Montana House Bill 240

[Jayce37]

https://bills.legmt.gov/#/laws/bill/2/LC2873?open_tab=bill

Does anybody have a better understanding of what they are trying to do with House Bill 240? It sounds to me like a bad deal for hunters and water access, but maybe I’m wrong, I need the laymen’s version haha. Thanks guys!

 

[Schaaf]

Appears to be an effort to get rid of big game hunting on State of Montana owned islands on bigger rivers. I've had a few hunts that wouldn't have happened if this bill were to pass.

 

[INMT]

Thanks for the heads up

 

[DFS]

I would like to see this one laid out in the laymen’s version as well. Not sure I completely understand it.

 

[Schaaf]

Shot the legislator an email, I'll update if I hear back.

 

[cgasner1]

Appears to be an effort to get rid of big game hunting on State of Montana owned islands on bigger rivers. I've had a few hunts that wouldn't have happened if this bill were to pass. View attachment 357239

They way I read that was you couldn’t rifle hunt which is ridiculous if it’s open it’s open

 

[rogerthat]

You could still hunt with a bow or crossbow. I’m more concerned with the language requiring the accretion be assigned to the adjacent land owners without a land survey. Especially in areas with historic islands that now have dry channels

Paging @MTGomer you know anything about river land ownership, accretion and avulsion?

 

[Schaaf]

They way I read that was you couldn’t rifle hunt which is ridiculous if it’s open it’s open

That's how I read it as well.

 

[Forkyfinder]

They way I read that was you couldn’t rifle hunt which is ridiculous if it’s open it’s open

Someone said earlier abput "seeing who benefits"

If only there was a big river with large islands and lots of game and mixed land ownership...

 

[Jayce37]

Shot the legislator an email, I'll update if I hear back.

Thank you!

 

[Jayce37]

You could still hunt with a bow or crossbow. I’m more concerned with the language requiring the accretion be assigned to the adjacent land owners without a land survey. Especially in areas with historic islands that now have dry channels

Paging @MTGomer you know anything about river land ownership, accretion and avulsion?

Yeah that’s how I took it as well which sounds like a crock of crap

 

[cgasner1]

That's how I read it as well.

Gonna have to get a thermal drone and drop a cold steel on them from 20’

 

[golfer]

You could still hunt with a bow or crossbow. I’m more concerned with the language requiring the accretion be assigned to the adjacent land owners without a land survey. Especially in areas with historic islands that now have dry channels

Paging @MTGomer you know anything about river land ownership, accretion and avulsion?

I would be curious to know how they intend to address reliction. I’m sure someone wouldn’t hire a surveyor every year to measure the gradual change unless after enough time it would be beneficial to them?

 

[Nameless Range]

Equal Footing Law means within the 3000+ miles or so of navigable rivers in Montana, those islands within those miles that existed at the time of statehood belong to the state.

It’s damned complicated when islands appear and disappear, erode and somewhat reappear, and I’m skeptical that a declaration from the state about public and private islands will be settled outside of courts in individual cases.

Very similar to whether a road is public or not, generating a statewide data set of such a thing seems like it would be easier said than done.