Advertisement

Attack on Access

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
21,443
Location
Cedar, MI
With the big rally out of the way, the MT Leg has taken it upon themselves to attack the largest pot of money available for securing permanent access and fee title acquisition.

HB 404 diverts 25% of Habitat Montana to Block Management - it sunsets in 2 years. This bill was a compromise that was worked out by good folks interested in ensuring that FWP never again entered into a situation like the Milk River Ranch. I personally do not support this bill, but can see why folks would think this is a good solution, especially if it would end some of the craziness around land purchases and FWP budget issues. I absolutely support those folks who have been working on this bill and with folks across the aisle and the spectrum of ideologies to get to a solution. I can certainly live with this bill so long as it doesn't change in it's current form.

HB 440 passed out of committee last night. HB 440 originally gutted all of Habitat Montana to set up a new account to purchase access easements across private property. Once again, we'd lose permanent public access to lots of land, the ability to purchase new wildlife management areas and engage in the 100 year tradition of conserving habitat in favor of letting folks give us the access to our public lands that we want. The bill was amended to only take another 25% of Habitat Montana funds.

So now we're down to 50% of the Habitat Montana money. That's a hit of 2.6 million dollars that was previously dedicated to permanent access and habitat conservation.

Rumors flying around the Capitol today that the Appropriations Committee will continue the work of gutting the rest of Habitat Montana funding to pay for pet projects that legislators want.

Along that lines, the 7 wolf specialist positions that FWP needs to have in order to institute the state management plan were excluded from FWP's budget today. That means there is $900,000 sitting in an account, waiting to be spent of wolf management, but FWP can't use that money to pay for the people charged with keeping wolves off the endangered species list. This also means that it leaves MT vulnerable to challenges to our delisted status.

Over 300 sportsmen showed up on Monday to stand up for access. The legislature did not listen.

The Legislature is stealing your license dollars and carving up one of the most successful conservation programs the state of Montana has ever seen.

What are you going to do about it?
 
Last edited:
My rep voted against the corner crossing bill. He also stated that HB 404 and 440 were the greatest thing since sliced bread for sportsman. I told him to pull his head out. He is a "R" by the way.

I will continue to e-mail, call and whatever else I can think of. Sometimes I feel like I am pissing into the wind.
 
pissinginwind.gif
 
My rep voted against the corner crossing bill. He also stated that HB 404 and 440 were the greatest thing since sliced bread for sportsman. I told him to pull his head out. He is a "R" by the way.

I will continue to e-mail, call and whatever else I can think of. Sometimes I feel like I am pissing into the wind.

Keep it up. Keep fighting. It will make a difference.
 
My "R" representatives vote the party line anti-access anti-sportsman almost every time. They don't even send me the "I really care about your opinion, but you don't know what you are talking about, but don't worry I will save you from yourself and vote the opposite of your wishes because I am a representative thus I know what is best for you." email response.

I try to spread the word about what is going on in Helena. I even got a few other guys to write our representatives, but it is tough getting hunters involved in this stuff.
 
Once again, we'd lose permanent public access to lots of land, the ability to purchase new wildlife management areas and engage in the 100 year tradition of conserving habitat in favor of letting folks give us the access to our public lands that we want. The bill was amended to only take another 25% of Habitat Montana funds.

Are you suggesting that the amount of accessible land will increase as a result of HB440 and the trade off is we can't purchase as many wildlife management acres? If so then this bill would mean more public access to lands we already own (a big win for the public land hunter) and fewer new wildlife management areas purchased (a loss for the public land hunter) resulting in a net gain for the public land hunter. And you are against it because why?
 
Ben - I don't understand how taking 25% of Habitat money via HB 404 can prevent future Milk River fiascoes. Do you want to explain? The Rs have been trying to keep FWP from buying land for a long time and this just seems like a way to help achieve that goal.

rg
 
Are you suggesting that the amount of accessible land will increase as a result of HB440 and the trade off is we can't purchase as many wildlife management acres? If so then this bill would mean more public access to lands we already own (a big win for the public land hunter) and fewer new wildlife management areas purchased (a loss for the public land hunter) resulting in a net gain for the public land hunter. And you are against it because why?

1.) because it won't increase access to public lands. There is no demand for temporary access agreements outside of block management (which is already used in this manner) and the special access projects and the access montana program.

2.) diverting $1.23 million per year away from conservation easements that can open up thousands of acres of land to hunter access even under restrictive requirements holds two critical components: access & habitat conservation. One without the other isn't always a good thing, but both together is a good thing.

3.) tax incentives for conservation easements are more attractive to landowners than access agreements with no tax incentive as HB 440 seeks to establish.

4.) the Access Enhancement Fund already exists and funds a program similar to what is intended.

5.) FWP appears to be headed in the direction of less land purchases and more conservation easements. That makes this bill punitive and retribution for the Milk River Ranch fiasco.
 
Last edited:
Ben - I don't understand how taking 25% of Habitat money via HB 404 can prevent future Milk River fiascoes. Do you want to explain? The Rs have been trying to keep FWP from buying land for a long time and this just seems like a way to help achieve that goal.

rg

HB 404 is a time out, it won't stop any land purchases and it fixes the hole in Block Management funding that was caused by HB 607. The bill was amended in committee to have a 2 year sunset. As i said, i can live with that. It's HB 440 that's the deal breaker.

Add in whatever shenanigans they put together through HB 5 & HB 2 and you end up with a gutted program.
 
I'm still not getting it. So HB440 causes habitat funds to be used for temporary easments (like block management) and not perminant easements to our public ground?
 
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billpdf/HB0440.pdf

It's not clear whether these are permanent easements or temporary. That will be up to FWP and the ARM, process.

But yes, it takes another 25% of monies dedicated to habitat conservation (conservation easements have access components) funnels the money into a program that has no habitat conservation component but only allows for access to public lands through provate lands just like the Access Montana program.

Which is not utilized due to a lack of interest.
 
Last edited:
Is there such a thing as public access in Montana? When hunting in Montana I used Google Earth and my Garman Rhino. Both said I was on public access Gallatin National Forest. According to Montana FWP were all wrong.Very frustrating. So what is there to fight for? Seems they already have it.
 
Ok so my legal reading comprehension isn't the best but this is what I'm understanding:

(6) Subject to 87-1-218, the department, with the consent of the commission, is authorized to utilize the
installment contract method to facilitate the acquisition of wildlife management areas in which game and nongame...

So wildlife management areas can be purchased but...

TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE MONEY ALLOCATED BY THIS SECTION, TOGETHER WITH THE INTEREST AND
INCOME FROM THE MONEY, MUST BE USED TO negotiate and procure hunting access easements across private lands
to adjoining public lands that are identified by the department as priority lands in need of public access

25% of the funds have to be used for securing access to public lands...permanent or temporary? And

FIFTY-FIVE percent of the money allocated by this section, together with the interest and income
from the money, must be used to secure wildlife habitat pursuant to 87-1-209 SECURE WILDLIFE HABITAT PURSUANT
3 TO 87-1-209.

55% of the money goes to securing wildlife habitat. But

Twenty percent of the money allocated by this section must be used as follows:
(a) up to 50% a year may be used for development and maintenance of real property used for wildlife
habitat; and
(b) the remainder and any money not allocated for development and maintenance

The remaining 20% goes to maintaining what we own. Hopefully I understand this right.

I don't know how you do this day in and day out. I'd slit my wrists.
 
That is correct, with the exception that HB 404 would take another 25% for block managment. So you really end up with 40% instead of 80% going towards habitat conservation.
 
Plucking the Golden Goose that is Habitat Montana to provide a few Golden Eggs in the Block Management program is no solution. If we want to see Block Management funded we need to establish a Block Management stamp.
 
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,581
Messages
2,025,885
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top