More on Public Lands

[Anonymous]

Montana federal-lands policy takes political turn


Posted: Sunday, June 29, 2014 12:15 am

By LAURA LUNDQUIST Chronicle Staff Writer | 1 Comment


If the debate over federal lands wasn't political before, events that occurred in Montana last week have made it so, according to members of a state legislative subcommittee.

A four-member Environmental Quality Council working group met this week to approve a proposed bill to create a standing federal land management subcommittee.


The 2013 Legislature approved the working group to evaluate the management of certain federal lands and identify solutions.


The group's proposed bill would create a more permanent subcommittee to "cooperate and coordinate with federal land management agencies … in an effort to resolve federal land management issues in Montana."


But half of the group was uncomfortable supporting the proposal after the state Republican Party voted last weekend to make it a goal to shift public land management away from federal control.


The GOP vote has already sparked some controversy within the party.


A Montana GOP press release said the vote was unanimous. But at least two Republican delegates – Rep. Pat Connell, R-Hamilton, and Rep. Steve Gibson, R-Helena – said they did not vote for the resolution, according to the Lee Enterprises State Bureau.


"If I would have written the script for this, I wouldn't have put it in the platform," said working group member Bradley Hamlett, D-Cascade. "There's enough going on politically that we're getting away from what's prudent for a legislative body."


Working group member Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, repeatedly said the proposed bill was not about transferring federal lands to the state.


"I think the transfer of public lands is one of the areas that could be looked at, but there are numerous ways that we could look at compelling management improvements on these public lands," Fielder said.


Fielder was one of two Montana politicians who traveled to Utah this summer to attend the Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands, a gathering of 50 Western leaders who advocate for a federal-land takeover.


In addition to the new GOP stance, working group member Ed Lieser, D-Whitefish, said Gov. Steve Bullock's administration has recently been holding meetings on the federal land management issue and is working on establishing a committee that would work with counties to deal with lands on a more local scale.


Lieser said the proposed committee might duplicate the governor's efforts, so he wanted to hear the governor's proposal prior to voting on the bill.


"The feeling I got was that (the governor's staff) were wanting to work within existing authorities," Lieser said. "Lingering in the background is this concern that this (proposed) committee is going to go down a path that isn't prudent. This movement to transfer federal lands could be an extremely expensive pursuit. It would be a waste of money because the people of Montana don't want it."


On Friday, Bullock spokesman Dave Parker could not provide details on a proposal from the governor's office.


Rep. Kerry White, R-Bozeman, a working group member, said he had invested a lot of time in the working group and didn't want all the study to just end up on a shelf.


However, the working group didn't approve the bill, voting instead to send it to the EQC where it could be debated alongside the governor's proposal in two weeks.


States can't force the federal government to transfer public lands to state control.


Earlier this month, the Utah Attorney General's Office said it would not pursue a lawsuit to force such a transfer, mainly because the U.S. Constitution gives Congress broad discretion over federal property.


However, U.S. congressmen have been pushing from the federal side to sell off federal land.


The GOP budget devised by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and passed by the House, includes a section that would sell off federal land – excluding national parks and wildlife refuges -- to add money to the budget.


Similar language was part of the 2012 Ryan budget.


In response this week, Sen. John Walsh, along with Sens. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., sponsored a bill that would require a vote of a supermajority – 60 out of 100 senators -- on any legislation that would sell off federal lands.


Montana sportsmen cheered the bill.


"Montana's public lands offer some of the best hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation in the country, and Montanans are overwhelmingly against any proposal to sell these lands," said Dave Chadwick, Montana Wildlife Federation executive director. "Our nation didn't get into debt because of our national forests and other public lands. Balancing the budget by liquidating our natural heritage is bad for Montana's quality of life and is irresponsible fiscal policy."


In the EQC working group, Hamlett proposed that the subcommittee bill be required to get three-quarters of the EQC vote, similar to Walsh's supermajority, prior to moving forward.


"This needs to have pretty overwhelming support," Hamlett said. "This thing's volatile, and I don't think anyone can predict the outcome. In the end, I think the message has been sent clearly from the governor's office that any effort to take over federal lands will be vetoed."

Looks the the ultra rightwing movement has finally figured out that states can't constitutionally take property from the federal government...

And I think the Wildlife federation director is correct- Montanan's as a majority don't want ownership of the public land nor do they want it sold... They are pretty happy with the access they have now...
But as they are working on with these committees I think they would like to have the state and local governments more involved in the decision making of how the federal public lands are used and utilyzed...

 

[hopalong]

What about Bundy oldtimer,,,,fence jumping again EH


Don't you ever get tired of making an a$$ of yourself
there is more to the USA than are getting tired of wannbes like Richard britzman

 

[iwannabeacowboy]

It would just really suck to have the state benefit from mineral reserves, recreational revenue, or taxes from any volume of land chosen to be sold.



0To:, why do you even ranch? Apparently your use of the land is not beneficial to the state or local government. Why don't you give the control back to the feds so they can do what is truly the most useful with it?

 

[Anonymous]

It would just really suck to have the state benefit from mineral reserves, recreational revenue, or taxes from any volume of land chosen to be sold.

Problem is if this prairie land of Montana (and possibly surrounding states) is sold on the open market to the highest bidder--- it will not be any rancher or anyone that will put it back into Ag production/tax rolls that buys it...The folks with the big money are the American Prairie Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund that have unlimited amounts of international funding- that are currently buying up every ranch in this area that comes up for sale- turning them into one big North American Serengeti wildlife refuge... And as a non-profit organization, they pay no taxes...

Here's a thread where the APR is being discussed now:
http://www.cattletoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=91190&p=1148503#p1148503

 

[Mike]

It would just really suck to have the state benefit from mineral reserves, recreational revenue, or taxes from any volume of land chosen to be sold.

Problem is if this prairie land of Montana (and possibly surrounding states) is sold on the open market to the highest bidder--- it will not be any rancher or anyone that will put it back into Ag production/tax rolls that buys it...The folks with the big money are the American Prairie Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund that have unlimited amounts of international funding- that are currently buying up every ranch in this area that comes up for sale- turning them into one big North American Serengeti wildlife refuge... And as a non-profit organization, they pay no taxes...

Here's a thread where the APR is being discussed now:
http://www.cattletoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=91190&p=1148503#p1148503

It won't be to the highest bidder, Einstein. Put a price on a parcel and allow only one small parcel to be sold to any one entity.

How do you think this country was financed before there were federal income taxes? I think the gov't even financed some purchases.

"Homesteading" was still going on in Alaska not too many years ago and those parcels did not go to the rich entities.

I have several "Patents" where my ancestors bought property from the Federal Gov't.

Do you ever catch yourself arguing with a "Stop Sign"?

:roll:

 

[Anonymous]

It would just really suck to have the state benefit from mineral reserves, recreational revenue, or taxes from any volume of land chosen to be sold.

Problem is if this prairie land of Montana (and possibly surrounding states) is sold on the open market to the highest bidder--- it will not be any rancher or anyone that will put it back into Ag production/tax rolls that buys it...The folks with the big money are the American Prairie Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund that have unlimited amounts of international funding- that are currently buying up every ranch in this area that comes up for sale- turning them into one big North American Serengeti wildlife refuge... And as a non-profit organization, they pay no taxes...

Here's a thread where the APR is being discussed now:
http://www.cattletoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=91190&p=1148503#p1148503

It won't be to the highest bidder, Einstein. Put a price on a parcel and allow only one small parcel to be sold to any one entity.

So what if a rancher has over the years "bought" up grazing leases for a dozen parcels in differing areas -- should he be allowed to bid on his dozen- or just on one parcel?... Would all the money he paid to the prior rancher lease owner(s) to "buy" these leases go toward his bid price-- or is he (and the bank) just out that money?
If the State got control- would they have to honor the Taylor Grazing Act and these former federal leases and transfers--- or could they open all the leases to the highest bidder?...

Just like many of the state legislator's commented- this is not a simple problem to solve-- and lots of questions to be answered...

And in a state where everyone is used to driving a couple of miles out of town and being on "public lands" where they can hunt, fish, hike, and do all types of recreating-- I agree with the Wildlife Federation director-- the public would never agree to selling off the land...

 

[Mike]

Before we go Bankrupt, like we're about to do under Buckwheat's spending, there certainly is a way to do it.

The public would be glad to give up their recreational paradise to keep the dollar from plummeting to nothing. The U.S. debt has risen under your boy so much, it's not possible to pay it off any other way. More than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED!!!!!

All the eastern states have done it and so can the rest. Plus, the eastern states have many more votes + Reps to approve any Federal legislation to this effect.

If some ranchers lose grazing in the deal, oh well. There is no other way.

 

[Steve]

why is the assumption from liberals always that all public land is to be sold?

fact is the federal government has "excess" land and buildings.. that do not fit any grand plan or use..

locally we have huge federal weed patches... that used to be farmland..

and the impact on local taxes is felt by everyone..


as for non profits.. maybe it is time to start making "ALL" of them to start paying taxes..

churches could then sue and the courts would decide if the "separation of church and state exists..

my bet is the church tax status would narrowly hold,.. and the rest would start paying their way..

I also do not see how political "corporations" are non profits either..

BTW why is it liberals love taxes as long as they are exempt?

 

[iwannabeacowboy]

It would just really suck to have the state benefit from mineral reserves, recreational revenue, or taxes from any volume of land chosen to be sold.

Problem is if this prairie land of Montana (and possibly surrounding states) is sold on the open market to the highest bidder--- it will not be any rancher or anyone that will put it back into Ag production/tax rolls that buys it...The folks with the big money are the American Prairie Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund that have unlimited amounts of international funding- that are currently buying up every ranch in this area that comes up for sale- turning them into one big North American Serengeti wildlife refuge... And as a non-profit organization, they pay no taxes...

Here's a thread where the APR is being discussed now:
http://www.cattletoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=91190&p=1148503#p1148503

Look back at what I wrote, ANY land sold as determined by the local government. Never said anything about selling all land. Your conclusion is actually illogical since the mineral reserves would no longer be the states...

Secondly, last time I panned through some of the information regarding land disbursement, I believe that the state can place conditions upon such transactions, no? So ANY land the state determined was in it's best interest to sale, they could place the same, similar or whatever necessary conditions upon that sale.

The state could choose to lease that land as the our state has done with school land. Pretty novel idea right there.

The recreation use of the land that the state could open up for use could be a huge boom.

What would the leases for exploration bring the state alone?

 

[Anonymous]

Keeping public lands public

Posted: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 4:46 pm

By SEN. JON TESTER and GOV. STEVE BULLOCK | 0 comments




Montana's public lands define our way of life. It's a father teaching his daughter how to fly fish. It's a mother and her son climbing a peak in the Bitterroots.

It's those memorable moments — and our very birthright as Montanans — that are at risk if those who seek to transfer the management of federal lands to states are allowed to succeed.

While "allowing states to manage the lands within their borders" may sound like an appealing idea, the real goal is a threat to our outdoor heritage.

Montanans who believe in responsible governing and management of our state understand that the costs of managing an additional 30 million acres will leave the state with only one option — selling off our public lands to the highest bidder in order to pay to manage what's left.

Imagine how many acres would be locked up if we were forced to sell the lands to wealthy out-of-state interests? Fences and "No Trespassing" signs would spring up overnight, barring access to anglers, hunters, mountain bikers, backpackers and hikers.

Currently, more than 2,000 employees manage federal lands in the Montana region at the cost of $200 million every year. Add to that the cost of fighting forest fires, which in recent years has totaled hundreds of millions of dollars, and the loss of $50 million every year to local communities in the form of payment in lieu of taxes and Secure Rural Schools funding, and you can plainly see the added financial burden Montana would face.

While our state's budget is in strong fiscal shape, we do not have the resources to take over management of these lands. Doing so would be cost-prohibitive, raise the tax burden on Montana families, and send our budget deep into the red.

Montana was just named the most fiscally responsible state in the country, and jeopardizing our future prosperity in order to satisfy a narrow interest group that would prefer to see strip malls and condos along ridgelines and streams just doesn't make sense.

This is the not the outdoor legacy we want to pass on to our kids and grandkids. We want them to experience landing their first trout, floating the Madison River and horseback riding in the Crazy Mountains.

In order to ensure that we maintain our Montana way of life, let's work together to keep our public lands public.



Sen. Jon Tester is a third-generation farmer from Big Sandy. Gov. Steve Bullock is a native Montanan, avid sportsman and father of three.

 

[Mike]

While our state's budget is in strong fiscal shape, we do not have the resources to take over management of these lands. Doing so would be cost-prohibitive, raise the tax burden on Montana families, and send our budget deep into the red.

So...........Montana had rather the other states pay for management? :roll:

If that's not a "Subsidy", nothing is...................

 

[Anonymous]

While our state's budget is in strong fiscal shape, we do not have the resources to take over management of these lands. Doing so would be cost-prohibitive, raise the tax burden on Montana families, and send our budget deep into the red.

So...........Montana had rather the other states pay for management? :roll:

If that's not a "Subsidy", nothing is...................

Some may see it like that... Some see ranchers ability to buy and sell leases on public land as a subsidy too.. But for recreating the public land is as much yours as mine- and every year 10-12 million out of staters/tourists come to Montana and most do so to make use of this public land- hunting, fishing, boating, camping, snowmobiling, or all the other ways of recreating... In the fall during hunting season when the ranchers that graze those public lands are gathering cattle- they can find campers/vehicles from almost every State in the union parked around the public lands.... If that public land is sold off to the highest bidder - there is a good chance neither those rancher's nor those recreationists/hunters from around the country/world will have access to it...

I don't think you will ever get Montanan's supporting wanting any major changes in the set up of the public lands that might cause them to lose access... In fact the opposite is occurring- bipartisan support for more access to public lands now inaccessible ...

Daines bill would open access to public lands


January 30, 2014 7:33 pm • By ROB CHANEY Missoulian

MISSOULA — Rep. Steve Daines, R-Mont., has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to open more access to public lands, which dovetails to a similar measure now working its way through the Senate.

The "Making Public Lands Public Access Act"(H.R. 3962) would use federal Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars to pay for easements or right-of-way purchases across private land that surround public property. Daines, R-Mont., wants the Department of Agriculture to put at least 1.5 percent of the LWCF or $10 million a year, whichever is greater, toward those purchases.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., sponsored the same measure in the Senate as part of a larger package of conservation measures called the "Sport Act" (S. 1660). In addition to the LCWF access provision, the Sport Act would exempt lead bullets and fishing weights from Toxic Substances Control Act oversight, allow the sale of electronic duck stamps, allow the importation of legally killed polar bear trophies and clarify the rules for film crews operating on federal land. It also reauthorizes the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

"Hunting, fishing and hiking on our public lands are important parts of many Montanans' way of life, and traditions I've enjoyed sharing with my kids," Daines said in an email statement on Thursday. "But almost 2 million acres of public land in Montana are inaccessible to the public. This is unacceptable. I strongly believe we must ensure the public has access to the public lands we already have. There is strong, bipartisan agreement that the Land and Water Conservation Fund can play an important role in increasing access to these lands."

The measure won support from representatives of Ducks Unlimited, the Mule Deer Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Boone and Crockett Club.

On Tuesday, Tester led a coalition of 31 senators asking President Obama to request full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The account comes from royalty payments from offshore oil and gas production on federal land, and can accept up to $900 million a year. However, Congress has rarely appropriated that full amount.

Both the House and Senate bills await committee hearings, which they must pass before they can be voted on.


Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/daines-bill-would-open-access-to-public-lands/article_662033f9-36dd-535f-97bd-491b305ac63e.html#ixzz36pn4I7aW

But some are questioning Daines apparent riding both sides of the fence.. :???:

Daines-endorsed plan to sell of public lands would have Roosevelt rolling in his grave

May 26, 2014 6:15 am

A lot of strange things have been coming out of Washington, D.C., lately, but a federal budget plan to sell off our public lands which was endorsed by U.S. Rep. Steve Daines, R-Montana, might take the cake.

Buried deep in the budget bill is a proposal to start disposing of our public lands legacy piece by piece on the open market to pay for Washington's spending.

Can you hear that sound? That's the sound of President Teddy Roosevelt rolling over in his grave. While he was President, Teddy Roosevelt created five new national parks, four game preserves and 150 national forests. The lands he set aside are now some of our favorite hunting and fishing grounds, a source of jobs and the basis of a strong outdoor heritage, here in Montana, and across the country.

Roosevelt's foresight is what sets us apart from other places. And it's the type of legacy that makes us stronger as a nation.

Few would argue that we don't have a spending problem back in D.C. But selling our public lands to cover the tab? No thanks, congressman; I'm with Teddy on this one.

 

[Steve]

well unless you have some facts.. this is just another example of outright distortion.. put forth for political reasons to smear a conservative candidate..

the budget like hundreds of budgets calls for..

Sales of Unneeded Federal Assets

and it was once a popular libertarian stance..

Ron Paul called for public lands to be turned over to the states.

here was the obama' admins 2011 map..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fiscal/excess-property-map

here is another interactive map.. from the Whitehouse..

For Sale: Cutting Waste By Getting Rid of Excess Real Estate
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/20/sale-cutting-waste-getting-rid-excess-real-estate

Over the years the federal government accumulated tens of thousands of properties that are no longer needed, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually on upkeep. Last June, President Obama directed Federal agencies to end this waste and improve the management of the government's real estate by getting unneeded properties off our books.

Why is a good plan when obama proposes it.. and a bad plan when conservatives act on it?

 

[Steve]

from the Obama administration..

Understanding Excess Properties

Of all the terms used in this map that deserve a full definition, most important is what is the definition of an "excess property"?

Excess properties can be any number of things: from office buildings to laboratories to storage sheds and warehouses. Excess property is property that an agency has identified as no longer needed for mission or program performance. When a building is "excess" it means that it can be offered to other Federal agencies. Even buildings that once served a humanitarian purpose, like family housing or schools, may be long-abandoned or out of use. When no need is found by a fellow Federal agency for the property, it then becomes "surplus." Surplus property is what is typically sold or disposed outside of the Federal Government.

Looking at the map, one may notice that some of the properties are inside of a national park, forest or otherwise protected natural resource. The identification of excess assets on park land or land identified as a preservation district does not mean that the Administration will be selling our natural treasures; we are trying to maintain our national parks and forests in a way that is more efficient and reduces the expense for the American people without affecting the commitment to the safeguarding of our public lands.

yep... ol Obama hell bent on selling off public lands, parks preserves, and other assorted national treasures to fund his extravagant lifestyle..

 

[Steve]

more on obama destroying our national treasures..

Excess Federal Property Map

The Federal Government is the biggest property owner in the United States, and billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted each year on government properties that are no longer needed. The President has proposed an independent Civilian Property Realignment Board to help the Federal Government cut through red tape and competing stakeholder interests to sell or get rid of property it no longer needs. Over time, this could save taxpayers billions of dollars and help to reduce the deficit.

This map shows just the tip of the iceberg in terms of opportunities for downsizing the Federal real estate portfolio. Under the President's proposal, more properties, in some cases with significant market value, would be added to this map and dealt with more quickly and effectively than they are today.

Getting properties like those highlighted below off our books is a key first step in this effort.

sadly.. Montana has a long list of properties the fed is unloading..


[/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

Sportsmen's bill

In the Senate, a measure to enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting on federal lands will be a boon for red-state Democrats in tough reelection races this year.

Among those vulnerable Democrats is the bill's sponsor, Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.). Other Democratic targets have signed on as cosponsors, including Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Udall (Colo.).

"In North Carolina, hunting, fishing and shooting are a way of life," Hagan said. "Many of these traditions have been handed down through my own family, and I'm proud that our bill protects these activities for future generations while ensuring that outdoor recreation can continue to support jobs and local economies across the country."

The bill would also reauthorize conservation programs and increase recreational use of federal lands.

Democrats have used similar legislation before to try to help incumbents fighting for reelection.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) introduced a similar bill while he was up for reelection in 2012, but Republicans filibustered it.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/scheduling/211332-this-week-appropriations-sportsmens-bill#ixzz36qGnPtEi
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Not sure what the White House sites are but they are always trying to sell closed military installations and federal buildings ... Those need to be sold.. Up here the Feds years ago gave the County the old Glasgow AFB... The county sold the runway to Boeing- and all the housing/industrial to a another fellow... And since the sale- it has resold for taxes 3-4-5 times over and is delinquent again... I imagine the old BLM office/shop will be up for sale as they have a new building now... I think they have some Nike missile sites for sale if you want to live in a hole... :roll:

But according to this article-- it appears as tho selling public lands as a whole may not be very popular with voters... I know it isn't with the majority of Montanan's... Which maybe the reason Daines (who is running for Senate this year) jumped on board the wagon to get the backing of the recreationists, hunters, fishermen and other public lands users (which encompasses about 99% of the Montana population....

 

[ranch hand]

OT the only people not wanting to sell public lands are democrats and esp. from the western part of the state. I talk to lots of people in Valley County that want to buy their BLM and State leases.

 

[Anonymous]

OT the only people not wanting to sell public lands are democrats and esp. from the western part of the state. I talk to lots of people in Valley County that want to buy their BLM and State leases.

Do they really think they can outbid the American Prairie Foundation, World Wildlife Fund or the others like billionaire Boone Pickens wife's wild horse sanctuary that all have had eyes on these huge stretches of public lands in Valley County...
Not the ones I've talked to... Many who didn't get original lease grants or inherit them- have large sums of money tied up in purchasing the right to these leases- and I don't think many want to start all over again either trying to outbid everyone including these groups with unlimited funds...

If you really did talk to some from Valley County then you would know these greeny groups and selling out to them is a hot issue... The last fellow that had a ranch up by the Canadian border that sold out to an alleged group instead of his neighbors or someone local - and now is an almost shunned person around town... He now has a pocket full of money without a friend to his name..

The hunters and recreationists are a powerful lobby in Montana- and they don't want any land sold that would then be closed to public access...And since 99% of Montanan's take advantage of recreating on Public Lands- with a large population of hunters and fisherman- this is a vote you don't want to p*ss off...

 

[Steve]

Not sure what the White House sites are but they are always trying to sell closed military installations and federal buildings ... Those need to be sold.

Daines-endorsed plan to sell of public lands would have Roosevelt rolling in his grave

Buried deep in the budget bill is a proposal to start disposing of our public lands legacy piece by piece on the open market to pay for Washington's spending.

so why is it you agree with the plan.. to sell off un-needed public lands and assets,.. yet you disagree with the same plan when it is proposed in a conservative budget?

unless you can find a factual difference.. then it is just a bunch of fear mongering.. and it seems liberals are experts at it..

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure what the White House sites are but they are always trying to sell closed military installations and federal buildings ... Those need to be sold.

Daines-endorsed plan to sell of public lands would have Roosevelt rolling in his grave

Buried deep in the budget bill is a proposal to start disposing of our public lands legacy piece by piece on the open market to pay for Washington's spending.

so why is it you agree with the plan.. to sell off un-needed public lands and assets,.. yet you disagree with the same plan when it is proposed in a conservative budget?

unless you can find a factual difference.. then it is just a bunch of fear mongering.. and it seems liberals are experts at it..

We are discussing apples to oranges...What I'm talking of selling is all property that is totally unused - a one acre plot out in the boonies with a hole in the ground that used to house a missile- or a couple of hundred acre air base covered with falling down buildings...

What folks fear will happen is they will sell and privatize such lands as the Gallatin National Forest (1.8 million acres), The CMR Russell Game Range (over 1 million acres the APF would pay dearly for), the 59,000 acre Bittercreek Wilderness Study area (which APF has in its sights as its connection to Canada)... All these are multi-use areas, used by ranchers for grazing, fishermen, hunters, hikers and recreationist of all types...

If these are opened to public bidding- I see a huge chance that no Ag person will get them- and they will end up being taken out of Ag production and in the hands of someone or some group that will deny the public free access to them....

And even if divided up and sold in lots- and ranchers would get them so they stayed in Ag production-- now that they are private the owners can deny access or charge folks to get access to hunt, fish, or whatever...
Nope- better to not be opening a can of worms that might turn rotten real quick...

Poll finds strong support for public land conservation across political spectrum


7 hours ago • By TOM KUGLIN Independent Record


In a new poll of a selection of Montana's registered voters, 86 percent said conservation issues play an important factor in supporting political candidates, and more than two-thirds support the North Fork Watershed Protection Act and the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act.

The University of Montana's Crown of the Continent and Greater Yellowstone Initiative surveyed 500 voters to gauge opinions on public land debates in the Crown of the Continent. Of those polled, Republicans accounted for 36 percent, Democrats accounted for 27 percent, and 35 percent were identified as independents or belonging to other parties. Topics included wilderness designation, the sale of public lands and the importance of public lands in the state's economy.

Pollsters did not ask about the transfer of federal lands to state ownership.

The bipartisan poll was conducted from June 17-19 by Republican pollster Lori Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies and Democratic pollster Dave Metz of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates. The survey used both landline and cellphones and was balanced statistically by county, Weigel said. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.38 percent.

"It's election season and Montana voters are looking at some of these issues with conservation in the same frame as other important issues like the economy and health care," she said.

Of those polled, 48 percent listed conservation issues as the primary factor and 38 percent as somewhat important in supporting elected officials. Conservation issues were less important for 9 percent and not important to 4 percent.

When asked if protecting public lands in Montana has generally been more of a good or bad thing, 78 percent responded "good" and 15 percent "bad."

Support for protected lands came from urban and rural voters across regions. More than three-quarters of both eastern and western Montanans saw protecting public lands as a good thing. Protected lands were supported by 82 percent of city residents, 77 percent of rural residents and 75 percent of town residents.

A slim majority of 51 percent of voters favored protecting more lands as wilderness.

"There is remarkable support for the conservation of public lands," Metz said, noting that support comes both in policy and a personal connection to public lands.

Federal legislation protecting public lands saw majority support across political lines, although it was greater among Democrats than Republicans. The North Fork Watershed Protection Act received votes of support from 53 percent of Republicans, 89 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of independents. An equal percentage of Republicans supported the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, while 91 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents supported the legislation.

When it comes to the economy, 86 percent of those polled saw conserving public lands as positive for the state by attracting tourists and by supporting jobs in recreation and on farms and ranches. Nearly two-thirds agreed that public lands such as national parks and wilderness attract high-quality employers and good jobs to Montana, and 52 percent believe Montana is in a better position than other states because of public lands and outdoor recreation to attract employers and jobs.

When asked about private development on public lands, 70 percent agreed that private companies should not be allowed to develop if it would limit the public's enjoyment or access, while 25 percent disagreed.

The job of the university is to provide information and science to the public, and the poll would have been published regardless of the results, said Rick Graetz, co-director of the Crown of the Continent and Greater Yellowstone Initiative.

When asked how the poll could impact politics in the state, Graetz said he could not speak for the university, but he believed it probably will not affect how state legislators vote because politics is way too local. But it may shape the dialogue surrounding public land management, he said.

"I'm not surprised by the results, but we needed to validate our feelings," he said. "Conservation with Montanans goes back more than 100 years and continues today."