Exchange?
- Thread starter mtmiller
- Start date
That question has been asked. I am not sure an answer was provided, or at least an answer that was anything other than the normal non-commital reply of, "We are evaluating all aspects at this time."
I suspect the new owner will make his decision on the Block Management Program, regardless of whether or not this exchange goes through. If they do intend to leave the BMP, that would make an exchange an even better idea. I wouldn't be surprised if they make some implications that if it does not go through, they will leave BMP.
Point is, they hold the cards with them having all of this state land pretty much landlocked. For the sake of simplifying things and not letting access to those lands be used as a bargaining chip and the new lands being in a contiguous accessible block, I would probably support the exchange.
Some would argue that the Dana acreage is worth more, and therefore the state should get more acreage in exchange. I think on a per acre basis, the Dana is worth more, but the lack of access to the state sections reduces the value significantly. All of that is required to be reflected in the appraisals.
I see this kind of stuff becoming more and more common as out of state landowners want to own what they have within their boundaries and not have wise ass TV guys hunting the public sections within their boundaries.
MThuntr
Well-known member
I once worked with the previous owner (Cameron) when I was living in Great Falls. At the time he discussed selling but only to a person that was willing to treat the land well and maintain public hunting. I wish I could have won the lottery and bought the place.
I suspect that Big Fin has it exactly right. They will use Block Management as a bargaining chip...land swap or no access at all. The Fergus County land isn't worth near that of the Dana Ranch property both in land value and species richness.
I suspect that Big Fin has it exactly right. They will use Block Management as a bargaining chip...land swap or no access at all. The Fergus County land isn't worth near that of the Dana Ranch property both in land value and species richness.
MThuntr
Well-known member
This bothers me a lot as the guy with the initiative is pushed out. I suppose the general public gains access which is a plus but there is a distinct possibility the quality of hunting is dimished all while the wealthy landowner is able to monopolize on a public resource
For those that don't: DNRC is constitutionally charged with bringing in the highest return for the school trust as possible. This has meant, in the past, that conservation efforts on state lands have been problematic at best. Mary Sexton, our last DNRC head honcho was good at balancing the need for conservation & maximizing the return on investment. I have no doubt John Tubbs will be the same.
I'm not saying this is a bad deal, but folks should look very closely at this.
MThuntr
Well-known member
I'm going to edit this and bite my tongue...for the moment. In the end upland bird hunting with incidental elk, deer, and antelope hunting will be the dominate public hunter gain.
Last edited:
I don't know the area very well and I am equally suspect. The question then becomes, "What to do if the new owners decide to shut off access on the Dana Ranch?"
I know some would say, let 'em do it. A part of me agrees with that.
The pragmatic side of me says that would result in 14,000+ acres of State Trust lands never again to be hunted by the public and we ended up with nothing to show for it. Is this exchange, the best that the public can expect when talking about landlocked parcels that could possibly become off limits forever if the landowner decides to walk away?
I don't know the answer. Unfortunately, when it comes to isolated parcels that are landlocked, the public is not bargaining from a position of power. Doesn't mean we don't get the best deal we can, but it is hard to induce much leverage.
I did hunt the Dana one time for cow elk. It is a remarkable piece of property.
MThuntr
Well-known member
Fin you were typing as I was trying to bite my tongue on the subject but after discussing this further with a friend over lunch I'm not happy.
I agree 100% State Trust lands are being used as a bargaining chip in the interest of wealthy ownership (greed) and MT isn't doing much in the best interest of the people. Things need to be equal or greater (strong emphasis on greater) for all factors including wildlife, natural, and ag resources. It doesn't help that we have a legislature that is always battling to stop net gain instead of capitalizing on the value of the land and it's public resources.
In the end I think this deal will have overwhelming positive comments from the public and the deal will go through...leading the way to more landlocked lands being swapped in the interest of turning over and taking it in the shorts.
I agree 100% State Trust lands are being used as a bargaining chip in the interest of wealthy ownership (greed) and MT isn't doing much in the best interest of the people. Things need to be equal or greater (strong emphasis on greater) for all factors including wildlife, natural, and ag resources. It doesn't help that we have a legislature that is always battling to stop net gain instead of capitalizing on the value of the land and it's public resources.
In the end I think this deal will have overwhelming positive comments from the public and the deal will go through...leading the way to more landlocked lands being swapped in the interest of turning over and taking it in the shorts.
It is too bad we don't have corner to corner crossing currently legal. It would certainly balance this this exchange deal.
That said, I will probably support the trade.
Would we want the new property to be in FW&Ps' hands instead of DNRC? Is that feasible? Is that desirable?
Put a rider on contract that the Dana property MUST be in block mgmt. for a decade. Maybe?
That said, I will probably support the trade.
Would we want the new property to be in FW&Ps' hands instead of DNRC? Is that feasible? Is that desirable?
Put a rider on contract that the Dana property MUST be in block mgmt. for a decade. Maybe?
katqanna
Well-known member
Folks,
Russell Country Sportsmen and the Devil's Kitchen collaborative management group for the area are concerned about the ramifications to elk management in the entire area. MSA is taking a back seat until they have had a chance to work thru the issue.
There are more of these exchanges proposed and lots of NR owners watching. This will set a precedent so it must be done wisely. Can corner crossing come to the rescue? Please keep a close eye on this.
Russell Country Sportsmen and the Devil's Kitchen collaborative management group for the area are concerned about the ramifications to elk management in the entire area. MSA is taking a back seat until they have had a chance to work thru the issue.
There are more of these exchanges proposed and lots of NR owners watching. This will set a precedent so it must be done wisely. Can corner crossing come to the rescue? Please keep a close eye on this.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
16K (plus gratuity) for a 180 Buck....that'd buy about 90 years of AZ preference points.
TheJason
Well-known member
I fail to see here how sportsmen can benefit if this deal is ixnayed. David Cameron as a ranch owner was a phenomenal advocate for the wildlife. I wonder if any stipulations were written into the contract that would help maintain David's values and principles?
Obviously, as Randy et al have stated there is no benefit to the public if the Dana Ranch pulls out of Block Management. If the proposed swap ranch is the same area I am thinking of, I think it would offer a lot more than sharptail hunting.
Obviously, as Randy et al have stated there is no benefit to the public if the Dana Ranch pulls out of Block Management. If the proposed swap ranch is the same area I am thinking of, I think it would offer a lot more than sharptail hunting.
sweetnectar
New member
It is my understanding that the school trust land is for the benefit of the schools of montana first and foremost. As far as these land existing for the wildlife, or bird watchers, or us hunters, no matter how nice it may seem, is secondary to their original intent of existence as "school trust lands." I suppose you could say the fact that us sportsmen get to hunt on some of them is a side bennefit.
TheJason
Well-known member
You are entirely correct, it was pointed out above that their mandate is all about the money.
That said, it's still land that would be accessible to the public.
katqanna
Well-known member
I had just spoken with DNRC, Greg Campbell, here in Bozeman about the Paradise Valley rancher watersheds group wanting to fence off DNRC land. He explained DNRC land as public, but not in the way that WMA's or other public lands are. He said they are a trust, an economic trust, for the state, created from the Enabling Act. They are charged with bringing in the greatest economic return, which might mean resource extraction, etc. He also explained that they were charged with making sure the land retained value for future years, so that had to be balanced out.
Similar threads
