Another 'Access' Project in Need of Sportsmen's Support

[BigHornRam]

No I didn't go to Helena Nemont. The org. I belong to did. Didn't appear to help however.

The lands in HB 14 were bought by TNC in Phase II..........

Phase II, which involved the federal money, closed last month - $250 million for 111,000 prime acres in the Lolo and Blackfoot valleys, but mostly in the Seeley-Swan

Most all the public land in that block of Ex Plum Creek land is state land. These particular acres surrounding Bonner Mtn are steep and have been heavily logged. The properties in the Seeley-Swan are a different story. It would be nice to consolidate all the Potomic/Bonner Mtn land into one large block of State land, instead of having a hodge podge of State, Federal, and Private. And the price for that 26,000 acres is a reasonable $800/acre.

My worry is that the public is missing out on a good opportunity to buy this land at a good price, for whatever reason (politics, lack of state funds, ect), and it will end up private. Matt.....Buzz.....where are you?

 

[Oak]

My worry is that the public is missing out on a good opportunity to buy this land at a good price, for whatever reason (politics, lack of state funds, ect), and it will end up private. Matt.....Buzz.....where are you?

You don't have to wait for Buzz or Matt to ride to your rescue. Get out there yourself and drum up the support, if it is important to you.

 

[JoseCuervo]

No I didn't go to Helena Nemont. The org. I belong to did. Didn't appear to help however.

Why would you join an organization that would be willing to accept you as a member?

 

[BigHornRam]

You don't have to wait for Buzz or Matt to ride to your rescue. Get out there yourself and drum up the support, if it is important to you.

I'm trying Oak. I thought a hunting site would be a good place to drum up support. Other than Miller's support, guess I was wrong. Thanks Craig!

Buzz was pretty keen on this deal a couple months ago, when he thought it was all going to be public land. Where is he now when it looks like it will be private ownership?

 

[Nemont]

I'm trying Oak. I thought a hunting site would be a good place to drum up support. Other than Miller's support, guess I was wrong. Thanks Craig!

Buzz was pretty keen on this deal a couple months ago, when he thought it was all going to be public land. Where is he now when it looks like it will be private ownership?

Why is this access a good deal for the Montana taxpayer's? Maybe 20% of Montanans hunt......you want the rest to subsidize us? Who gets to decided who hunts there? Should non residents be banned since state tax dollars were used to secure access? How about outfitters......their tax dollars were used here. Should they be allowed to outfit on the property now? Why shouldn't the sportsmen who benefit from this deal pay for it? Not too many years ago you could have bought the land outright for $210 an acre. Now with the bad economy, we are looking to buy access for $5,000,000? Sorry guys, not a good use of tax payer dollars IMO.

BHR,
When I brought up my issue I think you were the loudest voice stating that purchasing an easement was misspent money. Why should I support your cause? Is it just because Western Montana is worth more. The permanent easement was $200 an acre and it guaranteed access to another 100,000 acres but that was a bad deal for Montana taxpayers.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

Your making my point Nemont. Shouldn't sportsmen actually fund their special interest (access)? Block Management has OSL revenue funding our special interest (access). No one seems to be happy with the results of that welfare. At least in HB 14 the people in the state would get the deed to the land , as well as access. The schools would also benefit from future timber sales. Did grazing fees go to the state in the deal you were talking about? At $800/acre, I'd call it a good investment. But HB 14 doesn't look like it will go through so now it's up to the sportsmen to fund their access on this one as well.

I asked you some questions about your issue, Nemont (which you never answered). I also said I didn't think it was worth the price the LANDOWNER was going to get paid by the taxpayer, just to allow public access. My opinion. Sounds like other people that really mattered didn't think so either.

You don't have to support this cause if you don't want to, Nemont. Being that it's in Matt's backyard (and Buzz's old backyard), I kind of thought they might want to support it, though.

 

[Nemont]

Well if the way you present your opinions here is the same way you do in person I doubt you are going to accomplish anything.

Which question didn't I answer?

From the FWP's standpoint and many in the State government it is often better that the state does not take outright title to land because landownership comes with alot of other issues and expenses. I have had this discussion with lot's of state people and many of them who have long time exposure to access and land management prefer to us easements and not ownership of land.

School trust lands are a little different but HB 14 was not able to garner enough votes to make it out of committee.

I know, I know the only land worth anything is in Western Montana and that is the only place the State of Montana should put it's money. People Living anywhere east of Great Falls don't need any skinking tax dollars to fund access.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

01-06-2009, 02:05 PM
BuzzH
Senior Poster Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Laramie, WY
Posts: 6,463

"BHR,

1. How much of the NC land is there in this deal of the 315,00 BHR? Ten acres?"

I was trying to tell Buzz a couple months ago, that a big chunk of this Legacy Project was going to end up in private hands.....but Buzz didn't want to listen.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Whats a big chunk?

 

[BigHornRam]

BHR,

Whats a big chunk?

Depends on what part of this earlier article pans out, Buzz........a lot mentioned below is looking shakey.

The deal remains a challenging work in progress for the conservation groups. They've already financed the first 130,000-acre phase with $150 million that's mostly made of loans against the Nature Conservancy's and Trust for Public Lands' own assets.

While the second phase is covered by $250 million in federal dollars, the land must pass muster for delivery to the U.S. Forest Service. The money's appropriation last fall partially implied that the deal was OK, but the two groups are still gambling that boots-on-the-ground review will back up their good intentions.

And the third phase of 70,000 acres in 2010 assumes a deal can be worked out with Montana state agencies that have an interest in some land. The bargain expects the state to pick up about $100 million of the tab, from a variety of pots.

The 2009 Legislature is now considering a “Working Forests Initiative” worth about $22 million that would pick up much of the acreage around Potomac(HB 14).

Some might become new school trust land for timber harvest. Other sections might be bought through funds that Bonneville Power Administration provides to mitigate the impact of Hungry Horse Dam. Still more might come from an expected settlement with Pennsylvania Power and Light over back rent for its power-generating properties on state waterways.

Some money must come from a fiber agreement between the nonprofits and Plum Creek. That deal allows the timber company to buy logs from its former lands at market rates to keep its mills supplied over the next 15 years.

“It keeps some of the land in timber production and helps the economy,” Plum Creek spokeswoman Kathy Budinick said Tuesday. “We want to be doing all we can to keep those mills running.”

And finally, the two groups expect to raise about $40 million from land sales to private buyers. Another $100 million is planned to come from a charitable capital campaign.