasants, Grouse (sharpies and sage) Huns, Turkeys, Doves and a limited amount of waterfowl. None of the above are in gerat abundance.



> do you need afour wheel drive to get around in the grasslands on section lines


A 4 wheeler will not always work. Good boots or a horse are a sure thing 

I have been out there bow hunting many times. It is sad to think that mineral extraction will possibly be taking place in some of the breaks that hold so much natural beauty.

Bob


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I've always wanted to see it and have read about it a lot. I don't need great abundance of birds just low but huntable numbers and privacy would be fine with me.

Is camping allowed on the public land. Would it be feasible to camp in one location and if your willing to walk 4-5 miles out and back find birds or are the birds just in pockets??

The other question I have is are there a lot of porkys I've read that there are but always wondered if its really that big a deal.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

Here are my comments on the issue. Along with tsodak, I am very disappointed in this agreement. Here is why:

1. Roger Chinn, Keith Winter do not care about hunters. They talk access with section line travel, etc. Which is total BS. Section lines in the badlands are 99.9% of the time only accessible by foot anyway. The badlands don't have a square section road running every direction like our flat lands have. Section lines in the badlands are simply a formality, usually only findable with a GPS. The removal of the roadless areas doesn't benefit hunters one bit.

2. This is pure and simply another way for the Roger Chinn's and Keith Winters of the world to promote more oil development (Roger Chinn) in backcountry areas and give the Forest Service less momentum when it comes to wilderness designations, roadless areas, etc. Basically, a guy like Keith Winter doesn't like it when the USFS doesn't manage anything specifically for cattle.

3. No hunter was put out by 1% of these lands used as roadless areas. If you choose to drive around all day and look for mule deer, you could still do it on 99% of the grasslands. I don't think 1% of our grasslands is to much to ask to be able to go to an area where a quality hunt is guaranteed away from motorized travel.

4. People always want bigger mule deer, but when they (mule deer) lose valuable escape cover (road building due to energy development) mule deer don't get bigger, they get smaller, because they become more accessible. I have personally witnessed this in my years of hunting in the badlands.

For an individual who fell in love with and have now hunted the badlands nearly 20 years, and have watched the numerous changes take place out there, this was something I was very happy with when the roadless designation was put into place, and yesterday when I read this article, you can't image what my feelings were.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

What we need is a Boundary Waters type area for hunting.

I don't canoe and will probably never go back to the BWCA. But I think it would be a tragedy if they ever open it up to motorboats.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

That is the best comparison I have ever heard for this thing powder. What is the difference??? Oil and grazing. The timber interests have been unable to trump the BWCA area, but it is not beyond comprehension, that is for sure.

But that is exactly what these areas were, were the BWCA for land animals. I typed hunting there at first, but it goes way beyond that. Glad to see some others disturbed by this.

Tom


----------



## Irish Mick (May 15, 2006)

I agree with you *tsodak* and *powder*. I have hunted mule deer in the Badlands for 15 years and trust me there are plenty of roads already and no shortage of oil wells.

Every year I see road "hunters" out there looking to catch a deer off the side of the road. If more roads are built out there the deer will have a harder time finding a place to hide.

With all the land postings and roads popping up out there, a guy who doesn't know any landowners is going have a real tough time filling his tag.

Like was said in earlier posts, 'why can't 1% be left unspoiled?'


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

There were plenty of organizations that worked hard to overturn the roadless designation. Shows the benefit of being organized and getting active. And vocal. Silence guarentees a loss everytime. And we sure lost again.


----------

