Skip to main content

Elections Matter, Ep. 1 – Legislative attempts to seize your property

Photo credit: Kelly Minars

Elections Matter is a series of articles about issues from the 2015 Montana Legislature that were decided by only a few votes.  The objective of the Elections Matter series is to underscore why it’s so vitally important to elect officeholders who support our rights to own, use, and enjoy our property.

Should landowners in Montana have to apply for permission from their county governments before placing a new gate on their property?  Of course not, such a scenario seems nonsensical.  But that’s exactly what would have resulted had legislation by a pair of Great Falls lawmakers been enacted last year.

House Bill 286, sponsored by Rep. Tom Jacobson (D), would have required a landowner to file a notice of intent with the county commission for any planned “fence, barrier, or sign” to be installed on a road on his property.  From there, the law would have required the landowner to appear before the commission in a public hearing to justify the planned addition and provide evidence to prove ownership of the road in question.  And the kicker, any road on your property would be assumed to be a public road unless you convince the commissioners otherwise.

In other words, the commission would be given the power to deny you the right to put up a gate anywhere on your property.  Members of the general public would be given the power to weigh in on whether you should be allowed to do so.  And your property would be considered open for public access unless you can convince the commission otherwise.

It seems like a completely ridiculous idea, but believe it or not this bill died on tie vote in Committee.

What’s worse, a companion bill, HB 304, sponsored by Rep. Mitch Tropilla (D), would have imposed a $500 per day fine on a landowner who keeps a gate closed without getting the commission’s permission.

Continue reading

BLM’s refusal to work with Wilks bros. is part of a disappointing trend

Photo Credit: Lance Fisher

Last year, the Wilks brothers opened access across their property to allow the public access to the Upper Missouri River Breaks Monument.  It was a good-faith effort as part of a land exchange they were proposing to the BLM.  Their proposal was a generous one—they were offering more acreage to the BLM, and property that had better public access (the public land they proposed to exchange for is only accessible by aircraft).

BLM has refused to negotiate this land exchange amid opposition from environmental groups.  So in response, in an oped appearing today in the Great Falls Tribune, Farris Wilks has announced they will no longer allow access through their property to the Upper Missouri River Breaks.  Mr. Wilks writes:

While we will close our gates in the coming days, we continue to stand ready to engage with the BLM and the interested public to craft an agreeable exchange that will provide permanent public access to the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in the future.

It’s a disappointing trend that while Montana sportsmen are clamoring for increased access to public land, and landowners are making offers to increase access, the BLM is refusing to even consider the proposal.

Lieutenant Governor candidate Lesley Robinson an advocate for property rights

gianforte-robinson

The addition of Phillips County Commissioner Lesley Robinson to Greg Gianforte’s ticket for governor is a welcome one for Montana ranchers.  Robinson has been a lead advocate for property rights and local control in Northeastern Montana where several NGOs have been collaborating with Montana FWP to establish a free-roaming bison herd.  Gianforte’s pick could bring more attention to the issue, which would be welcome as the vast majority of Montanans oppose establishing free-roaming bison herds when they learn that private landowners would be forced to host the animals on their property and absorb the cost of any damage they cause.

We want to extend a big Thank You to Greg Gianforte for showing genuine concern for agriculture and property rights.  And good luck in the race Lesley.

A heartfelt thank you from one of our members

We received the following thank you note in response to Mark Robbins’ recent opinion piece in the Billings Gazette, shared in its entirety below:

Dear Mark:

I want to offer a big, heart-felt thank you for your well-written article in the Billings Gazette re: “Don’t transport bison out of Yellowstone Park”, Feb. 18, 2016. And of course, in true Billings Gazette/’Pravda’ fashion, it was followed by a Gazette opinion on Feb. 20th, ‘Fort Peck ready to quarantine Yellowstone bison’.  Yes, sometimes it seems it never will end, but anyone who can THINK, sees the truth in what you say, and the utter fallacies proposed by the Gazette.

As landowners/farmers in that area of Fort Peck, the bison issue has been a constant presence for more years than I can count.  My mother’s homestead sits directly between the two bison herds on the reservation. And yes, there are ranchers beside them also.

Thanks so much to you and your organization Mark. We are proud to be members of UPOM.

Linda Prescott
Billings, MT  (and Poplar)

UPOM Oped: Don’t transport bison out of Yellowstone Park

Eastern Montana Shadows by Loren Kerns

UPOM’s Mark Robbins responds to the Billings Gazette’s call for transferring YNP bison to Eastern Montana.  Here’s an excerpt:

The Billings Gazette editorialized in support of creating a brucellosis testing facility on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. (“An Alternative to Yellowstone Bison slaughter” Feb. 14). Rather than addressing the root problem —poor federal management practices that has led to a severe overpopulation of bison in the park — the Gazette advocates simply moving the problem somewhere else.

It’s a ludicrous proposition. It won’t fix what’s wrong at Yellowstone National Park. And worse, it will create the exact same problem in northeastern Montana.

And let’s correct one big point the Gazette got wrong. These are not animals that have been proven brucellosis free. That’s the whole point of a “quarantine facility;” it’s a place where they’ll be tested to see if they have the disease.

It’s like saying I’m going to take care of my leafy spurge infestation by transferring a few hundred plants over to my neighbor’s pasture. Rule one in preventing disease transfer is to isolate the disease.

This proposed transfer is doubly problematic because the bison in question would be classified as wild free-roaming bison, not livestock. That distinction makes all the difference in the world.

A livestock classification means that some entity is responsible for the animals. If they get out onto neighbor’s property then there’s someone to call to come and get them. And moreover, there’s someone liable to pay for any damage they cause.

It’s the opposite for wild bison. If they roam onto your property, then you eat the cost of any damage they cause, which can be substantial. As wildlife, there’s no one to call to come get them. Like any other wildlife, as a landowner you’re expected to tolerate them—but of course, bison are not like other wildlife.

UPOM comments to NPS on proposal to establish brucellosis testing facility on Fort Peck Reservation

bison-873400_960_720

Under a new proposal from the National Park Service, Yellowstone Park bison that have been exposed to brucellosis could be transferred to testing facilities at locations across Montana.  The first proposed location is on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.

To be clear, these are animals that have not been ruled brucellosis free.  The proposal is to quarantine and test the animals for the disease for a period of time, after which they would be released as wild, free-roaming bison on the Reservation.

Rule 1 in preventing a disease’s proliferation is to isolate the disease to one area.  It makes no sense to transfer brucellosis-exposed bison to other parts of Montana.

UPOM has strongly objected to this proposal for the obvious dangers it presents to Montana’s agriculture economy.  Moreover, the NPS has not taken into account the risks to property damage that free-roaming bison present to neighboring landowners.

You can read UPOM’s comments by clicking here.

UPOM files protest with BLM over APR grazing permit

fence-500348_960_720

UPOM has filed a protest against the BLM’s proposal to adopt an application by the American Prairie Reserve to remove interior fencing and allow year-round grazing on certain allotments.  APR’s application also indicates their desire to switch the classification of the bison they own from livestock to wild, free-roaming bison.

UPOM’s protest is the first step in stopping the APR’s grazing permit change.  It establishes standing for us in the event BLM goes forward with adopting the proposal even with the strong protest against it. You can download UPOM’s official protest letter by clicking here.

Senator Tester needs to take a stand against WOTUS

Photo credit: Plains and Prairie Potholes Landscape Conservation, CC

By Deanna Robbins

Imagine a scenario where Montana farmers and ranchers have to apply to a federal bureaucrat in order to plow a field, or build a fence, or move cattle from one pasture to another.

It sounds ridiculous, and it is. But this crazy notion has made its way from the radical environmentalists’ wish list into an actual rule proposal from President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency. If they are successful with this rule, known as Waters of the United States (or WOTUS), the EPA will be given expanded regulatory authority over any land use and farming practices near any body of water, down to prairie potholes and ephemeral streams (those that only have water during heavy rains).

With this jurisdictional rule there would be no limit on EPA’s determination of what constitutes a “waters of the United States,” giving EPA the means to usurp all state authority.

Continue reading

FWP should help landowners with problematic wildlife

hayfield-51174_640

The last few decades in Montana have seen a remarkable recovery in wildlife populations. For example, Montana’s elk population was down to almost 20,000 animals in 1940. By 1970, it had increased somewhat to 55,000. But after that, we’ve seen rapid growth to nearly 160,000 animals today.

That’s simply an astounding recovery. And other species, like deer and antelope, are at or near all-time highs as well.

The restoration of Montana wildlife is due to a number of factors, but the predominant reason is the efforts of Montana landowners. A great deal of the credit goes to private property owners for changing management practices and improving habitat.  

Continue reading

Vilifying, suing Montana ranchers no way to improve access

cowboy-646639_1280

“Respect for private property is essential to Montana’s outdoor way of life …”

So says a report published by Montana Wildlife Federation and its affiliate, Public Land and Water Access Association.

Montanans would be better served if MWF and PLWA actually demonstrated some respect for private property rights, rather than paying lip service to it while agitating for the confiscation of thousands of acres of private land every year through questionable political and judicial means.

Continue reading