Sytes
Well-known member
True, it did start to slip. apologies.
Montana Hunters.....We Need Your Help
- Thread starter Schaaf
- Start date
True, it did start to slip. apologies.
MooseCaboose
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 498
My take--let's give the members of the Land Board a chance to get their heads wrapped around the mineral/surface rights issue rather than automatically assuming the worst. Five days is not much time. Bullock and Fox are both attorneys, so it's no surprise to me at least that they have an easier time understanding these things on an expedited timeline.
It seems like some HuntTalk members are too eager to jump to the worst possible conclusion (perhaps playing politics) rather than taking the Land Board members at their word. They said they needed more time. Let's reserve judgment until at least the next meeting and see if the Board will vote to move forward with the easement after time to review the new information or if this is just a political maneuver.
For better or worse--this is what the composition of the Board will be for the next 2 1/2 years, so it would behoove us as conservation advocates to do our best to "work with what we got" rather than looking ahead to a distant election for salvation.
It seems like some HuntTalk members are too eager to jump to the worst possible conclusion (perhaps playing politics) rather than taking the Land Board members at their word. They said they needed more time. Let's reserve judgment until at least the next meeting and see if the Board will vote to move forward with the easement after time to review the new information or if this is just a political maneuver.
For better or worse--this is what the composition of the Board will be for the next 2 1/2 years, so it would behoove us as conservation advocates to do our best to "work with what we got" rather than looking ahead to a distant election for salvation.
onpoint
Well-known member
The problem three on the land board are just the latest iteration in what is now multiple generations of cookie cutter tea party GOP politicians. These men and women have repeatedly proven that they have no interest in common with MT public land sportsmen/women. Tough to "work with" someone who has no real interest in working with you.
Just one opinion from one who has been around and in the middle of these same political games in MT for about 25 years now. It has not gotten better for "us" in that time.....
MooseCaboose
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 498
This is the kind of language I am talking about. Why label them as cookie cutter GOP politicians before they have even rendered a decision? I, for one, will not contribute to creating such a self-fulfilling defeatist prophecy.
They just said they were going to review the new information--taking them at their word--it sounds like they are in fact willing to work with us on this issue. Disregard the past, do what we can in this moment. Keep calling the office, keep trying to explain why this is important for conservation. Hurt feelings from old battles don't have to determine the outcome of this matter.
The surest way to ensure failure on our conservation objectives is to disregard these as cookie cutter GOP politicians rather than finding out what particular angle will work.
"People with low expectations are rarely disappointed."
onpoint
Well-known member
You do it your way - the carrot, I'll do it mine - the stick. We both have the same goals (I think?), but probably won't agree on how to get it done.
Schaaf
Well-known member
Schuyler, One of the three had enough info on Feb 9th. to tell the landowners he would be voting No on the Easement and that it wasn’t even going to make it out of the commission.
It was strictly due to the pressure that we got a delay.
It was strictly due to the pressure that we got a delay.
MooseCaboose
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 498
Well good on you guys then! I assume this was the SOS who said he was a no since he seemed to have the most resistance to the idea of a permanent conservation easement (can't for the life of me figure out what his hangup is with the concept). As AG Fox pointed out--if you're paying this much for a conservation easement, it better damn well be a permanent one.
Schaaf
Well-known member
It was the one running for Senate.
Good opinion piece from MWF & The Mule Deer Foundation in today's IR:
http://helenair.com/opinion/columni...al&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
http://helenair.com/opinion/columni...al&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
onpoint
Well-known member
"...past actions are an indicator of future votes".
Nailed it.
Also past actions of like minded and mentoring politicians are evidence and indicators of how these things will probably go for we who are Public Lands sportsmen and women.
Early 2000's - Joe Balyeat attends a Bozeman Headwaters Fish and Game Assoc. forum and tells a bunch of Sportsmen/women that game farms don't pose a disease threat to Montana's wildlife.
Mid 2000's- Scott Sales and Joe Balyeat attend an other of the same assoc.'s meetings, Balyeat at least engages with those in attendance - Sales sits cross armed and silent the whole meeting.
Big Fin may be able to recall these mtgs.
Mid to late 2000's - Debbie Barrett successfully gets Montana's EMP implemented - how many threads and posts have addressed that gem on here over the years?
And now we have Jennifer Fielder, a real public sportsmen's/women's ally. Arntsen and Rosendale served as legislators during her tenure.
This BS has been going on quite a while. There is a direct connection from the past to the present. It has been groundhog day for "us" for a long time.
It has nothing to do with "hurt feelings from past battles", except that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. The issue addressed in this thread is a current battle in a long "war", for lack of a better term.
Instead struggling for mediocrity and attempting to work with those who possess no genuine interests in "our" interests, maybe find some public servants who have the same interests at heart.
And while we are forced to work with those who are not in agreement with us, hold their feet to the fire. They signed up for this stuff when they ran for office.
Nailed it.
Also past actions of like minded and mentoring politicians are evidence and indicators of how these things will probably go for we who are Public Lands sportsmen and women.
Early 2000's - Joe Balyeat attends a Bozeman Headwaters Fish and Game Assoc. forum and tells a bunch of Sportsmen/women that game farms don't pose a disease threat to Montana's wildlife.
Mid 2000's- Scott Sales and Joe Balyeat attend an other of the same assoc.'s meetings, Balyeat at least engages with those in attendance - Sales sits cross armed and silent the whole meeting.
Big Fin may be able to recall these mtgs.
Mid to late 2000's - Debbie Barrett successfully gets Montana's EMP implemented - how many threads and posts have addressed that gem on here over the years?
And now we have Jennifer Fielder, a real public sportsmen's/women's ally. Arntsen and Rosendale served as legislators during her tenure.
This BS has been going on quite a while. There is a direct connection from the past to the present. It has been groundhog day for "us" for a long time.
It has nothing to do with "hurt feelings from past battles", except that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. The issue addressed in this thread is a current battle in a long "war", for lack of a better term.
Instead struggling for mediocrity and attempting to work with those who possess no genuine interests in "our" interests, maybe find some public servants who have the same interests at heart.
And while we are forced to work with those who are not in agreement with us, hold their feet to the fire. They signed up for this stuff when they ran for office.
Last edited:
teamhoyt
Well-known member
Good piece. I hope these guys get it together and get this passed
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
This whole thing sounds eerily reminiscent of North Dakota's increasingly hostile stance on perpetual conservation easements. I hope this isn't a sign that mentality is spilling over to Montana.
Poke 'Em
Well-known member
Unfortunately, the split mineral and surface rights on this property really do complicate things. As much as I want this easement to go through, there may actually be some prudence involved here. Because the mineral rights are separate from the surface rights in this case, a conservation easement by the surface owners could not prevent a well from being drilled on this property (or other mineral extraction such as coal, etc). Theoretically, at least, if the mineral rights owner wanted to develop this property, the surface rights owner could not entirely prevent them from doing so. Typically, what happens if a well has to be drilled on land leased by the mineral rights owner, but not agreed to by the surface rights owner, is that a court will decide a level of compensation due the surface rights owner. So the worst case scenario here, is that the easement is approved, this area becomes a hotbed of oil and gas activity, and the mineral rights owner leases their rights, which allows wells to be drilled in spite of the conservation easement.
I encourage everyone to read http://www.leg.mt.gov/content/publications/Environmental/hb790brochure.pdf and see how little protection this easement would actually provide against mineral development.
Now, with modern technology, it's easier to reduce the surface footprint from subsurface mineral extraction (long lateral wells), but that doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be surface disturbance. $6 million is a lot of money to spend on a conservation easement that doesn’t actually guarantee the land cannot be developed.
I encourage everyone to read http://www.leg.mt.gov/content/publications/Environmental/hb790brochure.pdf and see how little protection this easement would actually provide against mineral development.
Now, with modern technology, it's easier to reduce the surface footprint from subsurface mineral extraction (long lateral wells), but that doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be surface disturbance. $6 million is a lot of money to spend on a conservation easement that doesn’t actually guarantee the land cannot be developed.
Schaaf
Well-known member
I don’t believe FWP has intentions or even a hope of preventing development with this Easement. The Buxbaum Easement just south of Sidney was specifically cited during the hearing about how FWP has worked well with landowners and O&G with a pipeline that was placed on the Easement.
Then you could get into the aspect of if development is possible is it worth the money? I believe it is.
Then you could get into the aspect of if development is possible is it worth the money? I believe it is.
CampRipleyLF
Active member
Looks like the Montana State Land Board voted to indefinitely postpone the decision to accept a land conservation easement in eastern Montana signaled that they care more about oil and gas development than they do public hunting and public access, even when the desire of the private landowner is to open their lands for public access. The Horse Creek conservation easement would open nearly 20,000 acres of currently inaccessible lands, both the 15,000 acres of private ranch land and another 5,000 acres of public landlocked within the adjoining the ranch. Let's not forget that hunters' and anglers' license dollars would be funding this easement that is overwhelmingly favored by Montana sportsmen and women and has the unanimous support from the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission. Willing seller and willing buyers but that's not enough for the Montana State Land Board. Fortunately there's still time to influence this decision.
Email your comments to [email protected] and ask them to support public access and represent Montana sportsmen and women. Matt Rosendale (US Senate candidate and current land board member) voted to delay the easement even though his website claims "I will work to expand access to public lands for hunters, anglers, and others who simply want to enjoy Montana's great outdoors. I'll do the same in the Senate." bha
Email your comments to [email protected] and ask them to support public access and represent Montana sportsmen and women. Matt Rosendale (US Senate candidate and current land board member) voted to delay the easement even though his website claims "I will work to expand access to public lands for hunters, anglers, and others who simply want to enjoy Montana's great outdoors. I'll do the same in the Senate." bha
MooseCaboose
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 498
Ben - I agree with you, they are certainly an indicator and the best thing we have to judge a public servant by when they are up for an election. All I was trying to get at is that we shouldn't act like past actions will always determine present day decision making and we should do our best to work with the public servants who are in office.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That is so true; and the best way is through providing them with good information which supports the position you advocate. However, it has been my experience that some are so entrenched in ideology and/or partisan planks, that they cannot see what is clearly in the best interests of the folks who they are supposed to be representing. In that case, the only thing that seems to sway them is some type of political or public media pressure which they recognize as about to result in adverse consequences to their standing as an official or as a candidate (as is the case for Rosendale). Otherwise "working with" may merely be spitting into the wind!
Flynarrow
Well-known member
As the late Ron Moody reminded me several times, "95% of the decisions are made on election day". We sportsmen in Montana are reminded every day that so many Montana sportsmen fall for the red herring "They are going to take your guns" bait and consequently vote against their best interests.
The easement actually strengthens the landowner's position in negotiating what development looks like on their ranch. it also provides an extra negotiator in the form of the easement holder, who will enter into those negotiations on behalf of the resource (the land conserved). It's also critical to note that O&G development/mineral development is temporary while the easement is in perpetuity, so while the landowner cannot keep development off the land, an easement gives a landowner better tools to negotiate the outcome of development.
Split estate conservation easements occur all of the time. Our state sage grouse conservation model is based on easements. If we, now, decide that easements hold no conservation value at all, then we've essentially told the fed we're not going to do much of what is needed to ensure the bird isn't listed - giving the extremists who want to see the bird listed the ammo they need to get in front of a friendly judge.
If these easements hold no conservation value over the split estate issue - then every split estate easement is worthless and organizations like RMEF, TNC, etc have wasted billions of dollars.
The split estate issue is a red herring, long settled by easement practice. Development is temporary, protecting the overall values of the land is permanent.
And, you know, another 15,000 acres of access to some sweet muley spots is always nice, especially in that country.
Similar threads
