Whose Property Right is it?

[BigHornRam]

"The case I have cited is someone trying to sell, and neighbors sniveling about who he will sell to"

You need to go back and read the article you posted Fin.......

 

[Oak]

"The case I have cited is someone trying to sell, and neighbors sniveling about who he will sell to"

You need to go back and read the article you posted Fin.......

This sounds like they don't want the guy to sell to the state:

...has riled a hornets' nest of protests from some surrounding homeowners, fearful that in state hands...

 

[BigHornRam]

Nice edit job Oak. The whole quote goes like this......... "his quiet getaway has riled a hornets' nest of protests from some surrounding homeowners, fearful that in state hands the property would be overrun with trash, slob hunters and teenage keggers."

He noted that 24 homes surround the property, with some only yards from the property line. Concerns by the landowners center on issues of safety for them and their livestock from hunters, traffic, fire and disorderly behavior.

The issue goes to the heart of a long-simmering feud between Montana's sportsmen - hungry for more access to lands for recreation - and landowners concerned about being overrun by rude and sometimes dangerous visitors.

Sounds to me like the locals oppose what the land will be used for......not who is buying it, like Big Fin is claiming.

 

[MattK]

BHR- you should definitely be against the neighbors having ANY say as to who buys the land...or what use that land fulfills. The only say they should have is through their congressman about the state spending money...not for the use!

 

[Big Fin]

Big Horn:

Suppose that was your land, and the neighbors wanted to sue to take the state away from the pool of potential buyers, and for many reasons, you wanted to sell to the state for the reasons stated by the old boy in the article.

I bet you would be happy as hell. I am sure you wouldn't feel that your property rights were being squashed.

Feel free to think this is not an infringement.

Your quote in the last post pretty much lays it out.

The neighbors don't like what the property will be used for, so they are trying to eliminate the state as a potential buyer.

People disagree about uses of property all the time. Disagreement is not an infringement.

Eliminating the state, or any party, as a potential buyer is the infringement. Plain and simple.

Obviously, we don't agree. Fine with that. If it happens to you, I suspect your assessment will change.

 

[BigHornRam]

BF,

If I was selling a piece of bare ground to another entity, expecially the government who was using general funds to make the purchase, and who had plans to develope said BARE GROUND...... From the article....Since initially proposing the purchase of Meinhardt's property, FWP has scaled back its plans(obviously the locals concerns had some merit for that to happen), removing a proposed campground and offering to leave some old structures on the property. Initially, the agency's environmental assessment called for improving fencing, killing weeds and constructing a six- to eight-car parking lot off Highway 72. Future plans, all of which are dependent on funding, include a gravel boat ramp, picnic tables, more parking, primitive campsites and a vault latrine. Hunting would be allowed for shotgunners and archers only..........I would EXPECT to get some resistance from the neighboring landowners. If their concerns ultimately had no merit, the deal would go through.

It's part of the process.....who's "sniveling"?

 

[BigHornRam]

BTW BF,

I went back and re-read your original rant on the Montana "welfare" program expanding. Based on how you laid out that case, how can you defend the use of general fund dollars to purchase this property, and continue to be consistant?

 

[Big Fin]

BTW BF,

I went back and re-read your original rant on the Montana "welfare" program expanding. Based on how you laid out that case, how can you defend the use of general fund dollars to purchase this property, and continue to be consistant?

Pretty easy. The Access Montana funds are to be used to obtain public access for the citizens of the state. Didn't realize that would be a hard concept to understand.

And, in my past posts, I am talking about willing buyers and willing sellers, with no government interference. Here we have a willing buyer and willing seller, and no legislation interrupting that. The fact that the state could be a buyer with a willing seller is fine.

Not sure what you find inconsistent with that, but take comfort that you will have a hard time following my logic.

 

[BigHornRam]

I'm following your "logic" fine BF. Both threads were lame attempts to drive a wedge between hunters and landowners. I'm starting to see why hunter/landowner relations are such a screwed up divided mess over in Eastern Montana. Hunters and ranchers really ought to come together, if either wants to survive. Maybe it's too late for that.

Over here, the anti hunters are using some of you and Buzz's rhetoric, "profiting from the public's wildlife" to shut down trapping on PUBLIC land. Kind of ironic. I will start a new thread on that subject.

 

[Nemont]

I'm following your "logic" fine BF. Both threads were lame attempts to drive a wedge between hunters and landowners. I'm starting to see why hunter/landowner relations are such a screwed up divided mess over in Eastern Montana. Hunters and ranchers really ought to come together, if either wants to survive. Maybe it's too late for that.

Can you explain how advocating to not allow Outfitter Sponsored Tags for speed goats attempting to "drive a wedge" between hunters and landowners? OSL's are not a landowner issue, they are a use of a public owned asset issue.

The Outfitters are certainly advocating for the passage of this bill so why isn't laid at their feet that they are driving a wedge between MOGA and hunters?

That is a pretty shallow arguement IMO

The reason that there is landowner/hunter conflict can be simmered down to one issue: Money. Landowners should and need to be able to what they wish with their land, they can lease it, sell, outfit on it, graze it , whatever. The public should have the same rights to what they own, the animal: they can sell a chance to kill or choose not to do so. I think we are still in a Representative Republic that allows for majority rule on such issues.

Over here, the anti hunters are using some of you and Buzz's rhetoric, "profiting from the public's wildlife" to shut down trapping on PUBLIC land. Kind of ironic. I will start a new thread on that subject.

Again this a is a public lands issue. While I think it is stupid to even be talking about a trapping ban, I do believe those supporters of such an action are part of the public.



Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

Nemont,

I went back and read BF's tread starter, and it was full of biased and misleading rhetoric. I read a lot of the comments on the property rights thread you started, and I'm starting see where it is coming from.

Here's a good one.......

"It's not like we have a problem selling our licenses. So these tags do not generate more revenue, other than the small difference in price between these licenses."

$643 vs. $1500 is more than a small difference. And that difference FUNDS the Block Management Program. Pays for access, what everyone seems to be whining about. If you are going to start a thread calling OSL welfare, at least don't lie like that to prove your point.

Same with the tread starter here. BF completely misrepresented the issue.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont,

I went back and read BF's tread starter, and it was full of biased and misleading rhetoric. I read a lot of the comments on the property rights thread you started, and I'm starting see where it is coming from.

Here's a good one.......

"It's not like we have a problem selling our licenses. So these tags do not generate more revenue, other than the small difference in price between these licenses."

$643 vs. $1500 is more than a small difference. And that difference FUNDS the Block Management Program. Pays for access, what everyone seems to be whining about. If you are going to start a thread calling OSL welfare, at least don't lie like that to prove your point.

Same with the tread starter here. BF completely misrepresented the issue.

Huh.?

Where did I lie about something?

What would happen in the absense of OSL's?

What was misrepresented in this "tread starter here"?

If you want to be consistent then explain how is limiting the ability of people to transact commerce in a free market. In addition it allow indivduals to monopolize a publicly owned asset. Now explain how that fits into your own ideas of how a free market is supposed to work.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

"It's not like we have a problem selling our licenses. So these tags do not generate more revenue, other than the small difference in price between these licenses."

That was Fin's comment, Nemont. From the Welfare OSL thread. The underlined part is a lie. Go back and reread it for complete context.

If you don't see anything wrong with Fin's tread starter on this topic, then I can't help you.

BTW I've stated it many times, I'm in favor of ending all OSL, and let the hunter fund his own access.

 

[Big Fin]

Nemont,

Here's a good one.......

"It's not like we have a problem selling our licenses. So these tags do not generate more revenue, other than the small difference in price between these licenses."

$643 vs. $1500 is more than a small difference. And that difference FUNDS the Block Management Program. Pays for access, what everyone seems to be whining about. If you are going to start a thread calling OSL welfare, at least don't lie like that to prove your point.

Same with the tread starter here. BF completely misrepresented the issue.

BHR:

You need to learn how to improve your reading comprehesion.

"OUR LICENSES" happen to be antelope licenses. That was the start of the thread. These licenses will be sold at no more than twice the going rate for regular non-resident licenses.

If you would have read the bill, SB 436, you would have known that.

Instead, you are talking about the B10 (elk/deer combo) and B11 (elk only)licenses under the outfitter sponsored program.

Again, your comprehension is lacking, and you have a tendency to talk/type before you think. If you would read and think before you type, you would have understood that the discussion was antelope licenses, not elk or elk/deer combo licenses.

Plain and simple. You and I have a completely different understanding of what represents a property right, what represents government interference, and how that affects the holder of these property rights.

Go ahead with your way of thinking.

In the mean time, why don't you pull your head out and grab a breath of fresh air before posting comments that show how little you understand of what you read.

If it bothers you that I feel government subsidies represent welfare, I guess you better get used to it, or disregard my comments about it, as my opinion of it is not changing.

 

[BigHornRam]

Your words BF,

"Seems they are hell bent on providing some more welfare to the private land outfitting industry. They do so under that premise that this promotes business in Montana. Dumb asses.

In this case, they have passed a bill, that now goes to the House, giving outfitters guaranteed antelope tags. We thought it was bad enough that they get guaranteed deer and elk tags. Now this. WTF!

It's not like we have a problem selling our licenses. So these tags do not generate more revenue, other than the small difference in price between these licenses."

The way you set this up, BF it sure sounds like you are talking about ALL OSL. If not $205 to $410 is still more than a "small difference".

And once again for the reading impared, I am opposed to all OSL.

 

[Big Fin]

BHR:

In your previous two threads, you used terms like "Lies," "Biased and misleading rhetoric," and "Misreprestented."

Seems that you now are toning things down, since it has been pointed out that you struggle with reading comprehension. Evidently the contextual notion of a thread title or topic, the notion that the bill in question was about antelope, and mention of the antelope licenses in the sentence prior to that which you dwell on, is hard for you to follow. Sorry I can't do much to help with that. Maybe I have to limit myself to one noun per post.

Please point out the lies and such that you boldly proclaim I have made.

Not sure what is driving the axe grinding operation from your end. Is it pissing you off that I am willing to take on the Republicans in this state?

If you disagree with my notions of subsidies, capitalism, and property rights, I can accept that. When you make inaccurate claims based on your poor comprehension skills, expect a reply.

And when you start talking about my intent to drive a wedge between landowners and hunters, you speak out your 4$$. I go out of my way to give landowners their due credit and have met with their groups many times to try improve hunter/landowner relations. Have yet to see you at any of those meetings.

I fully intend to drive the wedge between landowners and private land outfitters. I will admit that in front of every one, and am glad to continue doing so. Until the state welfare programs go away, I will expend considerable effort in that endeavor.

It is my observation that the wedge between landowners and hunters is being driven by three groups.

1. Private land outfitters - As the chaos continues, they are the ones making money from the conflict, and the more they can drive the hunter/landowner wedge, the more they prosper.

2. Hunters who expect something for nothing - These would be the hunters who aren't willing to fund the Block Management Plan with resident hunter dollars.

3. Fringe Landowners - The guys who are hypocrites in demand utmost respect for their property rights, but they refuse to recognize the public's interest/right in wildlife. Fortunately, they are the minority in the landowner community. Unfortunately, they are a vocal group with disproportionate power.

Not sure where you draw the welfare program thread to this thread, but the fact you do so, does not surprise me.

Continue whining and following my every post, all you want. It is accomplishing nothing, but please carry on, if you must.

Or, lets agree to disagree and move on to more productive uses of our time. That is my plan, unless you continue with the BS comments that have filled your posts on this thread.

 

[BigHornRam]

So, I own property that I want to sell. Should be able to sell it to whoever I want, right?

Well, not in MT. Seems some of these property owners want to prevent their neighbor from selling to the buyer of his choice.

One would hope that the property rights advocates would come running to support the old boy who wants to sell to FWP. So far, no one seems to be defending his rights to sell to whoever he wants.

What a joke. His property. If he wants to sell to the state, his neighbor, the nut house, the cat house, or whoever, he should be able to do it. If you don't like it, then buy it from him.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any stranger, crap like this pops up. |oo|oo|oo

That was your agenda filled lead off to this thread Fin. Just another tired, twisted, landowner bash.

Tell me this. What is stopping FWP from buying this property? Be honest.

 

[Big Fin]

That was your agenda filled lead off to this thread Fin. Just another tired, twisted, landowner bash.

Tell me this. What is stopping FWP from buying this property? Be honest.

WTF? Can you read? Can you decipher what your read?

How do you get that this is a landowner bash? I am making the point that the landowner who is trying to sell land shouldn't be interfered with by a bunch of NIMBY neighbors.

Your reading comprehension is amazingly poor. Glad you quoted the opening thread to save me the time to have to go back and point out to you just how out of touch your comments are.

How my comment, that I think a guy selling his land should be able to sell to whoever he damn well pleases, can be construed as a landowner bash, is a mystery to me.

I have to ask this honestly BHR. Are you really that dense when it comes to reading and understanding, or do you have nothing better to do than follow people around a site and make uniformed comments and find entertainment in doing so? It would help me understand if I should pity you or ignore you.

And to your questions of "Who is stopping this?" The neighbors are trying to stop it. Whether or not they will be successful, who knows.

Are you saying the nearby homeowners who don't like his idea, have a property right that allows them to tell the old boy who he can sell his land to.

Sounds like you might have been involved in a NIMBY battle and lost, and you are now sympathetic to the types who move in and want to tell the long-time residents how it should be. Maybe not, but your logic is sure hard to follow.

 

[shoots-straight]

This points out the hypocrisy that most people live by. These landowners more than likely are pro-property rights except where selling land to the state is concerned.

 

[BigHornRam]

BF

I said "what is stopping" FWP from buying this property. Nothing. I didn't read anywhere in the article, that FWP has decided not to buy this property. I'm still trying to figure out what "property right" has been violated here?