Good Neighbor: Elk Management in Montana

[WanderWoman]

As @seeth07 points out in the thread - more acquisition helps this and the current push from the agency to get the 40 year easements in place is a great way to introduce folks leery of conservation easements into the process and product. Given the current land board's dislike of purchasing properties or even perpetual conservation easements (Auditor Downing & Governor Gianforte are the only two consistent yes votes for these programs), then some creative solutions need to be put in the agency's toolkit.

The option that has the most benefit for the public and the landowner is still the 40 year lease option through Habitat MT. That provides access to the public, provides a significant financial incentive to the landowner and helps keep ranch and farmlands complete and in the family for future generations.

I agree that the 40-year leases are a good way to get a relationship started between FWP and a landowner, especially since it seems our elected officials are doing such a poor job of representing not only the majority of the public but the willing landowners who want to enter into a perpetual CE. It boggles my mind how the land board gets away with technically violating a landowner’s property right to sell interest in their land to a certain entity.

I do disagree that the 40-year leases are the most benefit for the landowners and the public. The compensation isn’t that great, eastern MT rangeland is $119/acre for 40 years so a 3,000-acre ranch would be $357,000 for 40-years. The public access is minimal. Up to 3,000 acres it’s 1 recreation day per month per 300 acres. (At least 1/3 must be during hunting season.) So that same 3,000-acre ranch would have a requirement of 120 recreation days per year, with 40 of those being hunter days. Granted, it’s better than 0, but given Habitat Montana and the amazing benefit that perpetual CEs provide (the landowner might get $2 million or more for a perpetual CE with more terms to improve habitat and way more hunter access). Also I feel like other entities like USFWS offer similar enough programs to FWP leases (sans recreational access) that niche is kind of filled.

Yes they serve a purpose and they’re better than nothing but if a landowner is willing, perpetual CE is by far the best way to leverage $ for conservation and access. They keep habitat intact, agriculture use is written into the deed, and I always wonder what happens after 40 years. Will it be renewed? Will the land be protected? Also, the landowners can buy out of a 40-year lease too, say if the land sells or the next generation has different ideas.

https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content/assets/fwp/conservation/habitat/habitat-conservation-lease-faq_72423.pdf

 

[BuckRut]

A little short for time today so I haven't waded through all 6 pages but I would like to throw my 2 cents in.

The dynamic with these situations is vastly different west of the divide. Part of my frustration with these conversations is the fact that many ranchers are running an operation almost completely dependent on grazing leases from the government (AKA the public) at prices that are essentially a handout. I would venture to bet even the ranchers in the video utilize hundreds to thousands of acres of BLM ground to run their cows on.

Not saying they owe us the right to access their land whenever and however we please but it should definitely be part of these narratives.

The USFS land where I grew up hunting is now almost impossible to access without stock by a landowner who is being paid for Block Management access to his property while denying road access to the Forest.