Exchange?

[mtmiller]

I can't say I am for or against, I just chuckled when I saw the article bring up the sage-grouse issue. Core habitat is a pretty broad brush and I don't usually equate wheat farms to "core" habitat. There is one lek on the parcel, but it is on DNRC land already.

Come on mthunter, you know this area and the politics better, I am interested in more of your opinions.

I have seen some discussion on the tax base issue, but am ignorant on the subject. I would love to hear from folks that are more knowledgeable on the subject.

 

[MThuntr]

It falls into Core 3 Sage Grouse Zone (BLM Priority Habitat denotation) but with the fragmentation/farming on the land in this area, I'd hardly call it habitat for much less than some sharpies and the occasional ditch parrot. At one time it was probably excellent GSG habitat.

I've known about the bankruptcy on the local ranch for months and I alluded to it in one of my original posts but I deleted it because I wasn't sure if it were kosher for me share the info. Their mention of the ranch being a NCBA environmental stewards is far from a justification to call it an excellent property. The saline seeps on the ranch that they've been working so hard to fix were caused by poor farming practices.

I can't argue with the fact that DNRC's true position is to make $ for the school system. They like cropland because it has a higher lease value than grazingland. In my work, I see DNRC wanting CRP lands to go back to cropping so they can bank some more money.

My bird dog buddies locally are drooling at more bird access. My elk buddies are less than thrilled because the likelihood of the Dana Ranch pulling out of Block Management is pretty high. I brought up corner crossing and the fact that the state is not getting their share in land values...most agree with me.

As far as taxes, i couldn't tell you. The increased acreage in state mgmt could hurt the tax base for the state but probably would hurt the county taxes. My solution would be if this rich guys wants to play landswap, let him pay the taxes on both acreages for the foreseeable future...problem solved.

 

[shoots-straight]

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.

We actually pay to use those state lands for hunting. They are mandated to make the most they can off those lands. What the end result is can be debated.

 

[MThuntr]

I have upon good authority to know that another property known as Teigen Ranch (which is a very large Block management unit) is being looked at for purchase by the Wilks Brothers (N Bar Ranch) again. They apparently tried to buy about 2 years ago and failed. The FWP had their chance to buy the easement but instead chose a place on the Milk River...we could lose 45000 acres (about 1/2 private) of access if this new deal goes through.

 

[Big Fin]

This exchange is drawing a lot of interest. I have learned a lot more information about the exchange.

I have learned that the new owners of the Dana Ranch are interested in staying in Block Management and continuing to be part of the Devil's Kitchen access initiative. That is very good news to hear.

My hope is that we can complete the exchange, keep the Dana in Devil's Kitchen BMA, and end up with an additional 14,000 acres of eastern Montana that we did not have when this deal started. That would be a big win for hunters, for access, and for the State Land Board, as they could receive much more income on the state lands they are managing.

I know some are adamantly opposed to this deal, but from what I am learning, I am even more supportive of the exchange than I was at the beginning.

None of the Devil's Kitchen participants, including the Dana Ranch, are bound by written agreement to stay in the project. I would hate to lose the Dana Ranch access via the Devil's Kitchan arrangement and have nothing to show for it. That is what could happen if this deal does not go through.

I think the Dana is going to attend the Devil's Kitchen meeting today and tell the other ranches and FWP that they intend to stay in that access program. That is good news if you are interested in public hunting access on elk-rich private lands.

Last year, 17 bulls were killed on the Dana. Five were killed by people hunting at the invite of the ranch owner. Nine were killed by public hunters who drew bull tags. Three were poached. Poachers took almost as many bulls as the landowner.

Let's hope we can keep access to the Dana (sounds very likely) via the Devil's Kitchen and still complete the exchange that gives us 14,000 more acres to hunt in the Winifred area.

 

[mtmiller]

I have learned that the new owners of the Dana Ranch are interested in staying in Block Management and continuing to be part of the Devil's Kitchen access initiative. That is very good news to hear.

Randy, how long will they be interested? I find this hard to believe shot term and impossible perpetual. JMO

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, how long will they be interested? I find this hard to believe shot term and impossible perpetual. JMO

I was told they want to run it as a cow/grass operation and too many elk will not help that. I was not given a specific term. I suspect they will provide more details when they meet with the Devil's Kitchen group today.

If the long-term idea is continued cow/grass operation, I suspect it will be for as long as it makes sense. I would be great to get a long-term commitment, but I am not sure Block Management is set up to allow that. And, I am not sure if a landowner would want to do that, given all that can change in a state-run program, in their operation, in cattle markets, etc.

I think it is impossible to expect "perpetual" from the Dana, or any of the landowners currently in the Block Management Program, whether it be a cooperative arrangement such as Devil's Kitchen, or otherwise. A landowner holds the cards in deals such as this, same as they do when they decide to close their property due to hunter behavior, bison, the Milk River Ranch deal, or whatever it might be.

If they are in for one year, it is a better outcome than them just getting out of the program. The worst outcome is they, or any landowner, gets out of the program and we not only lose existing access, but we don't get any other access to replace it.

Will be interesting to hear more of what comes out of the meeting today.

 

[----]

Doesn't a lot of this ultimately come down to the long term potential of corner crossing?

If it's never going to happen, then it makes a lot more sense then if it ever does.

 

[MThuntr]

Ditto to Miller...short term sounds great long term I'm not as thrilled knowing the history of out of state money and the fickle decisions that follow it.

Locally I can tell you that a very large group is opposed. I was unable to make it to the meeting in Winifred last week. The local paper will have a write up tomorrow. Right now I'm not sure if a good chunk of DNRC even approves because in the end many consider it a kowtow to $.

 

[Straight Arrow]

As far as access potential, 'not sure if putting all the eggs in the "corner crossing basket" will ever produce the omelet we're hoping for.

I'm for expanding and enhancing public lands with increased good or even marginal wildlife habitat and improving Block Management for landowners, as well as public access.

 

[Big Fin]

Ditto to Miller...short term sounds great long term I'm not as thrilled knowing the history of out of state money and the fickle decisions that follow it.

Locally I can tell you that a very large group is opposed. I was unable to make it to the meeting in Winifred last week. The local paper will have a write up tomorrow. Right now I'm not sure if a good chunk of DNRC even approves because in the end many consider it a kowtow to $.

I understand the concerns. I've been lobbied hard by many who are opposed to the exchange.

But, I ask the question, "If Montana opts out of the proposed trade and the Dana pulls out of BM, what have we accomplished?"

We can say, "Well, we showed them." I would argue that such outcome does nothing to improve the bigger picture of access and places to hunt.

If we can find a way to keep them interested in BM, complete the exchange, and get the X Hanging Bar for additional access, that seems to be a huge win. And, it sets the expectation to others watching this, that in Montana we will work together for mutually beneficial ideas, rather than the clubbing of each other that does nothing to improve the cause of either side.

Whether we like it or not, this is a trend we will be faced with. I suspect in the next 20 years there will be 100 of these kind of deals out there. Are we going to take a path of "NO" and lose more access, or are we going to try find ways to make the best out of what is a situation where the public has a pretty weak hand compared to the guys across the table?

I know some will not like my growing support of this exchange. From what I know now and what I see as a potential great outcome versus the potential disaster of "Take my toys and go home," I want to see this work in the best way possible.

I am interested to hear logic that supports those with the position of "No," other than the distrust of out-of-state landowners. All those who have stated such seem to discount the very real risk of losing the Dana BM access and get nothing to show for losing that. As of yet, I have not heard compelling reasons.

Doesn't a lot of this ultimately come down to the long term potential of corner crossing?

If it's never going to happen, then it makes a lot more sense then if it ever does.

If I were to bet, it will be a long time before Montana ever sees a change to corner crossing, if ever. That is my personal perspective from years of studying the issue and talking to attorneys who have been on both sides. Hunters surely wish that was different.

Now, if hunters feel they are getting the pipe laid to them, more and more, as they feel has happened the last decade, that beatdown hunters feel might result in some further efforts of change to the topic. Having hired attorneys to get to the true answer of what corner crossing represents from a legal perspective, I am not sure it will be solved. Very complex issue with a ton of risk associated with it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

FWIW Randy, I tend to agree with your line of thinking.

 

[mtmiller]

Randy,

Have you been to the Hanging Bar? I haven't, but from what I know of the general area and checking out aerials, it doesn't seem to be that impressive. Saw some cool pictures of elk running across a stubble field and sage-grouse hang out on a section of State....that's about it. Will it make more money, yep.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

Have you been to the Hanging Bar? I haven't, but from what I know of the general area and checking out aerials, it doesn't seem to be that impressive. Saw some cool pictures of elk running across a stubble field and sage-grouse hang out on a section of State....that's about it. Will it make more money, yep.

I've not been on it, but I have been past it and hunted near there. It is not nearly the wildlife property that the Dana is, no doubt. I don't think anyone is trying to say these are similar properties, rather they are two completely different types of property in many respects.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Is there any additional information from meetings on this issue?

 

[mtmiller]

Is there any additional information from meetings on this issue?

There was an article about the Great Falls meeting (not sure if it is linked in this thread).

I just heard second-hand stories out of the Winifred meeting and I think there may be an article today, but I haven't searched yet. I believe there was a Lewistown meeting yesterday.

OK, I am not much help and my accuracy is unchecked at this time. Someone can check my comments.

 

[AH_14]

Just to clarify......
This exchange is We (Everyone) gets 14,000 acres of okay wildlife habitat for state sections that are completely inaccessible from the ground!!! We (Everyone) has absolutely no ownership in the DANA ranch and thus the state sections are useless. Helicopter access can not be considered....

I see the Problem as the DANA State Sections are Beautiful (almost perfect) elk and deer habitat and have tons of animals in the area.

*Can the people bite the bullet and trade something Awesome, that really isn't Public land because there is No Access---for something Ok??? Its a tough one....

I vote Yes to the exchange....and hope they continue in BM.

 

[mtmiller]

What are your thoughts on the tax implications?

 

[Big Fin]

What are your thoughts on the tax implications?

What tax implications? To which party?

Land, and many other trade or business assets, can be traded in a tax-deferred exchange for like-kind property, so long as the traded/received property is used in a trade or business activity. This land trade would probably have a zero tax issue to Dana. The sale of the XHanging Bar will have have a tax situation to those owners, depending upon whether they are an LLC, sole proprietor, S Corporation, or C Corporation.

Was there mention in some article or at some comment hearing that tax issues might be influencing this exchange?

 

[MThuntr]

I got the Lewistown paper just now...I will read it and post comments after work. The general consensus is that for Fergus Co a loss in tax base means a bunch of people oppose.

Big Fin has convinced me toward the more 50/50 side of things now.