BigHornRam
Well-known member
FWP is seeking public comment on this conservation easement. Important public access benefit part of the easement.
Stafford Ferry CE
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
theat
Well-known member
Great piece of property that deserves to be protected and kept open to public use in perpetuity. I've hiked thru it a few times to get to some good glassing spots for sheep that would be almost inaccessible without it.
theat
Well-known member
Have you ever been there or really anywhere in the Breaks before? Just because a road touches the same BLM lands a few miles away doesn't mean that it is practical or even possible to traverse the canyons to get to the other area. The spots I have glassed from using this property could possibly be reached from other access points when it is completely dry, but it would take a long time and involve some very treacherous terrain. Still not sure its actually possible.
I am also guessing you also did not actually read the proposal since it is pretty clearly laid out that hunting will be allowed on the property as well, not just access across it.
theat
Well-known member
Scrounged up some pics I took while there. I ran into the rams on this property while on my way back to the truck.
Good grief man just asking a question.
And Yes I've spent time in the breaks before. I would argue that ease of access is one of the major factors in killing the hunting in this state. Maybe not practical or possible if you're 350 lbs and/or don't like leaving the pickup, but absolutely possible for people that are willing to exert some effort.
D
Deleted member 48080
Guest
I've also hunted this property in the past. It's an awesome chunk of land, and a great spot for a conservation easement.
theat
Well-known member
Uhh...so was I?
Completely agree that ease of access is an issue in Montana. I actually wrote in being against the proposed new road in the Bulwhacker area.
The eastern part of the breaks are significantly easier to get around in than the upper breaks where this conservation easement is located. I know you don't know me, but I'm certainly not a road hunter or 350lbs. I don't care how great of shape you are in, some of these canyons are absolutely not possible to ascend, descend, or cross. I know from personal experience. I have spent a TON of time hunting, hiking, floating and working in this area.
Hey now, let’s not be so quick to judge me.
theat
Well-known member
Some pics from a sheep capture, test, and relocate project we did awhile back. Some of these sheep were caught on this property and adjacent to it.
Frozen Missouri River
Not sure why, but all my pics from the helicopter that day turned out blurry.
Winifred
Frozen Missouri River
Not sure why, but all my pics from the helicopter that day turned out blurry.
Winifred
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Conservation Easements also limit subdivision and development, and include grazing restrictions such as no domestic sheep. I need to research the finer details to confirm what is included and what is restricted.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
Another tangible plus for CEs that doesn’t get stated enough is that they allow for traditional agricultural operations to continue in perpetuity. Some who are against CEs view them as a threat to ag, when in fact the opposite is true. These CE deeds are clearly written to support traditional operations—cattle grazing and farming (only on existing tilled ground). Terms in the deed specifically preclude tilling up any more native vegetation but allow ranchers and farmers to continue farming/haying where it already occurs. From the documents related to this particular CE, it is entirely native vegetation so no sodbusting will be permitted, but the deed speaks to keeping private land in ag. This is important with this next part.
FWP CEs in particular, with the recreation/hunting access component, mean that combined with the subdivision/development rights, the encumbrances on the property result in a “devaluation,” generally 40-50% of appraised value. Because FWP holds certain “access” rights, it makes it unlikely that a recreational buyer would come along and purchase the land. The landowner has already been paid for certain rights to the land but then they’re able to sell (if they choose) the other rights (ownership, ag) at a reduced cost and it’s more likely that a traditional producer could actually afford to buy. In my mind this is a win-win because it helps keep traditional and/or young ranching families on the landscape. Particularly for larger CEs.
There have been other examples of FWP CEs where the landowner sold a CE to FWP and then the rest to a neighbor. This allowed the OG landowner to get the full value for his land, and a traditional operator, who may have otherwise never been able to expand/keep his business viable, purchase the land at essentially 1/2-off. The CE is forever protected as open-space, has perpetual hunting/rec access for the public, and grazing standards ensure that the land won’t be over-utilized.
When you compare this to the other model, say some wealthy individual purchasing a ranch, using ag as a tax write-off and then making their little recreational playground, that land will probably never go back into an actual farmer’s or rancher’s hands. If it sells to anyone, it’s likely another wealthy individual or a developer which in the latter case the open space and habitat would be gone forever.
As someone who would love to, but knows they will never, ever afford land in MT, I am very appreciative of the habitat that private landowners provide wildlife and even moreso of those that share their good stewardship with the rest of us. So to me, the CE model and especially the CE model with public access is long-term, win-win.
And no one is forcing these landowners to sell CEs. They are entirely voluntary arrangements between two willing parties. Doesn’t get better than that IMO.
Boy howdy you're right about impossible some of these lands are impossible to ascend, descend, cross etc. My wife had a permit in there this last fall and we often found ourselves in places impossible to negotiate!
Add this CE if it goes thru (which I'm sure it will) to the one that's already in existence and they've a large piece of land under CE in some wonderful country!
mtnkid85
Well-known member
Well stated.
MT Elk Hunter
New member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2016
- Messages
- 2
Making access easier does nothing but hurt wild places and the animals that live there.
I might be wrong, but I was told this Stafford Ferry Conservation Easement would be on the December Commission Agenda, the meeting for which is tomorrow, the 19th. I'm not sure why it has taken this long, but I was told it would be this upcoming meeting, at the latest.
Here's the agenda - https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...public-agenda_december-2024_11.29-version.pdf
If it's on that agenda, I might need my vision prescription updated.
I have some calls in to Helena to find out why a project so well received with such a cooperative landowner is not being handled the way the public was promised. And, in the way I suspect was likely told to the landowner involved in the exchange.
I'll let you know if I find out anything. If anyone has information, please post it here.
Here's the agenda - https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...public-agenda_december-2024_11.29-version.pdf
If it's on that agenda, I might need my vision prescription updated.
I have some calls in to Helena to find out why a project so well received with such a cooperative landowner is not being handled the way the public was promised. And, in the way I suspect was likely told to the landowner involved in the exchange.
I'll let you know if I find out anything. If anyone has information, please post it here.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Tone of question suggests you oppose this easement. As someone who's "spent time in the breaks" it seems odd that you would pose the question.
Well, a few answers are coming to light, all a concern, seeing the attacks on conservation easements in the bill drafts for the upcoming legislative session.
Here is what I just learned about the Stafford Ferry CE, which will also apply to all the other Fergus County CEs in the hopper:
So there you have it; some Commissioners and/or legislators have their "ideological" opposition to perpetuity and thus they refuse to let a landowner exercise their property rights. This is exactly what should be everybody's concern.
In spite of overwhelming support for the CE in public comments and little public opposition, a few ideologues with zero understanding of the practical application of CEs can use the levers of power to enforce personal ideologies and exempt themselves from accountability for interfering with the property rights of a private party.
In the 2013 (?) Legislative session Kerry White of the Gallatin Valley introduced a bill to make CEs subject to approval of county commissioners, of which his brother was a Gallatin County Commissioner at the time. It was soundly defeated, as people saw it for what it is.
Now, just ten years later, that once-thought-as-crazy ideal is being accomplished through administrative process; from the Governor caving support for property rights of landowners, giving outsized deference to anti-property right ideologues, and cowering to the well-funded out of state influence peddlers whose goal is to remove CEs from the American landscape. For them, who cares how it gets accomplished, if they can use the powers of influence and levers.
For all of those landowners who have been negotiating with FWP in good faith, this is a complete kick in the crotch. These small business are making huge decisions based on representations that these CEs would go through. To have them pulled at the last minute and disrupt their long-term plans is completely unfair to them and gives FWP a terrible black eye.
FWP will take the hit, but it is the elected folks who deserve the blame.
Here is what I just learned about the Stafford Ferry CE, which will also apply to all the other Fergus County CEs in the hopper:
So there you have it; some Commissioners and/or legislators have their "ideological" opposition to perpetuity and thus they refuse to let a landowner exercise their property rights. This is exactly what should be everybody's concern.
In spite of overwhelming support for the CE in public comments and little public opposition, a few ideologues with zero understanding of the practical application of CEs can use the levers of power to enforce personal ideologies and exempt themselves from accountability for interfering with the property rights of a private party.
In the 2013 (?) Legislative session Kerry White of the Gallatin Valley introduced a bill to make CEs subject to approval of county commissioners, of which his brother was a Gallatin County Commissioner at the time. It was soundly defeated, as people saw it for what it is.
Now, just ten years later, that once-thought-as-crazy ideal is being accomplished through administrative process; from the Governor caving support for property rights of landowners, giving outsized deference to anti-property right ideologues, and cowering to the well-funded out of state influence peddlers whose goal is to remove CEs from the American landscape. For them, who cares how it gets accomplished, if they can use the powers of influence and levers.
For all of those landowners who have been negotiating with FWP in good faith, this is a complete kick in the crotch. These small business are making huge decisions based on representations that these CEs would go through. To have them pulled at the last minute and disrupt their long-term plans is completely unfair to them and gives FWP a terrible black eye.
FWP will take the hit, but it is the elected folks who deserve the blame.
I’d recommend people reach out to the Fergus County commmissioners and ask them to support this easement as well as the Hannah Ranch CE on the west end of the Snowies. If the Stafford Ferry CE falls through, the Hannah Ranch is likely to follow. The Hannah Ranch in particular would be extremely valuable as it would provide access to a part of the Snowies that you can’t really get into without private access. Here is the number and emails for the commissioners.
Last edited:
