Attack on Access

[jryoung]

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.

Okay, seriously how do they pull this off? I can see all the other stuff, but to blatantly put this at risk makes no sense. It is a spending issue that the R's are pitching? What happens when the lawsuits come and wolves get re-listed? Don't these guys stand any chance of losing at the polls if this comes to light? I think I'd rather deal with the HSUS here in CA.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's retribution for FWP's past sins. The Committee is made up of the following legislators:


Member Assignment
Mike Cuffe Chair
Matthew M Rosendale Vice Chair
Duane Ankney Member
John Brenden Member
Galen Hollenbaugh Member
Jim Keane Member
Lea Whitford Member


Here's the Hunter Access Enhancement statute:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/87/1/87-1-265.htm

Most pertinent section:

(3) Participation in a program established under this section is voluntary. A lease, acquisition, or other arrangement for public access across private property that is initiated through a program established under this part must be negotiated on a cooperative basis and may only be initiated with the voluntary participation of private landowners.

 

[sweetnectar]

So to recap HB440 will increase hunter access by stipulating 25% of funds have to go to purchasing permanent easements to public land we already own (more bang for our buck then purchasing ranches in terms of access), still allow for habitat purchases(WMA's and ranches), sets funds for maintenance of these properties and this is a bad thing?

And HB404 takes money from the Habitat fund for 2 years to be used for block management (temporary easements)

So it seems the question is do you want more habitat or more hunting access? HB440 takes some from habitat and gives to access. Seems how we just had a rally for access on the corner crossing issue I would think permanent access would be a win. I would support this bill.

The only valid concern I've heard against this is someone was afraid that money would be spent to purchase a permanent easement to land that becomes accessible if corner crossing is found legal by the courts. To this I'd suggest amending the bill to not allow purchases of easements to public land that may be found legally accessible by corner crossing following a court ruling for 2 years (think the courts will have an answer by then).

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

I would suggest they listened and heard a cry for access and so we got HB440. Were we really after access?

 

[Big Fin]

I would suggest they listened and heard a cry for access and so we got HB440. Were we really after access?

I would suggest that they can then sell you a car that you already own and you would agree to pay them for the car you already own, if I follow your logic in supporting HB 440.

Question - Why would hunters pay for something (access) that in some instances the courts have ruled we own and in other instances, ruled we don't own, and in the minds of all, is unclear?

They will only do it if they are idiots, or if they are bought and paid for by those who are afraid of the final answer on corner crossing. The hunters I hang out are neither idiots and their efforts the last couple months shows they certainly aren't for sale.

Imagine the huge fuss if FWP went out and bought a fleet of vehicles that the courts give a 50/50 chance that FWP already owns, but FWP did not go to court to find out if they owned them before spending a few million dollars. These same folks promoting HB 440 would have the Director's head on a stick.

Yet, when it benefits them, by giving their friends some money, and most importantly, works as a poorly designed smoke screen for the real issue of getting a final ruling on corner crossing, these legislators think it is a good idea. Hypocrites.

And with that comment, someone will say I am anti-legislator.

 

[RobG]

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.

Habitat Montana money can be used to purchase private land. teabaggers think this is socialism (not much of an exaggeration).

 

[shoots-straight]

Sweet, the come home to hunt program already gives funds for leasing. Around $500,000 a year is collected.

Leases are hard to come by, and hard to negotiate. The dept works on getting as many a year as they can. They spend around $300,000 a year total on the leasing program.

I believe that HB 440 will take $1.2 million a year from Habitat Montana funds for more leasing.

You see the problem.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So to recap HB440 will increase hunter access by stipulating 25% of funds have to go to purchasing permanent easements to public land we already own (more bang for our buck then purchasing ranches in terms of access), still allow for habitat purchases(WMA's and ranches), sets funds for maintenance of these properties and this is a bad thing?

And HB404 takes money from the Habitat fund for 2 years to be used for block management (temporary easements)

So it seems the question is do you want more habitat or more hunting access? HB440 takes some from habitat and gives to access. Seems how we just had a rally for access on the corner crossing issue I would think permanent access would be a win. I would support this bill.

The only valid concern I've heard against this is someone was afraid that money would be spent to purchase a permanent easement to land that becomes accessible if corner crossing is found legal by the courts. To this I'd suggest amending the bill to not allow purchases of easements to public land that may be found legally accessible by corner crossing following a court ruling for 2 years (think the courts will have an answer by then).


I would suggest they listened and heard a cry for access and so we got HB440. Were we really after access?

Abe,

Like Shoots said, there is already a program that exists to do exactly what you are saying. So HB 440 is redundant. Plus, it robs from a fund that was set up expressly to conserve habitat first and provide access second.

HB 440 has been in the works for a while. It has little to do with access and a lot to do with politics. R's are tired of getting beat up on access so they needed something to prove that they aren't anti-sportsmen. Unfortunately, this bill screws hunters more than if they would have dedicated the revenue from another stream to the Access Montana program.

Creating a redundant program where no demand exists doesn't help on the corner crossing issue unless you plan on running for office in 2014.

 

[idnative1948]

Call me cynical......but, I think it was a marketing ploy.

Whiskey Company Decides Not To Reduce Alcohol After All

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- After backlash from customers, the producer of Maker's Mark bourbon is reversing a decision to cut the amount of alcohol in bottles of its famous whiskey. The company's chief operating officer said Sunday that it is restoring the alcohol volume of its product to its historic level of 45 percent, or 90 proof. Last week, it said it was lowering the amount to 42 percent, or 84 proof, because of a supply shortage. The brand known for its square bottles sealed in red wax has struggled to keep up with demand. Distribution has been squeezed, and the brand had to curtail shipments to some overseas markets. In a tweet Sunday, the company said to its followers: "You spoke. We listened."
Read more at AP

Makers Mark is back to 90 proof. Good news abounds.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Call me cynical......but, I think it was a marketing ploy.

Are we talking about HB 440 or Maker's?

 

[Glenn Hockett]

There is no finer access program than the Habitat Montana program. Habitat Montana funding secures access through acquisition of important wildlife habitats (they become public lands managed as Wildlife Management Areas) or conservation easements on private lands important to wildlife, which includes hunter access stipulations. Both are only conducted with willing sellers/negotiators and both last in perpetuity.

 

[Glenn Hockett]

I suggest we stand unified in opposition to any bills that erode, rob or aim to destroy the Habitat Montana program. HB 404 and HB 440 are such bills, in my opinion.

 

[RobG]

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.

Sunsets tend to rise again. I can't see any good coming out of this bill. I don't think the fact that 440 is worse justifies not opposing 404.

 

[sweetnectar]

I agree with Big Fin. Why spend money on purchasing an easement if a corner crossing ruling can make the access happen. This is why I stated

To this I'd suggest amending the bill to not allow purchases of easements to public land that may be found legally accessible by corner crossing following a court ruling for 2 years

I would think that a court could make a ruling within 2 years on the subject of corner crossing. Remember not all public land would be accessible via corner crossing. I don't see how purchasing easements to get to our land locked public land is a bad thing. It seems better to me to purchase permanent easements over temporary easements as well.

Montana is land rich in public lands but lacking in access to them. I lean toward taking care of what we have before going out and buying more.