New National Park Concept

[Wandering Sagebrush]

I stumbled onto a NPR article about a private conservation organization that is purchasing ranch land in order to preserve the native grasses and animals that inhabit the prairies. In effect creating a new type of private National Park that appears to be free to the public.

Clearly this will bring change, as well as the potential for controversy. Much remains to be seen.

Here’s a link to the article.

Please take a moment to read

 

[WjColdWater]

Very interesting article. I like the tribal take on the plan.

 

[Vic Harder]

I don't understand the resistance by the ranchers. Can someone explain that to me? I'd like to understand...

 

[Wandering Sagebrush]

My guess is that part of it is change itself, losing a way of life. I can understand those kinds of fears.

Our extended family had a small ranch on the Rogue River in So Oregon. Roughly in the 70s, the wealthy and celebrities started moving in. Craig McCaw (McCaw Cellular) bought the Ginger Rogers place up stream from us, Patrick Duffy bought our neighbor, the old General Electric Exec Fishing lodge (Genelec Lodge, then he bought all but two acres of the family ranch. Jim Belushi bought the old Elks Picnic Grounds down stream fro us. So, I see where they’re coming from.

On the positive side, their purchases of multiple smaller ranches has been beneficial by helping to keep places from being subdivided smaller and smaller, and we see wildlife returning. My sister has one of the two remaining acres of the old ranch, and they often wake up to 70+ head of elk below the house. We never saw them when I was young.

 

[craig333]

Don't we already have organizations like the Nature Conservantioncy and others doing this?

 

[Foy]

Perhaps some understanding of the Montana ranchers' objections to the American Prairie Reserve (APR) can be gained by considering three factors related to APR's ownership of large swaths of land in eastern Montana:

1) Property tax and income tax issues: APR is a "qualified public charity" having Federal tax exempt status as a charitable organization, much as churches, the Red Cross, and countless smaller and larger charities. While being a Section 501(c)(3) public charity provides relief from Federal income taxation, most states exempt such organizations from state income tax as well. And, important to the locals, all 50 states exempt charities from real estate tax (property tax). While some large counties and large cities manage to extract "PILOTs" (Payments In Lieu of Taxes) from some charities, most state and local taxing authorities do not. Much of the AMR's acreage at present is within Phillips and and Valley counties and each county already has vast areas of Federal and tribal lands not subject to property tax payments (but I'll be quick to emphasize the reality that the Federal government is very good about voluntary remittance of PILOTs). Interestingly, the APR does not appear on listings of organizations exempt from property tax in either county, so either the lists are incomplete, property taxes are being paid voluntarily, or some sort of PILOTs are being made. But the point is that, in the eyes of some, there may be the notion that the state's and counties' tax bases are eroded by APR's ownership, leaving other locals to shoulder the burdens of providing county services.

2) Taxpayer funded "outside influences": As a qualified charity, APR can receive tax-deductible contributions from individuals and corporations. The linked article emphasizes this as an essential fact. With regards to high income individuals residing in high income tax rate states, the combined Federal and state income tax rate approaches 50%. What the tax deduction issue then becomes is the reality that the Federal government and many non-Montana states provide up to half of the funding to APR by reducing donor's personal tax bills by 50% of the gross donations they contribute to the APR.. The taxing authorities do so just as they provide some level of funding to the local's churches and local civic leagues, but with median incomes in rural Montana being quite modest, the proportional influence is tiny compared to what APR's donors receive. So the locals' outlooks may include "those rich Hollywood folks and their money plus the Gummint's money are coming into Montana and pushing us around". And to some degree, the locals probably have a case.

3) Free use of the lands--what's wrong with that?: Charities can be expected to charge user fees to cover their operating costs whenever necessary and practical. I would not assume APR will allow free use of their lands forever. Their doing so at the present may be a loss leader. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but support of the APR concept including "free use" assumptions seems unlikely to be the case long-term.

As Wandering Sagebrush mentioned, resistance to change is a common emotion. Add to that the fact that ranching, oil and gas, and mining communities in eastern Montana know all too well how outside interests, and their moneys, have changed western Montana over the last few decades, and reluctance or even resistance can be expected, even if not fully understood or supported by others.

Foy

 

[Wandering Sagebrush]

Foy, great insight. Thanks. The declining tax base is an issue I forgot.

 

[Vic Harder]

very helpful. Regional knowledge is priceless. Furiners like this Canuck haven't a clue sometimes. Thanks again.

 

[rando]

The Nature Conservancy has been making these sort of land purchases and the creation of easements for a long time. I think what is different for the APR is the scale of it - if completed it would be much bigger than any Nature Conservancy project that I am aware of.

From reading the article, it appears that the objections to this are more philosophical than practical. There are more details in this article: https://mountainjournal.org/the-american-prairie-reserve-and-its-dustup-over-bison-and-property-rights

It is important to note that the APR is only purchasing land at market value from willing sellers. Given the strong libertarian and property-rights ethos in much of Montana, I find many of the objections to the APR to be a bit hypocritical. The population and economic decline in rural Montana began long before APR came into the picture, and at least APR is a ready and willing buyer for those that do want to sell. There is also the possibility that the APR will provide a new financial boon as the reserve grows and becomes a draw for tourists and sportsman.

 

[Foy]

The long and detailed article from PERC which rando attached sheds more and very good light on the overall APR process. The APR is acquiring deeded ranchlands as well as the BLM grazing leases for adjacent Federal lands attached thereto. APR cannot acquire the leases without committing to use the leased lands in the manner intended--grazing domestic livestock by persons or organizations engaged in the livestock business. Bison are deemed to be livestock under Montana law but the conversion of the acquired grazing leases from cattle grazing to bison grazing requires BLM review and approval. Towards the end of the article, it is mentioned that APR pays property tax on its deeded acreage so there is no removal of taxable acreage from the counties' property tax bases. That explains absence of APR lands from the "exempt" rolls in Valley and Phillips counties which I scrolled yesterday. What's implied is that APR engages in some for-profit activities in the form of raising bison, which explains how the grazing leases can be acquired and the deeded lands remaining on the property tax rolls. Nonprofits and charitable nonprofits engage in for-profit activities readily and legitimately while still maintaining their tax exempt status by properly identifying the nature and extent of their for-profit activities as "UBTI" (Unrelated Business Taxable Income) on their nonprofit tax returns and by paying income tax on such profits. Qualified public charities like APR file a Form 990 income tax return annually and the returns are public documents readily available to anyone interested in reviewing the activities of the charity. It seems clear to me that APR must be doing a pretty slick balancing act between the for-profit livestock business and their core charitable purpose. One might assume the "dance" related to the APR being "engaged in the livestock business" will at some point come to an end once the acquisition of deeded acres creates a sufficient degree of densely packed deeded tracts such that the BLM grazing leases become unattractive to other for-profit livestock operations due to wide separation from their own deeded acreage. One might imagine the BLM would then administratively remove the lands from the pool of grazing lease acreage and allow access by the APR through easements. If that's the ultimate endgame, it's a pretty slick model. And it totally validates the local's complaint about there being a "Federal land grab" in process. I have no strong opinion that views alleging a Federal land grab are right or wrong, but I do like to understand what the game is all about and how it's played.

Foy

 

[craig333]

Thanks for clarifying the issues.

 

[rando]

I am not sure how this could be interpreted as a 'Federal Land Grab'? This is a privately funded effort to purchase private land and associated grazing rights. This does not create any new government (Federal or State) owned land. This certainly appears to be a misuse of a populist rallying cry.

 

[Foy]

I am not sure how this could be interpreted as a 'Federal Land Grab'? This is a privately funded effort to purchase private land and associated grazing rights. This does not create any new government (Federal or State) owned land. This certainly appears to be a misuse of a populist rallying cry.

I don't disagree, in principle, with criticism of those who would refer to the overall aim of the APR being a Federal Land Grab, but I do believe there are strong undercurrents of such which are imaginable in skeptic's minds. Today's lunchtime reading included some scrolling through the AMR's main web pages, where the "big picture" goal of the APR is well stated as an effort to link the Upper Missouri Breaks NM, the Charles Russell NWR, and the BLM lands in between the two in order to form a "seamless ecosystem" without fences or other unnatural barriers to interfere with wildlife migratory patterns. In order to do so, it would seem that the grazing leases on general BLM lands which are acquired along with deeded acreage would have to be eliminated since the leases are "animal unit" specific and that must translate to maintaining fences to avoid exceeding the lease's inherent carrying capacities. Also mentioned are recent acquisitions of deeded lands which had grazing leases within the Charles Russell NWR which "could not transfer to new owners under the lease", so large grazing areas were removed from the NWR. With the previously identified MO of acquiring grazing leases tied to deeded acres and continuing to use the leases commercially, the APR is essentially saying it is in the livestock business---for the time being. It also seems clear that the BLM and US Fish & Wildlife Service are willing cooperative partners to some degree, probably as they should be. With all of that, skeptics who see the influx of private donations and realize that over one-third of the private donations consist of Federal income tax reductions given to the donors, with another one-seventh provided to donors by high tax states like California and New York, and who see the culmination of the process as elimination of certain types of economic activity within the APR's area, probably have a colorable argument that a land grab is under way and the locals will be effectively forced out.

But as the PERC article correctly and eloquently stated, economic conditions were already forcing ranchers and farmers off of the Montana prairie long before the APR was founded.

Over lunch I also read through much of the material on APR's main website. It's a very well done portal for the programs, policies, procedures, and plans of the organization. The annual audited financial statements and Forms 990 are all linked to make it easy to access and review. The financials show substantial amounts of "visitation income" and rental income, indicative perhaps of access not being free all of the time, and perhaps indicative of the business income elements previously discussed.

Foy

 

[JaSAn]

I have family and friends in Montana, so I hear their side.

The Federal Government owns ~30% of Montana. Timber and mining conglomerates own lots more. Now this.
More and more of Montana is controlled by people that don't live in Montana or care about (or are hostile to) the culture.

Add any young person who doesn't inherit a ranch or wants to expand an unprofitable one is being priced out of the market by rich out-of state buyers.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think this is going to end well.

jim

 

[Smokecreek1]

JaSan, out here in the high basin, we have the same problem (as in all of the west). Corporations are buying up those old ranch lands, then fencing them off and closing the public from public lands on the other side. At least if someone like the NC buys it up and then works with the local users and the feds and states (and some corporations) to protect and manage it; we can still use it-a bit under maybe different rules-may be the future. What's really ironic here is that BLM was heading for that type of holistic land management (management of whole ecosystems regardless of ownership or use [pvt, county, state, fed, grazing allotments and AUMs and other specialized LMPs] when I retired (2005).

In fact, the last major proposed mgt plan (LMP) I worked on was based on whole ecosystems especially the natural drainage systems and how their individual parts interacted with each other. In our case, we had worked with groups like APR and the nature conservancy for years on how to manage big horn sheep reintroduction (and domestic sheep mgt) which in our case covered two states, several counties and many different ecosystems. and lot's of often competing parts. We had a also had allot of experience in working with the many different interest groups in working to to develop mgt plans on a couple of National Conservation Areas. Needless to say, many, many hours were spent talking to and working with all those who had an interest in those lands, and in many instances those same groups were at odds with each other and us.

Sad to say but a few years ago, the BLM had to send this proposed new idea for future management plans to congress for approval and funding; the GOP controlled house rejected the proposed plans and insisted that we return to our old planning systems because the new system would reduce the influence of local and state planners on future management. The recent proposed moving of the BLM HQ's from Washington DC to Colorado (w/o any supporting studies and unfunded by congress) is in part based on such thinking. In many past discussions here we have talked about our Public Lands and of how their future depends on us so please let those who are managing our Public Lands know how you feel by attending those meeting, writing letters and yes "vote".

Smoke

 

[clikrf8]

Kanye West recently bought 2 very large ranches in Wyoming for $25 million. He wanted to escape building codes in California. He is having some trouble in Cody, Wyoming with building an amphitheater.

We hope to explore the APR lands next fall which are near the Charles Russell Wildlife Refuge. It seems it is a great area to get away from people and see wildlife.

We see many abandoned ranches in our western wanderings. Mostly, in Nevada but throughout the drier parts of the west. Simplot seems to be a major player. It is sad to see abandoned buildings knowing someone was either bought out by a bigger ranch or corporation or the conditions were too harsh. I am glad to see the wild prairies return.

 

[Taku]

Another interesting aspect of land buying in Montana is the Hutterite colonies. They often buy out ranches at prices that individual ranchers cannot afford, but like APR, they do so with willing sellers. The APR process, while some may not like it, is no different than has been going on since the colonies. Back in the 1970's about 20% of Illinois farmland had been purchased by Saudi cover companies. The list can go on and on. But this point, APR has developed and allows public recreation and seems committed to it. Unlike some of the other "new" landowners who have closed off some large BMA's - or the Wilkes brothers land purchases in Idaho. Them's who got the money will do as they please.