# Conservation easments anyone?



## #1DEER 1-I

For those that own property on here just wondering if anyone's put conservation easements on their property?


----------



## Lonetree

Short answer: No

Long answer: I own a quarter section that is bordered on 4 sides by FS property. We have discussed a conservation easement, but given the current politics of public lands, I would not even consider such a thing right now in Utah, if you were looking at any county, state, or federal agency to make an agreement with. 

If the land was in Colorado or Montana, I would have already done this, but it is not. The tax incentives for doing this are very clear with governmental agencies, but not as clear to me with land trusts and non govermental agnecies such as non profits. 

There is a lot to look at, like adjacent properties, value to wildlife, or watershed, and very importantly WHO you are looking to convey the easement to, because in the future they are the ones responsible for enforcing and upholding the goals of the easement, which can be very widely or narrowly defined.


----------



## johnnycake

Lonetree, I'm currently working with Nancy McLaughlin on some research into land trusts (she's one of the foremost legal scholars on the subject of conservation easements). As for Utah, you can give the easement to any conservation oriented charitable organization and receive the same tax benefits under section 170h as you would in Colorado and Montana. There are several land trusts, wildlife conservation groups and a few other charities in Utah that would be happy to accept whatever qualifications you wished. If you had any questions as to the tax implications if be happy to help you get answers.


----------



## Lonetree

johnnycake

I appreciate the clarification on governmental verses NGOs, that's good to know. I have come across Nancy's work, when looking into some of this, she seems to be very on top of things. I first came across her name WRT land swaps, very interesting stuff.

You get 170(h) tax deductions anywhere in the United States, as these are federal tax deductions(Which better explains the role of 501(c)s).

But at a state level, Utah offers little to nothing in the way of tax credits, or anything else, where as other Western States, such as CO and MT, offer tax credits, and CO's are transferrable. This is endemic to Utah's conservation ethos, or lack there of really.

Taxes are only a piece of this of course, as conservation is the goal. Currently about 1/3 of our property falls under multi-agency restrictions meant for big game conservation. But these same agencies seem more hell bent on ecological destruction, than any kind of conservation. I don't want my children saddled with a "Walden pond trust" at this point.

"wildlife conservation groups" in Utah? I wasn't aware there were any.:-?


----------



## johnnycake

I misunderstood your tax benefits concerns. Utah doesn't have as good of incentives compared to a few states, but the federal tax benefit is the major one regardless.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> johnnycake
> 
> I appreciate the clarification on governmental verses NGOs, that's good to know. I have come across Nancy's work, when looking into some of this, she seems to be very on top of things. I first came across her name WRT land swaps, very interesting stuff.
> 
> You get 170(h) tax deductions anywhere in the United States, as these are federal tax deductions(Which better explains the role of 501(c)s).
> 
> But at a state level, Utah offers little to nothing in the way of tax credits, or anything else, where as other Western States, such as CO and MT, offer tax credits, and CO's are transferrable. This is endemic to Utah's conservation ethos, or lack there of really.
> 
> Taxes are only a piece of this of course, as conservation is the goal. Currently about 1/3 of our property falls under multi-agency restrictions meant for big game conservation. But these same agencies seem more hell bent on ecological destruction, than any kind of conservation. I don't want my children saddled with a "Walden pond trust" at this point.
> 
> "wildlife conservation groups" in Utah? I wasn't aware there were any.:-?


Hopefully it can all be changed for the better before we get too far down the line.


----------



## Lonetree

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Hopefully it can all be changed for the better before we get too far down the line.


Things are going to get worse, before there is any chance of it getting better.

Its always darkest, right before its pitch black.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Lonetree said:


> Things are going to get worse, before there is any chance of it getting better.
> 
> Its always darkest, right before its pitch black.


We can always hope.


----------



## ridgetop

What is a conservation easements anyway?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

ridgetop said:


> What is a conservation easements anyway?


An easement that protects the land from development basically and you get tax breaks on the land, the easement transfers no matter who buys the land.


----------



## Lonetree

http://www.landtrustalliance.org/conservation/landowners/conservation-easements


----------



## Springville Shooter

This practice is rampant in California. Just another way for special interest groups to insert their politics into private property with assistance from the Govt. Bad juju. But then again I come from the forest products and ranching perspective. Bad people who spray glyphosate and Garlon, cut down trees, and kill animals and stuff so there you go.------SS


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> This practice is rampant in California. Just another way for special interest groups to insert their politics into private property with assistance from the Govt. Bad juju. But then again I come from the forest products and ranching perspective. Bad people who spray glyphosate and Garlon, cut down trees, and kill animals and stuff so there you go.------SS


The "special interest groups" would have to own the property, in order to "insert" their politics into private property. It does not work that way.

The private property owner gets to dictate the terms of the easement, and who they partner with on it. It is very much about private property rights, as well as conservation.

A lot of farms and ranches use this practice to survive, as property prices and taxes increase around them. This keeps the farm going, and provides wildlife habitat that would normally get gobbled up in bubble markets.

Have they been abused? Yes, but mostly as tax shelters. Maybe you could give us an example of a politically motivated conservation easement? Or better yet, lots of them, as it is apparently "rampant" as you say.

What a coincidence, I cut down trees, and kill animals too. But I don't condone ecological destruction that diminishes hunting and fishing, because........well, that would be anti hunting........and we have had enough of that perspective over the last 30 years.

It is not logging, or ranching, or farming, or "habitat improvements" that are the problem, its how it is done, and the impact on wildlife and hunting.

I grew up mending fences in the summer with my grandfather. All of our beef and vegetables came from my grandparents place. He cut a lot of timber when he was younger, and my grandmother grew up taking sagebrush off with a horse team. These things are not incompatible with wildlife and hunting, but the way in which they are done, IS.

Some people just don't value wildlife, or hunting.


----------



## Springville Shooter

I'm talking about conservancies, perhaps different? Basically, a big non profit comes in and purchases a conservancy agreement on a given piece of land, some are 99 years, some are indefinite. In return, the property owner receives tax shelters offered by the government as well as cash from the conservancy and, in return, has to give up certain rights as dictated by the agreement, usually the right to develop in certain ways, and often the right to deny public access to the property. I'm not going to waste my time with a lot of research on this because I already have my opinions but I would be happy to cite some specific properties to you via PM Lonetree if you want to investigate further.--------SS


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> I'm talking about conservancies, perhaps different? Basically, a big non profit comes in and purchases a conservancy agreement on a given piece of land, some are 99 years, some are indefinite. In return, the property owner receives tax shelters offered by the government as well as cash from the conservancy and, in return, has to give up certain rights as dictated by the agreement, usually the right to develop in certain ways, and often the right to deny public access to the property. I'm not going to waste my time with a lot of research on this because I already have my opinions but I would be happy to cite some specific properties to you via PM Lonetree if you want to investigate further.--------SS


The property owner is in complete control, and 99 out of 100 times seeks the conservation easement, not the other way around.

The property owner receives tax incentives for lowering the market value of the property.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Ok, we're talking about two completely different things......carry on.-------SS


----------



## Lonetree

No, we are not, you and a lot of other people get all bent out of shape when a private property owner signs an easement with someone like the Nature conservancy, or sells it outright. You start rattling on about access and hunting, like it has been shut down, when it never existed in the first place, because it was private property.

When you look across the board, folks like the nature conservancy have actually opened tens of thousands of acres of private property to hunting, using hunting as a conservation tool.

Just a single example: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiative...indiana/howwework/deer-management-hunting.xml


----------



## Springville Shooter

Nope, I fully realize that access is often much greater under the conservancy......at great cost. The private property inherits much of the same regulation as public land often making normal ranching, forestry, and development practices difficult or impossible. In my experience, the best stewards of the land are often the small time farmer and rancher. Unfortunately, especially in places like California, they are being forced to consider giving away much of the control of their land in order to be able to continue to exist. It's a nasty battle between the developer and the conservancy.....in other words, it's a lose lose. 

I worked very closely with several of these property owners as a representative of a company that owned neighboring land in efforts to conduct fuel reduction and other types of forestry practices. I personally watched the political agendas of the conservancies stand firmly in the way of sound management that would have been beneficial to the property as well as lucrative to the owners. I believe that these agendas have greatly contributed to many of the massive wildfires that have plagued this particular area over the last century. 

I've seen it man, you can describe it any way you want, I know what it's about because I lived it, I dealt with conservancy boards, you can't fool me.------SS


----------



## Lonetree

The owners of the property and the conservation easement, agree to the terms, which can be very restrictive, or not very restrictive at all. Its all up to the property owner, when they enter into the agreement. 

If I were to decide I was going to enter into an agreement, it could be with a wide variety of organizations or groups, left, right, center, pro-hunting or not, its my decision to enter my private property into an easement or not, and I get to dictate the terms of the easement.

So because you could not run a brush hog on some one else's property, conservation easements are bad?........OK


----------



## Springville Shooter

And, to clarify, I don't get bent out of shape about any decision that a property owner makes because I respect property ownership. My opinion is based on the fact that I have seen property owners put up against the wall in places that are a bit more progressive than here in Utah. Taxes, fees, and regulation apply so much pressure that landowners face tough decisions in order to maintain lands that have often been in their families for generations. The choice becomes clear; sell out to the salivating developer, or the left wing whacko nature conservancy. The conservancy often wins because they allow the property owner (now tenant) to remain on the land. 

What property owner really WANTS to give up control of their land to another entity just for the hell of it? The answer is none. They do it because their backs are against the wall. Now why is that?------SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Nope, I fully realize that access is often much greater under the conservancy......at great cost. The private property inherits much of the same regulation as public land often making normal ranching, forestry, and development practices difficult or impossible. In my experience, the best stewards of the land are often the small time farmer and rancher. Unfortunately, especially in places like California, they are being forced to consider giving away much of the control of their land in order to be able to continue to exist. It's a nasty battle between the developer and the conservancy.....in other words, it's a lose lose.
> 
> I worked very closely with several of these property owners as a representative of a company that owned neighboring land in efforts to conduct fuel reduction and other types of forestry practices. I personally watched the political agendas of the conservancies stand firmly in the way of sound management that would have been beneficial to the property as well as lucrative to the owners. I believe that these agendas have greatly contributed to many of the massive wildfires that have plagued this particular area over the last century.
> 
> I've seen it man, you can describe it any way you want, I know what it's about because I lived it, I dealt with conservancy boards, you can't fool me.------SS


Don't whine the next time that landowner sales critical wildlife habitat for development. Small town ranchers for the most part that I've seen, use the land to the fullest possible economical value it can withstand, which is understandable. Conservation easements are good things, sure a few bad things happen along the way with everything in life. A good steward of the land IMO is not someone who has to fertilize and herb/pesticide the hell out of te ground to get something to grow.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Lonetree said:


> So because you could not run a brush hog on some one else's property, conservation easements are bad?........OK


Nope! they're bad because the rancher who had managed the property successfully for years wanted me to run my brush hog on his property along roads and other places where fire ignition was likely but he couldn't because of he conservancy board. So it all burned up and took several neighbors places and some national park with it. Sounds like good sound management to me.

No buffers, no fire breaks, no new roads.....too bad, them's the breaks. On a good note, I did make a killing removing the burnt tree trunks prior to reforestation and I billed the conservancy with great pride at top dollar......much more than I stood to make from working with the rancher.-------SS


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> What property owner really WANTS to give up control of their land to another entity just for the hell of it? The answer is none. They do it because their backs are against the wall. Now why is that?------SS


My back is not against the wall, I'm not looking to give up any control, quite the contrary, my choice to enter into a conservation easement is all about maintaining control long after I am gone, while furthering wildlife conservation and my children's heritage.


----------



## johnnycake

SS, that sounds to me like a poorly drafted agreement. On this Lonetree has a good grasp. Conservation easements (also called conservancies) can be drafted any which way you want: allow farming, ranching, hunting, timber harvest, historical buildings, cabins, etc but there has to be some sort of conservation purpose. To get the tax breaks the easement has to go to a qualified government or charitable organization in perpetuity. If you have land and you want to keep ranching or farming all you have to do is specify that you want to do X according to XX standards. Private owners almost always are the ones to approach an organization to put land under easement. Certain organizations will only accept easements with specific restrictions, eg HSUS requires no killing or trapping. If you don't like the terms the organization requires, then look at another one. RMEF has some excellent easements and models.


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> Nope! they're bad because the rancher who had managed the property successfully for years wanted me to run my brush hog on his property along roads and other places where fire ignition was likely but he couldn't because of he conservancy board. So it all burned up and took several neighbors places and some national park with it. Sounds like good sound management to me.
> 
> No buffers, no fire breaks, no new roads.....too bad, them's the breaks. On a good note, I did make a killing removing the burnt tree trunks prior to reforestation and I billed the conservancy with great pride at top dollar......much more than I stood to make from working with the rancher.-------SS


:mrgreen: Yeah, all because you did not save them from themselves. That is how the easement was written, that's between the land owner and the conservancy board, or who ever he signed into the agreement with. He could have entered into an easement with a different entity, and wrote it different. No one put a gun to his head, and he did not have to pay for your disaster profiteering, nor did his children, because someone had his back.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Choose wisely and do your research well my friend. The devil might be in the details. You could also just manage the land well and teach your kids good stewardship....that would carry the same guarantees that you listed above and it wouldn't involve a third party. Just my opinion.-----SS


----------



## Lonetree

johnnycake said:


> RMEF has some excellent easements and models.


What! Communists!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Choose wisely and do your research well my friend. The devil might be in the details. You could also just manage the land well and teach your kids good stewardship....that would carry the same guarantees that you listed above and it wouldn't involve a third party. Just my opinion.-----SS


Sadly this isn't the way our youth are headed for the most part. Farm ground is lost in many instances because when the children get the land handed down to them they have no use or care for it and it is sold to development.


----------



## Springville Shooter

All models are excellent in someone's opinion.-------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter

I guess if you want to trust someone else more than yourself and your posterity to protect and preserve your land then an easement is probably the best option for you.-----SS


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> I guess if you want to trust someone else more than yourself and your posterity to protect and preserve your land then an easement is probably the best option for you.-----SS


You don't or have never owned large tracts of land, have you?


----------



## Springville Shooter

Nope, I've only been able to amass a minuscule collection of small properties....the pride of which is 7.5 acres. I have, however, worked in various forms of property management for some of the largest property owners in America. Heck, I'm probably not even qualified to contribute to this conversation....geez.----SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> I guess if you want to trust someone else more than yourself and your posterity to protect and preserve your land then an easement is probably the best option for you.-----SS


A million dollars to develop your property can entertain even a strong wildlife advocate when the devils signing the check. It's just a great way to keep the land so it is not eaten up by development in perpetuity like we will see for most private ground the farther time rolls along. One things for sure, we aren't getting any more back.


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> Nope, I've only been able to amass a minuscule collection of small properties....the pride of which is 7.5 acres. I have, however, worked in various forms of property management for some of the largest property owners in America. Heck, I'm probably not even qualified to contribute to this conversation....geez.----SS


What is the plan for the 7.5? You gonna sell it, do you want your kids to get it? Do you want to have a say in what your kids do with it, or how they pay for it, or take care of it, after you are gone?

......trusts and conservation easements.......


----------



## Springville Shooter

I'm going to teach my kids the best principles that I can and then trust them with the agency to do as they see fit.......including leaving them the options to sell it if the need comes up, or to enter into a conservancy deal with the Native Plant Society if that's what they choose. 

Legal Trust.....you bet. Third party involvement, no thanks.--------SS


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> I'm going to teach my kids the best principles that I can and then trust them with the agency to do as they see fit.......including leaving them the options to sell it if the need comes up, or to enter into a conservancy deal with the Native Plant Society if that's what they choose.
> 
> Legal Trust.....you bet. Third party involvement, no thanks.--------SS


Who enforces a legal trust? There is no third party enforcement of it?

Its the same thing, you are just attributing things to easements, that you imagined, and are untrue.

You get to choose who enforces your trust agreement, when you enter into a conservation easement, you are picking your enforcer, while also agreeing to what it is you want enforced.

The judge is on your side, hand picked by you, along with the prosecutor. Its even better than a trust.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Those who adjudicate a trust have no personal interest in it and don't benefit either way. Third parties in a conservation easement always have a personal agenda and you better make sure it is in line with what you want because there is no going back. I'm not imagining the regret that I have seen some property owners experience. Remember that you are selling a powerful third party and their legal team the benefit of an agreement that can be subject to legal challenges regarding it's interpretation and implementation. 

Funny how you tote the legitimate benefits as fact, then turn around and discount the reality of the limitations as something that is made up or untrue. It's a legal deal for a reason. You profit from it for a reason.....because you are selling something, namely control. If you are happy with what you are selling, then have at it. If you find a particular group whom you trust that exclusively, sign away. -------SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Those who adjudicate a trust have no personal interest in it and don't benefit either way. Third parties in a conservation easement always have a personal agenda and you better make sure it is in line with what you want because there is no going back. I'm not imagining the regret that I have seen some property owners experience. Remember that you are selling a powerful third party and their legal team the benefit of an agreement that can be subject to legal challenges regarding it's interpretation and implementation.
> 
> Funny how you tote the legitimate benefits as fact, then turn around and discount the reality of the limitations as something that is made up or untrue. It's a legal deal for a reason. You profit from it for a reason.....because you are selling something, namely control. If you are happy with what you are selling, then have at it. If you find a particular group whom you trust that exclusively, sign away. -------SS


You're missing the point that you don't just sign an agreement you make the agreement. The only thing to gain is the fact that the property will be around for future generations instead of be the boring developed land that's quickly chipping away at our landscape. It is those who made the agreement that agreed to the terms, it's like blaming a bank for a high interest rate because you didn't read the agreement before you signed or shopped elsewhere for a better rate.

You preach access and opportunity for hunting and fishing but right now are advocating the loss of those lands in the future because you got a bad taste in your mouth a couple times. There's great land preserved forever in our state that is vital to our wildlife and hunting and I'm glad it is.


----------



## Springville Shooter

You are probably one of those guys who loves paying a HOA $200.00 per month to tell you where you can keep you garbage cans too.....to each their own I guess.------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You're missing the point that you don't just sign an agreement you make the agreement. The only thing to gain is the fact that the property will be around for future generations instead of be the boring developed land that's quickly chipping away at our landscape. It is those who made the agreement that agreed to the terms, it's like blaming a bank for a high interest rate because you didn't read the agreement before you signed or shopped elsewhere for a better rate.


Every tried to "refinance" a conservancy agreement? Good luck. You make a good point 1-I. What if you were bound to the first auto interest rate that you agreed to for the rest of your life and your kids who inherited your car were bound by the same agreement? Better be sure you make a wise choice.----SS


----------



## Lonetree

SS, with a conservation easement, you get to decide what the HOA rules are :mrgreen: your arguments are very weak.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Every tried to "refinance" a conservancy agreement? Good luck. You make a good point 1-I. What if you were bound to the first auto interest rate that you agreed to for the rest of your life and your kids who inherited your car were bound by the same agreement? Better be sure you make a wise choice.----SS


A wise choice is trying to sustain something that's just going to become more rare, and that's undeveloped land. Conservation easments are the only sure way to sustain private land important to our wildlife and open space . You get to decide everything, which is also more than you can say for a loan of any kind.As for kids inheriting it, they can still sale the land, they aren't bound to it, only to the fact it can't be developed. Land can't be brought back once you've got a subdivision or business on it, so why not keep a little safe before that happens?


----------



## Lonetree

They can be renegotiated as well in some states. MT has 15 year term options.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Conservation easements are the only way huh 1-I.........you really show your ignorance time after time. IF they are so great, why hasn't anyone on here piped up to tell us about theirs and how much they love it? I know that there are several property owners that frequent this forum. LT makes good arguments yet still doesn't have his property under contract. 

I have given good, solid examples of issues that I have witnessed and experienced first hand. All that has been presented in return is theory. You say that you make the deal, but from those I've talked to, if the deal isn't right with the conservancy, there is no deal. They aren't going to pay for nothing. I've seen the slippery slope that occurred in a place that just a bit further along progressively than here. 

Special interest groups get very powerful with support from bought off politicians. They then strike out to compete to gain control over private property by means of offering the highest price.......at a price........to landowners who are struggling to make ends meet due to over regulation, inflated fees and taxes, and ballooning property values. 

Why don't you save up your pennies, buy a piece of land, then contact a few conservancies with your demand sheet and see how far you get. Sure, you might get into a contract, but you will not get much for it.....other than the peace of mind knowing that you no longer have control of something that you paid for! That's why these things are not selling like hot cakes in a market where land owners aren't in trouble. You see, people who work hard to own something inherently don't want to let others dictate what they do with it.

It does sound good to guys like yourself who like to speculate about what should be done with the property of others. I'll buy your BS more when you put your money where your mouth is. Work hard and own something put it under contract and come back to tell us how great you feel.----SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Conservation easements are the only way huh 1-I.........you really show your ignorance time after time. IF they are so great, why hasn't anyone on here piped up to tell us about theirs and how much they love it? I know that there are several property owners that frequent this forum. LT makes good arguments yet still doesn't have his property under contract.
> 
> I have given good, solid examples of issues that I have witnessed and experienced first hand. All that has been presented in return is theory. You say that you make the deal, but from those I've talked to, if the deal isn't right with the conservancy, there is no deal. They aren't going to pay for nothing. I've seen the slippery slope that occurred in a place that just a bit further along progressively than here.
> 
> Special interest groups get very powerful with support from bought off politicians. They then strike out to compete to gain control over private property by means of offering the highest price.......at a price........to landowners who are struggling to make ends meet due to over regulation, inflated fees and taxes, and ballooning property values.
> 
> Why don't you save up your pennies, buy a piece of land, then contact a few conservancies with your demand sheet and see how far you get. Sure, you might get into a contract, but you will not get much for it.....other than the peace of mind knowing that you no longer have control of something that you paid for! That's why these things are not selling like hot cakes in a market where land owners aren't in trouble. You see, people who work hard to own something inherently don't want to let others dictate what they do with it.
> 
> It does sound good to guys like yourself who like to speculate about what should be done with the property of others. I'll buy your BS more when you put your money where your mouth is. Work hard and own something put it under contract and come back to tell us how great you feel.----SS


Let's hear your way SS of how to gurantee, now I said gurantee, not hope for, that the land will be left undeveloped for the use use of future generations?


----------



## Lonetree

SS :mrgreen: He does own property. He is talking about his property.

I am in no hurry to sign an easement, I have time. My hesitation is with the state of Utah's politics, not some bunny buggar group. As I will in all likelihood approach the Forest Service about an arrangement that would carve out a smaller piece of our property that will get developed. 

The arrangement will ultimately ensure public access across the property in perpetuity, make public about 1/3 of it, allow me development that would normally not be allowed, while ensuring that the vast majority of it is conserved as wildlife habitat. I can only accomplish part of this with a trust, and other agreements with county and federal agencies, I can do all of it with an easement partner.

Why, because that is what I have worked hard for. As has been stated earlier, there is no competition amongst conservancies for control of private property, it is land owners that approach cities, counties, state agencies, federal agencies, and 501(c) orgs(You know bunny buggars like RMEF) to partner with. 

Your argument against competition, is an anti free market argument. You keep citing market forces, as both the problem and the solution, when it does not work that way. You can't lambast high taxes, and market forces driving those high taxes, and then attack a free market instrument that provides relief, custom tailored, to the land owner for these circumstances. In a free market the land owner can sell when the taxes become too high their liking, because market forces have driven prices high. Or they can look to market solutions to influence said market to their benefit, by leveraging their property through legal instruments. 

Some people may be utilizing easements quite late WRT to these market forces, while in my case, I'm looking to hedge those market forces before they can ever affect me or my children, while voluntarily contributing to and participating in the larger community, on several levels.

Conservation easements are conservative, voluntary community, tied to free markets at its finest. You are the one unjustified in your concern over other peoples property, as evidenced by your story about not getting to brush hog some one else's property but ultimately profiting from its destruction that you could not have prevented in the first place.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

SS all I'm saying is someday when your kids are older, discuss it with them and consider it. I'm not saying jump head first without thinking about it or seeing where the programs go as you and your kids get older. Easements are good things that can be beneficial for both sides especially when you can partner with someone who might share your sAme views (RMEF, NWTF, Pheasants forever, etc.) ensuring the sustainment of your land for the futre isn't a bad thing just take it slow, discuss it, consider it, and do it right if you ever so decide to choose so.


----------



## Lonetree

SS is all for free markets, when he benefits from them. When he gets a say, or profits from other peoples property, then its fine. Its just fine when he is spraying Garlon or Glyphosate, and profiting from the destruction of wildlife, which cost all of us in many ways.

Yet when private property owners attempt to use market forces to counter any of this destruction, and forward conservation, then he is adamantly against it. 

It is a completely hypocritical view and argument.


----------



## Springville Shooter

I am not adamantly against it for you. I totally respect your right to do whatever you want with you property. I have simply stated the reasons that I am very wary of these types of agreements. I couldn't care less if you donated your property to PETA or the Catholic Church. I couldn't care less if you build a service station or a nudist camp. I've just stated some of my observations from a time when I worked with property owners who owned and managed properties held under conservancy agreements that they expressed to me that they were less than happy with ultimately. 

You assume way too much when you start making half-baked statements about my feelings on free market. 

Your analysis of my views pretty much sucks. I sure hope that you work harder and are more objective regarding some of the other talking points that you so dutifully share on a constant basis.----SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> I am not adamantly against it for you. I totally respect your right to do whatever you want with you property. I have simply stated the reasons that I am very wary of these types of agreements. I couldn't care less if you donated your property to PETA or the Catholic Church. I couldn't care less if you build a service station or a nudist camp. I've just stated some of my observations from a time when I worked with property owners who owned and managed properties held under conservancy agreements that they expressed to me that they were less than happy with ultimately.
> 
> You assume way too much when you start making half-baked statements about my feelings on free market.
> 
> Your analysis of my views pretty much sucks. I sure hope that you work harder and are more objective regarding some of the other talking points that you so dutifully share on a constant basis.----SS


Learn more about them instead of letting a few people's bad experiences ruin it for you. If you lay out your plan and use the right partner these thing a can go great for you. I don't want to make it seem like I'm trying to tell you how to use your property it's your choice, but the affect of the continued development of vital private land to our wildlife we love to hunt isn't coming back once it's gone. I'm for good avenues like CE that protect these important lands, call me crazy.


----------



## Lonetree

Springville Shooter said:


> I am not adamantly against it for you. I totally respect your right to do whatever you want with you property. I have simply stated the reasons that I am very wary of these types of agreements. I couldn't care less if you donated your property to PETA or the Catholic Church. I couldn't care less if you build a service station or a nudist camp. I've just stated some of my observations from a time when I worked with property owners who owned and managed properties held under conservancy agreements that they expressed to me that they were less than happy with ultimately.
> 
> You assume way too much when you start making half-baked statements about my feelings on free market.
> 
> Your analysis of my views pretty much sucks. I sure hope that you work harder and are more objective regarding some of the other talking points that you so dutifully share on a constant basis.----SS


My assumptions are based on your position on conservation easements, and your position on "conservation".

Your whole argument centers on some one that freely entered into an agreement, probably solely for tax purposes, and then was unhappy that he had to abide by his own wishes, and legal requests.

Your other underlying premise of greenies injecting politics into this is completely unfounded. Just because you observed lefties engaged in fiscally and socially conservative practices, does not make the practice leftist, and there by support your opinion on the matter.

The outcome, and supposed problem you speak of, was created by the property owner, not the people enforcing the easement.

That's like someone blaming a judge for enforcing their wishes in a trust. :mrgreen:


----------



## colorcountrygunner

I can't believe you guys are so quickly dismissing SS's experience with easements here. It's like you already have your mind made up that they are God's gift to conservation and any opinions to the contrary are blasphemy. I couldn't be more neutral on the subject at the moment because I do not know enough about the whole picture. I'm not just going to dismiss one guy's opinions, however, just because I lean a little ways in the opposite direction. Especially not someone like SS who comes across as very level-headed and knowledgeable. I can't always say the same thing about 1-I; neither can 90% of everyone else on this forum.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Thanks Gunner, and for the record, I don't think that they are all bad. I don't even know a lot of the options. My message is only to be very careful and realize what you are doing will impact generations.........hopefully for the best. I would assume that, like anything else, there are good deals and bad deals. Let the buyer beware. Besides, I need lots of open spaces to spray and run the old brush hog!!:mrgreen:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

colorcountrygunner said:


> I can't believe you guys are so quickly dismissing SS's experience with easements here. It's like you already have your mind made up that they are God's gift to conservation and any opinions to the contrary are blasphemy. I couldn't be more neutral on the subject at the moment because I do not know enough about the whole picture. I'm not just going to dismiss one guy's opinions, however, just because I lean a little ways in the opposite direction. Especially not someone like SS who comes across as very level-headed and knowledgeable. I can't always say the same thing about 1-I; neither can 90% of everyone else on this forum.


I'm not dismissing his experiences, I just think he's letting a bad taste in his mouth ruin the whole meal. On the beginning it seemed he was adamantly opposed to such an easement, but these easements are almost 100% what the landowner choses, not the contrary, it's a great way to protect land, but yes you should take your time and do it wisely.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I like Steven Rinella, here he talks a little about easements


----------



## BugleB

My dad nearly signed up for one on his land that has been in the family since pioneer times. In the end, you might as well sell the land because you have to give up almost all rights to it. They claim you can keep using the land the same way as always, just can;t develop it. When you look at the fine print, it would have required no firewood cutting, no off road travel, big brother would decide when and how many cattle you could graze, you would have to pay for weed control to whatever extent big brother decided, and the list went on and on from there. Fortunately, he turned down a very large sum of money to preserve his land and freedom. Since I will inherit the land someday, I am sure glad that the did.


----------



## johnnycake

BugleBoy, all of that stuff is negotiable. Seriously.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

BugleB said:


> My dad nearly signed up for one on his land that has been in the family since pioneer times. In the end, you might as well sell the land because you have to give up almost all rights to it. They claim you can keep using the land the same way as always, just can;t develop it. When you look at the fine print, it would have required no firewood cutting, no off road travel, big brother would decide when and how many cattle you could graze, you would have to pay for weed control to whatever extent big brother decided, and the list went on and on from there. Fortunately, he turned down a very large sum of money to preserve his land and freedom. Since I will inherit the land someday, I am sure glad that the did.


It depends who you work with and if you let your needs be known. You can negotiate on all of that you just have to do it. I'm sure a sportsmen organization would be great to work with, and it can really work out for the better.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Look out Bugle, no room for opinions and experiences that don't fit into the agenda-quo. Welcome to the club. I'll start listening when someone speaks up and tells me about the easement that THEY signed. Until then, it's just a bunch of wind about what other people should do with their property. I'm sure that they exist, but I have never dealt with anyone who was ecstatic about the awesome conservancy agreement on their property. The best I've ever found was "it was the only way we could keep the place". And there is value in that.--------SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> Look out Bugle, no room for opinions and experiences that don't fit into the agenda-quo. Welcome to the club. I'll start listening when someone speaks up and tells me about the easement that THEY signed. Until then, it's just a bunch of wind about what other people should do with their property. I'm sure that they exist, but I have never dealt with anyone who was ecstatic about the awesome conservancy agreement on their property. The best I've ever found was "it was the only way we could keep the place". And there is value in that.--------SS


SS I respect your opinion, but have you attempted to work with someone si has the RMEF, pheasants forever, NWTF, or another sportsmens group. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to work with you.


----------



## Springville Shooter

That is a true statement 1-I, I have not. Where I come from the market is dominated by aggressive, predatory, environmentalist groups. The state and federal governments are in their pocket and they can be real steamrollers. Kind of like things I hear you complaining about;-)I'm sure that there are better outfits out there......in all fairness.-----SS


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Springville Shooter said:


> That is a true statement 1-I, I have not. Where I come from the market is dominated by aggressive, predatory, environmentalist groups. The state and federal governments are in their pocket and they can be real steamrollers. Kind of like things I hear you complaining about;-)I'm sure that there are better outfits out there......in all fairness.-----SS


Well I don't know what kind of land you have but I think if you were to one day discuss it with a pheasants forever or RMEF affiliate you would find these easements can be great things. Of course you don't have to it's just a thought if you were to ever discuss it with you're family and decide t was worth contactig someone over. You shouldn't approach a group that doesn't got your interests or you won't be happy. Groups that fit your view you can successfully work with and do great things. I understand of course it's yours, but it would be great to save it into perpetuity If that's what you would like to see for it.


----------



## johnnycake

I have actually worked on and helped negotiate a few recently and an working on negotiating a few more. I've dealt with Utah Open Lands, RMEF, a private charity, and a land trust in Virginia. My family's properties in Utah and Virginia have CE's and we managed to negotiate what we wanted from future cabin sites to fracking and mineral development. The landowner holds the cards unless they are uninformed.


----------



## hemionus

Easements can come from a lot of different directions and angles with varying objectives and purposes. The important thing is they are voluntary and if the landowner doesn't like the "fine print" they can decline at their own will or try to negotiate. Just because you didn't like one easement doesn't mean they are all bad. In some instances they are not the best fit, and I acknowledge that, and other instances they are a godsend. One thing is certain though, it is not a cash handout (which some folks wish it was). You are selling some sort of land value and in the future you will have a management partner who has some say on land management. But that is spelled out in the initial agreement and the land owner can take it or leave it.

I didn't read through the entire post. What I could tell from reading some to most of it is that the views were pretty polar for the most part, you either love it or hate it. In reality it is a tool that is available for conservation and it just depends on the situation, people, objectives, etc...to determine if that tool is the right one for the job.


----------

