Montana 2025 Legislative Session

[mtmiller]

Thanks Randy. Your response was much better than the one that was running through my mind about private property rights. I doubt I will ever be as mature.

 

[SixPoint]

Once a place is sold for subdivision, it's perpetually gone as ag land or wildlife habitat.

Once a place is sold for over appraisal, and put out of reach of working families, it's no longer family ag land, even if it does get leased to local farmers and ranchers.

Once it's in a perpetual conservation easement, that land is going to stay as it is today forever. That means the conservation easement helps ensure that family farmers and ranchers can buy that land, since the development rights are sold. It keeps it lower in price, reduces property taxes for the owners and ensures that it stays in production ag while still protecting the mineral right owners right to develop.

In the case of FWP easements, the perpetual access component means when we see large swings in available acreages like we've seen lately (1 million acres out of block management), it helps keep hunting pressure spread out rather than concentrated on dwindling acres of Block Mgt or public land.

If a landowner wants to sell their development rights, they get a premium with FWP because of the access component. That's a much better deal than some privately held conservation easements and that easement comes with assistance in the form of monitoring from the agency, and help planning the hunting recreation that comes with those easements.

The 40 year leases are a great tool, and the agency should be commended for turning that into a product that helps landowners who aren't on board with perpetuity. It would be short sighted to eliminate any tool for private land conservation, regardless of what some politicians think.

From a fiscally conservative viewpoint, those 40 year leases are a bigger expense per acre than the perpetual conservation easements, as they don't bring along that perpetuity but would have to be re-negotiated in the next iteration. Not a big deal really, unless the funding becomes a political football again.

Best bet is to keep all the tools we have for conservation. Habitat MT has done an amazing job in the over 40 years on the books of helping family ag stay at the local level, and improving wildlife habitat connectivity and avoiding issues other states are seeing with large subdivisions into 160's or 640's for smaller "amenity" properties with little actual production ag value.

Very well said. I would hope that folks in the legislature would view conservation easements as a vehicle to keep local families on the ranch. I know it sure did for us.

 

[shoots-straight]

Pheasant are a valued game bird, regardless of where they originated from. Same with fish species like Brown trout, Walleye, Chinook Salmon, Smallmouth Bass, and other birds some variations of turkeys, quail, etc.

For preserves, some of the requirements seem to be perfunctory and punitive. I'm not a fan of shooting preserves but if it's keeping duffers off of public land where I can miss wild birds in peace, then reforming some outdated methods of management shouldn't be that big of a deal. YMMV.

Doesn't make it right. "Hypocrisy knows no bounds". Not sure the connection between Chinese Pheasants and the de population of our natives birds, as they seem to go together somewhat. We over look those threats because we're bias towards them is positive. Who doesn't like a Wild Turkey? Our Fish & Game spent a bunch on planting them here.

Brown trout have had a very detrimental effect on our native fish populations. Small mouth bass, and Pike too.

"Valued game animals are many, doesn't mean they should be dumped out on for our amusement. How about those Russian boars making their way to our state? They're valued as a game animal. Oh but they are bad for farmers crops, so lets keep them at bay.

You used the term "Wild Birds" meaning a feral bird that are born in the Wild, not our native birds?

Wondering where we draw the line? How about Red Deer introductions?

Not going to derail the conversation anymore.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Doesn't make it right. "Hypocrisy knows no bounds". Not sure the connection between Chinese Pheasants and the de population of our natives birds, as they seem to go together somewhat. We over look those threats because we're bias towards them is positive. Who doesn't like a Wild Turkey? Out Fish & Game spent a bunch on planting them here.

Brown trout have had a very detrimental effect on our native fish populations. Small mouth bass, and Pike too.

"Valued game animals are many, doesn't mean they should be dumped out on for our amusement. How about those Russian boars making their way to our state? They're valued as a game animal. Oh but they are bad for farmers crops, so lets keep them at bay.

You used the term "Wild Birds" meaning a feral bird that are born in the Wild, not our native birds?

Wondering where we draw the line? How about Red Deer introductions?

Not going to derail the conversation anymore.

It's a legit issue (natives versus non) and it seems the lines are pretty clear since I-143.