BuzzH
Well-known member
You're doing so awesome, there's no room for me to help there anymore.
I'm sure GG and Knudsen have your back.
Montana's Attorney General
- Thread starter Elky Welky
- Start date
I'm sure GG and Knudsen have your back.
If only we could have some Democrats in office I’m sure things would look better for our 2 points.You're doing so awesome, there's no room for me to help there anymore.
I'm sure GG and Knudsen have your back.
cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 1,668
These posts crack me up no one gives two chits about this that’s elected other than using it as a pawn to get more votes you hear guys on both side saying you get what you vote for. Well who should I vote for name a single person that’s in office that this is all they care about making things better for sportsmen. I’d vote for them red or blue. I heard GG is doing unlimited sheep hunt this year I bet I have hiked more mile already during archery than he will for that tag and yes I voted for him
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I don’t think they would. Though Forkhorn Lives Matter, there’s a lot more to hunting, fishing, trapping, and just generally enjoying public lands, than the 2 points out there. There’s the conservation easements, our access opportunities, the acquisitions, the policies, the constituents, the model of of wildlife we hold or abandon, etc.
It ain’t about D or R. Jon Bennion, Who ran against Knudsen in the primary, would’ve been a stellar AG - upstanding, conservative, balanced. For some reason they picked the doofus we now have.
Conservation easements Montana pays big money for and you will never set foot on?
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Conservation easements the state pays big money for generally come with some sort of access requirement. So yes, many folks can and do set foot on them. So can you.
Maybe you have a different definition of big money I can provide examples. Regardless the AG may not be good for Montana but it’s just more of the same from my view.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Don’t need examples. I was simply using your words. Access is pretty standard for state conservation easement contracts.
Not sure why you think that’s funny.
Because it’s simply not true. Where is our leader @benlamb to give us the details of the devil?
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
By all means, please educate me if I’m wrong. I’ve enjoyed access on several, and the access portion is typically a large reason the acquisitions enjoy strong public support. What am I missing?
Is type 2 BMA where friends and family go adequate access? Ben is going to argue that protecting the land is worth it even though the access might not be there. I think the easements have improved throughout the years. Sorry if I derailed the thread, the AG certainly has some questions to answer. Carry on.
Go to the hunt planner and overlay conservation easements with BMAs and other access opportunities. You will be surprised.
I won’t be surprised one bit I know there are good ones and I know there are bad ones. Access is not guaranteed.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Doug's bigger picture about conservation easements is a good one. I am not saying that conservation easements are not a good thing and I am all for paying for easements if the landowner is willing. Conservation easement are just not going to be the long term solution to many of the issues discussed on HT. More like a band-aid solution. Kind of like putting a band-aid on a cut artery. May look good, feel good and help a little, but until we address the underlining issues the place is going to be bleed out in a few years.
I know of one conservation easement that does not allow access, but that was between a landowner and a private company, not the state.
As for the the OP's original posting. I agree with just about everything said about the AG, I will be happy to vote against him, however if I decide that the allegations are flimsy or politically motivated I will hold my nose and vote for him.
I know of one conservation easement that does not allow access, but that was between a landowner and a private company, not the state.
As for the the OP's original posting. I agree with just about everything said about the AG, I will be happy to vote against him, however if I decide that the allegations are flimsy or politically motivated I will hold my nose and vote for him.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,581
He’s a born and raised farm/ranch kid from NE Mt.
I know the AG just enough to say hello in the hallway. His family lives in the same community as one of my best friends. My buddy has nothing but good to say about them, and that’s rare in a small community. Most are unable to put petty jealousy aside and say something decent.
The AG is not “anti public land”. I am not anti public land either. I’m going to make an assumption and guess his view on FWP buying land is somewhat similar to mine, “no net gain”.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,581
I’ve been exploring the easement option, considering placing some land in one.
I got a copy of one from a buddy and read the details on his. On this specific one FWP required access for a minimum of 400 hunters (employees and family do not count, but can hunt) on approximately 4,500 acres.
I pretty much lost interest.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I would be out too with that requirement. Some times I think that FWP thinks that all ranchers view deer as crop eating vermin. Ether you want them exterminated or you just want to make money off of then to off set the damage.
YukonGold
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2022
- Messages
- 202
CEs acquired by the state have a public access component because they're purchased with hunter dollars. Landowners who don't like that can easily sell a conservation easement to a private entity like Montana Land Reliance or local land trusts, without the public access component--but the catch is that they aren't worth as much (that public access adds a TON of value to the CE), and these smaller outfits usually expect the landowner to donate a significant portion of the value.
Regardless of whether public access is a requirement for a CE, I still think each one is beneficial to our wildlife. Land in a CE cannot be turned into a subdivision or a shopping center. Maybe less of a risk for those in eastern MT but in western MT we're losing our winter range habitat one lot/McMansion at a time.
Regardless of whether public access is a requirement for a CE, I still think each one is beneficial to our wildlife. Land in a CE cannot be turned into a subdivision or a shopping center. Maybe less of a risk for those in eastern MT but in western MT we're losing our winter range habitat one lot/McMansion at a time.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,602
I think the new conservation easements are much better now regarding access requirements but I know of an old one that the access to get on was as @DougStickney said a type 2 bma. You have to be a friend or family member to get on. Truly the public got no access. The price = seven figures. I had some buddies try to get access to coyote hunt. Landowner told them no. Coyotes don’t hurt anyone. Devil is always in the details. Any way back discussing how chitty Knudsen is on public lands. Which imo ample evidence exists
Similar threads
