SB 354 to limit public access up today on Senate floor

[RobG]

Do you have a link to this paper? The bigwigs need to see this.

It came from a FOIA. Here is the whole thing. (Let me know if you can read it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

This is what Montana voted for.

 

[Walkalot]

Recall election

 

[Gevock]

Amended bill targets prescriptive easements in Montana

Bozeman attorney Jim Goetz, who has litigated some landmark cases including those leading to Montana’s stream access law, called the bill a “drastic change.”

helenair.com

 

[Gevock]

“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.”

 

[Eric Albus]

“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.”

Perhaps there should be an explanation of prescriptive vs. permissive easement for those who don’t know the difference.

 

[Walkalot]

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

 

[pyrotechnic]

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.

 

[Big Shooter]

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

So.....you want all of these cattle off of your Public ground?? Interesting.

 

[Big Shooter]

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.

HB677? What is that one?

 

[MThuntr]

HB677? What is that one?

prevents non-profits from purchasing parcels of Ag land greater than 80acres (specifically excludes religious groups...cough cough LDS church)

 

[Big Shooter]

prevents non-profits from purchasing parcels of Ag land greater than 80acres (specifically excludes religious groups...cough cough LDS church)

Yep. Just figured it out a minute ago. Thank you.

 

[Big Shooter]

prevents non-profits from purchasing parcels of Ag land greater than 80acres (specifically excludes religious groups...cough cough LDS church)

 

[RobG]

Perhaps there should be an explanation of prescriptive vs. permissive easement for those who don’t know the difference.

That's easy. Permissive easement is what landowners claim even if there exists a prescriptive easement.

This would go far beyond simple trails to hunting spots. For example, a billionaire tried to close down a road to my friend's property in the south Crazies. It had been ranched for generations and the billionaire was trying to cut off access and force him to sell. My friend did all his own research and it still cost $20,000 to show that the county had maintained it, thus it would be ruled a county road if it went to court. I believe that would be the "specific facts" that the bill requires to be filed. If he hadn't done his own work it might have ran $100,000 and everyone would have to go through some level of that BS.

As far as I know, the easement still hasn't been perfected because nobody wanted to pay the expense. If it had been disputed the cost to defend it would have been around $250,000.

What are you going to do in that situation? There is no way anyone could sniff out every section of road that isn't covered by an easement, much less trails.

 

[Brad W]

Nick, Ben
Are there any particular senators we should be addressing our comments to for SB 354. Since it’s back on the senate floor the messages can only be directed at five.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Senators to target (Defer to @Gevock if he has different ones):

1.) Tom Jacobson. He's the champ for access in the Senate. He can make a meal out of this for us on the floor.

2.) Jeff Welborn - Strong access republican out of Dillon

3.) Dan Salomon

4.) Brian Hoven

5.) Mark Blasdel

 

[mtnkid85]

Did they not get to 354 on Thursday? I see on Legiscan it says "2nd reading not concurred", but also says passed?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Did they not get to 354 on Thursday? I see on Legiscan it says "2nd reading not concurred", but also says passed?

The house amendment was not concurred, sending it to a conference committee.

 

[mtnkid85]

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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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.

The conference committee will look at the amendment and try to find a path forward that both houses can support. I've not seen the House conferees yet. The 50-0 vote to reject the House's amendments are a good sign that the House amendment is in trouble. If the conferees can find a path forward, they will amend the bill and send it back to the floor of both houses, which will then have to vote to concur on the committee's changes.