Montana State Lands

[Nemont]

I knew that it wouldn't be long before the pols started to advocate a legislative solution to the state lands leasing lawsuit. I don't disagree with the ability to match the high bid as my family has done that also. The logic is what gets me.

August 3, 2004

Secretary of state candidate backs lessee priority
By JIM GRANSBERY
Of The Gazette Staff

A candidate for secretary of state said Monday he would ask the Montana Legislature to pass a law preserving lessee preference for grazing and farming permits granted by the State Land Board.

During a press conference in Billings, Bill Kennedy said a "simple statute change" could meet the objections of a recent decision handed down by a Helena District judge.

Judge Jeffrey Sherlock declared a law giving current lessees of state land the right to match any higher bid for the lease as unconstitutional.


Kennedy, a Yellowstone County commissioner, is the Democratic nominee for secretary of state, who is one of five members of the State Land Board. The board has a constitutional mandate to manage the state's school trust lands, with the proceeds funding K-12 education.

Kennedy said keeping the preference is in the best interests of Montana agriculture.

There are more than 10,000 agricultural leases on state land. About 6,000 individuals, farmers and ranchers lease 4.8 million acres. About 1,000 leases come up for renewal each February and have terms of five or 10 years. Competitive bids are offered on 60 to 80 leases each year.

The law declared unconstitutional by Sherlock said the current lessees could match the highest competing bid and retain the permit.

Sherlock said the law was unconstitutional because it prevented the State Land Board - governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor and superintendent of public instruction - from exercising its discretion as to who is the best leaseholder for a particular tract of land.

Kennedy argued Monday that a new law stating the "incumbent lessee may exercise a preference right by meeting the high bid, subject to the approval by the board in its discretion as trustee, would solve the constitutional problem."

Kennedy said farmers and ranchers need the stability of the preference right and that action by the Legislature next January would pre-empt the need to appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.

An appeal "involves time, expense and risk, with uncertain results," Kennedy said.

Brad Johnson, the GOP candidate for secretary of state, said in late July that Sherlock's decision should be appealed.

"It's critical that the land board balance its responsibility to maximize the return on state lands with good ecological management," Johnson told The Gazette. "If competitive bidding results in driving ranchers off the land, ultimately there won't be any competitive bidding."

 

[Oak]

"It's critical that the land board balance its responsibility to maximize the return on state lands with good ecological management," Johnson told The Gazette.

Is grazing required to obtain "good ecological management?" I see they didn't mention anything about whether they want the current lessee to be able to petition to have his "matching" bid reduced.

"If competitive bidding results in driving ranchers off the land, ultimately there won't be any competitive bidding."

How much "competative" bidding is there now? A rancher can "match" any bid, and then petition to have it cut in half. Anybody that isn't a rancher should think this is a joke.

Oak

 

[1_pointer]

I am for the current lessee being able to match the bid, as that gives them some 'credit' for (assumedly) improvements. However, I am not for petitioning to lower the bill, that is assinine.

Is grazing required to obtain "good ecological management?"

Whoa, now that is a can of worms! What if it's not required, but can be used to attain 'good ecological management'? How many of these leases would go unleased or for much lower $$ if not for the ability to graze them? Just looking out for Nemont's kids!

 

[Oak]

I'm not saying that they need to do away with the ability to graze them, but this guy seems to think that only by grazing can the state achieve good ecological management. I imagine that if they were really trying to achieve good ecological management, some of the lands currently being leased for grazing would have to be closed. I'm not saying that nobody is doing it right, but by the same token, is everybody?

If the ranchers are doing it right, I don't mind them having the ability to match a bid. I think it's ridiculous though, that they can then petition to have the rate reduced.

Oak

 

[1_pointer]

We agree more than the typed word shows.

I for one though, don't believe that 'do-nothing' or 'hands-off' management is good. I like to see proactive management and feel that it produces better results more often than the doing nothing.

Also, what is the definition of good?