Montana House Bill 676 - This could sell off 1.25M acres of State Trust Lands - that's almost 25%!!! This is not the Homesteading Bill

[Straight Arrow]

Why not exchanges rather than disposal if that's the goal?

The best win-win example of exchanges is the swap-out of landlocked inaccessible state land on the Flying D Ranch. The ranch purchased land near Ulm, land desirable to the State of Montana. Landlocked parcels on the ranch became part of the contiguous ranch and the land near Ulm became a very popular and excellent State Park called the First Peoples Buffalo Jump. That is the kind of land deals I would like the legislature to consider. Good for the private landowner and really good for the public.

Like I said, "Instead of Legislature meeting ninety days every two years ... how about two days every ninety years!"

 

[BuzzH]

The best win-win example of exchanges is the swap-out of landlocked inaccessible state land on the Flying D Ranch. The ranch purchased land near Ulm, land desirable to the State of Montana. Landlocked parcels on the ranch became part of the contiguous ranch and the land near Ulm became a very popular and excellent State Park called the First Peoples Buffalo Jump. That is the kind of land deals I would like the legislature to consider. Good for the private landowner and really good for the public.

Like I said, "Instead of Legislature meeting ninety days every two years ... how about two days every ninety years!"

The D also did one with the state that added to the Robb/Ledford WMA, was a great exchange.

Wayyyy better than disposal, by a landslide.

 

[cgasner1]

Where in the bill was that guaranteed?

That equal number of acres would be purchased that are accessible?

Why not exchanges rather than disposal if that's the goal?

I smell a rat.

I agree other than the equal number of acres. You know not all land is the same

 

[Southern Elk]

The other thought in my mind on this is that the monies gained by sale of inaccessible state properties possibly can build a pool of money for the state to use to purchase a like number of acres (no net acres gained) for the public. The possibility to purchase better places with access to recreational land.

Why didn’t you offer that as an amendment? There are no such guarantees in this bill.

 

[DFS]

I can’t imagine voting yes on this bill even if the land is inaccessible. Huge loss for the state and the people that live here.

 

[Southern Elk]

The reason I voted for it: these sections have no legal access. If sold at fair market value(FVM) the interest earned is more than the lessee payments. Not a bad deal.

Exhibit A for why states can’t be trusted with federal lands. Why wouldn’t you try to find ways for all of the people of MT to access our public lands instead of selling them off to a privilege few?

 

[shoots-straight]

The reason I voted for it: these sections have no legal access. If sold at fair market value(FVM) the interest earned is more than the lessee payments. Not a bad deal.

Isn't there a program to enroll in to deal with this issue? It's called Land Banking right? Sadly many are disingenuous in the fact they want State lands privatized not banked and re purchased.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The other thought in my mind on this is that the monies gained by sale of inaccessible state properties possibly can build a pool of money for the state to use to purchase a like number of acres (no net acres gained) for the public. The possibility to purchase better places with access to recreational land.

In kind, individual land exchanges on a case by case basis with public input for each exchange are a good thing. The legal framework for this already exists.

Nothing that I can see in this bill would set monies aside for public land purchase if the bill passes.

To quote a mutual acquaintance, “ This is a turd of a bill”. No bueno.

 

[cgasner1]

In kind, individual land exchanges on a case by case basis with public input for each exchange are a good thing. The legal framework for this already exists.

Nothing that I can see in this bill would set monies aside for public land purchase if the bill passes.

To quote a mutual acquaintance, “ This is a turd of a bill”. No bueno.

While waiting to hear about the vote on 139 couple weeks ago they voted on what to do with the extra 60 million I believe the state has. I don’t think we need to sell land for money

 

[Gerald Martin]

Also, when the state is sitting on a two billion dollar surplus, selling public assets to pay state government bills is an unconvincing argument.

How about we pass legislation to use some of that surplus to create legal access to landlocked public lands rather than selling them to benefit landowners.

MT taxpayers are the losers on both ends of this bill.

 

[cgasner1]

maybe instead of crypto the state should invest that in land. While the value grows the residents can also enjoy the land

 

[mtmiller]

Why didn’t you offer that as an amendment? There are no such guarantees in this bill.

My thoughts exactly. You had an opportunity to address an access issue and did nothing.

"The other thought in my mind......" jfc

 

[Beignet]

Hopefully the R party unanimity in the Senate helps get this stinker flushed.

 

[INMT]

Hopefully we can beat this down. I’ve reached out to friends that hunt that don’t pay attention to this stuff.

WAKE PEOPLE UP!

 

[Forkyfinder]

How do you know they/you/me will never have legal access?

Lesson in why we never want federal lands in state control.

In a state where outdoor recreation is in the top couple economic drivers, I would argue it's a horrific "deal".

It will be a great deal. Just not for the public.

 

[INMT]

Maybe more knowledgeable people can speak to this, but aren’t land boards tasked with making money to fund schools. If the 1.25 million acres that are on the chopping block for sale, are transfer or what @Eric Albus put forth even possible?

 

[Forkyfinder]

I can’t imagine voting yes on this bill even if the land is inaccessible. Huge loss for the state and the people that live here.

Huge gain for private land owners. Huh. Weird.

 

[DP_PublicLands]

The reason I voted for it: these sections have no legal access. If sold at fair market value(FVM) the interest earned is more than the lessee payments. Not a bad deal.

Problem: everyone is assuming that there's no public access. The bill doesn't say that. It says "isolated" state parcels. Isolated from what? Other state parcels? Adjoining public lands? Accessible by stream access? Did you not go into that detail? The bill sure doesn't. It puts 1.25 million arcres into "shall sell". Woah.

You should be encouraging access to public lands - not selling them off. It's a horrible deal - 1.25 Million acres would be gone from the public trust forever. No chance to consolidate or land swap (not that that seems to go well) or anything. Just gone. The bill doesn't even say what the money would be used for.

No offense here man, but this was not thought out at all. You don't sell off 25% of the state trust lands based on "he said they are inaccessible" and not even care where the money is going!!!

Start a thread that says "I voted to sell 25% of Montana's state trust land - Not a Bad Deal" and see how Montanans really feel about it!

 

[DP_PublicLands]

The other thought in my mind on this is that the monies gained by sale of inaccessible state properties possibly can build a pool of money for the state to use to purchase a like number of acres (no net acres gained) for the public. The possibility to purchase better places with access to recreational land.

The bill doesn't say that though! It just says the state shall sell it!!! We can't just sit here and pray that "they" will do the right thing.

 

[Brad]

The reason I voted for it: these sections have no legal access. If sold at fair market value(FVM) the interest earned is more than the lessee payments. Not a bad deal.

What a joke.