American prairie. What's the issue?

[Hydrophilic]

I live in the last untouched short grass prairie in the western US. The high plains.

16 pages in and I don't see much prairie in the talk, just talk.

Thanks to the Nature Conservancy, the largest intact PNW bunchgrass prairie will stay intact. The number of wildflowers there is staggering, definitely a reprieve from seeing fields of Tansy and wild carrot.

Visit the Zumwalt Prairie Preserve in Oregon

Visit Zumwalt Prairie, the largest remaining grassland of its type in North America! See hawks, eagles, elk, bears, and Oregon's native grasses and wildflowers.

www.nature.org

 

[Flatbrimmer]

And most of us here, on a hunting site will probably not use the property for bird watching. Just saying. mtmuley

Riding mountain bikes with bear bells

 

[brockel]

I’d say that’s impossible with the fence that’s constructed over there.

They actually have big holes built into them on the west and north side. Gene diversity with the critters. Other than the horses and buffalo I guess.

 

[stevejfarms]

Any idea on what it would cost to buy a place in MT v. Missouri that was self sustaining, i.e. you didn't have to work a job in addition to the farm/ranch?

I was curious on upfront capital requirements but couldn't find much, was guessing like $1.5MM Missouri v. $10MM in Montana?

1.5 mm will buy you about 200-250 acres in my part of Missouri, not enough to make a good living on.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

Mormons buy ranches in Montana. Put that $20 in the plate. Probably see you in Colorado next year with the whole church of LDS helping your brother.

WTH does this mean?

Sounds pretty prejudiced

 

[Flatbrimmer]

the Jewish are known for having money and being quite frugal. If it were them buying all the houses, would it be acceptable? What about Saudi?? At least we don’t have to make our women cover their faces to access the land on APR. damned Mormons

 

[DFS]

the Jewish are known for having money and being quite frugal. If it were them buying all the houses, would it be acceptable? What about Saudi?? At least we don’t have to make our women cover their faces to access the land on APR. damned Mormons

Listen my point was non profits with huge financial backing shouldn’t be buying up land. It’s clear my view is wildly unpopular. So let’s release the bison and turn things back to Lewis and Clark days, just not in Bozeman. Hope you had some luck with that 30 inch tall public land alfalfa buck. Carry on with the APR talk.

 

[antlerradar]

Listen my point was non profits with huge financial backing shouldn’t be buying up land. It’s clear my view is wildly unpopular. So let’s release the bison and turn things back to Lewis and Clark days, just not in Bozeman. Hope you had some luck with that 30 inch tall public land alfalfa buck. Carry on with the APR talk.

I am on board with you on the non profits buying land and than restricting access.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I am on board with you on the non profits buying land and than restricting access.

Are there examples of nonprofits, buying accessible land and then shutting down access in Montana, or is this just a hypothetical?

The Nature Conservancy bought a ton of private in CO and I’ve hunted that? The Nature Conservacy isn’t APR, but they have been around for 70 years and they do allow hunting on many of their properties.

 

[FI460]

Are there examples of nonprofits, buying accessible land and then shutting down access in Montana, or is this just a hypothetical?

The Nature Conservancy bought a ton of private in CO and I’ve hunted that? The Nature Conservacy isn’t APR, but they have been around for 70 years and they do allow hunting on many of their properties.

To that point, what about for profits buying up land and shutting down access? Weyerhaeuser is a dirty word in much of Oregon.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Are there examples of nonprofits, buying accessible land and then shutting down access in Montana, or is this just a hypothetical?

Good question.
Conversely, APR is an example of a nonprofit buying land inaccessible to the public, then opening it up for the public to enjoy hunting as well as other outdoor recreational opportunities.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Good question.
Conversely, APR is an example of a nonprofit buying land inaccessible to the public, then opening it up for the public to enjoy hunting as well as other outdoor recreational opportunities.

and I did mean it as a question for @antlerradar maybe there are?

 

[Big Fin]

To that point, what about for profits buying up land and shutting down access? Weyerhaeuser is a dirty word in much of Oregon.

That's an interesting question.

I suspect that even though both for-profit and non-profit corporations are corporate entities organized under state laws for the purposes of pooling capital for a stated purpose, and both are subject to the same rules and regulations, we would all agree that one type, for-profit, is more accepted in a country where a profit motive is given a lot less scrutiny and critique than the one with a non-profit motive. That is a reality of our time.

A critical look of the two entity types show they are almost identical from a formation, pooling of capital, and governance perspective. And, the tax treatment of the two on for-profit activities are the same, with non-profit groups taxed at the highest corporate rates for any profits they make in a business endeavor. Most don't know that non-profits pay a tax on their business profits, normally called Unrelated Business Income (UBI) Tax.

Some say, "But, contributions to a non-profit organization are tax deductible." Yes, so long as there are no strings attached and you give up complete control of the amount contributed, that amount is tax deductible, subject to annual limits based on your adjusted gross income.

Contributions of capital to a for-profit corporation are also deductible, once you give up complete control of the asset by selling your interest or declaring it worthless. You get to deduct that contribution of capital to a for profit corporation when you sell it, not subject to any limits and with no regard to your adjusted gross income. It is merely a timing difference of when you get to deduct your capital contribution.

So, outside of the timing of when you can claim a deduction for your contribution of capital, the deductibility of your contribution of capital to a for-profit entity is treated much more favorably in the tax code than is your contribution of capital to a non-profit organization.

A bit of a tangent, I know, but I hear people say that "pooling of billionaire" money gives a non-profit corporation an advantage over others. Yes, an advantage over non-corporate buyers who don't pool capital resources, but no more advantage than what is provided when billionaires pool capital in for-profit corporations. And, for-profit corporations operating as active farms and ranches get a huge benefit under the tax code compared to for-profit corporations not meeting the rules of active farm or ranch activity.

So, to agree with your post quoted above and in alignment with my prior post about the billionaires buying ranches, there is no difference between billionaires pooling capital in non-profit corporations and billionaires pooling capital in for-profit corporations. Anyone claiming so does not understand corporate law, formation, governance, or taxation.

Further leading me to think this is less about concern for the startup rancher/farmer, a legitimate worry, more about dislike for one of the smaller buyers, APR.

 

[TOGIE]

Good question.
Conversely, APR is an example of a nonprofit buying land inaccessible to the public, then opening it up for the public to enjoy hunting as well as other outdoor recreational opportunities.

and even if they take hunting away at some point the land is now being held, conserved, and managed for habitat and and wildlife. seems like a net win regardless.

there is a bit of relation and an irony in my mind to the "buy and dry" issues facing farms in prior appropriation states. farmers are selling their water rights at market value to the players in the game - municipalities, mostly - who need it to face their growing demand. willing buyer, willing seller. farm is permanently dried. "the farming industry is in peril. damn cities are the problem."

the relation i see is that the dry up of farms for their water is largely an inevitability. the loss of traditional western ranches to a degree is an inevitability. for the farms water, people hate the cities for it. if the environmental groups actually had the capital to compete with municipalities for senior ag rights i wonder if people would hate them as much too.

i dunno, rambling thoughts.

 

[TheJason]

To that point, what about for profits buying up land and shutting down access? Weyerhaeuser is a dirty word in much of Oregon.

Absolutely. Nailed. It.

Through all the Twilight Zone bullshit in this thread, here is a little common sense.

 

[BigHornRam]

The recent land speculation spree has gotten way out of control in my opinion. Interesting paragraph in this article that needs to be considered by young people looking to get into agriculture as a career. Be patent.

Investors seeking inflation hedge snap up US farmland

Prices for prime Midwest ground climbed by up to a third in past year as world food prices hit records

www.ft.com

Not sure if you can get around the paywall? Paragraph basically stated that due to aging landowner/farmer population, 70% of all US farmlands will change ownership in the next 20 years, and that current prices are a bubble not sustainable with the production value of the land.
Sounds a lot like current house prices.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Seems to me that in many cases the dislike for APR among locals and the Ag community has less to do with APR’s presence and practices than it does with APR being a tangible reminder that the land use practices of dry land agriculture and grazing are no longer a viable lifestyle to pass along to successive generations.
APR is an easy target for the frustrations of people caught in that reality and fearful of their economic future and livelihood.

 

[westbranch]

The recent land speculation spree has gotten way out of control in my opinion. Interesting paragraph in this article that needs to be considered by young people looking to get into agriculture as a career. Be patent.

Investors seeking inflation hedge snap up US farmland

Prices for prime Midwest ground climbed by up to a third in past year as world food prices hit records

www.ft.com

Not sure if you can get around the paywall? Paragraph basically stated that due to aging landowner/farmer population, 70% of all US farmlands will change ownership in the next 20 years, and that current prices are a bubble not sustainable with the production value of the land.
Sounds a lot like current house prices.

Corn/soybean ground in NW IA was hitting $20k+ per acre this past winter again. It did back in 2012 or so as well. 13-15k a couple years ago. Yeah it won't pay for itself, but a lot of those farmers view it as a generational farm and wealth that will be passed on. And when they have 1,000+ acres of paid off land they aren't too worried about buying 80 acres for $1.6M. Most of them are not too interested in other types of investments. So if the bubble pops and it drops to 10k an acre again, who is going to have $5M available to buy 500 acres and start farming?

 

[Randi]

Seems to me that in many cases the dislike for APR among locals and the Ag community has less to do with APR’s presence and practices than it does with APR being a tangible reminder that the land use practices of dry land agriculture and grazing are no longer a viable lifestyle to pass along to successive generations.
APR is an easy target for the frustrations of people caught in that reality and fearful of their economic future and livelihood.

I agree and it transcends generations . My grandparents, parents and myself.

May fortune favor the bold. Good luck to you.

Thank you. We/I may be wrong but we feel the land and the improvement costs will not be lost. Even the inventory ( cattle and horses ) should be able to be sold at cost, with no loss. The time and effort that I put into the venture might be considered a loss to some, possibly most people in fact, if I should fail.

However; for me, I have been fortunate enough to have traveled a bit and even attended a seminar in New York city and it was the longest year of my life--although I was only there for 35 days I prefer a simple cattle ranch in Texas to a townhouse overlooking central park in NYC, but to each their own.

 

[Irrelevant]

To that point, what about for profits buying up land and shutting down access? Weyerhaeuser is a dirty word in much of Oregon.

Silver Creek Capitol, a private equity firm in NY, purchased 61k acres of private timberland previously owned by a local family timber outfit they are restricting some access that was previously open and free, and charging fees for others.

But what do you do? It's private property