Montana FWP is caving to politics, wasting money and calling it conservation | Rachelle Schrute

Now, I’m no mathematician, but for another $112,500, Montana could permanently protect more than 3,600 acres of working ranchland and wildlife habitat while securing public hunting access and access to adjacent public land.

Instead, we’d be renting for the price of buying.

The Hannah Ranch easement was originally proposed as a perpetual conservation easement. The landowners want permanent protection, and Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has identified the clear habitat and public-access benefits of the project.

The problem is that a perpetual easement might not make it past the Montana Land Board.

So FWP came up with a 99-year version in the hopes that it would be politically easier to swallow.

I get it. The agency is trying to salvage a good conservation project in a political environment that has become increasingly hostile to permanent conservation easements. But we shouldn’t be building bad conservation policy around what we think a politically motivated Land Board might approve.

Instead, Montana is considering paying about 97% of the appraised cost of permanent protection for an agreement with an expiration date.

When those 99 years are up, there is no guarantee the easement will be renewed. Future landowners might agree to another deal. A future Land Board might support it. The state might have the money to pay for those protections again.

Or… it might not.

What Montana has right now is a willing landowner and the opportunity to protect this property permanently. Saving 3% today while leaving future Montanans to renegotiate the conservation and access protections on this land certainly isn’t fiscally responsible.

It is also a lousy way to treat the landowners.

The owners of the Hannah Ranch are voluntarily choosing to permanently conserve their own property. They want to keep the ranch intact, protect wildlife habitat and provide access that benefits the people of Montana.

For all the noise we hear about private property rights in this state, you’d think someone might show up to defend theirs.

So where is United Property Owners of Montana?

UPOM has spent years arguing that private landowners should have the right to decide what happens on their property. That should include landowners who choose permanent conservation.

Property rights don’t only count when the landowner wants to privatize or develop, do they?

These landowners have made their intentions clear. The state should not minimize that commitment by offering them 99 years of protection because permanent conservation makes some politicians uncomfortable.

There’s also a much larger problem with allowing political opposition to create a new standard for conservation easements.

If Montana starts using 99-year easements as a workaround whenever perpetual conservation becomes politically difficult, we should expect to see more of them. The state could end up paying nearly permanent-easement prices for protections that expire simply because temporary conservation is easier to get through the political process.

That sets a terrible precedent.

The Hannah Ranch should be protected permanently.

The Land Board should be asked to vote on the perpetual easement, not handed a watered-down version designed to make permanent conservation more politically palatable. Make them vote on it, and they can answer why they turned down something that benefits the people they work for.

Montanans have until July 28 to comment on the Hannah Ranch proposal at sandersen@mt.gov.

Tell FWP that 99 years is not good enough when forever costs only 3% more.