American Prairie unlocks another 70k acres in Montana

Property rights and legitimacy of land exclusion

• Several comments debate classical property theory (Locke, Smith, Rothbard) vs modern U.S. practice.
• One view: legitimate ownership historically arose from homesteading/development, not from buying raw land just to block others; using private parcels to deny access to huge public areas is seen as anti-capitalist rent‑seeking.
• Others counter that all property rights are state‑granted privileges backed by force; conquest or regime change can void titles, so “absolute” ownership is illusory.
• There’s tension between seeing ownership as a moral right vs a contingent legal construct tied to power and the state’s willingness to defend it.

Public land access, enclosure, and corner-crossing

• Strong support for unlocking public access; blocking roads into public land is called “uniquely evil” by some.
• Others note the land was only blocking one of a few access roads, not the land itself, and caution against inflammatory journalism.
• The Wyoming “corner crossing” case is discussed: it currently helps where public and private parcels meet at corners, but doesn’t solve fully landlocked or road‑blocked public parcels.
• Some argue states should require access easements across blocking parcels or condemn a narrow path if needed.

Conservation, easements, and tax policy

• Many praise private conservation (like American Prairie) as necessary to preserve biodiversity and habitat.
• Conservation easements and “undeveloped in perpetuity” designations are discussed:
  • Supporters: they preserve land and can be funded via tax incentives or donations.
  • Critics: they can be abused for massive tax write‑offs via inflated appraisals; also used by wealthy owners to freeze development around their estates and “box out” future generations.
  • One commenter opposes property‑tax exemptions for nonprofits, arguing perpetual lockup of land harms long‑term prosperity.

International comparisons and right to roam

• Multiple comparisons to the UK, Scotland, and Nordic “right to roam” systems:
  • Pros: codified footpaths and default public access reduce conflicts and prevent lakes/forests from becoming de facto private playgrounds.
  • Cons: UK has concentrated land ownership and little true wilderness; U.S. western public lands are vast by comparison.
• Liability and prescriptive easements in the U.S. are cited as reasons landowners discourage casual access.

Local economy, ranching, and wildlife

• A Montana-local perspective notes rising privatization and access loss as wealthy outsiders buy ranch land; this move is celebrated as a rare reversal.
• Another commenter says nearby residents may oppose such projects, seeing them as a threat to ranching jobs and tax base, and argues large-scale conservation should be accompanied by public compensation or national/state leadership.
• Bison classification in Montana (livestock vs wildlife) is flagged as a political/legal obstacle to freer roaming herds.

Use vs protection: people in nature

• Some worry that opening previously unused land to the public could degrade it.
• Others argue access is crucial: people are more willing to fund and defend conservation when they can experience the land.
• There’s debate over strict “wilderness” rules (no motors, limited bikes) vs allowing motorized access (4x4s, dirt bikes) without “ruining” wildness.

Language tangent

• A long subthread debates the phrase “one of the only” (vs “one of the few”), prescriptivism vs descriptivism, and how dictionary definitions evolve, illustrating how minor wording in the article attracted disproportionate attention.