Washington Post Opinion Piece Completely Misses the Point

[Elky Welky]

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t MT have something like that? How well does that work, (not a rhetorical question)?

We have a free program online about landowner relationships but there isn't any access carrot that comes with it. And there is also the Montana Master Hunter program, which is run by the nonprofit One Montana and not the state. I did that program and it is excellent, but it isn't cheap. Which is why I would love to see something state-run, so there isn't any separation between those that can afford to do something like the Master Hunter program, and those who can't.

 

[Beignet]

Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t MT have something like that? How well does that work, (not a rhetorical question)?

I did the Hunter Landowner Stewardship course out of boredom one winter. I’ve sent letters to maybe six landowners asking for permission, included my certificate and mentioned the class. No one gave a darn, really. One guy did appreciate it though, but he leases to outfitters. I did get a nice hat in my favorite sort of olive color that I wear a ton though.

Before Worsech stepped down he had spitballed a possible “Type 3” Block Management scheme wherein access would be tied to having taken a similar course. Possibly offering a species point for taking the class as well. Haven’t heard of anything since. The course and expanded BMA seemed like the right idea, but doesn’t seem to have any follow through. Shame, as the course infrastructure is already in place.

I’ll stop derailing the easement and acquisition bit, but would be interested in the status of expanded BM if anyone has heard anything.

 

[perma]

We have voluntary donations in place here for accessyes. I haven't looked for a while, but it's not near enough to support the program and more funding for that comes from NR than R.

I’ve always thought that an “AccessYES stamp” should be required to hunt those lands. It’s crazy to me how you can just walk into a place like that for free. $10 for a stamp would go a long way.

 

[tormenter]

I’ve always thought that an “AccessYES stamp” should be required to hunt those lands. It’s crazy to me how you can just walk into a place like that for free. $10 for a stamp would go a long way.

It would also probably improve the hunting - as mentioned earlier sportsman can be cheap and some would avoid for even a token $10 or $25 stamp.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hey @Ben Lamb or anyone else - mind giving us all a primer (or linking to one) on how an organization like RMEF goes about land acquisitions? I’m fuzzy on the details, but believe that they work on behalf of public agencies and are beholden to the appraised values mentioned in the op-ed under discussion. Don’t believe I’ve ever seen the process concisely explained.

I'm not specialized in this so it's only at a 6th grade level that I can sound like I'm smart.

With a lot of organizations like RMEF, Trust for Public Lands and The Nature Conservancy, their efforts are initiated by some of the best conservation staff in the world dedicated to working with landowners specifically on these projects. Most of the time these projects are initiated by landowners looking for opportunities to increase their ability to produce, reduce pressures of debt and ensure future generations can ranch or farm.

With FWP, the process is the same, and sometimes FWP staff will initiate the process based on location, etc (not pushing landowners, but sitting down and talking to them about what they need out of conservation to make the operation work well). With USFWS and LWCF funding, those funds can be channeled into special areas that have high conservation needs in order to maximize return on investment. That sets staff up to work with landowners on a suite of options including LWCF, NRCS and other funding sources to help increase conservation potential.

@Big Fin is much more versed in this than I am, so I would happily hand the mike over to the top dog.

I think the valuation piece in the op-ed is really important. If the lease value doesn't make sense economically for a landowner, they won't sign easements. Changing that valuation to allow for increase in value for access is mission critical to get more people involved. If we're talking just about access easements, then we need to recognize that the cost of doing business for landowners isn't any different than it is for us when we go to the store, or have to have work done on our houses - Their costs are rising just like everyone else, and that means we need to be able to anticipate and adjust for that when valuations go up.

Again, Big Fin is much more versed in this than I, and I'm sure I've missed a ton here.

 

[FairWeather]

It seems like such an easy thing to legislate, mandatory public accessibility to all public lands. Not to say there’s not still a lot of nuance to it, and writing good legislation wouldn’t be time consuming, but getting bipartisan support for it should be as simple as it gets.

 

[Beignet]

I'm not specialized in this so it's only at a 6th grade level that I can sound like I'm smart.

Thanks, Ben. I’m at a 5th grade level, so that sounded super smart to me.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It seems like such an easy thing to legislate, mandatory public accessibility to all public lands. Not to say there’s not still a lot of nuance to it, and writing good legislation wouldn’t be time consuming, but getting bipartisan support for it should be as simple as it gets.

Everything comes down to votes. If you don't have the votes, nothing is easy.

 

[FairWeather]

I think the valuation piece in the op-ed is really important. If the lease value doesn't make sense economically for a landowner, they won't sign easements. Changing that valuation to allow for increase in value for access is mission critical to get more people involved. If we're talking just about access easements, then we need to recognize that the cost of doing business for landowners isn't any different than it is for us when we go to the store, or have to have work done on our houses - Their costs are rising just like everyone else, and that means we need to be able to anticipate and adjust for that when valuations go up.

Regarding this part, is there any reason the federal govt can’t simply claim eminent domain over the land that would become an easement? They’d be compensated to some degree, and it’d save the time (and likely some govt $$) of haggling over a price.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Regarding this part, is there any reason the federal govt can’t simply claim eminent domain over the land that would become an easement? They’d be compensated to some degree, and it’d save the time (and likely some govt $$) of haggling over a price.

Yes. Eminent Domain is really only used in rare instances when a trespass agreement can't be reached, or when the use of the land is of the benefit to the majority of the people. For hunting access, eminent domain is not really worth using due to this being an area that (until the federal courts decide differently) remains grey legally. The political blowback for eminent domain is significant as well, especially if you use if for recreational purposes. }

The use of the land for hunting would not rise to the level of concern that say a new water treatment plant that can only be located in one specific area due to drainage and safety concerns, energy infrastructure, etc. Even then, using eminent domain to condemn private property for the benefit and use of another is something that Americans should never entertain lightly.

We sent the King of England back home with his tail between his leg. Let's not give the crown it's power back.

The Environment and Natural Resources division of the Department of Justice has some good information on this, including the past history of when it has been used recreationally.

History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

www.justice.gov

 

[Big Fin]

Hey @Ben Lamb or anyone else - mind giving us all a primer (or linking to one) on how an organization like RMEF goes about land acquisitions? I’m fuzzy on the details, but believe that they work on behalf of public agencies and are beholden to the appraised values mentioned in the op-ed under discussion. Don’t believe I’ve ever seen the process concisely explained.

Here's the very abbreviated version for how most of them get completed, with some being far more complex.

Land Project Managers who work for RMEF (LPMs) in the many different regions are to build relationships with landowners who are interested in keeping lands undeveloped. The hope is that relationship has built enough trust that when the landowner has an event that involves a sale RMEF will be considered as an option.

Assuming RMEF is given an opportunity, they must do a ton of due diligence around appraisals and Fair Market Value, ability to get the project done in the time window the seller has, wildlife score, ease/difficulty for the successor agency (Fed or State) to manage the land, how much funding RMEF will have to risk as earnest money to lock in their option for purchase, and how the property will score under LWCF if LWCF is the intended source of money to close the deal and turn over to USFS/BLM/USFS/State agency.

RMEF usually risks the upfront money. It is possible that it won't be refunded if the deal can't get closed in the time agreed upon. Thus, they need to structure that carefully and have comfort they can likely get the deal done. This requires a lot of talented people to get these huge projects done with the final takeout being the complicated process of LWCF funding.

Once it is underway, RMEF must get the local (County Commissioners) and state (Wildlife Agency) on board. If they are not on board, the Congressional delegation from that State can easily kill the project when it comes to the agency's request for LWCF funds. Very seldom will a State delegation override a County Commission, as they did on the last phase of the Tenderfoot project in Montana.

The appraisal can be a deal killer. BLM/DOI appraisal rules are pretty strict about methodology that can be used, mostly related to cash flow streams from grazing. That results in some really low appraisals that don't reflect the amenities values that Wall Street billionaires will pay for. Thus, some projects fall apart at the appraisal process. A non-profit cannot pay over appraised value, due to the "private inurement" tax code rules imposed on non-profits. They can go get a different appraisal other than the BLM appraisal, but that usually means they have to fund the purchase with their own money, as projects funded with LWCF are limited to appraised value by the requesting agency. We lost a MT ranch due to the weird BLM/DOI appraisal restrictions. It got valued as if no elk lived there, yet the elk did live there and added a ton of market value that wasn't reflected in a cash flow appraisal methodology required by the BLM.

Assuming it gets appraised at a high enough level, it then enters the LWCF scoring system. A host of criteria are used to determine a ranking order for all submitted projects. Those projects get funded in that ranking order, so long as the Congressional delegation of that state doesn't upset the transaction.

Once approved and funds are allocated from LWCF, the land is purchased from the owner, immediately being transferred to a Federal or State agency to be managed as public land. A non-profit merely acts as the intermediary to arrange and complete the transaction, holding title for a day, if at all. Usually (not always) the non-profit or land trust, such as a group like RMEF, gets reimbursed for most of the money they invested as earnest money to hold the property under the buy-sell agreement.

From that point on, it becomes public land managed under the guidelines of whatever agency ends up as the owner. Appraisals usually determine what can/can't get done. Current Federal appraisal rules are not reflective of the amenity values that are driving land prices in the west, so it is getting harder and harder to find properties that will qualify. Sometimes that owner makes a donation via a "bargain purchase," whereby they sell to the non-profit at a less than market value. Those sellers are the true gems who seldom get the recognition they deserve.

 

[Beignet]

Heck yeah. Thanks, Randy! I initially came to the forum looking for that type of policy knowledge. Appreciate you taking the time to write it out.

 

[FairWeather]

Yes. Eminent Domain is really only used in rare instances when a trespass agreement can't be reached, or when the use of the land is of the benefit to the majority of the people. For hunting access, eminent domain is not really worth using due to this being an area that (until the federal courts decide differently) remains grey legally. The political blowback for eminent domain is significant as well, especially if you use if for recreational purposes. }

The use of the land for hunting would not rise to the level of concern that say a new water treatment plant that can only be located in one specific area due to drainage and safety concerns, energy infrastructure, etc. Even then, using eminent domain to condemn private property for the benefit and use of another is something that Americans should never entertain lightly.

We sent the King of England back home with his tail between his leg. Let's not give the crown it's power back.

The Environment and Natural Resources division of the Department of Justice has some good information on this, including the past history of when it has been used recreationally.

History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

www.justice.gov

Thank you for the info and the link.

All the same, I’ll keep writing my congressmen to push for public access to every parcel of public land.

 

[bucdoego]

Heck yeah. Thanks, Randy! I initially came to the forum looking for that type of policy knowledge. Appreciate you taking the time to write it out.

Agreed. I'd never have known/learned this without HuntTalk/Big Fin... thanks for all of it.

 

[Elky Welky]

For hunting access, eminent domain is not really worth using due to this being an area that (until the federal courts decide differently) remains grey legally. The political blowback for eminent domain is significant as well, especially if you use if for recreational purposes.

Agreed. Eminent domain is a pretty extreme form of government taking subject to strict scrutiny and is not the doctrine I would rely upon for public access. The Unlawful Enclosures Act and Mackay vs. Uinta Development Co., as Judge Skavdahl relied upon in the WY case, provide better justification in favor of the public right, while also balancing the importance of private property rights. @FairWeather, if you haven't had a chance to read Skavdahl's ruling, I highly recommend it.

Corner Crossing Case Order

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

We sent the King of England back home with his tail between his leg. Let's not give the crown it's power back.

Agreed. Just as we should not go back to a model that privatizes wildlife and creates the King's Deer all over again too

 

[Ben Lamb]

Agreed. Eminent domain is a pretty extreme form of government taking subject to strict scrutiny and is not the doctrine I would rely upon for public access. The Unlawful Enclosures Act and Mackay vs. Uinta Development Co., as Judge Skavdahl relied upon in the WY case, provide better justification in favor of the public right, while also balancing the importance of private property rights. @FairWeather, if you haven't had a chance to read Skavdahl's ruling, I highly recommend it.

Corner Crossing Case Order

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

For federal lands, absolutely. State land has a whole different set of laws, as we know.

Agreed. Just as we should not go back to a model that privatizes wildlife and creates the King's Deer all over again too

Amen. Wildlife belong to no one, and are held in trust for all including future generations. The debate over the democratic allocation of the resource is a critical one and should be always balanced with the other sisters of the NAM.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That is a post headline/title that could be re-used nearly every day.

 

[Joshua 24:15 Outdoors]

I can't read it either, and it is an opinion piece. It would not be the first opinion piece to willfully miss the point.

That's 100% facts