Bill to Curb Conservation Easement Abuse

My understanding of the bill is that "Family entities" are exempt - but it will have to be crafted very carefully in order to be sure.

I am in 100% support of CE's where it gives a family an opportunity to preserve what they have worked hard for and want to enter into a CE. I do see where there are some abuses - and those need to be shored up.

So far, the support of organizations is promising. I was wondering where the RMEF stood on this bill.

Straight Arrow said:

widnert, to clear up a couple of common misconceptions. Conservation easements typically provide a landowner with a lump sum and some income tax advantages going forward. Property taxes are not changed, not reduced at all. The Flying D Ranch held antlerless elk hunts prior to and after the purchase by Turner. The ranch wildlife biologists along with FWP determined the viability / need for those hunts. Things have changed since then with respect to the elk. Flying D had an outfitting business on the ranch prior to and after Turner became owner; it's nothing new at all and really has no relationship with the previous antlerless elk hunts.

Personally, I support conservation easements in that they serve to at least slow down the historical and still ongoing loss of wildlife habitat and open space. As you point out, the Flying D Ranch is a good example of prime wildlife habitat that would certainly face the potential for development at some time without the protection of a conservation easement. I live near there and due to open public access through the property, I visit and recreate there often on the public thoroughfare. IMO, the Flying D's forested rolling hills, grasslands, and large open spaces abutting the Spanish Peaks comprise one of the most beautiful spots on earth. Having lived in the Gallatin area for over fifty-five years, I can tell you with some degree of certainty that if the Flying D and other large tracts were not protected by a conservation easement they would presently be covered with gated ranchettes and likely signage that would make you cringe!

Click to expand...

I do understand the concept and in theory, CE's should always have a benefit to the public. In reality, the public (you and I) rarely see any real benefit from the CE. We get a view-shed without homes and some land where wildlife may find habitat. Ok. Great. I agree with this. However, based on the intent of the CE's upon their inception, there was to be a "real" public benefit. The landowner gets a reduction in Federal taxes, can have their property re-assessed, based upon the granting of the CE and thus, reducing the overall value and lowering their property taxes (see the referenced document from the State of MT - section 13).

Reference: https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2010easementsbrochure.pdf

Some of the key factors for granting a CE are (section 12): "made for conservation purposes, including preservation of land use by the public for outdoor recreation or education, protection of wildlife habitat, preservation of farm or forest land for the public’s scenic benefit or as part of a governmental conservation policy, or preservation of historic landscapes or buildings."

Right up there in front - hmmmm. It seems to me this section concerning public access gets clearly skipped over in virtually every single CE I have ever read. Wonder why? Why can't we at least get some rights to simply cross the property to access public lands that might lie beyond the CE? Access to fish the stream that flows through the property for fishing? Any number of benefits like this that don't impact the landowner's use of the property but, give the public something substantial in exchange for the definite financial benefits reaped by the landowner. And believe me, many of these landowners gain a very substantial financial benefit otherwise, why would they do it?

Someone always trots out the family ranch-owner that just wants to pass on the land to their children and keep it in the family, as the example used for CE's. I'm in agreement here. That's mainly what CE's were intended to do - in the beginning. But, guys like Ted Turner (using the Flying D example from above again) didn't agree to the CE on his property South of Bozeman because he's a great guy and wanted to preserve the land. Doing so saved him a huge bundle in taxes (think millions). Both at the time of the CE's inception and, into the future.

And, what did we (you and I) gain? Access up Spanish Creek to the NF was already there before he bought it. He even tried to shut that access down after he bought the land but, he got his hands slapped over it. That was a huge deal. We (you and I) didn't gain any other single access point to NF across that property. And it spans NF for miles and miles. He tried to have Axtel-Ancheny road shut down where it crossed the property after he bought it. He got slapped again. County road. We (you and I) can't fish up Cherry Creek but, he was granted the right poison the entire creek, oh, and a good chunk of the lower Madison coming out of Beartrap Canyon because oops, we made a mistake with the amount of poison (this one is not talked about a lot). This, so he could return the native cutthroat trout to the creek. Sounds like a good plan - right? Noble? Conservation minded? Sold the FWP on it. Fact is though, Cutthroat trout were already in the creek and were killed during the poisoning, along with the rainbows and browns that he didn't want in there. Know why? So he can sell the wealthy out East on coming here and paying to fish this exclusive creek where they can catch the threatened cutthroat trout and brag to their friends. Along with paying roughly $12k to shoot a bull elk. It wasn't a noble preservation effort, it was a money making scheme to attract paying guests.

CE's, in concept, are good ideas. In practice, they are nothing more than a financial benefit to those that hold them - family rancher excluded. If any more are granted I would hope that the public's "real" benefit from these CE's is taken more into consideration. More than just a view-shed and to prevent further development. We're all about gaining more access to our public lands here - right? Why isn't this a primary talking point when these CE's are considered? For those that disagree, flame away. I just feel things need to be metered out in a fair and equitable manner. You, mister landowner, get the tax advantages and preserve your chunk of property and we, the public granting you the benefit, gain access to cross or direct access to hunt/fish/recreate. Something.
<end rant>

Widnert,

Western Montana is fortunate that most of the conservation easement like this one https://www.tpl.org/our-work/stillwater#sm.00000881uhfmyxe33wnqwzjdgv9qe come with public access. Would be nice to see more CE's in central and eastern Montana come with public access as well.

BigHornRam said:

Widnert,

Western Montana is fortunate that most of the conservation easement like this one https://www.tpl.org/our-work/stillwater#sm.00000881uhfmyxe33wnqwzjdgv9qe come with public access. Would be nice to see more CE's in central and eastern Montana come with public access as well.

Click to expand...

BHR - that is definitely an awesome one. I remember watching the process unfold. The folks involved there deserve a pat on the back and it should be held up as an example for others to follow. Wish there were more like this.

He even tried to shut that access down after he bought the land but, he got his hands slapped over it

Click to expand...

I don't believe that is true. I have monitored the accesses (both Spanish Peaks and Axtell-Anceney) and unless you were involved in some secret scenario, the Flying D didn't attempt to close those roads. Please explain the attempt and the hand-slap to which you refer. There is a lot of misinformation regarding the Flying D and you seem to hold onto some.

I can fish Cherry Creek, but access through private property is limited. The Cherry Creek fish poisoning debacle has nothing to do with the conservation easement. Flying D and Montana FWP share blame.

widnert said:

BHR - that is definitely an awesome one. I remember watching the process unfold. The folks involved there deserve a pat on the back and it should be held up as an example for others to follow. Wish there were more like this.

Click to expand...

Lot more in Western Montana. Some of the same folks involved here as well.

https://www.whitefishlegacy.org/news/7068-acre-trumbull-creek-conservation-easement-closes/

I think he may mean the horse/foot trail heading out of Spanish peaks trailhead towards willow swamp ect...( not Spanish road) I remember hearing that trail was in question back in early 1990's.

I think the elk have benefitted a bunch there since Ted became the owner.

Only part I didn't like was when those State sections got traded.
Especially the one right by Madison river and the one a mile or 2 before Spanish cr. Trailhead.( road goes through it) bummer

Straight Arrow said:

I don't believe that is true. I have monitored the accesses (both Spanish Peaks and Axtell-Anceney) and unless you were involved in some secret scenario, the Flying D didn't attempt to close those roads. Please explain the attempt and the hand-slap to which you refer. There is a lot of misinformation regarding the Flying D and you seem to hold onto some.

I can fish Cherry Creek, but access through private property is limited. The Cherry Creek fish poisoning debacle has nothing to do with the conservation easement. Flying D and Montana FWP share blame.

Click to expand...

The Cherry Creek fish poisoning was just making a point. You are correct it has nothing to do with the conservation easement. Neither does the attempted road closures. They illustrated my points. Apparently, I have to back everything up facts and documented evidence. OK. Can I assume everyone else on here will have the same requirement? I was simply working from memory and, I'm old.

Well, let's see..... how about starting in 1999 with this NY Times article: "https://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/26/us/rich-newcomers-closing-the-wilds-of-montana.html"
""Those who fight for public use say landowners often wage a war of accelerating intimidation. The first salvos are ''no trespassing'' signs on a public road, which most people obey. If that does not work, the next step is a locked gate. Mr. Fairhurst said he drove on a county road not far from his home recently and found it blocked by a locked chain.
Things sometimes go further. Ted Turner, the founder of CNN and Time-Warner vice president who owns tens of thousands of acres of land in Montana, and Leon Hirsch, founder of the United States Surgical Corporation, who has a ranch near Dillon, have been the subjects of repeated complaints to the state for using armed security officers to deny people legal access to public streams and lands in their ranches.""

From the Billings Gazette in 2007 - water quality my foot, didn't want easier access so as to limit people going up there:
""( Ted ) Turner fights road paving
The Associated Press ^ | July 27, 2007
Lawyers for media mogul Ted Turner persuaded a district judge to issue a restraining order blocking Gallatin County from paving a five-mile stretch of road that runs through Turner's sprawling Flying D Ranch south of here. Attorneys for Turner Enterprises Inc. obtained the order from District Judge John Brown. It bars the county from paving a segment of Spanish Creek Road. Commissioners said the county has been planning to pave the road for years. To save money, the county was planning to use millings - essentially ground-up rubble from other road projects - provided by the Montana Department of Transportation to pave the road. Joe Barr Coleman, an attorney representing Turner, said they sought the restraining order that was issued Monday because the millings could endanger water quality in Spanish Creek, which runs parallel to the road. Commission Chairman Joe Skinner said the county has never had any violations or complaints about water quality from past road projects that used millings. A meeting between the county and Turner's representatives last Friday left both Skinner and Commissioner Steve White with the impression everything was basically all right, White said. "There was no mention of this action, there was no mention of anything about water quality," White said. "This whole thing is just a big surprise."
(Excerpt) Read more at billingsgazette.net ...""

And, I suppose you caught me in my mis-information. I apologize to everyone. I mistakenly conflated the Spanish Creeks NFS access road paving lawsuit with the Axtell-Anceny road access lawsuit filed in Gallatin County District Court. My bad.

From the Bozeman Chronicle, 2004:
https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_033179f2-7cf4-5412-a762-976e6b70f84a.html
“”A Three Forks couple has sued Gallatin County, Ted Turner’s ranch corporation and several other landowners near Gallatin Gateway for blocking access to their property.
David and Amber Hargrove filed suit last month in Gallatin County District Court to get a road easement to their 800 acres through the Flying D Ranch, owned by billionaire media mogul Ted Turner. The Hargroves claim about three miles of Gateway Foothills Road (from Axtell-Anceny) leading up Maryott Gulch, southwest of Gallatin Gateway, is a county road that has been blocked by a gate.

So, re-targeting this discussion back to Conservation Easements, I'm not going to go on a Ted Turner bashing rant. I really don't give a hoot about what he does but, you asked. I didn't bring the Flying D into this thread, BigHornRam did. I was just following the illustration and the tax savings with a CE from such a large tract.

Sorry for the derailment but, I usually want to provide responses when questioned. Carry on.

Neither one of those incidents involved blocking access on the public road to Spanish Peaks Trailhead or blocking the Axtell-Anceney county road. The access issues you have cited involved access denied across private property, not on county roads. Hargroves rightfully fought for access to their property which is landlocked within the Flying D Ranch property, not access by public thoroughfare. Although you and I don't like to see wealthy landowners block access where we have previously used it, that does not mean we actually had a right to that access. I don't like armed guards either, but there is more to that story. Bill Fairhurst was a friend and fellow Army aviator and someone initially involved in forming Public Land Access Association due to access issues up Cherry Creek, but that was long before Ted Turner was owner.

The issue between the Flying D and Gallatin County over paving Spanish Creek Road with millings was a result of Turner worried about increased traffic due to the paving and was eventually worked out through discussions. The County was eventually pleased with the end result as it improved other rural county roads which actually had more traffic and should have been higher priority initially. The biggest reason Spanish Creek road was first selected was its close proximity to the Gallatin Canyon Hwy 191 road project from where the millings came.

'Doubt if you are older than I, but the story you have spun is full of misinformation due to mis-remembering or whatever. The reason I am calling it into question is that I too am concerned about public access and have been a member of PLWA almost since its inception, however in pointing out unlawful or even merely unethical denying of public access and working to open it up the worse thing you can do is to misstate, muddle, or distort the facts.

jryoung said:

Here's a good background on the specific types of transactions that are causing issue.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jayadk...ted-conservation-easements-in-notice-2017-10/

Click to expand...

Thanks, I learned something.

widnert said:

We (you and I) can't fish up Cherry Creek but, he was granted the right poison the entire creek, oh, and a good chunk of the lower Madison coming out of Beartrap Canyon because oops, we made a mistake with the amount of poison (this one is not talked about a lot). This, so he could return the native cutthroat trout to the creek. Sounds like a good plan - right? Noble? Conservation minded? Sold the FWP on it. Fact is though, Cutthroat trout were already in the creek and were killed during the poisoning, along with the rainbows and browns that he didn't want in there.

Click to expand...

I've fished Cherry Creek above, below, and inside the perimeter of the Flying D (feel free to call the warden or Turner's security guy on me), FWP was responsible for developing and implementing the procedures used for applying the rotenone, I might be wrong, but I don't recall any dead fish being found in the Madison, the amount of rotenone applied to the creek was not the cause of the unintended fish kill below the barrier, Turner's guys weren't responsible for the subsequent stocking of Westslope cutthroat, and native cutthroat were not already in the stream. Well I take that back, there might have been a few hiding somewhere up there, so you might have gotten one thing right...Carry on...

As a participant in the bantering back and forth about the Flying D, I apologize for the thread hijack. Conservation easements are a great way of protecting and preserving wildlife habitat and open spaces, so it's hoped that somehow the tax loopholes will be fixed to keep the CE option viable.

There are a lot better ways to preserve habitat.

Lately I've heard a couple suggestions on how to put the bite into mega billionaires. I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea to heavily tax holdings worth say, over a hundred million at a different rate, unless the easement gives the land to the public after a set number of years. The proliferation of ranchettes as second homes is eating up a lot of land also.