A rancher in central Idaho’s Pioneer Mountains took a critical step in expanding the protection of one of the key ecosystems in Idaho.
Lava Lake Land & Livestock placed 4,533 acres of ranch lands into conservation easements that will prevent development forever. The easements will protect both the unique resources of the land and the ranching tradition so important to the family and the community.
The other key player is the same one that helped make the Owyhee Initiative such a success, the Nature Conservancy of Idaho, which will hold the easements.
The two properties protected by easements are located in the West Fork of Fish Creek drainage in the Pioneer Mountains. They are a part of an ecosystem and connected landscape that stretches from the top of the 11,000-plus mountains between Hailey and Mackey south through the Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve down to 4,000 feet and nearly to Interstate 84.
This landscape rivals Idaho’s other big, largely intact natural ecosystems like the Owyhees, the Salmon-Selway and greater Yellowstone for unfragmented, rugged expanse. The Pioneer-Craters of the Moon ecosystem is only beginning to get its due after President Clinton expanded Craters of the Moon in 2001.
It is home to sage grouse, pronghorn antelope, elk, mule deer, moose, sage thrasher, pikas and rare plants. Lava Lake is part of a group formed to keep it as it is called the Pioneer’s Alliance.
“These lands are an important part of the forage base for our sheep operation and they support significant cultural and natural values, including Native American sites and sage grouse,” said landowner Brian Bean. “We are honored to be able to protect these lands in perpetuity.”
You might remember Lava Lake Land & Livestock as a unique sheep operation that takes pride in its conservation programs and predator-friendly policies. It markets these along with its lamb and offers a model the owners hope will spread.
They placed the ranch’s 7,500-acre base lands in a conservation easement with the Conservancy in 2001. They are working on restoration programs for both rangeland and streams.
The Pioneer's Alliance isn’t talking about national monuments or national parks, even though the dramatic Copper Basin and the surrounding peaks would meet any qualifications anywhere in the world. Like the Owyhee Initiative, this group is working with local folks seeking to protect the values they want as well as the ecosystem.
Lava Lake Ranch, founded in 1999 by Kathleen and Brian Bean, is an important part of this and their own initiative is why it’s moving forward. The Nature Conservancy’s mission to protect biological diversity and to support traditional ranching values has made them a great partner.
But the partnerships reach throughout the local area, and include conservation groups, state and federal agencies, other ranchers and businesses.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
The comments on here
should be interesting. Can't wait to see if the usuals chime in about how all ranchers are basically on farm/ranch welfare and ruin the land and habitats while getting rich. Big thanks and kudos to LLL&L....Sunny...
*All* of them? No...
*Many* of them? Maybe... Clearly not LLL&L though.
Add'l kudos to the Nature Conservancy- those folks seem to be able to craft deals that address the needs of all sides.
Just Curious
Jyoschbag,
Who would you say "all" the sides are and what are their specific needs that have been met via this action?
Thanks
Thanks to the Beans and other citizens who have created trusts and conservation easements and to the Nature Conservatory organization and its members for their ongoing positive efforts in this regard.
carts and horses
Sunny, these ranchers were already rich.
But what's ironic about this is the land was privately held and that allowed them the ability to BUY it and do with it what they want. That's called capitalism. But now it's going to be locked up by a nonprofit which is effectively a public entity- public entities controlling land is something much different than the idea of capitalism.
They could have continued to hold it and do the exact same thing with it- forever. But why do that when you can get some tax benefits, good liberal publicity, and some environmental activism?
Hey, there's no law preventing environmentalists from being 'ranchers'.
It's the new age of ranching- Just like WWP trying to buy up grazing allotments even though they don't have any animals.
at last
Is this what you were waiting for Sunny?
Lava Lakes Land & Livestock (the Beans) received $198,272 in farm subsidies from 1995-2009.
They were #4 in Blaine County for subsidies in that time period. But since they started in 1999, that #4 is bit skewed i.e. they received $101,547 in year 2002. Well, they NEED that subsidy to buy all that fladry and pay for biologists to count birds flying over their property.
Since I am 'a usual' and none of the anti-grazer people are highlighting these subsidies- I had to chime in to help you out.
***
All the environmentalists !especially Western Watershed Project! are whining about farm subsidies and now here is a great example of an "environmental rancher" taking subsidies.
Defenders of Wildlife, TNC, WWP, etc are all "partners" of LLL&C and they ALL whine about the farm subsidies.
***
Hey you can't make a profit on conservation awards alone!
And I was going to ask where this place even was! Thanks Pimp!
----------
You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!
nice work
between Hailey and Mackey
Ranchers' conservation
Your Taxdollars at Work
1) This easement was funded by the Beans kicking in 25% of the FMV --that means a tax deduction.
So it worked like this, they (Beans) probably cashed in some of their BANK stock options and said, hmm, how can we negate the heavy tax bite on this? And "Man, those property taxes are killing us!"
"Hey Let's make another charitable easement. Yippee!"
Fine. God bless them and their California neighbors.
2) It was also funded by The Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP), a US Dept of Ag program. FRPP will fund up to 50% of an easement.
3) The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation from New York provide funding as well.
All 3 of those above funding sources are "subsidized" by YOUR tax dollars.
A rose by any name is still a rose.
***
The Beans never wanted to be ranchers. It wasn't until they found out they couldn't do easements without the actual ranching aspect that they decided to go into organic sheep ranching.
That's great because restaurants in Ketchum need that kind of meal on their menu.
Good information Pimp.
It doesn't surprise me that Barker's articles always exclude some critical facts and issues.
You are right
Pimp, you are right about the taxes and subsequent financial advantages. However, it does protect and preserve the land from development.
I can do that
I can protect and preserve (whatever that means) with my own private land.
They could have done the EXACT same thing, and more so, by maintaining their private ownership. They are not subject to the whims and changes of a board of directors.
Let me get this straight...
So if all ranchers take subsidies and create tax breaks for themselves, it's only bad when they use the subsidies and tax breaks to create something good for the environment? It's pretty unique to see a republican complaining about someone's wealth.
tainted
Who's complaining?
Who said anything here is "bad"?
Where was it said or proven this is something 'good for the environment'?
Rocky, oops, I mean HellsCanyon, try not to be so bias.
***
I don't think I would include the Bean's as ranchers. They own a ranch. So does Jim Risch. That doesn't make em ranchers.
If I own a profession football team, as I football player?
Biased?
How would you rate yourself on the bias scale?
Duh
DaPimp is definitely bias.
But I'm bias for "da truth, justice, and the American way."
Cuz da truth shall set you free!
Amen!
In case you haven't checked, bias is being slanted toward something :unfairly:.
Conservation counts
As always, the rants on this page go on. Every once in a while it's important to recognize that good conservation can happen in ways that bring people together rather than divide them.
Protection
"Protecting"
I love it when people use this word or a derivative of it.
Very seldom do they ever say what they are protecting it from.
***
I'm pretty sure conservation means to "not use up" or "use less".
"Ah the mountains are so beautiful! Let's use them LESS. Let's make it so LESS people can come to this spot and enjoy the exact view that I am so excited about."
Protection
Protection is definitely an abused word. Though, I am less concerned when a local entity (state, county, etc.) is dictating what "protecting" means. In this case we have a mix of federal and local funding (some taxes and, to be fair, some private contributions). As you stated that 50% of the funding came from the U.S. Dept. of Ag, do you know what kind of strings are attached to attain that much funding from them? The bigger concern for me here is that a federal agency has some control over how this land will be "protected."
clarify
I wrote and the USDA program says it will fund up to 50%.
For this specific project the reference is--:
definitely 25% from the owners and the exact ratios between the other two -the foundation and USDA- was not detailed.
For your reading:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/frpp/
Verbal Abuse
Not only is "protection" an abused word, but it was even worse when protectionists absconded with "conservation." Talk about your verbal abuse! These are crimes against humanity, and taxpayers keep footing the bill while the abusers continue to collect kudos in the popular press.
Taxpayers
Taxpayers foot the bill for a large number of tax breaks for a variety of purposes. That's how business often avoids paying any corporate taxes at all. The tax breaks are implemented with some public benefit in mind; everything from charitable donations to the Red Cross, purchase of equipment by farmers, etc. Check out the Idaho Tax Code sometime to see how many are out there.
The tax advantages of donating conservation easements may benefit the persons donating them (and why shouldn't they?) but they also benefit the environment and the public in general. Kudos to the Beans, The Nature Conservancy and others who affect positive community benefits rather than writing nasty comments on blogs all day long.
Point on Taxes
You have a point on taxes in that many groups benefit from tax breaks. That is one argument that has a place for discussion for sure. I think it is a legitimate question though whether locking up land benefits the environment or the public in general. I've always felt that good land management practices required human interaction with the land - even if that means sometimes letting people cut down a few trees, plant new trees, fixing up river banks, allowing grazing to deter fires, or whatever solutions people seem to find that work well. Some people feel only a select few individuals should be allowed to step foot in areas they find need to be "preserved" from whatever they feel is a threat. It really isn't public land at that point though the public largely pays for it. I think that they have a valid argument that it is a bit improper to run it that way.
At the same time, just because someone questions or opposes the actions of a group or person doesn't mean they are "writing nasty comments." Per your critique, not a word should be raised in opposition to Luna's education bills (how do you feel about them?). Of course people have the right to express opinions that aren't in agreement with what is being done. Though it is true that sometimes posters do become nasty with personal attacks, which I would consider nasty no matter the position taken.
Locking up Land
Please read the article more carefully. The land in question was private land and remains private land. The land is also grazed by the owner's sheep. Nothing is being locked up any differently than it is on any other private land. The owner has been paid by a private organization and given up development rights.
Reading comprehension problems.
Please read the posts more carefully, LostRiver. Then read your words. Then look them up in the dictionary. Start with the verbs and adjectives.
credibility
LR, your statement of "Nothing is being locked up any differently than it is on any other private land" is incorrect. Your term of "private organization" is also incorrect.
Prior to an easement I could come in with a billion dollars and buy the land from the property owner and then it's mine to do with what I like including building a resort or a throwing up a few homes. The easement restricts future development (locks it up) or alternative uses. So 1 person determines the future use of that land.
Even if I have 2 billion dollars and want to ADD environmental improvements like wetlands to the remaining area, I can't do anything that violates the easement agreement.
So, you can either buy some land and donate it to your city to build a park and put your wife's name on it or you can buy a ranch, do an easement and call yourself a conservationist.
pimp2 filter now in development
L. River
:-P
----------
If you could handle the truth, you wouldn't be spoiling our social hour right now.
Old Basque Ranch
Is this land part of the old Cenarrusa operation around
Carey ?
Lava Lake is very unusual
Praise to Lave Lake Livestock, but they are a rare exception to the plodding traditional ranching of Idaho.