SB 354 to limit public access up today on Senate floor

SB 354 is a major attack on public access to Montana’s public lands. It would change the law to heavily favor people who want to restrict routes to public land that have been used by the public for decades through prescriptive easements, and make it harder for the public to prove the status of those routes in court.

This bill came out of a joint conference committee and is now heading to the full House and Senate for final approval. It must be killed to prevent a major loss in public access to public lands.

Please contact your legislator TODAY and tell them to vote NO on SB 354. Tell them that prescriptive easements provide historical access for Montana citizens to numerous access points to public land, and this bill would change the law to heavily favor interests who want to restrict or eliminate public access. It is also offensive that terrible policy is being amended into a bill in the final days of the Legislature with limited public notice, no public hearing, or input.
You can find your state House and Senate member by clicking HERE, and leave an email message by going HERE. Or you can call 406-444-4800 and leave a message telling legislators to vote NO on SB 354.

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR OWN MESSAGE, but hit these points:
  • Prescriptive easements are important for public access, and this bill was amended without any public input, moved in the final days of the Legislature and is the most anti-public access bill this session.
  • This bill creates a bureaucratic nightmare for establishing prescriptive easements that will likely dissuade the public from ever pursuing them. It empowers people who want to limit prescriptive easements to reach public land and waters.
  • The bill prevents prescriptive easements from being established if a government agency posts signage for five years designating land behind the sign as private property. In effect, this would eliminate the opportunity to establish historical easements to public land through an establishment or change in signage, without a requirement for public notice or review.
  • The bill eliminates the ability for the public to receive attorney’s fees for plaintiffs who seek redress in the courts, which is often a step of last resort, to establish a historic easement.
Click to expand...
 
This bill would make it almost impossible for the public to prove historic prescriptive easements. It's up on the Senate floor today for Second reading, so we have two chances there to kill this bill.
 
Gevock said:
This bill would make it almost impossible for the public to prove historic prescriptive easements. It's up on the Senate floor today for Second reading, so we have two chances there to kill this bill.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the work you're putting in this legislative session! This bill feels like the worst of the bunch to my mind.
 
Straight Arrow said:
Yes, bison are almost unstoppable if deciding to move. But similarly cattle will move through a weak fence as well ... and the anecdotal stories of cattle damage far outnumber the bison damage cases.
Click to expand...
Fact: If you let your 2 yr old corgi into the pasture your gonna have a long day fixing fence.

Cows can both jump surprising high and can run through a fence like it’s made of paper if motived by 23lbs of teeth and fury 🤦‍♂️
 
MOGA worked on this bill through its lobbyist, and it's a clear effort to keep people from being able to reach public lands using prescriptive easements. Get engaged on this bill and make your voice heard.
 
Eric Albus said:
MOGA had nothing to do with 354. That is a totally false.
Click to expand...
Who told you that? to be honest, you have pretty much said that you weren't aware of what was going regarding other bills and the direction they took this session, so your credibility is questionable. I would take the word of @Gevock to be pretty well-informed. He has been working overtime this session on this stuff and he is on-the-ground in Helena. The stuff I read on this bill, like others, shows the sponsor doesn't even know what the hell is in the bill and it was "brought forward by a constituent". So it is possible that MOGA was out of the loop, but it sure benefits outfitters. I would like to see MOGA take a stand on something that is wrong just on principle even if it benefits them, like MT residents did in favor of NRs on the other bills proposed this session.
 
SAJ-99 said:
Who told you that? to be honest, you have pretty much said that you weren't aware of what was going regarding other bills and the direction they took this session, so your credibility is questionable. I would take the word of @Gevock to be pretty well-informed. He has been working overtime this session on this stuff and he is on-the-ground in Helena. The stuff I read on this bill, like others, shows the sponsor doesn't even know what the hell is in the bill and it was "brought forward by a constituent". So it is possible that MOGA was out of the loop, but it sure benefits outfitters. I would like to see MOGA take a stand on something that is wrong just on principle even if it benefits them, like MT residents did in favor of NRs on the other bills proposed this session.
Click to expand...
Eric is correct on the fact that MOGA had nothing to do with it. Oddly enough....Eric knows people that are well informed at the capital as well that have been working overtime. The last sentence of your post is maybe a topic for a different day.
 
I get the feeling eric albus and big shooter running interference and are trying to save face. Eric, big shooter u guys getting a commission fee.
 
Gevock said:
I had the vote wrong. It failed 28-22. A win is a win, even if it's fending off the awful.
Click to expand...
So that vote was against the Free conference committee on Amendments? Then they voted 31-18 to not dissolve the Committee. me thinks that this bill is still alive. Ben Lamb you around? Is the bill still scheduled for 2nd reading tomorrow? Or maybe because they didn't come up with a amendment then there's not enough time?
 
Since the Senate has rejected the amendments, and has kept the committee, the bill will go back to conference so they can try again.

What that vote tells me is the bill is not going to pass unless the House & conference amendments are removed. I haven't looked at the vote yet.

Also, while the lobbyist who did get the bill amended in conference is MOGA's contract lobbyist, I have no idea if he was acting in behalf of them, or someone else.
 
Big Shooter said:
Eric is correct on the fact that MOGA had nothing to do with it. Oddly enough....Eric knows people that are well informed at the capital as well that have been working overtime. The last sentence of your post is maybe a topic for a different day.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe both things can be true. MOGA certainly didn’t sponsor the initial bill, but maybe the lobbyist simply saw an opportunity to reduce public access (thereby increasing private access) and decided to push it forward? There were too many amendments on this thing to believe that no one asked for MOGAs opinion. Either way, the phrase “totally false” seems too absolute in Montana politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ben Lamb
SB 497 - Attack on Stream Access
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
12K
peterk1234
P
Ben Lamb
SB 442 - Habitat and Access
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
19K
Jock Conyngham
J
Nameless Range
What Has Montana's Stream Access Law Meant To You?
Replies
13
Views
2K
DP_PublicLands
D
A
Montana Public Trust Coalition
Replies
4
Views
1K
Andrew Posewitz
A
joelweb
Senate Vote Sends MAPLand Act to the President’s Desk
Replies
4
Views
1K
Redman
Redman

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,432
Messages
2,021,110
Members
36,174
Latest member
adblack996

Share this page

Back
Top