L
longbow51
Guest
People sure seem angry around here recently; maybe the heat?
American Prairie Reserve Purchases 14,000 Acre Ranch
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Southern Elk
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Dark Brandon has us all a little pissy.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Malarkey...c'mon man!
Likely the relocation of the Florida presidential library.
R
rwc101
Guest
Back on topic gents.
Here's where the UPOM-APR rub lies with many, including myself. Not so much APR, but the rancor UPOM makes of anyone or any group that might blow the cover off the BS UPOM has been supporting for their billionaire donor class. That is why APR is the target of UPOM and their supporters. Not because APR is doing anything wrong; in fact, putting a lot more cash in the hands of retiring farmers/ranchers than UPOM ever will. And that makes APR a threat to UPOM. So, UPOM has every reason to spread the BS, much of which litters every thread related to APR purchases that open up hunting access.
Folks, such as UPOM and their supporters, proclaim to be property rights advocates. OK, I'd like to believe that. Yet doesn't take too much looking to see that selective nature of their support for property rights, sometimes actual dislike for property rights and the ability for a property owner to maximize the value of their property rights.
Willing buyer-willing seller and use of markets to maximize value is a basic foundation of property rights transactions. UPOM and their supporters, including many of our elected officials, don't support that basic tenet if the willing buyer happens to be a group that accumulates capital as a corporation formed under Montana corporate statutes of non-profit corporations. Not only do they not support this concept, they continually propose legislation to prohibit non-profit corporations from buying/owning property. By removing a class of buyers, or buyers, from the pool, they in effect mess with the market and they reduce the value that a potential seller could get. It sounds like "Save the Cowboy" is being enacted by some sort of subsidy to lower property values of those sellers who have worked their entire lives to build a retirement possibility in the form of their land.
That prohibition on non-profit corporations as buyers, doesn't just impact APR and the potential seller who could realize a much higher sales price. This manipulation of free markets also excludes purchases by RMEF, TNC, TPL, and other groups who have conserved millions of acres of habitat in Montana and across the west, a large part of which gets turned over to state and federal agencies for public access. That fact seems to get lost in the "Save the Cowboy; Eff the cowboy who is retiring" mantra of UPOM and their supporters. Hopefully it doesn't get lost on hunters interested in opening more access.
UPOM and their supporters, along with some elected officials, for years have stated they want to use easements rather than fee title acquisitions to solve access. Now for the UPOM crowd, easements are not good enough. Now, they want to eliminate the use of perpetual easements and go to short term rental agreements.
Why should they eliminate the values to be realized by a property owner who wants to enter into a willing buyer/donor/seller arrangement on a property right? That is a serious infringement on the right of that property owner to do what they damn well please with the land they own.
I know UPOM reads this forum, so maybe they will chime in to tell us how this is "Saving The Cowboy." It ain't saving any cowboys. It's effing them over by eliminating some of the very useful tools and basic market principles to help them stay on the land and put some cash in their pockets.
By enacting this type of UPOM-supported crap on what a property owner can do with their land, it eliminates the potential tax benefits ranch families realize from entering into easements, often raising much needed cash and often reducing land values such that they don't have to sell for reasons related to estate taxes or other generational transfer complications. Evidently, "Save the Cowboy" gets paid for on the backs of the folks with longer term visions who want to keep their properties in productive agriculture and not be forced to sell to the billionaires who help fund UPOM.
I could go on and on. The bullshit of UPOM and their fake support for property rights needs to be called out, especially when UPOM and their billionaire supporters are some of the biggest sticks in the mud when it comes to solving issues with elk, season structures, long-term access, and helping the actual working landowner who has to deal with the impacts of hunters, long hunting seasons, and the presence of wildlife.
I've been in this game long enough to know that UPOM's hatred for APR is not about property rights; it's much less about "Saving the Cowboy" and much more about UPOM's insecurities and the threat that a successful APR model might show how UPOM has been effing people over for the sole benefit of their billionaire donor class. They don't want the sheets rolled back to show what's going on and how free markets can actually help working landowners, so UPOM needs a boogey man, and on all fronts, APR and their donors make for a good boogey man in Montana.
Whether APR continues to allow hunting until the ends of time or only for the next five years, the fact is that APR and similar entities represent a threat to UPOM and their smokescreens of "Saving the Cowboy." With their venom against APR, UPOM is pissing down our necks and asking us to think it is raining.
Maybe I missed it, but how many hunter days of access has UPOM provided?
Who has been introducing the bills to mess up property rights for those wanting to stay on the land or to finally cash out after generations of working the land?
Who wants to eliminate some of our most important permanent public access programs?
Who wants to eliminate what corporations can/can't own property in Montana?
I gotta go kill some grouse and hope to hear an elk bugle. See you in a couple weeks.
Folks, such as UPOM and their supporters, proclaim to be property rights advocates. OK, I'd like to believe that. Yet doesn't take too much looking to see that selective nature of their support for property rights, sometimes actual dislike for property rights and the ability for a property owner to maximize the value of their property rights.
Willing buyer-willing seller and use of markets to maximize value is a basic foundation of property rights transactions. UPOM and their supporters, including many of our elected officials, don't support that basic tenet if the willing buyer happens to be a group that accumulates capital as a corporation formed under Montana corporate statutes of non-profit corporations. Not only do they not support this concept, they continually propose legislation to prohibit non-profit corporations from buying/owning property. By removing a class of buyers, or buyers, from the pool, they in effect mess with the market and they reduce the value that a potential seller could get. It sounds like "Save the Cowboy" is being enacted by some sort of subsidy to lower property values of those sellers who have worked their entire lives to build a retirement possibility in the form of their land.
That prohibition on non-profit corporations as buyers, doesn't just impact APR and the potential seller who could realize a much higher sales price. This manipulation of free markets also excludes purchases by RMEF, TNC, TPL, and other groups who have conserved millions of acres of habitat in Montana and across the west, a large part of which gets turned over to state and federal agencies for public access. That fact seems to get lost in the "Save the Cowboy; Eff the cowboy who is retiring" mantra of UPOM and their supporters. Hopefully it doesn't get lost on hunters interested in opening more access.
UPOM and their supporters, along with some elected officials, for years have stated they want to use easements rather than fee title acquisitions to solve access. Now for the UPOM crowd, easements are not good enough. Now, they want to eliminate the use of perpetual easements and go to short term rental agreements.
Why should they eliminate the values to be realized by a property owner who wants to enter into a willing buyer/donor/seller arrangement on a property right? That is a serious infringement on the right of that property owner to do what they damn well please with the land they own.
I know UPOM reads this forum, so maybe they will chime in to tell us how this is "Saving The Cowboy." It ain't saving any cowboys. It's effing them over by eliminating some of the very useful tools and basic market principles to help them stay on the land and put some cash in their pockets.
By enacting this type of UPOM-supported crap on what a property owner can do with their land, it eliminates the potential tax benefits ranch families realize from entering into easements, often raising much needed cash and often reducing land values such that they don't have to sell for reasons related to estate taxes or other generational transfer complications. Evidently, "Save the Cowboy" gets paid for on the backs of the folks with longer term visions who want to keep their properties in productive agriculture and not be forced to sell to the billionaires who help fund UPOM.
I could go on and on. The bullshit of UPOM and their fake support for property rights needs to be called out, especially when UPOM and their billionaire supporters are some of the biggest sticks in the mud when it comes to solving issues with elk, season structures, long-term access, and helping the actual working landowner who has to deal with the impacts of hunters, long hunting seasons, and the presence of wildlife.
I've been in this game long enough to know that UPOM's hatred for APR is not about property rights; it's much less about "Saving the Cowboy" and much more about UPOM's insecurities and the threat that a successful APR model might show how UPOM has been effing people over for the sole benefit of their billionaire donor class. They don't want the sheets rolled back to show what's going on and how free markets can actually help working landowners, so UPOM needs a boogey man, and on all fronts, APR and their donors make for a good boogey man in Montana.
Whether APR continues to allow hunting until the ends of time or only for the next five years, the fact is that APR and similar entities represent a threat to UPOM and their smokescreens of "Saving the Cowboy." With their venom against APR, UPOM is pissing down our necks and asking us to think it is raining.
Maybe I missed it, but how many hunter days of access has UPOM provided?
Who has been introducing the bills to mess up property rights for those wanting to stay on the land or to finally cash out after generations of working the land?
Who wants to eliminate some of our most important permanent public access programs?
Who wants to eliminate what corporations can/can't own property in Montana?
I gotta go kill some grouse and hope to hear an elk bugle. See you in a couple weeks.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I know you are a busy man, but you should comment on here more often! I appreciate the perspective, clarity, and to-the-point understanding you provide.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
When Randy (think E.F. Hutton) speaks;
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Yes, but….
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Heaven help the grouse that lives where Randy treads after he’s been thinking about UPOM‘s shenanigans. He carries an unnatural disposition towards killing our feathered friends on a good day. After having to devote a portion of his time to this thread, I can only imagine how intense his focus on grouse will be.
“Eat a Dilly Bar. Save a Grouse!”
“Eat a Dilly Bar. Save a Grouse!”
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yes they do...mtmuley, stickney, and Gila to name three.
AP has done more for public access than UPOM ever will.
If you think I’m on board with UPOM you are spreading lies buzz. You can’t do that remember.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I never said you were on board with UPOM, only dumb enough to believe their lies.
Although in fairness, I'm not about to challenge your mastery of spreading fertilizer. You know, like the "production side of things"...and "tourism".
I'm on the edge of my seat...well, not really.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
That is a mischaracterization of the mtmuley that I know...you of all people should appreciate intransigence.
