Ducks Unlimited seems to do this fairly well.
Project 2025 and Conservation
- Thread starter Elky Welky
- Start date
Ducks Unlimited seems to do this fairly well.
One of my favorite duck spots is an impoundment that DU bought land/gained easements for, improved and turned over to the state. There are a few projects like that in the area.
My understanding is that as an organization, they do a nice job preserving wildlands.
My understanding is that as an organization, they do a nice job preserving wildlands.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
One state might have no problem with taking the land/wetland permanently. The state of Montana has political leaders that don't like the idea and only do so when forced. It is also a terrible idea given the complaints about the quality of public land hunting. The approach APR uses is a good one.
Agreed. I was trying to come up with a good example to hold up to accomplish what @Shed God was asking about.
Your APR is probably a better example than my DU one, although there are concerns about the ability to hunt APR land holdings (some probably legitimate, some certainly not).
SAJ-99
Well-known member
RMEF does a lot of conservation easements and The Nature Conservancy owns a lot of property. I would guess that neither approach will make Shed God happy.
They really do- I always thought they were kind of a hippy organization until I found out a local Nature Conservancy spot was open to hunting (most are, which I now know).
Looking into it more and I was blown away, they have chunks all over- nice ones too, but just junky land that no one else wanted.
Trust for Public Lands, Conservation Lands Foundation, RMEF, DU, Pheasants, Nature Conservancy, etc all use Habitat Montana (FWP fund) For permanent easements and fee title acquisition. The Nature Conservancy was the primary on a lot of the Legacy projects, and TPL is working diligently to get easements done on big pieces of timber land to preserve traditional access. Other orgs like MT Wild Sheep do great work on species specific conservation easements and then there's the groups like Montana Land Reliance, etc.
The Land & Water Conservation Fund and Habitat Montana are the two most used funds for these acquisitions, along with funding from Pittman Robertson (terrestrial) and Dingle-Johnson (aquatic). Habitat MT generally has an access component to it under rule, and LWCF has no access component unless voluntarily offered by the lessor (easements only, not fee title).
Buying more public land is a tough sell to the legislatures and governors of most states. There is always a political struggle for this kind of action due to perceived differences in management styles between the state and federal gov't, as well as the public/private issues surrounding loss of ag land and economic activity in areas that need some sustainability.
The Land & Water Conservation Fund and Habitat Montana are the two most used funds for these acquisitions, along with funding from Pittman Robertson (terrestrial) and Dingle-Johnson (aquatic). Habitat MT generally has an access component to it under rule, and LWCF has no access component unless voluntarily offered by the lessor (easements only, not fee title).
Buying more public land is a tough sell to the legislatures and governors of most states. There is always a political struggle for this kind of action due to perceived differences in management styles between the state and federal gov't, as well as the public/private issues surrounding loss of ag land and economic activity in areas that need some sustainability.
Lots of good groups working on public access. As @SAJ mentioned, TNC is a big player in that game, as is The Trust For Public Lands. Your local land trust group is probably working on it with a shoestring budget.
In the critter groups, RMEF is actually a non-profit land trust, so they would be expected to be a leader in such among the species-specific organizations. RMEF and partners have open or improved more than 1.5 million acres of public land.
We need all of those groups working on access, as there is immense private money out there trying to purchase these critical conservation/access properties. It is hard to compete with that private capital, but groups with expertise and relationships are able to get a lot done.
@Shed God, here is a map to look at for Region 3 access projects, some big ones in your backyard, that have been completed by RMEF and partners. They put deals together, got the funding, and immediately transferred the land to a state or federal agency to provide public access.
These groups also lend their expertise, relationships, and legal staff to help create access easements across private lands. Those often go under the radar, but are also very important.
If these groups had more money and they weren't beholden to "fair market value" appraisals, they could compete with even better against the privately funded ranch buyers. Yet, with the FMV appraisal rules, non-profit orgs using any government funds (like LWCF) can't overpay. And they also can't overpay when using their own funds, due to the "private inurement" rules. Thus, when landowners could get much more than appraised value, these non-profit groups rely on generous landowners who want to do the right thing with their property, a hard task that might take years of cultivating relationships with landowners.
Add to the huge private capital market, the problem @Ben Lamb describes about state and local governments having a bias against public access, and accomplishing any of these projects is an immense undertaking. Finding funding is only part of it. Raising grassroots support to convince county and state officials to approve such is an effort and skill set all of its own.
Any of those groups who are doing this access work need our support, regardless of the outcome of Project 2025, Goal 30 by 30, or any other catchy campaign slogan.
In the critter groups, RMEF is actually a non-profit land trust, so they would be expected to be a leader in such among the species-specific organizations. RMEF and partners have open or improved more than 1.5 million acres of public land.
We need all of those groups working on access, as there is immense private money out there trying to purchase these critical conservation/access properties. It is hard to compete with that private capital, but groups with expertise and relationships are able to get a lot done.
@Shed God, here is a map to look at for Region 3 access projects, some big ones in your backyard, that have been completed by RMEF and partners. They put deals together, got the funding, and immediately transferred the land to a state or federal agency to provide public access.
These groups also lend their expertise, relationships, and legal staff to help create access easements across private lands. Those often go under the radar, but are also very important.
If these groups had more money and they weren't beholden to "fair market value" appraisals, they could compete with even better against the privately funded ranch buyers. Yet, with the FMV appraisal rules, non-profit orgs using any government funds (like LWCF) can't overpay. And they also can't overpay when using their own funds, due to the "private inurement" rules. Thus, when landowners could get much more than appraised value, these non-profit groups rely on generous landowners who want to do the right thing with their property, a hard task that might take years of cultivating relationships with landowners.
Add to the huge private capital market, the problem @Ben Lamb describes about state and local governments having a bias against public access, and accomplishing any of these projects is an immense undertaking. Finding funding is only part of it. Raising grassroots support to convince county and state officials to approve such is an effort and skill set all of its own.
Any of those groups who are doing this access work need our support, regardless of the outcome of Project 2025, Goal 30 by 30, or any other catchy campaign slogan.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Like this for example?
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest expands by 589 acres
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest acquired 589 acres as part of their Westphal Parks Acquisition.The land was added to the Forest in the Tobacco Root Mou
nbcmontana.com
Funded by LWCF.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is funded by royalties paid by energy companies for drilling oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The LWCF is a bipartisan fund that was created by Congress in 1964 and is permanently funded at $900 million each year. The LWCF is a key source of funding for federal land acquisition for conservation and recreation purposes, and it also provides competitive grants to states for local preservation and recreation projects
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Here's another one that happened this month.
nbcmontana.com
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest announces addition of lands in Gravelly Mountains
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest announced the addition of 160 new acres of forest on the West Fork of the Madison and Elk Rivers on Tuesday morning.Th
nbcmontana.com
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I know @Big Fin is trying to keep things from jumping onto the politics track, but it seem appropriate to point out that these programs are also under attack in the Project 2025 doc. The permanent funding of the LWCF was certainly a positive, but you can see below it was accompanied by an under-the-radar rule implemented right after the 2020 election that cut its power to acquire property. That will almost certainly be reinstated with a Trump win.
Conservation easements are also being scrutinized. Not a lot of detail, but the plan is clear. You don't cut down a tree with one stroke of the ax. You chip away at it from the outside, bit by bit, until it falls. I think people dismiss these as "impossible" to justify not doing the hard work or changing their mind on things.
Conservation easements are also being scrutinized. Not a lot of detail, but the plan is clear. You don't cut down a tree with one stroke of the ax. You chip away at it from the outside, bit by bit, until it falls. I think people dismiss these as "impossible" to justify not doing the hard work or changing their mind on things.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I also wish you luck in writing everything that is wrong.
elkduds
Well-known member
And among the most profitable businesses in the world because of these subsidies.As if the other energy interests aren't heavily subsidized?
SEN. WHITEHOUSE ON FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES: “WE ARE SUBSIDIZING THE DANGER” | U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget
The Official U.S. Senate Committee On The Budgetwww.budget.senate.gov
I don't know why everyone has their panties in a wad. The Republican running for president has denounced Project 2025 many times. He said he doesn't support it and that it was put together by numerous people on the "extreme" Right. So what's the deal here? Spread misinformation? Keep on frothing at the mouth I guess. Don't try pin it on someone that is against it.
elkduds
Well-known member
Yes, that little flu bug was a small price to pay for this 'huge' reduction in retail gasoline prices
Utterly misleading graph, despite the partisan color coding. Demand went way down because of many pandemic factors, including the deaths of one million Americans from COVID.
elkduds
Well-known member
Almost nobody believes him, and rightfully so..
In most places the backbone of the grid is 40+ years old.
It isn’t setup to take on significant loads at distribution voltages.
The entire system was built to take on load at transmission voltage and step it down to 12kV
It’s not that it can’t be done but it’s a major transition and revamp of the grid to make function.
Similar threads
