Proposed SW MT Conservation Area (1 Viewer)

[AirheadNut]

Just came across this, concerned what it might mean for the recreation opportunities and mining history in the area.

Millions of Acres Proposed as New Conservation Area in Montana

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...

forum.ih8mud.com

 

[elkun1]

check out the american prairie reserve if you think these people aren't serious

 

[ttFJC]

thanks for the heads up.

 

[90WT]

Anybody go to one of the public comment sessions?

 

[pigmony]

No, but I did send in a comment via email.

 

[Mike NXP]

Educate me why I wouldn't want it to be a conservation area. Not being sarcastic, I really just don't know and I'm not political at all .

I thought conservation was good so big industry doesn't destroy more of our land. What are the downsides?

 

[ttFJC]

COPY PASTE OF FORM LETTER TO SEND

This should explain fairly well why its a bad thing.



I am writing today in regards to the proposed Missouri Headwaters Conservation Area in southern Montana. I enjoy accessing public lands to recreate. Montana provides world class off roading and recreational experiences that need to be protected. I do not support this 5.8 million acre land grab. This conservation area has potential to limit or completely restrict the historical and economic uses of this area including recreation, mining, grazing and timber harvest. It would be irresponsible of USFWS to designate such a massive area of land that will have such a negative affect on the public.

I am opposed to any designations of areas which would allow the closure and reclamation of routes. Those routes exist because there is a purpose and need for them and a history of use. Negative impacts can be properly mitigated without a conservation area designation.

The USFWS should be looking at ways to provide reasonable access that will sustain the growing numbers of visitation. Often agencies try to address increased use through closures and restrictions. Each of these approaches is inferior since they create a scarcity of access, which concentrates use in remaining areas. USFWS should plan for opening more areas, routes, and amenities to accommodate increased public demand to utilize public lands.

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis showed that in 2021 the outdoor recreation industry generates $821 billion nationwide in economic activity. By limiting access to the Manti-La Sal National Forest or decommissioning trails the USFWS could be harming the local economy and robbing them of potential income. The USFWS can protect wildlife and habitat while still allowing uses. 5.8 million acres isn't a protection designation, it is a land grab.

It is important to recognize that discrimination towards American with disabilities within federal land management agencies is deeply rooted and hidden in plain sight. Recreation, primarily motorized recreation has taken a backseat to conservation and protection. Motorized recreation is often the only way those with mobility impairment disabilities are able to access public lands. It seems as though the USFWS gives preferential treatment to wildlife rather than Americans with disabilities.

I do not support the proposed conservation easements. Private property plays a vital role in the makeup of our nation. Less private property means higher taxes and overall less freedom for the American people. With that said, if USFWS does acquire the lands proposed, that would make up a mere percentage of the total land proposed in the conservation area. This conservation area is simply too large and will be used as a tool by multiple agencies to restrict access of the public. I support local elected officials in opposing this conservation area.

 

[90WT]

I found this link helpful in describing a conservation easement.

MALT link

 

[Mike NXP]

Hmmm, so your telling me if the conservation easement passes in this area there would be no more public access to state / wilderness lands? I can't see that happening. I thought this translated to protecting the area and still allowing access. But what the heck do I know, the world keeps turning.

 

[Mike NXP]

I found this link helpful in describing a conservation easement.

MALT link

Thanks for sharing that. It seems like the concept of preserving the land while still allowing access as open lands is described. IDK

 

[ttFJC]

let me offer a bit of my experience from what I've seen from these things first hand at work. my favorite answer to any question.

It depends.

when people place the land into the easement, there are varying levels of "conservation". it could be from one level of just saying i promise to never do anything with the land but I'm not allowing any access and I'm retaining all the individual rights and still paying the taxes. To the opposite where they transfer the land into the evesment and trusts and then its maintained by the conservation plan or whatever they wanna call it.

I oppose this because it allows the unelected committees or whatever they are called to in the future propose "use guidelines" or whatever they plans are and then they just decided to close a road because it fit into their new travel plan or what have you. In Moab, they have similar problems going on but they are to the point of actually closing access and in their reports they state "dust mitigation" as a reason for closures to OHVs ETC. Imagine that. dust in the desert. The plans cover all the lands under in the area, and they always have a very short period for public comment and no one hears about it until its after the fact.

 

[Mike NXP]

Interesting, thanks for sharing that information.

 

[SteadfastRocky]

A lot of us recreate in this area, live in it, and have friends that make their livings from the ranching operations that occur through leases. The issue isnt the conservation easements its designating areas of land under a "special" habitat. Every single time this has happened, trails get closed, access gets more difficult, the areas that are accessible and then those get shut down due to congestion. Hyalite is the perfect example of this.

The land easement issue is a complete trojan horse that most people, including myself are fine with and actually for in most instances. The board "management" plan creates more license for a authoritarian non elected bureaucrat to exact some sort of political leverage against the state an its people. It will get worse, given the types of people filtering out of the colleges who want to be activists inside .gov organizations.

As a group (not 406 cruisers) but as a user group, we have to police our own, deal with the littering issue, and show that we can take an active roll in stewardship, and fund organizations like BRC.