Public Land Access Issue in Montana

[Matt Cashell]

Montana has long made good use of the Montana Habitat program to either purchase lands for public use, or (more commonly) purchase conservation easements in order to access those often talked about islands of public land dotting the state.

Montana Habitat easement deals are between the state and private landowners and are negotiated and vetted for a period of time (often years) before being voted on by the State Board of Land Commissioners (Land Board for short) for approval. The Land Board is made up of the Governor, Attorney General, Superintendent of Education, Secretary of State, and State Auditor.

Montana Habitat easements have opened thousands of acres up to public access, primarily by hunters for the last 25 years. In the last election, however, three of the chairs on the Land Board switched hands, and the new members surprisingly voted against approving an easement deal years in the making, citing concerns about mineral rights for oil and gas developers. Their concern is the surface rights easement might make development harder for the extractive industry.

Land Board delay raises questions about conservation easements as a public access tool | State & Regional | missoulian.com

The issues I gather from this from my hunting perspective:

1. The hunting public loses an access opportunity.
2. Landowners lose a monetary benefit to their own land.
3. The state land board can be swayed quickly and divisively be political winds.

I feel this event serves as an example of why transfer to state management of public land use is so risky. Political changes happen quickly on the state and local level, and hunters often pay the price. It also seems to illustrate the power of the deep pocket extractive industry where their interests, even speculative, can end up trumping the public and private landowners' interests.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Thanks for posting Matt. Hard to believe that unanimous support from FWP and what looks to be overwhelming support from the public still has the 3 holdouts hemming and hawing. Rosendale thinks the next big oil/gas boom in MT will be in that area so his motivations for not approving are quite clear. Tweedle dee and tweedle dum (Stapleton and Arntzen) will vote however Rosendale votes. It always seems so crazy to me that the landowner is fully supportive of the easement, the funding has been approved but these folks with an agenda can derail the whole thing. MT folks please email the Land Board ([email protected]) to show your support for hunting and fishing access.

 

[5MilesBack]

It always seems so crazy to me that the landowner is fully supportive of the easement, the funding has been approved but these folks with an agenda can derail the whole thing.

If the landowner is fully supportive, he doesn't need Land Board approval to allow folks to cross his land. Unless he's just doing it for the money, in which case he could always just charge an individual trespass fee.

This has always been the problem with politics.......politicians operate on the same philosophy as everyone else......."what's in it for me"?

An easement across private property shouldn't affect the extraction of resources on the public land at all.

 

[Matt Cashell]

If the landowner is fully supportive, he doesn't need Land Board approval to allow folks to cross his land. Unless he's just doing it for the money, in which case he could always just charge an individual trespass fee.

The Land Board just needs to approve the deal that is already made. The deal made it so that the public doesn't need to pay any trespass fees, the trespass fees would never change, and access would be guaranteed into perpetuity. it also compensated the landowner so that there was no need to charge trespass fees, or an outfitter lease, or use of the habitat for ag/ranching use. The landowner makes some money, and the public gets access forever regardless of if the property changes hands. It is a good deal.

An easement across private property shouldn't affect the extraction of resources on the public land at all.

The industry concern is about mineral rights under the private landowner's surface rights, but its my understanding the easement wouldn't affect those either.

the only people asking "What's in it for me?" are the three obstructing the process.

 

[Schaaf]

Thanks for posting about this Matt. This is particularly important to me. I actually harvested my first mule deer 2 miles south of this proposed easement in 2004. We were on a 20,000 acre Block Management Area that had been in Block Management from the time the program was started until the land was sold to out of state interests. The area has now been closed off for about 5 years and has had a pretty significant effect on hunters in the local area. Someone like myself that thinks about hunting from sunrise to sunset and then spends 8 hours dreaming about it simply moves onto another area to hunt. I know people from Glendive that no longer hunt due to the area being taken out of Block Management. Now I know those people aren't as committed to our hunting heritage as myself or many people are but my father fit that exact same bill. All it took for me to become obsessed with hunting and the outdoors was my few weeks per year in this area growing up.

Here are some pictures of the proposed easement.

 

[Matt Cashell]

That is some great country there, Schaaf.

I had access to similar country a few years ago, but the owner understandably decided to lease it to an outfitter. Everybody has to pay the bills.

I wish we saw more of these easements and purchases for the public in order to access those public land islands, rather than trying to sell or trade them off, because they "lack access." I recently saw a state section here in the Bitterroot sold off with that very excuse. It isn't paranoia ... it happens.

 

[5MilesBack]

The Land Board just needs to approve the deal that is already made. The deal made it so that the public doesn't need to pay any trespass fees, the trespass fees would never change, and access would be guaranteed into perpetuity. it also compensated the landowner so that there was no need to charge trespass fees, or an outfitter lease, or use of the habitat for ag/ranching use. The landowner makes some money, and the public gets access forever regardless of if the property changes hands. It is a good deal.



The industry concern is about mineral rights under the private landowner's surface rights, but its my understanding the easement wouldn't affect those either.

the only people asking "What's in it for me?" are the three obstructing the process.

Yes, yes, and yes. As for the last one, the landowner and the public already know what's in it for them. I'm sure they already asked that question beforehand which is why it got to this point.

 

[Schaaf]

Please sign the petition of support.


Tell State Land Board to Approve Horse Creek Conservation Easement | Montana Wildlife Federation

 

[Murdy]

An easement across private property shouldn't affect the extraction of resources on the public land at all.

I'm guessing here, but I imagine the concern on behalf of the extraction industry is that if people start using the land and become attached to it, it could galvanize opposition to allowing extraction.

 

[ramont]

1. The land has divided ownership, one owner has the surface rights while a second has subsurface rights. The owner of the subsurface rights is concerned that they will not be able to realize the value of their property because of the complex process that the easement will create if anybody wants to extract the minerals or oil beneath the surface.

2. Of the 42 responses the majority of residents (people that live less than an hour's drive around the property) did not support the easement. Most of the people that do support the easement live, on the average, about 500 miles from the property.

3. There are some pretty severe restrictions to accessing and using the area, including not being able to be on the property any earlier than two hours before hunting light or later than two hours after hunting light. There are is only enough parking places for 20 vehicles - less if you bring a trailer and only one parking place will allow trailers and then no trailers longer than 20 feet. No overnight stays without a permit and then only if you stay either in the parking lots or backpackers can stay overnight but they can't have open fires and must dispose all waste or carry it out (meaning that you'd better get used to digging a latrine). Road access during late season hunts aren't going to be guaranteed.

I'm all for opening as much public land as possible for recreation but in this case I don't see where it's worth 6 million dollars, especially since there is a potential for costly litigation expenses if the subsurface owners claim that they lost potential profitability. Image how many millions they'd ask for if some oil company says that they would like to lease the land for drilling but it isn't worth it because of the red tape that the state would make them work through. I understand that the owners were leasing hunting rights to at least one guide outfit so at least there is that possibility but I also wonder about the current owners of the surface rights, the ranchers. I read where they said that if they didn't get the money from the easement deal then their ranch was at risk. So what happens to the land if they loose their ranch, wouldn't it go on the market? And if it did then wouldn't the state then have a better chance of buying the land at a cheaper price than the easement would cost? I'm not wishing anything bad toward the owners but if I were on the land board I'd have to make my decision based on the facts and how to best spend the public's money.

 

[BuzzH]

I signed the petition and I've also authorized a lot of conservation easements that don't allow any kind of public access for a lot of money, and will do so again.

Keeping the land whole is no small deal, and every acre in a conservation easement is an investment into the future.

In this case, its an even better deal because there is public access as part of the easement. That's worth a lot. IMO, its even better that access is going to be limited, which creates a better experience for the public, protects the area from being "loved to death", and secures the area and access into perpetuity.

That's a win-win-win...and since I have purchased Montana hunting licenses every single year since 1979, including the last 18 years at NR fees, this is the exact kind of projects my money should be spent on.

I really hope this passes, the upside to it...there just isn't a downside. Approve the easement and get on with it.

 

[Matt Cashell]

ramont,

1. I believe the Attorney General already assured the mineral rights holder that the easement wouldn’t affect their rights.

2. I am not sure where you got that data on the people that provided responses, but assuming it’s correct, I still don’t see why the opinions of all Montanans wouldn’t be just as relevant.

3. Those restrictions don’t seem too “severe” to me, and are certainly worth perpetual access, IMO. I would also guess that standard rules apply to the public land accessed through the easement.

4. IMO, public access is worth a LOT. The certainty of getting the access locked in now is way better than the uncertainty of maybe having an opportunity to purchase the land sometime in the future. This easement would be sold with the property if it ever sold, and the new owners would have to abide by it.

Overall, I think the real interests of public land hunters and the current landowners NOW easily outweigh any speculative interests of the mineral rights owners in the possible future. The price tag seems reasonable to me. I am all for it.

 

[rickjames80]

Thanks guys, some really good information here. There is definitely a lot to think about when it comes to issues like this. I am all for more access to public land and think that the price is usually worth it for not only us but for the future. I would also like to see a corner crossing bill in my lifetime. That would open up so much land that is already imho accessible and wouldn't cost anywhere near 6 million

 

[Schaaf]

Not sure where you got your statistics about the majority of the comments opposed. There were 42 comments from the public comment period. 27 supported the easement. Of the ones opposing it, only 2 were signed and 5 letters were the exact same letter from different emails. I know this because I read the letters.

 

[Schaaf]

3. There are some pretty severe restrictions to accessing and using the area, including not being able to be on the property any earlier than two hours before hunting light or later than two hours after hunting light. There are is only enough parking places for 20 vehicles - less if you bring a trailer and only one parking place will allow trailers and then no trailers longer than 20 feet. No overnight stays without a permit and then only if you stay either in the parking lots or backpackers can stay overnight but they can't have open fires and must dispose all waste or carry it out (meaning that you'd better get used to digging a latrine). Road access during late season hunts aren't going to be guaranteed.

You are allowed to camp in the parking places or you can backpack camp on the property. You could also backpack camp on the BLM lands that this easement would provide access to for the first time. If you wanted a campfire beside your tent, You'd have to walk no more than a mile to find a landlocked parcel of BLM land to set up camp. I don't know how road access would be an issue. I took the pictures above in the middle of January during a worse than average winter and had no problem accessing the area.

 

[widnert]

I like the idea of this access. More publicly accessible ground to hunt is a good thing.

What bugs me to no end are these conservation easements where a landowner gets paid to implement the easement and the public gets absolutely nothing useful out of it. Oh wait, you can drive by and "maybe" look at it from afar? No thanks. Before you get any tax benefits or public money, the public gets something in return - access.

So, for this particular access - I'm all for it. Open it up.