My wife and I just purchased 60 acres just outside of Rockdale that is currently under an Ag exemption previously for cattle ranching. The property has 2 tanks and large areas of improved coastal. My question is would it be better/easier to continue with an Ag exemption for hay production or convert to a Wildlife exemption for tax purposes. We have no desire to have cattle or goats. Which of these is the least hassle? We plan on using the land for recreation/hunting.

I would lease it out to a local rancher for hay production.

General Omar said:

---

My wife and I just purchased 60 acres just outside of Rockdale that is currently under an Ag exemption previously for cattle ranching. The property has 2 tanks and large areas of improved coastal. My question is would it be better/easier to continue with an Ag exemption for hay production or convert to a Wildlife exemption for tax purposes. We have no desire to have cattle or goats. Which of these is the least hassle? We plan on using the land for recreation/hunting.

---

If you can keep it, I would go with the Ag exemption. You get property tax break with both, but you don't get sales tax break with the Wildlife exemption. I got the wildlife exemption and it was pretty easy to come up with the minimum 5 attributes required for approval.

Ag if you've already got the hay field. Wildlife exemption will require you to do things to keep it active, your Ag exemption will simply require you to talk to neighbors or previous owner and find out who can come bale your field locally every year or so.

Thank you all for your help and advice. Merry Christmas to you and your families!

General Omar said:

---

My wife and I just purchased 60 acres just outside of Rockdale that is currently under an Ag exemption previously for cattle ranching. The property has 2 tanks and large areas of improved coastal. My question is would it be better/easier to continue with an Ag exemption for hay production or convert to a Wildlife exemption for tax purposes. We have no desire to have cattle or goats. Which of these is the least hassle? We plan on using the land for recreation/hunting.

---

Check with the county appraisal district to figure out the minimum requirements for maintaining the ag exemption. Simply having somebody bale it once a year may or may not be enough to satisfy the requirements depending on the total acreage and the acreage that is pasture and how tough your county AD wants to be.

Keep it for hay and get some free range chickens.

Numerous threads along same subject last few months

Three rather than five, right?

SanAntoneAg said:

---

Three rather than five, right?

---

Yeah, I think that is right. My 3 were supplemental water, supplemental food and create native species habitat.

OP if you decide to go Wildlife, creating a plan to benefit songbirds is fairly low cost and not as labor-intensive as managing for other species. You can address shelter (nesting boxes), land management (chainsaw for brush control) and predator control (carry gun while outdoors on your property to shoot hogs/yotes, etc.) and you are likely to get your plan approved.

Chances are you'll end up doing more than three of seven required practices, anyway.

I've been the through the same thought process on a very similar property. I kept leasing to a local guy for cows for now. The biggest plus for me was having another set of eyes on it a few times per week while I'm not there.

General Omar said:

---

My wife and I just purchased 60 acres just outside of Rockdale that is currently under an Ag exemption previously for cattle ranching. The property has 2 tanks and large areas of improved coastal. My question is would it be better/easier to continue with an Ag exemption for hay production or convert to a Wildlife exemption for tax purposes. We have no desire to have cattle or goats. Which of these is the least hassle? We plan on using the land for recreation/hunting.

---

1) how much of the 60 acres is devoted to bay production? If most of the property is then I would lease it to a hay guy

2) the Ag application you file is good forever as long as you don't change the Ag category or if the CAD requests a new one via certified mail

3) the downside to wildlife is yearly paperwork must be filed to maintain the wildlife valuation

4) what I would do is call the CAD and ask for the Ag and and wildlife guidelines. Different eco regions have different practices that work for wildlife and each county is going to have a different minimum degree of intensity for Ag.

5) if Hay is an option then I would call the county Ag extension agent and see if he knows any hay guys

6) if wildlife is the route you want to go I have some stuff I can email you

This is a reasonable approach. A lot of counties will only let you claim Ag on the parts actually used for Ag purposes. So if only 30 of the 60 acres are used for hay, you would get half of the property valued for Ag. The other half would be full value. I know Comal is pretty strict on how intense they want the Ag usage to be. That is why I agree that you need to get a copy of the county guidelines, as they may require more than just letting somebody mow and bale it once or twice a year to count as Ag use.

Since you said it is just outside Rockdale, I looked up the Milan County Appraisal District's guidelines. Here are a few that may apply to your property:

https://www.milamad.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Agriculture-Manual-Adopted-January-2018-.pdf

To qualify for 1-d-1 agricultural valuation, the land must have agriculture as its current and principal use. Under 1-d-1, it is the land which must qualify, not the owner.

...

The land may have more than one use, but its most important use must be agricultural. If there is more than one use, the Chief Appraiser must determine which use is primary. If another use replaces agriculture as the primary use, the land will not qualify for agricultural valuation.

At least 51% of the property must be in agricultural use to qualify the entire property for agricultural value. If less than 51% is in production, only the actual acres in use may receive agricultural value.

Hay Intensity

Minimum of two cuttings per year. Must control weeds, vines, and brush. Except for native grass pastures or those also used to run cattle, must fertilize at least once each spring and cut and bale at least twice each year.

And I don't care if the property is getting full Ag for hay now but only part of being used

There's no such thing as Grandfathered in regarding the tax code

Yeah, they are going to send an appraiser out when you file for the exemption, and all that matters is what that appraiser says about the use, not what the previous landowner was getting.

In theory yes

Practically.... no

Fishin Texas Aggie 05 said:

---

In theory yes

Practically.... no

---

Guess it depends on the county. In Comal, they are getting pretty aggressive about coming out and making sure everybody is actually doing what they claim. I would be surprised if they just let any property ride with a new landowner taking over.

Keep in mind that Wildlife 1-D-1 requirements are simple and prescribed by the state. Some counties make their own rules that counter what the state has dictated.

So if the county bends you over on a legitimate Wildlife plan, you don't have much recourse. Hire an attorney maybe but the county is banking that you won't.

txags92 said:

---

Fishin Texas Aggie 05 said:

---

In theory yes

Practically.... no

---

Guess it depends on the county. In Comal, they are getting pretty aggressive about coming out and making sure everybody is actually doing what they claim. I would be surprised if they just let any property ride with a new landowner taking over.

---

If you can do Ag, then that is WAY less work and paperwork than wildlife. We did wildlife for 12 years and while it was awesome, my wife sent in a 2-3" thick book every single year with our documents. This is how you keep them from coming out and checking in on it.

THey will come check if you half ass it, as they should. They will yank it if they think you aren't doing a good job. My experience is like the quote above. They will
Aggressively check in because lot of folks take advantage.

SanAntoneAg said:

---

Keep in mind that Wildlife 1-D-1 requirements are simple and prescribed by the state. Some counties make their own rules that counter what the state has dictated.

So if the county bends you over on a legitimate Wildlife plan, you don't have much recourse. Hire an attorney maybe but the county is banking that you won't.

---

This is terrible advice.

The practices you do will depend on the species you manage for as well as the ecoregion you're in.

I'd would recommend having your plan looked over by the TPWD county biolgist and see if they can intercede on your behalf.

Some people just write **** plans to not have to do anything.

Yeah, in suburban counties, some of the tax offices really like the Wildlife (and some really don't). Reason being there is a written plan with things that are pretty easy to figure out what they are looking at. This is important when the appraiser may not have an ag background. Several years ago it got real interesting near Dallas when the county ended up hiring a retired Extension agent to handle the ag accounts. Surprise, a lot of landowners and farmers weren't happy when he called them on BS. Like nice bales of bermuda, but a fallow field with that hadn't been worked in quite a while.

Yeah. It gets interesting when you have to remind the county that they can not dictate what "wildlife" you choose to manage for. They like to think they can, but they can not.

Our property was in AG when we bought it,and for the first few years so far we've maintained the AG exemption primarily to get the sales tax benefit - first few years you'll probably spend the most money on capital equipment etc. Even got a $1500 credit from CanAm on our SxS using the AG number

Previous owner bailed coastal but the County wanted to adjust the exemption based on production acreage, so I had a rancher run calves to get 100%. We have to maintain a minimum of 30 head annually but the AG appraiser was ok with less knowing that we were leasing it out and couldn't control the number of head - but we maintain the minimum head at least 9 months out of the year and I generally don't have to worry about cows for most of the hunting season.

That said, we also drew up a wildlife plan because that's what we want to use the land for (maximizing wildlife). We can qualify for seed and fertilizer for native grasses subsidized by the State and the rancher is fine grazing native grass.

Depends on your priorities for how you want to enjoy your land, but I'd say call your County biologist along with the AG appraiser - our biologist has been super helpful

Can I manage for desert bighorn in Victoria county?

I know the question is dumb but not meant to be rhetorical

Fishin Texas Aggie 05 said:

---

SanAntoneAg said:

---

Keep in mind that Wildlife 1-D-1 requirements are simple and prescribed by the state. Some counties make their own rules that counter what the state has dictated.

So if the county bends you over on a legitimate Wildlife plan, you don't have much recourse. Hire an attorney maybe but the county is banking that you won't.

---

This is terrible advice.

The practices you do will depend on the species you manage for as well as the ecoregion you're in.

I'd would recommend having your plan looked over by the TPWD county biolgist and see if they can intercede on your behalf.

Some people just write **** plans to not have to do anything.

---

Terrible advice like how?

It's reality.

Maybe start reading the part after I say it it's terrible advice

My statement is based upon my actual experience.

I received a certified letter from the county informing me that my Wildlife plan was approved. Two weeks later they sent me another certified letter stating that my plan in fact was approved on error. My acreage didn't meet the county's 400 acre minimum for Wildlife.

Again, what is prescribed by the state was completely ignored. And the chief appraiser was adamant over several conversations that the county had the right to enforce their own minimum acreage rule.

The county could have given two ****s if I had a TPWD biologist intercede on my behalf.

What county is that?

That's really terrible and definitely not in line with the law.

The time minimum acreage comes into play is regarding the division of property. The property can't fall below the prescribed percentage set forth by the Board of Directors pursuant to Texas administrative code.

But if the property stays the same size when transferring and that should come in to play

Edwards.

The property was not reduced in size. It was a textbook attempt to convert Ag to Wildlife.

SanAntoneAg said:

---

My statement is based upon my actual experience.

I received a certified letter from the county informing me that my Wildlife plan was approved. Two weeks later they sent me another certified letter stating that my plan in fact was approved on error. My acreage didn't meet the county's 400 acre minimum for Wildlife.

Again, what is prescribed by the state was completely ignored. And the chief appraiser was adamant over several conversations that the county had the right to enforce their own minimum acreage rule.

The county could have given two ****s if I had a TPWD biologist intercede on my behalf.

---

I am not certain of this, but the one place I believe they can put in minimum acreages is if you are choosing to manage for a species with a large natural range, like deer. I have read about some counties using the "Animal Unit" concept with wildlife and saying that you have to have a suitable acreage to manage for at least one animal unit of your chosen species. That is to keep people with 10 acres from putting up a feeder, a water guzzler, and a game cam and claiming they are managing for deer and turkeys.

Pretty much

The plan should be what's prudent for the species you manage for.

Fishin Texas Aggie 05 said:

---

Pretty much

The plan should be what's prudent for the species you manage for.

---

Exactly, and that is how they make it work legally. They are not "setting a minimum acreage" per se. they are just asking you to cure a defective management plan by either having enough acres to manage for that species, or to pick a species more suitable for your property size.

My plan that was approved and then denied was for songbirds. Again, denied because my property is smaller than 400 acres.