73 ranch sold

[Deleted member 28227]

and they use tax exempt money to keep those prices high.

So you think owners would have been willing to take less, in an APR-less world.

I guess I’m not sure if I agree, I don’t know the circumstances of the 73 owners but it’s possible they might have just held on to it… also possible a Turner /Wilks esk owner would have purchased it for a similar price. Pretty hard to say what prices with be like without APR.

 

[Irrelevant]

I can't see where anyone, no matter where they come from can't agree that APR ownership is at least better than previous ownership. I will concur that longer term it may not be as good as BLM, but it may also be better. None of us have a crystal ball. Typically the respectable thing to do is believe someone and their stated intentions until they prove otherwise.

However, once they prove they're liars, then by all means, bash away.

 

[BuckRut]

'Makes your argument even less compelling ... but not necessarily false with respect to my personal mental acuity.

Name calling does not support a hypothesis nearly as strongly as examples or factual information of greedy "bad guys" taking over beneficial nonprofits for personal gain. Cite examples; offer factual information.

You mean like MOGA seems to be trying with the FWP.

 

[rogerthat]

Not sure the use matters much to me. Seems like if they built a church it makes you feel better but whatever perceived impact (driving up land cost or whatever) would be the same. I think you are mixing not making a profit with being a non-profit. One is bad business the other is a tax status with the IRS.

Pretty sure anyone could buy the land, treat it as a working ranch and the land cost would be deductible for tax reasons as a business expense. But, you know, not tax advice.

The cost of the land is never tax deductible to my knowledge. The improvements on the land can be depreciated but the land cannot. Interest paid to purchase the land is also deductible but I’m not an accountant either

 

[Straight Arrow]

You mean like MOGA seems to be trying with the FWP.

Apples and watermelons!

 

[BuzzH]

Don't forget at the end of the day what the APR has here is a buffalo ranch not a wildlife sanctuary and they also want the federal grazing laws amended for them so they can graze their livestock on federal lands year round.

Right, the Montana legislature designated bison as livestock in Montana. So what's the issue?

 

[SAJ-99]

I can't see where anyone, no matter where they come from can't agree that APR ownership is at least better than previous ownership. I will concur that longer term it may not be as good as BLM, but it may also be better. None of us have a crystal ball. Typically the respectable thing to do is believe someone and their stated intentions until they prove otherwise.

However, once they prove they're liars, then by all means, bash away.

There were going to be positives and negatives of BLM ownership on that property. BLM grazing leases in that area tend to get abused and the land overgrazed, especially in dry years. The gem of that particular property is the pivot on the north field that abuts the river. I don't know that BLM would be able to operate the pivot on a go-forward bases. I have never known there to be a working pivot on BLM land, but maybe others have. Without the pivot, the land loses value to elk. Maybe APR will keep the pivot going? Finally, BLM is open to all, all the time. That seems great, but it wouldn't take long to push game out. APR is better at controlling access. Some may hate that, but it has benefits.

For some, all they can see is the negative, even creating a hypothetical to help them be negative.

 

[SAJ-99]

The cost of the land is never tax deductible to my knowledge. The improvements on the land can be depreciated but the land cannot. Interest paid to purchase the land is also deductible but I’m not an accountant either

It's complicated. Depends on how the land is classified. Is there a dwelling on the property and such. All defined in the CPA Full Employment Act.

 

[KB_]

I'm actually really bummed 73 sold. I spoke with that landowner this last fall as we ran into eachother. Told me they take wounded veterans out hunting on that ranch for free every week they can. I told him I have some close friends I served with that have combat related injuries and they would love to do this. We exchanged #'s.

Seemed nice enough, but he was sure to point out the property lines lol. He commented on this dude from Washington he keeps having issues with.

 

[BuzzH]

Sure but I am not an appraiser so I will probably butcher this but my understanding is the federal appraisal process has a host of additional rules and regs most of which are based on laws and past court cases.

So obviously comparable sales would be needed to get an appraisal up near the APR price point but the federal rules specifically prohibit use of comps from “transactions with nonmarket motivations” such as “sales to environmental or other public interest organizations”. Essentially the comps needed to get near the APR price point were APR sales and these were disallowed per fed regs. The feds can’t pay over appraisal and hence the deal was dead in the water

Then the feds need to revise their appraisal process. NO landowner is going to lose money or leave money on the table due to antiquated appraisal processes from the Feds. Would you?

APR pays not a penny over appraised value, and have lost out on land purchases where they were simply outbid by private interests.

Educate yourself:

Ep. 148: American Prairie Reserve | MeatEater Podcasts

Bozeman, MT- Steven Rinella talks with Sean Gerrity, the founder of the American Prairie Reserve, along with Ryan Callaghan, Sam Lungren, Michelle Chandler, and Janis Putelis of the MeatEater crew.Subjects discussed: questions about Ryan Callaghan; when ballparkin' goes wrong; Santa Claus as a...

www.themeateater.com

 

[BuckRut]

Apples and watermelons!

You think Patagonia is giving money to BHA because they like hunting and fishing and don't want anything in return?

 

[rogerthat]

Then the feds need to revise their appraisal process.

APR pays not a penny over appraised value, and have lost out on land purchases where they were simply outbid by private interests.

Educate yourself:

Ep. 148: American Prairie Reserve | MeatEater Podcasts

Bozeman, MT- Steven Rinella talks with Sean Gerrity, the founder of the American Prairie Reserve, along with Ryan Callaghan, Sam Lungren, Michelle Chandler, and Janis Putelis of the MeatEater crew.Subjects discussed: questions about Ryan Callaghan; when ballparkin' goes wrong; Santa Claus as a...

www.themeateater.com

I don’t listen to social media influencers like Rinella. You are right about the fed appraisal process.

You can find an appraiser to support any price you want but that’s a whole different topic. When I was a kid some of these lands were selling for $200/acre. Now $2500/acre for prairie land? APR has had a significant impact on land prices in that area wouldn’t you agree? If we can’t agree on that than I think we are probably not going to agree on anything APR related

 

[Schaaf]

You think Patagonia is giving money to BHA because they like hunting and fishing and don't want anything in return?

I went on a weeklong hunt with the #3 in command at Patagonia this November. The guy rocked Patagonia undies, a Kifaru backpack, and a Weatherby rifle- drank some of my (cheap) beer too.

Wish I would have known he was in it for the long haul to get rid of hunting. He was real sneaky and knew how to quarter up animals and even shoot a gun.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t listen to social media influencers like Rinella. You are right about the fed appraisal process.

You can find an appraiser to support any price you want but that’s a whole different topic. When I was a kid some of these lands were selling for $200/acre. Now $2500/acre for prairie land? APR has had a significant impact on land prices in that area wouldn’t you agree? If we can’t agree on that than I think we are probably not going to agree on anything APR related

I don't agree with that.

Blaming APR on increasing land values in Montana is pure BS. Everyone from California to Florida that moves to Montana is impacting land values. Every wealthy landowner that buys their ranch in Montana is impacting land values.

Pull up your pants, your bias is showing.

Even though you might not agree with "influencers", Rinella interviews Sean Gerrity, the APR founder. Lots of information on the APR and specifically hunting on APR.

You've been led to water...

 

[BuzzH]

You think Patagonia is giving money to BHA because they like hunting and fishing and don't want anything in return?

This has what do do with APR? What's next, your most recent bigfoot sighting?

 

[BuckRut]

This has what do do with APR? What's next, your most recent bigfoot sighting?

Straight Arrow is apparently naive to the fact that not everyone in this world is out for good and that people and organizations do in fact seek ways to extort non profit and government organizations meant to do good for their own gains. He asked for examples.

 

[Big Fin]

Could you please expand on this concept of non profit status of a buyer affecting an appraisal?

It has nothing to do with non-profit status. Here is how this deal worked and it is similar to how other land deals work. it focuses on appraisal methodologies and comparable sales that are used.

An appraiser was hired. The BLM has internal folks who must review appraisals, as do all Federal agencies. They require appraisals to be done in a certain way and have a limited geographic scope of what comparable sales are to be considered.

Those who are appraisers know there are many ways to arrive at appraised value. The BLM folks in this instance demanded a methodology and geographic scope that resulted in a lower appraised number. That was below the agreed upon price. Thus, the BLM and RMEF, being tied to that appraisal methodology and the resulting lower price, were stuck with that lower number.

Along comes another buyer, not tied to the BLM process where an internal appraiser could demand use of a lower-value methodology or ignoring comparable sales outside a certain area. The new buyer hires a qualified outside appraiser who uses a better scope of comparable sales and methodology, resulting in a higher appraised value. That value, being within the price the seller was asking for, allows the new non-profit to purchase at the higher price. Since they have an appraisal to support the higher price, the non-profit runs no risk of a "private inurement" issue that is a risk for any non-profit.

It is all about the two different appraisals that came in. Those involved in real estate and large transactions know that if you get four appraisals requested from four different firms, you will get four different numbers due to each using different comparable sales and placing emphasis on different methodologies.

 

[woods89]

I went on a weeklong hunt with the #3 in command at Patagonia this November. The guy rocked Patagonia undies, a Kifaru backpack, and a Weatherby rifle- drank some of my (cheap) beer too.

Wish I would have known he was in it for the long haul to get rid of hunting. He was real sneaky and knew how to quarter up animals and even shoot a gun.

Sounds like a real green decoy.......

 

[BuzzH]

Straight Arrow is apparently naive to the fact that not everyone in this world is out for good and that people and organizations do in fact seek ways to extort non profit and government organizations meant to do good for their own gains. He asked for examples.

APR has not given me any reason to doubt their intentions and the role that hunting plays on their property.

You and others have shown nothing but contempt for an organization that has enrolled 60+K acres of their property to open hunting via BM. They also have given hunters access across their property to formally landlocked public, large blocks of landlocked public lands at that. They allow hunting on nearly all of their property via controlled access. They about give away bison hunting opportunities every year to anyone that applies (no fee to apply).

Their ground is wayyyyy better managed than surrounding private and public lands. They place high value on wildlife and wildlife habitat versus maximizing profit producing livestock. Their employees live in Montana. They employ their own land managers, wildlife biologists, they manage game correctly. They manage the land correctly.

Yet, all they get is a bunch of BS lies and unfounded conjecture from guys like you.

If you can find another group that does things better, allows access across their private ground to public, allows hunting, and manages better...or even comparable, then support that group. I'll support them with you.

But, what I won't do is listen to a bunch of untrue BS and flat out lies being told by a couple knuckleheads on this thread.

The best thing to happen to that part of Montana is the APR, and that's a fact.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Straight Arrow is apparently naive to the fact that not everyone in this world is out for good and that people and organizations do in fact seek ways to extort non profit and government organizations meant to do good for their own gains. He asked for examples.

Naive?!!! Get real! Likely I've been to more real life "rodeos" than you can even imagine.

Your "example" is apples to watermelons. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. The math, reasoning, and logic set education I have experienced is clearly unfamiliar to you, thus we will probably have trouble agreeing on anything, especially if it involves deriving conclusions from factual information structuring logical analysis and forming a conclusion relative to the reality about APR.