Kenetrek Boots

United Property Owners of MT, Inc.

mtmiller

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
11,885
Location
Montana
http://unitedpropertyownersofmt.com/

United Property Owners of Montana, Inc., would like to know if you are willing to further support this effort to protect our private property rights. We are asking for confirmation of your support by the following means:

1) Will you be willing to participate in a sign campaign that would have you posting protest signs on your gate?
2) Will you be willing to make a commitment of your acres to a potential lockout of the general public hunter this fall?

These are both final measures that would only be taken if the FWP and the current administration refuse to rescind the limited permits that seek to force public access onto private property by punitively affecting the landowner. The lockout would target the general public hunter that is allowed non-fee access. This is not an action against that hunter, but against the policies of the FWP that attempt to force access. It would not be a lockout of family, friends, or clients, as those are not the focus of the FWP attempt to force access.

Since our first meeting in Roundup, three proposed Constitutional Initiatives were filed with the Secretary of State. One of the initiatives offers the following Statement of Purpose:
This initiative deals with citizen access to land for the purpose of hunting and fishing. In order to increase citizen access to the wild fish and wild game owned by the citizens of the State of Montana the purpose of this initiative requires that no person directly or indirectly inhibit access through the purchase, sale, trade, barter or offer to purchase or sell access to land for hunting or fishing for commercial or exclusive use.

This is a major step in the taking of our private property rights, and must be taken seriously. Please contact any of the steering committee listed below if you have any questions.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to return this email with your reply.


www.unitedpropertyownersofmt.com
Mark and Deanna Robbins, 406-464-2281
Toby Dahl, 406-323-3614
Don Proue, 406-323-3456
 
I have no quarrel with guys wanting to control their own land. I do have a problem with people having control of large sections of landlocked public land. I think part of the agreement for private use (grazing, timber, etc.) of public land ought to require easement and/or access rights to the public to the public land. Line the access/easement with wire and post the private land...but "we" deserve access to our land.
 
I signed up. Just the thought of a rancher/landowner having to drive the same 350 powerstroke more than 3 years in a row is a sickening thought. Please sign up people.
 
I don't believe in landowner tags for any reason whatsoever. Guess I am just a commie pinko. Just a reason to lock out kids and commoners from the King's deer.
 
I signed up. Just the thought of a rancher/landowner having to drive the same 350 powerstroke more than 3 years in a row is a sickening thought. Please sign up people.

LMAO Dink...AKA, the Ford King Ranch Edition. Welcome to reality boyz.:mad:
 
Call me crazy, but maybe Montana should get rid of guarenteed outfitter tags, and make those who actually use block management, fund block management. Hunters can purchase day use BMP permits from FWP at what ever the going rate ($15 per hunter day is what the landowners are being compensated for currently I believe) . BMP will be self funding that way and encourage good game management. Good properties with plentiful game will bring more hunter days. Poor properties will bring few hunter days and BMP dollars Landowners don't have to enroll, but an unlimited number can if they choose to. Montana hunters expecting something for nothing is part of the problem.
 
Call me crazy, but maybe Montana should get rid of guarenteed outfitter tags, and make those who actually use block management, fund block management. Hunters can purchase day use BMP permits from FWP at what ever the going rate ($15 per hunter day is what the landowners are being compensated for currently I believe) . BMP will be self funding that way and encourage good game management. Good properties with plentiful game will bring more hunter days. Poor properties will bring few hunter days and BMP dollars Landowners don't have to enroll, but an unlimited number can if they choose to. Montana hunters expecting something for nothing is part of the problem.


Holy shit.... :eek: I think I just read something that made sense from this poster:eek:
 
I think part of the agreement for private use (grazing, timber, etc.) of public land ought to require easement and/or access rights to the public to the public land.
What if the person blocking public access is not 'part of the agreement for private use'? Slippery slope...

I'm kept from crossing certain pieces of private ground to get to federal land for administrative purposes.
 
I don't know, you're the one with the silly rules... I would assume not. But forcing access to private land use, regardless of any 'private use agreement', is something the states with the most public land aren't gonna allow. You think the Sagebrush Rebellion was bad, just try getting this silly thing through in NV or WY or...

What's your definition of 'private use'? You mentioned grazing with that phrase, so I'm gonna focus on that because that's what I'm most familiar with. You realize than anyone can apply for a grazing permit, right? Does that make a grazing permit still a 'private use agreement'?

PS- Some state allow access to private land that is not properly posted unless they are irrigated or in agricultural lands.
 
I don't know, you're the one with the silly rules... I would assume not.
Please.. stop the grade school stuff. You are the one who brought up enforcing agreements against people who are not parties to them. If anything is "silly," that is.

I never said forcing access to private land. I said I favored allowing access to landlocked public land. I would think that it is obvious what "private use of public land" means. There are plenty of attorneys on goverment payroll who could structure such an agreement. The landowner would have to post or otherwise follow whatever laws are in place, just as he would in any case, whether the public was passing through or not - he would still have to post it or whatever his state requires. Here, you are required to have written permission to hunt private land and it is your repsonisbility to know where you are.

You are against public access to public land? Simple question, "silly" though you may find it.
 
I never said forcing access to private land.
Yes you are, by forcing those with a 'private use agreement' to give access to the landlocked private ground.

You are against public access to public land?
I have never nor will I ever be against public access. But, that is not the issue you brought up. You brought up making private landowners have to provide an easement through their property. That I'm not for, nor do I think it's even possible. If the easement was gained/granted through a cooperative agreement or process I'd be all for that, but it would still be up to the discretion of the private landowner.
 
Can anyone be awarded a grazing lease?
First off, the BLM does not award leases, but permits. ;) A by the letter answer to that question is no. There are conditions that have to be met in order to hold a grazing lease, for the BLM the main one is that the applicant must own/control private land outside of the allotment. So, since not everyone owns land not everyone can have a permit... ;) However, Range Reform in '94 changed the rules a bit on the base property, it is no longer required to be comensurate. That being it does not have to produce the feed for those permitted livestock. It could be a parking lot.

So, in essence, anyone that can meet the requirements of a permit holder can be granted a permit, or more appropriately termed preference.
 
I would assume not. But forcing access to private land use, regardless of any 'private use agreement'

While this topic isn't directly related to the state of Washington, it still has some merit on part of the tenor of this thread...

They've been pulling this sort of stunt in Washington for years and many times over to boot (makes them well practiced)

With that being said, why would it be a stretch to think it won't happen here in Montana, Nevada, Idaho or Wyoming for that matter

It's basically the same people and/or same mindset that moved from the East Coast, to the South West Coast, to Washington, and now to the interior Western States

I understand what this set of individuals are doing that this thread is about

I certainly don't like it, nor condone it (one of the main reasons for leaving the coasts in the first place)
 
Time-Out...... Does anybody have a Cheese-English dictionary/translator that can say WTF The Cheese was trying to convey in this random typing?

While this topic isn't directly related to the state of Washington, it still has some merit on part of the tenor of this thread...

They've been pulling this sort of stunt in Washington for years and many times over to boot (makes them well practiced)

With that being said, why would it be a stretch to think it won't happen here in Montana, Nevada, Idaho or Wyoming for that matter

It's basically the same people and/or same mindset that moved from the East Coast, to the South West Coast, to Washington, and now to the interior Western States

I understand what this set of individuals are doing that this thread is about

I certainly don't like it, nor condone it (one of the main reasons for leaving the coasts in the first place)
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,578
Messages
2,025,656
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top