Conservation Easement to Provide Public Land Access Near Phillipsburg
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing BHR. Looks like a cool chunk of ground. Here's the link to the Environmental Assessment
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.tow...-52d1-94b0-1e39310220e6/5c2c1e3142198.pdf.pdf
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.tow...-52d1-94b0-1e39310220e6/5c2c1e3142198.pdf.pdf
MThuntr
Well-known member
Very cool thanks for sharing. I've always liked that country by P-burg
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Thanks for providing the additional link. That is a nice looking piece of dirt. 5 valleys is a great org as well.
el unit
Well-known member
Good news! Thanks for posting BHR.
MLaird
Well-known member
I spent a summer in that area, it is beautiful. Great news!
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Looks to me like FWP spent some significant time putting this project together. Take a minute to thank them and comment on the CE.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Below is the access plan.
I am not trying to be critical, as I am unfamiliar with how these types of access easements typically work, but this easement allows one hunting party a day during hunting season except for the entire month of October. Access requires written permission granted from the landowner and there are windows of time in which calls can be made to acquire access. It this typical? I would rather access be granted through a computerized system, on a sort of lottery, that guarantees impartial and fair chances for all who want to hunt on any given day. I am not calling into question the integrity of the landowner, but we have seen other instances of strange things going on in the Block Management program when access permission is the sole authority of landowners and no oversight from FWP seems to exist. Greenhorn had a thread about that I can't seem to find.
The Conservation Easement piece is wonderful and some access is better than no access, but I'm curious what folks think.
I am not trying to be critical, as I am unfamiliar with how these types of access easements typically work, but this easement allows one hunting party a day during hunting season except for the entire month of October. Access requires written permission granted from the landowner and there are windows of time in which calls can be made to acquire access. It this typical? I would rather access be granted through a computerized system, on a sort of lottery, that guarantees impartial and fair chances for all who want to hunt on any given day. I am not calling into question the integrity of the landowner, but we have seen other instances of strange things going on in the Block Management program when access permission is the sole authority of landowners and no oversight from FWP seems to exist. Greenhorn had a thread about that I can't seem to find.
The Conservation Easement piece is wonderful and some access is better than no access, but I'm curious what folks think.
Attachments
Personally, I'd be okay with it. Since it's 1,193 acres, having more than one party hunting what is essentially 2 sections will make for a better experience, rather than throwing it wide open.
The timing restriction happens on other type 2 BMA's and is often applied to some of the legacy project stuff in the West Garnetts as well.
NRD funds aren't access funds, they're about watershed improvement. This access is on top of that, so I view it more as a gift than a necessity.
The timing restriction happens on other type 2 BMA's and is often applied to some of the legacy project stuff in the West Garnetts as well.
NRD funds aren't access funds, they're about watershed improvement. This access is on top of that, so I view it more as a gift than a necessity.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
There is a small river bottom BMA near my house that only allows 1 group of hunters at a time for saftey and quality hunt reasons. One group per day seems like a reasonable requirement to me for this property. It allows September hunting during bow season, and then November hunting during rifle. Also reasonable IMO.
Knowing how 5 valleys operates, the land owner is a good, honest, responsible steward of their land and will not play games with their BMA.
Knowing how 5 valleys operates, the land owner is a good, honest, responsible steward of their land and will not play games with their BMA.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Yes, I have been on numerous BMAs that have a party-per-day limit. It certainly makes sense. Thanks for the comments.
That would be a reasonable season structure, but instead we get rifle hunting from August 15-February 15. This area was a lot funner to hunt before 217 existed.
widnert
Active member
So, I'm kind of scratching my head here too. Access is great and I'm all for it but, what did we actually get here?
Landowner agrees to a Conservation Easement for their property. Gets a fairly good tax-break for doing so (no report on just how much that is) that perpetuates through the years. No more development on their property. Cool. Meanwhile, they also enroll the property into the Block Mgmt. program. Ok. They could have done that without a Conservation Easement. Now, they also get paid from FWP through the Block Mgmt. program to allow hunters to access the property. But, only 1-party at a time. No real problem with the access limits, if it's justified based on the ground.
What was the $737,000 for, to purchase the Conservation Easement from the property owners by the Five Valleys Land Trust? Sorry if I'm not fully up to speed on how these things work but, Conservation Easements are granted all the time to other landowners without the need to lay out that kind of money. And, enrolling your property into the Block Mgmt program with restricted access is also something that doesn't require an outlay of funds. Trying to figure out what the $737,000 actually did? Did Five Valleys Land Trust actually buy this property?
From my reading, it sounds like a "bribe" to get the landowner to take these two steps. Or, am I just not understanding this correctly?
Does anyone know the particulars?
Landowner agrees to a Conservation Easement for their property. Gets a fairly good tax-break for doing so (no report on just how much that is) that perpetuates through the years. No more development on their property. Cool. Meanwhile, they also enroll the property into the Block Mgmt. program. Ok. They could have done that without a Conservation Easement. Now, they also get paid from FWP through the Block Mgmt. program to allow hunters to access the property. But, only 1-party at a time. No real problem with the access limits, if it's justified based on the ground.
What was the $737,000 for, to purchase the Conservation Easement from the property owners by the Five Valleys Land Trust? Sorry if I'm not fully up to speed on how these things work but, Conservation Easements are granted all the time to other landowners without the need to lay out that kind of money. And, enrolling your property into the Block Mgmt program with restricted access is also something that doesn't require an outlay of funds. Trying to figure out what the $737,000 actually did? Did Five Valleys Land Trust actually buy this property?
From my reading, it sounds like a "bribe" to get the landowner to take these two steps. Or, am I just not understanding this correctly?
Does anyone know the particulars?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
'Don't know the particulars, but generally the situation involves two distinctly separate programs.
1. Five Valleys Land Trust sees the open land, wildlife habitat, western Montana landscape as a viable conservation easement to ensure certain aspects of the property are preserved and protected. For that the owner gets a lump sum then an income tax break indefinitely. Five Valleys imposes conditions on the property for perpetuity.
2. FWP and the current property owner enroll the property in the Block Management Program which primarily enhances hunter access and provides the owner with compensation, but for a finite time period (whatever the duration of the BM agreement). It does read as though part of the conservation easement requires BM access.
What likely may have caused confusion is that the two different agreements were reported together, leading one to wonder if they are related. But really they are not, even though Five Valleys and FWP have been collaborating together with the owner on the programs.
Last edited:
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Maybe that's the issue. From the article:
Funding for the access easement would come from the Montana Department of Justice Natural Resource Damage Program and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Makes it sound like something apart from BM.
I believe that anytime public monies are exchanged for a sort of controlled access as is the case here, that access should be managed by an automated program with oversight, as opposed to phone calls and permission slips, to ensure fairness.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The environmental assessment describes the hunting access as a "component" of the conservation easement and stipulates that FWP oversees the access agreement and reviews annually or for up to five years, together with the land owner. A minimum number of public access hunter days are stipulated (50 days) and excludes the land owners relatives and friends in that minimum.
