RobG
Well-known member
Reminds me of the time my dad and I were flying over Big Salmon Lake in the Bob and saw a float plane on the water... that pilot was busted.
Anti-access by air/water bill
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
sweetnectar
New member
RobG that is what I was thinking about. The guys I work with and I have been planing a trip into Big Salmon Lake this year. It would stink to get 20 miles in and see a float plane. I would have felt like I should have chartered the plane instead of busted my rear in a saddle.
wingman1
New member
This bill looks to support no access to checkerboarded NF. There is absolutely no just reason to not allow aircraft to land on NF lands where other motorized vehicles are allowed to be.
mdunc8
Well-known member
Can't wait until the day comes when we can land helicopters in the Gallatins, Bridgers, and Tobacco Roots.
TheJason
Well-known member
No, it just says you can't use them without their being a designated airstrip.
This is a double edged sword folks, I shudder to think of someone landing a helicopter in some hunting spots I've hiked my ass into. I certainly don't want that happening, as anti-access as that may sound.
This looks like housekeeping legislation more than anything.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You can and I have, but you are required to have a permit and/or permission for military training or some other valid private or commercial reason, approved by the authorizing authority.
RobG
Well-known member
Even if you agree or disagree, this bill doesn't seem to change where you can land.
mdunc8
Well-known member
You can and I have, but you are required to have a permit and/or permission for military training or some other valid private or commercial reason, approved by the authorizing authority.
Neat.
Neat.
Last edited:
wingman1
New member
This bill appears to be painting pro access into a corner. National Forest laws are federal. Why is Montana state pasting federal laws into its Code. I'll tell you why. BLM allows aircraft to land off airport in Montana only because Montana law does not prohibit such acts. With this bill it could force BLM to follow Montana Code which would prohibit access by aircraft. Better be real careful how you look at this one. I know BLM is not NF but I'm not sure if they could be grouped together under public lands.
RobG
Well-known member
Wingman - these prohibitions are already in the state law. The bill doesn't appear to create any new laws, just changing some fines, etc. See my previous post.
Or mine, where I copied the entire statute THAT'S CURRENT LAW, NOT AN INTRODUCED BILL.
After talking with a few folks today i think this is close to correct. It does change a few things but they are existing reulations from FWP. Ging to speak woth the sponsor tomorrow before the hearing to get his take on it.
Generally i don't think putting existing regs into statute is a good thing. It reduces flexibility.
This is crazy. How many people in Montana actually use a helo to fly in to go hunting? At $1200 per hour I can see better ways to enjoy hunting and spend money. I would be rather po if I packed in only to a have copter land where I was hunting. Using a boat on navigable water should be no different than driving your truck on a public roadway.
theat
Well-known member
Pagosa - Montana has over 800,000 acres of inaccessible land locked public land. The only way for the public to access these parcels is by air or paying a fee to willing neighboring landowners. I am pretty sure that is primarily where hunters are using aircraft to access hunting areas.
The bill doesn't regulate travel on public lands, it regulates travel as it relates to hunting regulations which are the purvue of the state.
Also, MT code does not have supremacy over federal code.
TheJason
Well-known member
There's new language related to flying time for folks radioing down to others. There's one other change I can't think of off the top of my head.
Both of those are in regs and make the statute read more forcefully.
Btw- I'm not sure I'm opposed to this. I know that MPA and another aviation group is opposed.
Both of those are in regs and make the statute read more forcefully.
Btw- I'm not sure I'm opposed to this. I know that MPA and another aviation group is opposed.
This?
(i) to locate any game animal for the purpose of hunting that animal during the same hunting day after the person has been airborne
Lawnboy
Well-known member
Seems maybe a few Durphy guys might of opened the tab again at the Applebees in Helena and legislature is bellying up. Just an assumption.
