# Perpetual Conservation Easements



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The July 10th issue of Newsweek ran what they called the "Gving Back Awards", 15 people who make America great. Profiled #3 was Randy Rusk, a rancher from Wet Mountain Valley, CO. After watching neighboring ranches disappear into housing developements, he decided to sell his developement rights to Trust For Public Land. While he received much less than fair makret value for those rights, his descendants will be guarenteed the land remains a working ranch, which was his wish. At first unpopular with neighbors, Rusk became a vocal advocate for perpetual conservation easements and some of his neighbors are now doing the same thing. This gentleman has also been profiled in a number of farm magazines. 
The North Dakota legislature needs to review and endorse this concept. If conservation orgs, NDGF, or USFW were allowed to move forward with this plan it would only enhance the state. And tourism. The failure of the Eberts Ranch purchase by NDGF was a prime example. Have a chat with your legislator.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Dick: Isn't it our county commissioners who keep messing things like this up? It was my understanding that USFWS who used to purchase land for WPA's is all but washed out because even when the landowner wants to sell it to the Feds or GNF, county commissioners have stepped in and not allowed the transaction.

That is more on land purchases than easements though.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Squeeking wheel gets the grease. No different for outright purchase. If the property taxes are paid at the going rate there is no differance. An example is Ft Ransom State Park or even TRNP. I wonder how many tourists would be drawn to a private cow pasture of equal acreage? Yet again the "tourism advocates" are silent.

It was kicked around once about NDGF purchasing permanent hunting easements, instead of paying PLOTS payments every year. It could be locked in with a conservation easement at the same time.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I would be in favor of GNF purchasing land for hunting easements. I think Falkirk Mine would be a great location for another "Lonetree Management Area". The acreage and wildlife they have locked up right now is incredible.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Well Dick, I know several people who would love to put land in conservation easements in ND on a perpetual basis but are held up by state law. Yet whenever someone talks about it here, there are no end of persons against it. The only forum where it is safe to talk about perpetual easements is the Conservation Forum because none of the "me first" hunters ever go there! On any other forum it is continually twisted and spun to be alleged it would be helping commercial guides and outfitters!

I do know that when the legislature meets next spring that I will be up there personally testifying for changes, assuming someone brings it up. I can perhaps understand farmers and ranchers objecting (I don't agree with their arguments, though) but hunters?????????? The fact that they rarely if ever, venture on to this forum tells me that most are concerned about this sort of thing on a personal basis and unfortunately don't give a darn when it comes to important conservation issues, especially where it might impact their own hunting. The older I get the more I worry about the younger hunters who are concerned only for their own personal world, not the greater good of the outdoors.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

You need not worry HH.

We understand. We just don't have the financial means and the pull to get it done yet. But we will.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Be careful what you wish for. In SD, Ducks Unlimited uses your donation to buy land. Then after a little restoration, they sell it to the high bidder subject to a conservation easement. Then, thanks to your money, it has become someone's private playground. Land to which you will never have a prayer for freelance access.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Maybe you never will have a chance to hunt on it, but it is still producing wildlife and you can hunt the land next to it. Worst case I would look at it as another refuge, you can't hunt them, but they help the wildlife. Plus who says the new owners won't let people hunt?

I think it would be better than having the ground planted to corn to produce some subsidized ethanol (that costs a little over a dollar a gallon to produce and is selling for four dollars a gallon).


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

This is my opinion of the best case scenario as far as conservation and what I hope to do on my own oiece of land someday.

A private landowner purchases a piece of property. Then the Game and Fish, USFWS, NRCS, DU, Delta and PF get their field staff together to consult on the best practices to implement on this piece of property. The goal being to raise as much diverse wildlife as possible, maintain the soil and improve water quality.

The USFWS and the NRCS find the Federal programs that will work best on the piece of property. The farmer donates the perpetual easement to the USFWS. DU scientists develop the grazing plan for the grasslands and do research. Delta supplies trappers and conducts research. Both DU and Delta supply the manpower (in the form of volunteers) to implement any changes necessary, grass plantings, tree planting, erosion controls, nesting boxes etc. The farmer then works with the Game and Fish to get the piece of property into WRP and make the land open to public hunting for 30 years.

The landowner plays mediator and tells the different groups, when they can't get along, :beer: to shape up and do their job.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I would like to see the easement perpetual, have hunting access at least similar to PLOTS, guarentee no building developement or land use change and like gg said implement a conservation plan. Some old farmers are married to the land and they would want it to continue as a working farm ranch business. If the payment per acre was reasonable there would be many takers, and yet the taxes would float at the same level as adjoining land and be paid by the owner. I would NOT favor it as strongly without public access on a PLOTS type basis. If there were no easement payments then access wouldn't have to be included.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

tb said:


> Be careful what you wish for. In SD, Ducks Unlimited uses your donation to buy land. Then after a little restoration, they sell it to the high bidder subject to a conservation easement. Then, thanks to your money, it has become someone's private playground. Land to which you will never have a prayer for freelance access.


I do not disagree with your point on this, but the issue of easements in ND needs revisiting! Much of the dollars that could be spent on protecting habitat in ND is not because of our current laws! The situation Dick brought forward cannot happen here, it would only be protected for 30 years I do believe.

How can we prevent the DU situation? That takes some thought and work, which I do believe is available from interested people who are outdoors minded!

I like our current Corp farming law from preventing the loss of farmers in the state of ND. The smaller the operation the more wildlife friendly they seem to be. Protecting that law and removing the easement stranglehold and Conservation land purchase or protection needs to be done in a balance that serves both sides well or nothing will change!


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

Currently in ND, the USFWS is purchasing perpetual easements, they do not mandate hunting access but as far as conservation goes I dont think that is very important. They have easements to protect the wetland basins from being frained/filled/burned and to protect the grasslands from conversiona and development. This I believe is the right idea, the PLOTS program and federal WPA's allow public hunting.

I also believe the ducks unlimited program in SD is excellent. They take marginal cropland convert it back to grasslands, put conservation easements, restorations and enhancements on the land for wildlife benefit. Again there is no guarantee of public hunting but that is not DU's purpose, they are trying to conserve areas of importance in the missouri coteau.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

target, good points. I'm just starting the process to enhance several closed basin wetlands now thru USFW. Good to know it can be a perpetual easement. Will find out more shortly. Open access to everybody!

I understand the mission of the habitat based orgs like DU, Delta, PF, etc. They and other do outstanding work. What I don't understand is that they are unwilling to join a push for the North American Model of Wildlife Management--the public trust. If we as sportsmen are to simply raise more wildlife for the use by fewer people, exclusive use, then I can't buy into that mission. There is a better place for my time and money. I wonder sometimes if they are more afraid of offending large donors and losing membership and money, than they are afraid of watching the public trust wither on the vine.


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick,

I understand your feelings and thoughts, and I agree with your ideas for the public trust. However, I believe that would hinder their efforts. There are too many recreational buyers, much more then in the past. As much as I dont like to see people buying there private hunting grounds, these are the people that are putting there land into easements, restoring the land, and enhancing the habitat. With most of this land bein put into an easement, it will always be this way. Meaning in years to come when this landowner is gone the habitat remains.

These organizations work closely with the state departments and are advocates for access programs like PLOTS. Organizations like the ones you listed I believe do their work with the people in mind. Especially the migratory bird orgs. their conservation work on a private landowners land effects his hunting land but it also has an overall effect throughout the flyway. The saving of grasslands in the Dakota's on private or public land has an extreme effect throughout the whole flyway and beyond. So I just think they have the whole picture in mind of conservation.


----------

