• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Public Lands- Hot Potato

A

Anonymous

Guest
Rally in the rain: Hunters and anglers protest public land transfer


Hundreds of hunters and anglers took to the steps of the Capitol Saturday to protest the proposed legislation transferring federal lands in Montana to the state's control.






September 27, 2014 1:51 pm • Thom Bridge, Independent Record

As the clock struck noon Saturday, bus loads of hunters and anglers from across the state took to the steps of the Capitol to protest the proposed legislation transferring federal lands to the state's control.

“I want you all to close your eyes and think of your favorite public land,” said Land Tawnee, Executive Director of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, at the start of the rally. “Now think of it with a no trespassing sign on it.”

Nearly three hundred people, huddled under umbrellas or wrapped in rain suits, stood supporting the preservation of public lands Saturday. Among them were advocates and representatives of the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Wilderness Association and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

“As humans we are tied to place, we remember exactly where we were when we caught that first trout, or that first peak we climbed,” said Senator Jon Tester. “We can not let those treasured places be sold to the highest bidder, because that is the agenda behind what they are after.”

Tester went on to criticize Senators Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz’s attempts to sell public lands to make up for budget shortfalls and transferal of federal lands into states' hands.

Former Montana Secretary of State Bob Brown took to the podium and gave a brief summation of his favorite American’s conservation views. He continued by echoing Teddy Roosevelt’s vision for public lands within the context of the current situation.

“By virtue of federal lands, such lands belong to people of Delaware and Kansas and Pennsylvania just as much as they belong to those of use currently living here,” said Brown. “Why would the rest of the country want to just give 25 million acres of their land to the state of Montana?”

Both Tester and Brown signed the Sportsmen's Creed, a promise to protect public lands and access to them and urged the public to go out and take the same action.

Last to the podium was Mary Hollow, Land Protection Specialist with the Nature Conservancy. As a fifth generation Montanan she advocated for the protection of public lands as a way of preserving the future for today’s youth.

Hollow capped of the rally with a declaration, “I know we are going to win this battle and keep public lands in public hands.”


Legislative council eliminates public land transfer recommendation

September 10, 2014 7:29 pm • TOM KUGLIN Independent Record


An interim legislative council voted to strip a controversial recommendation from its report on federal land management that opponents said left the door open for the Legislature to pursue a state takeover of federal lands.

The Environmental Quality Council draft report that went out for public comment in July included 11 total recommendations including better coordination with federal agencies and identifying funding options for wildlife habitat and access. The final recommendation stated that the, “Legislature should not pursue the transfer of federally-owned lands to the state of Montana until all other options are investigated.”

The EQC tied on a vote that would have changed that recommendation to say that the Legislature should not pursue the transfer at all. A tie meant the measure failed under council rules.

Of the 214 comments received on the draft report, 194 were firmly against pursuing a transfer with two explicitly in favor of pursuing a transfer, EQC staffer Joe Kolman told the council.

The EQC heard from several sportsman and conservation groups opposing the transfer during the public comment period before committee members stated their own concerns about the land transfer recommendation and the discussion surrounding it.

“It was a mistake to put it in there in the first place,” said Sen. Brad Hamlett, D-Cascade.

The study was meant to explore possible solutions to management issues, and the question of a transfer should only be discussed after it has received a fair hearing, he said.

“Number 11 really politicized it and I just hope we can get past that,” said Rep. Kerry White, R-Bozeman.

The other 10 recommendations are really good, White said, and it is time to get to work on severe threats to jobs, wildlife habitat and fire protections by engaging federal land managers, he said.

“When you look at this it got completely off rail when you look at the other ten steps there,” said Rep. Jerry Bennett, R-Libby. “We need to move forward. This has been a fire starter or conversation starter, but we don’t’ want to see it politicized. We want to put people to work.”

Public committee member Scott Aspenlieder took issue with a recent Lee Newspaper series that looked at various aspects of the land transfer debate. He called the series a “kangaroo court” and said the series contained inaccuracies, but did not elaborate.

Aspenlieder also dismissed the contention of many opponents of the transfer that it would eventually lead to public lands being sold into private hands.

“The intent has never been to privatize the land, we all enjoy what Montana has to offer,” he said.

While the issue has become a “political hot potato,” Aspenlieder said, the dialogue has raised attention about the need for better land management.

Along with striking the land transfer recommendation, the council also voted to add language from Rep. Ed Lieser stating that fuel loading on federal land has been a factor in fire danger along with climate change.

Lieser’s testified that Montana should take steps to reduce its carbon footprint and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is contributing to climate change and fire danger on federal lands.

In response, Chairman Sen. John Brenden, R-Scobey called global warming “baloney” before voting against the motion.

Brenden and the other Republicans and all but two Democrats on the council then voted in favor of approving and sending the report to the Legislature with the transfer recommendation eliminated, and the addition of an amendment also identifying a lack of logging as a reason for poor federal land conditions along with Lieser’s additions.

“The public response was overwhelming,” said Nick Gevock, outreach director for the Montana Wildlife Federation. “This was a privatization effort and you heard it time and again.”

The expense of managing the lands made the transfer cost prohibitive making a sale inevitable, he said.

“I think they heard crystal clear to keep public lands in public hands,” said John Gatchell, conservation director for the Montana Wilderness Association, who testified in opposition to the transfer.

While MWA favored altering the recommendation to recommend against pursuing a transfer, the vote had a similar message and Montana would not jump on the bandwagon with other states pursuing a transfer, he said.

“Our public lands and waters are priceless,” Gatchell said. “You don’t have to ask permission to go there. It’s your birth right.”


This is going to be a hot potato- with many conservative gun and hunting enthusiasts going against the (R's) attempts at selling off/eliminating public lands as they now exist....
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Certainly, I have no interest in maintaining federal land in mt anymore than nj. The federal government hasn't the authority (missile silos excepted) to hold the land, nor the money to maintain it. The state of mt should receive title and do what they want.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Brad S said:
Certainly, I have no interest in maintaining federal land in mt anymore than nj. The federal government hasn't the authority (missile silos excepted) to hold the land, nor the money to maintain it. The state of mt should receive title and do what they want.

But...but...but aren't the PEOPLE ENTITLED to have access to this government land? Why should the cost matter? :wink:

We spent 10 days on the National Forest this summer and we were appalled at the way people leave their junk. We cleaned up broken glass at campsites, paper strewn all over. Federal land doesn't mean much to some folks or they'd care for it better. But what the heck, they are entitled to use it. So there. :x
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BLM considers restoring Bullwhacker access

Karl Puckett, [email protected] 2:31 p.m. MDT September 30, 2014


The Bureau of Land Management has formally begun investigating building a new road to restore access to 50,000 acres of public land in the Bullwhacker area in the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Blaine County.

Historic public access to about 50,000 backcountry acres in the Bullwhacker area within Blaine County had been lost following a 2011 court decision declaring a portion of the Bullwhacker Road crossing private lands to be a private road.


The case is one of several in Montana in which private property interests and public access advocates are disagreeing over off-the-beaten paths that cross both private and public lands in en route to popular public hunting and fishing areas.

Restoring the access to the Bullwhacker is only being studied at this point, with a decision whether to proceed not expected until the summer of 2015. An environmental assessment will be completed.

Access remains closed for this hunting season.

Wilks Ranch Montana, owned by Texas billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks, bought the Bullwhacker-area property following the court's decision and proposed a land exchange with the agency to restore the access. But sportsmen objected because deal would have resulted in the BLM giving up popular hunting land in the Durfee Hills in Fergus County.

The BLM announced in August that it would no longer consider a land exchange with the Wilks brothers and would look into other others means to regain access to the Bullwhacker.


On Friday, the BLM said it would investigate four alternatives to re-establish road access into the drainage, restoring access to 50,000 acres of public land within the monument. Sportsmen's groups opposed to the land exchange had lobbied the BLM to a pursue a new access route bypassing the Wilks' property.

"It's a very popular area for hunting," said the BLM's Mike Kania, manager of the monument. "Montanans are very concerned about access to public lands. Many people have hunted here in the past. I've talked to quite a few. It changes the local hunting patterns primarily."

Building a new road on such a large and geographically unique landscape is not a simple project, he said.

"Where to locate a road, it's not straightforward," he said. "If we build a road, we want it to be the least impact possible."

It will involve building three to five miles of road, some of it crossing coulees. A bridge might be necessary. The current road is built on the spine of a ridge. The new road will need to be farther down the hillside.

How much it will cost to restore access isn't known yet, but it will surely be in the hundreds of thousands, Kania said.

"We're investigating access routes to see if it's viable," Kania said.

Hunters still can access the area by foot, horseback, boat or air, but access no longer is possible by vehicle, Kania said. Historically, most people drove into the area.

"It's a long walk," Kania said.

Bullwhacker Road is no longer public where it crosses private land a half mile south of Cow Island Trail, Kania said.

If a new road is constructed, the BLM will consider closing, rehabilitating or reclaiming existing roads in other areas to offset the disturbance in the Bullwhacker, the agency said.


This is one of the reasons you will never get hunters, fishermen, hikers,- sportsmen of all types to ever agree to selling off public lands to private ownership... There has been a bad history of folks getting private ownership and closing off lands, trying to blackmail the government, charging for hunting or access or making it virtually impossible for regular access for the public....

As shown by the Repub Party backing down on their recommendation for the State or Private entity's to take ownership-- this is a battle that in Montana they will lose....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If you were to look, I bet you would find the Government restricts access to public land more often than private owners do.

But, public access, is not the intention of Government ownership, is it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
If you were to look, I bet you would find the Government restricts access to public land more often than private owners do.

But, public access, is not the intention of Government ownership, is it?

Actually in Montana the government allows/makes a lot of access to private lands that would either be closed or charge for access... Besides the public lands administered by BLM/Forest Service and State Lands - the Moose and Goose folks also pay private landowners to open their lands to public access and hunting thru the Block Management programs... Just like some public lands are restricted to type of access (no or limited motorized access) so is some of these Block Management lands (depending on the requests of the landowner)....
I believe tourism now ranks second in financial contributions to the state behind Agriculture... There are many Montana ranchs that probably would not be operating today if they couldn't get the added income available from Guiding and Outfitting hunters and tourists - mostly on public lands...
 

Ho55

Well-known member
Ask those hunters and anglers if they'd like the government to manage your states wildlife. The wildlife belongs to the citizens of the state. The state should manage the land on which they live. If the government ( I'm meaning federal)were to manage the wildlife, it wouldn't be long before all the tree huggers and enviromental nut jobs would have hunting and fishing shut down.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Actually in Montana the government allows/makes a lot of access to private lands that would either be closed or charge for access...

So, the government dictates who can have access to your private land?

Nope- the decision on who can go your private land and what rules you want them to follow is still yours... All the government (Fish and Game) does is add the incentive for you to allow folks on by paying you for allowing them... The money is raised thru the sale of various licenses and fees...
This is the alternative they found to fee hunting where often rich nonresident folks were buying up large acreages and using them for private hunting resorts and/or charging exorbitant fees- which was eliminating many of the locals and everyday working folks that couldn't afford them...The history of these- along with Montana's rich heritage of hunting/fishing is one of the reasons you have so many folks against selling any public lands....

A Montana Partnership

A cooperative program between private landowners and FWP, Block Management helps landowners manage hunting activities and provides the public with free hunting access to private land, and sometimes to adjacent or isolated public lands. Block Management addresses fall hunting only-spring bear and turkey hunting access are typically not included in the program.

Block Management Basics (155 KB)

There is no charge to hunt on block management lands (referred to as Block Management Areas or BMAs). Program funding comes from the sale of various licenses, including the resident and nonresident hunting access enhancement fee, nonresident upland gamebird licenses, nonresident combination deer/elk licenses, and chances sold in the Supertag license lottery.

Landowner participation in block management is voluntary. Contracts are negotiated annually in the spring and summer. After enrollment is complete, FWP publishes a Hunter Access Guide, which lists all block management opportunities available to you for the current season. These regional guides are made available August 15, annually.

Formally started in 1985 and expanded significantly in 1996, Block Management has provided free public hunting experiences across the state since its inception. Positive working relationships have been formed between landowners, hunters, and resource managers. The future looks promising, but is dependent on you. By following the rules for the BMA, as well as demonstrating courteous, legal and ethical behavior, sportsmen and women can do their part to assure future access to private lands in Montana.
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/blockman/
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
BLM considers restoring Bullwhacker access

Karl Puckett, [email protected] 2:31 p.m. MDT September 30, 2014


The Bureau of Land Management has formally begun investigating building a new road to restore access to 50,000 acres of public land in the Bullwhacker area in the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Blaine County.

Historic public access to about 50,000 backcountry acres in the Bullwhacker area within Blaine County had been lost following a 2011 court decision declaring a portion of the Bullwhacker Road crossing private lands to be a private road.


The case is one of several in Montana in which private property interests and public access advocates are disagreeing over off-the-beaten paths that cross both private and public lands in en route to popular public hunting and fishing areas.

Restoring the access to the Bullwhacker is only being studied at this point, with a decision whether to proceed not expected until the summer of 2015. An environmental assessment will be completed.

Access remains closed for this hunting season.

Wilks Ranch Montana, owned by Texas billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks, bought the Bullwhacker-area property following the court's decision and proposed a land exchange with the agency to restore the access. But sportsmen objected because deal would have resulted in the BLM giving up popular hunting land in the Durfee Hills in Fergus County.

The BLM announced in August that it would no longer consider a land exchange with the Wilks brothers and would look into other others means to regain access to the Bullwhacker.


On Friday, the BLM said it would investigate four alternatives to re-establish road access into the drainage, restoring access to 50,000 acres of public land within the monument. Sportsmen's groups opposed to the land exchange had lobbied the BLM to a pursue a new access route bypassing the Wilks' property.

"It's a very popular area for hunting," said the BLM's Mike Kania, manager of the monument. "Montanans are very concerned about access to public lands. Many people have hunted here in the past. I've talked to quite a few. It changes the local hunting patterns primarily."

Building a new road on such a large and geographically unique landscape is not a simple project, he said.

"Where to locate a road, it's not straightforward," he said. "If we build a road, we want it to be the least impact possible."

It will involve building three to five miles of road, some of it crossing coulees. A bridge might be necessary. The current road is built on the spine of a ridge. The new road will need to be farther down the hillside.

How much it will cost to restore access isn't known yet, but it will surely be in the hundreds of thousands, Kania said.

"We're investigating access routes to see if it's viable," Kania said.

Hunters still can access the area by foot, horseback, boat or air, but access no longer is possible by vehicle, Kania said. Historically, most people drove into the area.

"It's a long walk," Kania said.

Bullwhacker Road is no longer public where it crosses private land a half mile south of Cow Island Trail, Kania said.

If a new road is constructed, the BLM will consider closing, rehabilitating or reclaiming existing roads in other areas to offset the disturbance in the Bullwhacker, the agency said.


This is one of the reasons you will never get hunters, fishermen, hikers,- sportsmen of all types to ever agree to selling off public lands to private ownership... There has been a bad history of folks getting private ownership and closing off lands, trying to blackmail the government, charging for hunting or access or making it virtually impossible for regular access for the public....

As shown by the Repub Party backing down on their recommendation for the State or Private entity's to take ownership-- this is a battle that in Montana they will lose....

Ot why don't you show why they closed the road down in the first place?
 

Latest posts

Top