Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana Land Board tables proposed Lincoln-area shooting range after hours of public comment
Summary
After extended public comment from local club leaders, private citizens and conservation groups, the Land Board voted unanimously to table a proposed Lincoln-area shooting range (agenda item 0626-10) for further information and review.
The Montana Board of Land Commissioners unanimously tabled a proposed shooting range near Lincoln on June 15 after more than an hour of public comment from supporters and opponents.
Governor Greg Gianforte moved to table agenda item 0626-10; Attorney General Austin Knudsen seconded and the motion carried unanimously. DNRC Trust Lands Deputy Administrator Ryan Weiss and DNRC Director Amanda Kaster provided staff overviews and answered questions during board discussion before the motion to table.
The hearing drew multiple speakers representing both the Lincoln Sportsman Club and conservation or nearby‑resident concerns. Supporters who spoke on behalf of the club and local stakeholders included Brian Patzer (President, Lincoln Sportsman Club), Scott Skerlock (Vice President), Bill Yaeger (Treasurer), Brian Jennings (Secretary) and the lessee, Greg Hendrix. Conservation and public‑interest commenters included Kevin Farron of the Montana Wildlife Federation and Jeremy Prather of Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. Numerous private citizens submitted spoken comment and written handouts raising site‑specific concerns.
A written handout submitted to the board opposing the proposal stated in part, “The noise will render the house un-livable,” and also raised concerns about cattle grazing impacts, increased fire danger, lost lease income and lead runoff into the Alice Creek basin. Several commenters cited notification concerns and the potential loss of public hunting access if trust land is used for a permanent shooting range.
Board members discussed the need for additional information on environmental compliance, range siting, lease status and potential mitigation before taking final action. After the public comment and staff responses, the board concluded that more analysis and documentation were required and chose to table the item rather than vote on a lease or approval that day.
What happens next: DNRC will return the item to a future agenda after staff collects additional information requested by the board; the motion to table leaves the proposal open for further review and is not a rejection of the project.
