Yes and yes.
Say goodbye to another Montana BMA
- Thread starter starvingoutdoorsman
- Start date
Yes and yes.
starvingoutdoorsman
Active member
I would like to say I would. I think my biggest change would be how you get permission. Sometimes the sign in and go ones are just way to crowded.
Nemont
Well-known member
Imagine if Schweitzer had not kicked the Teigens in the nuts and forced the purchase of the Milk River Ranch. You wouldn't have to wish that somebody would pursue an easement with the FWP for access, it would have been already in place. Instead you and I are proud owner of 4,500 acres in Hill County that doesn't see near the use this 22,000 acre BMA did.
Tell me again how Schweitzer was a champion for Montana Hunters? Somebody should got the branding Iron out and used it on him to Veto the purchase of the MRR.
Nemont
Schweitzer did do a lot of good for sportsmen in this state. You can't deny that, even if you didn't like his style. He did get places like Spotted Dog, Marias River, and he fought for funding for the Legacy project which included huge chunks of private land that are now public, like the Marshall Block & Fish Creek WMA's. His approach was that land held in perpetuity is better than land leased or managed through conservation easement. There is some wisdom to that, but like any ideology, taken to the extreme, it doesn't allow for sensible additions like the Tiegen. Schweitzer also held the line on a number of really bad bills that came through the legislature and again, while his style was bombastic, he defended the public's right to hunt and fish.
He also made some really bad decisions, including Maurier & the MRR, not aggressively pursuing Tiegen after MRR. Add allowing HB 42 in 2003 to go through, not allowing increased license fees, bison on spotted dog and a few other missteps I can't recall off the top of my head.
No politician is perfect, but the grand scheme of things, he was a helluva lot better than his opposition would have been, or the majority party of the legislature is.
Rat Fink
Member
FWP Conservation easements are held in perpetuity. Long term access for less money than a fee title purchase allows for more projects to be done and more access to be secured. Of course now even those access options are being limited by the highly esteemed Montana Legislature.
Yes. I should have been more specific. Land held in fee title for perpetuity.
He wanted as much new WMA land as possible.
Nemont
Well-known member
Ben,
I don't expect perfection from any politician.
If you want to talk about legacy though it would appear his legacy just helped to cost hunters access to 22,000 acres. Did he secure access to 22,000 acres total in his years in office? If he secured less then 22,000 acres of permanent access then he harmed access for the average Joe. Sometimes history will tell the story and I suspect this isn't the last time that BS's legacy shows that what he did was not always as it appeared to his supporters.
Nemont
I don't expect perfection from any politician.
If you want to talk about legacy though it would appear his legacy just helped to cost hunters access to 22,000 acres. Did he secure access to 22,000 acres total in his years in office? If he secured less then 22,000 acres of permanent access then he harmed access for the average Joe. Sometimes history will tell the story and I suspect this isn't the last time that BS's legacy shows that what he did was not always as it appeared to his supporters.
Nemont
