backwards he analyzed the statutory rights first and then concluded the common law rights didn't apply instead as the forest service says own regulations require he should have analyzed the common law rights first and then he wouldn't even have to get to the hard i can certainly provide that for the court the issue boils down to the fact that the common law rights must be must be addressed first while the for services own regulations states as  concrete argument that has to be in your brief the art of the arguments runs throughout the book brief and that is that these actual plain language of the four services own regulations and the plain language of us to reach without going on by john adams well see that flying right you know i can't get around it sure  asserting that in montana wilderness which wasn't which wasn't expressly overruled by adams to they seem to have conflicting opinions and i would i would i would if you're saying adams is wrong but what i'm saying adams is data all right if adams is you know if it's wrong then what you're saying is that you know it's wrongly decided and you need to go on bond but adams being the law if it's controlling in your case we either have to say ninth circuit precedent you lose or no one i'm not sure that adams is any more controlling than montana wilderness case and if it is then maybe it would be necessary to go on subject to valid existing rights and then the forest service is own regulation states that prior to issuing a note that easement the authorizing officer must ensure that the landowner has demonstrated a lack of any existing rights or routes of access available by it matters here because once you determine that the common law rights exist then the regulations that the forest service is trying to force the fitzgerald to sign become one reasonable because they fundamentally change the nature of the interest necessity requirement because of the need because of the annual fee specifically if it's all a person would have to do to negate the necessity requirements pay an annual fee the doctrine of easement by necessity would never have been established in the first public lands this means that the united states can require the fitzgeralds to apply for in a chain actual sender flip my guard lists of any common law easements name i have and regardless of when any such common well let me try to address those two points first the forest service here did make the implicit determination that in fact the fitzgeralds do not have a common law easement and so to get to their property and to give them the adams to state that regardless of whether there are any commonly used as the forest service has to get thorny to regulate those use methods that is in holders are certainly entitled to reasonable access to their property under a so if the forest service determines under thirty sixty a far too fifty one point one one four hour one the regulation that my opposing counsel was mentioning earlier that there is a common law isn't for service can regulate it way i certainly understand that and i cannot give you a better response it may be that the fee provision here is unreasonable but that doesn't make the other conditions in the virtually unfettered access to their property that is that doesn't restrict the types of vehicles that the fitzgeralds may use or when they may use them and it doesn't restrict what the fitzgeralds may do with their property or to whom they may sell it and put it to us soon for purposes of the flip makes but if they refuse to pay that then they don't get well but the court could still conclude i think that the feed provision that the after the requirement that they pay a fee isn't reasonable and exercise that and say it is just if in fact they do have a common law use men then there is a good argument that they don't have to pay a fee but if they do not have a common law use men as we assert then the forest service can certainly require them to pay a fee because they don't have that i think that's right i don't think there's anything inherently unreasonable about one hundred fourteen dollars a year the only other i'd like to just make one point of clarification the regulation if in fact it determines that the fitzgeralds or somebody else how the a common law right of access it simply states that the forest service should make that determination and then use that information to inform