I hate to admit it but that was similar to my first thought when I looked at the original link. I was wondering if this was a way to give access in one area only to take it away or sell other land somewhere else down the road. Hopefully the no residential development is the only angle to this.
Damn Bipartisan Crap ;)
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Has nothing to do with what you were thinking. It has everything to do about what uninvolved people on this site complain non stop about wanting to be done.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
8 minute clip on what the Forest Legacy program is and does. Watch it and learn something.
https://vimeo.com/195321668
Or don't if you want to stay uninformed.
https://vimeo.com/195321668
Or don't if you want to stay uninformed.
RobG
Well-known member
Is there more info about this easement? Why is our delegation and the Forest Service involved in this? I thought private land easements were more of a local thing.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Little info at this time because it is a 3 year process, and believe it or not, some people like to blow projects up lke this before they gets started.
As for why the F S and delegation is involved, watch the above video and educate yourself. Sure Rob won't get this message because the butt hurt hippie has me on ignore. Some one else can quote this post for him, or you could just let him wander around in the dark like usual.
TrickyTross
Active member
I hope my jumping in and asking a question doesn't show my full ignorance, but I'm gonna do it anyway. Try not to take offense.
What are the general terms of the easement on these? Does it have a 10-yr, 15-yr, 30-yr or "forever" easement? In the case there is not 25% to match, could an individual or state agency, NGO conservation group, etc... apply and pair VPA funds from the Farm Bill?
Curious as now begins the Farm Bill debates and even though CRP is the main talk, there are some other programs that could use some beefing. Especially with the great reduction in CTA (Conservation Technical Assistance which is NRCS and other agencies salaries) and the chance that fire funding may have a fix (not meaning to debate that here) should free up quite a bit. With hunter retention and recruitment at extreme lows in various areas, access and anyway we can get it is crucial.
I know, preaching to the choir
What are the general terms of the easement on these? Does it have a 10-yr, 15-yr, 30-yr or "forever" easement? In the case there is not 25% to match, could an individual or state agency, NGO conservation group, etc... apply and pair VPA funds from the Farm Bill?
Curious as now begins the Farm Bill debates and even though CRP is the main talk, there are some other programs that could use some beefing. Especially with the great reduction in CTA (Conservation Technical Assistance which is NRCS and other agencies salaries) and the chance that fire funding may have a fix (not meaning to debate that here) should free up quite a bit. With hunter retention and recruitment at extreme lows in various areas, access and anyway we can get it is crucial.
I know, preaching to the choir
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Land owner contribution of 25% is mandatory requirement. It is funded by the LWCF. It is a competitive process. Not all applications get funded. Contact a good local land trust and have them look into the possibilities in your area.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
BHR, you have provided good insight and information on this thread. However, the quoted statement is uncalled for, offensive, and disrespectful to a fellow hunter, outdoorsman, and public lands advocate. Please continue providing good information, but tone down your offensive rhetoric and refrain from insulting others.
Addicting
Well-known member
X2, BHR, that was not cool and was a huge turn off to any message you are trying to get out.
Last edited:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Okay for him ... but not for you.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
This nonsense is a huge turn off to what ever message you are trying to get out.
BuzzH
Well-known member
When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Merry Christmas Buzz. Merry Christmas
And now we find ourselves on the verge of another thread being locked. Good discussion just seems too much beneficial for some to let happen.
Back to the topic at hand, gents.
Back to the topic at hand, gents.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Back on topic ... I agree that whenever prevalent, long-established Montana hunting and public lands values are recognized by our congressional delegation and promoted with good legislation, we should express thanks and kudos to them. Conversely, we should also criticize and express disappointment when bad deals are cut, especially if they reflect skewed partisan ideology not in the best interests of hunting, public lands, and wildlife.
Addicting
Well-known member
never mind, back on topic.
Last edited:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Bi-partisan effort with TPL in 2003 using Forest Legacy dollars in Rob's old stomping ground.
https://www.tpl.org/media-room/1700...protected-mt#sm.0001oil1okv4kdssqn712hzyn6u8l
https://www.tpl.org/media-room/1700...protected-mt#sm.0001oil1okv4kdssqn712hzyn6u8l
RobG
Well-known member
I decided to see if you had anything worthwhile to say so I started to view your posts. I can see I am not missing much. If anyone stumbles across something that answered my question feel free to quote it.
