American prairie. What's the issue?

[peterk1234]

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%.

I think the bigger issue is the overall loss of agriculture. Not specific to APR, just a general observation. At some point something has got to give.

 

[Elky Welky]

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.

I understand the sentiment, but I don't really think of this as a situation or mindset unique to central and eastern Montana. Just take a look at the Bozeman thread: anyone who lived and worked in Bozeman from 1960-2010 probably has pretty strong feelings about what it has become compared to what it was. Anyone who grew up in MT in the last 30-60 years probably has pretty strong feelings about the hostile takeover that has only accelerated since 2020. It is statewide (except for Butte. Butte will never change).

I would love to know a first peoples' perspective about UPOM's "Save the Cowboy" campaign, given that the Cowboy brought about the initial destruction of the landscape via barbed wire, habitat modification to make way for a destructive non-native species, and the forced imposition of Western ideology.

Unique to AP, however, is that it is a fight over a lifestyle (agriculture, hunting, environmental stewardship), quality of life (wide open spaces, big sky country, friendly neighbors), and level of freedom (wild prairie, wild animals, access to hunting, freedom to use one's property as they see fit) that they cherish, pitted against a lifestyle (agriculture, hunting, environmental stewardship), quality of life (wide open spaces, big sky country, friendly neighbors), and level of freedom (wild prairie, wild animals, access to hunting, freedom to use one's property as they see fit) that they cherish. Note that there isn't any difference.

So when it comes to change, the threat is far greater from the wealthy NR landowner, not AP.

 

[WanderWoman]

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.

TR was a wealthy NR landowner for sure, but he also championed the conservation movement that became the North American Model. Comparing TR to the non-traditional and/or NR landowners of today isn’t even apples and oranges. Off topic for a sec—TR had a vision that transcended his and future generations (to include us—we reap today what the people like him sowed). I don’t see these ‘new’ landowners giving a rat’s behind about present and future generations. You gotta hand it to the APR, sincere or trustworthy or not, they have a ‘vision’ which in their mind is beneficial to present and future generations (and no, I don’t agree with all of it and much prefer other tools that conserve wildlife habitat and keep traditional ag on the landscape).

Ben, I really appreciate your perspective on the fear of the unknown; that does start to make some sense. If “hypocrisy” is too harsh a word then my apologies. However one would think that if there is a movement/trend of something that is causing traditional ag producers real economic damage right now, and there is a movement/trend of something where it’s possible but in those words is more of an unknown, why all the focus on the latter? Both entities are replacing traditional ranch families, but one seems to be doing more harm to the families that are staying/eeking by than the other. It’s like ignoring an open wound to focus on treating for a family history of diabetes that hasn’t manifested itself yet. Both warrant attention and care but how would you triage them? Another way to look at it: Assuming the people of MT wanted to enact legislation or dedicate a movement to reducing the influence/impact of one of these entities, which one would have the greater impact for the greatest amount of people? Which one is a single entity in a relatively localized area of the state (compared to the whole size of MT) and which one is occurring with hundreds of properties across the entire state? Which entity has legislation continually going in their favor or being proposed in their favor and which one has had attempted legislation to completely try to stop them?

Billionaire landowners are coming and are here to stay. APR is coming and here to stay. Both are entitled to their private property rights. Off topic again but both should be held accountable if actions on their properties resulted in damages to the neighbors, but that’s for another time. But, if I was UPOM and actually, really concerned about the future of traditional ag, I’d approach it far differently.

 

[bigsky2]

Save the Cowboy, Stop the Land Broker

 

[406dn]

The depopulating of the great plains has been occurring and will continue occurring whether there is an APR or not. It's been going on for many decades. The reason is that the rainfall is too fickle for profitable agriculture. The siren song of free land, brought many more families than the land can support. The population has trended downward after homesteading ran its course.

If Uncle Sam had not propped up production agriculture, the great plains would be more devoid of people than it is presently.

There really is no turning around the population decline, imo.

 

[atlas]

I'm guessing that APR has brought in quite few employees that now live in local communities.

 

[Ben Lamb]

TR was a wealthy NR landowner for sure, but he also championed the conservation movement that became the North American Model. Comparing TR to the non-traditional and/or NR landowners of today isn’t even apples and oranges. Off topic for a sec—TR had a vision that transcended his and future generations (to include us—we reap today what the people like him sowed). I don’t see these ‘new’ landowners giving a rat’s behind about present and future generations. You gotta hand it to the APR, sincere or trustworthy or not, they have a ‘vision’ which in their mind is beneficial to present and future generations (and no, I don’t agree with all of it and much prefer other tools that conserve wildlife habitat and keep traditional ag on the landscape).

Ben, I really appreciate your perspective on the fear of the unknown; that does start to make some sense. If “hypocrisy” is too harsh a word then my apologies. However one would think that if there is a movement/trend of something that is causing traditional ag producers real economic damage right now, and there is a movement/trend of something where it’s possible but in those words is more of an unknown, why all the focus on the latter? Both entities are replacing traditional ranch families, but one seems to be doing more harm to the families that are staying/eeking by than the other. It’s like ignoring an open wound to focus on treating for a family history of diabetes that hasn’t manifested itself yet. Both warrant attention and care but how would you triage them? Another way to look at it: Assuming the people of MT wanted to enact legislation or dedicate a movement to reducing the influence/impact of one of these entities, which one would have the greater impact for the greatest amount of people? Which one is a single entity in a relatively localized area of the state (compared to the whole size of MT) and which one is occurring with hundreds of properties across the entire state? Which entity has legislation continually going in their favor or being proposed in their favor and which one has had attempted legislation to completely try to stop them?

Billionaire landowners are coming and are here to stay. APR is coming and here to stay. Both are entitled to their private property rights. Off topic again but both should be held accountable if actions on their properties resulted in damages to the neighbors, but that’s for another time. I hold no love for either one. But, if I was UPOM and actually, really concerned about the future of traditional ag, I’d approach it far differently.

I know of several NR landowners that provide significant resources for conservation. One provides for 60% of the elk harvest in a certain district. Another is a founding board member for a national foundation that works on Fish & Wildlife issues, others that support in-state and national organizations. Yet another works diligently with local bios and wardens on elk mgt, even hosting events to provide would-be hunters an opportunity to gain extra hunter education and harvest elk & whitetail. Many of those NR landowners are purchasing properties for their conservation potential and working to increase habitat fecundity (toured a property not long ago that's investing significantly in eradicating noxious weeds and doing extensive stream restoration). It's difficult to paint everyone with the same brush here. That's my inartful point about TR being a wealthy, nonresident landowner.

A mutual acquaintance of ours once told me (in relation to new landowners regardless of tax status) "It feels like we're becoming their serfs." There wasn't any distinction between AP and others there. That's also a significant call to action and whether or not people view the approach as misplaced isn't as critical in my mind to understanding the base motivation.

If people want to understand why there is opposition to AP, new landowners, whatever, then it's incumbent upon them to see the issue from the perspective they oppose. Part of that, in my mind, means that the question of "why do you oppose this but not something else" is less the question to ask than is "what can we do as a state to help ensure the future of family farming and agriculture?"

The pressures of ag don't stop with just land prices, but commodity prices, unfair trade practices with other nations (SA beef, anyone?), costs of fuel, insurance, etc. Hunters focus on the land and the critters. They tend to not see the business enterprise on a piece of ground. This thread is a good example of that as people are calling for increased property taxes on legit ag operations because of the address of the owner, reducing a legitimate concern to slogans that call for the elimination of an entire lifestyle. AP and many of these large NR owned ranches are leased out to small producers and young families. It's not a home place for those folks, but it's a start in the business. From a wedge political position, it's awesome. You swiftly divide people into two camps over a highly emotional issue and then proceed to beat the snot out of each other so that the sides become even more entrenched, ensuring no solution. The only thing that stops that division is laying down the guns and walking across the street to have coffee and some apple crumble.

Apple crumble sounds really good right now.

 

[VikingsGuy]

His understanding of the tax code is either poor due to ignorance or his knowledge is adequate and he is intentionally misleading in his commentary.

Intentional ignorance is a core competency of lobbyists.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The name United Property Owners of Montana seems a misnomer as the organization disavows the basic private property principle of willing seller - willing buyer!

HT often reminds me of how little the old school folks actually care about property rights or zero govt assistance they vocally claim to care so much about.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

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

Tax policy IS social and economic policy . . . .

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think the bigger issue is the overall loss of agriculture. Not specific to APR, just a general observation. At some point something has got to give.

I can see the social perspective of the “loss of agriculture”, but we way over produce food in the US. With out govt subsidies and govt pushed ag exports we would need far fewer farms/ranches not more.

 

[Fire_9]

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%.

I’m not saying that people in ag should have to pay higher taxes. I understand that’s one of the ways its feasible for them to make it. I just find it entertaining when the rich complain about an organization not paying taxes while they themselves are not paying taxes. Well, lower taxes that is

 

[406dn]

If people want to understand why there is opposition to AP, new landowners, whatever, then it's incumbent upon them to see the issue from the perspective they oppose. Part of that, in my mind, means that the question of "why do you oppose this but not something else" is less the question to ask than is "what can we do as a state to help ensure the future of family farming and agriculture?"

The forces facing family farms and ranches are beyond a state's ability to remedy.

Also, to help the family ag operation, it is inevitable that some one else's dollar is used to help. Uncle Sam has been doing this since at least the great depression. Undoubtably it has helped families stay on the land longer. But it cannot overcome a climate that regularly has periods of droughts.

 

[Treeshark]

we way over produce food in the US.

This is a great point that is often missed when discussing this subject.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The forces facing family farms and ranches are beyond a state's ability to remedy.

Also, to help the family ag operation, it is inevitable that some one else's dollar is used to help. Uncle Sam has been doing this since at least the great depression. Undoubtably it has helped families stay on the land longer. But it cannot overcome a climate that regularly has periods of droughts.

100% agree. There are a myriad of forces affecting this.

There's a significant movement to tailor ag practices with climate smart tech. It's a big issue in the farm bill right now. Food security is national security, so I think it's a wise investment to pour tax dollars into agriculture. The advancements in soil and ag science are helping create better outcomes - all federally funded (and some state dollars as well through investments in secondary ed research facilities, etc). Former USFWS Director and ultimate badass Mollie Beattie had a great quote "What a country chooses to save is what a country chooses to say about itself." She was talking about conservation of wildlife, but I think there's wisdom in applying that to people who keep large tracts of land open and not chunked up into 20 acre horse ghettos or subdivisions.

Both Roosevelt and Leopold felt like that as well - that this journey to keep what others have built only continues so long as we take it together.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can see the social perspective of the “loss of agriculture”, but we way over produce food in the US. With out govt subsidies and govt pushed ag exports we would need far fewer farms/ranches not more.

Thank god for ethanol.

 

[406dn]

100% agree. There are a myriad of forces affecting this.

There's a significant movement to tailor ag practices with climate smart tech. It's a big issue in the farm bill right now. Food security is national security, so I think it's a wise investment to pour tax dollars into agriculture. The advancements in soil and ag science are helping create better outcomes - all federally funded (and some state dollars as well through investments in secondary ed research facilities, etc). Former USFWS Director and ultimate badass Mollie Beattie had a great quote "What a country chooses to save is what a country chooses to say about itself." She was talking about conservation of wildlife, but I think there's wisdom in applying that to people who keep large tracts of land open and not chunked up into 20 acre horse ghettos or subdivisions.

Both Roosevelt and Leopold felt like that as well - that this journey to keep what others have built only continues so long as we take it together.

As a guy who, I guess, owns a horse ghetto, there is land that is vulnerable to subdivision, but that risk is about zero, in much of the great plains.

I am more or less okay with wealthy buyers, who intend to keep the land in an undeveloped state, or non profits like APR, who have a similar or more grandiose vision.

There will be land lost to subdivision. There will always be a demand for acreages that are close to hubs of economic activity.

 

[Nameless Range]

Whether this contemporary increase in disparity across the landscape is wealthy newcomers or the APR, the slow death of rural America is painful. I think it is important though, to not allow dark forces like UPOM, to leverage that pain. I know many landowners who in a very real way are trying to adapt to the New Montana, and their problems are real, but not a one of them is mirrored by that outfit.

 

[406dn]

Whether this contemporary increase in disparity across the landscape is wealthy newcomers or the APR, the slow death of rural America is painful.

It is painful. I have great respect for people trying to make a living on the land. If I had the answer, I'd give it away.

I do not know whether a quicker death or a lingering death is the better option.

 

[VikingsGuy]

the slow death of rural America is painful

My grandpa was a dirt farmer, too dry to make money, just a few too many miles southeast from coal/gas/oil to have that windfall, but I always have been uncomfortable about singling ag out for special social sensitivity.

I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but rather choose to extend it broadly. Our poor to lower-middle working class Americans in all locations have been paying an incredible price for the choices of our hyper-educated and self-anointed elite (both on the right and the left). And not just economically, it also in the destruction of many core social frameworks and failed foreign policy as well.

To be a healthy nation again we have to address the shocking chasm between growing up in a wealthy suburb and growing up in urban squaller or a failed small town.

Mr Lamb and I llkely disagree on the details of some of the solutions and some of the causes, but I am confident we both sincerely believe this nation MUST come to grip with the gutting of the bottom 50% of our population we have watched over the last 30+ years.