Non resident Landowner incentive.

[cgasner1]

Great point. Argue over a typo. God help your clients if you are a lawyer hahahahah.

Let me see if i get your position. The 454 program sucks. But its no problem that 635 expands and abuses it. Lmfao

He isn’t a lawyer but the last one he got into an argument with on here they took it to the pm. Big world little trade carnage is legit and knows a thing or two maybe worth having a conversation

 

[Forkyfinder]

He isn’t a lawyer but the last one he got into an argument with on here they took it to the pm. Big world little trade carnage is legit and knows a thing or two maybe worth having a conversation

Perhaps.

Id rather the whole conversation be here. Make me an idiot and show me all the benefits we got - i think itd be a really important and relevant conversation. Surely the "proof" of all the goods out there. And if not - maybe some folks could support the repeal. So far - ive not seen much for benefits of it. And thats relevant for helena and the rest of the world to see. Prove me wrong.

Or call me stupid cause i cant prove something thats incentive based. Or call me ignorant cause i typed a number wrong. I guess thats a real convincing argument.

 

[cgasner1]

Perhaps.

Id rather the whole conversation be here. Make me an idiot and show me all the benefits we got - i think itd be a really important and relevant conversation. Surely the "proof" of all the goods out there. And if not - maybe some folks could support the repeal. So far - ive not seen much for benefits of it. And thats relevant for helena and the rest of the world to see. Prove me wrong.

Or call me stupid cause i cant prove something thats incentive based. Or call me ignorant cause i typed a number wrong. I guess thats a real convincing argument.

Sometime none of us wanna see the forest thru the trees. I haven’t been paying much attention to this but it looks like you showed up looking for a fight and not a discussion

 

[Gerald Martin]

At this point is the conversation about 454 or 635? Or both or what? I can’t track which argument is against what anymore.

I think I’ve been fairly clear about why I support 635. For the record, I don’t like the 454 agreements and haven’t supported them, nor do I think I would support them in current form. I think the 454 agreements were intended to be a quid pro quo situation and I don’t think the public is receiving an equal share in the exchange.

As I understand it, the relevant piece of legislation being considered is 635. We can agree to disagree about its merits but it’s currently law. Since the current debate is about whether or not to repeal it, shouldn’t the burden of logic be on why we should repeal it? Otherwise, it’s just a continuation of “I like it. I hate it.” opinion.
I’ve stated my opinion of it. It’s my opinion. I don’t feel the need to further explain or justify why my opinion has merit. We’re coming at this issue from a different point of perspective.

It is my opinion that cooperative agreements have yielded tangible results as an outcome of shifts in attitudes and cooperation. That might not be able to be measurable in a way that convinces someone of a different opinion that my opinion is the correct one. It is however, my current opinion based on personal experience and is part of what informs my support for 635.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Looking at 454 agreements, and 635, seperately is a logical fallacy. If you feel that 454 agreements are abused - and 635 will lead to more of it - you cant consider them independently - just like you consider existing law when passing new. Dont you consider the lumber you frame when youre buying screws, @Gerald Martin ? By the way - outside of the revenue claim - you mentioned i had compelling points. Can you refute them?

Ive made the arguments for repealing it - they arent a lot different than why it shouldnt have passed. Except that now we have documentation to count the dividends of our hope. Heres it summarized:

1. Incentivizes the seizure of working ranches for recreational play grounds.
2. Expands the (ab)use of the 454 program. Recall - this used to be a compelling argument for 635.
3. Provides no public benefit - the only access granted has been a ripoff. And this didnt increase a single unit objective number.
4. Reduces the quantity of high value LE permits (for NR, but that should matter to more of you given they foot the bill for the dept).


Looking forward to hearing the compelling reasons we shouldnt repeal it.

 

[bigsky2]

3. Provides no public benefit - the only access granted has been a ripoff. And this didnt increase a single unit objective number.

I’m not trying to get into this argument, but what do you mean in reference to unit objectives? I don’t remember that ever being a part of the conversation around the 454’s or 635, but I certainly could be wrong.

 

[Gerald Martin]

1. Incentivizes the seizure of working ranches for recreational playgrounds.

Seizure? For real? Please tell me this is hyperbole and not your actual belief.

Who gets to decide what are the appropriate reasons for property sales?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Seizure? For real? Please tell me this is hyperbole and not your actual belief.

Who gets to decide what are the appropriate reasons for property sales?

I should have said that it provides plenty of incentive for working ranches to become recreational properties. That wouldnt be disputable and would have been language that couldnt be construed as misrepresenting.

So yeah - i do see what you are saying. The use of the word seizure is a bit hyperbolic. So you know - the reason i used it - practical market conditions of recreational ranches are forcing high estate taxes on adjacent working ranches that they'll never afford. And if they cant use a conservation easement to devalue the property - options are quite limited, unless youre rich. Hope you see what i am getting at.

Otherwise, id love to change your mind and help me push to get it repealed or further amended.

So far - the only really convincing thing ive heard - to get my mind changed - is that it isnt a big deal because its not used much. To that id say its already getting used 2x as much as the hunt roster and its barely 1 legislative session old.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m not trying to get into this argument, but what do you mean in reference to unit objectives? I don’t remember that ever being a part of the conversation around the 454’s or 635, but I certainly could be wrong.

It wasnt.

I guess what im getting at is if X "public resource" is provided to the land owner - for their contribution to it - shouldnt we be asking for more elk tolerance (increased objective numbers) - especially if that elk lives a lot on public land.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I should have said that it provides plenty of incentive for working ranches to become recreational properties. That wouldnt be disputable and would have been language that couldnt be construed as misrepresenting.

So yeah - i do see what you are saying. The use of the word seizure is a bit hyperbolic. So you know - the reason i used it - practical market conditions of recreational ranches are forcing high estate taxes on adjacent working ranches that they'll never afford. And if they cant use a conservation easement to devalue the property - options are quite limited, unless youre rich. Hope you see what i am getting at.

Fair point. One thing to add to the conversation is that around here, subdivision and development are the biggest drivers of property tax increases. I would far rather large properties (even ones that I will never access) stay in large blocks for recreation than be developed for housing. (Even though my profession is construction.)

Maybe someone who knows how agricultural properties tax rates are fixed can weigh in with accurate information but I thought tax rates for agricultural properties were set by the anticipated ability of the land’s productivity rather than by the value of property around it like residential properties are assessed?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Fair point. One thing to add to the conversation is that around here, subdivision and development are the biggest drivers of property tax increases. I would far rather large properties (even ones that I will never access) stay in large blocks for recreation than be developed for housing. (Even though my profession is construction.)

Maybe someone who knows how agricultural properties tax rates are fixed can weigh in with accurate information but I thought tax rates for agricultural properties were set by the anticipated ability of the land’s productivity rather than by the value of property around it like residential properties are assessed?

You are correct about prop tax. That wont change - whether its moslty an elk hunters lottery wish or a real agriculture operation. The laws on the books make it pretty simple.... if you have 160 acres and do much ag business at all - you qualify for getting taxed on what you could produce not your properties value.

Im talking about the estate tax - when the ranch is passed on in lieu of being sold. Thats what those "conservation easements" really do - save someone from estate tax. As i understand - it can be really hard to prove recreational value for those.

P.s. another big driver of land getting subdivided there is a neat trick called "family transfer" but thats one i abused myself.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It wasnt.

I guess what im getting at is if X "public resource" is provided to the land owner - for their contribution to it - shouldnt we be asking for more elk tolerance (increased objective numbers) - especially if that elk lives a lot on public land.

Don’t you think this is going to be the practical reality even if it isn’t specifically asked for? Recreational/Amenity properties have already shown a significant increase in social tolerance for wildlife over what we’ve historically seen from working ranchers. Especially those working ranches who have felt like they didn’t have recourse when there has been significant financial loss due to wildlife.

In fact some of the most intense conflicts are the result of some recreational landowners whose tolerance for wildlife and access policies negatively affect the working ranches around them. I don’t see how repealing 635 is going to help bridge those relational gaps.

If anything, I think repealing 635 will serve to convey to NR landowners they are not viewed as part of the community and will not be viewed with consideration for their interests and will decrease their incentive to consider the interests and needs of their neighbors, both landowners and MT resident sportsman.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Don’t you think this is going to be the practical reality even if it isn’t specifically asked for? Recreational/Amenity properties have already shown a significant increase in social tolerance for wildlife over what we’ve historically seen from working ranchers. Especially those working ranches who have felt like they didn’t have recourse when there has been significant financial loss due to wildlife.

In fact some of the most intense conflicts are the result of some recreational landowners whose tolerance for wildlife and access policies negatively affect the working ranches around them. I don’t see how repealing 635 is going to help bridge those relational gaps.

If anything, I think repealing 635 will serve to convey to NR landowners they are not viewed as part of the community and will not be viewed with consideration for their interests and will decrease their incentive to consider the interests and needs of their neighbors, both landowners and MT resident sportsman.

Can you show me the objective increases, if its true in a practical sense?

Repealing 635 wouldnt bridge the gap between working ranches and recreational ranches, youre correct. How does it bridge it in the first place? It makes working ranches worth more and harder to hold on to, i think you agreed to that.

It really does come down to neighbors and associated businesses. How much of that is our problem to solve and how much is solvable im not sure. If the liquor store and strip club ard adjacent - im sure their locations are of mutual benefit. If the weed shop and church are adjacent - im sure the locations are a source of conflict. Sounds like something a zoning board should handle not a legislature.

Putting out more advantages to be a NR recreational ranch owner is hardly a bridge to me - it would seem additive to the existing issues.

 

[Gerald Martin]

You are correct about prop tax. That wont change - whether its moslty an elk hunters lottery wish or a real agriculture operation. The laws on the books make it pretty simple.... if you have 160 acres and do much ag business at all - you qualify for getting taxed on what you could produce not your properties value.

Im talking about the estate tax - when the ranch is passed on in lieu of being sold. Thats what those "conservation easements" really do - save someone from estate tax. As i understand - it can be really hard to prove recreational value for those.

P.s. another big driver of land getting subdivided there is a neat trick called "family transfer" but thats one i abused myself.

If estate tax is what’s forcing ranchers to sell the family ranch to a recreational property owner wouldn’t changing estate tax laws be the legislation to pass?

Land use has been changing ever since humans used the land. It’s inevitable that some properties become more valuable on the open market than the value the land can produce. When that happens, the type of ownership that the free market determines will change. That doesn’t mean that the land is necessarily taken out of production, only that value is no longer solely determined by production.

Montana and the value of her land has long been influenced by more than the value of commodity her land produces. Love it, hate it, or accept it, it’s the way it is. I don’t necessarily understand it but I am under her spell as well. It’s what keeps me here and it’s what brings others who are of financial standing to buy property I will never be able to afford to own, to experience their own Montana.

No one is going to stop it but we do have the ability to influence their connection to the land and the wildlife we own but lives on their land. We protect what we love. We love what we can experience. My support for 635 comes mainly from a strategic belief that if NR landowners are allowed to experience and interact personally with the wildlife on the land they own they are more likely to protect the same thing I love. Call it unreasonable, call it lack of integrity or call it whatever, it’s my perspective.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think the last time any “objectives” have been changed was @ 2005 with the last Elk Management Plan . I could be wrong.

Tolerance for elk and acceptance of larger herd size is not a function of “objective”. It a function of local attitudes. IMO, “ objective” is meaningless in determining local populations. True “objective” is determined by the access provided by landowners when we’re talking about units where the majority of elk reside on private land.

 

[Forkyfinder]

My support for 635 comes mainly from a strategic belief that if NR landowners are allowed to experience and interact personally with the wildlife on the land they own they are more likely to protect the same thing I love. Call it unreasonable, call it lack of integrity or call it whatever, it’s my perspective.

Werent you picking on me for having faith that incentives would have effects earlier?

I can respect this position. At the very least - its not something that can be argued, because its not based on results or data. Ultimately - its faith based - so theres not something that can convince you.

As to estate tax, im not too sure. Thats a very hard question to answer, and would have things that are wholly unrelated to wildlife that i wouldnt want to influence.

 

[mtmuley]

Elk hunting has sunk to new lows. mtmuley

 

[Schaaf]

I think the last time any “objectives” have been changed was @ 2005 with the last Elk Management Plan . I could be wrong.

Tolerance for elk and acceptance of larger herd size is not a function of “objective”. It a function of local attitudes. IMO, “ objective” is meaningless in determining local populations. True “objective” is determined by the access provided by landowners when we’re talking about units where the majority of elk reside on private land.

Objectives were updated last year with the newest EMP.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Objectives were updated last year with the newest EMP.

I guess I missed that or forgot. There’s a lot to keep track of….

 

[bigsky2]

It wasnt.

I guess what im getting at is if X "public resource" is provided to the land owner - for their contribution to it - shouldnt we be asking for more elk tolerance (increased objective numbers) - especially if that elk lives a lot on public land.

I can’t speak for the whole state, but in central MT the population objectives definitely went up. Take 411 for example, where there’s lots of big money recreational properties, the herd was like 800% over objective. After the objectives were increased in the new EMP, the population is now within the objective range. Raising the objectives had nothing to do with 454 agreements though.