Montana HB 677, another gem.

[TheTone]

As said by others, the LDS church owns a huge amount of lands. One of the favorite “celebrity “ Hunter ranches in Utah is LDS owned. Costs a ton of money for the regular folk to hunt it but always the same famous hunters on it each fall. They’ve been slowly acquiring farm land near where I live and I’m a long ways from SLC or eastern Idaho

 

[hobbes]

From what I can find, the LDS church owns 151,000 acres of land in Montana. I'm Baptist , probably just as offensive to some of you, and not aware of any other churches buying up land in MT, but I wasn't aware that the LDS church had either.

150,000 acres is definitely a chunk of land but nowhere near what APR has bought in Montana. In addition, they aren't actively trying to buy up central Montana. If you aren't here in Montana or done some research, there's a lot more concern about what is happening there than you probably realize. I'm not completely sure where I stand because I'm not sure that either side is completely honest in how they spin it. Considering this is about a MT bill and MT taxes, I don't think what is being bought in another state has any bearing.

In addition, most Montanans, will probably tell you where you can put your nonresident opinions on who pays taxes in Montana. I probably don't qualify as a Montanan myself to a few folks since I've only got 10 years here. I'm hoping my kids, brought here at 12, 10, and 8 can someday qualify. . It may be that my 3 year old granddaughter will be the first that makes it and even then she'll be a measly first generation Montanan.

I'm okay with that. I'm just happy to be here and hope everyone else stays put.

 

[MT257]

From what I can find, the LDS church owns 151,000 acres of land in Montana. I'm Baptist , probably just as offensive to some of you, and not aware of any other churches buying up land in MT, but I wasn't aware that the LDS church had either.

150,000 acres is definitely a chunk of land but nowhere near what APR has bought in Montana. In addition, they aren't actively trying to buy up central Montana. If you aren't here in Montana or done some research, there's a lot more concern about what is happening there than you probably realize. I'm not completely sure where I stand because I'm not sure that either side is completely honest in how they spin it. Considering this is about a MT bill and MT taxes, I don't think what is being bought in another state has any bearing.

In addition, most Montanans, will probably tell you where you can put your nonresident opinions on who pays taxes in Montana. I probably don't qualify as a Montanan myself to a few folks since I've only got 10 years here. I'm hoping my kids, brought here at 12, 10, and 8 can someday qualify. . It may be that my 3 year old granddaughter will be the first that makes it and even then she'll be a measly first generation Montanan.

I'm okay with that. I'm just happy to be here and hope everyone else stays put.

I guess I’m on the fence with APR. I don’t think the state should tell me who I can sell my property. Why wouldn’t I sell it to the buyer that pays cold hard cash and highest bid? I am gonna guess tbat these grazing leases they have as well aren’t because they out bid the next guy. I would almost say somewhere that someone failed to do paperwork on time and get their poop in a group and someone else came in to get the lease. Do they allow access yes do they allow hunting yes but from what I can see I don’t see how they should be singled out. Every property owner should be paying their share, but at some point like other here have mentioned these churches need to start paying their share too. If a bill like this passes kiss most of what rmef does goodbye as well.

 

[brocksw]

I guess I’m on the fence with APR. I don’t think the state should tell me who I can sell my property. Why wouldn’t I sell it to the buyer that pays cold hard cash and highest bid? I am gonna guess tbat these grazing leases they have as well aren’t because they out bid the next guy. I would almost say somewhere that someone failed to do paperwork on time and get their poop in a group and someone else came in to get the lease. Do they allow access yes do they allow hunting yes but from what I can see I don’t see how they should be singled out. Every property owner should be paying their share, but at some point like other here have mentioned these churches need to start paying their share too. If a bill like this passes kiss most of what rmef does goodbye as well.

Would you be on the fence with them if their name was RMEF but they were doing the exact same thing (aka buying land and opening up for public access and ensuring that habitat remains on the landscape while also allowing ranchers to graze)?

 

[MT257]

Would you be on the fence with them if their name was RMEF but they were doing the exact same thing (aka buying land and opening up for public access and ensuring that habitat remains on the landscape while also allowing ranchers to graze)?

I guess reason I am on fence is of the future. Just because they allow access now doesn’t mean twenty years from now they will have too...I’ve hunted on their proper in the past. I guess as far as this bill Bartel targeting them because some local folks of Lewistown/surrounding don’t like what the APR is doing is bullshit. It’s not right to be restricting me, you or the next guy who I choose to sell my property too.

 

[tdhanses]

Uh....discipline brings freedom. Unfortunately humans are undisciplined, greedy creatures by nature. Non profits buying land and not paying taxes is one of many things that rips off the majority. I have to pay taxes..why shouldn't everyone else. Non profits still could by land under this legislation. They just wouldn't of been able to use the Non profit designation. I am glad this bill failed though. I just hope the next one does not leave out religious entities.

Maybe someone could introduce legislation making it easier for fwp to buy land through their fund that is always bogged in bureaucracy.

Or maybe these so called Non profits could buy through conservation programs.

Whose to say though what non profits are straight up and which ones are crooked? There are plenty that are not what they say they are.

What rules are good ones and what rules are bad ones..who determines that. Should be a government for the people, by tge people. That doesn't really exist anymore, so there's the million dollar question

Yeah but it’s a rule that exempts them in a civilized world.

 

[tdhanses]

From what I can find, the LDS church owns 151,000 acres of land in Montana. I'm Baptist , probably just as offensive to some of you, and not aware of any other churches buying up land in MT, but I wasn't aware that the LDS church had either.

150,000 acres is definitely a chunk of land but nowhere near what APR has bought in Montana. In addition, they aren't actively trying to buy up central Montana. If you aren't here in Montana or done some research, there's a lot more concern about what is happening there than you probably realize. I'm not completely sure where I stand because I'm not sure that either side is completely honest in how they spin it. Considering this is about a MT bill and MT taxes, I don't think what is being bought in another state has any bearing.

In addition, most Montanans, will probably tell you where you can put your nonresident opinions on who pays taxes in Montana. I probably don't qualify as a Montanan myself to a few folks since I've only got 10 years here. I'm hoping my kids, brought here at 12, 10, and 8 can someday qualify. . It may be that my 3 year old granddaughter will be the first that makes it and even then she'll be a measly first generation Montanan.

I'm okay with that. I'm just happy to be here and hope everyone else stays put.

Quick question, what really is the concern? Did all prior owners open up their land for public use? To me the APR sounds like it’s a benefit for residents in the area that maybe want more land to hunt on.

Maybe I’m wrong but if 420k acres is busting MT’s property tax collection and budgets then maybe MT needs to remove all property tax exemptions, reductions etc, not fair AG land gets a reduced rate vs regular old owners.

Im just not seeing why the fear of land being bought that never was available to the public.

I’d say we can have an opinion but then again everyone can have one but in the end the voters really are all that matter.

Haha, I’d say I qualify more then you as a Montanan even though I’m not a resident, I have at least 20yrs under my belt, birth certificate and hunters education in the state.

 

[hobbes]

I'm not real clear on the concerns which is why I said I wasn't sure which side I was on with the APR. However, I don't agree with the bill that was proposed.

It's my understanding that folks do not trust their intentions and anticipate that they'd like control of The Breaks and cut off access. I'm not real sure how they would get any control besides buying up property that has leases.

It appears that they own 104, 578 acres and lease 315,047 acres of federal and state land.

 

[BuzzH]

There is an unfounded fear of APR by the locals in that part of the world, started by a handful of locals that actually do want to control everything in Montana.

As to limiting access, APR has opened more land to hunting and increased access in NE/NC Montana than any private landowner I'm aware of.

My Dad was a beneficiary of APR allowing access onto a property they acquired that he would have had ZERO chance of receiving permission to hunt from the previous NR owner. Further, APR is allowing access to at least 2 large blocks of previously inaccessible or very difficult public access prior to acquiring that same piece of property. I've also hunted several of their properties as well that is enrolled in Block Management. Their property is very well managed for the benefit of wildlife and the habitat is much better than surrounding public and private lands. Not sure what's not to like.

Who knows what the future will bring with APR, but there is absolutely nothing that I've seen to indicate they are inclined to stop allowing hunting and public access.

Further, they go through great lengths to remain good neighbors in spite of being treated like dirt by their fellow Montana residents in many cases.

I'm a fan of APR...best thing that's happened to that part of Montana as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Deadfall]

Since they are a colony and no individual owns anything, it's bought by the hoot church

To the best of my knowledge anyway. Could be completely off since I'm not a member.

Yeah but it’s a rule that exempts them in a civilized world.

Ahhhh....The infamous yeah but....

 

[tdhanses]

To the best of my knowledge anyway. Could be completely off since I'm not a member.

Ahhhh....The infamous yeah but....

Haha but there always is to every argument

 

[tdhanses]

There is an unfounded fear of APR by the locals in that part of the world, started by a handful of locals that actually do want to control everything in Montana.

As to limiting access, APR has opened more land to hunting and increased access in NE/NC Montana than any private landowner I'm aware of.

My Dad was a beneficiary of APR allowing access onto a property they acquired that he would have had ZERO chance of receiving permission to hunt from the previous NR owner. Further, APR is allowing access to at least 2 large blocks of previously inaccessible or very difficult public access prior to acquiring that same piece of property. I've also hunted several of their properties as well that is enrolled in Block Management. Their property is very well managed for the benefit of wildlife and the habitat is much better than surrounding public and private lands. Not sure what's not to like.

Who knows what the future will bring with APR, but there is absolutely nothing that I've seen to indicate they are inclined to stop allowing hunting and public access.

Further, they go through great lengths to remain good neighbors in spite of being treated like dirt by their fellow Montana residents in many cases.

I'm a fan of APR...best thing that's happened to that part of Montana as far as I'm concerned.

I’m trying to remember but some of the areas outside the immediate vicinity of the breaks is pretty desolate and barly had any grass on it, just to run 100 head you needed many thousands of acres but to be honest I’m going off my memory from 15 yrs ago.

 

[bsnedeker]

I'm not real clear on the concerns which is why I said I wasn't sure which side I was on with the APR. However, I don't agree with the bill that was proposed.

It's my understanding that folks do not trust their intentions and anticipate that they'd like control of The Breaks and cut off access. I'm not real sure how they would get any control besides buying up property that has leases.

It appears that they own 104, 578 acres and lease 315,047 acres of federal and state land.

One of the big concerns from ranchers is around brucellosis. The APR wants a big herd of free roaming bison... much more than they have now.

Talking to some guys in lewistown I also get the impression one of the main drivers of anti APR crowd is just the idea that "we've been ranching and farming this area for x amount of years, who are these out of staters coming in here wanting to change everything?" That's overly simplistic, but there are some strong emotions driving some of this.

All I know is that me drawing a bison tag from them would earn a lot of goodwill from me!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[hobbes]

One of the big concerns from ranchers is around brucellosis. The APR wants a big herd of free roaming bison... much more than they have now.

Talking to some guys in lewistown I also get the impression one of the main drivers of anti APR crowd is just the idea that "we've been ranching and farming this area for x amount of years, who are these out of staters coming in here wanting to change everything?" That's overly simplistic, but there are some strong emotions driving some of this.

All I know is that me drawing a bison tag from them would earn a lot of goodwill from me!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I do recall that bison/brucellosis was a huge issue with the cattle ranchers. It could destroy their cattle market. That is something to be concerned about.

I completely get the simplistic description that you mention. Montana is the "last best place" for a reason. Folks that have been here for generations do not want to see it changed to "once a great place". They are incredibly resistant to outsider influence. They would blow a gasket over some of the nonresidents here that presume to have any say in Montana politics. I can't say that I blame them.

 

[tdhanses]

I do recall that bison/brucellosis was a huge issue with the cattle ranchers. It could destroy their cattle market. That is something to be concerned about.

I completely get the simplistic description that you mention. Montana is the "last best place" for a reason. Folks that have been here for generations do not want to see it changed to "once a great place". They are incredibly resistant to outsider influence. They would blow a gasket over some of the nonresidents here that presume to have any say in Montana politics. I can't say that I blame them.

I would think they would have to manage their bison herd the same as every other bison operator. I can’t imagine they are just released and never worked with again But maybe, I can see this being an issue but that has nothing to do with nonprofits buying land.

I’d think a bill on livestock operators raising bison would be more appropriate even If they never sell the calves.

 

[Deadfall]

Haha but there always is to every argument

Yap

 

[brocksw]

I do recall that bison/brucellosis was a huge issue with the cattle ranchers. It could destroy their cattle market. That is something to be concerned about.

I completely get the simplistic description that you mention. Montana is the "last best place" for a reason. Folks that have been here for generations do not want to see it changed to "once a great place". They are incredibly resistant to outsider influence. They would blow a gasket over some of the nonresidents here that presume to have any say in Montana politics. I can't say that I blame them.

I believe the APR has all the bison tested prior to transporting.

Also, elk carry brucellosis too...but these same landowners(e.g. upom) who are against the APR want 10 free bull tags(hb 505).

The brucellosis argument doesn't hold water for them anymore and they know it. That's why it doesn't come up much anymore.

 

[BuzzH]

Like I said, APR goes wayyyy above and beyond, at THEIR expense to be good neighbors and still get treated poorly IMO.

American Prairie Reserve resolves long-running dispute with Phillips County

The Reserve, Phillips County Conservation District and Montana Livestock Association agreed to a 10-year deal that would require strict bison testing protocol, vaccination standards, procedures for escaped bison, and a public reporting and communication aspect.

missoulacurrent.com

However, compromise and negotiation won out last week as the three parties came to an agreement that will live into the 2030s. Details include:

• Disease testing for a total of 325 animals for the first five years
• Information sharing openly with all parties
• If there’s no disease detected in the first five years, testing will be reduced to 150 animals during the remaining five years of the agreement
• All tested bison will be tagged
• Protocols for any escaped animals, including quarantining and testing
• Mandatory brucellosis vaccinations for any pre-yearling heifers

“In this time of so much division and acrimony — particularly in this issue and this proceeding — that the parties can come together and reach an agreement they can all live with will provide an opportunity to bridge the gap,” said attorney Timothy Preso, who represented American Prairie Reserve.

Beth Saboe, senior media and government relations manager for APR, said these provisions will cost the organization money, but will also establish trust in the communities.

“That’s not cheap. Everything we agreed to had a cost, and we want to be transparent and we want to be good neighbors,” Saboe said.

Pete Geddes, American Prairie Reserve vice president of external relations, said the biggest issue separating the sides was the number of animals the Reserve would test yearly. He estimates the testing cost to be more than $15,000 annually.

 

[hobbes]

Considering the amount of land they've bought in a short period of time, $15,000 annually is a drop in the bucket. However, that does sound like a good effort to be a good neighbor.

 

[BuzzH]

Considering the amount of land they've bought in a short period of time, $15,000 annually is a drop in the bucket. However, that does sound like a good effort to be a good neighbor.

Right, but they aren't required to spend anything for testing their livestock...and yes, they're livestock thanks to Montana politics.

Ask a cattle/sheep rancher to voluntarily test their domestics to the tune of 15k a year and see what they say....

Like I said, no matter how much APR does to be good neighbors, they still get criticized, just like you're doing here. Thanks for proving that point.