Senator John Brenden and Block Management

[Ben Lamb]

We know each other quite well.

 

[Straight Arrow]

There are differences in conservation easements, depending on the sponsor and intent of conditions. Many offer merely some form of income tax relief, while others do actually involve cash payment. For many CE's, Block Management compensation characterized as "double-dipping" would be a stretch.
Can you be more specific about the type of CE and how the "double-dipping" characterization works?

 

[1_pointer]

Very true. Private CE's don't have access clauses either for the most part. FWP's CE's all have access clauses, IIRC (or at least the vast majority of them do). The jist of the audit of FWP's block management program was that landowners who enrolled in FWP CE's were double dipping by enrolling in Block Management as well. This is something that a fair number of hunters have complained about in the past.

I can see the rationale behind a complaint of getting two checks, for basically the same thing from the same entity. I could support that, but as mentioned later, I think MT folks just need to be on their toes so that it doesn't include ALL CEs. That was not made clear in earlier posts or the title of the bill placeholder.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can see the rationale behind a complaint of getting two checks, for basically the same thing from the same entity. I could support that, but as mentioned later, I think MT folks just need to be on their toes so that it doesn't include ALL CEs. That was not made clear in earlier posts or the title of the bill placeholder.

Agreed.

More than likely, Senator Brenden has just put in the bill draft request and not provided any direction yet. We still have a bout a year before the Legislature is in session so these early bills are usually left to sit for a while.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Hypothetical example & question: A large ranch with great wildlife habitat and lots of elk and other wildlife is protected in perpetuity from development by a conservation easement and as a business entity therefore benefits from some income tax relief. Do we want a state law that prevents that property from entering the Block Management program and allowing public access for hunting?

Alternative: If not eligible for Block Management, then outfitting is a viable and likely more lucrative option for that ranch. Let's not cut off our noses to spite our two-sided face merely because of someone's concern about ag land "double-dipping".

 

[thecrittergitter]

Hypothetical example & question: A large ranch with great wildlife habitat and lots of elk and other wildlife is protected in perpetuity from development by a conservation easement and as a business entity therefore benefits from some income tax relief. Do we want a state law that prevents that property from entering the Block Management program and allowing public access for hunting?

Alternative: If not eligible for Block Management, then outfitting is a viable and likely more lucrative option for that ranch. Let's not cut off our noses to spite our two-sided face merely because of someone's concern about ag land "double-dipping".

This is exactly what I had in my head! Of course "double-dipping" may seem like a potential problem but seriously, how many dollars are we talking here. Likely not much. You cut off the people with CE's that want to enroll in Block Management, we cut off our own feet of gaining more public access to these ranches. I know of two very awesome ranches that are in CE's that do not enroll in BM. I can promise you, many people would support those places going to BM if they knew it would open access.........

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hypothetical example & question: A large ranch with great wildlife habitat and lots of elk and other wildlife is protected in perpetuity from development by a conservation easement and as a business entity therefore benefits from some income tax relief. Do we want a state law that prevents that property from entering the Block Management program and allowing public access for hunting?

Alternative: If not eligible for Block Management, then outfitting is a viable and likely more lucrative option for that ranch. Let's not cut off our noses to spite our two-sided face merely because of someone's concern about ag land "double-dipping".

Block is never as lucrative as leasing. I doubt that Montanans would approve of paying for access versus paying for impacts to an operation for allowing hunting (which is what Block Management is for).

However, the consternation on this issue is that people who have enrolled in CE"s that clearly spell out access as a provision of the CE are still enrolling the same land in BM, effectively double-dipping.

Other CE's, such as one from the Nature Conservancy or the USFWS do not have access stipulations and they absolutely should be able to enroll in Block Management.

As 1 pointer said: The devil's in the details of which we have none at this point.

 

[Nemont]

Well you know a lot more than Ben apparently. Had he said something to that effect I'd have a slightly different attitude.

So people who have the chance to sit down with Sen. Brenden don't know him?

You can disagree with someone's politics and still work with them to enact laws where you agree.

The issue isn't all CE's, it is the CE's that FWP holds that already guarantee access. Should the holders to those CE's be allowed to also get paid through the BM program? Seems less than efficient to pay twice for access when there are other BM cooperators who are waiting in line for limited funds.

Nemont

 

[RobG]

So people who have the chance to sit down with Sen. Brenden don't know him?

You can disagree with someone's politics and still work with them to enact laws where you agree.

The issue isn't all CE's, it is the CE's that FWP holds that already guarantee access. Should the holders to those CE's be allowed to also get paid through the BM program? Seems less than efficient to pay twice for access when there are other BM cooperators who are waiting in line for limited funds.

Nemont

You seem to be wanting a fight that doesn't involve you, or isn't even a fight... but I'll explain my position better anyway.

Ben couldn't think of anything Brenden did for wildlife when I asked. I have no problem working with people who are genuinely interested in helping even if I disagree with their politics. For example, I asked Art Wittich to help me with a bill I was pursuing last year. However, on any issue involving wildlife or MFWP there are 98 other senators I'd hit up first.

I've been involved with a few conservation organizations and they have always been very leery of working with people who don't have your best interest at heart unless it is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately we aren't doing the tango - it takes two to cooperate, but only one to take the political advantage at the other's expense. I'm sure Brenden would prefer political advantage to working with a NWF lobbyist, but that is just my opinion. Brenden doesn't care about credibility with wildlife advocates because he has none. I don't know why Ben is taking the side he is. I've seen good intentioned bills be warped into something not so great and the sponsor then goes around saying it was supported by sportsmen.

I don't believe you or anyone knows the CEs referred to by Brenden. Most of Brenden's crowd do not like CEs in general. See Kerry White's LC1730 for example.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You seem to be wanting a fight that doesn't involve you, or isn't even a fight... but I'll explain my position better anyway.

Ben couldn't think of anything Brenden did for wildlife when I asked. I have no problem working with people who are genuinely interested in helping even if I disagree with their politics. For example, I asked Art Wittich to help me with a bill I was pursuing last year. However, on any issue involving wildlife or MFWP there are 98 other senators I'd hit up first.

I've been involved with a few conservation organizations and they have always been very leery of working with people who don't have your best interest at heart unless it is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately we aren't doing the tango - it takes two to cooperate, but only one to take the political advantage at the other's expense. I'm sure Brenden would prefer political advantage to working with a NWF lobbyist, but that is just my opinion. Brenden doesn't care about credibility with wildlife advocates because he has none. I don't know why Ben is taking the side he is. I've seen good intentioned bills be warped into something not so great and the sponsor then goes around saying it was supported by sportsmen.

I don't believe you or anyone knows the CEs referred to by Brenden. Most of Brenden's crowd do not like CEs in general. See Kerry White's LC1730 for example.

Rob,

I'm taking the side I am because we're a year out from the session and if we ever wanted to get rid of the way things are happening now, somebody has to be the bigger guy and step up.

You lose nothing by extending a hand on this and you have everything to gain. The political process is what it is and if something like this would get sideways I'm sure that it could be either amended or killed. It's one thing to suit up with armor and drag out the swords during the session, but it's not sustainable for us, and it doesn't help wildlife in the long run.

 

[RobG]

Rob,

I'm taking the side I am because we're a year out from the session and if we ever wanted to get rid of the way things are happening now, somebody has to be the bigger guy and step up.

You lose nothing by extending a hand on this and you have everything to gain. The political process is what it is and if something like this would get sideways I'm sure that it could be either amended or killed. It's one thing to suit up with armor and drag out the swords during the session, but it's not sustainable for us, and it doesn't help wildlife in the long run.

Hitting up any of the other 98 Senators isn't exactly suiting up with armor and dragging out the swords, now is it? I'm not even suggesting confronting him.

Do you really think the problem with Brenden is that he just hasn't been been asked by NWF and others to collaborate on something? Why have you waited this long? Last session would have been so much better and he's gunna term out so you'll have to start all over again. I'm not trying to be a jerk to you, but do you really believe what you are saying? Like I mentioned, there are 98 better places to start that aren't so interested in twisting the knife in people with our values. But if you have a lot of time to waste go for it because his stuff is so screwed up it probably won't make it out of committee anyway. I, on the other hand, have skiing to do when I don't have paying work.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hitting up any of the other 98 Senators isn't exactly suiting up with armor and dragging out the swords, now is it? I'm not even suggesting confronting him.

Do you really think the problem with Brenden is that he just hasn't been been asked by NWF and others to collaborate on something? Why have you waited this long? Last session would have been so much better and he's gunna term out so you'll have to start all over again. I'm not trying to be a jerk to you, but do you really believe what you are saying? Like I mentioned, there are 98 better places to start that aren't so interested in twisting the knife in people with our values. But if you have a lot of time to waste go for it because his stuff is so screwed up it probably won't make it out of committee anyway. I, on the other hand, have skiing to do when I don't have paying work.

Actually, there are only 49 other Senators in MT. There are 100 Representatives.

I didn't have the luxury of time during the last session that we enjoy now. If you don't reach out, then we just continue the cycle.

I extend my hand to Senator Brenden all the time. One day he may actually extend his back.

 

[RobG]

Actually, there are only 49 other Senators in MT. There are 100 Representatives.

My mistake, but there are 48 other Senators. Barrett doesn't count.

Go ahead and continue to extend your hand with him. We both know how well it is working. It is one thing to be cordial, but wasting your time or adding risk is another.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I just want to grab you and hug you and fill you with love for humanity, you cranky old SOB.

 

[Nemont]

Trust me if I wanted to fight with you I would have said something way more inflammatory and derogatory.

I don't think anyone would hold up Sen. Brenden as the next coming of Teddy Roosevelt. I did get a chance to ask him if he was targeting all CE's or only those with guaranteed public access who are also enrolled in the the BM program or all CE's.

I will let you guess the answer.

Nemont

 

[RobG]

Trust me if I wanted to fight with you I would have said something way more inflammatory and derogatory.

I don't think anyone would hold up Sen. Brenden as the next coming of Teddy Roosevelt. I did get a chance to ask him if he was targeting all CE's or only those with guaranteed public access who are also enrolled in the the BM program or all CE's.

I will let you guess the answer.

Nemont

Thanks.

 

[RobG]

By the way, while yuse guys were solving the world's problems using unusual methods and tactics I went for a hike. And I probably did more to further the cause, you turkeys.

 

[Ben Lamb]

All I did was sit inside the port-o-let smoking cigs and hoping the boss didn't come by.

 

[Nemont]

I wrote 36 people through the healthcare.gov website and put out fires for people who had their plans dropped.

It has become a daily grind to get through the day.

Nemont

 

[Straight Arrow]

I will let you guess the answer.

When it comes to Sen Brenden, I have no clue. He surprises me with worse disappointments each session. So just tell us and quit being coy about it.