Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana

[Gerald Martin]

I don’t recall reading anything about corner crossing in hunting regs until a few years ago.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Would it benefit MT residents to swap sections 20,29 parts of 21 and 28 with equal acreage from sections 22 and 27?

This is just a random example I pulled from OnXand have no actual experience with this particular property or these sections.

But at face value I’d support that swap especially if the landowner is willing to pay the cost of getting the appraisal and paperwork done to present it before the Land Board. Just as long as the lands exchanged or consolidated are of equal and greater value and increase public access rather than reduce it.

Every piece of ground and potential swap is going to be unique and whether it’s a good deal for MT residents is going to be dependent on the particulars of each deal.

 

[huntinwithmyboy]

As a BHA member, I very much appreciate all this organization does to preserve & improve our public access!!

 

[Forkyfinder]

View attachment 408708

Would it benefit MT residents to swap sections 20,29 parts of 21 and 28 with equal acreage from sections 22 and 27?

This is just a random example I pulled from OnXand have no actual experience with this particular property or these sections.

But at face value I’d support that swap especially if the landowner is willing to pay the cost of getting the appraisal and paperwork done to present it before the Land Board. Just as long as the lands exchanged or consolidated are of equal and greater value and increase public access rather than reduce it.

Every piece of ground and potential swap is going to be unique and whether it’s a good deal for MT residents is going to be dependent on the particulars of each deal.

How useful of you gerald. Maybe you missed some of the updates associated with the change? Laughably - this applies to the piece you appear to think this helps.

"One section of the policy, for example, specifies that while trust land should generally “be valued for its highest and best use,” considerations will be made for “limiting factors.” It instructs the DNRC to apply a “commercially reasonable discount” for state lands lacking a documented legal access — e.g., land that is in the checkerboard. "

With limited public involvement, Montana Land Board overhauls land-swap process

Landowner-hired consultants can broker deals with the state under State Auditor James Brown’s proposal.

montanafreepress.org

Awful quiet about the great things this does from the folks pushing it. The montana stockgrowers association and taylor luther group are great company to keep - long history of advocating for access.

 

[Rack Daniels]

View attachment 408708

Would it benefit MT residents to swap sections 20,29 parts of 21 and 28 with equal acreage from sections 22 and 27?
/QUOTE]

No
I like that timbered spot. Not that baron side

 

[Gerald Martin]

"One section of the policy, for example, specifies that while trust land should generally “be valued for its highest and best use,” considerations will be made for “limiting factors.” It instructs the DNRC to apply a “commercially reasonable discount” for state lands lacking a documented legal access — e.g., land that is in the checkerboard. "

Actually I did miss that update that instructs DNRC to discount state lands lacking documented legal access. I don’t support that at all. Thanks for pointing out that specific language.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I said it in post 58 too. It’s obvious what they’re doing.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Actually I did miss that update that instructs DNRC to discount state lands lacking documented legal access. I don’t support that at all. Thanks for pointing out that specific language.

Yes. Its absolute garbage - and at the very least - i hope that any land swaps could get tabled until the lawsuit is done. Thanks for acknowleding that reality.

The commercial value of those properties is 0 currently for recreation access. I suppose the AUM annual payment is the only value there - at most a few thousand a year on a section. That in a long term annuity turned into a present value is pennies on the dollar of what that land is worth.

Id prefer it stay state land that I dont even access than give it away.

Edit: And i dont blame you for missing it - thats why everyone except folks like mcs (who apparently worked with the gov, according to bens testimony on it in a back room) and the stockgrowers association said this should wait at least 30 days for public comment. Kevin Farons testimony pointed out that the public didnt even gave access to a clean non-redlined copy and the only one they got they requested.

When things are sloppily thrown together, rushed, done in the back room, and then ram rodded through in 7 days you often cant get informed. Perhaps thats the point?

 

[rogerthat]

Yes. Its absolute garbage - and at the very least - i hope that any land swaps could get tabled until the lawsuit is done. Thanks for acknowleding that reality.

The commercial value of those properties is 0 currently for recreation access. I suppose the AUM annual payment is the only value there - at most a few thousand a year on a section. That in a long term annuity turned into a present value is pennies on the dollar of what that land is worth.

Id prefer it stay state land that I dont even access than give it away.

Wonder if anyone has any knowledge/past experience with what the discount is for inaccessible land. I remember a really long time ago some inaccessible state sections being offered to the lessee at about 25% of fmv of similar accessible private lands. But I also have been told I have early onset dementia so who knows if my memory is even close to accurate

 

[Rack Daniels]

I received the same bogus letter today. They have chose their position, now to we just need to hold them accountable and keep the receipts.

Keep the receipts of ALL those in favor. Not just the big names it’s easy to despise….

 

[Forkyfinder]

Keep the receipts of ALL those in favor. Not just the big names it’s easy to despise….

Be a good thread to bump during the upcoming legislative session - lots of "compromise/progress" being sold from folks looking to get their pockets lined being a professional liar and manipulator - and im sure there will be more to come.

In case anyone wasnt aware - this was all part of the plan.

 

[cgasner1]

Be a good thread to bump during the upcoming legislative session - lots of "compromise/progress" being sold from folks looking to get their pockets lined being a professional liar and manipulator - and im sure there will be more to come.

In case anyone wasnt aware - this was all part of the plan.

View attachment 408799

I’m curious do you just have the raging hard on for Ben? Or are you ok with all the other organizations that also have lobbyists such as Kevin Farron?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Or are you ok with all the other organizations that also have lobbyists such as Kevin Farron?

Im okay with any org that advocates for real public access.

Are you okay with devaluing "currently inaccessible corner locked" lands?

Perhaps you are putting faith in a familar name and not thinking for yourself.

 

[Nameless Range]

Something I think about is, in a very real way, swaps are much safer than land banking. Monies derived from the sale of Trust Lands must go into the land banking fund with the aim of purchasing other lands that are commensurate based on numerous criteria (access, trust revenue generation, etc.), but something folks don't think about is that if the money from the sale of a parcel or parcels of State Trust Land is not used within 10 years, that money is gone from the land banking program and goes back to the general fund of the Trust.

Think now of an administration's worth of an unfavorable land board. That's 8 years, and with the required administrative time between sale and purchase, it's wholly plausible that one administration and some anti-government-purchasing-earth land board members could leave a let a lot of possibility rotting in the fridge.

 

[cgasner1]

Im okay with any org that advocates for real public access.

Are you okay with devaluing "currently inaccessible corner locked" lands?

Perhaps you are putting faith in a familar name and not thinking for yourself.

Only thing I’m putting faith in in right now is Killarney to do the right thing next week. But my falls is booked solid already so it’ll be ok either way

 

[bigsky2]

Im okay with any org that advocates for real public access.

Are you okay with devaluing "currently inaccessible corner locked" lands?

Perhaps you are putting faith in a familar name and not thinking for yourself.

Do you have proof that MCS came up with that or are you drawing conclusions?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Do you have proof that MCS came up with that or are you drawing conclusions?

They spoke in support of the policy changes - wouldnt they have mentioned amending that if they didnt? Additionally - ben made it quite clear "they" worked with the govs office in testimony - i cant imagine they are/were unaware of it.

How would you conclude that they didnt have knowledge of it and/or support it?

Lobbyists are no different than any other profession in that they work for who hired them.

 

[bigsky2]

They spoke in support of the policy changes - wouldnt they have mentioned amending that if they didnt? Additionally - ben made it quite clear "they" worked with the govs office in testimony - i cant imagine they are/were unaware of it.

How would you conclude that they didnt have knowledge of it and/or support it?

Lobbyists are no different than any other profession in that they work for who hired them.

I’m not trying to argue, just looking for some facts so I can form my own opinion. I’ll have to watch a recording of the meeting.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I’m not trying to argue, just looking for some facts so I can form my own opinion. I’ll have to watch a recording of the meeting.

This. ^^^^. Having been on the receiving end
of false accusations of motives and effects from some of the same folks who are quick to call out “rich landowners” and “lobbyists” any time there’s a contentious issue being debated I’ma bit more skeptical than I used to be that everyone who is accused of being a bad actor actually is.


If I were in charge of policy I wouldn’t support legislation or policy that lessens the value of state land deemed “inaccessible” when it comes to land swaps. Public ownership is intended to be for perpetuity, private ownership changes all the time and the willingness of future landowners to swap or allow public access could potentially change in favor of the public trust.

However, I would like to know the following questions.

Is this new policy of allowing third party brokers and lowering the valuation of “inaccessible” state land just now being introduced or it it policy that comes out of past legislation that is being highlighted because of today’s political climate?



I am not privy to information that’s supposedly part of the “back room” dealing, so folks saying that things are a certain way are asking me to trust their word as a fair and accurate representation of context and facts. Personally, I prefer to see as much of the facts and documentation as possible rather than trusting the descriptions of others who may or may not have first hand knowledge of what is discussed.

 

[BuzzH]

What I don't get is why there would be a "devaluation" of landlocked state lands? This stinks like an agenda to once again, favor the private landowners while I get to hold the chit end of the stick.

When I worked for TEI, they wanted State lands inholdings (inaccessible) land in the worst way on one ranch. So much so, they traded 2-1 in favor of the State on another ranch that benefited a WMA.

There is NO question that many landowners want those State sections very badly, not sure what the calculation would entail that makes them "less valuable". It's not like the value of grazing on a landlocked piece would be worth any less than a piece accessible for recreation. The only real value recreation wise is the State Lands Use permit, that doesn't increase the price of that permit as we increase accessible state ground.

I also contend that holding those inaccessible pieces is a good idea, since things change all the time in regard to land ownership. What is inaccessible today, may be accessible next year, or in 10 years, or in 20 years for a variety of reasons.

The problem with these land exchanges and disposals, it's just like shooting a rifle, once you pull the trigger, it's over you aren't calling it back.

*This is not to say that land exchanges are all bad. However, anything that devalues State or Federal lands simply because of lack of public access is going to be a tough sell for me.