Recreational Rights Attacked

[Crane]

Just several days ago, the Plaintiff and his lawyer failed to show at a preliminary hearing. The case was dismissed, without prejudice, which means it can be filed again. At this point, the ACC can sit back and wait for it to be re-filed. I understand the issue probably won't go away.

[KimL]

Thanks, Crane. I am afraid that we will face hostile courts for years to come. I believe access is now like damming was in the 1960s: an issue that must be addressed head-on every time it comes up.

[Crane]

Update, only the state litigation was dismissed. Not only is the federal suit asking for the injunction against the AG still active, but my understanding is that the comp[any either has or intends to cut a ditch to the river and drain the lake... Stay tuned!

[Roger]

Not sure if this is related but the AG&FC has leased a bunch of acreage to Chesapeake in a couple of WMA's.

One is the Gulf Mountain WMA that wego through to get on the SFLR. Wonder how this will play out?
BTW, lease was negotiated without any public comment.

[Trismegistus]

Good for them. Good for deer. But not necessarily good for the taxpayers of Arkansas. Albeit it is nice to know the Gulf Management Area is good for something other than growing deer -- especially at a time when the number of hunters and gun enthusiasts are falling rapidly. The whole area is nothing but one big deer farm that is managed through labor-intensive use of control burning, plowing, discing, cooperative hay leases in which non-indigenous plantings of mixed grains, milo, rye, and orchard grass have been set up here and there. And of course the woodlands are typical of the "even-aged management" scheme forever seemingly supported by our land stewards through commercial thinnings and selective cutting. So I can just imagine what the AGF&C has planned now that they have another $29 million dollars to work with -- Deer Park USA!!

Whatever the environmental impact of having these tracts under lease - something like less than 10,000 acres -- it has to pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of acres that have been leased all through the Fayetteville Shale play.

And it's probably going to play out like the rest of the Fayetteville shale -- a lot of folks are going to cashing some big checks. Everyone else has to put up with gravel pads, water trucks, more fences and gates, and nasty effluents and waste.

[KimL]

Crane, do you know if other organizations (e.g. anglers) in Arkansas plan on joining the suit?

[Crane]

I do not know...

[Trismegistus]

And let's proceed cautiously -- Anderson-Tully is not some far away faceless corporate entity that is forever harming the environment. Rather this is the same company that sponsors the Restoring America's Greatest River Workshops. This is the same company that works with the Arkansas Forestry Association to provide resource management seminars with regionally and nationally-renowned wildlife biologists. This is the same company that is working closely with the Nature Conservancy in the restoration of the Hatchie River basin. This is the same company that works closely with Ducks Unlimited to improve our wetland habitats. And I could go on and on. Yes -- Anderson-Tully is in the business of timber extraction -- but they are not leaving a wake of destruction -- they truly believe is sustainable harvests and provide hundreds if not thousands of jobs to folks here in Arkansas. What they do ain't pretty but this is a company that tries very hard to do the right thing.

Do we really need to enjoin into this particular suit? And at this time? I'm all for open access and free passage -- but this is a corporation that we may wish to have on our side in the future -- perhaps we should look at what in specific they are trying to accomplish and then try to find a suitable solution that pleases all parties. Before we go off and enjoin any ongoing litigation, can't we at least look at other alternatives. With tens of thousands of acres owned and managed by Anderson Tully here in Arkansas and their history of support with regard to forest preservation and restoration there could be very dire unforeseen repercussions if we litigate without first looking at other options.

[KimL]

Two thoughts:
1. Precedent, Tris, precedent. Every time recreational users lose one small skirmish, the chances that McIlroy will be overturned increases.
2. Anderson-Tully sponsored the Great River stuff, but I believe that was before it was bought out. If A-T is still involved in such activities, perhaps approaching A-T leadership about the wider ramifications of the case outside a lawsuit would be helpful. (Such an approach might have worked with Weyerhauser in cost sharing on closed historic roads near the Cossatot, pulling together a coalition of county, state, and Weyerhauser reps.) Talking to A-T leadership still getting involved, albeit in a kinder, gentler way. I don't have a problem with negotiating in good faith in any situation and in fact believe that should be the first step.

[rnoland]

The AG's office recently prevailed in this case. It is not a decision on the navigability issue--the 8th Circuit decided the case on sovereign immunity.

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opns/opFrame.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Crane]

I understand that the plaintiff asked that it be dismissed, without prejudice. Though it can be filed again, right now it is not an issue.