Comment in Support of FWP Proposed CE in Central MT

[Big Fin]

You have until July 28 to comment on the Hannah Conservation Lease. This is not an easement. An easement transfers an interest in a property right. It is a 99-year lease.

Here is the email to comment, per this page on the FWP website.

Email to this address - [email protected]

There are documents in the preceding posts that give all the details. You can also view them on the FWP comment page linked above.

The Director of FWP says the 99-year lease is not a certainty, if enough comments are received. Not sure if that is true, given the resistance at the State Land Board and the Governor's hesitancy to fight the few anti-easement folks on the Land Board.

Given there are legislators who want to bring bills next session to cap the term of conservation easements for anyone, even private parties, I hope we make a big showing on this easement. This is the first effort to try BS us that this is an easement and that somehow this term-certain concept is the best path forward. Why we would pay 95+% of actual purchase price for a lease, when we could have it forever for a small amount more, is hard to understand.

Most reports are that the landowners wanted to have a perpetual easement, but FWP in Helena decided not to offer such. Amazing that the landowner has hung in there through is foolishness. Kudos to them for doing so.

I'm not big on asking favors, but if you live in Montana, I'd ask that you send in a comment. If you do, I hope you'd consider stating that "a perpetual easement is your preferred alternative, for both the landowner and the citizens of Montana.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I attended and there were a few people in attendence - many who commented on the 99 year agreement.

My key takeaways:

The landowners have a strong desire to have this perpetual and came to fwp that way.

Fwp has never done this before - all previous conservation easements are perpetual.

No satisfactory explanation was provided when a member of the public sought an explanation for the change to 99 year.

Those 3 things should be of immediate concern to anyone hunting and fishing, or owning property, in Montana. The private property rights of these people matter. The future of these CEs going forward - what if all of them are termed? Comparitively that is an awful return on the investment. What if 50 years is now desirable than 99? And lastly - the cowards in the state government (the land board?) who are hiding behind manipulating this to a 99 year lease via fwp rather than just having the testicular fortitude to vote no on it (because they dont like perpetual easements?) at the landboard is grade A steamy smelly bullshit. If the landboard is going to piss on their constituents - at least have the courage to do it in the daylight.

FWP employees stood there and took a beating from people who gave a shit. If they can do that - all the readers of this can go demand an answer for the same basic question i couldnt get answered via email or in person:

If the landowner wanted this perpetual, and the public is obviously better off with it that way - why was it changed and why does that serve the interests of Montanans?

Personally - ive seen how fwp cant answer the root of my question. They seem like they arent quite able to say. In addition to providing public comment - id ask you to also email the gov, director, and land board and ask them why someone in between FWP employees and them is hamstringing private land owners rights and public benefits.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

 

[Jnasa]

I wrote in supporting the access. I did not realize the possibility of a perpetual term. I will write back in expressing this.

I'm a non resident but still happy to comment