In a surprising twist, a federal judge has ruled in favor of a California couple fighting orders to destroy their stunning, half-built cabin within a Montana national park, allowing them to keep the property intact.

John and Stacy Ambler’s half-built abyss, located on a 2,300-square-foot slab of land near McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park, has been at risk of demolition ever since several residents filed complaints with the Flathead Conservation District (FCD), SFGate reported.

After several back-and-forth lawsuits, federal judge Kathleen DeSoto ruled in favor of the San Diego couple in February, asserting that the FCD has no jurisdiction over the property, as it is located within a national park and therefore, falls under federal jurisdiction. 

However, in the latest chapter of the ongoing battle, both the FCD and Friends of Montana Streams and Rivers have filed an appeal, arguing that they have a case to reverse the judge’s decision.

‘Flathead Conservation District has a statutory duty to protect the natural resources within our district,’ Samantha Tappenbeck, a district resource conservationist, told SFGate.

‘So, the Flathead Conservation District Board of Supervisors decided to appeal the decision in service to the constituents of our district, and because the board felt that there were appealable issues.’ 

The Amblers’ began building their three-story, lush Montana home in late 2022 and early 2023, where they laid a concrete retaining wall into the steambank and installed rock footers into the bank to build a deck. 

Yet the couple’s construction project kickstarted local drama, as residents of the West Glacier area complained that the home was clearly visible to both park visitors and neighbors alike, the Flathead Beacon reported.

In a surprising twist, a federal judge has ruled in favor of a California couple fighting orders from two Montana organizations to destroy their stunning cabin, allowing them to keep the property intact

After several back-and-forth lawsuits, federal judge Kathleen DeSoto ruled in favor of the San Diego couple in February, asserting that the FCD has no jurisdiction over the property, as it is located within a national park and therefore, falls under federal jurisdiction

The complaints caught the attention of the FCD, who then preformed an onsite inspection of the Ambler home.

Following the inspection, the district claimed that the couple had violated the state’s Natural Steambed and Land Preservation Act (NSLPA), better known as the 310 law.

Their reasoning was based on the belief that the home had been illegally constructed without any of the necessary permits. 

The 310 law states that any private individual or entity proposing work in or near a stream that ‘physically alters or modifies the bed or immediate banks of a perennial-flowing stream’ must obtain approved permits from the local conservation district, the Flathead Beacon reported. 

However, the couple claim they were given permission by Flathead County’s Planning Office, which told them they could do ‘whatever they wanted with the land without restriction’ as the land is in an un-zoned area, according to Hungry Horse News.

The Park Service, a federal organization, did allow the Amblers to connect to the Apgar water and sewer systems. 

Nevertheless, the District’s Board of Supervisors ultimately ruled that the couple must tear down the half-built home and repair the steambed before April 1, 2024.

However, the couple instead filed lawsuits in both state and federal courts, arguing that the District abused its authority.

Both the FCD and Friends of Montana Streams and Rivers have filed an appeal, arguing that they have a case to reverse the judge’s decision

The Amblers’ began building their three-story, lush Montana home in late 2022 and early 2023, where they laid a concrete retaining wall into the steambank and installed rock footers into the bank to build a deck

The couple’s construction project kickstarted local drama, as residents of the West Glacier area complained that the home was clearly visible to both park visitors and neighbors alike which prompted an onsite inspection conducted by the FCD

The California natives don’t believe the District has any jurisdiction over their land and property because it’s located inside the national park and is on an inholding, which is private land that predates the creations of the park in 1910.

They also claim the property is apart of Apgar, a small, private village in the park that was created in 1908.

The District accused the Amblers’ of trying to find the gray area, as they claimed Montana has no jurisdiction over the plot of land because it’s inside a national park, which is federally protected, but also claimed the feds don’t have access because it’s on private land. 

However, the District claimed that state and local laws still pertain to private land, regardless of where it is located, including in Glacier National Park. 

The couple, however, argued Montana gave the rights to the land to the US when they handed over the land, which ‘cedes jurisdiction,’ their lawyer Trent Baker said, according to Hungry Horse News. 

The core of the organization’s arguments is that the home’s location within the boundaries of Glacier National Park does not exempt it from adhering to Montana’s state laws, particularly the Montana Natural Streambed and Land Protection Act (NSLPA). 

On the contrary, the couple argued that the Steambed Act was not passed until 1976, and therefore Montana’s state laws could not be recognized federally, according to SFGate. 

The couple also said that the national park is the entity to govern private inholdings, stating that the FCD ‘cannot unilaterally reassert jurisdiction over lands to which the State of Montana long ago ceded jurisdiction to the United States,’ Flathead Beacon reported.

Following the inspection, the district, which enforces the state’s Natural Steambed and Land Preservation Act (NSLPA), or better known as the 310 law, stated that the couple had violated the law – their reason being the home illegally being constructed without any of the necessary permits

The San Diego couple believes the District lacks jurisdiction over their land and property because it’s located inside the national park and is on an inholding – which is private land that predates the creations of the park in 1910 – and instead filed lawsuits in both state and federal courts

Advertisement

Samantha Tappenbeck, a district resource conservationist, told SFGate in regards to the appeal: ‘Flathead Conservation District has a statutory duty to protect the natural resources within our district’

In Desoto’s order, she wrote that the arguments ‘go beyond the scope of the sole claim asserted in the complaint… that FCD lacks jurisdiction over the Ambler property, and that the Streambed Act does not apply’

‘The only issue in this case is federal versus state jurisdiction over the Amblers’ property,’ Trent Baker, the pair’s attorney, wrote in the summary judgement, according to the outlet.

In Desoto’s order, she wrote that the arguments ‘go beyond the scope of the sole claim asserted in the complaint… that FCD lacks jurisdiction over the Ambler property, and that the Streambed Act does not apply.’ 

For the appeals to proceed in court, attorneys from both organizations must submit their briefs by May 28.

Officials of Glacier National Park have previously said they were working with the US Department of the Interior attorneys to determine whether they will join the suit, SFGate reported.

The Amblers’ did not immediately respond to DailyMail.com for comment. 

It’s a breezy afternoon, and Keegan Nashan is standing on a county road in Clyde Park, Montana, yelling at golfers: “No one wants you here, even if they’re smiling while they’re serving you.” With the aim of further annoying them, she’s set up bluetooth speakers that blare “Rednecker Than You” on auto-replay.

These are no ordinary golfers. They are individuals who have paid seven figures to join the ultra-elite Crazy Mountain Ranch, an invitation-only club that promises an experience that “truly embodies the nature & spirit of Montana.”

Nashan, 31, was born and raised in Livingston, a small town near Bozeman. She’s watched for decades as out-of-state investors have acquired public and private lands and developed them into gated communities and exclusive resorts for some of the richest people in the world.

It began, in 1997, with the Yellowstone Club, a “mountain sanctuary” where billionaires ski, golf and build 8,000 square foot second, third, and fourth homes. The land rush has continued apace, with Boston-based Cross Harbor Capital Partners purchasing the18,000-acre Crazy Mountain Ranch in 2021.

“Cross Harbor basically owns Big Sky,” Nashan told me. “I’m worried for the culture of this place.” (Big Sky is an unincorporated area bordering Bozeman that, by Nashan’s count, boasts at least 30 private ranches or high-end resorts).

She’s right to worry. Montana is a checkerboard of public lands surrounded by private parcels. Prior to the luxury development boom, most private landowners allowed public access to adjacent public lands. But today, many of those trails are obstructed with locked gates and “no trespassing” signs. Longtime residents, who trace their roots back five generations (for Crow Indians, even longer), are suddenly unable to enter the places they’ve walked, hunted, fished, foraged, and prayed in their whole lives.

Kal Munis, a political scientist at Auburn University, spent his childhood on the public lands of western Montana, sometimes for fun, sometimes out of necessity. “When the mine [where his father worked] shut down, we suddenly had to get our dinner from the creeks and the hills.” To this day, Munis says, it’s not uncommon for working-class Montanans to provide for themselves by hunting and fishing on public lands. When their access is suddenly blocked, that is no small problem.

Sustenance aside, families like Munis’s didn’t take vacations to Disneyland; their leisure time was spent picking huckleberries, camping, and fishing on public lands and on private ranches whose longtime owners customarily allowed locals access. Today, many of those ranches have been sold off to resort developers and wealthy urbanites eager to live the Montana dream… in seclusion. “These places become the king’s forest, and the commoners don’t get to go in the king’s forest,” Munis says.

What most Americans probably don’t even realize (including me until I looked it up last week) is this: Forty percent of the United States is public land with even higher proportions in Montana and several other Western states. Federal land cannot be sold off—at least, not easily—but there’s nothing to stop it from being encircled by private parcels that keep the public out. , Meanwhile, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a real estate magnate whose net worth has been estimated at $100 million, has suggested opening up federal lands to fossil fuel extraction—or selling them off altogether.

Montana state legislator Jane Weber worries that the Trump administration will turn federal public lands over to the state of Montana and that those lands will eventually be sold off to private developers. Weber, a forester by profession, says the state lacks the funds and expertise to manage vast tracts of land for wildfire and logging. She predicts that, once the state belatedly concedes its incompetence, it will sell the land to wealthy outsiders, “and we the public are going to lose our land.”

Weber also worries about the loss of grazing and farmland, as private ranches adjacent to national forests are bought and converted into private hunting grounds. Between 2017 and 2022, 10 percent of the state’s farms and ranches disappeared. 93 percent of those farms were family owned and operated. Given the volume of grains, beef, oilseeds, and legumes Montana supplies the nation, this trend is something that ought to concern everyone.

Weber bemoans the irony of Montana being gentrified by affluent urbanites charmed by the state’s beauty and lifestyle—only to start demanding upscale housing and amenities upon arrival. A prime example is The Ranch at Rock Creek, a once-upon-a-time working cattle ranch that now invites guests to “channel the pioneer spirit that encouraged our homesteaders to ascend the next peak.” In addition to their $6,500 a night stay in a tricked-out horse stable, guests can pay $300 for a “Sapphire hydration wrap,” just like ye olde homesteaders used to enjoy.

As gentrification and gentri-vacation drives up housing costs and transforms the culture, locals are plenty mad.

House lawmakers on Wednesday voted to put a constitutional amendment before voters that would define “person” as “beginning at the stage of fertilization or conception.”

If passed in 2026, the proposal would likely conflict with CI-128, the constitutional abortion rights amendment approved in November. During a Tuesday debate on the measure, the sponsor of House Bill 316, Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel, said that he believed voters may have “some buyer’s remorse” about the recently passed measure. 

“To be honest with you, I’m not sure that the people who voted on CI-128 really understood what they were voting for,” Deming said. “I want to give these people of Montana another opportunity.”

CI-128, which bars state government from restricting pre-viability abortions, passed by a 16 percentage point margin.

Deming’s proposed amendment will advance to the Senate for consideration but is unlikely to pass out of the Legislature. Constitutional amendments introduced by lawmakers must have the support of two-thirds of the entire branch, or 100 votes from the two chambers combined. 

The House’s party-line vote Wednesday gave HB 316 the support of 58 Republican lawmakers. That number means that 42 out of 50 Senators would have to vote for the bill in order for it to pass, a high bar for a chamber with 18 Democrats.

The personhood amendment is one of the few abortion-related bills that have been introduced this session. Other efforts to curb medication abortion and prohibit abortion “trafficking” inside and outside of Montana’s borders failed to advance. 

Two of those proposals were tabled in committee, in part because of concerns from Republican lawmakers about conflicts with CI-128. A separate bill failed to pass a vote on the Senate floor. Another measure to allow for paternity testing and child support payments during pregnancy, which also included language about life beginning at conception, also failed to advance out of committee. 

Supporters of HB 316 have acknowledged that the measure runs counter to what voters expressed several months ago at the ballot box. But lawmakers who spoke in favor of the amendment on the House floor this week said it aligned with their deeply held beliefs about protecting fetal life. Several likened their commitment  to the issue to the long fight for the abolition of slavery in the United States.

“In a few years or decades, I believe we will look back on the error of not recognizing personhood for babies. Please join me in voting yes on this bill and may history look favorably upon your vote today,” said Rep. Greg Overstreet, R-Stevensville.

Multiple Democrats and one Republican spoke against the measure on the floor. Some raised concerns about who would be able to assert the rights of a fetus, and whether the will of the state, an abusive partner or potential grandparents could hamstring the medical decisions of the pregnant person. 

“I think that one of the serious unintended consequences of an initiative like this is that it creates a legal pathway for more of that sort of coercive control,” said Rep. SJ Howell, D-Missoula. “Control over a woman by somebody who does not have her best interests at heart.”

If it became part of the state Constitution, opponents said, the amendment could also interfere with the provision of birth control, miscarriage management and in vitro fertilization processes for people trying to become pregnant. 

Members of the public who testified against the bill during its first hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in early February raised similar points. During that discussion and the recent floor debate, Deming acknowledged that the proposal would impact IVF access in Montana, a fertility treatment he said he would otherwise support if not for the disposal of unused embryos. 

Proponents reiterated that the bill promoted more foundational values. 

“We’re ignoring a basic truth that nobody seems to — everybody wants to seem to step around it,” said Rep. Zack Wirth, R-Wolf Creek. “Women give life. Men protect life. There’s no other truth more basic.”

Other opponents rebuked lawmakers for, in their eyes, disregarding what Montana voters decided in November. 

“The voters have weighed this issue. They have voted. You didn’t like what they did, so now you, as the Legislature, are deciding you’re going to override their vote,” said Rep. Pete Elverum, D-Helena. “Just stop.”

Rep. Sherry Essmann, R-Billings, was the only Republican to vote against the measure Tuesday, citing her reluctance to further change the Montana Constitution with a contradictory amendment.

“We’re doing nothing but confusing our voters. We asked them last time if they were for or against abortion, and now we’re gonna give them even more confusing language that makes them wonder, ‘Well, now what does this mean?’”

During her questioning about the bill’s intent, Essmann asked Deming whether he thought Montana voters were not smart enough to understand what they were voting on last year. Deming said he thought the electorate was “plenty smart enough,” but suggested that voters may have been misled by some of the messaging by CI-128 proponents.

Essmann’s opposition did not hold for the bill’s final House vote. The measure passed on Wednesday 58-41. It has not yet been scheduled for a hearing in the Senate.