FWP Proposes Conservation Easement on Private Timberland in Northwest Montana

[Visiting Hunter]

https://flatheadbeacon.com/2024/04/...t-on-private-timberland-in-northwest-montana/

 

[jpcoll01]

Not sure how I feel about this, love seeing land protected but this feels like a slippery slope. Timber companies have, historically, let the public hunt and not gotten anything back from FWP. Why wouldn't they all reach out to get $20MM and a $14MM tax break. This precedent could change things dramatically in MT/ID/OR. Expect timber companies to lock gates until they get their money.

 

[TheTone]

Not sure how I feel about this, love seeing land protected but this feels like a slippery slope. Timber companies have, historically, let the public hunt and not gotten anything back from FWP. Why wouldn't they all reach out to get $20MM and a $14MM tax break. This precedent could change things dramatically in MT/ID/OR. Expect timber companies to lock gates until they get their money.

The timber company model in Idaho has definitely changed. Smaller companies are now basically free access or no access and a few of the bigger companies are getting paid by the state for access. The biggest company is also doing exclusive use leases campsites, selling off small parcels, and now restricting atv use behind gates. They’re also logging at a really high rate which is making lots of people wonder if a big sell off is in the future

 

[Gerald Martin]

The timber company lands in this area have passed through several owners in the past couple of decades. Each time it sells there a collective fear that the next owner might not continue to allow access. FWP and the landowners have always come
through with agreements that retain public access but there’s always uncertainty.

Having public access and development restrictions made permanent by this conservation easement is a good thing in my mind. These lands are heavily used by the public for hunting and recreation.

 

[YukonGold]

Not sure how I feel about this, love seeing land protected but this feels like a slippery slope. Timber companies have, historically, let the public hunt and not gotten anything back from FWP. Why wouldn't they all reach out to get $20MM and a $14MM tax break. This precedent could change things dramatically in MT/ID/OR. Expect timber companies to lock gates until they get their money.

I don't understand this logic. So now easements are a bad thing because they'll incentivize other landowners to want easements?

The number of landowners, big or small, who have "let the public hunt and not gotten anything back from FWP" has been dwindling for years. CEs are always a win in my book, especially the ones that allow public access.

 

[jpcoll01]

I don't understand this logic. So now easements are a bad thing because they'll incentivize other landowners to want easements?

The number of landowners, big or small, who have "let the public hunt and not gotten anything back from FWP" has been dwindling for years. CEs are always a win in my book, especially the ones that allow public access.

No easements aren't bad, I was just saying that if the neighboring timber company continues to let people access/hunt for free their shareholders will have a good reason to demand they not do that and they also get paid.

 

[Visiting Hunter]

I think it sounds like a good thing. I'm sure it's something to keep an eye on, always want to make sure some weird intentions aren't hiding. If everyone has true intentions. It sounds like a win. For both public access for future generations but also a timber company to manage healthy forests... Could be a cool example of working together. To me it sounds like a win.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think it sounds like a good thing. I'm sure it's something to keep an eye on, always want to make sure some weird intentions aren't hiding. If everyone has true intentions. It sounds like a win. For both public access for future generations but also a timber company to manage healthy forests... Could be a cool example of working together. To me it sounds like a win.

Overall in the long term, I believe CE’s are almost always a win. CE’s will not get less expensive in the future and the value of lost access is hard to quantify until it’s gone. When it’s gone the cost to preserve access will seem cheap in comparison.

 

[BigHornRam]

The bulk of the funding is coming from the Montana Forest Legacy Program. Read up on it. It has put CE's on a large chunk of Northwest Montana over the last 25 plus years. How is this not a bad thing if you are a hunter that wants public access to quality privately-owned land?

Montana's Forest Legacy Program | Montana FWP

The Forest Legacy Program provides funding for conserving high value working forests. The program is administered by the U.S. Forest Service and managed in Montana by Fish, Wildlife and Parks

fwp.mt.gov

 

[Visiting Hunter]

Overall in the long term, I believe CE’s are almost always a win. CE’s will not get less expensive in the future and the value of lost access is hard to quantify until it’s gone. When it’s gone the cost to preserve access will seem cheap in comparison.

Exactly

 

[Ben Lamb]

No easements aren't bad, I was just saying that if the neighboring timber company continues to let people access/hunt for free their shareholders will have a good reason to demand they not do that and they also get paid.

The larger timber companies are either already re-organized as REIT's or are moving that way. They strip the timber then move to sell the land. The old-standing access agreements are totally in jeopardy as timber companies look to increase revenue, so you see companies that used to offer access start demanding payment, or you get the situation in Idaho where new landowners shut down traditional access after purchasing timber lands.

The CE's through the Legacy Program (which uses Habitat MT funds as well) ensure that access is perpetual and legally binding. And free.
It futher ensures that the property will be managed for wildlife and conservation values over corporate profit margins, and I'm totally ok paying for all of that through license dollars, LWCF, PR, etc.

While change is always tough, this kind of change actually helps ensure the outcome you want far more likely than the market solution, which is fee based access. Access is still payed for, but as a society we tend to fund the things that we value as a culture - hunting and fishing access to private land is a big cultural issue, so it gets funded.

Bing, bang, boom - we get perpetual access and these lands don't get chopped up into 20 acre private reserves.

 

[Visiting Hunter]

Overall in the long term, I believe CE’s are almost always a win. CE’s will not get less expensive in the future and the value of lost access is hard to quantify until it’s gone. When it’s gone the cost to preserve access will seem cheap in comparison.

Me too there are a few around seeley my father in law has shown me. He's had to argue landowners that have since bought and tried to say there is no easement. And they aren't posted on maps as trails or anything. But he stands up and has argued over them for years with a couple owners. Always to have them remove the snowbank or rocks etc... some need to be more available knowledge so they aren't lost

 

[Ben Lamb]

Me too there are a few around seeley my father in law has shown me. He's had to argue landowners that have since bought and tried to say there is no easement. And they aren't posted on maps as trails or anything. But he stands up and has argued over them for years with a couple owners. Always to have them remove the snowbank or rocks etc... some need to be more available knowledge so they aren't lost

The FWP Hunt Planner Map has the details on both BMA's and easements that offer access: https://fwp.mt.gov/gis/maps/huntPla...true&showLands=true&showRef=true&showOwn=true

The upper right hand corner of the map has a legend on it. Click the elk, and then move the BMA and Easement toggles to on.

 

[atlas]

MT Land Reliance has a map on their website that shows all conservation Easements in the state. Only FWP Easements guarantee some sort of public access though.

It's cool to see that there are some beautiful areas of private land that won't change a ton over my lifetime, even if I can't access most or all of it.

 

[Ben Long]

This easement is one of the few pieces of good news when it comes to access and habitat in NW MT. I've been here 30 years and can list dozens of places I used to hunt that are lost forever behind locked gates, gated communities, trophy homes, glamping resorts, strip malls and subdivisions. People are putting houses where I never imagined they would a few years ago. Some people are digging 1000 foot wells and plowing miles of driveway. If we lose our remaining habitat, we're cooked. And this guarantees access. We need to get this done.