Understanding Public Land Parcels/ SUN Ranch

[Addicting]

In this scenario the public is loosing money on grazing fees compared to what it would get if it property taxes were paid in it given the surrounding land cost from the recent Sales. If the property remains public, why not impose the same restrictions to the ranch about hunting that we face. If one of their paid hunters step foot on it they are trespassing. They should not be allowed to profit off from this unless they are also going to have to pay a lease for those exclusive hunting rights they currently have for free.

 

[Poke 'Em]

...

 

[Poke 'Em]

...

 

[Straight Arrow]

Just using this piece as an example, why is the State of Montana funding 640 acres that the Sun Ranch gets to exclusively hunt and fish on for their paying clients?

First of all, realize that this example is one of many, many landlocked state tracts, which are primarily used for grazing or other agricultural uses with the income going to the state school trust. The fact that it may at times be crossed by huntable wildlife does not really factor into the state ownership and lease agreement. Fishing on this, as well as most state school trust sections, is negligible. To assert that the state is "funding" this section of behalf of the ranch is a misstatement. By the Montana Constitution, revenue generation for the public school system is the mandate for state school sections. The privilege to access state school sections whose boundaries abut public access (typically roads) is a result of decades of difficult work and lobbying by sportsmen and other recreationists, and comes with a requirement to generate a little revenue from small access fees. (Potentially we could be one legislative session away from even losing that. But please don't mention that to the current session.)
Dept of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is the managing state agency, with oversight and decisions by the State Land Board, consisting of the highest elected offices in state government.
As far as trading or selling the tracts ... although it has been done, it is very location and circumstances specific ... and where would you begin? This tract of interest to you specifically represents one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of others who have their own access wishes. Whose special interests are of most importance, especially in light of the priority for revenue generation and realistically considering the low priority for recreational use?

 

[2ski]

In this scenario the public is loosing money on grazing fees compared to what it would get if it property taxes were paid in it given the surrounding land cost from the recent Sales. If the property remains public, why not impose the same restrictions to the ranch about hunting that we face. If one of their paid hunters step foot on it they are trespassing. They should not be allowed to profit off from this unless they are also going to have to pay a lease for those exclusive hunting rights they currently have for free.

Keep in mind you're calling them "State Lands" but the real term for them is "School Trust Lands". So the grazing fees, which I'm sure are being paid by the Sun Ranch, are helping to give money to the schools of MT. Property taxes do not in entirety.

So the way I look at this as to your original post, is these are not lands that have no use to the state of MT just because we can't hunt them. They have definite use to us as land used to fund our schools. And unless there is a no trespassing sign on the road, I would drive up that road to were the state land meets the road and use it. Because if it truly is not a public road, the Sun Ranch will have this posted because they would've had issues in the past with people deciding to drive up the road. Basically, when I look at a map, I assume ranches don't take the time to name their roads. A named road is public unless really obviously not or I'm told otherwise.

The BLM land always has a use as it accesses the Madison River and the Madison River is THE fishing river in MT.

 

[Nameless Range]

As I understand it and as FWP states on their website, Navigability is irrelevant to Stream Access Law.

"The law states that rivers and streams capable of recreational use may be so used by the public regardless of streambed ownership."

The Navigability List that was linked above shows those streambeds owned by the state as a result of the Equal Footing Doctrine. Because rivers and streams migrate this makes things interesting today, but doesn't have anything to do with this example.

If that stream is capable of recreational use then you can access it from the highway, but I would be real leery about walking up it with a gun to access that state parcel. Even if you had a rod with you.

 

[2ski]

If that stream is capable of recreational use then you can access it from the highway, but I would be real leery about walking up it with a gun to access that state parcel. Even if you had a rod with you.

I agree. While the FWP may have said they are good with it, there is a LEO called a sheriff that may have a different opinion. And who knows what the Madison County sheriff thinks. He may side with the little guy, but he may be friends with the Sun Ranch too. And side note, I don't think the Sun Ranch are bad people if memory serves. I want to say I've heard some good things about them, but don't quote me on that. I want to say they have a place with a trail that provides access to forest service property somewhere. Maybe they have some block management? I don't remember what I had heard, but it was something.

 

[Nameless Range]

I reread one of the posts above and was off with my last post. In terms of navigability, if a section of stream/river is listed as navigable, then I believe you could use that navigable section of stream for access to parcels beyond because the streambed itself is owned by the State of Montana.

Stream Access Law is essentially a legal easement to recreation. But the navigability list is basically a declaration of streambed ownership on the State's behalf.

 

[mtmander]

...

 

[Frenchy]

....

 

[Addicting]

First of all, realize that this example is one of many, many landlocked state tracts, which are primarily used for grazing or other agricultural uses with the income going to the state school trust. The fact that it may at times be crossed by huntable wildlife does not really factor into the state ownership and lease agreement. Fishing on this, as well as most state school trust sections, is negligible. To assert that the state is "funding" this section of behalf of the ranch is a misstatement. By the Montana Constitution, revenue generation for the public school system is the mandate for state school sections. The privilege to access state school sections whose boundaries abut public access (typically roads) is a result of decades of difficult work and lobbying by sportsmen and other recreationists, and comes with a requirement to generate a little revenue from small access fees. (Potentially we could be one legislative session away from even losing that. But please don't mention that to the current session.)

I understand this and only used this one parcel as an example, I do not know the Sun Ranch or anyone on it. They may be the nicest people in the world, none of this is directed at them personally, it could be any Ranch surrounding public property.

My term funding is a loose one, I was just trying to say that State money is spent on these properties thru out the year, whether its thru salaries for the work hours, drain projects, overall maintenance or enforcement.

The basis in the argument for the sales of these lands is that the State cannot afford them and will have to sell them because of the for mentioned costs. What I am trying to understand is the management of these properties and economics. Here is what is spinning around in my head and the thoughts I listed at the beginning of this thread.

Does the cost out weight the gain or is the cost better spent elsewhere?

What defines the gain? If the gain is purely economics this is a bad business model that is going to eventually go bankrupt.

If a person is allowed to access these lands for by paying a 3rd party why isn't the state getting a cut of that money for the schools? Maybe I am wrong but in my experience a grazing lease is not a hunting lease. So the 3rd party should not be entitled to everything the land offers without paying for it out of their profits.

From an outsider it appears that they don't have to buy the cow because the milk is free once you buy the fence it holding it in. Then ask LEO to tell the farmer it cannot get its cow or use the milk, and if you cross the fence your going to go to jail. The farmer needs a say because he needs to protect his interest.

So from what I am understanding so far, the public gets little to no say in this, the schools get the short end of the stick, and the surrounding land owners can generate revenue off from sportsmen without repercussion.

Thankyou all for chiming in on this and helping me understand it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think an important thing to consider with public lands is there is value beyond hunting and fishing, as many have said above, the whole point of these lands is to generate money for the Montana school system.

You also have to look at, grazing rights, mineral value (Oil, Gas, Coal, and now Wind and Solar), timber, ect.

Also there is value in just having the lands as undeveloped tracts, many of the undeveloped lands that you can recreate on in the Denver metro were/are state trust lands. What if 50 years from now Montana has blown up in population, the Sun valley ranch has sold to a developer to build a huge subdivision with quarter acre lots what is the value now?

All the western states were given lands for school trust at some point and some of the states have done some divestiture. I guarantee that every piece of state land sold is worth more now then when it was sold and will be worth even more in the future.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I was just trying to say that State money is spent on these properties thru out the year, whether its thru salaries for the work hours, drain projects, overall maintenance or enforcement.

Not true ... the only costs to the state annually for most of these tracts is the administrative costs to deposit the lease payment.
Can you cite an example of work hours, drain projects, maintenance or enforcement on the Sun Ranch tract or any other you are referring to which costs the state more to own than it receives for schools? Just give one example of a state trust land tract that results in deficit spending.

So from what I am understanding so far, the public gets little to no say in this, the schools get the short end of the stick, and the surrounding land owners can generate revenue off from sportsmen without repercussion.

Apologies if what has been explained is confusing ... but the afore statement indicates misunderstanding.

 

[2ski]

I understand this and only used this one parcel as an example, I do not know the Sun Ranch or anyone on it. They may be the nicest people in the world, none of this is directed at them personally, it could be any Ranch surrounding public property.

My term funding is a loose one, I was just trying to say that State money is spent on these properties thru out the year, whether its thru salaries for the work hours, drain projects, overall maintenance or enforcement.

The basis in the argument for the sales of these lands is that the State cannot afford them and will have to sell them because of the for mentioned costs. What I am trying to understand is the management of these properties and economics. Here is what is spinning around in my head and the thoughts I listed at the beginning of this thread.

Does the cost out weight the gain or is the cost better spent elsewhere?

What defines the gain? If the gain is purely economics this is a bad business model that is going to eventually go bankrupt.

If a person is allowed to access these lands for by paying a 3rd party why isn't the state getting a cut of that money for the schools? Maybe I am wrong but in my experience a grazing lease is not a hunting lease. So the 3rd party should not be entitled to everything the land offers without paying for it out of their profits.

From an outsider it appears that they don't have to buy the cow because the milk is free once you buy the fence it holding it in. Then ask LEO to tell the farmer it cannot get its cow or use the milk, and if you cross the fence your going to go to jail. The farmer needs a say because he needs to protect his interest.

So from what I am understanding so far, the public gets little to no say in this, the schools get the short end of the stick, and the surrounding land owners can generate revenue off from sportsmen without repercussion.

Thankyou all for chiming in on this and helping me understand it.

There is very little cost to most state lands. Its a pasture that takes very little time for upkeep if any. Its just a pasture. Or there may be a wheat field somewhere that the farmer plows and tills and harvests and that's it. The state put nothing into it. So the schools don't lose. They win here. Leasing land for ag purposes is extremely common. A farmer decides to hang it up and his neighbor wants to use that land. The neighbor could buy it and pay a monthly payment to the bank which decreases his profit per acre or he could pay much less money to the neighbor, who owns the land free and clear. The owner makes some money off his land and doesn't have to do anything to it. The neighbor gets the use of the land, but because his cost per acre is less he makes more profit. Same thing with the trust. The Sun Ranch is a rich example of someone who could just buy up the land no problem, so they don't have to worry about the cost per acre/head of cattle in the subsequent 30 years. Its one hit that they absorb. The majority of School Trust land around the state is some regular farmer/rancher paying the state to till the soil. He can't afford to buy it.

As far as the access to the land and paying for that access. The argument could be made that they pay to access the Sun Ranch, and the state land is just something that they have access to like anyone else that can get to the land. So they pay to access the Sun Ranch and the state land is something they have access to like all the rest of us that could say helicopter in. Not really feasible, but they are paying for the access to the Sun Ranch, not the state land. Yes it is an added benifit, but how do you enforce them not using it if you decided to say they couldn't profit from it or share those profits?

I think you are thinking it takes WAY more money that it does to own the land.

 

[2ski]

You also have to realize that "generating revenue off of sportsmen" accounts for what percentage of the year? They are paying a grazing lease. They use it to graze cattle.

 

[Addicting]

You also have to look at, grazing rights, mineral value (Oil, Gas, Coal, and now Wind and Solar), timber, ect.

Also there is value in just having the lands as undeveloped tracts, many of the undeveloped lands that you can recreate on in the Denver metro were/are state trust lands. What if 50 years from now Montana has blown up in population, the Sun valley ranch has sold to a developer to build a huge subdivision with quarter acre lots what is the value now?

Hadn't thought about that, I was hung up on just the grazing rights. Good point.

 

[BRI]

This might be helpful. Here is the Montana DNRC 2017 report on Land Banking (how School Trust Lands are sold/purchased). One interesting item of note from the report, the DNRC has sold 57,860 acres of isolated land and purchased 67,810 acres of legally accessible land under this program.

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/...land-banking/LandBankingReportJanuary2017.pdf

 

[Addicting]

Not true ... the only costs to the state annually for most of these tracts is the administrative costs to deposit the lease payment.
Can you cite an example of work hours, drain projects, maintenance or enforcement on the Sun Ranch tract or any other you are referring to which costs the state more to own than it receives for schools? Just give one example of a state trust land tract that results in deficit spending.

Apologies if what has been explained is confusing ... but the afore statement indicates misunderstanding.

You are right, I am confused. The thoughts about this whole thing started by watching Randy's video on it :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0XKOTE4e4w&list=PLLdxutimd-JsEtFEIVd4kfFhn3EMTBRuC&index=6

So are they making money for the schools or loosing money?

 

[Addicting]

This might be helpful. Here is the Montana DNRC 2017 report on Land Banking (how School Trust Lands are sold/purchased). One interesting item of note from the report, the DNRC has sold 57,860 acres of isolated land and purchased 67,810 acres of legally accessible land under this program.

http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/...land-banking/LandBankingReportJanuary2017.pdf

Thanks, That explains a lot. So back to the beginning of this thread, thought 2&3 are actually viable and they are actively practicing it in some form or another.

 

[Straight Arrow]

So are they making money for the schools or loosing money?

Presently they are earning revenues for schools. But these are isolated, typically one section tracts used mostly for agricultural purposes, with little management costs.

What Randy is explaining is entirely a different and much more complex and costly situation. His video is describing the transfer of vast tracts of federal public land now with multiple use and not necessarily required to generate revenue, but moreover to be of multiple use to the owners, the American public. Management of these federal lands incurs huge costs for administration, enforcement of laws / rules for access and use, management / oversight of resource extraction, recreational amenities like campgrounds, access roads, and trails, among others ... and the huge wildfire mitigation and suppression cost. Those lands are not mandated to produce revenue and management costs are incurred by taxpayers across the nation. If the costs for the aforementioned management of what are now federal public lands in Montana were to be incurred by the million or so taxpayers in Montana then the deficit would be astronomical ... thus most of those lands would likely be sold to pay the bill. If you are concerned about a $10 access fee, just consider what Montana would need for a fee to access what remaining state public lands might be available for recreation ... that is if we even allowed NRs to use it! Or you could pay the fee to access Richie Rich's Ranch to hunt for all the public wildlife on private property which formerly was a big tract of Gallatin National Forest ... then became Montana Southwest State Forest, before it had to be sold because we just could not afford it.

The point is that state school trust lands are one thing ... but the ramifications of transferring the exponentially larger tracts of federal public lands into state trust lands are an entirely different discussion and much more complex and concerning. As my grandpa would say, "We're talking peanuts versus pumpkins!"