73 ranch sold

[rogerthat]

Do we need to hunt every acre of conserved land?

Yes

 

[BuckRut]

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.

 

[TheTone]

One other key point I am going to make and than I need to move on to crafting my comments for 22-23 to fwp is the escalation in property values.

APR had an indirect impact on why the 73 ranch deal with RMEF and BLM fell through. The property owner had a number in mind (based on APR’s offers and past purchases) but unfortunately during the appraisal process because APR is a non-profit those numbers couldn’t be considered into the appraisal resulting in a low appraisal and effectively killing the deal. So there you have it, even the federal government can’t compete with APR for these ranches. I reiterate I would have much rather seen it as BLM land. Private is private even if it has a mission statement, a fancy website, and a large staff.

But every single owner that has sold to apr could have said no or taken a different offer.

 

[Straight Arrow]

As far as National parks go, they draw in people like stink draws in flies so they aren’t really my cup of tea either. I’m glad we have a few so that all the otc’s have a place to flock but for me they are a place to avoid similar to downtown Billings. I would rather APR not try for a national park as I suspect the fed lands would get designated with them.

obviously you have never hiked in national parks. The pavement draws the tourists in great numbers, but that is an extremely small area of a national park.
We hiked Yellowstone's Thorofare in August, when for four days we saw no other people. We hiked the Bechler region of Yellowstone, meeting merely a few others during five days. We hiked into the north end of Glacier from Canada and saw relatively few other people. Those trips were on established trails. Most of the parks' lands are devoid of people trails.
You are completely ignoring the vast areas of pristine wild country which constitutes some of the largest tracts of wildlife habitat in the world ... and is visited by very few, if any, people throughout even the most heavily experienced tourist seasons.

BTW, the APR as a "national park" is just another conspiracy theory based on untruth and ignorance of the stated mission and goals of the APR. Again, get real. Avoid the NE Montana "bar talk" and nurture opinion based on only factual information.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Back to my original point, use tax exempt money to buy a large amount of property, the taxpayers should not be denied access. If you what to have control on how the property is used don't use nonprofit status or tax exempt money to buy the property.

I don't completely disagree. However, using similar logic, I think any ranch or farm should provide public access if it receives agriculture based subsidies funded by tax dollars.

 

[antlerradar]

One other key point I am going to make and than I need to move on to crafting my comments for 22-23 to fwp is the escalation in property values.

APR had an indirect impact on why the 73 ranch deal with RMEF and BLM fell through. The property owner had a number in mind (based on APR’s offers and past purchases) but unfortunately during the appraisal process because APR is a non-profit those numbers couldn’t be considered into the appraisal resulting in a low appraisal and effectively killing the deal. So there you have it, even the federal government can’t compete with APR for these ranches. I reiterate I would have much rather seen it as BLM land. Private is private even if it has a mission statement, a fancy website, and a large staff.

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

 

[Slam]

APR had an indirect impact on why the 73 ranch deal with RMEF and BLM fell through. The property owner had a number in mind (based on APR’s offers and past purchases) but unfortunately during the appraisal process because APR is a non-profit those numbers couldn’t be considered into the appraisal resulting in a low appraisal and effectively killing the deal

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

 

[antlerradar]

I don't completely disagree. However, using similar logic, I think any ranch or farm should provide public access if it receives agriculture based subsidies funded by tax dollars.

Can not disagree with that. Would be nice to see commodity prices less effected by subsidies.

 

[rogerthat]

I don't completely disagree. However, using similar logic, I think any ranch or farm should provide public access if it receives agriculture based subsidies funded by tax dollars.

I could 100% get behind this proposal. See Shoots I bet we agree on more things than you think.

 

[MNElkNut]

If anyone is concerned with APR not allowing hunting in the future, it may make sense to get involved with them and get yourself on the Board of Directors. What they are in 30-50 years from now will be shaped by people probably not even there right now.

 

[BuckRut]

If anyone is concerned with APR not allowing hunting in the future, it may make sense to get involved with them and get yourself on the Board of Directors. What they are in 30-50 years from now will be shaped by people probably not even there right now.

And once they have enough land it will be people with way more money than you or I have in control of that board.

 

[BrentD]

I don't completely disagree. However, using similar logic, I think any ranch or farm should provide public access if it receives agriculture based subsidies funded by tax dollars.

You know some such ag subsidies do (did?) require public access for hunting. There was such a property near my parent's home in Wisconsin and the landowner hated that he was required to allow hunters on it. It was a pine grove planted (in the 30s?) with federal dollars on private property with the stipulation that hunting would be allowed. This was part of some larger program (CCC?) and I believe the hunting rights were transitive to subsequent owners. Some guys researched all of this and found the tracts that they could hunt this way.

 

[Straight Arrow]

And once they have enough land it will be people with way more money than you or I have in control of that board.

Yeah ... and they're probably alot smarter than you and I. The upside is that they likely will employ that wealth and mental acuity in implementation of programs to benefit wildlife habitat, in accordance with the APR plan.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You know some such ag subsidies do (did?) require public access for hunting. There was such a property near my parent's home in Wisconsin and the landowner hated that he was required to allow hunters on it. It was a pine grove planted (in the 30s?) with federal dollars on private property with the stipulation that hunting would be allowed. This was part of some larger program (CCC?) and I believe the hunting rights were transitive to subsequent owners. Some guys researched all of this and found the tracts that they could hunt this way.

Please point me to one with viable elk hunting opportunity. There's a finders fee for you if you do.

 

[SAJ-99]

I am ok with those or even APR buying property to build a church, a hospital or a headquarters. A little more iffy on something like Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch, but could be persuaded it is a good idea. A religious group like the Mormons buying up big ranches, not one bit. To me nonprofit should be when income is equal to expenses, pay your fair share of taxes on the rest. Using nonprofit status to accumulate a large amount of assets is not what a nonprofit should be doing in my opinion.

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.

 

[rogerthat]

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

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

 

[BuckRut]

Yeah ... and they're probably alot smarter than you and I. The upside is that they likely will employ that wealth and mental acuity in implementation of programs to benefit wildlife habitat, in accordance with the APR plan.

Not likely. It might not be the first to get in there but as soon as someone of the same caliber as the Wilks brothers manages to weasel their way in that will be the end of it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Not likely. It might not be the first to get in there but as soon as someone of the same caliber as the Wilks brothers manages to weasel their way in that will be the end of it.

More boogey man bar talk.

 

[BuckRut]

More boogey man bar talk.

If you think they won't try you're a fool. And the more people who think that the notion of multiple groups looking trying to take this over for themselves isn't likely the easier it will be for them to sneak in. I'm not saying any of the current people in control want this but you can bet those people are already working on plans to get themselves or their pawns in positions of power on the board of directors.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If you think they won't try you're a fool.

'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.