MT county commissioners opposing RMEF land acquisition

[Marshian]

Can anyone explain the logic behind these commissioners decision apart from being in the pockets of the outfitters association? Seems like a good deal all around for the public for RMEF to buy land and forever conserve it for the public. Very irritating....

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/s...es-land-buy-little-belt-mountains/2357482002/

 

[onpoint]

Explain the logic? Nope. It's simply more of the same that get discussed on here with some regularity and goes on over and over and over. .

 

[Sytes]

The typical extremes on the other side of the fence... opposition to the Federal Government owning more land... Strong beliefs within opposing trenches.

With local support, the group said, it would stand a better chance of receiving federal Land and Water Conservation Fund monies needed to buy the land. The Elk Foundation said previously that it would be unlikely the sale would move forward without local support.

...nonetheless, we are opposed to the Federal Government owning more land in Meagher County, and therefore, we do not support the Holmstrom Sheep Creek Land Acquisition by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Forest Service," the resolution says.

 

[Eric Albus]

Let me assure you, the Meagher county commission is not in MOGA's pocket. My guess would be they have some insight as to why this is not as great a deal as it appears. If they are making a mistake by opposing this then the next election will ferret that result.

 

[belly-deep]

Maybe Randy can jump in and explain why LCWF money can’t be obtained without local support?

I’d like to see RMEF push this through regardless of what the county wants to do.

 

[belly-deep]

My guess would be they have some insight as to why this is not as great a deal as it appears. If they are making a mistake by opposing this then the next election will ferret that result.

You are giving podunk county commissioners WAAAY to much credit. I’m guessing they don’t want the fed gov’t around more, just like they said.

And you’re also putting too much faith in democracy.

 

[TheTone]

My guesses from seeing counties in ID taking similar stances is they are of the thinking that FS land is poorly managed and they also don't want to lose the property taxes from the land being private and becoming public.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Sometimes they oppose these things simply based on anti-government sentiment, but often counties are opposed to it because when RMEF takes what was privately owned, buys it and then turn around and make it federal land, all of the tax revenue the county used to receive on that land goes away. In counties with a lot of federal land, that’s a big problem. Rural counties aren’t exactly flush with money in a lot of cases. Yes, the Feds pay some PILT but the amount of those payments is typically less than what the property taxes brought in. It’s the same story across the West. This is one reason I think down the road, easement type arrangements for access might be a more useful tool than creating more federal fee-title land. Utah is really digging into this lost tax revenue angle in their fight against federal lands.

 

[bobbydean]

Hunting Wife.

Good point and I had never thought of it.

Still would support RMEF buy.

 

[jlmatthew]

Sure would be nice if the RMEF would try to buy lands here in Colorado to make public access a little better? Seems the majority of these deals happen in Montana, at least by the articles in RMEF magazine.

Perk of being headquartered there in MT I suppose. Just like when the MDF moved to Utah and it more of less became the Utah MDF.

 

[Schaaf]

Hunting and Public Land advocates need to do a better job communicating with County Commissioners on why public lands are important.

They’re one group of elected officials we have been neglecting.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The typical extremes on the other side of the fence... opposition to the Federal Government owning more land... Strong beliefs within opposing trenches.

I agree with Sytes. It seems rural Montana county commissioners tend to be closer to the far right ideology, with a negative attitude toward federal government. Also consider that the Meagher County Commissioners, as well as many others of influence in that area, have been lobbied and heavily "romanced" for the past few years by the proposed Black Butte Copper Mine. Although the issue is somewhat divisive, it seems there is strong local support for the extractive industry presently. That may be swaying commissioners to oppose increase in public lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sometimes they oppose these things simply based on anti-government sentiment, but often counties are opposed to it because when RMEF takes what was privately owned, buys it and then turn around and make it federal land, all of the tax revenue the county used to receive on that land goes away. In counties with a lot of federal land, that’s a big problem. Rural counties aren’t exactly flush with money in a lot of cases. Yes, the Feds pay some PILT but the amount of those payments is typically less than what the property taxes brought in. It’s the same story across the West. This is one reason I think down the road, easement type arrangements for access might be a more useful tool than creating more federal fee-title land. Utah is really digging into this lost tax revenue angle in their fight against federal lands.

There it is. Well said.

 

[BigHornRam]

This updated article has a few more details of what took place. These projects need local support to get off the ground. Don't think getting local support is over with, it may just require a little more effort and tact.
https://missoulian.com/lifestyles/r...cle_8e91105d-a9d1-5b1d-a1e1-b085535566df.html

 

[BigHornRam]

Sometimes they oppose these things simply based on anti-government sentiment, but often counties are opposed to it because when RMEF takes what was privately owned, buys it and then turn around and make it federal land, all of the tax revenue the county used to receive on that land goes away. In counties with a lot of federal land, that’s a big problem. Rural counties aren’t exactly flush with money in a lot of cases. Yes, the Feds pay some PILT but the amount of those payments is typically less than what the property taxes brought in. It’s the same story across the West. This is one reason I think down the road, easement type arrangements for access might be a more useful tool than creating more federal fee-title land. Utah is really digging into this lost tax revenue angle in their fight against federal lands.

Well said H W. Additionally easements generally cost less than fee-title. Could be a solution for this particular property in this particular county that would get local support.

 

[Hunting Wife]

They’re one group of elected officials we have been neglecting.

Agreed. Ironically they should also be the one group that is easiest to actually sit down with.

It seems that if you could reach some consensus on how to enhance public access at the county levels, you would have more leverage upstream with Land Boards and Legislatures. Or have I eaten too much Christmas Crack? I admittedly have little experience at the county level either.

 

[Irrelevant]

Sometimes they oppose these things simply based on anti-government sentiment, but often counties are opposed to it because when RMEF takes what was privately owned, buys it and then turn around and make it federal land, all of the tax revenue the county used to receive on that land goes away. In counties with a lot of federal land, that’s a big problem. Rural counties aren’t exactly flush with money in a lot of cases. Yes, the Feds pay some PILT but the amount of those payments is typically less than what the property taxes brought in. It’s the same story across the West. This is one reason I think down the road, easement type arrangements for access might be a more useful tool than creating more federal fee-title land. Utah is really digging into this lost tax revenue angle in their fight against federal lands.

I disagree. While the loss of tax revenue my be true in some cases, the amount of taxes paid on agricultural land is often EXTREMELY low. In our County, with +40% federal land, several large ranches pay approximately $0.54/acre in property tax, vs the $2.40/acre in PILT payments. Now I will say that the gov't doesn't always make PILT payments, but the ranchers always do, so there is a bit more security in the private land ownership.

 

[BigHornRam]

So here is a real estate link to the property in question.
http://www.pipmontana.com/ranch/holmstrom-sheep-creek-ranch/

Just looking at the pictures provided, this property has some significant forest health issues on it. You would need to do a site visit to accurately access how significant it is. IMO these issues need to be addressed prior to ownership by the USNF. Also IMO the asking price for the property is inflated. Not clear what the RMEF is offering to buy this for.

Looks like a cool and strategic property IMO as well. Hope something can be worked out.

 

[TheTone]

So here is a real estate link to the property in question.
http://www.pipmontana.com/ranch/holmstrom-sheep-creek-ranch/

Just looking at the pictures provided, this property has some significant forest health issues on it. You would need to do a site visit to accurately access how significant it is. IMO these issues need to be addressed prior to ownership by the USNF. Also IMO the asking price for the property is inflated. Not clear what the RMEF is offering to buy this for.

Looks like a cool and strategic property IMO as well. Hope something can be worked out.

Yeah better bunch some roads in there and log that stuff...

Looks like an awesome piece of land.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Just looking at the pictures provided, this property has some significant forest health issues on it.

Seriously?! If RMEF limits habitat acquisitions in the west to pristine landscapes without beetle-kill, drought induced problems, or other "forest health issues", then that program will undoubtedly cease to be viable. Here we go again, whether it is millions and millions of acres of national forests or the 4,200 plus acres of this property, it's not merely a short term logging or forest thinning project that will restore forest health to your standards. Mother nature is exponentially a more powerful force than the "poor forest management" to which you subscribe as causation ... along with POTUS and the former DOI director.