This doesn’t sound good!

[Big Shooter]

Biden admin quietly consulted left-wing eco groups on plan to block off millions of acres: Montana AG

EXCLUSIVE: The Biden administration is facing criticism from the Montana attorney general for working with conservation groups to block off millions of acres.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Hem]

Yep...Fox news.

 

[Straight Arrow]

This does "sound good" to the ranchers and large landowners in SW Montana who wish to conserve and protect their land and way of life by avoiding resource extraction and impairment of the upper Missouri watershed. Ironically, much like the UPOM NE Montana mantra of "Save the cowboy!" these landowners are proposing conservation easements to save their way of life and protect the land, much of which their families have worked for generations.

The Montana AG and congressman Rosendale are more concerned about staying on the right $ide of the wealthy re$ource extraction industries which desire to continue to extract the treasures of the Treasue State ... Missouri headwaters be damned!

 

[mmw194287]

The author's recent bylines (along with scary photoshop graphics of the dear leader). FAIR AND BALANCED.

 

[Ben Long]

AG Knudsen is way off base on this one. TRCP is a radical leftwing group? It's mission is to protect hunting access. this is the kind of program that has protected family ranches, winter range and hunting access on the rocky mountain front and elsewhere. total misinformaiton from our AG.

 

[Bambistew]

This does "sound good" to the ranchers and large landowners in SW Montana who wish to conserve and protect their land and way of life by avoiding resource extraction and impairment of the upper Missouri watershed. Ironically, much like the UPOM NE Montana mantra of "Save the cowboy!" these landowners are proposing conservation easements to save their way of life and protect the land, much of which their families have worked for generations.

The Montana AG and congressman Rosendale are more concerned about staying on the right $ide of the wealthy re$ource extraction industries which desire to continue to extract the treasures of the Treasue State ... Missouri headwaters be damned!

What resource extraction?

Similar articles are found on various sites, not just Fox. The current administration is set on conserving 30% of the US by 2030, he has to start somewhere I guess.

I say lock it all up. No use for anyone. Lets truly conserve it. Outdoor enthusiasts have ruined more habitat in the last 20 years than any resource industry, IMO.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Oh my God. We're going to have to use gold bullets on national wildlife refuges?!?!

 

[joelweb]

I've never been collateral damage of a hatchet job before. Below is TRCP's press release on the proposal. It would enable the use of Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars for voluntary conservation easements to conserve working lands in SW Montana. Similar programs have long been in place on the Rocky Mountain Front and in the Blackfoot Valley. One of the primary proposed purposes is to conserve big game migration corridors.

TRCP Applauds Fish and Wildlife Service’s Proposal to Support SW Montana Working Lands | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

New conservation area would sustain voluntary agreements with willing landowners utilizing LWCF dollars.

www.trcp.org

 

[Straight Arrow]

What resource extraction?

Oil, gas, minerals extraction development limitations, while conserving agriculture and protecting wildlife and fisheries habitat. Elementary education level Montana history paints a clear picture of exploitation of resources from Montana and the ensuing adverse impacts to the environment flora and fauna.

Keep in mind that this proposal has been at the request of the landowners and the folks "on the ground". Conservation easements are negotiated and agreed to by the property owners. Although likely supported by the current administration, this did not come out of the White House.
I understand your bitter attitude, but do not let some ideological perspective cloud the vision of a grassroots effort to preserve a part of Montana and a way of life for the inhabitants and landowners. It is well established that the greatest detriment to healthy wildlife habitat and fisheries is development. This would put the brakes on rampant development which is being experienced across the country and obviously adversely impacting wildlife.

 

[tjones]

Ya know what else doesn’t sound good?

Two Fox News stories on the same topic in the same day.

Interesting read

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-admin-quietly-consulted-left-wing-eco-groups-plan-block-millions-acres-montana-ag

www.hunttalk.com

 

[Irrelevant]

@Big Shooter @Eric Albus
Did you read it? WTF kind of sportsmen are you? The Nature Conservancy and TRCP as left-wing ecogroups...? This is the shit you choose to share? Pack it up and go home.

 

[Bambistew]

Oil, gas, minerals extraction development limitations, while conserving agriculture and protecting wildlife and fisheries habitat. Elementary education level Montana history paints a clear picture of exploitation of resources from Montana and the ensuing adverse impacts to the environment flora and fauna.

Keep in mind that this proposal has been at the request of the landowners and the folks "on the ground". Conservation easements are negotiated and agreed to by the property owners. Although likely supported by the current administration, this did not come out of the White House.
I understand your bitter attitude, but do not let some ideological perspective cloud the vision of a grassroots effort to preserve a part of Montana and a way of life for the inhabitants and landowners. It is well established that the greatest detriment to healthy wildlife habitat and fisheries is development. This would put the brakes on rampant development which is being experienced across the country and obviously adversely impacting wildlife.

Conserve away. I'm 100% serious when I say they should lock it all up, and include limiting access and development of public lands in that area as well. Stop building campgrounds, roads, tails, etc. If you build it they will come and they will destroy it.

The biggest threat is development and more people moving in, period. Its not mineral potential. There is little to no interest in mineral development in MT. I really don't care one way or the other. I have more work than I know what to do with and there is no end in site.

https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/5_PublicMtgFact%20Sheet%20Final_508C.pdf

Who manages the USFWS? You really don't think there is a connection the 30x30?

 

[corndog1]

@Big Shooter @Eric Albus
Did you read it? WTF kind of sportsmen are you? The Nature Conservancy and TRCP as left-wing ecogroups...? This is the shit you choose to share? Pack it up and go home.

While I don't agree with those guys it is a forum of dialogue so why don't you pack your shit also

 

[Straight Arrow]

The biggest threat is development and more people moving in, period. Its not mineral potential. There is little to no interest in mineral development in MT.

I do agree with you about that. Mineral potential is not really a significant factor in this SW Montana proposal, although there is still interest in mineral development elsewhere in Montana. (ie; the controversial Black Butte Copper Mine). So who knows how it might potentially play a role in SW Montana development in the future.
For sure it's the residential developments and ranchettes which pose the biggest development threat to large beautiful Montana landscapes.

Realizing your ties to the mineral industry, I apologize for raising your hackles.

 

[Eric Albus]

I do agree with you about that. Mineral potential is not really a significant factor in this SW Montana proposal, although there is still interest in mineral development elsewhere in Montana. (ie; the controversial Black Butte Copper Mine). So who knows how it might potentially play a role in SW Montana development in the future.
For sure it's the residential developments and ranchettes which pose the biggest development threat to large beautiful Montana landscapes.

Realizing your ties to the mineral industry, I apologize for raising your hackles.

I understand the angst of residential development, something we dont see here in Eastern Mt.
If this is the end game then I’d be opposed to it also. If it’s only oil/gas extraction then produce it.

 

[joelweb]

One should recognize that on private land, surface rights and mineral rights are often separated.

Mineral rights supersede surface rights, so a conservation easement preventing subdivision on “split estate” does not prevent oil and gas development or hardrock mining. That’s why land trusts and agencies try to avoid purchasing easements where minerals development potential is significant.

The proposed conservation area has nothing to do with minerals development. It is all about conserving wildlfie habitat by helping farmers and and ranchers resist the threat of subdivision, and keep their operations in business.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The proposed conservation area has nothing to do with minerals development.

Not necessarily and each easement will be negotiated to protect the respective landowner's values, which may very well be avoidance of resource extraction.

It is all about conserving wildlfie habitat by helping farmers and and ranchers resist the threat of subdivision, and keep their operations in business.

That is correct, but consevation easements can be tailored to accomplish much more and a broader protection for perpetuity.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I understand the angst of residential development, something we dont see here in Eastern Mt.
If this is the end game then I’d be opposed to it also. If it’s only oil/gas extraction then produce it.

Experience and on-the-ground information regarding NE Montana is often shared by you on this forum. Thank-you for that.
However, opining about SW Montana is way out of your wheelhouse. Please just read and learn without having to jump.

 

[joelweb]

Not necessarily and each easement will be negotiated to protect the respective landowner's values, which may very well be avoidance of resource extraction.

That is correct, but consevation easements can be tailored to accomplish much more and a broader protection for perpetuity.

Yes - individual conservation easements can be tailored and can prevent resource extraction when minerals and surface rights are connected. But if you own acreage and someone else holds interests in the minerals under your property, they have a right to develop them. A large portion of the private land in SW Montana has severed mineral rights. Fortunately, this is mostly an academic debate for a lot of SW Montana because there is basically zero fluid minerals development and not much hardrock.

Montana Mineral Rights

Mineral rights are considered real property in Montana and are bought and sold using the same methods as those used to buy and sell real property. The surface rights to a property, and the mineral rights to a property may be bought and sold seperately from each other. Mineral rights are acquired by

ranchrealestategroup.com

 

[Dakotakid]

However, opining about SW Montana is way out of your wheelhouse. Please just read and learn without having to jump.

How is your comment appropriate?

3. Understand what a discussion is. It is sharing of perspectives, information, and stories that help. A discussion is not an effort to make sure everyone agrees with you.