American prairie. What's the issue?

[antlerradar]

and I did mean it as a question for @antlerradar maybe there are?

I think @mtmuley has had some issue on being able to hunt APR were he wanted.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's an interesting question.

I suspect that even though both for-profit and non-profit corporations are corporate entities organized under state laws for the purposes of pooling capital for a stated purpose, and both are subject to the same rules and regulations, we would all agree that one type, for-profit, is more accepted in a country where a profit motive is given a lot less scrutiny and critique than the one with a non-profit motive. That is a reality of our time.

A critical look of the two entity types show they are almost identical from a formation, pooling of capital, and governance perspective. And, the tax treatment of the two on for-profit activities are the same, with non-profit groups taxed at the highest corporate rates for any profits they make in a business endeavor. Most don't know that non-profits pay a tax on their business profits, normally called Unrelated Business Income (UBI) Tax.

Some say, "But, contributions to a non-profit organization are tax deductible." Yes, so long as there are no strings attached and you give up complete control of the amount contributed, that amount is tax deductible, subject to annual limits based on your adjusted gross income.

Contributions of capital to a for-profit corporation are also deductible, once you give up complete control of the asset by selling your interest or declaring it worthless. You get to deduct that contribution of capital to a for profit corporation when you sell it, not subject to any limits and with no regard to your adjusted gross income. It is merely a timing difference of when you get to deduct your capital contribution.

So, outside of the timing of when you can claim a deduction for your contribution of capital, the deductibility of your contribution of capital to a for-profit entity is treated much more favorably in the tax code than is your contribution of capital to a non-profit organization.

A bit of a tangent, I know, but I hear people say that "pooling of billionaire" money gives a non-profit corporation an advantage over others. Yes, an advantage over non-corporate buyers who don't pool capital resources, but no more advantage than what is provided when billionaires pool capital in for-profit corporations. And, for-profit corporations operating as active farms and ranches get a huge benefit under the tax code compared to for-profit corporations not meeting the rules of active farm or ranch activity.

So, to agree with your post quoted above and in alignment with my prior post about the billionaires buying ranches, there is no difference between billionaires pooling capital in non-profit corporations and billionaires pooling capital in for-profit corporations. Anyone claiming so does not understand corporate law, formation, governance, or taxation.

Further leading me to think this is less about concern for the startup rancher/farmer, a legitimate worry, more about dislike for one of the smaller buyers, APR.

Follow up question:

If landowner A then gets a 40 year lease relative to what is being proposed in MT, WY and in Congress, rather than a perpetual easement, does lead to a significant double dipping in revenues relative to cap gains and taxation? I just don't see how moving to 40 year easements is a good use of taxpayer or license dollars compared to permanent CE's.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I think @mtmuley has had some issue on being able to hunt APR were he wanted.

But that’s the kicker that I can’t wrap my head around…how many of us get to dictate, to any private landowner, where on their property we should be able to hunt? That’s not how permission works anywhere, or at least anywhere I’ve ever hunted.

But maybe I’m missing something?

 

[Gerald Martin]

But that’s the kicker that I can’t wrap my head around…how many of us get to dictate, to any private landowner, where on their property we should be able to hunt? That’s not how permission works anywhere, or at least anywhere I’ve ever hunted.

But maybe I’m missing something?

And, how many of us who grant someone a privilege to use our property give everyone who asks the same privilege every time?

 

[DFS]

But that’s the kicker that I can’t wrap my head around…how many of us get to dictate, to any private landowner, where on their property we should be able to hunt? That’s not how permission works anywhere, or at least anywhere I’ve ever hunted.

But maybe I’m missing something?

Agreed. And once that land is gone it’s gone forever. I would like to see it kept in working families. Forgive me for saying this why is the Mormon church swooping up land in southeast Montana? Seems like if there is that much excess it could be used in better places. I get everyone’s vision for land that is still wild and untouched, hell I want that. A quick look at the board of directors of apr and I would be surprised if they have Montanans best interest in mind. I’m sure I will get blasted for saying this. I hope the landowners that still have land in the area hold on strong.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Agreed. And once that land is gone it’s gone forever. I would like to see it kept in working families. Forgive me for saying this why is the Mormon church swooping up land in southeast Montana? Seems like if there is that much excess it could be used in better places. I get everyone’s vision for land that is still wild and untouched, hell I want that. A quick look at the board of directors of apr and I would be surprised if they have Montanans best interest in mind. I’m sure I will get blasted for saying this. I hope the landowners that still have land in the area hold on strong.

You won't get blasted, as many of the directors are proven wealthy business leaders with the type of savvy and influence to make such a visionary conservation project so successful.
However, deep rooted Montanan directors are Will Price, APR founder and co-managing partner, with Montana family history going back to the 1850's and Clyde Aspevig, well known landscape artist, who grew up on the family farm in Rudyard and has remained a staunch Montanan his entire life.

 

[mtmuley]

But that’s the kicker that I can’t wrap my head around…how many of us get to dictate, to any private landowner, where on their property we should be able to hunt? That’s not how permission works anywhere, or at least anywhere I’ve ever hunted.

But maybe I’m missing something?

I may be wrong, but I feel like access to hunt APR will become more restricted with less access as time goes on. My opinion, nothing more. And that is obviously their right. As far as the conservation aspect of what their mission is, great. Be interesting to revisit this in 5 to 10 years. And yes, I was denied access in the only areas I inquired about. mtmuley

 

[Straight Arrow]

I may be wrong, but I feel like access to hunt APR will become more restricted with less access as time goes on. My opinion, nothing more. And that is obviously their right. As far as the conservation aspect of what their mission is, great. Be interesting to revisit this in 5 to 10 years. And yes, I was denied access in the only areas I inquired about. mtmuley

'Feel for ya. But the many years of access to explore the trophy elk and deer densely populated Climbing Arrow (CA) Ranch and to shoot a cow elk has been erased by the $136 million purchase of the ranch. The multi generational cattle business and life of the cowboy on that spread is reportedly erased also by the removal of the cattle and now apparently the exclusive recreational use of the ranch by an elite few ... without the transparency, public scrutiny and public access as seen with the APR. IMO, the changes of the CA Ranch are much more adverse to the legacy of Montana. The vision, practices, and future of the APR looks darn good to this multi generational Montanan!

 

[rogerthat]

I may be wrong, but I feel like access to hunt APR will become more restricted with less access as time goes on. My opinion, nothing more. And that is obviously their right. As far as the conservation aspect of what their mission is, great. Be interesting to revisit this in 5 to 10 years. And yes, I was denied access in the only areas I inquired about. mtmuley

I agree with your opinion as well. The APR is playing the long game on this. As the APR continues to purchase ranches, they will begin to have more political clout in the area regarding the management of the federal lands as well.(Change of use to bison grazing on a couple BLM allotments is just the beginning. They will be going for the next 200,000 acres of BLM contained in their original proposal next) What this will look like in 10, 20, 50 years is anyone's guess. Again just my opinion(yes put on tinfoil hat), but one possible scenario that I see likely, the federal protections for the monument(maybe all federal lands as they increase connectivity on these ranches) to continue to ratchet up maybe even eventually becoming a national park or preserve if the APR and (by than) vast legion of supportors want this. As tourism ratchets up in this area and you get millions of lookie lou's coming to see the restored bison, elk, grizzlies, and wolves that now have names, do you think hunting will be something that can be sustained? I think people are in denial if they don't think this is within the realm of possible scenario that could play out. For some this probably sounds awesome. As with anything, there are pros and cons to increased access, tourism, etc. Case in point. The yurts. Who would have ever thought some might travel to NE Mt to stay in a yurt? But that's a thing now.

I find it fascinating that the nobility running the APR have even convinced some of the peasants to contribute their hard earned money to their vision. From the outside looking in it doesn't appear the APR is in need of money. The only thing holding them back is willing sellers of private ranches. I agree, change is inevitable but that doesn't mean I have to support it, so I won't. To me this just doesn't sound that much different than the "preserve" the Wilks have built that everyone on here hates.

 

[406dn]

To me this just doesn't sound that much different than the "preserve" the Wilks have built that everyone on here hates.

So... how much public access do the Wilks brothers provide for big game hunting? Much chance it will improve, while they own it?

If you can't see a difference, you aren't trying very hard.

 

[rogerthat]

So... how much public access do the Wilks brothers provide for big game hunting? Much chance it will improve, while they own it?

If you can't see a difference, you aren't trying very hard.

454 program and Hank at the helm - buckle up it's going to get wild.

In all seriousness, that is a fair point but current access is short term pro. In the long term do we really know? That was my point. They are both private land. That could change at any moment right?

 

[406dn]

454 program and Hank at the helm - buckle up it's going to get wild.

In all seriousness, that is a fair point but current access is short term pro. In the long term do we really know? That was my point. They are both private land. That could change at any moment right?

There is plenty of BLM land sprinkled in the APR, I do not see how they can change the hunting on that, if it can be legally accessed presently.

Do we know anything for the long term?

It could just as easily, maybe more easily play out that hunting continues on the APR. I don't see what is in it for them to create a political enemy that they don't need to.

 

[rogerthat]

There is plenty of BLM land sprinkled in the APR, I do not see how they can change the hunting on that, if it can be legally accessed presently.

Do we know anything for the long term?

It could just as easily, maybe more easily play out that hunting continues on the APR. I don't see what is in it for them to create a political enemy that they don't need to.

You are 100% correct. The APR could never change that. It is congress that would need to change that. The APR itself is too smart. It says right on their website they are not against hunting. That definitely is not my point. Look up the New River National Park and preserve. That would be more like how this plays out. The sportsman their are still hammering away and maintaining their right to hunt but it is a fight.

 

[FI460]

"BLM approves controversial bison grazing plan for American Prairie | State & Regional | billingsgazette.com" https://billingsgazette.com/news/st...cle_7a15f4f1-1285-5a2e-a83a-2e59fcbdf80f.html


I'm a Utard, so this isn't in my immediate wheelhouse.

Cliff notes version of why this is controversial to cattle ranchers?

So 18 pages now and we've settled on speculation over where APR could go in the future might not benefit hunters.

I've never been real interested in the speculation on APRs future. At least not anymore than speculating on the future of any other piece of private property.

I think they're doing some interesting work trying to create connectivity and prairie preservation.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You are 100% correct. The APR could never change that. It is congress that would need to change that. The APR itself is too smart. It says right on their website they are not against hunting. That definitely is not my point. Look up the New River National Park and preserve. That would be more like how this plays out. The sportsman their are still hammering away and maintaining their right to hunt but it is a fight.

Good article... definitely a complex case.

“A large part of the gorge was owned by land-holding companies: old coal companies, old coal families, that type of thing,” Wilson says. “And local people hunted—technically we all trespassed—on these properties. But once the river was made a National River [in 1978], the National Park Service started acquiring some of these lands, and they allowed hunting on it. So, for the first time we could legally hunt, even though we’d done it for decades.”

......

But because some of the Gorge’s approximately 70,000 acres were designated as national park, some public land was closed to hunting—something many local hunters objected to and still disagree with on principle. Those closed lands are distributed in a few different spots, including around visitor centers, parking lots, and historic mining towns, as well as the largest, steepest chunk in the lower section of the gorge.

“We believe intentions are good, but we are opposed to the loss of over 4,000 acres of public hunting land,” Ed McMinn, past president of the West Virginia Bowhunters Association, said at one of the hearings in February 2020, according to MetroNews.

Our Newest National Park Allows Hunting? How Locals Fought for the New River Gorge’s Sporting Traditions, and Tourism

The New River Gorge National Park and Preserve allows hunting in most of the public lands that make up the new park. Here's how that happened.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[406dn]

You are 100% correct. The APR could never change that. It is congress that would need to change that. The APR itself is too smart. It says right on their website they are not against hunting. That definitely is not my point. Look up the New River National Park and preserve. That would be more like how this plays out. The sportsman their are still hammering away and maintaining their right to hunt but it is a fight.

That would be quite a leap to go from a mixture of BLM land and former private ranching land to National Park/Preserve status.

Why would APR just cede title just to make it so? It would also be a $hitshow if they wanted to sell it to Uncle Sam for that purpose.

Sadly, the range land in the great plains marginally supports successful human economic activity. No one has mandated that people need to leave the area. They have been self selecting for many reasons, for many years to leave. Nothing will change that.

You asked earlier about long term. Here is a prediction. In twenty years time, the human population in that general area will decline, with or without the APR.

 

[rogerthat]

You asked earlier about long term. Here is a prediction. In twenty years time, the human population in that general area will decline, with or without the APR.

I assume you mean residents? What about tourism? Bold prediction with the current fleeing from the cities. I hope to be here in 20 so I hope to see and I hope you are right.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Why would APR just cede title just to make it so? It would also be a $hitshow if they wanted to sell it to Uncle Sam for that purpose.

Then they wouldn't need to continue to "pay" for it... taxes, loans, maintenance etc. It's much easier for a private organization to do the leg world to build a massive consolidated position, would be almost impossible for the feds. It would require an act of congress, but that doesn't seem like that big a stretch.

I skeptical that's the direction APR is going.

 

[Dirthog67]

I agree with your opinion as well. The APR is playing the long game on this. As the APR continues to purchase ranches, they will begin to have more political clout in the area regarding the management of the federal lands as well.(Change of use to bison grazing on a couple BLM allotments is just the beginning. They will be going for the next 200,000 acres of BLM contained in their original proposal next) What this will look like in 10, 20, 50 years is anyone's guess. Again just my opinion(yes put on tinfoil hat), but one possible scenario that I see likely, the federal protections for the monument(maybe all federal lands as they increase connectivity on these ranches) to continue to ratchet up maybe even eventually becoming a national park or preserve if the APR and (by than) vast legion of supportors want this. As tourism ratchets up in this area and you get millions of lookie lou's coming to see the restored bison, elk, grizzlies, and wolves that now have names, do you think hunting will be something that can be sustained? I think people are in denial if they don't think this is within the realm of possible scenario that could play out. For some this probably sounds awesome. As with anything, there are pros and cons to increased access, tourism, etc. Case in point. The yurts. Who would have ever thought some might travel to NE Mt to stay in a yurt? But that's a thing now.

I find it fascinating that the nobility running the APR have even convinced some of the peasants to contribute their hard earned money to their vision. From the outside looking in it doesn't appear the APR is in need of money. The only thing holding them back is willing sellers of private ranches. I agree, change is inevitable but that doesn't mean I have to support it, so I won't. To me this just doesn't sound that much different than the "preserve" the Wilks have built that everyone on here hates.

Ohh God! Please! No! Not preserving land, restoring wildlife and letting people look at it! Please! God, no! Don't let it happen! It's going to ruin everything for all of us!

 

[rogerthat]

Ohh God! Please! No! Not preserving land, restoring wildlife and letting people look at it! Please! God, no! Don't let it happen! It's going to ruin everything for all of us!

Despite what everyone on here tells you, many traditional ranchers have done this for years too. They just don't have a fancy website with a mission statement and a billionaire infested board. Carry on with your romantic fantasyland idea of preserving the land and restoring the wildlife(bison are livestock in Montana FYI)