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.

 

[Ben Long]

I’m not a fan of anything in perpetuity.

I respect that. And I respect your right as a property owner not to enter into a conservation easement. At the same time I respect and am grateful for folks who do. When you sell something, it is perpetual. If it isn't perpetual, its rented or leased. When you sell land for development, it's perpetual. When you conserve land via easement, it's perpetual. That "perpetuity" knife cuts both ways.

 

[Elky Welky]

Given property law consists of unlimited types of easements, I am curious why only Conservation Easements are being attacked and restricted. Access easements, grazing easements, open space easements, water storage easements, the list goes on and on. For the sake of certainty to both parties to the easement, everyone of those I've ever seen is in perpetuity. Yet, I see no "ideologues" hammering those easement.

The answer here seems perhaps obvious on its face, and points to the hypocrisy of trying to restrict conservation easements: conservation easements provide a benefit outside of the sole interests of the landowner (flora and fauna, potentially the public), whereas the other easements typically provide more benefits, mostly monetary, for the landowner.

Basically, it feels as though the theme is so long as the landowner sees some direct benefit, it is okay, but if it helps anyone or anything outside of the landed gentry, then screw'm.

But if one believes ideologically that a landowner should be allowed to do whatever they wish with their property, then a conservation easement in perpetuity is just as much of an exercise of that right as any other. There isn't really anything wrong with folks like Mr. Albus being opposed to easements in perpetuity as it pertains to their own property. But that ideological belief certainly should not be imposed on any other landowner.

 

[SAJ-99]

I can't find the original thread on this, but it is an interesting decision. Of course, Knudsen lost so the result is "ideologically driven".

Montana supreme court upholds right to ‘stable climate system’ for youngsters

Court rules in favor of 16 young people who said their health and prospects were being imperiled by climate crisis

www.theguardian.com

 

[Eric Albus]

And, non native species should not be dumped in our environment just because you like them and they make you money.

I never said, or even thought they should

 

[Eric Albus]

When I inquire of most folks as to why they do not want a property owner to exercise a right granted to them by the 5th Amendment of the United State Constitution, the honest ones say something like that quoted above.

The less than honest ones give me some BS about lost tax rolls, abuse, etc., none of which occur if they knew how CEs work from a tax standpoint and if they understood who Montana's generous ag exemptions for property taxes already lower assessed values below what any CE would account for.

So, for the honest folks, it is an ideological issue.

I am often confronted with folks who don't like me owning as many firearms and as much ammo as I have, based on their ideological beliefs. My 2nd Amendment rights are not up for debate. It is a right granted under the US Constitution to prevent the Government from taking that right from individuals.

Now, with the issues of opposing CEs, we have a different side of the same coin, where elected folks have "ideological" opposition to property owners exercising their rights under the 5th Amendment. No different than the ideologues opposed to protections under the 2nd Amendment, just a different issue with a small group of elected folks feeling comfortable imposing their world view on others, with complete disregard for the Constitution.

I am confident that if these bills were to pass, they would be in court the next day under grounds of Constitutionality. The Property Clause of the 5th reads ....“nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”

The courts have ruled liberally toward the position of the property owner, using over 220 years of case law to define property rights, the backbone of our entire economic and political system.

These bills want to take the private property by eliminating what a property owner can do, yet there is no "public use" provision and there is certainly no "just compensation."

We do have the "I'm opposed based on ideological reasons" defense that will be laughed at by the courts.

Given property law consists of unlimited types of easements, I am curious why only Conservation Easements are being attacked and restricted. Access easements, grazing easements, open space easements, water storage easements, the list goes on and on. For the sake of certainty to both parties to the easement, everyone of those I've ever seen is in perpetuity. Yet, I see no "ideologues" hammering those easement.

I don't care if you hunt or not, this kind of attack on property rights should get you pissed. I hope to not be traveling when these hearings come up. They will surely be lively and it will be a chance for those who view the US Constitution as a "Document of Convenience" to stand and self-identify by supporting such bills.

Just because I am not a fan of them does not mean at all that I would try to tell somebody what to do with their property. All I would like people to do is think what they are doing to future generations by putting in an easement that’s in perpetuity.

Once again in my bad for giving people too much credit

 

[Eric Albus]

I respect that. And I respect your right as a property owner not to enter into a conservation easement. At the same time I respect and am grateful for folks who do. When you sell something, it is perpetual. If it isn't perpetual, its rented or leased. When you sell land for development, it's perpetual. When you conserve land via easement, it's perpetual. That "perpetuity" knife cuts both ways.

Thank you, Ben for recognizing that fact and thank you also for thinking and realizing the knife that cuts both ways