Responds to inholder letter on snowmobiles

In a recent guest opinion (Sept. 2), the writer asked why private landowners inside Glacier National Park can’t reach their homes “by modern motorized means, like any other property owner in Flathead County.”

The writer seems not to understand that private property in the Park has some different legal constraints compared to private property outside the Park. 

Private property in the Park existed when Glacier was established. Park regulations are and should be designed to protect park resources, not to allow landowners do whatever conveniences they desire. 

The writer claims that two relevant legal statutes don’t apply to Glacier. His claim argues that Section 1 of the 1910 Glacier National Park establishment Act gave private landowners a right to the “full use and enjoyment” of their land, and he implies that owners have access by any means they choose. Section 1 was a safeguard that protected homestead claims underway when the Park was created. However, there was no statement about roads, vehicles, or winter access.

The writer claims that Section 2 stopped the Secretary of Interior from making rules that limit private landowners’ rights. It does the opposite. Section 2, now 16 U.S.C. § 162, puts the Secretary in charge of Glacier and requires his regulations to “provide for the preservation of the park in a state of nature.” Section 2 doesn’t shield private landowners from park rules. It orders Park management to protect the Park.

This isn’t new terrain for Mr. McFarland. In 2000, McFarland brought a similar claim to federal court, seeking a special use permit for winter motorized access. This type of access was denied. 

The owner then sued, claiming an easement under the Homestead Act and a land patent. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court rejected the claims (McFarland v. Norton, 425 F.3d 724), and reaffirmed its findings in 2008 (McFarland v. Kempthorne, 545 F.3d 1106). The argument now being raised publicly is the one federal courts already considered and rejected, twice.

Although Grand Teton National Park allows some private landowners snowmobile access, the way in which that decision was made is important. Grand Teton’s routes exist under a specific federal regulation, 36 C.F.R. § 7.22(g)(18), adopted after formal public comment. That’s what a special use permit bypasses. If Grand Teton is the model, the answer is public rule making for Glacier, not an administrative shortcut around public involvement.

With a previous federal court decision having rejected the writer’s claim, Glacier’s decision shouldn’t reverse it by special permit and excluding the public from the decision. 

The National Park Service owes respect to logical rulings already on the books. It needs to comply with the same public process Grand Teton went through. A special use permit is a shortcut around public involvement, established precedent, and law.

Riley McClelland

West Glacier