Preserving the core attractions of open space, clean water and air, scenery and wildlife requires ensuring that not all the existing ranches wind up as subdivisions or 20 acre knapweed ranchettes, and that means keeping farmers and ranchers on the land. Some are experimenting with direct marketing of natural grass-fed beef (and bison!), organic hay and grain production, and various specialty crops. Incidentally, I’m going to be living this transition even more fully in the coming months (and hopefully decades) as we have taken over a neighboring 320 acre farm. The former operator was a friend of mine, tragically killed in a December plane crash. His ashes are spread on the place, and I plan to be respectful of his multi-generational stewardship, while embracing the modern economic realities of ag production. In a nutshell, the immediate plan is to increase the forage production, build the organic matter back up via legumes, rotate some acres into alternative crops (we’re taking a look at flax, for one), and primarily; expand our horse trading ventures.

These sorts of transitions are taking place all over the west, but one of the showcase situations is in the upper Madison Valley, south of Ennis. This beautiful valley used to be, and to some extent still is a traditional ranching community. There are still a handful of small family-owned ranches, although most of the bigger ones have long since been bought by wealthy non-residents (or at most part-time residents). Land values completely preclude ever paying for one of those places with beef production, and realistically, that has been the case for a long time. It’s pretty much always required a wealthy investor to bankroll one of those operations, and generally speaking they are a great investment. The way to make money in ranching, it appears, is to buy a place, operate it without hemorrhaging cash just too badly for a number of years, and then re-sell. They aren’t making any more of these mountain valleys with world-class fishing and wildlife amenities, and barring global catastrophe, the price is only going to continue upward.

When one of these ranches is sold, though, no one except a few unscrupulous real-estate developers wants to see it with a house on every five or ten acres. In the Madison, there are a few subdivisions, but by and large the upper valley is still open agricultural land. Realistically, the best way to preserve that is through conservation easements, where landowners are paid a substantial amount (approaching the full value of the land, in most cases), in exchange for giving up development rights in perpetuity. These easements are funded by private conservation foundations like the Nature Conservancy, or by government monies administered by agencies like Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Although some question the value of essentially buying a ranch with (generally) no public access commitments, by and large the consensus is that it’s a worthwhile investment.

In the Madison, several large properties have been protected under these easements, although much of the valley remains potentially open to development. I often mention the Sun Ranch in these essays, as in my opinion it is a microcosm of all these "New West" issues. It has passed through a number of owners in the last few decades, from old-time cowboys to movie stars, and has evolved from traditional cow production to the current blend of leased grazing, eco-tourism, and outfitted hunting. Current owner Roger Lang, who made his fortune primarily in the dot-com boom of the nineties, admits he operates the ranch at a loss, but I’m certain that’s true of literally every ranch in the valley. His land stewardship policies are hard to fault, though, including intense, short-duration grazing (that closely mimics the habits of native bison, incidentally), and an active (read that expensive) weed control program. They seasonally graze about 1500 head of (non-brucellosis susceptible) yearlings, for which they charge $.50/head/day. That adds up quite nicely, and I have no doubt is more profitable than actually owning the cattle themselves. They’ve also developed a quite extraordinary eco-tourism lodge, which among other things capitalizes on the wealth of wildlife the ranch hosts. Several thousand elk winter on the Sun Ranch, not to mention deer and mountain goats on the adjacent peaks. They also have the full complement of predators including wolves and grizzlies, and treat them as an asset instead of a problem. Not only that, the ranch hosts several extensive and ongoing research projects on livestock/wildlife/predator relationships, and has an award-winning westslope cutthroat trout re-introduction project.

I’ve recently become involved with the Madison Ranchlands Group, a diverse collection of traditional and non-traditional ranchers, outfitters, sportsmen, and assorted government agency types with an interest in these issues. The primary goal is to sustain the undeveloped nature of the upper Madison Valley, and foster cooperation between the diverse interests involved. One of the more significant and certainly visible aspects is wildlife. The Madison Valley is a world-class wildlife preserve, hosting immense herds of elk, not to mention literally the full component of native wildlife (excluding bison, and perhaps someday…). There’s two State-owned wildlife management areas (Bear Creek and Wall Creek), but the vast majority of the wildlife winters on private land. Fortunately, most of the landowners now have a somewhat reduced emphasis on livestock production, and many actively utilize the wildlife as a resource via outfitted hunting and wildlife viewing. Most recently, the Ranchlands group is wrestling with how to best coordinate these public and private wildlife interests.

The new FWP elk management plan is pushing for increased access to public wildlife on private lands. In the past, some ranches (certainly not just or even particularly in the Madison) allowed no public access during the 5-week general hunting season, but then wanted FWP to administer special late seasons to have the public come in and essentially "clean up the leftovers", meaning cow elk. FWP found these special seasons not only an administrative headache, but an often ineffective tool for wildlife management, so the emphasis with the new plan is toward increased harvest during the general season, with limited season extensions where appropriate. One criteria for these extensions, though, is that the involved properties have to allow some sort of equitable public access during the general season. In fact, that situation played out this past December, with a 2-week extension on the west side of the Madison, but not on the east side (where pretty much all of the outfitted hunting occurs).

I’d be remiss not to point out that the elk harvest during the extended season was pretty much nil, due to mild weather. That’s my concern with the FWP plan’s emphasis on accomplishing the harvest primarily during the 5-week general season, but fortunately the plan has considerable built-in flexibility, and one likely scenario is that the entire season may be bumped back a bit.

Balancing the interests of private and public land outfitters with general public access to private land is a complex issue, and the landowners undoubtedly would be happier if it had never came up! But, it’s established law in Montana that wildlife is a publicly owned resource, and that’s where things get complicated. As a member of the Ranchlands group hunting regulations subcommittee, I find myself in a particularly interesting situation. I’m officially supposed to be a "voice of sportsmen", which I’m happy to do. I also book hunts and vacations with many of the involved outfitters, though, and being a landowner myself am perhaps more sympathetic to private property rights than some. So if I’m not careful, all I could accomplish is winding up with everyone mad at me, but I guess that’s a chance I’m willing to take. Besides, I’m a confirmed optimist and believe we can work this out. So, after soliciting feedback from a reasonable cross-section of public sportsmen, one tentative plan I’ve proposed is for private landowners to restrict access for their paying clients to four or five days per week, and allow regulated public access the remaining two or three days. That would be restricted to people who’ve successfully drawn a permit for the opportunity. Most would be restricted to antlerless elk, with a handful of either-sex tags. This seems to me a common-sense approach that will minimize if not eliminate conflict between outfitted clients and public hunters, increase cow harvest during the general season, disperse the large herds of (primarily) cow elk that tend to congregate on private lands, and not least, meet the public access requirements for season extensions.

I can’t say the landowners leaped from their seats and embraced my plan with fervent vigor ;-), but I wasn’t laughed out of the room or pistol-whipped either, so I’ll take that as a positive sign. We have several months to work things out, and with any luck…