The threat that looms large on the Habitat Montana Front.

[shoots-straight]

The R's really don't like Habitat Montana money being used to purchase lands outright.

Many forget, but this program was started by the Outfitters as a way to squeak in more NR tags. If my memory serves me right, It was used like a bribe. "You give us outfitters another 6000 more NR tags, and we'll make a fund with those dollars that will purchase lands we all can hunt on".

Of course Resident sportsman already felt that the public lands were over crowded back then, but bit off on this because of it's potential to accumulate lots of private lands for all to use, and help wildlife too.

There were other parts to the deal, but both sides had to abide by certain rules to keep things going.

I feel this will be breaking a contract with Montana Resident sportsman, by trying to eliminate the purchase portion of Habitat Montana.

The WMA in the Big Snowy's is at risk if this happens. There's talk the Wilks want that land and are in good standing with Giantforte.

R efforts to stop State Land deals

 

[antlerradar]

The R's really don't like Habitat Montana money being used to purchase lands outright.

Many forget, but this program was started by the Outfitters as a way to squeak in more NR tags. If my memory serves me right, It was used like a bribe. "You give us outfitters another 6000 more NR tags, and we'll make a fund with those dollars that will purchase lands we all can hunt on".

Of course Resident sportsman already felt that the public lands were over crowded back then, but bit off on this because of it's potential to accumulate lots of private lands for all to use, and help wildlife too.

There were other parts to the deal, but both sides had to abide by certain rules to keep things going.

I feel this will be breaking a contract with Montana Resident sportsman, by trying to eliminate the purchase portion of Habitat Montana.

The WMA in the Big Snowy's is at risk if this happens. There's talk the Wilks want that land and are in good standing with Giantforte.

R efforts to stop State Land deals

Deal is a deal. No more buying land, no more 6000 NR tags.

 

[Irrelevant]

As a NR looking to come to MT next year i hope you can work it out

 

[JMG]

Shoots—
Thanks for the background on this potential issue. We all need to chime in, if this subject is brought up in the legislature.

 

[406dn]

Looking thru my Swarovski looking glass, it is plainly evident that the legislature will move to block additional purchases of private property.

They will argue the loss of taxable property and that the existing WMAs are not well run and expensive to maintain, and adding additional parcels exacerbates the situation.

I'd love to be wrong,,,hopefully my looking glass is fogged up.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Looking thru my Swarovski looking glass, it is plainly evident that the legislature will move to block additional purchases of private property.

They will argue the loss of taxable property and that the existing WMAs are not well run and expensive to maintain, and adding additional parcels exacerbates the situation.

I'd love to be wrong,,,hopefully my looking glass is fogged up.

Lands owned by DFWP pay property taxes, and they have their own O&M fund to pay for their maintenance. Increasing the O & M side of HM would be wise, but that means they'd have to leave the voter-passed recreational marijuana funding allocations in place, or rob from acquisitions to do so, as they have tried in the past.

Matt Regier's reasoning is flawed as well. All HM lands are open for access. That's a primary factor in the purchase of fee title or conservation easements. It's literally written in to the law.

 

[Sytes]

Ben Long, a local hunter and conservationist, said FWP’s proven savvy at negotiating complex land deals and facilitating private-public partnerships remain a critical piece of the public lands puzzle and are vital to protect future access for generations to come, particularly as the pressures of development reach untenable new heights.

“In an era where Montana hunters and anglers are watching their future access, winter range and other key habitat getting swept away by locked gates, subdivisions and no-trespassing signs, this seems shortsighted,” Long said. “I hope the Legislature takes the long view. The future of Montana is being set today.”

Nice touch to the article. Thanks Ben Long.

I've seen this directly supported by FWP with TPL, TNC, RMEF, etc...

 

[Ben Long]

Regier seems to be making stuff up entirely. He mentions some 10,000 acres of state land in the Cabinets that people allegedly cannot access. Huh? I've been roaming the Cabinets for 30 years and have never seen this land. Can anyone enlighten me on what he might be talking about?

 

[JLS]

Regier seems to be making stuff up entirely. He mentions some 10,000 acres of state land in the Cabinets that people allegedly cannot access. Huh? I've been roaming the Cabinets for 30 years and have never seen this land. Can anyone enlighten me on what he might be talking about?

The trails are crossed off with a sharpie.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Regier seems to be making stuff up entirely. He mentions some 10,000 acres of state land in the Cabinets that people allegedly cannot access. Huh? I've been roaming the Cabinets for 30 years and have never seen this land. Can anyone enlighten me on what he might be talking about?

IIRC it's a purchase that was either HM or Bighorn license dollars that only has river access. It's not inaccessible, it's just not drive in- ready.

 

[Ben Long]

Ben2. Damn you're good.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben2. Damn you're good.

Just old.

Little known fact: Beastie Boys wrote Sure Shot about me.

 

[Ben Long]

Just old.

Little known fact: Beastie Boys wrote Sure Shot about me.

Don't talk to me about being old. Paul and John wrote "Fool on the Hill" about me.

 

[bullbugle307]

IIRC it's a purchase that was either HM or Bighorn license dollars that only has river access. It's not inaccessible, it's just not drive in- ready.

Ah, the ol "I can't drive right there and park" so it's inaccessible argument.

Its sad that anybody buys that crap.

 

[406dn]

Lands owned by DFWP pay property taxes, and they have their own O&M fund to pay for their maintenance. Increasing the O & M side of HM would be wise, but that means they'd have to leave the voter-passed recreational marijuana funding allocations in place, or rob from acquisitions to do so, as they have tried in the past.

Matt Regier's reasoning is flawed as well. All HM lands are open for access. That's a primary factor in the purchase of fee title or conservation easements. It's literally written in to the law.

Thanks, I appreciate all of your knowledge and advocacy.

I still see this legislative session being less than eager to add new private land into public hands. I do hope that I'm wrong about it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks, I appreciate all of your knowledge and advocacy.

I still see this legislative session being less than eager to add new private land into public hands. I do hope that I'm wrong about it.

That's how it looks to me as well.

 

[shoots-straight]

Shoots—
Thanks for the background on this potential issue. We all need to chime in, if this subject is brought up in the legislature.

There's already 2 bills to address it. It's going to be an issue.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There's already 2 bills to address it. It's going to be an issue.

It will also be part of the budget discussion, especially with the a lot of the tax revenue from recreational weed going towards HM.