giant landgrab in Eastern Mt.

[howler]

lot of hub bub on the Montana bowsite forum about Testor sponcering a water bill that also includes a very large amount of state and federal BLM.lands to be transfered to the Fort Belknap tribes, If any of you have Testors ear please tell him that this would be a big mistake. here is the ..the bill. www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3209

 

[Ben Lamb]

lot of hub bub on the Montana bowsite forum about Testor sponcering a water bill that also includes a very large amount of state and federal BLM.lands to be transfered to the Fort Belknap tribes, If any of you have Testors ear please tell him that this would be a big mistake. here is the ..the bill. www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3209

I've put the request in for an explanation and a map.

As I read it, there is some land that will be transfered to the Tribe, as well as land swaps w/ the state. I've asked for a map so we can see what it looks like on the ground.

All lands identified for transfer have been identified as lands that the Fed would like to divest itself of.

(3) FEDERAL LAND- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of a land exchange under this subsection, the Secretary may exchange any Federal land not identified for disposal pursuant to a resource management plan developed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), including any Bureau of Reclamation land located in section 1, 2, 11, or 12 of T. 31 N., R. 32 E.

(4) REQUIREMENTS-

(A) VALUE AND ACREAGE- The Secretary shall ensure that--

(i) the value of any Federal land exchanged for State land under this subsection is equal to or greater than the value of the State land; and

(ii) the acreage of any Federal land exchanged for State land under this subsection is equal to or greater than the acreage of the State land, unless the Secretary and the State specifically agree otherwise.

(B) BASIS- Unless the Secretary and the State specifically agree otherwise, each land exchange under this subsection shall be on a whole-estate for whole-estate basis.

(5) ELIGIBILITY OF OTHER STATE PARCELS- If, at any time after the date of enactment of this Act, the Fort Belknap Community Council enters into a lease for any other State parcel or secures the written consent of each lessee of any other State parcel, the other State parcel shall be eligible for exchange under this subsection.

(6) TOTAL QUANTITY OF STATE LAND TO BE EXCHANGED-

(A) ON RESERVATION- The total quantity of State land located within the boundaries of the Reservation that may be exchanged under this subsection is 20,296.1 acres.

(B) OFF RESERVATION- The total quantity of State land located outside of the boundaries of the Reservation that may be transferred under this subsection is 7,413.24 acres.

(b) Federal Land Transfers-

(1) IN GENERAL- In partial satisfaction of claims relating to Indian water rights covered by this Act, the Fort Belknap Indian Community shall request and agree to the exchange and transfer of land in accordance with this subsection.

(2) TRANSFERS- On selection and request by the Fort Belknap Indian Community, the Secretary shall transfer to the United States, to be held in trust for the Fort Belknap Indian Community, all Federal land within the parcels described in paragraph (3)--

(A) with the exception of any land subject to valid existing private rights, including land subject to sections 2318 through 2352 of the Revised Statutes (commonly known as the ‘Mining Law of 1872’) (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.); and

(B) subject to the condition that no road necessary for customary access to fee parcels or other private rights within the parcels shall be included in the transfer.

 

[jryoung]

lot of hub bub on the Montana bowsite forum about Testor sponcering a water bill that also includes a very large amount of state and federal BLM.lands to be transfered to the Fort Belknap tribes, If any of you have Testors ear please tell him that this would be a big mistake. here is the ..the bill. www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3209

Generally if you want to potentailly change the opinion of a sponsoring Senator it's a good idea to list several reasons why their bill is flawed or not a good idea. It tends to be a wee bit more convincing and can open a dialogue for future changes to the bill.

 

[shoots-straight]

All lands identified for transfer have been identified as lands that the Fed would like to divest itself of.

The "FED" is us. Until I see these lands, I'll hold out on making a determination on whether or not I"m willing to get "RID" of such lands. On res, "OK" off res. NO!

I"d be willing to trade public lands on the res, for other lands off.

 

[Ben Lamb]

We'll see what the map looks like.

 

[Ben Lamb]

FYI - I've been in touch with the Senator's office and they've provided a lot of information. I'm going fishing tomorrow, but will try and have a detailed post by tomorrow.

Headed out for drinks with friends tonight. If only I could spend my life in front of the computer like Toby and others.

 

[sweetnectar]

From what Ben posted it sounds like the state land exchanged is to the benefit of the state. But I don't understand what will happen to the BLM land. Does this mean that some BLM land will become tribal land and so the net acreage and value of BLM will decrease but the net acreage and value of tribal land will increase? I guess we'll have to see what Ben can add info wise.

 

[howler]

according to the bill as listed, there would be near 29K of state lands and 28K of BLM lands given to the tribes, these are not small parcells or really not even parcells, these are huge chunks of land that right now everybody gets to hunt.or recreate on.. If the tribe takes controll of the lands, there will be no public trust doctrine, or north american wildlife model. we will have to wait and see what the map shows but if the acerages are what the bill states a lot of montana'ns are going to be giving up a lot,..

 

[shoots-straight]

according to the bill as listed, there would be near 29K of state lands and 28K of BLM lands given to the tribes, these are not small parcells or really not even parcells, these are huge chunks of land that right now everybody gets to hunt.or recreate on.. If the tribe takes controll of the lands, there will be no public trust doctrine, or north american wildlife model. we will have to wait and see what the map shows but if the acerages are what the bill states a lot of montana'ns are going to be giving up a lot,..

If these lands aren't on res to begin with, then it will be dead man walking.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

It's alright, it is being done under Obama's watch. Gotta be a good thing. Damn, John

 

[noharleyyet]

It's alright, it is being done under Obama's watch. Gotta be a good thing. Damn, John

Pipe down, ya insolent easterner.

 

[howler]

of the state lands a bit over 20K aceres are already with in the boundrys and 7400 are outside the boundry, I have no heart burn with lands already on the rez. the blm lands appear to be outside the present day boundry, The Grinnell Notch is included in the BLM lands and it is a 15K acere chunk, the Grinnell Notch has some bad history, meaning it used to be part of the original rez until the late 1870's when gold was discovered and this part got pulled and became BLM lands,, as they say a bit of a sticky wicket, In the original request from the tribe for the water rights they asked for 250 million dollars and the water rights, somewhere along the line someone figuered out the 250 million might not happen so maybe we could give land instead, In this day of land leasing the sportsmen of Montana are losing hunting lands everyday or at least everyyear,We can not afford to be giving it away, this is not a swap its a total give away.....

 

[pointingdogsrule]

It's alright, it is being done under Obama's watch. Gotta be a good thing. Damn, John

Let's see "JOSE" defend this one.... LOL.

good luck to all
the dog

 

[howler]

This thread has nothing to do with the president, please don't hi-jack this. We have an extremly important issue were fighting for. we have to keep our focus!!!

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

Howler, You are wrong, it does too. Who have we been told to blame for land grabs for the last 5 months? Gotta play by the rules. John

 

[Big Fin]

Howler - Where is the map on this proposal? I want to know more about what this is. Been hoping some maps and other information would become available, but right now, I can't find much.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's what I've been able to put together:

1.) The bill is a settlement for a water compact with the Ft. Belknap Indian Reservation. The Federal Gov't holds in trust the water rights that the Tribes have. Within that, there is an adjudication, and payment made to Tribes for those rights. In this case, It's $250 million that the United States Government has settled with the Tribe on as the amount owed. It's cheaper than litigation, and has been a common vehicle to deal with water issues throughout US history.

2.) Public lands are being proposed for trade in lieu of cash. The cash value of the lands offered are about worth about $50,000,000. The Grinnell Notch is included, and Phillips County has expressed their concern over giving lands to the Tribe. As Steve noted, the Notch used to belong to the Tribe but was taken away for mining purposes.

3.) This is a starting point. Tester has said on the floor of the Senate that there is negotiation to be had. If there are specific parcels identified that have high value for hunters and anglers, we need to get those to the Senator ASAP so that they can take those into consideration.

4.) Maps are forthcoming. They're putting those together this coming week. I'll post them as soon as I get them.

5.) The Bill ensures access to the public lands for the next 25 years, with the same rights and privileges that currently exist. Meaning FWP still sets seasons, and MT hunters and anglers still play by those rules (for the next 25 years).

6.) Roads are not transferred.

7.) Grazing and other commercial uses are protected.

8.) Steve is correct, a lot of the land proposed for swap or sale is within the Reservation boundary, but there are significant amounts of land outside of the Res. Again, let's identify those parcels and give some concrete evidence as to their importance for public land hunters (not just "It's my land")

9.) Photos are the opening statement that Tester made on this bill. He's clearly looking for solutions to the issues he acknowledges exist.

10.) The bill was introduced to start more serious negotiations between the affected parties: The Tribes, State of MT, Phillips County and the Department of the Interior. This means that there is plenty of room to influence how this bill looks.

11.) While this does get rid of some public lands, I don't think it's a "land grab." It's part of a complex negotiation that is intended to fulfill the legal obligation that the United States Government has with the Fort Belknap Reservation. It's also clearly the initial step in more serious negotiations. Given Senator Tester's dedication and support of the DIY hunter, I think if we make a serious case on specific parcels, we can get help influence the course of the debate and negotiation.

 

[shoots-straight]

This will be federal as well as a state issue. It will be hard to say or even fathom how this will shake out. How we got to this point is "water under the bridge" so I guess there's no sense in re hashing that part.

We aren't making anymore land, and we are in debt up to our arse here. So land is what we have. I wonder what mineral rights there are on the res.? The government has control in many instances on that. Royalties etc.

Another pain in my bottom!

 

[Big Fin]

If this is payment for a settlement due, I would rather the Feds pay cash. That amount is not even a rounding error when talking Federal budgets and money. I am not a fan of trading any land.

I hope more details are available soon, before this gets too far along.

 

[howler]

Randy, I have used the numbers and discriptions as wrote in the bill,, The only peice of land that I am pretty familar with is the grinnell notch,

Another thing that should be made clear is the grinnell notch as it is called was on the Rez at one point and in a land SWAP the notch was released from the rez and more land was added to it. most all on the south east side of the rez. So to say the Federal Govmt took land away from the rez is not accurate. Not that is was ethical at the time it problably was not but they got at the time lands that were considered more valuable, not including the gold of course.

The 25 year easement for hunting opertunity for the white man is going to be volatile for sure. If things go the way of the Tribe I am sure they are going to feel the land is there's and white men are not going to be allowed.easement or no easement.