Southern Elk
Well-known member
I keep getting emails from BHA on this. Can someone fill me in on the details? Why are we not seeing more about a bill that would encourage transfer of public lands?
Montana Land Transfer Bill HB 320
- Thread starter Southern Elk
- Start date
Southern Elk
Well-known member
So, do we not care about this one? I’m shocked at the lack of interest. @Big Fin will there be a call to action on this bill like there was with the outfitters tags?
The bill would disallow the State from selling land transfered from the Federal Gov't.
It's a retread of the same concept in 2015 from The American Lands Council.
It's unconstitutional in it's form, and it ignores actual land management regimes necessary for the proper stewardship of public & state trust lands.
But it's run as a "gotcha" bill because the anti-public lands advocates want to try and paint conservationists are really being evil bastards who hate public land & want to sell it off. It's a move they learned in Junior High, and you can see them giggle when it gets a hearing.
It's up for second reading today. Hopefully it dies today, but I doubt it. The vote on this today will tell you who supports the transfer & eventual sale of public lands with their yes votes.
It's a retread of the same concept in 2015 from The American Lands Council.
It's unconstitutional in it's form, and it ignores actual land management regimes necessary for the proper stewardship of public & state trust lands.
But it's run as a "gotcha" bill because the anti-public lands advocates want to try and paint conservationists are really being evil bastards who hate public land & want to sell it off. It's a move they learned in Junior High, and you can see them giggle when it gets a hearing.
It's up for second reading today. Hopefully it dies today, but I doubt it. The vote on this today will tell you who supports the transfer & eventual sale of public lands with their yes votes.
Ben is on target. It is a bait bill for those who hate public land to self-identify.
Quite honestly, I and the others working as volunteers on this, are completely swamped with directing SB 143 to its grave. The other side knows how out of balance the playing field is and who has greased the skids with those who hold the Committee and Leadership power as a result of the November election.
That reality requires a lot of decision in how to allocate very limited time and resources against a tidal wave like we've not seen from the Montana legislature. A bill like this and its grand standing ends up lower on the list for those who have to spend their days on what are deemed to be more important projects.
Ben Lamb may have left Montana and he is not getting paid for the work he is doing, but his work and his help on so many of these issues is invaluable. Not sure how Montana hunters can anglers are going to repay him, but the debt is substantial.
We hunters, specifically resident hunters, had best get our act together in the next two years, or expect the foundational principles the current system is built on to be washed out to see and never to be seen again. As much as it is helpful for many to be commenting on threads and sharing on Facebook, nothing beats phone calls to your people and the people on these committees that want to enact this kind of junk. If not a phone call, an email. Better than both is if you know one of these people or you know someone who knows them.
Thanks for all who are doing what they can. It is making a difference.
Quite honestly, I and the others working as volunteers on this, are completely swamped with directing SB 143 to its grave. The other side knows how out of balance the playing field is and who has greased the skids with those who hold the Committee and Leadership power as a result of the November election.
That reality requires a lot of decision in how to allocate very limited time and resources against a tidal wave like we've not seen from the Montana legislature. A bill like this and its grand standing ends up lower on the list for those who have to spend their days on what are deemed to be more important projects.
Ben Lamb may have left Montana and he is not getting paid for the work he is doing, but his work and his help on so many of these issues is invaluable. Not sure how Montana hunters can anglers are going to repay him, but the debt is substantial.
We hunters, specifically resident hunters, had best get our act together in the next two years, or expect the foundational principles the current system is built on to be washed out to see and never to be seen again. As much as it is helpful for many to be commenting on threads and sharing on Facebook, nothing beats phone calls to your people and the people on these committees that want to enact this kind of junk. If not a phone call, an email. Better than both is if you know one of these people or you know someone who knows them.
Thanks for all who are doing what they can. It is making a difference.
The more I learn about how our govt. works during legislative sessions, both State and Federal level, the more I am amazed that this democracy has held together for more than 225 years without imploding. My respect for politicians decreases every day for each and every-single-one of the politicians, at all levels..... it's a complete slap in the face for all of us "regular citizens" as they become more and more removed from the general population.
There are currently 50 introduced bills on Fish & Wildlife. That does not include the bills relative to the budget, Long Range Planning (Habitat MT, other important conservation spending) or public lands.
Offense would be good, but our hands are full just trying to kill bad bills, while getting a decent budget & protecting Habitat Montana. We've already lost over $10 million in conservation funding through the re-allocation of the recreational marijuana funding that voters approved in 2020. We're trying to stop the bleeding and defend the Citadel while the hordes are pressing the assault.
Offense can come later, but for now, let's defend the castle.
Teeejs
New member
I was having a hard time understanding how a bill preventing the sale of public lands transferred to the state was harmful so did some looking. Summary is that it sounds like the overall goal is to encourage more federal land transfers to the state which then can't be sold resulting in unaffordable costs for maintenance/mangement. That would then open the door in the future for public land to be sold with that as the rational. Does that sound right here?
You got it.
The gotcha part of it is the driving factor though. It's simplistic and ignores the realities of land management. Which is telling since these folks have never put forward any kind of detailed plan on how these lands would be managed aside from "we'll develop it all."
Southern Elk
Well-known member
Thank you Randy and Ben. I realize resources are scarce. This just seemed to me like it should be a priority, but I trust your judgment.
I’ve reached out to my rep. Unfortunately he says he doesn’t read the bill the same way that I do and he sees himself protecting public lands by voting for it.
I’ve reached out to my rep. Unfortunately he says he doesn’t read the bill the same way that I do and he sees himself protecting public lands by voting for it.
Get 10 friends to email & write to them today. There are groups working this today in the Halls, and they're doing everything they can to get to 51 no votes. MWF, MTBHA, MTTU, MT Wilderness Association are hustling for us with their lobby teams as we type. If we don't win today or tomorrow on 3rd, The senate is where we stand our ground.
This session is tough for public involvement. The Rules committee made it tougher by forcing folks to sign up 24 hours in advance, and then having chairs be antagonistic to those who dare testify remotely. If you show up in person, you put yourself at risk for exposure to COVID. They are taking advantage of people's caution to subvert public input. Never forget that.
Hydrophilic
Well-known member
How are Montana state lands managed? In Oregon our state lands are managed primarily as 'working forests' which provide revenue for schools, etc. There is a monetized incentive to maximize extraction which results in a history of taking damn near every tree next to important salmon bearing streams. Minimum riparian requirements are a joke when comparing Oregon state lands to federal lands.
I would imagine Montana would have to tap into a lot of resource extraction to afford managing these lands if they were transferred? So the lands either become to expensive to manage and are thus sold off, or the land becomes too developed through resource extraction and the quality and ecosystem gets destroyed?
State Trust Lands are managed to bring in the highest return to the Trust. That means timber extraction, farming, O&G leasing, wind farms, mining, etc for the most part. MT has done a good job of balancing the recreational aspect for the most part, but it's still a 20th century model of Trust Lands mgt, IMO. We have a Land Banking program that is really well done, and this bill would proclude that from happening.
Land Banking is where the DNRC sells portions of Trust Lands, then uses the proceeds to purchase more land that has better return, habitat and access than what is sold. It's been used well the last 16 years, and before that, as the Land Board looked to consolidate land holdings & reduce checkerboard.
People tend to forget that Montana has only allowed access to state lands for the last 25 years. And we pay for the privilege to do so. It's not much, and it's not close to what leesees pay for grazing rights or farming rights, but it's part of the trust obligation to get a return on that investment.
Federal Public Lands are not managed like that, but in a multiple use fashion that allegedly places all uses at the same priority, unless directed by Congress of the President to be otherwise.
Currently looking at the upcoming legislative bills in Montana and thinking about hunting in another state. The non resident prices and potential lack of tags makes you wonder what will the future hunting atmosphere be in a state I've hunted for decades.
brocksw
Well-known member
Copied from MT BHA Facebook group:
HB 320, the American Lands Council bill that encourages the transfer and future sale of Montana's public lands, passed the House Floor yesterday by a 51-49 vote.
While we're obviously disappointed in this result, and we'll continue to fight this now in the Senate, we'd like to thank the Representatives who voted against this bill as well as the 16 Republican Representatives listed below who voted on behalf of public land owners and against a bill sponsored by their own party member. So thank you to the following:
Rep. Anderson (R-MT-020)
Rep. Buttrey (R-MT-021)
Rep. Custer (R-MT-039)
Rep. Dooling (R-MT-070)
Rep. Fitzgerald (R-MT-017)
Rep. Frazer (R-MT-078)
Rep. Garner (R-MT-007)
Rep. Greef (R-MT-088)
Rep. Holmlund (R-MT-038)
Rep. Hopkins (R-MT-092)
Rep. Loge (R-MT-014)
Rep. McKamey (R-MT-019)
Rep. Putnam (R-MT-009)
Rep. Walsh (R-MT-071)
Rep. Welch (R-MT-072)
Rep. Whitman (R-MT-096)
HB 320, the American Lands Council bill that encourages the transfer and future sale of Montana's public lands, passed the House Floor yesterday by a 51-49 vote.
While we're obviously disappointed in this result, and we'll continue to fight this now in the Senate, we'd like to thank the Representatives who voted against this bill as well as the 16 Republican Representatives listed below who voted on behalf of public land owners and against a bill sponsored by their own party member. So thank you to the following:
Rep. Anderson (R-MT-020)
Rep. Buttrey (R-MT-021)
Rep. Custer (R-MT-039)
Rep. Dooling (R-MT-070)
Rep. Fitzgerald (R-MT-017)
Rep. Frazer (R-MT-078)
Rep. Garner (R-MT-007)
Rep. Greef (R-MT-088)
Rep. Holmlund (R-MT-038)
Rep. Hopkins (R-MT-092)
Rep. Loge (R-MT-014)
Rep. McKamey (R-MT-019)
Rep. Putnam (R-MT-009)
Rep. Walsh (R-MT-071)
Rep. Welch (R-MT-072)
Rep. Whitman (R-MT-096)
That's a good vote, folks. It means this thing is in trouble.
If the fix is in, look for it to go to some committee other than Natural Resources. Bills that change committee's mid-stream are poster-children for managed outcomes. Since it started in Natural Resources, it should get assigned to the same Senate Committee. That's good news for people who actually understand public land management. Bad news for people who think gotcha politics is important enough to waste taxpayer time & money.
If the fix is in, look for it to go to some committee other than Natural Resources. Bills that change committee's mid-stream are poster-children for managed outcomes. Since it started in Natural Resources, it should get assigned to the same Senate Committee. That's good news for people who actually understand public land management. Bad news for people who think gotcha politics is important enough to waste taxpayer time & money.
In case there were any confusion about the effort to transfer & sell public lands, I would point folks to another bill that the sponsor, Rep. Steve Gunderson, has relative to stealing funding from Habitat MT, and creating barriers to future funding: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2021/billpdf/LC2504.pdf
This is why people run multiple bills - they stack on top of each other to give the desired effect, while forcing opponents to fight each step in a piece meal fashion.
The truth is: This legislature would give your elk to the Galts & Wilk's Brothers, while limiting or eliminating access & conservation programs like Habitat Montana (MT's LWCF).
So while we fight HB 320, keep your eye on LC 2504 and get ready for the second wave.
Fix Bayonets & put on your war paint.
This is why people run multiple bills - they stack on top of each other to give the desired effect, while forcing opponents to fight each step in a piece meal fashion.
The truth is: This legislature would give your elk to the Galts & Wilk's Brothers, while limiting or eliminating access & conservation programs like Habitat Montana (MT's LWCF).
So while we fight HB 320, keep your eye on LC 2504 and get ready for the second wave.
Fix Bayonets & put on your war paint.
Walkalot
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2020
- Messages
- 254
So a bill that that politicians are trying to pass that would allow them to sell or transfer lands. Correct. Totally the wrong direction. I think the public wants a bill that would allow us to buy lands. Seems are politicians not doing whats best for montana just themselves
