Senator John Brenden and Block Management

[RobG]

I wrote 36 people through the healthcare.gov website and put out fires for people who had their plans dropped.

It has become a daily grind to get through the day.

Crap, I had all but forgotten that this morning I spent 20 minutes navigating through automated BCBS on the phone this morning only to suddenly get a terse "we are having technical difficulties, call back later" message and then having them disconnect. I feel for the agents right now.

 

[bigskyblueman]

I see no harm in land owners benefitting from two separate sources of income which enhance wildlife and hunting . Pushing the funding levels of any program downward is one way opponents of said program use to kill it.

 

[Eric Albus]

I spoke w/ John about this. All he wants is to hold FWP accountable. The CE's that would be affected are FWP CE's that are then enrolled into BM, effectively "double dipping"....other CE's that are not FWP would not be affected. He also told me that there would be a provision that if the original owner and signer of a CE were to sell the property that a new owner should be able to enroll into BM if they so desire.

....some of you must be in top physical condition with all the jumping to conclusions that you do.

 

[tjones]

I spoke w/ John about this. All he wants is to hold FWP accountable.

.

Of course that's all he was looking to do. Sheesh

 

[Eric Albus]

You think it is alright that FWP pays $$ for an easement, and then enrolls the property into BM? Perhaps limiting funds and acres for additional BM lands?

 

[tjones]

I have seen Brenden in action for a long, long time . It's not hard to figure what he is all about.

 

[Eric Albus]

So, do tell....what is he "all about"?

 

[Ben Lamb]

If we were to judge Senator Brenden by his bills, then we could say that he's against public land, wants to exterminate bison, wants to limit the constitutional rights of landowners and doesn't want FWP to transplant bighorns anywhere in the state.

Thanks for checking in with him Eric. Sounds like he might be on the right track with this one.

 

[howler]

I have talked to Brenden many times and have went to great lengths to explain different issues to him, especially bowhunting issues, When talking with him he always likes to be in charge and always counter points your advice. He knows very little about the bowhunting issues but MOGA has his ear big time. If you can make a dime off wildlife in his mind. it is worth persueing I was a bit miffed at the Block money going to landowners who have FWP conservation easements but have since learned a bit about it. the Block money is not only about access but impacts to the land by the hunters themselves. so when considering that I see a situation where both could coexist.

 

[Jwill]

I spoke w/ John about this. All he wants is to hold FWP accountable. The CE's that would be affected are FWP CE's that are then enrolled into BM, effectively "double dipping"....other CE's that are not FWP would not be affected. He also told me that there would be a provision that if the original owner and signer of a CE were to sell the property that a new owner should be able to enroll into BM if they so desire.

....some of you must be in top physical condition with all the jumping to conclusions that you do.

I thought the terms of of a CE held in perpetuity, regardless of ownership? Do the FWP ones expire with transfer?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I thought the terms of of a CE held in perpetuity, regardless of ownership? Do the FWP ones expire with transfer?

They are in perpetuity.

 

[Eric Albus]

Not all CE's are in perpetuity. Some have an ending date on them(not sure on FWP, but will guess that there are easements w/ sunsets on them). The ones that are signed "in perpetuity" are sold subject to the CE, in this instance Brenden would like to make an allowance for the new owner of a property sold w/ an easement in perpetuity, allowing them so sign up for BM(block managment, not bowel movement)....the easement will always be in place on said property.
Befuddles me as to why anyone would sell the soul of the property w/ an easement of "in perpetuity". An easement in most cases de-values property significantly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Not all CE's are in perpetuity. Some have an ending date on them.

Interesting. I've heard of them but have no knowledge of CE's in MT being temporary. The tax benefit would have to be significantly less than a CE issued in perpetuity.

Any in MT that you are aware of Eric?

 

[1_pointer]

Interesting. I've heard of them but have no knowledge of CE's in MT being temporary. The tax benefit would have to be significantly less than a CE issued in perpetuity.

Any in MT that you are aware of Eric?

Though I realize they are not through the FWP, but many of the the easement programs offered by NRCS have the option of a permanent easement or a 30 year easement. I don't see how this would not apply to MT as they are national programs. FWIW...

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/

 

[Big Fin]

Interesting. I've heard of them but have no knowledge of CE's in MT being temporary. The tax benefit would have to be significantly less than a CE issued in perpetuity.

Any easement that is not in perpetuity will not qualify for any tax benefts. Term certain easements do not meet the conditions of a "Qualified Conservation Easement" for purposes of income and estate tax deductions. Thus, you seldom see such easements, unless they are purchased easements where the cash purchase price is enough to entice the landowner, more so than what the tax benefits may have been.

Term-certain easements, which are most often purchased easements, are usually not conservation-based in nature, rather access-related, or property rights needed/granted for defined term.

I agree with the intent of what Senator Brenden is trying to do in order to prevent the double dipping. If he has not done so already, I would suggest he engage some people who are knowledgeable about the vast array of "easements" that exists, so to avoid including/excluding some property owners from the legislation.

I suspect it could be very easy to write, so long as the Kerry White-type legislators of Montana don't use the bill as another attempt to make conservation easements subject to local or state approval, as he did last session.

The bill should be so specific as to pertain only to easements held by FWP. If you look at a map, most private property south of Ennis, MT is under conservation easement. A place where we are trying to help landowners with the impacts of wintering elk. Most those properties are under easements and casting too big of a blanket would hamper efforts to help those landowners.

But, given the personal agenda some in the legislature have against property owners who want to enter into conservation easements, the risk of this turning out to be something more than what is intended, is very high. I find it ironic that the legislators most often supported and endorsed by the Montana Tea Party, those who claim to be property rights advocates and supposed Libertarians, are the ones who are always trying to restrict what landowners can do with their property rights, such as a conservation easement.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Though I realize they are not through the FWP, but many of the the easement programs offered by NRCS have the option of a permanent easement or a 30 year easement. I don't see how this would not apply to MT as they are national programs. FWIW...

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/

Cool. Good to know. Thanks for the info.

Randy,

That was my understanding as well. None of us can say for certainty how the session will play out. We can only go by our past experiences with the same people who will be back again. Senator Brenden has not been an ally on much of anything, but I still think we need to be willing to put down the long knives and collaborate with anyone who is willing to engage.

However, I think Steve brings up a valuable and often over-looked point: Block Management is not an access payment program. It is a program that is designed to help offset the costs associated with allowing access. That's currently how they structure their payment system and by viewing Block Management through that lens, we see a different point of view on allowing landowners to enroll in Block Management while having an easement with FWP. That view needs to be front and center in any decision making process or collaborative effort that plays out during the interim, during the session or at councils like Private Lands/Public Wildlife or else we'll end up in the same place as where we were in 2013 and the HB's designed to raid Habitat Montana.

 

[Big Fin]

Cool. Good to know. Thanks for the info.

However, I think Steve brings up a valuable and often over-looked point: Block Management is not an access payment program. It is a program that is designed to help offset the costs associated with allowing access. That's currently how they structure their payment system and by viewing Block Management through that lens, we see a different point of view on allowing landowners to enroll in Block Management while having an easement with FWP.

Steve is correct that Block Management charter or mission, or whatever you want to call their marching orders, does specify that it is to pay for the impacts of public hunting. Not saying I agree that it should only look at that aspect, but Steve is correct.

The flip side of that, FWP pays a huge premium for the hunting access component of their easements and that premium is reflective of the fact that that landowner is not going to give up that hunting access and all the impacts that come with it, without being properly compensated. So, they have already been paid for this hunting impact as part of how the easement was valued.

Example:

Landowner property is appraised to be worth $4million. By selling/donating their development rights, the property is appraised to be worth $3million. Based on those appraisals, the landowner would either sell the development rights for $1million, or donate them and get a tax deduction of $1million.

Now, same landowner decideds they will sell the hunting access rights (a separate right that is part of their real property rights). The appraisal now comes in at $2.4million due to the impairment to their property for having some sort of public access and public hunting. By statutue, FWP is not allowed to pay anymore than $600K for the hunting access rights, as that is what they are valued at.

So, FWP pays $600K for these access rights. The landowner is happy, as he/she/they are compensated market value for the dimunition of their property value due to the public hunting access rights being accounted for in that value. So, the price they are paid is truly a value that is the result of hunting access, pretty much the same as Block Management. In the case of the FWP easement, they are just paid up front and the right lasts in perpetuity, rather than a one-year contract.

Given that, I feel that it is a "double dip" to pay landowners to be in BM, when they have already sold that hunting access property right and been compensated for the dimunition of property values as a result of the public hunting access that comes with that right.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy,

I tend to agree with you, but want to be sure that point is covered well as things progress on this and other issues like PLPW, etc. I think you'll find that a number of folks who have been working on this issue for decades will no doubt show up and remind everyone of that point (impact payments, not access payments).

 

[RobG]

But, given the personal agenda some in the legislature have against property owners who want to enter into conservation easements, the risk of this turning out to be something more than what is intended, is very high.

That's the way I see it, and the legislators are always trying to gain more control of MFWP at the expense of wildlife. Idaho was especially bad for this. I'm not sure how big a deal this "double dipping" is - depending on the circumstances it could be legit even though it sounds bad, but some folks will never pass an opportunity to cast MFWP in a bad light.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

I tend to agree with you, but want to be sure that point is covered well as things progress on this and other issues like PLPW, etc. I think you'll find that a number of folks who have been working on this issue for decades will no doubt show up and remind everyone of that point (impact payments, not access payments).

Understood, but they need to not just look at the BM side of things. When you look at the easement side, it already accounts for impacts by the manner in which the purchase value is derived.

On the topic of impacts versus access, I think it is time to get over the semantics of that. We can call it what we want and I remember when some protested strongly about the use of any context to the word "access."

Well, we promote it as a public access program. Every hunter talks about it as an access program. Landowners look at it as an access program.

And, in other states, they are proud to call it an access program and in doing so, they are able to direct dollars that provide the greatest access to the best properties, at the least cost. In Idaho, to even get considered for Access Yes, you almost always have to be adjacent to other public lands that can be accessed for the fee that you will get paid.

That seems like a good way to leverage dollars. Yet, I am sure if that change occurs, there will be some who still fight against anything that has the context of "access" and want to keep it as "impacts."

There are no "impacts" if there is no "access." We all agree on that. As such, it leads me to the conclusion that the impact is really from the access, so let's call it an access program, understanding that access is what derives the value, and then give additional priority to those properties that can provide access to some of the 900,000 acres of landlocked public lands.

In reading Director Hagner's reply to the Legislative Audit Committee, he stated the program was about impacts, not access. That is a pretty hollow argument in the discussion of today. In couching it that way, it almost came across as denying the issue or deflecting the problem.