6 ms·

Wow, TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana (from the map on the American Prairie site). It's not clear from a cursory glance at the site whether America

Wow, TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana (from the map on the American Prairie site). It's not clear from a cursory glance at the site whether American Prairie is giving the land to the public, or whether they retain ownership and are simply allowing public access. I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. I'm also curious if anyone can just give their private land to the public for use as a wildlife preserve? EDIT: I also found this map of protected lands, but I'm having a hard time discerning between the different colors and I'm not colorblind. http://www.protectedlands.net/map/ http://www.protectedlands.net/map/

toast0 4y ago
> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. Not really. Federal agencies sell parklands from time to time. It's easier to have an NGO that won't sell the land for a long time.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  There’s two parts. The conservation easement strips the land of its development capacity, and that restriction rides with the land to future owners in perpetuity, while the non profit stewards the land and enforces those legal claims if necessary.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    I hate this process. It effectively gives someone else rights over the current owners land. The person becomes a tenet farmer in effect and is responsible for the taxes and upkeep while under the control of the organization. And the land is not accessible to the public. It's much better for the land to be organization-owned and open to public use. Just my opinion.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      The land absolutely can be open to the public in this model, it just can’t be developed.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        At least in my experience, th orgs near me buy the land, place restrictions on it, then sell it. Only rarely do they hold it and open it to the public.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        This seems like it would inevitably lead to a limited number of entities owning almost all the conservation land. Stripping it of development value in perpetuity ought to lower the value considerably, making it easier for an interested party to accumulate it. Maybe in hopes that some day they'll figure out how to undo that restriction. Edit: On second thought, after doing a quick bit of research, the conservation easement can be removed. So the value will be impacted, but the land will still have some residual development value.
        giantg2 4y ago
        Generally the easement can't be removed except by the trust that owns those rights, and that's not something they will want to give up. So yes, these organizations will eventually hold the rights to vast amounts of land, with limited oversight (compared to a municipality or other democratic org), while the "owner" paying the taxes and upkeep on the land can be individuals (not the org). And yes, the value of that land tends to go down slightly. But it constrains supply which causes all the other land to increase.
    - atourgates 4y ago
      I volunteer with a regional land trust, and I think you're maybe misunderstanding the conservation easement process, or at least it's typical application. The typical process is: Private Landowner Decides they want to conserve their land. They work with a Land Trust to define, and put in place the restrictions of that conservation easement. Those typically restrict development (though the landowner can in some cases "carve out" future building sites), and depending on the goals of the landowner and land trust, could allow things like agriculture, forestry, recreation etc.. I'm sure there's a conservation easement somewhere that restricts public access, but I've never seen one. Most commonly, the land stays inaccessible to the public just like it was before the easement, but nothing in the legal language of the easement prohibiting future public access. (One conservation easement manager half-joked that every easement we do has public access potential, it just might take a few generations for that potential to be realized). Next, that easement goes through the legal process of being put into place. Now, that land is subject to the restrictions of that easement forever. And it's the job (legal responsibility) of the Land Trust that holds the easement to regularly monitor the easements they hold, and make sure they're followed. However, the original landowner still owns the land, just like before. If they sell the land, or someone inherits, it's still (de facto) private land, just private land with restrictions as to what can be done on it. Now, there are private landowners who want to open their land to public access, and that's amazing. (We did our first few public access-specific easements this year at our comparatively-small land trust, and we're super excited). There are also times where a landowner puts an easement on their property, and then sells it to someone like a local, regional or state institution to be managed specifically for public access. There was recently a great story about how private individuals stepped in to conserve land, and then later transferred it to Washington State Parks[1]. There are also times when a property might transfer ownership, as well as the easement, to a Land Trust. We actually have one of these that we basically operate as a public park. But, that's like less than 2% of the total easements we hold. So, to your points, I guess I would say: The process of conservation easements by large _increases_ the amount of land available for public access and recreation, not decreases it. And if anyone is becoming a tenant farmer, it's the landowner choosing to become a tenant themselves. There are times when an outside entity might purchase the easement from the landowner, but again, the landowner's not forced into that transaction. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2021-12-21/washington-buys-more-steptoe-butte-land-to-preserve-it https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/...
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > in perpetuity Or until the current owners convince a court of law to extinguish the conservation easement.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      You should research what’s required to do so and the odds of it occurring. Only in rare/limited circumstances can the easement be terminated, and the IRS has some oversight into this because of the tax consequences of these easements (as you can claim a charitable tax deduction for donating and extinguishing the development capability of the parcel).
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        I've done the first part [0]. But I don't know an easy way to assess the second part. Clearly congress intended for it to be difficult, but the idea that a conservation easement is in fact permanent should always have an asterisk next to it. [0]: https://www.landcan.org/article/extinguishing-transferring-and-amending-conservation-easements/727 https://www.landcan.org/article/extinguishing-transferring-a...
- mcguire 4y ago
  Several years ago there was a kerfuffle in Texas: The Nature Conservancy had traded a piece of land, that had been donated to it, to the state parks and wildlife department with the understanding that the land was going to be under their conservation regime. Several years later, TPWD was reportedly considering selling the land to a group to form a hunting reserve. I don't recall how it ended (but I suspect the sale did not go through), but there were threats floating around that the Nature Conservancy would no longer make those kinds of trades with Texas.
  - yonaguska 4y ago
    Interesting, because a hunting reserve is probably one of the easiest ways to actually monetize conservation and allow it to pay for itself.
jen20 4y ago
> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. This largely depends on whether an NGO is more trustworthy than the party in control of the federal government when it comes to conservation. Half the time, the answer seems to be "yes".
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  To be clear, my intended implication wasn't "NGOs are untrustworthy", but rather that "the federal government is a lot more likely to be around in 50 years than an NGO". I was also assuming that donating the lands to a federal program implied that the federal government couldn't just turn around and sell the land a few years later, although that might be naive on my part.
ekidd 4y ago
> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. There is supposedly an island on the Maine coast that was given to the federal government for conservation purposes (probably for migratory birds). The feds later sold it off. Last I heard of it, people were raising money to buy it back and protect it again. Federal protection really only works in the long term if the land becomes part of a national park or other protected reserve. In the US, conservation is often handled by "land trusts," private non-profits that protect land, and make it available for public uses. One common strategy is for two land trusts to work together: One will own the land, and the second will own a "conservation easement" that prevents the land from being developed. This reassures land donors that their wishes will be protected. Local land trusts are often very popular. Almost everybody likes to have some scenic walking paths. Local businesses also like being able to hand out trail maps to their customers. But some land trusts also protect working land: I know of a protected fishing warf that is used by many small commercial fisherman. In other towns, land trusts may protect a certain amount of farmland. The most entertaining case I know of is a land trust that maintains a trail system for ATV vehicles. They acquired the land to protect some key bird habitat. But the parcel also included a separate wooded area that was popular with ATV users. So they said, "Hey, ATVs are a public recreational use, and we have plenty of other land that doesn't allow them. So why not let people keep doing that here?" I think that's one important trick to running a successful land trust: Make sure that you serve a wide variety of community needs. Set aside land for conservation, for walking, and to preserve traditional working land. And try to support a wide variety of recreational uses.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "So why not let people keep doing that here?" Because loud ATV engines are opposite to the goal of protecting bird habitats? In general I agree for multi recreational use, but maybe with something less disturbing? (like using electric engines only for example)
  - ekidd 4y ago
    Happily, they actually closed all the existing ATV trails that went anywhere near the bird habitat. And the ATV woodlot itself was not a significant conservation target. (And the ATV use was long-standing.) A successful local land trust relies on both small donations and a certain measure of political support. Many towns exempt them (partially or fully) from property taxes, so I feel it's admirable for them to look for ways to serve the entire community. Probably very few land trusts will ever find themselves owning ATV trails. But it's good for them to think about what public needs they can serve, even if the answers are sometimes surprising.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. The Federal government is not a reliable steward of public wilderness lands. Their incentives and motivations are quite different from a purpose-built NGO. In practice an NGO can offer a much more consistent and aligned implementation of objectives.
- aporetics 4y ago
  Example: Bears Ears National Monument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?w...
  - loonster 4y ago
    It's just as hard to undo something as it is to do something. A proclamation by a president is a very low bar. A better method would be by law. That would require a future president, house, and Senate to agree.
idiotsecant 4y ago
>TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana Not only flows through it, but originates it! That's where rocky mountain snow turns into the mighty Missouri river. Another interesting fact is that the world's shortest river also dumps into the missouri close to it's headwaters in central Montana. The river flows from Giant Springs in great falls, Montana for a little over 200 feet and then dumps a substantial flow of crystal clear, clean water into the sometimes muddy Missouri. The mixing is sometimes a striking thing to watch and there is a neat little park there that also has a trout hatchery and you can feed the enormous number of ducks and canada goose that spend large portions of the year in Great Falls. Underrated town with some neat stuff :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_River

toast0 4y ago

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. Not really. Federal agencies sell parklands from time to time. It's easier to have an NGO that won't sell the land for a long time.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
There’s two parts. The conservation easement strips the land of its development capacity, and that restriction rides with the land to future owners in perpetuity, while the non profit stewards the land and enforces those legal claims if necessary.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I hate this process. It effectively gives someone else rights over the current owners land. The person becomes a tenet farmer in effect and is responsible for the taxes and upkeep while under the control of the organization. And the land is not accessible to the public. It's much better for the land to be organization-owned and open to public use. Just my opinion.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    The land absolutely can be open to the public in this model, it just can’t be developed.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      At least in my experience, th orgs near me buy the land, place restrictions on it, then sell it. Only rarely do they hold it and open it to the public.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        This seems like it would inevitably lead to a limited number of entities owning almost all the conservation land. Stripping it of development value in perpetuity ought to lower the value considerably, making it easier for an interested party to accumulate it. Maybe in hopes that some day they'll figure out how to undo that restriction. Edit: On second thought, after doing a quick bit of research, the conservation easement can be removed. So the value will be impacted, but the land will still have some residual development value.
        giantg2 4y ago
        Generally the easement can't be removed except by the trust that owns those rights, and that's not something they will want to give up. So yes, these organizations will eventually hold the rights to vast amounts of land, with limited oversight (compared to a municipality or other democratic org), while the "owner" paying the taxes and upkeep on the land can be individuals (not the org). And yes, the value of that land tends to go down slightly. But it constrains supply which causes all the other land to increase.
  - atourgates 4y ago
    I volunteer with a regional land trust, and I think you're maybe misunderstanding the conservation easement process, or at least it's typical application. The typical process is: Private Landowner Decides they want to conserve their land. They work with a Land Trust to define, and put in place the restrictions of that conservation easement. Those typically restrict development (though the landowner can in some cases "carve out" future building sites), and depending on the goals of the landowner and land trust, could allow things like agriculture, forestry, recreation etc.. I'm sure there's a conservation easement somewhere that restricts public access, but I've never seen one. Most commonly, the land stays inaccessible to the public just like it was before the easement, but nothing in the legal language of the easement prohibiting future public access. (One conservation easement manager half-joked that every easement we do has public access potential, it just might take a few generations for that potential to be realized). Next, that easement goes through the legal process of being put into place. Now, that land is subject to the restrictions of that easement forever. And it's the job (legal responsibility) of the Land Trust that holds the easement to regularly monitor the easements they hold, and make sure they're followed. However, the original landowner still owns the land, just like before. If they sell the land, or someone inherits, it's still (de facto) private land, just private land with restrictions as to what can be done on it. Now, there are private landowners who want to open their land to public access, and that's amazing. (We did our first few public access-specific easements this year at our comparatively-small land trust, and we're super excited). There are also times where a landowner puts an easement on their property, and then sells it to someone like a local, regional or state institution to be managed specifically for public access. There was recently a great story about how private individuals stepped in to conserve land, and then later transferred it to Washington State Parks[1]. There are also times when a property might transfer ownership, as well as the easement, to a Land Trust. We actually have one of these that we basically operate as a public park. But, that's like less than 2% of the total easements we hold. So, to your points, I guess I would say: The process of conservation easements by large _increases_ the amount of land available for public access and recreation, not decreases it. And if anyone is becoming a tenant farmer, it's the landowner choosing to become a tenant themselves. There are times when an outside entity might purchase the easement from the landowner, but again, the landowner's not forced into that transaction. 1. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2021-12-21/washington-buys-more-steptoe-butte-land-to-preserve-it https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/...
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > in perpetuity Or until the current owners convince a court of law to extinguish the conservation easement.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    You should research what’s required to do so and the odds of it occurring. Only in rare/limited circumstances can the easement be terminated, and the IRS has some oversight into this because of the tax consequences of these easements (as you can claim a charitable tax deduction for donating and extinguishing the development capability of the parcel).
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      I've done the first part [0]. But I don't know an easy way to assess the second part. Clearly congress intended for it to be difficult, but the idea that a conservation easement is in fact permanent should always have an asterisk next to it. [0]: https://www.landcan.org/article/extinguishing-transferring-and-amending-conservation-easements/727 https://www.landcan.org/article/extinguishing-transferring-a...
mcguire 4y ago
Several years ago there was a kerfuffle in Texas: The Nature Conservancy had traded a piece of land, that had been donated to it, to the state parks and wildlife department with the understanding that the land was going to be under their conservation regime. Several years later, TPWD was reportedly considering selling the land to a group to form a hunting reserve. I don't recall how it ended (but I suspect the sale did not go through), but there were threats floating around that the Nature Conservancy would no longer make those kinds of trades with Texas.
- yonaguska 4y ago
  Interesting, because a hunting reserve is probably one of the easiest ways to actually monetize conservation and allow it to pay for itself.

jen20 4y ago

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. This largely depends on whether an NGO is more trustworthy than the party in control of the federal government when it comes to conservation. Half the time, the answer seems to be "yes".

throwaway894345 4y ago
To be clear, my intended implication wasn't "NGOs are untrustworthy", but rather that "the federal government is a lot more likely to be around in 50 years than an NGO". I was also assuming that donating the lands to a federal program implied that the federal government couldn't just turn around and sell the land a few years later, although that might be naive on my part.

ekidd 4y ago

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. There is supposedly an island on the Maine coast that was given to the federal government for conservation purposes (probably for migratory birds). The feds later sold it off. Last I heard of it, people were raising money to buy it back and protect it again. Federal protection really only works in the long term if the land becomes part of a national park or other protected reserve. In the US, conservation is often handled by "land trusts," private non-profits that protect land, and make it available for public uses. One common strategy is for two land trusts to work together: One will own the land, and the second will own a "conservation easement" that prevents the land from being developed. This reassures land donors that their wishes will be protected. Local land trusts are often very popular. Almost everybody likes to have some scenic walking paths. Local businesses also like being able to hand out trail maps to their customers. But some land trusts also protect working land: I know of a protected fishing warf that is used by many small commercial fisherman. In other towns, land trusts may protect a certain amount of farmland. The most entertaining case I know of is a land trust that maintains a trail system for ATV vehicles. They acquired the land to protect some key bird habitat. But the parcel also included a separate wooded area that was popular with ATV users. So they said, "Hey, ATVs are a public recreational use, and we have plenty of other land that doesn't allow them. So why not let people keep doing that here?" I think that's one important trick to running a successful land trust: Make sure that you serve a wide variety of community needs. Set aside land for conservation, for walking, and to preserve traditional working land. And try to support a wide variety of recreational uses.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"So why not let people keep doing that here?" Because loud ATV engines are opposite to the goal of protecting bird habitats? In general I agree for multi recreational use, but maybe with something less disturbing? (like using electric engines only for example)
- ekidd 4y ago
  Happily, they actually closed all the existing ATV trails that went anywhere near the bird habitat. And the ATV woodlot itself was not a significant conservation target. (And the ATV use was long-standing.) A successful local land trust relies on both small donations and a certain measure of political support. Many towns exempt them (partially or fully) from property taxes, so I feel it's admirable for them to look for ways to serve the entire community. Probably very few land trusts will ever find themselves owning ATV trails. But it's good for them to think about what public needs they can serve, even if the answers are sometimes surprising.

jandrewrogers 4y ago

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. The Federal government is not a reliable steward of public wilderness lands. Their incentives and motivations are quite different from a purpose-built NGO. In practice an NGO can offer a much more consistent and aligned implementation of objectives.

aporetics 4y ago
Example: Bears Ears National Monument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?w...
- loonster 4y ago
  It's just as hard to undo something as it is to do something. A proclamation by a president is a very low bar. A better method would be by law. That would require a future president, house, and Senate to agree.

idiotsecant 4y ago

>TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana Not only flows through it, but originates it! That's where rocky mountain snow turns into the mighty Missouri river. Another interesting fact is that the world's shortest river also dumps into the missouri close to it's headwaters in central Montana. The river flows from Giant Springs in great falls, Montana for a little over 200 feet and then dumps a substantial flow of crystal clear, clean water into the sometimes muddy Missouri. The mixing is sometimes a striking thing to watch and there is a neat little park there that also has a trout hatchery and you can feed the enormous number of ducks and canada goose that spend large portions of the year in Great Falls. Underrated town with some neat stuff :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_River