Millions of Acres Proposed as New Conservation Area in Montana

[Blue Ribbon Coalition]

Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a 5.8 million acre conservation area in southern Montana along the Idaho border. Comments are accepted until November 27, 2023. The Missouri Headwaters Conservation area, if approved will attempt to acquire private lands within the boundaries. FWS needs to establish a conservation area in order to use funds to purchase conservation easements. Their goal is to purchase 250,000 acres in conservation easements. The conservation easements, if acquired would only make up 4.3% of the entire conservation area. This proposal is an attempt to lock up and control a massive portion of Southern Montana. Conservation Areas, give priority to wildlife and wildlife habitat over any other use such as recreation, timber harvest, mining, drilling and grazing.

Local elected officials and communities are against this proposal for a multitude of reasons. This designation could hurt current and future mining and drilling operations in which their economy is built on. There are also thousands of small mining claims within the proposed area. Recreation also play a huge role in this area with the Tobacco Root Mountains that boasts amazing motorized recreation opportunities. The Centennial Mountains are also located within this boundary. The conservation area would provide a designated boundary that would restrict management options for the U.S. Forest service and Bureau of Land Management. Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas already exist within the proposed conservation area. This designation will affect every single form of use and every single recreation modality.

FINAL IN-PERSON PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS:

• October 23, 6-8pm in Butte at the Butte-Silver Bow Public Archives Building, 17 W. Quartz St, Butte, MT 59701

This proposal, simply put is a land grab that would ruin the rich gold mining, recreation and grazing history of the area. Fill out the form below to send a comment to oppose this land grab.

Continue reading...

 

[rkymtnflyfisher]

There is no way they will take over the entire Big Hole Valley.

Maybe lock up the existing public land but definitely not all the private ranches out there, I don't see it.

Maybe I didn't read enough into it, I'm a few beverages into a Friday.

 

[rkymtnflyfisher]

That goes for the Beaverhead, and Ruby valleys also.

 

[elkun1]

i never thought the american prairie reserve ever had a chance either.

 

[ttFJC]

thanks for the heads up

 

[clemson55]

i never thought the american prairie reserve ever had a chance either.

The APR is a private non-profit purchasing, owning, and managing lands in the way they want, no different than you or I doing so. FWS is a government agency using public dollars to purchase land or easements, they would have to place those lands in an appropriate management structure, such as a wildlife refuge. An example would be Red Rocks east of Lima which I have driven through and camped in. It allows hunting, fishing, has trails, and designated routes for OHV's, snow mobiles, etc. They are not remotely the same thing.

 

[elkun1]

The APR is a private non-profit purchasing, owning, and managing lands in the way they want, no different than you or I doing so. FWS is a government agency using public dollars to purchase land or easements, they would have to place those lands in an appropriate management structure, such as a wildlife refuge. An example would be Red Rocks east of Lima which I have driven through and camped in. It allows hunting, fishing, has trails, and designated routes for OHV's, snow mobiles, etc. They are not remotely the same thing.

ok, keep believing that and explain it to the locals who over the years have lost access to shall we say a few miles of trails that have been bulldozed and revegitated . wilderness study area's were another plan they used to shut down fs lands. also have you considered the lost revenue in tax base for the counties, these are low population areas so even a slight decrease is major for them. and yes i realize the feds pay a miniscule amt to the co's . the apr reminds me of the nature conservacy only on a localized area instead of nationwide. regardles, the purpose of all of these are to take land from private citizens and give it either immediately or eventually to the gov't.
Weren't you the person who was going to drive over the top from clarkston and a few of us suggested that that wasn't such a good idea. I don't think you ever let us know how that trip went. also something about the middle fork, you were pretty insistent that nothing was going to change on that one either. I think i'm starting to see a trend. anyway have a great day. Ron

 

[90WT]

BRC,
Did anyone from your group attend the public comment sessions? I'm interested to hear the tone of the public in attendance.

 

[clemson55]

ok, keep believing that and explain it to the locals who over the years have lost access to shall we say a few miles of trails that have been bulldozed and revegitated . wilderness study area's were another plan they used to shut down fs lands. also have you considered the lost revenue in tax base for the counties, these are low population areas so even a slight decrease is major for them. and yes i realize the feds pay a miniscule amt to the co's . the apr reminds me of the nature conservacy only on a localized area instead of nationwide. regardles, the purpose of all of these are to take land from private citizens and give it either immediately or eventually to the gov't.
Weren't you the person who was going to drive over the top from clarkston and a few of us suggested that that wasn't such a good idea. I don't think you ever let us know how that trip went. also something about the middle fork, you were pretty insistent that nothing was going to change on that one either. I think i'm starting to see a trend. anyway have a great day. Ron

If you bought the land privately you could leave all the trails open and even build more if you wanted, APR chose to close and revegetate them, their land, their choice. Its not the same thing as a government entity buying it and placing it into one of the management structures they have like a wildlife reserve which has specific goals and objectives and a specific framework outline for it. Wilderness areas aren't "shut down", the permitted uses are just changed. Driving through a creek over and over again doesn't really improve the experience of wheeling or overlanding any more than driving next to it in my opinion but it absolutely hurts animal species and can cause problems to other types of recreation so we should be trying to balance that.

Agree it could impact the tax base in these counties with small populations but it is likely going to be very minimal. Most Ag lands and unused rural lands are taxed at such a low rate, and often discounted for large single tracts, that even though they make up most of a counties area they are only a small percentage of its tax base. I worked for a county that was 85% rural lands and they accounted for about 20% of the tax base.

The landowner can also put restrictions in the easement they sell if they want to, so they could require that roads stay open. I was on the county side working with a landowner to establish an easement in a previous job and they added conditions to allow for a second house in the future and the creation of a public trail that would access the river. They just need to be done right. I would greatly prefer the land be in an easement whether or not I can drive my truck through it over the alternative which is some tool from CA or TX buying it and building a mansion on it and I still cant drive my truck on it.