Smooth talking politician

You'll never find the "perfect" politician, politics should be a compromise with open dialogue from both sides. We're pretty far from that today. I think everything Randy said is spot on, look at the body of work not the snafus. Add up the pluses and minuses and see where you come out at the end of the day.

Hard to ignore what Tester has done and will probably continue to do for Hunters and Anglers.
 
Wondering what would be the rally cry if Denny would have proposed the exact same bill.

Call me a hard Ass but I am not willing to give him a pass on this based on what he has done in the pasted.
 
Ben,

I am wondering what the House will do to the Ag. bill. It seems that there is alot of ground to cover once the bill hits the House. Then there is the fight to see what comes out of conference.

Given the amount of money our government spends, the settlement is a rounding error in the defense dept's budget or the Medicare budget. Why can't this be funded with cash and not public lands?

Nemont
 
As far as the Fort Belknap land give away there are a few concerns I have,


1. this is a settlement between the United States and the Fort Belknap Indian reservation, I think all of the US should have a part in footing the bill.. as it is now with the Tribes getting lands in exchange for money, the local hunters that use this land are the ones giving up more than anyone else. Hunters from New York-Alabama are not giving up one single thing.

2. Revenue for the Montana Schools systems will be lost account near 29K acres of state school trust lands will be given away. this is money that will have to be made up somewhere else and unless more money is generated (increased Montana State taxes) Something will have to be given up by Montana schools... This is not a settlement bewtween the United States and the Fort Belknap Indian reservation, this is a settlement between the state of Montana and Blaine/Phillips counties. and the Fort Belknap Indian reservation

3. If the United States wants to settle a deal with the Fort Belknap Indian reservation all of the US should have a stake in this deal..

4.
 
Last edited:
Tester has done some great things for sportsmen, but this settlement stinks. Howlers last post pretty well sums up how I feel about it.
 
howler, 28,000 acres of land being taken out of the national coffers and handed over to the good Senator's constituency yet you claim that the rest of the nation isn't ''giving up a single thing''? Would you care to clarify?
 
A couple of things I'd like to know:
1). Who received the water rights that we're paying $250 million for. Shouldn't they have to pay that?
2). What would happen if we just gave the water back? Wonder how much they could use?
3). Could we trade them for lands in the lower Detroit Michigan area?

I saw all the press releases touting Testers "Sportsman's Bill", but saw that nothing in the press mentioning this bad legislation. Hmm!
 
I( for one have hunted the public part of the Little Rockeys for years. I also Have a place that borders BLM land that is part of the land. Tester wants to give to the tribe
 
You can certainly swap 28000 acres but that still leaves an unpaid bill. Shouldn't the guy in a New York apartment help pay for this? Oh ya I guess he owns the land too.
 
sweetnectar , the guy in New York is helping pay the bill. No? How much of that water do we think that guy in New York got to use?
 
Supposedly? Definitely ! If he is a citizen of these United States. Does anyone here know the answer to shootstraits qustion? Who got the water?
 
The state lands that fund Montana schools are going to be used to fund a US debt. It will not be paid for by anyone else other than Montana and the 2 counties involved, this is for an unpaid bill incurred by the US govmt.
The BLM lands involved are of course owned by all of the US but for 99.9 % of the people the BLM lands are not used and in all liklyhood will not be used, Its the local hunters and a very very minor percentage of the US hunters that are giving something up.
 
The water has been adjudicated to many water users, some of who are native but the tribe has now been awarded rights to water that feeds the Milk River and Milk River water. Water Rights are a very complicated issue, A farmer/rancher uses water from the Milk to irrigate his crops and lets say he uses/pays for 1000 acre feet of water and 700 acre feet of water actually soaks in his ground to be used by the plants. the other 300 runs off into the Milk from his fields and then gets resold to a downstream user. The downstream user is counting on his allocation of lets say a 1000 acre feet of water, The irrigation district in charge of water allocation has to make sure he is going to get his 1000 acre feet of water so they controll who gets the water and how much, If you own a water right you have rights to how ever much water your water right gives you, You have the right to that water, This has been divided up a century ago and we really have allocated more water than what is available except some of the water is not used or is used more than once. If you want to really get involved in water rights take a look at the bean lake water rights history. many farmers/rancehrs downstream are depending on water that originates in Montana and feeds the milk that feeds the Missouri that feeds the Mississippee, all the while maintaining enough water for navigation in the rivers, all of the water has been spoken for, and used many times I would guess the last water rights issued are going to be null and void.
 
Last edited:
My guess is that everyone down stream all the way to the gulf of Mexico got the water. The guy with the oldest water right gets it first and so forth. Or perhaps it is simply the State of Montana that took the water and so the nice guy in western Arkansas and New York are going to help pay for it. Who knows?
It was likely used for farms, towns, cities, houses, gardens, lawns, wildlife downstream, and who or whatever ever else gets water.

I do like SS question 2.
 
howler what makes you think that this debt was incurred only by the US gov? Are you saying the state owes no part of this bill? Who received the water rights? If you agree that the BLM lands are owned by all of us how can you suggest that we all are not giving something up? One day the land is part of the public estate the next day it isn't, we all lose equally. Could i not make the argument that those of us living in the other 49 states are getting a raw deal if we are paying for water that stayed inside the state and was not used at a federal facility?
 
Well spook you tell me who would be giving up more some guy who never set foot in the area or somebody who hunted recreated there 10 times a year, and now would not ever be allowed to go there again. the guy who never set foot there isn't missing a thing but the guy who used to use the land a lot now can't and he has to go somewhere else and in the end crowd somebody else who really don't want or need any company while hunting..

As far as it being a US debt it was the federal govmt who doled out the reservation lands and not the states, the federal govmt took complete controll/responcibility of the indians and their reservations. They made the rules set the boundrys.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shoots-straight
The threat that looms large on the Habitat Montana Front.
Replies
17
Views
2K
Ben Lamb
Ben Lamb
Buschy
Buschy's 2022 Season Review (Pic Heavy)
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
fulldraw
F
CouesKelly
CouesKelly's 22/23 Season in Review
Replies
17
Views
1K
Big Fin
Big Fin
SD_Prairie_Goat
Wyoming Cow, South Dakota Whitetail
Replies
6
Views
1K
EastTNHunter
EastTNHunter
SCliving Outdoors
Big SC Public Land Whitetail
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
SCliving Outdoors
SCliving Outdoors

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,011
Messages
1,943,544
Members
34,962
Latest member
tmich05

Share this page

Back
Top