Opinion pieces like this bug me

[RandanP]

I can understand the concern, but again, this is more than just building a new ranch house. It's new barns for equipment, campground upgrades, replacing existing facilities and a ton of road work. I'm going to ask the agency for the actual proposed project and we can argue facts, rather than assumptions. If it's shady, I'll be the first in line to oppose and work to change the allocation.

I’ll eagerly wait for a response.

 

[sacountry]

starts at 15:36:03

House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

House Fish, Wildlife, and Parks - Video

sg001-harmony.sliq.net

Thanks for that. to sum up Chuck's comments "we don't like being sued"

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks for that. to sum up Chuck's comments "we don't like being sued"

This approach also means that any school or club that had to sue over anything wouldn't be eligible. So, FU FFA.

Chuck doesn't want people to get together and form bonds. He works only in conflict and abhors collaboration and bringing people together.

 

[sacountry]

This approach also means that any school or club that had to sue over anything wouldn't be eligible. So, FU FFA.

Chuck doesn't want people to get together and form bonds. He works only in conflict and abhors collaboration and bringing people together.

Which is going to make bridge building all that much harder. Lets face it, he states in his testimony that UPOM members believe FWP is failing at managing the resource to objective. Welp, they have the land and the resource. We have the licenses and the tools. I still believe Block Management 2.0 is the solution.

 

[Stone_Ice_1]

That caught my eye as well

The main facility and the creekside cabins are in need of razing and replacing. No extended footprint, no pavement, just road replacement on the WMA and you have to raze, replace and recondition what's already there. The main ranch house is in disrepair, and the cabins on the creek have issues related to infestation of mice, etc and they're unsafe to inhabit anymore. FWP will try and save the old cabin/kitchen house, but it all depends on the structural condition.

Given the remote location and the size and scope of the replacement, inflation and supply chain issues, $8 million is a good estimate. $1-$2 million is for road stabilization and renovation, IIRC. I think that's low, even for dirt work.

For decades, conservation groups, etc, have been using this facility to hold meetings, etc. Not any different than the Whiskey Mountain Conservation Camp outside of Dubios, WY. It's a good investment in an outdoor learning space.

If they are going to repair what is already there or rebuild something very similar I can see the need. These buildings are falling apart. However this bill is concerning to me as somebody who enjoys this area. This Beartooth is one of the spots in this area of the state that is not full of established campgrounds, paved roads, and amenities everywhere. While all those things sounds nice, all those things bring PEOPLE and lots of them. I love this area, spend lots of time camping, fishing, and hunting in the area. But I stay away from the campgrounds and areas around Holter as it gets insane with all the people. Ever driven by or stayed at Log Gulch before? You can stand between the campsites and touch both yours and your neighbors camper at the same time. Thats not how I grew up camping and certainly doesn't qualify as camping to me. My fear is improvements to the WMA would push more of all those people into the WMA and this becomes another place to avoid.

It would be a shame if that's what came of it. it is a beautiful place and the original land transfer of this area from the ranch owner intended to be a haven for the animals, not people.

You know what I would really like to see a bill for. Something similar to what Idaho did 1-2 years ago. If you are a non-resident to the state of Idaho it is now expensive to camp in one of their state parks. I learned of this recently when making reservations at Priest Lake in Idaho for this summer. It is over $60 a night to park your camper in a spot (no hookups) and camp in their state parks there for a non-resident. I'm not mad at Idaho for doing this, I think it is something Montana should do, for many reasons.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If they are going to repair what is already there or rebuild something very similar I can see the need. These buildings are falling apart. However this bill is concerning to me as somebody who enjoys this area. This Beartooth is one of the spots in this area of the state that is not full of established campgrounds, paved roads, and amenities everywhere. While all those things sounds nice, all those things bring PEOPLE and lots of them. I love this area, spend lots of time camping, fishing, and hunting in the area. But I stay away from the campgrounds and areas around Holter as it gets insane with all the people. Ever driven by or stayed at Log Gulch before? You can stand between the campsites and touch both yours and your neighbors camper at the same time. Thats not how I grew up camping and certainly doesn't qualify as camping to me. My fear is improvements to the WMA would push more of all those people into the WMA and this becomes another place to avoid.

It would be a shame if that's what came of it. it is a beautiful place and the original land transfer of this area from the ranch owner intended to be a haven for the animals, not people.

You know what I would really like to see a bill for. Something similar to what Idaho did 1-2 years ago. If you are a non-resident to the state of Idaho it is now expensive to camp in one of their state parks. I learned of this recently when making reservations at Priest Lake in Idaho for this summer. It is over $60 a night to park your camper in a spot (no hookups) and camp in their state parks there for a non-resident. I'm not mad at Idaho for doing this, I think it is something Montana should do, for many reasons.

Agree on the WMA. Should have the larger proposal soon.

On the second piece, there's a bill coming similar to that.

 

[Eric Albus]

Interesting. @Eric Albus I believe you're on the FWP land committee, correct? Any inside detail as to why this money hasn't been deployed?

I’m on the PLPW, not the land board.

 

[sacountry]

I’m on the PLPW, not the land board.

Gotcha. Thanks.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m on the PLPW, not the land board.

Eric Albus for State Auditor has a nice ring to it.

 

[Eric Albus]

Eric Albus for State Auditor has a nice ring to it.

Lol. I’d be the first one ever assassinated.

 

[sacountry]

Lol. I’d be the first one ever assassinated.

You've remained on HT through thick and thin so you obviously have some good military grade armor.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I had a long conversation with FWP on the Beartooth WMA issue:
1.) The project includes building a new facility that can be used by 30-50 people. This will include a meeting space as well as dormitories similar to what Lubrecht State Forest has. All building will be done within the existing administrative footprint, and will in some instances remove old buildings and restore them to a more natural state. This footprint currently comprises a tiny fraction of the existing WMA.
2.) Road improvements will be limited to gravel, and will not include more roads - just keeping the current road from being washed out so much.
3.) New barns & sheds for equipment
4.) Restoration of the cook cabin, which is the only building left that can be brought up to code.
5.) Improvements to the existing campground to handle the increase in use that is seen through the summer months.
6.) These changes have been vetted through the bequeathment documents and through the family, and have been agreed upon as appropriate.

Overall, it would appear to me that the project is on the up & up, even if it's a little concerning.

 

[Deleted member 48080]

If FWP keeps developing WMAs, they're going to start losing public support.

We're already pushing wildlife off of these pieces with such poor management. They aren't RMAs, they're WMAs.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The appropriation was cut in 1/2 to $4 million today in subcommittee.

 

[RandanP]

I had a long conversation with FWP on the Beartooth WMA issue:
1.) The project includes building a new facility that can be used by 30-50 people. This will include a meeting space as well as dormitories similar to what Lubrecht State Forest has. All building will be done within the existing administrative footprint, and will in some instances remove old buildings and restore them to a more natural state. This footprint currently comprises a tiny fraction of the existing WMA.
2.) Road improvements will be limited to gravel, and will not include more roads - just keeping the current road from being washed out so much.
3.) New barns & sheds for equipment
4.) Restoration of the cook cabin, which is the only building left that can be brought up to code.
5.) Improvements to the existing campground to handle the increase in use that is seen through the summer months.
6.) These changes have been vetted through the bequeathment documents and through the family, and have been agreed upon as appropriate.

Overall, it would appear to me that the project is on the up & up, even if it's a little concerning.

Yeah, no thank you.

 

[RandanP]

The appropriation was cut in 1/2 to $4 million today in subcommittee.

They can keep on cutting. This is a project no one has asked for or wants. And totally wasteful use of funds.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Going waaaay back to the guest opinion piece the OP referenced, I spent a couple of hours today in a meeting largely focused on RMEF. I learned a great deal that substantiated and added depth to the points Randy made in his long post on his thread…so mea culpa, boys. I didn’t mean that piece to focus nearly as much on RMEF as on Gianforte—though that was largely the reaction here—but even in the way I meant it I was mistaken. My appreciation goes to Randy for correcting my course.

I need to figure out an effective way to make this right, but I will start by sending in a contribution to RMEF that reflects years of absence.

 

[sacountry]

Going waaaay back to the guest opinion piece the OP referenced, I spent a couple of hours today in a meeting largely focused on RMEF. I learned a great deal that substantiated and added depth to the points Randy made in his long post on his thread…so mea culpa, boys. I didn’t mean that piece to focus nearly as much on RMEF as on Gianforte—though that was largely the reaction here—but even in the way I meant it I was mistaken. My appreciation goes to Randy for correcting my course.

I need to figure out an effective way to make this right, but I will start by sending in a contribution to RMEF that reflects years of absence.

Good stuff Jock and again welcome to HT. To be certain every business, government, NGO, and human has warts. As such RMEF does deserve correction from time to time.

The point I really wanted to make was the tone that we use to make those corrections is key. The more inflammatory the words, the lesser the value and often times is more harmful than helpful. It's become a "thing" in our social media dominated culture and Trump is it's poster child.

That said, I don't believe I've ever seen Trump apologizing for any of his remarks so you're not in his category.

I have a couple of books on my bedstand ahead of deer hunting with Jesus, but I will get to it. As a rightwing Jesus freak, I'm sure it'll be a challenging read for me.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

I appreciate that, Scott, and see the wisdom of your point about tone more than ever. Having said that, I’m a Scot with some Irish blood, and I don’t mind throwing or taking a stiff jab occasionally—but that act tends to blur into the great muddy swamp of nameless internet vitriol and dilute my point.

I’ll be interested in your reactions to that book. It’s more nuanced and warmer than I maybe described. The writer is a local journalist. I grew up in coal country too with Scotch-Irish people, plus Russians, Slavs, Poles, Cornish, and the whole Butte-like mix that mining tends to gather and then, often, abandon…and I can hear the voices of my neighbors in his voices.

I see you’re from NW MT. If you’re coming down 93 ever let me buy you a beer at the Evaro Bar or the Buck Snort. I live about a mile from them.