Habitat Conservation Under Attack - HB 5

[Ben Lamb]

Fight Back. 406-444-4800

From MWF:

Habitat Montana benefits everyone

Tell the House to reject changes to HB 5

The state Senate on Monday passed an amendment to the state capital improvements budget that would make it impossible for FWP to spend sportsmen and women's dollars to buy or permanently protect key wildlife habitat. The amendment to HB 5, which is below, makes it possible to only use Habitat Montana dollars for temporary easements. It bars spending for acquisitions or permanent conservation easements.

This is bad policy for a host of reasons. Habitat Montana is one of our greatest conservation success stories because it protects habitat in perpetuity. That benefits wildlife and sportsmen and women. But it also benefits agriculture because it provides critical winter range. That keeps deer, elk and other wildlife out of agricultural fields, haystacks and pastures. It works. Just look at many of Montana's mountain valleys where the state's game management areas support thousands of elk. The alternative is a system like Wyoming, where they feed elk hay and pellets on 23 feedgrounds that are major sources of disease spread. We don't want that in Montana.

The change has passed the Senate and HB 5 is heading to the House. We need to let every House member know how crucial Habitat Montana is for wildlife, for hunters, for farmers and ranchers and for all Montanans.

Please vote to reject the Senate Amendments to HB 5.

The MWF opposes the following new language in Section 4 that restricts all spending for Habitat Montana to term agreements. Since the Habitat Montana Program is paid for with sportsman dollars to secure habitat through fee title, conservation easements or leases, FWP shouldn't be restricted in using the money only for Term Agreements.


The number at the capital to leave a message for a legislator is 444-4800.

Here is a link you can use to email individual legislators:

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions/63rd/legwebmessage.asp

 

[Ben Lamb]

HB 5 passed the Senate yesterday on Third reading. It will go back to the House and we expect a conference committee to meet and discuss the bill.

More: http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2013/04/the-habitat-conservation-blues.html

 

[Ben Lamb]

HB 5 passed the Senate yesterday on Third reading. It will go back to the House and we expect a conference committee to meet and discuss the bill.

More: http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2013/04/the-habitat-conservation-blues.html

While y'all are bitching about tags, your access is being frittered away.

 

[Frenchy]

Help me out on this one. I'm a little confused on whats going on with this one. As I understand it, if this bill passes, it removes the ability of FWP to purchase land. Instead, it forces them to rely soley on leases and easements for public acess.

But when I look at the votes, it seems as the usual suspects of "bad guys" are the one voting against it. Including Brenden and Barrett.

What am I missing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Help me out on this one. I'm a little confused on whats going on with this one. As I understand it, if this bill passes, it removes the ability of FWP to purchase land. Instead, it forces them to rely soley on leases and easements for public acess.

But when I look at the votes, it seems as the usual suspects of "bad guys" are the one voting against it. Including Brenden and Barrett.

What am I missing.

The way Senate Finance & Claims wrote the bill, it would exclude comseration easements and fee title acquisition and only allow short term easements.

There already exists a program formshort termeasements and easements across privatecland but the demand is extremely low. So if this goes forward, it will be close to impossible to reverse the language in future sessins, and it would ensure that a large pot of money sits in an account and cannot be used at all unless formshort term easements,cwhich, as we know, have little demand.

 

[1_pointer]

Do the conservation easement contracts with FWP contain a public access clause? I know many, at various levels of government or from NGOs, that don't.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Do the conservation easement contracts with FWP contain a public access clause? I know many, at various levels of government or from NGOs, that don't.

With a lot of variation and negotiation, yes.

 

[1_pointer]

Copy that. Thanks.

 

[Big Fin]

This is such a stupid attempt by those in the Senate. They know it is bad for wildlife and bad policy for Montana, but they would rather grind their political axes and thump their chests about how they laid the pipe to FWP. In reality, they are laying the pipe to Montanans.

To eliminate the option of fee title and easements needs little explanation as to what a bad idea it is. I have a list in front of me of potential properties that are high on the list of critical wildlife habitat. Most often, those are acquired by non-profits and land trusts, at huge discounts, then resold to FWP for pennies on the dollar.

Seems kind of stupid to eliminate the possibility of FWP acquirng critical assets at huge discounts. But, stupidity seems to be the standard of excellence many fringe operators in this legislature try to attain. I would say they have far exceeded that standard in this session.

This would be a big kick in the crotch for future wildlife acquisitions in Montana. Think Wall Creek, Sun River, Indain Creek, Beartooth, Bear Creek, Porcupine, Buffalo Horn, Dome Mountain, Fleecer Mountain, .... hell, I could go on and on. Here is a map of many of these very critical places that have been protected with hunter dollars and the efforts of FWP.

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/wma/wmaMap.html

Look at that map an you will see that the wintering ranges that help support some of the deer and elk you hunt are still intacts because of the work of hunters, FWP, generous conservation-minded landowners, and the many great non-profit conservation partners who have helped FWP secure these properties.

And now, it is all at risk because a couple fringe operators, with their small ideas and big egos, want to use their elected political position to take another swipe at hunters, access, and wildlife. A joke ... a very bad joke.

Hopefully Ben or Vito can give us a link of the key people in the House who might see the light and respond to pressure we can apply, and will stand up to these fringe operators.

 

[Frenchy]

Here is the response I received from my legislator.

Hi David,
Thanks for your concerns regarding FWP and HB 5. The governors office has assured those in my caucus that he will remove the anti-FWP portion of this bill by amendatory veto when it reaches his desk. As such, I plan to support HB 5.

 

[webejmn]

Here is the response I received from my legislator.

Hi David,
Thanks for your concerns regarding FWP and HB 5. The governors office has assured those in my caucus that he will remove the anti-FWP portion of this bill by amendatory veto when it reaches his desk. As such, I plan to support HB 5.

Arggghhhh!!! Contacted my house rep (old huntin' buddy) I would be willing to bet he would vote no without no input, but non the less he has my input!
Also contacted another that I know and gave him my input. You're right Ben, tags mean nothing if you don't have access!
Thanks for making us aware!! Again!