MT Leg 2023 Attack on Access, Timber, Habitat

[Ben Long]

Bill seeks to restrict state’s access to permanent conservation easements

Senate Bill 357 seeks to put a 40-year term on state-funded conservation easements, with some exceptions.

montanafreepress.org

Here's a good bill to contact your legislator about. One lawmaker is trying to gut FWP's ability to hold conservation easements. These agreements have locked in hundreds of thousands of acres of access for hunting, as well as promoting active timber management etc. RMEF, BHA voiced opposition, alongside The Montana Stockgrowers, Montana Wood Products Assoc. and the Montana Logging Association and a raft of conservation groups. EVERYONE is for these easements. So why put them at risk?

 

[Beignet]

It is somewhat heartening to see some unconventional bedfellows speak out in opposition and that UPOM is standing alone on support of this.

 

[Ben Long]

Agreed. It shows a bright light on how fringe UPOM is. The question is, how many lawmakers will ignore the rest of Montana to do UPOM's bidding?

 

[Ben Lamb]

SB 357 was tables 7-5.

Huge thanks to TNC & the Land Trust community for leading this effort & getting it done.

 

[Big Fin]

SB 357 was tables 7-5.

Huge thanks to TNC & the Land Trust community for leading this effort & getting it done.

Good to hear. Yet, let this be one more of the many examples of how the fringe on the right wants to restrict property rights and reduce the essential tools we need for access and conservation.

 

[Sytes]

A props comment for TNC: My wife and I have primarily maintained RMEF as our lead for annual conservation donations. TNC is 3rd on our list.

That said, when I look at the bang for our $, TNC has time and time again led our interests. We value their public access, thinning programs, and declared stewardship of private land, majority for our pleasure.

The frequency of big game taken off their land and enjoyment of the country thinned forests, present with roads permissible for cycles is amazing.

Back to regular programming. Frustratingly, when RMEF takes a bit more proactive MT elk stance, I'll bump them back up. Until then, they're swapping slots.

Pretty cool to hear of TNC's role. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

To be clear, RMEF was a rock star on this as well. All land trusts led with their heavy hitters.

 

[Sytes]

To be clear, RMEF was a rock star on this as well. All land trusts led with their heavy hitters.

That's great to hear Ben.

We all allocate "X" funds for various organizations. If I felt RMEF wasn't worth their salt, they wouldn't continue in our top three for annual donations. In fact, we wouldn't donate to them, period.

Montana, in particular, the past few years has slightly eroded our #1 sentiment. Public silence, "back channel" responses to continued member inquiries is deafening. Meanwhile, Colorado forced reintroduction (one example) held vocal public RMEF opposition.

That said, They continuously open public land and support habitat and I've frequently begun threads here promoting their activity, membership proud promotions.

We flew back to MT for our flathead annual RMEF banquet. A great time and $ passed in support of their positive activities mentioned above.

 

[2ski]

So explain to me what tabled means. Does that mean the bill is dead?

I've started watching hearing while I'm working and find then incredibly interesting. I was watching last night and noticed as soon as a bill was defeated someone asked for it to be tabled. Which I kind of took to mean it's just put off to the side so that someone can try it again after some behind the scenes negotiating. Or does it mean it's been defeated and they just don't want to show on their official "record" that they had a bill defeated?

 

[Ben Long]

So explain to me what tabled means. Does that mean the bill is dead?

I've started watching hearing while I'm working and find then incredibly interesting. I was watching last night and noticed as soon as a bill was defeated someone asked for it to be tabled. Which I kind of took to mean it's just put off to the side so that someone can try it again after some behind the scenes negotiating. Or does it mean it's been defeated and they just don't want to show on their official "record" that they had a bill defeated?

It does mean killed, but not really killed. There will likely be a motion to blast it out of committee for a floor vote, but that seems like a long shot to me. RMEF and TNC both showed up big. But one thing to take special note of is that this was a great example of the timber industry, the hunting/fishing community and the conservation groups working together. That's what it will take to keep this bill dead and to build greater support in the future.

 

[Ben Long]

All Montana sawmills and major timber land owners came out against this bill both in the media and in session. Montana Wood Products Association and Montana Logging Association both against. Not so long ago, that alone would have meant doom for this legislation. But under the current atmosphere in Helena, even that is not enough to keep a really bad idea down.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It does mean killed, but not really killed. There will likely be a motion to blast it out of committee for a floor vote, but that seems like a long shot to me. RMEF and TNC both showed up big. But one thing to take special note of is that this was a great example of the timber industry, the hunting/fishing community and the conservation groups working together. That's what it will take to keep this bill dead and to build greater support in the future.

And the Montana Stockgrowers Association. They did yeomans work standing up for private property rights and speaking out against this bill.

 

[BigHornRam]

A props comment for TNC: My wife and I have primarily maintained RMEF as our lead for annual conservation donations. TNC is 3rd on our list.

That said, when I look at the bang for our $, TNC has time and time again led our interests. We value their public access, thinning programs, and declared stewardship of private land, majority for our pleasure.

The frequency of big game taken off their land and enjoyment of the country thinned forests, present with roads permissible for cycles is amazing.

Back to regular programming. Frustratingly, when RMEF takes a bit more proactive MT elk stance, I'll bump them back up. Until then, they're swapping slots.

Pretty cool to hear of TNC's role. Thanks for sharing.

View attachment 266672


View attachment 266673

Looks familiar, Charles.

 

[Sytes]

Looks familiar, Charles.

Really enjoyable land back there.