Lets Call the Dogs Out on this one!

[shoots-straight]

Our buddy John Brenden submitted another anti sportsmen, anti wildlife bill.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2013/billhtml/SB0237.htm

This bill would force the state not to acquire a gain in land. This is one of the worst of the worst bills out there.

Properties like "Spotted Dog", or the "Marias River" WMA's would be a thing of the past.

He totally ignores his own party's platform by not interfering in private property rights, and the rights of those owners to sell their lands to whomever they see fit. If this isn't the definition of a hypocrite I don't know what one is.

These people are only for your rights when it suits their agenda, which is to punish the sportsman of Montana.

This bill is headed to the (S) Natural Resources committee.

You may start the phone calling 444-4800, or use the legislative e-mail
http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp

 

[Eric Albus]

That bill is no more anti-sportsman than John is. That is the single most mis-leading statement I have heard.
What right does the state have to compete w/ private industry when it comes to buying property? It is tough enough having to compete w/ wealthy non-residents, let alone our own state. Just keep letting the state buy land...the Milk River Ranch only closed down 150-200K acres at last count...then add up what the "bison debacle" closed down...
No net gain is a good thing. The state can sell land-locked sections/parcels of state land and aquire land that has access....nobody, including Brendan is against this.

 

[Straight Arrow]

That bill is no more anti-sportsman than John is. That is the single most mis-leading statement I have heard.

That is your opinion and is contrary to the opinion of most sportsmen.

What right does the state have to compete w/ private industry when it comes to buying property?

It is one and the same right. Key word is "compete."

The state can sell land-locked sections/parcels of state land and aquire(sic) land that has access....nobody, including Brendan is against this.

Finally, a statement which could be supported as truth.

 

[Eric Albus]

Then you would be in favor of the state competing w/ the guy who has the snow removal contract for the local grocery store?

 

[Straight Arrow]

No, but if you wanted to buy some apples ... I'd try to sell you some oranges or watermelons since you might not know the difference. Your land acquisition versus snow removal analogy lacks serious thought or consideration.

 

[whiskeydog]

This bill infringes on the rights of the property owners to make whatever deal they feel is in their best interest. The state can make an offer of trade, but the owner is not obligated to accept. They have the CHOICE whether they want to deal with the state or not. Not all property of equal acreage is equal in value. If a farmer is offered 10,000 acres of prime farm land for 12,000 acres of timber covered rocky soil, that sounds like a pretty good deal for the farmer and one that he probably wouldn't be able to make with another private individual.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Then you would be in favor of the state competing w/ the guy who has the snow removal contract for the local grocery store?

Fwp is usually approached about these purchases. Not the other way around. FWP does look for ranches in terms of conservation easements, but it's still willing seller/willing buyer. The thought that FWP competes with local landowners applies primarily if you're idea of competition is paying below fair market value for land, or just trying get it as cheap as possible. If you don't like the price of land the. That's a bigger reflection of those who are buying mass quantities of it for recreational purposes rather than for the ag value.

 

[Eric Albus]

Where is the difference? How about my neighbor who is also a fence contractor? He is getting 6-8k per mile....how about the state gives me a bid of 4k a mile....should it not be their "right" to compete for the same work? Should be my right to hire the state...same thing w/ land purchases....if I want to bid on tract of land, a legit offer, then the state comes in and makes an offer of tripple?(just happened w/ the Milk River Ranch, only I did not make an offer on it)....the comparision is there, if you want to look at it.
The really neat thing about the Milk River Ranch is that it closed down 40-50 x's what it opened up.

 

[shoots-straight]

Then you would be in favor of the state competing w/ the guy who has the snow removal contract for the local grocery store?

Eric, your wrong headed in your assumption of WHO the state is. In this instance it is US the sportsmen and woman of the state of Montana.

It's our land. The money comes from the dept. we (the people of Montana) are selling our resource to NR hunters, of which you make money off of. Then we are putting some of that money into a fund to buy more lands that might become available. It's good business for any entity to make sure they have enough product for the consumer.

We happen to be both the owner, and the consumer. YOU DO TOO.

If you buy it outright the rest of us are SOL. In many cases, landowners want the lands to go to the public for use.

If you want the lands in question then fork over the dough. This is personal property rights at it's finest.

These lands become WMA or Fish Wildlife and Parks properties after purchase. Even you can utilize these lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Where is the difference? How about my neighbor who is also a fence contractor? He is getting 6-8k per mile....how about the state gives me a bid of 4k a mile....should it not be their "right" to compete for the same work? Should be my right to hire the state...same thing w/ land purchases....if I want to bid on tract of land, a legit offer, then the state comes in and makes an offer of tripple?(just happened w/ the Milk River Ranch, only I did not make an offer on it)....the comparision is there, if you want to look at it.
The really neat thing about the Milk River Ranch is that it closed down 40-50 x's what it opened up.

Appraised value Eric. No more. That's what FWP pays. Why do you want to give your neighbors rock bottom for their land?

As for MMR shutting down all that land, it's your local communities that suffer. You do they punish the store owners, etc that ely on public hunters? Seems pretty backwards to me.

 

[Eric Albus]

I believe in no net gain. That said, I am not against the state trading/buying tracts. I also realize that I am a beneficiary of these acquisitions, and that one day it may be the only place left that I can legally recreate on. I also believe that if I wish to sell my ranch to the state that I should not have that right infringed upon....but if the state wants to buy my ranch they should first have to sell off landlocked and/or less desirable tracts first...no net gain.

ben, my idea is fair market value, not 3-4x's the going rate (Milk River Ranch north of Havre).

 

[shoots-straight]

Where is the difference? How about my neighbor who is also a fence contractor? He is getting 6-8k per mile....how about the state gives me a bid of 4k a mile....should it not be their "right" to compete for the same work? Should be my right to hire the state...same thing w/ land purchases....if I want to bid on tract of land, a legit offer, then the state comes in and makes an offer of tripple?(just happened w/ the Milk River Ranch, only I did not make an offer on it)....the comparision is there, if you want to look at it.
The really neat thing about the Milk River Ranch is that it closed down 40-50 x's what it opened up.

Your not opening up your mind.

The state is playing the part of an agent for US! You and me. We asked for this program, knowing most of us will never be able to purchase lands in this quantity by ourselves. This isn't TAX money coming from your wages. The majority of money comes from NR license fees. We, (you and I) are selling our resource to pay for this.

Just because your pissed at the high price paid recently doesn't mean the program should be stopped. It needs fixing, but definitely not stopped.

The states not competing with you for lands, they are buying them for you to use.

Lets fix the problem of over-paying on lands that we acquire. The Milk River had more problems with it than just the inflated price our agents paid for it.

They need held accountable for their actions. We are working on that too!

 

[Eric Albus]

ben, spin it how you want....the state paid 3-4 x's the going rate for a few thousand acres, and lost access to 40-50 x's that much. I do not know those folks in that community, but I bet they are typical Montana born and raised landowners in the way they percieve/value things...."appraised value"..you can find high appraisals and low....if you want to play that game, let's look at comparable sales in the last 2-3 years...that will tell the real tale.

 

[shoots-straight]

I believe in no net gain. That said, I am not against the state trading/buying tracts. I also realize that I am a beneficiary of these acquisitions, and that one day it may be the only place left that I can legally recreate on. I also believe that if I wish to sell my ranch to the state that I should not have that right infringed upon....but if the state wants to buy my ranch they should first have to sell off landlocked and/or less desirable tracts first...no net gain.

ben, my idea is fair market value, not 3-4x's the going rate (Milk River Ranch north of Havre).

Under your scenario we wouldn't have been able to acquire the Marias River WMA, the Spotted Dog. Rob Creek, on and on and on.

The lands WE are buying, aren't connected to the DNRC, or state school trust lands. They have the same land board but different owners. This is our program.

If you want to keep the DNRC at no net gain then fine.

If you want to stop us from buying more Fish & Game lands, then lets talk about removing around 10,000 more NR licenses. If we can't acquire anymore lands what's our incentive? Letting you privatize and utilize our resource without any payback?

 

[Ben Lamb]

ben, spin it how you want....the state paid 3-4 x's the going rate for a few thousand acres, and lost access to 40-50 x's that much. I do not know those folks in that community, but I bet they are typical Montana born and raised landowners in the way they percieve/value things...."appraised value"..you can find high appraisals and low....if you want to play that game, let's look at comparable sales in the last 2-3 years...that will tell the real tale.

Eric,

Have you talked with the appraiser? There haven't been sales in that area that encompassed the same amenities that MMR had according to him. I don't know if that's true or not, but an appraiser who does a poor job isn't in business very long.

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, i agree, I do benefit from the land purchases, and I know where the monies come from. What I am against is a Gov't entity competing w/ private industry for those acres. I realize that the playing field is not level...I know this better than most anyone...try to compete w/ some of the whales that have moved into my back yard for land. I would still rather see private ownership than Gov't ownership. Just a core belief of mine.

I agree, there is a problem w/ over-paying for land on this last purchase, and it needs fixed.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, i agree, I do benefit from the land purchases, and I know where the monies come from. What I am against is a Gov't entity competing w/ private industry for those acres. I realize that the playing field is not level...I know this better than most anyone...try to compete w/ some of the whales that have moved into my back yard for land. I would still rather see private ownership than Gov't ownership. Just a core belief of mine.

I agree, there is a problem w/ over-paying for land on this last purchase, and it needs fixed.

http://www.conservemontana.org/content/american-prairie-reserve/cnmF60321438823F54E3
You would rather see The American Prairie Reserve buy the land?

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, good point..

.the really bad thing about the APR is that when push comes to shove the state will jump right into bed w/ them... saw first hand the euphoria within FWP when APR mentioned "free range bison"... I do not trust any Gov't entitiy to have your/my best interests at heart when it comes down to it.

 

[shoots-straight]

shoots, good point..

.the really bad thing about the APR is that when push comes to shove the state will jump right into bed w/ them... saw first hand the euphoria within FWP when APR mentioned "free range bison"... I do not trust any Gov't entitiy to have your/my best interests at heart when it comes down to it.

Would it make you feel better, in supporting Habitat Montana, if we changed the entity that has it's name on the title.

Lets call our outfit, United sportsman of Montana. Lets put all the money in that account and do the same thing, then on the maps the lands would be purple instead of blue.

Would that make it seem all better?

Or lets make the program a no net gain, and Robert Redford or Will Primos will pay 3 or 4 times the value. Is that better?

 

[Eric Albus]

shoots, if the monies raised were donations from the sportsmen of Montana...sign me up, I will give the first check.