This would open up some pretty awesome access. Please comment in support.
Comment in Support of FWP Proposed CE in Central MT
- Thread starter bigsky2
- Start date
This would open up some pretty awesome access. Please comment in support.
Dr. samuel_284Win
Well-known member
Done
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,612
Done. Thanks for the heads up.
Matthew57
Well-known member
Not a resident of MT nor do I hunt the area, but commented regardless!
OpenCountry
Well-known member
Done. Thank you for posting it.
Bhoesl
Well-known member
Done. Thanks for pointing this out.
Wasn’t this same CE up for public comment a few years ago? Any idea why it didn’t go through then?
Wasn’t this same CE up for public comment a few years ago? Any idea why it didn’t go through then?
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 2,853
Done. Thank you.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,879
In support - but can you fill me in on why a 99 year lease?
This would open up some pretty awesome access. Please comment in support.
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
Done as well. Thanks for posting!
D4570
Well-known member
I did comment in favor, but I have no Idea how they work. Do they give us any more access to use the land? Is it a sign-in and go kind of area? Is there a lot of hoops to jump through to use it? Or is it just protecting the area so our grandkids can stand outside a fence and watch the wildlife? I really have NO idea what the reason or purpose for easements in real-life use. Please enlighten me.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
All of the information about how this project works, the cost, duration, etc. to include how hunting access and grazing management would be administered are in the documents on line. There is the EA itself, then the draft deed of CE, and the Management Plan (which further outlines the hunting and grazing system).
A lot to read but definitely worth reading through to understand everything before commenting.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,879
My concern is that its a 99 year lease? What would be wrong with a perpetual conservation lease? Theres a few other conservation leases - access to them might or might not be part of it as it depends on the CE.
Id have to imagine the landowner would have been paid more with it, been happier with the permanent nature of it, and the public gets a better return as well.
I cant help but have concern - Stafford Ferry (a permanent conservation easement) seemed like there was a lot going on that was pushing against it behind the closed doors our leadership calls transparency.
I get it. Im the grumpy. Skeptic. Curmudgeon. But between last sessions attempt to end perpetual CE, comments made by ag austin knudson, and the sketchy shit by the landboard.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,879
My guess would be that this is important enough to some people that they want to see it through and don’t have the risk tolerance for the deal blowing up in their faces if it gets strung along for years like Stafford did due to political handwringing over it being perpetual.
My best guess is that they landed on a 99 year lease to avoid some of the same things that held up the Stafford Ferry CE. I don’t remember the numbers, but the number of CE’s that have been approved has dropped significantly since GG took office. I believe they also require county commissioner approval now, and we have one commissioner in particular that does not like perpetual easements.
I’m not thrilled about the precedent it could set for future CE’s either, but I’d rather get a 99 year easement than no easement at all.
8andcounting
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,687
Hope this happens
Ben Long
Well-known member
I am OK with this project. However, my gripe is calling it a conservation easement. It's more like a 99 year access lease. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But it's not really longterm conservation. When the lease comes up, our kids and grandkids will be facing a much greater bill to keep that land open than we would pay today. My comments to FWP was, proceed if you think it's a good deal, but don't call it a conservation easement. An access lease is a more accurate term. Calling it a conservation easement confuses people. It is sad that a few grouchy politicians has hamstrung FWP from doing real conservation.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,879
Yeah - the precedent scares me more than losing this individually.
Doesnt the landboard have a bunch of money to spend....?
WanderWoman
Well-known member
An effective public comment can contain your stance on a proposal AND concerns you have. Saying you “support the project” with nothing else tells the department you are fine with all aspects of it (e.g., 99 years vs. perpetual and this is an ok new direction for FWP to take). Saying you “support the project but are uncomfortable with the switch from 99 years because…” tells the department something different.
Ben’s comment as he described above is a great example.
And to be fair, you can also say you support the project specifically because it’s 99 years and not perpetual…
Also, friendly reminder that this is an election year, and if you’re sick of how politics has increasingly meddled in the affairs of FWP doing great conservation work, you have the power to do something about it. And again, in 2028.
Ben’s comment as he described above is a great example.
And to be fair, you can also say you support the project specifically because it’s 99 years and not perpetual…
Also, friendly reminder that this is an election year, and if you’re sick of how politics has increasingly meddled in the affairs of FWP doing great conservation work, you have the power to do something about it. And again, in 2028.
Similar threads
