MT Legislature - Week 6

[Big Fin]

Another good one being heard today, but this time in the Senate at 3:00 PM.

Senate Bill 301 - AN ACT ENACTING A MORATORIUM ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN FEE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS UNTIL JULY 1, 2015

Guess if I wanted to sell my property to FWP for any sort of habitat, access, or other reason, I would no longer be able to do that. Even if I wanted to do a bargain sale and sell it to them for 50% of fair maket value.

The fact that the best wildlife habitat in Montana was acquired via purchase from landowners, with hunter and angler dollars, seems irrelevant by those great leaders of today. Think of the Sun River Game Range, Porcupine Game Range, Wall Creek Management Area, and the many other great pieces of ground we have bought with hunter and angler dollars. Under this bill, we would have to pass on such options.

(5) The department may not purchase or enter into a contract to purchase land in fee until July 1, 2015."

For a group of people who ran on the platform of simpler government and fewer laws, they sure did a 180 turn when they got to Helena.

At a time when property values are at fifteen year lows, we need all options available to protect habitat and increase access. This bill does nothing positive and restricts the ability of hunters and anglers to increase our habitat acquisitions and access options.

I have no idea what the agenda is for some of these poeple who want to continue to tie the hands of hunters and anglers. If there is a logical reason that someone can give me, I would love to hear it. From my perspective, it seems like nothing but agendas.

The sponsor is the Honorable Senator Rick Ripley.

He gives no email. If I was introducing this kind of legislation, I wouldn't provide an email either.

This bill is being heard today in the Senate Fish and Game Committee.

Here is the information you need to contact any of these people. If no email is provided, you can contact them by calling the number below and asking that a message be left for the committee or any particular legislator.

Senate Fish and Game Committee
Meets Tuesday, Thursday, 3 p.m., Room 422

Chair: John Brenden (R-Scobey)
Vice Chair: Joe Balyeat (R-Bozeman)
Vice Chair: Steve Gallus (D-Butte)
Debby Barrett (R-Dillon)
Tom Facey (D-Missoula)
Brad Hamlett (D-Cascade)
Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls)
Larry Jent (D-Bozeman)
Jim Shockley (R-Victor) No email provided
Art Wittich (R-Bozeman)
Staff: Joe Kolman, 406-444-9280
Secretary: Kevin McCue, 406-444-7363

One would think with unemployment at an all-time high, this legislature would tackle the tougher issues of the day, such as the economy, budgets, etc. But, if you have no ideas for progress on the tough issues, maybe you spend your time pushing an agenda on the tangential stuff.

Enough already.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The other thing that this precludes is purchasing small tracts of land in order to access much larger blocks of Public Land, like FWP has been doing throughout Central and Eastern MT.

More bills dropped this AM - Including on by Senator Barret to make FWP spend $6,000 per wolf for management.

 

[shoots-straight]

In my letter responding to SB 301, I said it was a property rights issue. Isn't that what these R's stand for. If a guy wants to sell or give his place to the State, he should have that right.

 

[mdunc8]

Here's Ripley's email - [email protected]. Mine bounced back, so apparently he went covert.

 

[Big Fin]

There are more stupid bills coming this week, but I have to get some work done today. Just got off two hours of phone calls. Hopefully Ben can post up some more of the links.

Sorry to read the other threads popping up and hear of the stuff going on in Colorado and New Mexico. Amazing the degree to which wildlife and hunter opportunity is being used as the currency for repaying vendettas or cancelling the debts incurred to get elected.

Obviously, Montana is not the only state. We just have a bi-annual session, so they have do their damage in that three month window. I think I am going to have to start a different forum, so as to not pollute the entire board with these topics. Too much of a downer in something that is supposed to be our fun and passion.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Current count has 20 bills scheduled for hearings this week. Most of those will have to have executive action as well or they will miss the deadline for transmittal. One other thing to keep an eye on is that revenue bills have a longer time frame to be introduced and transmitted.

FWP budget, and your license dollars have a huge target on them right now.

Add on top of that the people on both sides of the wolf issue are trying to kill the Rider for the Continuing Resolution to delist wolves in the Rockies, and it's already a fun Tuesday.

 

[Big Fin]

What is a takings claim?

When you can prove that a government agency took an action that reduced your property values or damaged you financiallly.

It can be a legit issue at times, as it should be. We have process for which you make such claim, and by which your case will be heard and damages awarded, if truly incurred. Evidently the current process is not good enough for those who know more than our Supreme Court.

It is a big mantra among some who cannot distinguish between a private property right and a public property right, or between a property right and a licensed activity or a privilege.

If you can prove damage, you will be awarded those damages, plus some, under a "takings claim."

Seems like some want to statutorily lower the threshold for a takings claim, so everyone can get in on the government dole. If you can't get it to benefit you in the form of a subsidy, let's lower the threshold and broaden the definition to the point where we can all put our heads in the government trough.

If this passes, we in Montana will no longer be the brunt of sheep jokes, but jokes more along these lines.

Two guys from Montana meet in a coffee shop.

First guy says, "What do you do for a living?"

Second guy replies, "Oh, I file takings claims whenever a government agency makes a decision. I have a good attorney on speed dial. He's busy wtih other claims, but he is like money in the bank. Want his number?"

 

[sweetnectar]

Based on how well our public lands are taken care and how much we pay in taxes, fees, etc, I'd recommend no net gains for FWP until they can prove they can take care of what they already have.

 

[tjones]

You got to be kidding,,,right?

 

[sweetnectar]

tjones...Check this out. Perhaps you weren't aware there was a problem. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_254073e2-6639-51db-9488-7c2af98a46fb.html

A few years ago I got to search through some budget items on simple weed control expenditures for these lands and it was enough to choke a horse. Yikes!

 

[tjones]

Ohh I am aware, but I will take more public land anytime I can get it. Maybe you aren't aware who sets FWP's budget.

 

[sweetnectar]

It just looks bad so people get it in their heads to make a law so FWP can't purchase any additional land. As long as things are looking taken care of and the public believes these purchases are great deals then they will still happen. I feel FWP is skating close to the edge and better get the maintenance issues solved to calm the waters....if you know what I mean.

 

[shoots-straight]

Based on how well our public lands are taken care and how much we pay in taxes, fees, etc, I'd recommend no net gains for FWP until they can prove they can take care of what they already have.

So those same lands are in such great shape when in private ownership. Give me a break. That's how those lands got trashed. The lands in MTFW&Ps hands are IMO. better off than before, and those that have been there for awhile are getting at least some professional attention. The state lands that are in terrible shape are the State Trust lands. They are managed for the maximum amount of revenue. Not the same agency at all. Hypocrites the whole batch.

I suppose your in favor of forcing people to get counseling before they decide to get divorced too.

 

[Big Fin]

Based on how well our public lands are taken care and how much we pay in taxes, fees, etc, I'd recommend no net gains for FWP until they can prove they can take care of what they already have.

They could take care of what they already have, if the legislature would get their hands out of the mess and quit restricting everything FWP would do.

And, if you look in terms of constant dollars of what we pay for hunting and fishing licenses today, compared to twenty or thirty years ago, you will see that the price in today's dollars is down - way down. But, the costs imposed on the agency grow.

So, we have a legislature that will not allow even a modest price increase, but wants to whine that FWP won't spend money to control weeds, maintain the crappers, etc.

Which is it, not willing to maintain what they have, or not being allowed to even keep pace with inflation, even when the mandates, programs, and demands on the agency are growing every day?

And, is the legislature going to force private landowners to spend the same amount on weed maintenance? Is there a moratorium on any private landowner who has a weed problem, preventing them from buying more property, under the premise that they have yet to take care of their existing weed problems?

If you think the weed problem is strictly a public land issue, you have not spent much time walking around south of Big Timber, in the Sheilds, near Townsend, and many other places.

How did these invasive weed species get here, in the first place? Agricultural producers, their animals and their animal's feed, for the most part.

Now it is a problem we all have to deal with, but many want to make it only a public land issue, and use it as a reason to carry out their true agenda of anti-public land.

Tons of private lands there that have landowners who neglect the weeds. Should we spend money on spraying public lands, when we have private land neighbors not willing to maintain their own?

That shoe fits booth feet. It is an excuse of convenience when it fits one's policy against public lands.

 

[Big O]

After reading all these posts, all I can say is WOW- I thought Wash. had issues. From an outsiders perspective, sounds like MT elected a bunch of King County (Seattle) politicians.

What happened to the born and raised MT. outdoors people who went onto serve the public? Where did all these current legislaters come from? After reading a bunch of these threads over the last few months, I'm definatley a little scared for MT. Had no idea you had some of these issues. Always "assumed" most MT residents felt the same about hunting, fishing and the outdoors- doesn't seem that way. Could be worse, you could live in Washington.

Keep up the good fight, stay after em!

 

[mdunc8]

So, we have a legislature that will not allow even a modest price increase, but wants to whine that FWP won't spend money to control weeds, maintain the crappers, etc.

If you think Montana's crappers are bad, you should experience North Dakota's. One of the worst experiences of my life. I still have nightmares.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy,

They're passing bills out of committee that conflict with earlier statutes, and that recodify existing ones. The whole thing is crazy. Over 90 bills have been introduced on F&G issues.

90 bills - that's more than Taxation.

 

[onpoint]

How about economic development...a much touted issue at election time...23 bills. wow.

 

[BuzzH]

I dont know about anyone else, but this is getting ridiculous. This letter writing campaign is becoming a full time friggin' job...I think I'll start calling more and typing less.

 

[shoots-straight]

I dont know about anyone else, but this is getting ridiculous. This letter writing campaign is becoming a full time friggin' job...I think I'll start calling more and typing less.

I've been doing both.:W: