Comment in Support of FWP Proposed CE in Central MT

[Dakotakid]

Conservation easements are under attack nationally, and in Montana.

There is an odd twisted logic that “conserving” the entirety of an estate is supporting private property rights.
I have heard a conservative county commissioner say that the government should have never allowed the mineral estate to be severed from the surface estate. Because that violated future private property owners interests.

Now, the argument is for prohibiting conservation easements because it is necessary to protects future property owners private property rights. It is somewhat like the logic of a sovereign citizen- assert gibberish forcefully enough and people concede the debate.

Will 99 year leases have a negative effect on conservation? I think that is the direct intended purpose.

Does it mean the sky is falling? I don’t think so, if the gap can be bridged with private conservation.

But it just might be because I am inside the snow globe praying it doesn’t snow.

 

[bigsky2]

This is on the agenda for the October 14th commission meeting. It's unclear when the deadline is (says "September XX, 2026") , so please comment in support ASAP.

Fish And Wildlife Commision | Montana FWP

The Commission sets fish and wildlife regulations, approves property acquisitions, and approves certain rules and activities of the Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department as provided by statute.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[bigsky2]

Comment deadline is October 9th.

Fish And Wildlife Commision | Montana FWP

The Commission sets fish and wildlife regulations, approves property acquisitions, and approves certain rules and activities of the Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department as provided by statute.

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Forkyfinder]

Comment deadline is October 9th.

Fish And Wildlife Commision | Montana FWP

The Commission sets fish and wildlife regulations, approves property acquisitions, and approves certain rules and activities of the Fish, Wildlife & Parks Department as provided by statute.

fwp.mt.gov

Tell The Fish And Wildlife Commission: Make Hannah Ranch Perpetual - Montana Wildlife Federation

Tell the Fish and Wildlife Commission: make Hannah Ranch Perpetual.

montanawildlife.org

 

[bigsky2]

Tell The Fish And Wildlife Commission: Make Hannah Ranch Perpetual - Montana Wildlife Federation

Tell the Fish and Wildlife Commission: make Hannah Ranch Perpetual.

montanawildlife.org

I wonder if MWF would prefer no easement over a 99 year easement. I totally get where they are coming from and agree that it sets a bad precedent. I think if I didn't live where I do, I'd be more likely to demand that it was perpetual. I think the perpetual easement to the forest service makes it worthwhile to me. It's a sticky situation for sure though.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I wonder if MWF would prefer no easement over a 99 year easement. I totally get where they are coming from and agree that it sets a bad precedent. I think if I didn't live where I do, I'd be more likely to demand that it was perpetual. I think the perpetual easement to the forest service makes it worthwhile to me. It's a sticky situation for sure though.

I think i would? But ill likely never hunt there - was always about the principle of whats happening for me. Id likely feel the same as you if it were in my back yard. Its a raw deal in terms of investment (95% of forever price for a term), and sets a bad precident that its okay to strong arm existing laws and landowners - simply because someone doesnt "like" perpetuity.

Still - comments can be directed at disappointment for it any 3 could happen results (99 year, perpetual, or not at all). Ive got a feeling the landboard is responsible for pushing the 99 year option. They should hear the opposition voice the loudest.

The people i feel the most frustation for is the landowners.

 

[bigsky2]

I think i would? But ill likely never hunt there - was always about the principle of whats happening for me. Id likely feel the same as you if it were in my back yard. Its a raw deal in terms of investment (95% of forever price for a term), and sets a bad precident that its okay to strong arm existing laws and landowners - simply because someone doesnt "like" perpetuity.

Still - comments can be directed at disappointment for it any 3 could happen results (99 year, perpetual, or not at all). Ive got a feeling the landboard is responsible for pushing the 99 year option. They should hear the opposition voice the loudest.

The people i feel the most frustation for is the landowners.

Yep, it's BS that the landowners wishes are being denied. They should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Yep, it's BS that the landowners wishes are being denied. They should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.

At least whats within established and existing law. If you don't like the existing laws - then change it. Ironically they tried - and enough people got wind and showed up and Tezak killed his own bill. Remember it pretty clearly, a few volunteers , some conservation orgs, shot it down against some scumbag out of state lobbyists.

From the MWF article:

"Take Senate Bill 209 from State Senator Tony Tezak (R-Ennis) in 2025 which proposed limiting conservation easements to a term of 40 years max, rather than allowing perpetual agreements. The bill was so unpopular, and the outrage so overwhelming and swift, Sen. Tezak opened his bill’s hearing waving a white flag and saying he was withdrawing the bill but still wanted to allow opponents a chance to express their concerns. After a long line of reasonable and diverse opposition, the bill was then defeated not just with bipartisan opposition, but tabled unanimously."