Today the
Billings Gazette publishes an editorial blasting Conrad Burns for his lack of support for public access. This news wasn't
new to me, though, as I had read about it
back in July
Everyone's Anyone-who-has-some-cash-to-spare-for-a-Senator best friend, Conrad Burns, has latched a clause into an appropriation bill that exempts a private property owner, Rancher Mac White of Two Dot, Montana, from providing public access through his property as part of gaining access to his own private lands through USFS lands. See, Mr. White's property doesn't have access and he needs to ask permission of the landowner - in this case the United States Forest Service - to gain access.
Trouble is, public policy, written in code, requires the USFS to ensure public access to its lands when it's appropriate.
36 CFR 251.114 ensures that.
And the feds have to play the same game as private owners have to for access. They can't just `condemn' for it - they've got to negotiate and purchase it just like everyone else. Private owners love to hold out in this dance of public interest. In most cases, private owners are on the outskirts of public land, and the only way to get there is through the private land...but the private owner has a much easier route - he only has to go through private lands, and in most cases, a county road. In Mr. White's case, he and his neighbors hold control to over 317,000 acres of public land.
Now Mr. White wants access to another parcel of his land. Most likely he's had access through his lease of public lands - but now he's got to `perfect' it by obtaining an official document from the feds (called an easement). And the likely reason is that he either has a buyer lined up, or is planning to subdivide some of that very valuable Montana land. Sure would help to be able to market it and say "private access bordered on all sides by public lands", right? Wonder what that will sell for?
Now we come to the Special Interest part of the equation. So Conrad "Special Interest" Burns doesn't support public interest, huh? This should come as a bit of surprise to the gun-toting, quad-running, I-hunt-and-love-NASCAR voting block who just love Conrad Burns. I mean, after all, shouldn't he support public access to public lands?
But apparently not when it comes to protecting the special interests of donors to his campaign. Surprising how much influence a mere $1,300 will get you (or maybe not when you're talking about Conrad Burns, right?) Just see for yourself, here, here, and here.
Denny Rehberg, candidate for the 2006 Montana House seat, also holds Mr. White's special interests close to his heart. As the Billings Gazette points out, Rehberg has also written some letters on behalf of Mr. White. But apparently, Rehberg's vote comes cheaper - in this case, only $500 suffices.
Smile and say "cheese" Conrad and Denny. Who loves ya?
Support two of ActBlue's finest: Monica Lindeen, House candidate, and Jon Tester, Senate candidate.
An added note here: I must give credit to where credit is due. Matt Singer over at Left in the West put this into perspective for me today. I had read the July article, and filed it away as typical Conrad - not considering it from the perspective of the behavior of a Republican candidate for the Senate. I guess that's why Matt's got a blog and I don't, right?