RobG
Well-known member
It came from a FOIA. Here is the whole thing. (Let me know if you can read it.Do you have a link to this paper? The bigwigs need to see this.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It came from a FOIA. Here is the whole thing. (Let me know if you can read it.Do you have a link to this paper? The bigwigs need to see this.
If the MT Republican Party is trying to see just how bad they can be for sportsmen, this crop seems to be in full on “hold my beer and watch this!” mode.
Perhaps there should be an explanation of prescriptive vs. permissive easement for those who don’t know the difference.“It’s a blatant attempt to get rid of prescriptive easements that lead to public land,” said Nick Gevock with the Montana Wildlife Federation. “Anyone who votes for this bill and says they’re for public access is being disingenuous. This is an effort to keep people off their public lands and waters.”
So.....you want all of these cattle off of your Public ground?? Interesting.Perhaps the public should voice keep the fu(%ing cattle off of public lands. Seperate from private all together. No tax money from the public to the good old boys. Perhaps blm forest service fwp should manage the public for the public. Forget the private. Keep it. But pass laws to benifit tax payers and not millionaires who get welfare
HB677? What is that one?Hyperbole on: I'm almost at the point were I would support mining the edges of landlocked public land and billing the adjacent landowner for replacing any munitions expended destroying whatever tries to cross over from their side.
Ok, trying to be constructive now.
@Eric Albus From my understanding the cycle goes like this. A landowner allowed historical access (although prescriptive easements can be established through "hostile" use where the landowner simply didn't stop it). Someone with a lot of money from out of state buys the property because it has "exclusive" access to public land behind it. They become upset when they see the peasants using the trail through their land and attempt to close it down. A prescriptive easement can then maintain the historical access through the property.
Its probably more nuanced than that, but I believe I got general idea.
Eric, I have enjoyed reading your posts, appreciate your contributions, and admire your willingness to take everything in stride and provide a contrary viewpoint. What I want to know is what outfitters and landowners are doing to reign in some of these really shitty bills? Embarrassingly enough, I haven't been paying attention to these issues in the past, but they have my full attention these days. From what I've seen this legislative session, why should I expend any effort standing up for outfitter or landowner interests when they are not precisely aligned with mine.
There's been alot of animosity generated by bills such at SB143, HB505, SB354, and now I also got an email from RMEF about HB677. When the political winds change don't be surprised when the average hunter stands by in apathy or worse, cheers on the dismantlement of your interests and livelihoods.
It seems like there is alot that outfitters, landowners, and DIY hunters could work together on, but instead we're going to go down the road of pulling one over on each other when we think we can get away with it.
prevents non-profits from purchasing parcels of Ag land greater than 80acres (specifically excludes religious groups...cough cough LDS church)HB677? What is that one?
Yep. Just figured it out a minute ago. Thank you.prevents non-profits from purchasing parcels of Ag land greater than 80acres (specifically excludes religious groups...cough cough LDS church)
prevents non-profits from purchasing parcels of Ag land greater than 80acres (specifically excludes religious groups...cough cough LDS church)
That's easy. Permissive easement is what landowners claim even if there exists a prescriptive easement.Perhaps there should be an explanation of prescriptive vs. permissive easement for those who don’t know the difference.
Did they not get to 354 on Thursday? I see on Legiscan it says "2nd reading not concurred", but also says passed?
So the conference committee will vote on it? Or does it go back to the Senate for a vote still?The house amendment was not concurred, sending it to a conference committee.
So the conference committee will vote on it? Or does it go back to the Senate for a vote still?
It looks like the conference committee is composed of Sen. Hinebauch, Chair; Sen. Fitzpatrick and Sen. McClafferty.
Thanks for your help understanding these probably basic questions Ben.