HB 677

You can just Google, RMEF purchases or TNC purchases and find tons of examples. You can then use gis.mt.gov to search for the parcel(s) referenced in whatever land acquisition you would like to highlight, and view the general property information of that land. Below is an example of what that looks like for the RMEF purchase in the Bull Mountains near where I live that I referenced above - Hadley Park. The RMEF would not have been able to acquire this parcel, which not only conserved 600 acres of elk country, it opened up 1,700 acres of otherwise inaccessible checkerboard.

1617287873234.png1617287955881.png
 
MTGomer said:
I’m sure this is unconstitutional but if passed, what is to stop someone at APR from buying the land personally and then donating it to the organization via a 100 year lease or setting up a trust or something? I’m sure there’s 100 loopholes to avoid this nonsense. And the nonsense probably isn’t legal in the first place.
Click to expand...

There are always significant work-arounds. While this bill is supposedly about APR, the reality is that the organizers for UPOM know that it won't hold constitutional muster, but they don't care. That's not what this bill is really about.

The bill, and the whole save the cowboy campaign, is about political power & enacting an extreme agenda on Montana. Privately, 1/2 of the GOP caucus will tell you how much UPOM folks are despised. They still take the money, and vote for UPOM, but it's not a movement with significant, deep rooted support outside of eastern MT. There is a vacuum for political power on these issues in Montana. Groups like MT Conservation Voters who run Independent Expenditures, etc, are not nearly as well funded as UPOM (Wilks Bro's $). They also don't have the instant credibility that someone in a cowboy hat does for GOP politicians.

This bill is about keeping the base fired up, and keeping the political power associated with the hatred of conservation moving forward.

If this thing passes, you won't have a Big Snowies WMA. If RMEF can't buy land, then FWP can't get the WMA.
 
Big Fin said:
The "closet commies" come out of the woodwork when they get elected to Helena. What a bunch of BS.

Since when should the government decide which legal entities can/can't buy property or property rights?

More bullshit. No other way to put it.
Click to expand...
I’d say. Talk about an political/ideological contradiction for the political party who bills themselves as the champion of the free market. Government dictating who can be party to a private transaction is the epitome of communism/socialism.
 
Everyone of the many RMEF access projects would have been prohibited if this was in effect at the time. The Gallatin Land Consolidations, Taylor's Fork, Robb-Ledford, Royal Teton, Cow Creek, and the list is a mile long.

Same with the many great TNC and TPL projects.

This is the biggest anti-hunting bill of the entire session.
 
Writing useless unconstitutional nonsense go-nowhere bills just to make a point. The folks in Lewistown need to send this guy back to school. He must have skipped his civics class.
 
"Save the cowboy..." so that's what it comes down to. An archetypal character of American mythology known for self-sufficiency and rugged individualism now needs anti-capitalist legislation to "save" him.

I feel for people who see their lifestyle and identity challenged by a society evolving away from them and their values. But cowboys need to save themselves. Elk can't do that. Migration corridors can't do that. So I know what sort of "side" I fall on when it comes to supporting legislation that works to "save" any entity whose existence is challenged by a changing landscape, physically or politically.

Doubly so when the legislation seems unconstitutional at worst, antidemocraric at best.
 
Big Fin said:
Everyone of the many RMEF access projects would have been prohibited if this was in effect at the time. The Gallatin Land Consolidations, Taylor's Fork, Robb-Ledford, Royal Teton, Cow Creek, and the list is a mile long.

Same with the many great TNC and TPL projects.

This is the biggest anti-hunting bill of the entire session.
Click to expand...

That's the overall plan. Behind all of the moves to limit or eliminate programs like Habitat Montana, give away licenses to landowners & outfitters, eliminate hunter participation in season setting (2019 bill), eliminate bison as a wild animal in MT, etc, it boils down to the core belief that the ruling class in the MTGOP has that public land is awful, conservation limits profit & the only good piece of land is a developed piece of land.

They don't want you to be able to get out & hunt. They hate to see the power that sportsmen & women have when they pull together, and they can't stand to be held accountable for their actions when you call them on it.

Control is what they are after.
 
The main religious group that would benefit from this bill are the faithful worshipers of the Greater Montana Synod of the First Church of Mammon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nameless Range
UPOM as an Anti-Hunting, Anti-Fishing Organization
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
11K
BuzzH
B
AZ402
AWF HB2072 response.
Replies
9
Views
3K
MNHunter
MNHunter

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,669
Messages
2,029,051
Members
36,277
Latest member
rt3bulldogs

Share this page

Back
Top