Caribou Gear

American prairie. What's the issue?

It want to ask all the anti-APR landowners the economic costs to them of having the APR next door vs. the nontraditional elk recreation-focused landowners. Both of these groups are buying ranches. Both are entitled to their private property rights. One has to pay appraised value and one doesn’t/isn’t. One results in significant (literal, not perceived) damage to traditional ag operations while the other (for the most part, at least not yet) doesn’t. But one of these is ostracized and the other isn’t. Why?? That’s the hypocrisy I see in it.
 
WanderWoman said:
It want to ask all the anti-APR landowners the economic costs to them of having the APR next door vs. the nontraditional elk recreation-focused landowners. Both of these groups are buying ranches. Both are entitled to their private property rights. One has to pay appraised value and one doesn’t/isn’t. One results in significant (literal, not perceived) damage to traditional ag operations while the other (for the most part, at least not yet) doesn’t. But one of these is ostracized and the other isn’t. Why?? That’s the hypocrisy I see in it.
Click to expand...
Don't think for a minute there isn't friction between traditional ranch owners and the new billionaire ranch owners.
 
WanderWoman said:
It want to ask all the anti-APR landowners the economic costs to them of having the APR next door vs. the nontraditional elk recreation-focused landowners. Both of these groups are buying ranches. Both are entitled to their private property rights. One has to pay appraised value and one doesn’t/isn’t. One results in significant (literal, not perceived) damage to traditional ag operations while the other (for the most part, at least not yet) doesn’t. But one of these is ostracized and the other isn’t. Why?? That’s the hypocrisy I see in it.
Click to expand...

Theodore Roosevelt was a wealthy, nonresident landowner. Yet we lionize him as a champion of public lands and wildlife conservation. Dichotomy is a massive part of the human condition.

The history of westward expansion is rife with examples of wealthy people from far away buying large swaths of land for agriculture. In the 1880's, it was a major economic investment engine. The Nobility of Europe bought large properties and grazed them heavily. Those landowners started going away once the grass was gone, and it made zero financial sense to be in the cattle business. That model is well known to those who live in ranch-land. it's part and parcel of the challenges of being a rancher. It's a known threat rather than the unknown of APR. For many, American Prairie is another attempt at the "Big Empty," or "rewildling," or even worse, "The Buffalo Commons." In 2010, a memo leaked from the Obama Interior Dept about potential new monuments. The expansion of the Breaks was in there, which lead to a pretty sporty meeting in Malta. BLM Chief Bob Abbey went to Malta, and met the firestorm.

For a while now, folks in eastern and central MT have felt like they don't matter as humans to a large swath of the world outside Montana. They feel as though they and their communities are targeted by wealthy elites trying to push them out of a place they've lived for generations in order to achieve an idealistic outcome that may or may-not be worthwhile. AP is the physical embodiment of that threat. Their schools are shrinking, communities get smaller and it's harder and harder to actually be an independent cow-calf operator due to a ton of factors, with land prices being a chief concern. It's harder to find a decent town job to help pay for the homeplace and a big chunk of the public is telling them to abandon their lives and move. It's much easier to be mad at an entity, a non-profit, than it is your neighbor, even if they are Billionaires. Although I do think that the sentiment is pretty evenly split between the amenity ranch owner, AP and Fed on who is disliked the most. It's a part of the tribalism of America these days. When people feel threatened, isolated and looked down upon, it's really tough to look at an entity purchasing property in a positive light, especially if that's a place you wanted to expand the operation.

I don't see their separation of NR Landowners and AP as hypocritical, I see it as fighting the enemy they think they can get a hold of. It's a place to focus that anger and resentment and fight for a lifestyle, quality of life and level of freedom that they cherish.

As for land prices, while AP does not pay over appraised price, that appraisal continues to increase exponentially due to people paying over appraised, but also by people who pay at appraised, rather than negotiate a price (FTR, AP negotiates, uses local banks for their purchases/loans and gets the best deal they can). To many who aren't part of traditional family agriculture, real estate is an investment; the value is accruing and you get some pretty good tax benefits for being in production agriculture. For AP, that investment is different - it's a long term investment to change how 4 million acres of land is being used. Dan & Ferris Wilks aren't planning on turning cow pasture into buffalo wallows. There are a lot of other issues that arise with those kinds of landowners and how they interact with the public to be sure, but the enemy you know and have lived with your whole life is more comfortable than the enemy you don't know.
 
Last edited:
I'm probably a little over my head on this one but does anyone know the difference in tax rates between ag land and personal/commercial land? I have a feeling there's a lot of properties now that are owned for personal or commercial use but are still being taxed at the ag rate.
 
Property used for agricultural purposes is taxed based on the value of the land from an agricultural perspective, not a true market value.

I just did a quick search and the first piece of property that came up for the APR shows a market value of $27,000 and a taxable value of $500. It is quite a bit of difference.

Property Record Card | Property Assessment Division

svc.mt.gov svc.mt.gov

With that said the requirements to get the land taxed as agriculture based is generally pretty easy. And any individual or company is able to get their land assessed as agriculture if that's what they are doing with it. The rancher next door to them is going to be paying the same low taxes on their land as APR is on theirs.

I have property that I use for recreational purposes, but I also make sure that I am still doing something agriculture related because I couldn't afford to pay the property taxes otherwise.
 
Actually looking at that I don't think the market value is true market value. It is already adjusted down to the agriculture based market value then the taxable value must be the actual taxes on it?

Assuming the 280 acres is worth $500 per acre that would be $140,000 true market value but they have already adjusted it down to $27,000 for agriculture market value?

The way my property taxes show up it has the estimated market value then shows the separate agriculture market value and then shows the taxes due on that lower number.
 
npaden said:
Property used for agricultural purposes is taxed based on the value of the land from an agricultural perspective, not a true market value.

I just did a quick search and the first piece of property that came up for the APR shows a market value of $27,000 and a taxable value of $500. It is quite a bit of difference.

Property Record Card | Property Assessment Division

svc.mt.gov svc.mt.gov

With that said the requirements to get the land taxed as agriculture based is generally pretty easy. And any individual or company is able to get their land assessed as agriculture if that's what they are doing with it. The rancher next door to them is going to be paying the same low taxes on their land as APR is on theirs.

I have property that I use for recreational purposes, but I also make sure that I am still doing something agriculture related because I couldn't afford to pay the property taxes otherwise.
Click to expand...

So it’s highly likely that while UPOM is squealing about APR not paying taxes, a lot of their supporters are paying ag rates for their hunting properties instead of the rate they should be paying?
 
as @npaden just pointed out, its not exactly hard to get land zoned agricultural for the massive difference in property taxes paid. Due to some land that I'm selling at the end of the month, I just had to do some survey work and restructure the lots that I own. Part of that process is attending a zoning commission meeting with the local township. Mine was scheduled for last night in which the township is required by WI law that they need to post the meeting both 2 and 1 weeks ahead of time to inform the public to attend if they so care. I showed up for my hearing and by the time the 5 members of the commission showed up, I was the only one sitting there and the meeting began. I knew 3 of them as local farmers by me. They asked for me to explain my purpose and reasoning for the zoning of my home parcel to be in "farmland preservation" now and the parcel I was selling to be in "general agricultural". They then asked for "public comment" - a formality since no one was there. They then voted 5-0 to approve it. Originally it was all in "general agricultural" and by being in "farmland preservation", it kicks in a little extra tax break for me. Pretty painless and an extra perk of selling this parcel.

Not sure if Montana is the same but I'm guessing the this similar type of process happens and since the zoning commission is likely made of up neighbors like mine was, I can't see this type of request being denied.
 
seeth07 said:
as @npaden just pointed out, its not exactly hard to get land zoned agricultural for the massive difference in property taxes paid. Due to some land that I'm selling at the end of the month, I just had to do some survey work and restructure the lots that I own. Part of that process is attending a zoning commission meeting with the local township. Mine was scheduled for last night in which the township is required by WI law that they need to post the meeting both 2 and 1 weeks ahead of time to inform the public to attend if they so care. I showed up for my hearing and by the time the 5 members of the commission showed up, I was the only one sitting there and the meeting began. I knew 3 of them as local farmers by me. They asked for me to explain my purpose and reasoning for the zoning of my home parcel to be in "farmland preservation" now and the parcel I was selling to be in "general agricultural". They then asked for "public comment" - a formality since no one was there. They then voted 5-0 to approve it. Originally it was all in "general agricultural" and by being in "farmland preservation", it kicks in a little extra tax break for me. Pretty painless and an extra perk of selling this parcel.

Not sure if Montana is the same but I'm guessing the this similar type of process happens and since the zoning commission is likely made of up neighbors like mine was, I can't see this type of request being denied.
Click to expand...
This parcel in MT has a true market value of at least $500k. I’m not sure how MT comes up with their values.

1720548611704.png
 
Fire_9 said:
So it’s highly likely that while UPOM is squealing about APR not paying taxes, a lot of their supporters are paying ag rates for their hunting properties instead of the rate they should be paying?
Click to expand...

Yes. I doubt just about any larger landowner is paying full price on their property taxes. Is it the rate they should be paying? If they had to pay tax on the true market value of the land then the few remaining family farmers and ranchers would for sure be unable to make a go of it. Is there value to having large agriculture based properties on the landscape. Yes.

Think of the family ranch just on the outskirts of Bozeman that has a true market value in the tens of millions of dollars. No way could they afford to pay the property taxes on that. If they quit and a developer bought it, the taxpayers would get more property tax revenue, but at the expense of green space that is good for many other things including wildlife habitat.

Is it hypocritical to complain about APR paying lower property taxes when you are also paying lower property taxes. 100%.
 
Going on a tangent since that's what these type threads end up doing anyway....

I read an article recently that Texas is now the bee capital of the U.S. How did that happen? The legislature passed a law that classified bee keeping as a qualifier for the agriculture use exemption for property taxes. When the law was passed in 2012 there were 1,851 registered bee keepers in Texas. As of 2021 there are now 8,939 registered bee keepers in Texas.

People will do just about whatever it takes to get a tax break.

www.texastribune.org

How a chance meeting helped Texas become the nation’s top beekeeping state

Twelve years after a state law gave tax breaks for keeping bees on at least five acres, people are still getting into the trade — or throwing in the towel and hiring professionals to do it for them.
www.texastribune.org www.texastribune.org
 
npaden said:
Yes. I doubt just about any larger landowner is paying full price on their property taxes. Is it the rate they should be paying? If they had to pay tax on the true market value of the land then the few remaining family farmers and ranchers would for sure be unable to make a go of it. Is there value to having large agriculture based properties on the landscape. Yes.
Click to expand...

Here is the assessment for a 40 acre parcel I own. Notice the note about how the land is valued based on the fair market value being 50% of it. The 23k value results in about $375 worth of taxes annually. The 40 is worth way more than $46,800 - I honestly have no clue where that value comes from because its actual fair market value is more like 300k. If that was the case and my taxes went up x6 or more as a result, there is no way I would even think about continuing to own the parcel. So I think @npaden is correct.
1720550396124.png
 
antlerradar said:
Don't think for a minute there isn't friction between traditional ranch owners and the new billionaire ranch owners.
Click to expand...
I have heard rumblings of agreements to not sell to those types - is there any formal group pushing to stop it like the APR and UPOM?

One thing I will concede - it is a bit twisted that a non-profit using something for non-ag purposes gets to use agricultural tax breaks. The same is absolutely true for recreational wildlife properties though i guess they are likely closer to "dual" purpose.
 
Forkyfinder said:
I have heard rumblings of agreements to not sell to those types - is there any formal group pushing to stop it like the APR and UPOM?

One thing I will concede - it is a bit twisted that a non-profit using something for non-ag purposes gets to use agricultural tax breaks. The same is absolutely true for recreational wildlife properties though i guess they are likely closer to "dual" purpose.
Click to expand...
Bison are considered livestock in Montana.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ben Lamb
FWP Approves First Prairie Dog Conservation Contract
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
4K
Eric Albus
E
G
American Prairie Reserve - Nothing new
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
30K
mtmuley
M
K
Of possible interest to Minnesota public land hunters
Replies
0
Views
1K
katqanna
K
M
Trump administration officials dismissed benefits of national monuments
Replies
1
Views
972
antelopedundee
antelopedundee
Ben Lamb
Public Lands Package moves forward in Congress
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
18K
Topgun 30-06
Topgun 30-06

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,656
Messages
2,028,693
Members
36,274
Latest member
johnw3474

Share this page

Back
Top