Stafford Ferry CE

So they are paying the land owner a sum of money to allow people to access the BLM through his land? The BLM goes to the road there anyway so what does this gain anyone?
 
So they are paying the land owner a sum of money to allow people to access the BLM through his land? The BLM goes to the road there anyway so what does this gain anyone?
Have you ever been there or really anywhere in the Breaks before? Just because a road touches the same BLM lands a few miles away doesn't mean that it is practical or even possible to traverse the canyons to get to the other area. The spots I have glassed from using this property could possibly be reached from other access points when it is completely dry, but it would take a long time and involve some very treacherous terrain. Still not sure its actually possible.

I am also guessing you also did not actually read the proposal since it is pretty clearly laid out that hunting will be allowed on the property as well, not just access across it.
 
Have you ever been there or really anywhere in the Breaks before? Just because a road touches the same BLM lands a few miles away doesn't mean that it is practical or even possible to traverse the canyons to get to the other area. The spots I have glassed from using this property could possibly be reached from other access points when it is completely dry, but it would take a long time and involve some very treacherous terrain. Still not sure its actually possible.

I am also guessing you also did not actually read the proposal since it is pretty clearly laid out that hunting will be allowed on the property as well, not just access across it.

Good grief man just asking a question.

And Yes I've spent time in the breaks before. I would argue that ease of access is one of the major factors in killing the hunting in this state. Maybe not practical or possible if you're 350 lbs and/or don't like leaving the pickup, but absolutely possible for people that are willing to exert some effort.
 
Good grief man just asking a question.

And Yes I've spent time in the breaks before. I would argue that ease of access is one of the major factors in killing the hunting in this state. Maybe not practical or possible if you're 350 lbs and/or don't like leaving the pickup, but absolutely possible for people that are willing to exert some effort.
Uhh...so was I?

Completely agree that ease of access is an issue in Montana. I actually wrote in being against the proposed new road in the Bulwhacker area.

The eastern part of the breaks are significantly easier to get around in than the upper breaks where this conservation easement is located. I know you don't know me, but I'm certainly not a road hunter or 350lbs. I don't care how great of shape you are in, some of these canyons are absolutely not possible to ascend, descend, or cross. I know from personal experience. I have spent a TON of time hunting, hiking, floating and working in this area.
 
Some pics from a sheep capture, test, and relocate project we did awhile back. Some of these sheep were caught on this property and adjacent to it.
IMG_0043.jpg

IMG_0056.jpg

Frozen Missouri River
IMG_0050.jpg

Not sure why, but all my pics from the helicopter that day turned out blurry.
IMG_0049.jpg

Winifred
DSC00232.jpg

 
So they are paying the land owner a sum of money to allow people to access the BLM through his land? The BLM goes to the road there anyway so what does this gain anyone?
Conservation Easements also limit subdivision and development, and include grazing restrictions such as no domestic sheep. I need to research the finer details to confirm what is included and what is restricted.
 
Conservation Easements also limit subdivision and development, and include grazing restrictions such as no domestic sheep. I need to research the finer details to confirm what is included and what is restricted.
Another tangible plus for CEs that doesn’t get stated enough is that they allow for traditional agricultural operations to continue in perpetuity. Some who are against CEs view them as a threat to ag, when in fact the opposite is true. These CE deeds are clearly written to support traditional operations—cattle grazing and farming (only on existing tilled ground). Terms in the deed specifically preclude tilling up any more native vegetation but allow ranchers and farmers to continue farming/haying where it already occurs. From the documents related to this particular CE, it is entirely native vegetation so no sodbusting will be permitted, but the deed speaks to keeping private land in ag. This is important with this next part.

FWP CEs in particular, with the recreation/hunting access component, mean that combined with the subdivision/development rights, the encumbrances on the property result in a “devaluation,” generally 40-50% of appraised value. Because FWP holds certain “access” rights, it makes it unlikely that a recreational buyer would come along and purchase the land. The landowner has already been paid for certain rights to the land but then they’re able to sell (if they choose) the other rights (ownership, ag) at a reduced cost and it’s more likely that a traditional producer could actually afford to buy. In my mind this is a win-win because it helps keep traditional and/or young ranching families on the landscape. Particularly for larger CEs.

There have been other examples of FWP CEs where the landowner sold a CE to FWP and then the rest to a neighbor. This allowed the OG landowner to get the full value for his land, and a traditional operator, who may have otherwise never been able to expand/keep his business viable, purchase the land at essentially 1/2-off. The CE is forever protected as open-space, has perpetual hunting/rec access for the public, and grazing standards ensure that the land won’t be over-utilized.

When you compare this to the other model, say some wealthy individual purchasing a ranch, using ag as a tax write-off and then making their little recreational playground, that land will probably never go back into an actual farmer’s or rancher’s hands. If it sells to anyone, it’s likely another wealthy individual or a developer which in the latter case the open space and habitat would be gone forever.

As someone who would love to, but knows they will never, ever afford land in MT, I am very appreciative of the habitat that private landowners provide wildlife and even moreso of those that share their good stewardship with the rest of us. So to me, the CE model and especially the CE model with public access is long-term, win-win.

And no one is forcing these landowners to sell CEs. They are entirely voluntary arrangements between two willing parties. Doesn’t get better than that IMO.
 
Uhh...so was I?

Completely agree that ease of access is an issue in Montana. I actually wrote in being against the proposed new road in the Bulwhacker area.

The eastern part of the breaks are significantly easier to get around in than the upper breaks where this conservation easement is located. I know you don't know me, but I'm certainly not a road hunter or 350lbs. I don't care how great of shape you are in, some of these canyons are absolutely not possible to ascend, descend, or cross. I know from personal experience. I have spent a TON of time hunting, hiking, floating and working in this area.
Boy howdy you're right about impossible some of these lands are impossible to ascend, descend, cross etc. My wife had a permit in there this last fall and we often found ourselves in places impossible to negotiate!

Add this CE if it goes thru (which I'm sure it will) to the one that's already in existence and they've a large piece of land under CE in some wonderful country!
 
Another tangible plus for CEs that doesn’t get stated enough is that they allow for traditional agricultural operations to continue in perpetuity. Some who are against CEs view them as a threat to ag, when in fact the opposite is true. These CE deeds are clearly written to support traditional operations—cattle grazing and farming (only on existing tilled ground). Terms in the deed specifically preclude tilling up any more native vegetation but allow ranchers and farmers to continue farming/haying where it already occurs. From the documents related to this particular CE, it is entirely native vegetation so no sodbusting will be permitted, but the deed speaks to keeping private land in ag. This is important with this next part.

FWP CEs in particular, with the recreation/hunting access component, mean that combined with the subdivision/development rights, the encumbrances on the property result in a “devaluation,” generally 40-50% of appraised value. Because FWP holds certain “access” rights, it makes it unlikely that a recreational buyer would come along and purchase the land. The landowner has already been paid for certain rights to the land but then they’re able to sell (if they choose) the other rights (ownership, ag) at a reduced cost and it’s more likely that a traditional producer could actually afford to buy. In my mind this is a win-win because it helps keep traditional and/or young ranching families on the landscape. Particularly for larger CEs.

There have been other examples of FWP CEs where the landowner sold a CE to FWP and then the rest to a neighbor. This allowed the OG landowner to get the full value for his land, and a traditional operator, who may have otherwise never been able to expand/keep his business viable, purchase the land at essentially 1/2-off. The CE is forever protected as open-space, has perpetual hunting/rec access for the public, and grazing standards ensure that the land won’t be over-utilized.

When you compare this to the other model, say some wealthy individual purchasing a ranch, using ag as a tax write-off and then making their little recreational playground, that land will probably never go back into an actual farmer’s or rancher’s hands. If it sells to anyone, it’s likely another wealthy individual or a developer which in the latter case the open space and habitat would be gone forever.

As someone who would love to, but knows they will never, ever afford land in MT, I am very appreciative of the habitat that private landowners provide wildlife and even moreso of those that share their good stewardship with the rest of us. So to me, the CE model and especially the CE model with public access is long-term, win-win.

And no one is forcing these landowners to sell CEs. They are entirely voluntary arrangements between two willing parties. Doesn’t get better than that IMO.
Well stated.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,984
Messages
1,942,443
Members
34,947
Latest member
SCCWP
Back
Top