Comment in Support of FWP Proposed CE in Central MT

[Big Fin]

You have until July 28 to comment on the Hannah Conservation Lease. This is not an easement. An easement transfers an interest in a property right. It is a 99-year lease.

Here is the email to comment, per this page on the FWP website.

Email to this address - [email protected]

There are documents in the preceding posts that give all the details. You can also view them on the FWP comment page linked above.

The Director of FWP says the 99-year lease is not a certainty, if enough comments are received. Not sure if that is true, given the resistance at the State Land Board and the Governor's hesitancy to fight the few anti-easement folks on the Land Board.

Given there are legislators who want to bring bills next session to cap the term of conservation easements for anyone, even private parties, I hope we make a big showing on this easement. This is the first effort to try BS us that this is an easement and that somehow this term-certain concept is the best path forward. Why we would pay 95+% of actual purchase price for a lease, when we could have it forever for a small amount more, is hard to understand.

Most reports are that the landowners wanted to have a perpetual easement, but FWP in Helena decided not to offer such. Amazing that the landowner has hung in there through is foolishness. Kudos to them for doing so.

I'm not big on asking favors, but if you live in Montana, I'd ask that you send in a comment. If you do, I hope you'd consider stating that "a perpetual easement is your preferred alternative, for both the landowner and the citizens of Montana.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I attended and there were a few people in attendence - many who commented on the 99 year agreement.

My key takeaways:

The landowners have a strong desire to have this perpetual and came to fwp that way.

Fwp has never done this before - all previous conservation easements are perpetual.

No satisfactory explanation was provided when a member of the public sought an explanation for the change to 99 year.

Those 3 things should be of immediate concern to anyone hunting and fishing, or owning property, in Montana. The private property rights of these people matter. The future of these CEs going forward - what if all of them are termed? Comparitively that is an awful return on the investment. What if 50 years is now desirable than 99? And lastly - the cowards in the state government (the land board?) who are hiding behind manipulating this to a 99 year lease via fwp rather than just having the testicular fortitude to vote no on it (because they dont like perpetual easements?) at the landboard is grade A steamy smelly bullshit. If the landboard is going to piss on their constituents - at least have the courage to do it in the daylight.

FWP employees stood there and took a beating from people who gave a shit. If they can do that - all the readers of this can go demand an answer for the same basic question i couldnt get answered via email or in person:

If the landowner wanted this perpetual, and the public is obviously better off with it that way - why was it changed and why does that serve the interests of Montanans?

Personally - ive seen how fwp cant answer the root of my question. They seem like they arent quite able to say. In addition to providing public comment - id ask you to also email the gov, director, and land board and ask them why someone in between FWP employees and them is hamstringing private land owners rights and public benefits.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

 

[Jnasa]

I wrote in supporting the access. I did not realize the possibility of a perpetual term. I will write back in expressing this.

I'm a non resident but still happy to comment

 

[Rack Daniels]

Done. Short simple and to the point.
Thanks for the link

 

[Forkyfinder]

When the lease comes up, our kids and grandkids will be facing a much greater bill to keep that land open than we would pay today.

The vast majority of animals that get harvested come off public land that has been conserved for at least 100 years.

I dont think there would be enough land left (let alone habitat) to support a significant amount of hunting and a lot less recreation if Roosevelt was afraid of doing anything in perpetuity and instead did 99 year leases.

Please comment.

 

[YukonGold]

I attended and there were a few people in attendence - many who commented on the 99 year agreement.

My key takeaways:

The landowners have a strong desire to have this perpetual and came to fwp that way.

Fwp has never done this before - all previous conservation easements are perpetual.

No satisfactory explanation was provided when a member of the public sought an explanation for the change to 99 year.

Those 3 things should be of immediate concern to anyone hunting and fishing, or owning property, in Montana. The private property rights of these people matter. The future of these CEs going forward - what if all of them are termed? Comparitively that is an awful return on the investment. What if 50 years is now desirable than 99? And lastly - the cowards in the state government (the land board?) who are hiding behind manipulating this to a 99 year lease via fwp rather than just having the testicular fortitude to vote no on it (because they dont like perpetual easements?) at the landboard is grade A steamy smelly bullshit. If the landboard is going to piss on their constituents - at least have the courage to do it in the daylight.

FWP employees stood there and took a beating from people who gave a shit. If they can do that - all the readers of this can go demand an answer for the same basic question i couldnt get answered via email or in person:

If the landowner wanted this perpetual, and the public is obviously better off with it that way - why was it changed and why does that serve the interests of Montanans?

Personally - ive seen how fwp cant answer the root of my question. They seem like they arent quite able to say. In addition to providing public comment - id ask you to also email the gov, director, and land board and ask them why someone in between FWP employees and them is hamstringing private land owners rights and public benefits.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

I guarantee you the local biologist also wanted a perpetual easement. It's FWP higher-ups reading the land board (mainly Knudsen) and knowing they won't get that support for perpetual easements. I completely agree that the pressure needs to be put on FWP but my reading of the situation is FWP is trying to get the biggest bang for their buck possible without crossing the line over what the land board will just categorically vote no on out of principle. I still don't fully understand why our elected officials are so against perpetual CEs, unless it's that they're in the pocket of developers (most likely) or they are secretly (or not so secretly) anti-public access.

 

[INMT]

Done. Thanks for posting.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I completely agree that the pressure needs to be put on FWP but my reading of the situation is FWP is trying to get the biggest bang for their buck possible without crossing the line over what the land board will just categorically vote no on out of principle.

You are likely correct. Of course - id like to see it go through as perpetual. But i also see value in them voting no on it - that would be a surefire way for the public to see how they feel.

Instead - they (not sure who?) got to browbeat public sector employees into changing the easement into a glorified lease. And then will champion the agreement as a public access win. The baseline assumption (which is false) for anyone reading about it would be that the landowner wanted a 99 year lease and theyd get to sell a lie that they did something for the public. A good story - but one of half truth at best.

The precident of termed lease conservation easements isnt good. The allowance of closed door manipulation of things like this is worse.

 

[bigsky2]

Props to @Forkyfinder for making the drive and making some good points/asking some hard questions. This would be an invaluable piece of access and I’m always blown away and disappointed at how few local sportsmen show up to these kinds of meetings.

 

[bigsky2]

Corrected DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Hannah Ranch Term Conservation Easement (FWP-SEA-WLD-R4-26-02) | Montana FWP

Corrected DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Hannah Ranch Term Conservation Easement (FWP-SEA-WLD-R4-26-02)

fwp.mt.gov

Looks like the access would be permanent even if the CE isn't. Please comment again.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Corrected DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Hannah Ranch Term Conservation Easement (FWP-SEA-WLD-R4-26-02) | Montana FWP

Corrected DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Hannah Ranch Term Conservation Easement (FWP-SEA-WLD-R4-26-02)

fwp.mt.gov

Looks like the access would be permanent even if the CE isn't. Please comment again.

This is good - but i hope folks are commenting again that a perpetual easement is legally allowed and most importantly what the landowners prefer.

 

[Jnasa]

I sent in additional comments.

 

[Irrelevant]

Done.

I might have mentioned that Gov needs to find his balls and start acting like a leader, and stop sucking off the land board...

 

[Forkyfinder]

Done.

I might have mentioned that Gov needs to find his balls and start acting like a leader, and stop sucking off the land board...

He was actually the only voice of reason..... Or perhaps that was just the part in the play that was acted.

A couple mcs puppets, the stockgrowers association, and everyone else on the landboard wanted to change the policy (to benefit landowners with corner locked pieces) without even the required 30 public comment period.

My correspondence will be that him fellating special interests at the expense of public resources isnt going unnoticed.

 

[Dakotakid]

Are there any legal beagles that can answer if the CE is 99 years does it somehow claim an exclusive lease or can one of the non profit land trusts purchase the remaining rights for perpetuity? A layered CE?

 

[bigsky2]

Are there any legal beagles that can answer if the CE is 99 years does it somehow claim an exclusive lease or can one of the non profit land trusts purchase the remaining rights for perpetuity? A layered CE?

At the public meeting they said that it could be layered with another CE.

 

[WanderWoman]

At the public meeting they said that it could be layered with another CE.

Yes, another trust can come in and purchase or be donated a perpetual CE effective at 99 years. This would ensure the real long-term conservation, but at the end of the day, if FWP purchases this as-is (95% for 99 years) that precedent is set. There are valid concerns within the land trust community that this precedent will not be a good thing for perpetual CEs going forward. If FWP does not purchase the 99-year, then the opportunity to conserve/access this would most likely be gone. Those seem to be the two choices.

My feeling is that even with extreme public pressure to make this perpetual, FWP already greased the skids for 99 years and that likely won’t change. The project will happen or it won’t. Not fair to the landowners, not fair to those whose license $$ fund Habitat MT, not fair to future generations, not fair to my grandkids (assuming I have any) that will be alive when this term project ends and would have to pay much more in the future to maintain this as open space, assuming the owners at that time want to continue.

My feelings are torn on this; a large part of me wants FWP to do right by these landowners no matter what (they’ve been strung along long enough) and for something to be done (99 years is better than nought). The other part of me is deeply concerned about the long-term implications for the best form of private land conservation we have.

At the end of the day, this is on Montana’s elected leaders (and thus, Montanans) who have put so many roadblocks up against these projects while claiming to support MT landowners, property rights, saving the cowboy, etc., and on FWP, who let this go so long (started two directors ago), then chose that instead of taking a risk, doing hard things, and being bold (which all conservation work inherently entails), they chose something easier to get some semblance of something done for the interim.

In my perfect world, the Land board would get visited by three ghosts in December and if this project makes it that far, well..

 

[Forkyfinder]

At the public meeting they said that it could be layered with another CE.

@Big Fin - if the officials at the landboard wish to make this their solution going forward (seemingly likely) - would RMEF be interested in making buying out the rest of these? @brocksw or NAPF?

My understanding is that those perpetual CEs dont need apporval from inept bureaucrats land board?

 

[WanderWoman]

@Big Fin - if the officials at the landboard wish to make this their solution going forward (seemingly likely) - would RMEF be interested in making buying out the rest of these? @brocksw or NAPF?

My understanding is that those perpetual CEs dont need apporval from inept bureaucrats land board?

Land Board only has a say in land projects with state funds; any other entity can do without the land board. Additionally, as long as no more that $1M state funds are used (including purchase price, appraisal costs, due diligence) then projects with state money can proceed without land board approval. For FWP CEs, it would only take commission. (See Stafford Ferry CE.)

For Hannah, if other entities stepped in or FWP were to use PR, as long as $1M threshold was not exceeded, it could technically also proceed without land board. But, I think a massive fundraising effort is out of the question at this point and PR funds are being designated elsewhere (like habitat leases).