Non resident Landowner incentive.

[cgasner1]

Great point. Argue over a typo. God help your clients if you are a lawyer hahahahah.

Let me see if i get your position. The 454 program sucks. But its no problem that 635 expands and abuses it. Lmfao

He isn’t a lawyer but the last one he got into an argument with on here they took it to the pm. Big world little trade carnage is legit and knows a thing or two maybe worth having a conversation

 

[Forkyfinder]

He isn’t a lawyer but the last one he got into an argument with on here they took it to the pm. Big world little trade carnage is legit and knows a thing or two maybe worth having a conversation

Perhaps.

Id rather the whole conversation be here. Make me an idiot and show me all the benefits we got - i think itd be a really important and relevant conversation. Surely the "proof" of all the goods out there. And if not - maybe some folks could support the repeal. So far - ive not seen much for benefits of it. And thats relevant for helena and the rest of the world to see. Prove me wrong.

Or call me stupid cause i cant prove something thats incentive based. Or call me ignorant cause i typed a number wrong. I guess thats a real convincing argument.

 

[cgasner1]

Perhaps.

Id rather the whole conversation be here. Make me an idiot and show me all the benefits we got - i think itd be a really important and relevant conversation. Surely the "proof" of all the goods out there. And if not - maybe some folks could support the repeal. So far - ive not seen much for benefits of it. And thats relevant for helena and the rest of the world to see. Prove me wrong.

Or call me stupid cause i cant prove something thats incentive based. Or call me ignorant cause i typed a number wrong. I guess thats a real convincing argument.

Sometime none of us wanna see the forest thru the trees. I haven’t been paying much attention to this but it looks like you showed up looking for a fight and not a discussion

 

[Gerald Martin]

At this point is the conversation about 454 or 635? Or both or what? I can’t track which argument is against what anymore.

I think I’ve been fairly clear about why I support 635. For the record, I don’t like the 454 agreements and haven’t supported them, nor do I think I would support them in current form. I think the 454 agreements were intended to be a quid pro quo situation and I don’t think the public is receiving an equal share in the exchange.

As I understand it, the relevant piece of legislation being considered is 635. We can agree to disagree about its merits but it’s currently law. Since the current debate is about whether or not to repeal it, shouldn’t the burden of logic be on why we should repeal it? Otherwise, it’s just a continuation of “I like it. I hate it.” opinion.
I’ve stated my opinion of it. It’s my opinion. I don’t feel the need to further explain or justify why my opinion has merit. We’re coming at this issue from a different point of perspective.

It is my opinion that cooperative agreements have yielded tangible results as an outcome of shifts in attitudes and cooperation. That might not be able to be measurable in a way that convinces someone of a different opinion that my opinion is the correct one. It is however, my current opinion based on personal experience and is part of what informs my support for 635.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Looking at 454 agreements, and 635, seperately is a logical fallacy. If you feel that 454 agreements are abused - and 635 will lead to more of it - you cant consider them independently - just like you consider existing law when passing new. Dont you consider the lumber you frame when youre buying screws, @Gerald Martin ? By the way - outside of the revenue claim - you mentioned i had compelling points. Can you refute them?

Ive made the arguments for repealing it - they arent a lot different than why it shouldnt have passed. Except that now we have documentation to count the dividends of our hope. Heres it summarized:

1. Incentivizes the seizure of working ranches for recreational play grounds.
2. Expands the (ab)use of the 454 program. Recall - this used to be a compelling argument for 635.
3. Provides no public benefit - the only access granted has been a ripoff. And this didnt increase a single unit objective number.
4. Reduces the quantity of high value LE permits (for NR, but that should matter to more of you given they foot the bill for the dept).


Looking forward to hearing the compelling reasons we shouldnt repeal it.

 

[bigsky2]

3. Provides no public benefit - the only access granted has been a ripoff. And this didnt increase a single unit objective number.

I’m not trying to get into this argument, but what do you mean in reference to unit objectives? I don’t remember that ever being a part of the conversation around the 454’s or 635, but I certainly could be wrong.