Lets Call the Dogs Out on this one!

[Ben Lamb]

I'm not real versed on the subject but don't many conservation groups try to purchase land to protect habitat and such. I'm thinking of Rmef for one. Seems if these groups are on the same page as the state agencies they could really benefit one another. It could keep the state agency from getting in some sticky land purchase messes. Like I said I don't know much about it. What's your thoughts.

Groups like TNC, RMEF, etc are both purchasing lands and putting conservation easements on them. If they purchase fee title, it is usually with an eye towards selling those lands to either the state or the Federal Gov't. Other groups like MALT, MRL, etc focus on conservation easements. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also purchases conservation easments depending on location and biological need (like the Rocky Mtn Front, etc). Those easements however have no access component.

If we look at the Legacy project that Schweitzer and Baucus pushed through, a ton of federal funds were used to purchase Plum Creek lands from TNC, which were originally purchased by TNC from Plum Creek. Those purchases gave us the Marshall Block and Fish Creek state park.

Then we have the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is used to leverage funds for fee title acquisition, new fishing access sites, etc. LWCF also helps build most of the city parks in MT. That is funded by offshore oil and gas leasing. It has accounted for a lot of good projects in MT.

In the case of APR, IIRC, they are looking at amassing roughly 3 million acres of deeded and leased public land which they would at some point turn over to the Feds so that it could be managed as public land. In fact, APR has opened up their outfit to access (300,000 acres of public and private) through block management.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I'm super thankful for the state WMAs I hunted on this past fall, and in previous years. My boy's first day hunting was on a WMA, as was his first big game animal and upland game bird. I have a feeling his first elk will be taken on one, and the more places like it... the better! Being able to hunt terrific places, and not having to kiss somebody's ass or pay them.. is a beautiful thing.

 

[1_pointer]

The US Fish and Wildlife Service also purchases conservation easments depending on location and biological need (like the Rocky Mtn Front, etc). Those easements however have no access component.

Same with some NRCS programs. Permanent easements are an option through both the Grassland Reserve Program and the Wetland Reserve Program. And like the USFWS neither have an access component. Main reason I added those two programs is that they are on a bit of shaky ground with the new Farm Bill that is being drafted/debated.

 

[drahthaar]

How can FWP manage biologically when they are continually put under the thumb of a republican legislature that is controlled by wild game hating livestock and ag industry? Seriously! Politicians are managing game, not biologists.

 

[ginkgo72]

This is very informative - isn't this arguement a lot about loss of revenue (taxes) when these lands are set aside?
I'm loving the public lands and all that goes with them. Is there a way to get revenue in a different way - that would satisify the politicians?
Sorry if I'm looking at this too simplisticly.

 

[BRI]

Sweetnectar, does your family ranch give access to the general public or just friends? If not, I'm sure they'd have no problem selling an easement to FWP for general public hunting right? Point is, I would be really surprised if many landowners would be willing to sell FWP easements.

I would rather see my sportsman's dollars going towards purchasing land/habitat that public wildlife and the public hunter will benefit from in the long term.

 

[Big Fin]

This is very informative - isn't this arguement a lot about loss of revenue (taxes) when these lands are set aside?
I'm loving the public lands and all that goes with them. Is there a way to get revenue in a different way - that would satisify the politicians?
Sorry if I'm looking at this too simplisticly.

FWP is required to pay property taxes on lands they own, the same as was the case of the landowner from whom they bought it. No tax loss to the local governments as a result of FWP owning land.

 

[Eric Albus]

wow, a lot of things to ponder this morning...first, easements are a little more palatable than purchases, as long as said easement is not in perpetuety. I really like an easement w/ a sunset on it for aquiring habitat, and said easment should be worded "as long as easement is in place, no change to habitat can be man-made"...ie. housing developments, ect....

Onto Randy's question about the breaks permits...I stopped hunting the breaks a long time ago, to much pressure....plenty of elk, but to many bow hunters..population numbers are way over objective in 630-620 areas...so why not permit it down to a level for the bow hunters that make it a tag worth drawing? Limit to say 350 bow permits(if you really want a quality hunt this is about where the number should be) and limit either-sex rifle tags back to 45, and have a 2 week either-sex season, quality of animals goes back to where it used to be, and quality of hunt is where it used to be....then have the last 3 weeks of the general season cow only....issue 300 cow only permits and get the population under control and keep the quality?

drahtharr, give me a break...wildlife is not being managed on accessable lands biologically.. and the livestock industry and ag indstries to not "hate wildlife"...contrary to your opinion, most of the ranching/farming communties want to see wildlife managed biologically, any good steward of the land feels this way.

 

[Lawnboy]

Sweetnectar, does your family ranch give access to the general public or just friends? If not, I'm sure they'd have no problem selling an easement to FWP for general public hunting right? Point is, I would be really surprised if many landowners would be willing to sell FWP easements.
.

I think landowners would be interested in it if they felt like they were reimbursed fairly for it. Just like many enroll in Block Mgmt. I'm sure some would take the money for an easement. I'm thinking that those interested would be ones that butt up against larger tracts of public. Probably ones that have guys getting to the public by hiking around anyway. Just as well make some money and allow access if you see people behind your place anyway.

Like you said I don't see landowners with 1 section of state or blm in the middle of their huge ranch biting on the easement deal. Too much hassle.

 

[----]

The FWP Wildlife Management areas are the best thing we have going over here on the west side. These pieces of property are incredibly important to our local wildlife, and make more opportunity for hunters than a guy could ever experience. I think I spent time on something like 9 different WMA's last year, and have filled at least half of the tags in my life on these pieces (including my first deer, elk, bull, and bear). It's great to know that they'll be there for the following generations of outdoorsmen, and if you haven't came and checked these pieces out you're really doing yourself a disservice.

I have no idea what the true nature of the Milk River Ranch purchase is, so I can't speak for that, but if something like this passes as push-back from it, we're all a whole lot worse off because of it (except for Sweetnectar and his private ranch).

 

[tjones]

I have no idea what the true nature of the Milk River Ranch purchase is, so I can't speak for that, but if something like this passes as push-back from it, we're all a whole lot worse off because of it (except for Sweetnectar and his private ranch).

 

[Ben Lamb]

wow, a lot of things to ponder this morning...first, easements are a little more palatable than purchases, as long as said easement is not in perpetuity. I really like an easement w/ a sunset on it for acquiring habitat, and said easement should be worded "as long as easement is in place, no change to habitat can be man-made"...ie. housing developments, ect....

I think the funding for Conservation Easements dries up and blows away, especially from private sources, if they have sunsets. Also, attempts to make easements temporary have failed in the past, and I just don't see much enthusiasm for that to happen.

Also, perpetuity in easements and in fee title acquisition is what sets Montana's wildlife management system apart. We focus on habitat rather than social tolerance, as evidenced by bills like SB 151. Unlimited elk permits for a select few is a social management scheme.

If we look at how MT manages elk versus how WY manages elk, we see the benefit of land acquisition, especially winter range. WY relies on feedgrounds which have increased brucellosis infection rates to alarming rates and provide the reservoir that feeds Yellowstone's elk and bison. If you eliminate those feedgrounds, you might see a drop in elk, but then WY would have to change their longstanding abhorrence to conserving winter range for wildlife.

 

[drahthaar]

wow, a lot of things to ponder this morning...first, easements are a little more palatable than purchases, as long as said easement is not in perpetuety. I really like an easement w/ a sunset on it for aquiring habitat, and said easment should be worded "as long as easement is in place, no change to habitat can be man-made"...ie. housing developments, ect....

Onto Randy's question about the breaks permits...I stopped hunting the breaks a long time ago, to much pressure....plenty of elk, but to many bow hunters..population numbers are way over objective in 630-620 areas...so why not permit it down to a level for the bow hunters that make it a tag worth drawing? Limit to say 350 bow permits(if you really want a quality hunt this is about where the number should be) and limit either-sex rifle tags back to 45, and have a 2 week either-sex season, quality of animals goes back to where it used to be, and quality of hunt is where it used to be....then have the last 3 weeks of the general season cow only....issue 300 cow only permits and get the population under control and keep the quality?

drahtharr, give me a break...wildlife is not being managed on accessable lands biologically.. and the livestock industry and ag indstries to not "hate wildlife"...contrary to your opinion, most of the ranching/farming communties want to see wildlife managed biologically, any good steward of the land feels this way.

Don't throw out your bs about accessible lands with hb42 still hanging over everyone's heads. Who wanted that? Those objectives were set by the ag industry plain and simple,and those were social values to appease that industry. If you speak for the ranching/farming community then that is double speak. Give me a break. That crap even affected us in R1 where its all mostly accessible. If you want biological management you need to start with a new elk mgt plan, throw out hb42, and start over, because nothing is close to the same as it was in 2003. Nobody is even talking about that. Until I hear that a new emp is in the works, I consider it nothing but BS lip service from everyone involved.

 

[sweetnectar]

(except for Sweetnectar and his private ranch).

I hunted two days last year on a WMA. Do you still think that I will not be affected? Sorry to see you have some misunderstandings.

 

[Eric Albus]

drahtharr....do you have any idea what you are talking about w/ objective numbers in the breaks? Those numbers were set by the landowners....50 years ago.

 

[BuzzH]

drahtharr....do you have any idea what you are talking about w/ objective numbers in the breaks? Those numbers were set by the landowners....50 years ago.

A couple comments.

1. If the numbers were set 50 years ago, maybe its well past time to revisit the objective numbers.

2. If the numbers were set by landowners...why arent you all over them about it...hardly managing wildlife based on biology??? Or does your criticism of management based on things other than biology only apply to Public Land Hunters and the MTFWP?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Eric, back to my question. Be aware RMEF owns little or nothing in terms of land. RMEF habitat acquisitions are turned to National Forest or some other public land. That is the modus operandi of RMEF since its inception. Of course it's your prerogative to answer in circle-speak, but the following is really a yes or no question.

Are you opposed to RMEF acquiring more wildlife habitat, then turning it over to a public agency to be managed by the public agency and open to the public for hunting, and many other recreational activities?

 

[Eric Albus]

buzz...the numbers were not set low...in fact 2300 head of elk on the north side of the lake is not a bad number...closer to the high side than the low of what the breaks should have elk wise(in my opinion). Time to "revisit the objectives" take that up w/ the landowners and biologists in the breaks. I only have to deal w/ the "spill over" on the elk in the breaks, and personally wish there were fewer elk around. It is nice to see them, but it gets old, and expensive, fixing fence and seeing crops damaged.

straight...to answer, I do not have a problem w/ RMEF purchasing land, and I have no problem w/ them placing easements, or allowing public access to the land, and they can allow management by any entitity they deem responsible...personally I think it is great that an organization will do that.... I do have a problem w/ them, or any other organization, turning it back to Gov't though.

Circle speak? Give me a break...you will find my beliefs to remain consistent. However, unlike most on here I am not so blinded by my own interests to not see the whole picture....and I can usually find the sty in my own eye, rather than behold the moat in my neighbors...unlike many others I know.

 

[----]

I hunted two days last year on a WMA. Do you still think that I will not be affected? Sorry to see you have some misunderstandings.

But you'd have rather that WMA been private land that you couldn't access?

 

[The Hedgehog]

Landownders shouldn't have any more influence on the FWP for the public's wildlife than non-landowners.