HUNTING AND FISHING ICON SHOULD GET OUT OF REAL ESTATE BIZ
Cabela’s Desecrating its Own Brand
By Bill Schneider, 11-22-07
 |
|
 | |
|
It has taken Cabela’s a long time to move into Montana, but now that iconic retailer of hunting and fishing goods finally has a stake in the sand down in Billings, it might be wondering if it was the right decision.
Cabela’s has become accustomed to being revered by hunters and anglers, but in Montana, many sportsmen and women now have the opposite attitude, disdain--and they’re sending back their catalogs with promises never to spend another penny there. When opening a new store, Cabela’s expects the local hunters and anglers who have lusted for years to have a store nearby to more or less knell on the doorstep, but if Cabela’s doesn’t stop endorsing the loss of public hunting, the corporate VIPs might see people picketing the Billings store opening with anti-Cabela’s placards.
Here’s the rub. Back in June 2004, Cabela’s went public and is now listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CAB. Such initial public offerings are always accompanied by plans on how to use all the new money for aggressive growth. And sure enough, Cabela’s launched into a major expansion, which primarily involving more and faster store openings.
No problem so far, the more and faster the better as far as I’m concerned, but a small part of that growth plan, a real estate marketing division called Cabela’s Trophy Properties might hurt Cabela’s bottom line and stock performance (already down to about half of its opening price) more than it helps. In Montana, the ruckus over the real estate division has already tarnished the best brand in the business, and it looks like it could get much worse and spread to other states.
I personally don’t want to see this happen because I’m one of those who grew up revering Cabela’s. I’d probably live in a Cabela’s store if they’d let me--at least for a few days until I had to leave to file for bankruptcy. And I bet the company’s brass and shareholders want to prevent damage to their brand even more than I do. If so, they need to act quickly and decisively instead of doing what they’re doing right now, which is seriously underestimating the potential of the problem.
The controversy erupted when Cabela’s Trophy Properties opened an office in Montana and started listing what the Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF), the state’s largest group of hunters and anglers, calls “traditional public hunting properties.” Those listings shot up a warning flare to the MWF’s 7,000 members, and the result was a strongly worded letter from executive director Craig Sharpe going to Dennis Highby, president & CEO of Cabela’s. In the letter, Sharpe warned of a “strong response” to the real estate marketing, such as mailing back or burning catalogs, unless Cabela’s addressed the group’s concerns and agreed to a meeting to discuss the issues.
A flash point in the controversy was the sale, planned subdivision and eventual closure to public hunting of two large ranches in central Montana by Cabela’s Trophy Properties. “Is this in line with Cabela’s mission?” Sharpe asked in his letter.
Following Sharpe’s letter and several others sent to Cabela’s by MWF members, two of Montana’s premier outdoor writers, Mike Babcock at the Great Falls Tribune and Mark Henckel of the Billings Gazette wrote detailed articles on the debate. Neither article painted a rosy picture of Cabela’s real estate deals and ended up turning up the heat another notch.
Then, and typical of large corporations that don’t really understand damage control, Cabela’s managed to make it worse with its responses. First, Cabela’s spokesperson David Draper implied that this was no big deal and told Montana hunters they shouldn’t fret because the properties were selling to sportsmen who are “probably going to make the land better,” a bonehead statement that Sharpe called “insulting.”
Throwing more gas on the fire was the corporate response that, in essence, tried to dodge the bullet by saying we aren’t really in the real estate business, just the real estate marketing business.
Here’s how that works. Cabela’s doesn’t actually buy and sell land. Instead, it licenses its brand to local real estate brokers and allows them to market prime hunting and fishing properties under the banner of Cabela’s Trophy Properties. The brokers pay Cabela’s for the license, probably with a license fee and a slice of the commission on property sales.
Cabela’s third response was the old “can’t we just get along” comeback, which was in the form of an invitation for the MWF board to an exclusive VIP reception at the Billings store opening and agreeing to send out a packet of information to buyers of “trophy properties” suggesting they do good things for wildlife.
Well, we all hope buyers do good things like leave land open to public hunting and file for a conservation easement preventing future subdivision and that the board members has a jolly time at the reception, but that response doesn’t address what concerns Montana hunters i.e. Cabela’s promoting the loss of public hunting. In fact, the tokenism worsened the problem.
Sorry, Cabela’s, these responses get zero traction. Licensing your name to realtors who use it to market property definitely makes you part of the real estate biz--and not just any real estate biz, but the worst kind.
I doubt anybody has a problem with Cabela’s buying 44 acres down on the edge of Billings and then selling off a chuck or two to Burger King or Day’s Inn. But using a nation’s top hunting and fishing brand to promote the sale, subdivision and closure to public access of prime hunting land is quite a different real estate deal. It is, in fact, exactly opposite of everything Cabela’s stands for, and you’d think the company would be trying to distance itself as far and as fast as possible from it.
Earth to Cabela’s. You’re using your brand to promote the loss of public hunting on private land in large sections of Montana and other sates. This could destroy your brand, and you really don’t want to do this.
Getting out of real estate can’t be that tough a decision for a company with $2 billion in sales, very little of it from real estate marketing. I perused the annual report and couldn’t even find the words “Cabela’s Trophy Properties,” let alone anything about the millions Cabela’s makes in license fees and commissions--because, of course, this is probably a microscopic part of the giant’s revenue.
It has potential, though--potential to cost Cabela’s fifty dollars in retail sales for every dollar earned in license fee income.
So, I hope President & CEO Highby sees this column, recognizes the real estate division as a major (but still correctable) mistake, and decides to get out of the real estate business faster than he can say it.
If you’d like to support me in encouraging, Cabela’s to rapidly get back on course, here’s a couple of phone numbers that might work, 308-254-5505 and 1-800-237-4444, or you can go to the customer service email page (click here) and send your comments in writing. In the meantime, until we get a better response, keep sending those catalogs back. Cabela’s definitely understands what that means.
THANK YOU!!!!!!! Bill, I'll return and write a detailed response. No time today. In the meantime could New West not feature the CAbelas Trophy Properties ads that appear above?
Happy Thanksgiving.
Bill,
Time to introduce Cabela's to the conservation easement business - with easements to allow proper public hunting where appropriate and protect residential, stock or environmentally sensitive areas where hunting may not be the best idea - into any and all of their "branded" deals, or get out altogether!!
Cabela's is just being whorish. Let the professionals do the real estate deals (especially the conservation real estate deals) and stick to what you know... sell bait, tackle and guns!
Comment By Tracy, 11-22-07I grew up in that area in Central Montana, and first heard of this from the passenger next to me during my flight from Minneapolis to Billings back in September. He was heading to the area around Roy to hunt, and showed me the ad in an outdoors magazine. During the trip, I found out my best friend from high school was hired to work as a caretaker on one of those ranches.
She thinks it's crazy, and they're never going to sell anything, especially since every single person who buys a 20 acre plot will have to get permission to hunt on the neighboring plot, and so on. And who's going to tell the elk they have to stay put?
I have a friend who used to work at Cabelas back in Nebraska. He left after the company went public and the game was to just make money. The whole company culture changed. I believe Cabelas is betting that if it promotes the landowner hunter/fisherman it will build a sustaining market of those wealthy enough to buy such land to also demand top drawer, top $$$ goods in support of that gentry lifestyle. To some extent good 'ol boy Jeff Foxworthy is also promoting this game with his 'pushing' of the Tecomate brand on the Versus network. This operation also participates in the trophy property business. For all of those inclined to send catalogs back please consider not enriching the likes of Foxworthy and see how funny he finds that.
Unfortunately, Montana is 'for sale' and New West is right in the middle of promoting that with its constant featuring of the Cabelas Trophy Properties advertisement. The monied individuals capable of buying these properties tend not to come from Montana roots or heritage. See: http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/inthefield/trophy_properties/indexes/use_sale/montana/mt_int_index.jsp?ctpPage=saleMontana
and
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/inthefield/trophy_properties/home/ctp_home.jsp;jsessionid=UNQBYSM1OWTVRLAQBBKSCN3MCAEFMIWE?cm_ven=redirect&cm_cat=domain&cm_pla=d&cm_ite=cabelastrophyproperties.com&_requestid=51324
FWP is trying to work with and educate these new 'immigrants' but, in my opinion, is have limited success.
I think the solution lrests not with focusing too much on who owns these properties but on the laws that govern hunting and fishing. I would like a change in these laws to apply to lease and fee based operations as well. If there is property that is off limits to the public to hunt and fish, or off limits without a fee or required hired guide, I would like to see such activity declared CLOSED by the state for everyone on such property. Now here's where the exception comes in. Where landowners allow for half the season for the public to hunt and fish, that landowner may limit and regulate such public access within guidelines to be determined and published by the FWP. A half of loaf would be better than nothing for everyone.
Most of the people who complain of loss of access would be the first to post the "no trespassing" sign on their own ranch should they find themselves with enough money to buy one.
Also, many of these ranches that are being bought by nonresidents were NOT open to hunting before! Yes, there is an exception here and there but the great majority of them were always closed to public hunting with the exception of the owner's family and friends.
Bill, while I think the first part of Elfman's comment is just the kind of fact-free generalization that produces nothing but worthless arguments, the second part raises an important point. There is a myth that says, 'real Montana ranchers let people hunt,' and I don't think that's exactly true. The column relies heavily on the notion that the lands being sold by Cabela's is currently open to public hunting and will not be after it's sold. Do you, or the MWF, know that to be true? Do you have examples?
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-23-07Elfman, I have found that a modest, respectful "ask" and a warm handshake go a long way to getting permission. Also, make friends with the owners dogs. That seems to be a gate crossed in the owners mind that a person is not all bad. The other thing I like to do is invite the owner along to watch and monitor the experience. When they see ethical, respectful hunting and fishing while making friends it tends to make the trophy the new found friendship.
Comment By elfman, 11-23-07While it may be true that the first paragraph of my comment is not based on any kind of scientific/sociological study resulting in cold, hard "facts" I do believe it to be true given my personal experience as a hunter who has hunted with many people of all different walks. Look at the prevalence of hunting leases these days! Why do people lease? So they can shut the rest of everyone out and I know MANY native Montana folk who lease large blocks of hunting ground out east. One of the incentives to shut down access is to improve the quality of hunting. Why is it that everyone wants to hunt those places that do not offer access? Simple... because of the high quality hunting. Why is the hunting so good? Because the owner severely limited the access and, in many cases, improved the habitat with restoration projects.
Craig, I have never had much of a problem "asking" which is exactly what I do sometimes with positive results and sometimes without. I honestly believe that if I counted the number of times I have been rejected there would not be that much of a difference between the new owners and the old owners. Much like all the other problems in our world the root of it here is population. There are just too damn many people in the world and landowners are inundated with hunting requests to hunt their land.
Elfman and Jonathan,
There is no way to know what somebody would do if they suddenly had enough money to buy their own ranch, but I suspect strongly that a hunter who had struggled to get access to private land his or her entire life might be inclined to allow some access to the land.
Concerning Jonathan's question some of the properties that caused this flare up were under the state's block management program and were open to public hunting access and now will be subdivided into 20-acre lots with no hunting allowed. This might no be true with all of the properties, of course, but I can ask MWF to give more details next week.
Bill
Another thing, I hunted a very large Western Montana ranch a number of years ago owned by an old time Montana family (which severely limited hunting throughout its history). I hunted the ranch immediately after a conservation organization took ownership of the ranch temporarily until it was later sold to a Californian. The conservation organization decided it would be in their best interests to allow public hunting. BIG MISTAKE! I was out there on opening morning only to find an army of fatass hunters too lazy to get out of their trucks while shooting. These were good ole native Montanans. People were driving anywhere and everywhere without respect to the established road system. Needless to say, the conservation organization shut down the public hunting and I applauded them for it.
Comment By elfman, 11-23-07I met a man who won the California lottery (many, many millions). Never had much for money before. He was a hunter... presumably one who struggled for access (like most). He bought a ranch near Helena and posted bright brand new "No Trespassing" signs for all the world to see. No apparent inclination to allow access. So, there is a case study for you.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-23-07Bill, Alan Charles should have access to the statistics.
Elfman, both of your case studies are addressed in my suggestion about how hunting and fishing laws should be changed that I posted above.
Regarding Block Management, it is my understanding that there are more requests by landowners than there is money to fund it. So, there are many requests that are turned away. BM is largely funded by out of state license sales. Now if in state license fees were doubled, and the extra money was used for BM purposes that might help. Elfman, as you know BM providers can regulate the number of hunters and access days.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing always happens when a company goes public. I work for a Bay Area based coffee company that went public about 6 years ago. Just like Cabela's, we were used to people kneeling down at the door when we'd open a location. Now as we grow bigger and bigger each year (you have to satisfy "The Street") a lot of the culture is being watered down and corporatized. In another 5 years, I predict that 40 years of brand-building will be swept aside for profit.
Comment By D.J., 11-23-07Whoa there boys-what's the real beef here? Access to privately held land to hunt or subdividing ranch land? Seems to me to be two different issues.
First, anyone hunting on private land should be asking permission of the owner. We have no trepassing signs up now because we got tired of the bozos who (1) decided our property was their personal ATV playground (2) the guy who decided to shortcut across our land (where there isn't a road) to the building site he was working on. (3) the guy who took a shot at a deer about 100 feet from our house-toward the house! (That one hadn't asked permission to hunt either.) The reaction to our No Hunting/trespassing signs? Someone ripped them all down.
Or how about the 4th generation Montana farm family who finally stopped giving access to their river bottom land for hunting after the season where all they asked was that the hunters close gates, pick up their shell casings and not shoot at the cows. After not just one, but several rude reponses from hunters, they said heck with it and closed their property to hunting.
Or how about the 5th generation Montanan who stopped allowing hunting after the season when hunters asking permission not only decided to disregard her "foot traffic only" and drove with pickups and ATV's across her property but also cut fences as they went so they could drive through-letting her horses out at the same time.
You can call these "slob hunters" (which they are) but there seems to be a new prevailing attitude of "we can do what we want wherever we want" and unless that changes, more and more private land will be closed to hunting.
"Mike Babcock at the Great Falls Tribune and Mark Henckel of the Billings Gazette wrote detailed articles on the debate."
Link? Link to the link? Linkety link link link?
The younger generations have not had much hunting access and are used to truck hunting. Turn them loose on a ranch and they become slob hunters. The point is that there are huge numbers of slob hunters out there and more and more ranchers say NO If bird hunting property lines are usually easily recognized BUT if Elk hunting most guest hunters don't know ranch boundry lines and inadvertantly become trespassers on the neighbors. There go neighbor relations. It is just safer to say NO and as a side benefit slow down the spread of noxious weed carried by vehicles.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-23-07I'm all in favor of "slob" hunters as defined by remarks here having their hunting and fishinvg privileges revoked for at least one year and further suspended until such time as they complete recertification by the FWP as a safe and respectful hunter.
Comment By Marion, 11-23-07First of all I think we have to recognize that farmers and ranchers are under severe financial restraints as taxes rise, sometimes astronomically. Why does anyone object if they get back a few bucks for allowing hunting or even if they least hunting rights?
I went up North fork of the Shoshone river this morning after hitting the Black Friday sales in Cody. I cannot begin to tell you how many haystacks I saw with deer, lots of deer tearing and eating them. At the price of hay today, that translates into a considerable cost. A number of the big round bales have been torn into enough to be unsalable and probably unmovable to a different location.
As for the big rich operators that come in and set up, those who are determined to create every possible problem for ranchers need to think if they really want the family rancher selling out to either or corporation or for development.
It would be nice if there was a one fits all for the situation, but I do not know what it is.
I'd like to know more about exactly how a company that makes $2 billion a year from hunting and fishing promotes the conservation of open spaces upon which that market depends.
A small percentage of that money could buy and set aside just about every parcel of land they advertise in Montana.
Perhaps they are very active and I'm not very observant. I receive about 12 catalogs a year from them and have never heard a whisper about what they are doing to improve hunting and fishing opportunities.
Their website simply lists several organizations that Cabelas associates with:
http://www.cabelas.com/community-aboutus-conservation.shtml
There are plenty of examples of places that do a great job of managing public access by allowing walk-in only limited to a certain number of hunters per day...
Cabela's is selling Buffalo Bore Ammo, made by Tim Sundles, the scumbag who was found guilty of trying to poison wolves in Idaho. Here's the U.S. Attorney's office news release:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/id/public_info/pr06/sundles12052006.html
In late October I called Cabela's and asked for Dick or Jim Cabela and spoke with Ken Stephens, their personal assistant. I asked him if they were aware that one of their vendors has attempted to poison wolves and did this fit with their corporate policy. Ken said the folks he'd have to confer with were hunting but he would get back to me. Sure. I haven't heard from him yet, so I'm writing the Cabela brothers and copying the President. Cabela brother's assistant (Ken Stephens) number: 1-308-255-7462, just in case you're unhappy with any of Cabela's policies.
Their stock is down; we could buy and become stockholder activists. :)
Marion, in Montana F's & R's can seek to enrole their properties in the Block Management program and receive access payments that way without charging on a per capita basis or thousands of $$$ for a lease. Public field sportsman then do not have to pay a further fee which tends to discourage family hunting for most people. The statistics across the US show that hunter numbers are rapidly declining. Montana is an exception to that trend for now. In my opinion, that is tied into the BM program and access to public lands.
Comment By Mark, 11-23-07Block Management is great, but it's not the only option. I've hunted on very large private properties where the ranch manager runs hunting access as if the property were enrolled in Block Management - following the same principles such as sign in sheets, providing maps, and simple use rules - but these property owners choose not to take public funds for allowing public access.
Getting Sportsmen's Warehouse, Cabelas and others to follow this lead - rather than the current trend towards either BM or leasing access rights to outfitters - would likely make good business and conservation sense.
It's OK to hold Cabelas feet to the fire for what they do but totally unfair to expect the to take the lead in trying to solve what may be insolvable problems. One person's solution is anothers problem. Ranchers want one thing-hunters often want another. Real hunters want one thing-Slob hunters want another. I could go on in finitum.
Comment By Mark, 11-23-07There's no expectation for them to take the lead and certainly no "holding feet to the fire." Just mentioning a possible business opportunity.
If the problem is already "access" that will eventually be Cabelas and the whole industries' problem. In Europe, the "mass" market for hunting gear is in part very small because the opportunities for "common" folks to use that gear are very small. Perhaps there is a comparison to be made with diminished numbers of hunters in parts of the US outside of Montana? Even in Montana, who hasn't thought there are too many hunters on too little land. Who hasn't thought, it's getting too crowded out here. Maybe its time for me to hang it up?
Seems to make business sense for folks who make their money from hunting and fishing sales to the mass market to start getting agressive about alleviating risks to that market.... and get some good press in the process. When you walk into that new store in Billings, the person behind the counter can hold their head high and say, "Not only will we sell you all of this stuff - we are working hard to make sure you have places to use it. In fact, we have a program where every year we buy land destined for the subdivision slaughterhouse and Cabelas sets it aside for public access."
The cost-benefit might not pencil out (someone's probably already crunched the numbers), but it sure seems smart to be re-investing a significant chunk of profit into protecting the product...
I buy hunting and fishing stuff at Cabelas BUT I buy much more stuff that is not related to hunting and fishing. H & F is a good market for them but I doubt if their main business is H & F.
Comment By mike, 11-23-07There are a couple of points above that I would like to see emphasized and reinforced. As the first point, the fight over the loss of hunting rights on private land and the fight to prevent subdivision and the subsequent loss of open space and habitat are two different arguments about two different, albeit often connected, issues. You may not like either the loss of hunting rights or the loss of habitat; but, they are not always the same and neither are the solutions.
As my earnings allowed, I have collected beaten down ranches or at least pieces of them and I work and often ranch them primarily as a means of preserving their habitat value. I do not, at least have not yet been forced to, subdivide and I work to keep them intact for what is left of their undeveloped wild or rewilded value. In that sense, I am benefitting hunters indirectly by sustaining wildlife population reservoirs; but, I generally do not let very many hunters on my places for many of the very same reasons that are quoted above. In the past, I would let hunters in with the agreement 1) that there be no drinking (firearms safety) or smoking (fire safety); 2) that they would walk in or at least stay on my minimal two-tracks and not come in with OHVs and run over the vegetation and habitat; 3) that they would not litter, cut fences, destroy troughs or other infrastructure, or vandalize the natural elements; and 4) that they would hunt legally and in a sporting manner. It didn't take long, however, for me to learn that most, yes, most of these erstwhile sportsmen would readily agree to these rules with absolutely no sincere intention of abiding by them. I had to quit letting them on the places because I was always collecting their garbage, repairing fences or shot up troughs, reseeding the driven over places in the pastures, or shoveling dirt on some dead varmint that they had plugged for no reason other than alcohol and meanness.
As a aside, I grew up in the tradition that, if you decided to hunt, you came prepared with the right caliber, with the ability to use it in a humane and sporting manner, preferably a one shot kill, and that you didn't shoot at an animal until you had some confidence that you would make a clean kill. Today, one of the things that galls me most and fuels my bad attitude toward the NRA is when punks haul out 223 banana-clipped semi-autos, always with either open sights or the wrong scope, and want me to let them hunt elk. Too many of these guys grew up with no hunting tradition, were never taught hunting ethics, and have no conception of what makes an appropriate elk rifle. Too many of them will spot a group of elk (or cattle that they think might be elk) at the far edge of a 223's range and just unload on the whole group, lobbing them out there just as fast as their feverish little trigger fingers can work their way through to the end of the banana-clip. Maybe an elk goes down, maybe not; but, at least one or two of them run off to pointlessly bleed to death in the brush and the punks never know how or even want to bother expending the energy to try to track them. Then I get to read about these same guys complaining about how the wolves are wasting all the elk.
Back to my second point, a lot of the same people who complain the loudest when one of us closes our ranch to hunting or about the loss of elk range when somebody subdivides a ranch seem to be the same people who can't see their way to support the preservation of our public lands. In one case, when I voiced my support for preserving nearby forest through the passage of the NREPA, one knucklehead retorted that I needed to get past my "tom-tom and warpaint days" (that is a little insulting to us) and forget about preserving wilderness because there are now millions of people who need to develop those lands. Then the very same knucklehead turns around and decries the loss of hunting opportunities when private property is closed or subdivided.
If you want to save hunting, you have to think deeply enough to understand the problem and be willing to contribute, through taxes and a willingness to set aside public land for preservation if you have no other option. You have to work on a solution and not just whine about the problem and blame others. I try to help and am willing to sacrifice to preserve public lands to share with those who need them, even though it really isn't my problem. My elk are around at the side of the house standing in the warmth coming off the back wall of the fireplace.
My God! Don't people out west realize that Republicans and big corporations don't want ANYTHING public anymore. They are destroying a great nation by "drowning in a bathtub" anything owned by "the people". They are despicable!
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-24-07Mayme Trumble, Wall Street money has been flowing more to Hillary than to Republicans. Your spew of pure propaganda is quite transparent. If the D party actually supported hunters and hunting while firmly commiting to individual 2nd Amendment rights, then you might have an issue relevant to this discussion.
Now back to Cabelas. Like Foxworthy, they aren't the only ones in the "tie-in" business. See the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/realestate/07nati.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
This article provides some of the background info on the Cabelas strategy while pointing the finger at other companies like Orvis and Mossy Oak.
I know Wyoming has a Walk in Area program too, I don't know if farmers are reimbursed for the use or how it works since I don't hunt. My sons do and most of their bird hunting is done on private land, while big game hunting is done on public land for the most part.
They take small gifts to some of those who allow them to hunt, including an older person who is no longer able to hunt and misses the game. but decided they seemed to be upstanding kind of fellows. They dress and clean a goose for her every now and then and give it to show their appreciation. So far they are usually allowed to hunt.
Hunters have a responsibility and need to clean up their own act and police those who call themselves hunters and do no act responsibly. That has not changed over the years, I remember how mad my Dad got in the 40s and 50s when the milk cow would end up with buck shot in her during bird hunting season.
No, Mayme, we do NOT need more public land because enviros have come to believe that is THEIR private land and work to keep everyone else out. Besides our country was founded on the ability to have privately owned land.
Marion - do you know what else this country was founded on? In the old country wild game was owned by the landowner. We took a different stance in the creation of this country by saying that wild game belongs to the people! Of course, this tenet doesn't mean a thing if you live in an area that has virtually no public land. What is it you want to do on public land that you now cannot? Please answer that.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-24-07Elfman, I think you are partially right. In the old country the landowner was some member of royalty, the sovereign. In our country, the sovereign is our collective federal and state governments. The concept of "sovereign immunity" carries over from the old country to ours and is embodied in various federal and state laws. It's a nice warm fuzzy to think of the people as either jointly or in co-tenancy owning the animals, but an individual has no exerciseable right to manage or harvest wild animals without the sovereign's permission as per a license to do such.
Regarding 'slob hunters' Idaho has been having success in removing a few: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21941345/
Craig - another big difference... if the "sovereign" is not managing the game (not to mention other affairs) to our (the public) satisfaction then we have the opportunity to vote them out! This doesn't happen with royalty.
Again, I ask Marion what do you wish to do on public lands that you now cannot? please be specific.
Elfman, in France they used the chopping block rather than the voting box. Either way, the politico has his head handed to him. ;?p
Comment By Marion, 11-24-07Elfman, since I am of an age and physical condition that I can not hike for a day or two, or weeks at a time, I am limited in the land I can access as more and more roads are closed off to allow a chosen few with lots of time to be off work to hike and enjoy solitude in the best places. When I was younger I had to work for a living and still did not have unlimited time to be hiking.
Those of us forced to live with the results of city folks voting are far far outnumbered by those who are voting what they think will make a utopia.
You might think it would be great to have a wolf in every yard....as long as it is where you are not living, someone else has to deal with the problems. While you may think turning everything but your home over to the government is great, those owning the land are again a minority, and have to pay the extra taxes to make up for the public land.
Not really sure what wolves and Republicans have to do with hunting opportunties, but I'm open.
Seems the realities are:
Montana has a growing population;
Our culture is changing for better or worse;
Productive, private bottom-land is being split into smaller parcels every day;
The number of hunters is growing;
More hunters are squeezed onto available public lands and/or smaller private parcels;
Inevitably, more conflicts arise and there are less opportunities for those "Montana" experiences we shared with our parents and grandparents...
That's the sad trend and it seems most folks can't see this or aren't really willing to do a thing about it except gripe about how it's somebody else's fault.
Mark, hunter numbers are declining: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-11/hunters/poole-text.html
It's possible that this decline is part of the reason for Cabelas and others to try and create a sustaining market with the land sales to the wealthy.
We will see how 'great' this really will be. Be watching for more Cabela's Trophy Hunting Properties in Montana now. Real estate deals to buy ranches and exclusive hunting for the 'right people'.One big one in the mill now north of Lewistown and close to the Missouri Breaks. Yes and they want the BLM and state land leases as well. Run a few cows to make it look good and retain the grazing privileges but it's all abbout keeping us off our public land and privatizing our wildlife resource for the right people on private and public lands. Ask the BLM in Lewistown about it will BLM cave in to Cabela's Trophy Properties? Ask Cabela's as well. It's ordering by mail to PRO BASS SHOP for me.
Comment By Chris from Maine, 11-25-07Join the club. Have you seen what's been happening in Maine? The great North Maine Woods once owned and managed by The Great Northern Paper Co. for almost 100 yrs, provided some of the best whitetail deer, bear, moose and ruffed grouse hunting in the country. The company managed almost 3 million acres of forestland peppered with lakes and rivers galore that were all stacked full of native species of fish, an outdoor wonderland for the average outdoorsman, with no fees or restrictions attached to the use. The Great Northern went belly up in late 2001, in the midst of it they liquidated 75% of their land assets. Now 50% of the land is privately owned and there are signs being posted, roads being blocked, snomobile trails being shut down, atv trails being closed and sporting camps being forced out of business. Private land owners have stopped leasing land to camp owners that have had leases for 70-80 yrs. The word is pack up and get out. The lessee's hands are tied and the conservationists are just a bunch of city slickers that don't know the true meaning of outdoors or it's heritage. All they want to do is close everything off and "preserve" the forest. I've heard men threaten to burn sections of old growth timber just out of spite. A hell of a plan if you ask me. Burn the do gooders out and give us back our trails and honor our leases that we've had for generations, maybe then you'll get some respect from the blue collared outdoorsman that just wants to afford his children the same opportunity to embrace the great outdoors. But what would people from the city know about that, their kids are probably stuck to an XBOX for 23 of the 24 hours in a day.
Comment By elfman, 11-25-07Chris - let me get this straight: You think "men" who proceed to burn down an old growth forest "out of spite" will finally get the "respect" they deserve?!
Frankly, I am glad you have lost access to your outdoor wonderland. Anyone who would burn the forest down (as you would condone) in some sort of misdirected and unfounded retaliation does not deserve to enjoy the wonders of the outdoors. Those were not "your" trails. They were owned by a company who gave you permission (via lease or otherwise) to recreate there. You did so for a couple of generations and now circumstances have changed. Get over it.
By the way, those leases have only been around for 70-80 years. This is not a long time (plus time is not at all relevant, anyway). Why is it that you think those leases need to be "honored"? They were "honored" and then they expired. That is life. How long should the new owners accommodate your expired leasehold interest? Why is it their fault for buying land and/or being from the "city" you so disdain? By the way, you derogatorily make reference to the "conservationists" but this whole issue has nothing to do with "conservationists". In fact, you will find conservationists responsible for protecting from development many thousands of acres in Maine that you are now free to recreate on.
Let me give you a hypothetical: You own an apartment building, your primary asset. The building is fully leased but all leases are expiring at the end of the current year. You are going bankrupt and you determine that the only asset you have that is going to get you out of debt is your apartment building so you sell it to a developer who plans to level it to build a much needed retirement facility for the local community. How long should the new owner "honor" the current leases? Would a real "man" burn the new building down? Why didn't the damn conservationists do anything about this situation?
Marion - you sound like an angry old man willing to make any assumption that comes to mind about others. Sorry the "city "slickers" are taking over your little world.
Maybe your physical condition would now be better had you spent more time actually walking through the woods in the old days rather than relying on the road network. i have hunted with 85 year old Montana ranchers who I had a difficult time keeping up with due to their excellent conditioning!
Remember, your version of "utopia" is not defined the same by everyone nor is it more important than others.
elfman, I'm not an angry old anything. But I do not believe that the forests and best places should be off limits to the working man, nor those who worked all of their lives. I don't know how much tiem you spend working, but most of us that would like to take our kids fishing or out into the forests do not like the closed roads.
I'd like to see "city slickers" as you put it be able to take the kids picnicing or camping on a day off, not find the roads closed to anyone who has only hours, not days to spend.
I spent my days and nights walking (sometimes running) up and down the halls of hospitials caring for the sick & injured, and later delivering babies. You know that 4 letter word....work. Not a lot of time for the other 4 letter word.....play.
Hello Mr. elfman don't know where you are but if it's Montana a few things you may not realize.If you are talking about state leases you may not know it they are not rights but 'privileges'. Also grazing on public lands is a privilege not a right.Overgrazing you can lose the privilege to graze our land and written on the grazing lease as well as under multiple- use management and public lands it's on there check yours.You see when you have a state grazing lease you are paying for the privilege to take some grass off of our public land so stated PUBLIC LAND in the Montana Constitution and MSA statute on "multiple -use management of state lands.But the land is ours 12 months a year Mr. elfman. Then if it's cropland on state land that's our public land as well and you crop share but no red paint on our land. Remember you cannot get federal subsidy checks for state land in Montana it's public land and that would be illegal.Yes, many wealthy landowners kind of think our public land belongs to them but of course under the laws they are wrong.Red paint on state land leases or federal public land violates the law and the grazing privilege can be cancelled as well. We just notify the managing agency to inspect our land for overgrazing.Are you aware of the law suit that opened 5.2 million acres of state land ,our land ,to recreational use and signed into law on 4-25-91 by Gov. Steven's a republican? Yes lets keep public lands separate from private lands in our discussions Mr.elfman.No matter how wealthy one may be even a zillionaire public land is just that public. Good comments Mr.Marion.
Comment By elfman, 11-25-07Jack - you just went on a tirade for nothing. I was referring to people leasing large blocks of PRIVATE land in eastern Montana specifically for hunting.
Comment By elfman, 11-25-07Marion - I can think of hundreds, if not thousands, of very, very special places easily accessible by road here in Western Montana and across the country. These roads are public roads legally accessible by city slickers and "the working man" alike... no discrimination. Strange that you seem to think I do not work for some reason. Why is that?
Would you like to build more roads? At what point, in your mind, would there be too many roads?
elfman, I have no idea if you work or not, but I do know that anyone working 5 and 6 days per week 50+ weeks per year is not able to hike for two or three days to reach thier destination place. No one is asking for more roads, just that existing roads be left open for use by the everyday people.
By the way, what folks do with their private land is none of your business.
Marion:
I agree regarding Private Land being none of my business (or yours). If you had read the previous posts you would understand the conversation was rooted in a discussion about access being limited under private ownership in Maine. You would also understand that my position is that the new owners of this private land should be able to manage it however they see fit (Montana, Maine and anywhere in between) at least in regard to trespassing.
I do work and hardly can find time to get out in the woods for an afternoon much less a couple of days. However, I do not feel limited in my opportunities due to road closures. There are so many opportunities in Western Montana it is staggering.
These postings have gotten way off track and back to the usual suspects ranting about the loss of Montana and the good old days. As usual there is almost nothing new from them. As usual though there are some good points about access, etc.
We are missing the point of Bill's article though - Cabelas is not about selling the odd vest or knife to your average MT hunter. Take a look at the catalog - do these XXLs and XXXLs look like they hunt and enjoy the outdoors? The typical client is an urban overweight bubba from Atlanta who watches the hunting version of "snuff" film on the outdoor channel. The hire guides to take them to leased ranches, bait their deer, bear, whatever and get to the kill site by four wheeler. These guys are not hunters - they simply kill trophy animals. They have little to no hunting ethic; they are a wet dream to the NRA. To them, a ranch is simply another trophy. Cabela sells the same lifestyle the Yellowstone Club or any other resort sells - just to the less well off and a few IQ points lower. To expect anything else is to set yourself up for disappointment.
Hunters are their own worst enemy and until they crawl out from under the covers with the NRA and the right wing of the Rep. party and control themselves we can expect less access, etc. For a large percentage of so-called hunters, it isn't about hunting, it is about playing hunting. If the tie in with real estate and a retail store disturbs you boycott the store. I thank Bill for drawing so much attention to this, I will certainly rethink my spending, thanks.
Please Guys, Marion D. is a very bright lady, partially retired, small ranch operator who believes in private property and in Government land being left available for public use and not locked up in wilderness available only to the elite few. Am I right Marion?
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-25-07jdl writes, "Hunters are their own worst enemy and until they crawl out from under the covers with the NRA and the right wing of the Rep. party and control themselves we can expect less access, etc."
If jdl is suggesting that hunters and gun owners will find shelter and solace in the waiting arms of Hillary and D's like her, well, I guess we see the world a bit differently, and am having trouble controlling the laughter such a suggestion creates.
Vote against Cabela's by patronizing businesses like Bass ProShop, Midsouth Shooters Supply, and Graf & Sons. All have websites, great merchandise, and good prices.
Thanks for clarifying that Mr. elfman. I am quite familiar with eastern Montana but those large blocks you refer to have public land inside them most all,BLM and stae leases. I find it very difficult to find large blocks of private land in eastern Montana that's 100% private.Remember by having some public land you will get those grazing privileges. Just run a few cows but you are really are not in the livestock business at all. Just another way to control public land and privatize the wildlife on public and private lands. The 'gentlemen ranchers' from california call it "a working ranch" that's what Cabella's called theirs a "working ranch". Then they get those landowner preferences from FWP in the drawings and decrease our chances.Do you know that 'landowner preference' was for preference for a drawing where animals are causing problems and specific species of animals? What if there are no animals on the private land? FWP never inspects the land to see what animals are there for a preference is given. Also, you can only hunt on the private land in the preference not the whole hunting district. But of course none of this is checked. Lets do away with landowner preference all together what do we need it for anyway?Preference hunting for friends,relatives and clients? Will Cabellas receive land owner preference? Of course. All of these gimmics and it gets worst.
Comment By Marion, 11-25-07Sweed7 is partly right, but I only have a couple acres now days, and no livestock. I do know and understand the problems of the ranchers. I most definitely believe in private property rights and public land being open to the public, not limited to a certain few people.
Certainly Cabelas being involved in trophy real estate should be well known and those who chose not to do business with them because of that have that option. They are not the only ones who say one thing and do another, look at the real estate program put on by the owners of this site, which is touted as being very environmental.
I can't imagine anyone thinks that Hillary, et al will be friendly to hunting, private owneership of guns, or private property rights.
My, my someone got Marion started on her 'pave the parks' tirade. But since its out there I have to say, I'm always surprised about the sense of entitlement of the political conservative crowd when they talk about roads. It's sort of contrary to their other values they like to bully people with. Why do they feel they deserve roads and easy access at the expense of what those natural spaces are there to preserve?
The truth is, access to parks and protected areas doesn't necessarily mean a paved road so you can see it out your window as you drive by going 65. Access is more meaningful and personal than that. Why in the world do you feel your comfortable access by an automobile trumps everyone else's desire to have those areas kept pristine? Your motoring pleasure isn't the sole reason for our parks and forests Marion. You have to learn how to share.
Hey Tim, instead of snide remarks and personal insults against another poster here how about just discussing Cabela's?
Comment By Marion, 11-25-07Tim, please read my posts...and for that matter the others and tell us who besides you mentioned paving.
There is a world of difference between no wheeled access and pavement. I am perfectly comfortable on dirt 2 tracks.
I am more than willing to share, but I want to share while enjoying the mountains and park, not share by listening to you tell how wonderful it is to be there alone.
Timmy is back with his active imagination! Be patient, he will grow up. There are miles and miles of wilderness and locked up government land that the walk-ins never get into. Let them start at the end of existing roads. Let Marion and others who cannot walk in or do not have time to walk in use part of those forests. There is room for all with existing wilderness. Realize-We can't stop private owners from selling. Cabelas is in business and if they don't act as advertisiers or agents then others will. The Dutch Boy tried putting his finger in the dam. Remember him. I too don't like what is happening BUT I can't use Cabelas or any one person as a scape goat! Stop the birth rate and the immigration. It's PEOPLE!!!! Lots of PEOPLE!
Comment By Chris, 11-25-07Hey Elfman,
Take a look around at a couple of websites. One, namely "RESTORE: The North Maine Woods" A non profit conservation group with ties to The Nature Conservancy and The Wilderness Society. RESTORE is based and headquartered in Boston, MA that's right Boston, Massachusetts. In their great wisdom they have decided that the better part of northern Maine should be transformed into a national park. They claim to have many backers including a list of over 100 celebrities, contributing and supporting the cause of creating a national park for the North Maine Woods. So tell me what possibly could any of these people know about life over the past hundred years in Maine, I come from a town built on the paper industry and logging. A town that used to claim the highest per capita income in the state of Maine, now claims the highest poverty rate in the state. Let me tell you why, the greens have slowly but surely put themselves smack dab in the middle of every environmental issue that arises no matter what the reprocussions may be for the working man involved. They take their big city money and lobbying power and encroach upon the small guys that really are at a complete disadvantage. Google this name: Roxanne Quimby Maine and see what you come up with. Quimby has created quite a stir in Maine over the past couple of years purchasing large tracts of land (25-30,000 acres) and posting it off limits to hunters and fishermen. We're not talking about a couple hundred acre ranch here. We're talking about pieces of land the size of Rhode Island, that are located in the middle of other privately owned publicly accessed swaths of land 3 times the size. The leases I'm talking about are leases that are of no value other than monetary to these landowners. You take a lake that has 200 camps built on it in the middle of the woods, these camps were built on leases agreed upon back in the early 30's. All family camps of people that worked for The Great Northern. The GNP leased these camp lots for as little as $1 per year. People raised their children at these camps in the summer, and eventually passed the camps on down. The leases increased of course but to relatively reasonable levels for 60 years. This is by no means comparable to an apartment building that will be demolished for a parking lot. This is a piece of someones life that they worked hard for and cherished for generations. Quimby is actually forcing lessees to vacate or move their camps. Do you think it's easy to move a camp that's buried deep in the woods, when I say deep I mean you'd have to move the camp 20 miles through the woods just to find a road. So you see, people really do have a very good reason for threatening to burn the forest. When the English were cutting mast pines in Maine during the colonization and sending them to Great Britian by the boatloads the people rebelled, and burned every last standing mast pine within the monarchy's reach. Guess where GB went for their ship mast's after that?? I can tell you they did no more searching in Maine.
Elfman..........And another thing about the apartment building scenario. The people that leased these camp lots actually built their camps with their own bare hands and their own money. I highly doubt whoever is leasing an apartment had any financial interest in it before they signed a monthly lease. Just a hunch chum..............
Comment By James, 11-25-07Jack- To answer some questions regarding landowner preference (LP) LP offers 15% of special permits or B licenses to the landowners who own specific amounts of land (160 acres of continous agricultural land for deer and antelope and 640 continuous acres for elk) in a hunting district (HD). A rather small percentage for all that these landowners do for the public's wildlife. There is no stipulation for the animals having to exist on the land except for elk in which they must only seasonally use the land. And yes, the FWP is aware if those animals use the land. That is their job, to know where the animals seasonally reside and which pieces of land they use during different times of the year. And no Jack, LP does not restrict the landowner to only hunting on their own land. They are restricted to hunting with their preference tags only in the HD on which their land lies. You are confusing this with landowner sponsored tags. LP is not for friends or clients as you stated, but only for landowners, their immediate family designee, or ranch manager. No Cabela's will not receive LP because they are merely in the land marketing business, they never actually own the land (Did you actually read Bill's article?). And finally, LP is a small token of appreciation that the state can offer landowners for keeping, maintaining, and managing large tracts of open space used by Montana's wildlife species. Landowners are never guranteed a license, but just have their odds improved as a thank you for for providing suitable habitat for Montana's wildlife. For some landowners, LP is a large incentive not to sell off and subdivide their land. Get rid of LP and you get rid of prime wildlife habitat and those who maintain it. By the way, good to see more press on this issue, Thank You Bill.
Comment By elfman, 11-26-07Jack - on the coattails of James I would also like to point out that, for a long time, landowner preference tags were ONLY available to resident landowners! I believe they have changed the law only in recent years to allow nonresident landowners to petition to be eligible for landowner preference.
Comment By elfman, 11-26-07Chris:
As for Quimby: it is private land. Always has been. Quimby can hunt it, fish it, lease it, build on it, cut it, AND post no trespassing signs if he wishes. He can also tell the expired leaseholders to get out. Quimby does not owe you or anyone else a right of access.
As for the leases: It is not for you to decide what value a piece of land holds for its owner. You make the point that they leased the properties for "as little as $1 a year". Sounds to me like you people should be thankful you had such a good deal all those years. You (or your relatives) CHOSE to invest your finances in a leasehold interest which is, by its very nature, tenuous. Not smart. The apartment building is still a very good analogy. By the way, I never said these were month to month leases. I said they will expire at the end of the year. So, let's expound further on the hypothetical. Let's say all the tenants have held their leases for 50 years, invested all kinds of time in decorating and, in some cases, more substantially modified the apartment (with permission from the OWNER of course). Should the new OWNER be required to continue leasing those apartments forever when he really wants to to do something else with the property?! By the way, it is irrelevant but I never said it was going to be a parking lot... in fact, I said it was going to be a retirement community.
Nice attempt at tugging on the heartstrings by referring to people having raised there kids there but that does not carry any weight with me. They still have their memories. I am betting that the land upon which those leases sit was used to raise generation after generation of American Indians. Who should I feel more sorry for? You have made absolutely no case for it being a legitimate course of action to burn the forest down. Why don't you start saving, investing wisely (avoid leasehold interests) and maybe someday you can buy a place of your own. Then, you can decide to let everyone come and build their camps on your land!
If you understood the legal issues here you might be rooting for the National Park you so loathe the thought of. Do you own your home and land? If so, who are you going to let come in there and tell you what you can and cannot do with it?
P.S. let me get this straight... you parked your truck and hiked 20 miles through the woods each time you want to get to your camp? If there is no road to them then how did you get to them? 20 miles is a long way to hike for a weekend jaunt.
Yes, non-residents are getting 'Landowner Preference' and this landowner preference has been abused many times don't try to 'dazzle me'. We need some policy changes in FWP and doing away with landowner preference is a good start. Another good one would be to include some of these alfalfa fields being used for baiting animals illegally same as salt. Yes, we have many ranchers who are not doing this but look at Turners ranches for example alfalfa fields and high fences. But of course since he donates dough to FWP for fish poisoning projects and to radical environmental organizations that will go nowhere. Another one is south of Broadus where landowners in the outfitting business uses alfalfa fields to hold animals on there with very limited hunting. Keep those animals off the adjoining public land that's the plan sell the trophy deer for $2500. Let's me see now I think wildlife is a 'public resource' on private and public lands.But they probably call the $2500 a trespass fee give me a break. They must have the 'landowner preference' as well and Montana rewards them with outfitter licenses.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-26-07I guess the next thing is for Sears to get into the business and feature roe buck hunts in their catalog...with a matching line of gentleman's clothing.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-26-07There is a recent article in the Billings Gazette that cover some of the 'bones' here: http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/11/22/news/state/18-hunting.txt
The connection between guides/outfitters' preferences and out-of-state landed gentry should be apparent and is the real end-run around the license preference problem. The wealthy landowner merely leases to the guide/outfitter under special arrangements. This is what Cabela's Trophy Properties brings to Montana.
This gets me back to the approach that I advocated above near the beginning of this discussion about creating a half a loaf solution for everyone or noone hunts. Getting rid of the guide/outfitter preferences would help too.
Craig -
Thanks for trying to keep this on-track.
My understanding has always been that hunter numbers are in decline nationally and holding steady/increasing here in Montana. However, I've never seen the actual numbers.
Would imagine that just looking at "all licenses sold" is not an accurate reflection of increased pressure on particular areas. Need to compare total number of licenses sold with total number of acres available for use; public access, BM, outfitter leased, etc.
Overlaying these sets of data would provide a much clearer picture regarding "crowding".
For instance, parts of SW Montana saw a big bump in hunter numbers this fall.
Both articles - NatGeo and Gazetter - were interesting. Thanks.
This is a bit dated, but sums sheds more light on this subject: http://fwp.mt.gov/tmc/vignettes/access.html
The "Private Land/Public Wildlife Council" is meeting in Livingston on December 10 and 11.
Mark,
You are welcome. The Great Falls Trib had a similar article: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071125/OPINION01/711250305
It points to a 15% decline in resident hunters. I suppose that non-resident hunters could more than offset this decrease...and it's from the pool of non-residents that create the customer base for Cabela's selling off Montana land to the plush bottom hunters. With most of the revenues for Montana FWP coming from non-resident fees it's no wonder they (FWP) have turned Judas betrayer to residents.
I checked into the properties they ahve listed and it looks like they are primarily acting as a real estate agent, not a developer. Is that correct? If so it looks to me like trying to keep the rancher from feeling that selling is his only or best option, would be where folks need to focus. If they feel they must sell, they are going to look for the agent that gives them the maximum net, whether it is Cabelas or someone else.
Comment By Wendy in Idaho, 11-26-07I've been doing my own personal mini-boycott of Cabela's ever since I heard last year that they were in the "trophy property" business. Cabela's built its company and its reputation on the pocketbooks of the blue-collar, working class, hook and bullet crowd. Now they're in league with high rollers who would lock those same working people (and formerly valued customers) out of traditional hunting and fishing areas. Not good. Not smart. Not right. I'm glad to see the wave of negative reaction is surging.
Comment By Bette, 11-26-07Serious Distaste regarding Cabela's current real estate ventures:
I am a Montana native, and have never lived anywhere else for more than a month. Additionally, I am a well-educated, coherent, under-30, female, novice hunter extremely interested in honing my skills as a hunter an outdoors sportswoman. Having recently learned of the pathetic behavior the Cabela's company is exhibiting in regards to its severe disrespect for Montana's venerated public access for hunting and recreation tradition, I am extremely disinclined to solicit Cabela's for any equipment, clothing, or other products. Furthermore, I am a conservation/environmental educator with a particular professional (my employing organization is fundamentally invested in the hunting tradition) and personal interest in appropriate behavior and social dynamics in regards to sportsmanship. Until Cabela's eliminates its real estate venture, and reigns in its audacious disrespect for my state and its traditions of neighborly access and consideration for neighborly opinions, I will not be sourcing any of my needs from this company.
This entire situation exhibits extremely poor sportsmanship on the part of Cabela's! At the same time, some of the slap-dash generalization being carried on in this dialog is equally unsporting. I think all of us who are dedicated to a vibrant integrity-based present and future for Montana (whether we grew up here or wish we did), need to try to refrain from alienation-causing generalizations. It is critical that we all start listening to one another ("neighborly conversation") before we wind up creating a culture where we all have our own opinions and can't find any overlap.
P.S. I second the concerns that this website not support companies and behaviors that are contrary to its stated mission or are detrimental to this state's future.
Regarding this last comment about the advertising on the site: we couldn't, even if we wanted to, screen advertisers based on "behaviors that are contrary to its stated mission or are detrimental to this state's future." In almost all cases those are judgement calls at best, and no publisher can be in the position of passing moral judgement on every advertiser.
Perhaps more to the point, we have to make a living. This site does not happen for free, but we provide the service for free, supported by advertising. If you're in an advertising supported business, you sell ads to people who want to buy ads. It's that simple. If people on this thread want to send us checks for the money we would forgo by kicking off particular advertisers, we can have that conversation. Short of that, I'd just remind everyone that NewWest.Net is FREE, and if you don't like the ads, well, that's the trade-off.
Jonathan, please indicate which of the following legal sources, if any, that you would not take advertising money from:
--firearm manufactures
--ammuntion manufacturers such as Federal and Hornady
--tobacco companies
--spirits companies
--oil companies such as Exxon, Shell, and BP
--Hummer ads
--snowmobile manafacturers
--4x4 off-road vehicle manufacturers such as Polaris
Gosh, Mr. Weber, with you providing a yard for them to lay in for so long, I wondered whether they would turn on even you eventually. Looks like my hunch was right...
Comment By Jack, 11-26-07The one to be watching is the Dovetail Ranch located about 40 miles north of Winnett on the south side of Crooked Creek.I contacted the BLM for information as well as sent a letter to Cabella's. I received a reply from a David Nelson,Manager,Cabella's Trophy Properties.He stated "Cabela's Trophy Properties is not alone in this field.Others,such as Orvis and Mossy Oak,offer similiar services.Our service is not new to the estate industry in Montana.In addition,independent real estate agents within the Trophy Proterties network work with groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,the American Land Conservancy and Five Valleys Land Trust to share information about conservation easements,habitat development and related matters with potential buyers and landowners". None of their letter mentioned ranching. A letter to BLM Lewistown provided me with land status maps and information about the new owner.BLM states" The current ranch owners have chosen to no longer paricipate in the BMA program". BLM indicated 7,131 acres of BLM public lands and maps show solid block public lands. My view whatever it's worth. the ranches seem to be fronts for excluvive hunting and not really working cattle ranches at all. BLM must make a determination if this is a viable ranch under the federal range code to tranfer grazing privileges to the new owner.A few cows to make it look like a ranch does not qualify in my view. Any fences must meet the BLM fence manual H-1741-1 fencing and fences must be "wildlife friendly" in that area it would mean a fence no higher than 43" with a bottom to ground smooth wire with a min. of 16"-18" above ground. That means no high fences to fence wildlife in. Wildlife is guaranteed free access to and from public lands 12 months a year under the Unlawful Inclosures of Public Lands Act 1885,43 U.S.C.1061-1066 a federal law that BLM must enforce. Cabella's did not answer a single question presented to them on these issues and laws.New fences seem to be proposed according to BLM. These so called ranches want our public lands and the wildlife privatized on private and public lands.It's a wildlife and public land grab. Another one going on south of Malta with the American Prairie Foundation associated with the World Wildlife Fund.Why is the RMEF involved in these real estate deals as well?Someone should find out. It takes high fences to keep the elk in. Without the public land these so called ranches would be no ranch at all.They must keep us off our public land to make their slick deal work.Watch the Dovetail Ranch and BLM.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-26-07Jack, thanks for the info. It is my opinion that RMEF changed when Jay Dart took over. Many people I know are no longer RMEF supporters because of their suspicions over RMEF's involvement in similar deals like you indicated. Their suspicisions are built on fears over guide/outfitter relationships with RMEF that works against individual field sportsman access.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-26-07mike, many times you and I disagree and get under each other's skin. However, this time you have a very valid point. I wish to apologize to Jonathan Weber for the lion's share of the blame for the unnecessary and hurtful criticism of New West over the Cabela's ads that appear here. I should not have publicly raised that issue near the beginning of my comments on this column. Simply because I had the right and opportunity to state my criticism doesn't mean that I should have done so publicly as I did.
Jonathan, I am truly sorry if I have offended you or anyone at New West with my unnecessary criticism. You have a business and I salute you and your New West people for your efforts especially your courage in featuring this column that is in a bit of counter interest conflict with your business interest to survive and prosper. That is true journalistic integrity and I salute you for it.
New West provides an unusual opportunity for mere citizens such as my self to interact with the columnists and other commentators that write here. Thank you New West.
THX Craig if feel the same. The RMEF has lost their way and mission. It's operated like a bank to make money. Too bad a fine animal like the elk is used for these money making schemes.The RMEF will not get involved any issue that impacts elk and elk habitat as well but involved in real estate with Cabella's it's sickening. Iam no longer a member or contributor.
Comment By Mark, 11-27-07The February 2008 Fly Fisherman discusses these issues. See the article "Wading Troubled Waters." It begins with a quick review of Donny Beaver's operation in Pennsylvania and then ends with a discussion about access out west, including comments regarding the Cabelas trophy properties.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-27-07Cheeze, I go away to the People's Republic of Coastal Washington for a week and what happens?
Getting back to the point of all this, I wonder why the discussion is not about the landowner and why he or she is selling. Swedester and Marion tried to keep it up, but noooooo.
Hunters need to understand that the old days are dead. I wistfully remember hunting for the asking, and asking was easy, a function of cultivating relationships and following the rules. These days it is more difficult to scrape up the TIME to cultivate the crop, so to speak, for everyone.
Add to that the economic and POLITICAL insecurity on the landscape, this brucellosis garbage being one thing, and no wonder the whirlwind is reaped. The pressure to sell and quit finally burns down the desire to hang in there, then the question becomes, how to make the departure least painful? By selling for top dollar, of course.
The properties in question could be saved, if sportsmen like Craig truly had the grit and determination to make sacrifices in the form of M O N E Y, and B U Y the property....or C O L L E C T the funds B E F O R E H A N D and come in with C A S H at the right time.
Instead, MWF seems bent on stiffing who should be their best allies with all sorts of things like stream access and complaints about B tag set asides blah blah. An otherwise pro-hunting rancher is going to look at this "hunter and angler" stuff and say, hey, these are not my friends.
Finally, as to Cabela's, I think they are killing themselves overall. I remember when the Pilgrimage to Sidney was a big deal, after years of ogling catalogs. It was not a disappointment. But this last spring, on a transcontinental road race, a buddy and I stopped in Mitchell. It was neat, but sort of a letdown from Store Numero Uno. Like the first time is always the most memorable, right? With new stores in Post Falls, Bellevue and Billings, never mind that the local Sportsman cribbed huge from the Cabela's decor model (and pricing strategy), well, I'm not nearly as drawn to making a buy at or from Cabela's that I used to be. For the arcana, yes, but for the dailies, no.
So there.
Dave, welcome back from the land of the "Wobblies." As to your points I'm going to pass for now debating them and refer you to my second comment here with the proposed 50% solution. The wild animals belong to the sovereign, not the landowners. Seriously, it should not matter who owns the land for the sovereign to make the rules which balance the respective interests. I deplore parasites like Cabela's Trophy Properties which leach value from the process without adding anything.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-27-07Craig,
Your second post won't work either, not unless the solution is seen as honest and fair by the people who own the dirt.
We've all seen the migration at first shot to closed lands, and soon after, calls for depredation permits from the same people. So there's a problem. Yet the solution to the problem needs to have the right incentives, and sadly, those will be monetary. How much money?
Do you want money from "nonconsumptives" who might support Mack Bray's regime? Are you willing to risk a buy-in from non-hunters who hate hunting?
So what part of the season is "public" and which is "owned" by the landowners?
We're going to all need some answers soon.
Wow, I stumbled across this page, read all of the comments, and I'm stunned.
The number of people trying to rail over the sale of private land is bad enough. If the land is that important to the PUBLIC, then get your representatives to do something about it and purchase the land.
On the other hand, if the land is for sale, be glad that companies like Cabela's or Orvis are marketing these lands to hunters and anglers! At least there is (good) chance that the tracts will stay undeveloped and at the minimum remain a sanctuary for game. Would you rather that the owners tried to sell these lands to some developer who's only intent is to subdivide the land and sell it to the dreaded 'city folk' (aka boogie-men).
How many years has there been public access on this privately owned land? Count each and every one of them as a blessing! There was absolutely no requirement for that, and you were lucky.
Derail me and call me names if you want (hey, it makes some people feel worthwhile). I don't hunt, but I do fish in a number of states, Montana included. Access to PUBLIC land for fishing and hunting is tremendously important to me, but complaining about the potential loss of access to private land makes some of you sound like spoiled whiners. Look around the rest of the country - you don't know how well you've got it.
Having been a longtime Montana hunter and a even longer Cabelas shopper, this makes me sick. It makes me glad that I just started at Sportsmans Warehouse as a second job. ALL of the hunters and sportsman I have encountered, to a person, are disgusted with what the likes of Foxworthy and his ilk are doing.
For all I have read, tecomate is simply spot for genetic engineering. Let' see...a place to make the big bucks bigger and the does more fertile...nope, not for a far chase hunter. Is it me or do people who strictly hunt for the biggest rack overcompensating for something? Shouldn't FWP be trying to investigate this crap? I was huning a new area several years ago when I came across a HUGE feed plot in the middle of the woods on a hillside park, obviously not natural. Will these Cabelas properties be jsut like those? God I hope not.
Thanks Bill for featuring this Cabella's issue on News West. Hunters must get concerned about corporations taking our public land and privatizing our public wildlife resource. Most all of these so called ranches have acres of BLM and state land leases all public land. They want to control the public land on the so called ranch. We will see more of this and the public should be outraged. "Lands might be developed" has nothing to do with anything. Part of the slick deal is to acquire conservation easements for tax breaks and to use as an excuse to keep the public off of private and public lands. Conservation easements is another public ripoff.Then up goes the high fences and alfalfa fields with wildlife trapped in. FWP apparently has been told not to say anything but should be saying alot. Now we have BLM taking about a land exchange in the Miles City area to 'rid us' of 24,533 acres of wildlife habitat and hunting areas.Follow the money trail on the Pumpkin Creek Land Exchange and see where it leads. Thanks again Bill for your effort on this Cabella's capper.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-29-07Dave S., I don't think the fix would be that hard to implement. Take a look at FWP's Hunting Access Guide that covers Block Management access. No reason that this framework could not apply to my suggested 50% solution. Here would be a new wrinkle. Those that would opt for 50% exclusivity would forego Block Management payments. The incentive would be their 50% exclusive use or nothing. Augment it with maybe 3 bull/buck permits for the landowner. The permit numbers could be tailored to acreage size. Half a loaf scenario being better than nothing.
Comment By Connie Snyder, 11-29-07Bill, what are you nuts! Talk about slandering Cabela's maybe they should take legal action. If Cabela's is selling land it is probably already privately owned. There are a lot of large ranches in states like Montana, Wyoming, Colorado that have been in family's for generations that have decided to sell. Are you trying to say the new owner can't develop the land as they see fit? How would you like it if someone told you what you could or couldn't do with your land? I think you're barking up the wrong tree!
Comment By Mike Lashley, 11-29-07I have been selling farm & ranch real estate for over 30 years. In Nebraska, we have enjoyed good hunting & fishing for a long time. I have noticed in the past 10 years that the numbers of upland game, pheasant & quail, have slowly diminished. The reason for this is clearly lack of habitat. The margins in farming & ranching have narrowed so greatly that every sq. ft. of soil has to be farmed or grazed. Without habitat, you do not have wildlife. Without wildlife, there is nothing to hunt. States such as South Dakota and Kansas have figured out that there is more productivity in tourism than there is in farming and ranching. These 2 states are prime examples of what habitat development and farming for wildlife can do. What has happened is there is a tremendous increase in the amount of numbers of game to hunt. However, no longer can a person, particularly an out of state person, or even an in-state person walk up to a farmer’s door and ask permission to hunt. A farmer or rancher will give permission only if there is a fee paid for the service. Over the past 5 years, recreational real estate has boomed in Nebraska. I have been fortunate enough to be a broker that has sold these lands to the hunter. In every case, it is the individual’s desire to improve the habitat on the property. Because of the increase in value of this type of real estate, the farmer next door is becoming more aware of habitat development himself. Our government has provided excellent programs to take farmland out of production and improve the habitat through such programs as the CRP Program (Conservation Reserve Program) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (C.R.E.P.). What eventually will happen is there will be much more game to hunt in all of the areas of Nebraska. The farmers and ranchers are becoming very aware of the value of wildlife. This is all because of the marketing efforts of brokers like myself. Our association with Cabelas allows us to tell our story much more effectively. I cannot see what selling farm and ranch real estate to people for the purpose of developing wildlife habitat has to do with taking away public lands. None of the lands that I have sold were previously public. I believe you will see a change in the attitude of ranchers and farmers giving permission to just anybody to hunt. Because of the above mentioned lower, narrower margins in farming and ranching, the land owners will be looking at leasing their land out exclusively for hunting. There will be a day when all hunters will have to pay for the privilege to hunt private property in our state. There are currently thousands of acres of public land that is excellent hunting throughout our state. I cannot see that the sale of private property will affect any of the public hunting lands. If anything, the additional habitat development that will occur will increase the success of the public hunting lands. As a result of the recreational property sales in Nebraska, it has stabilized the farmer and rancher in many instances. An example of this would be the farmer that sells his riverbottom ground that is no good for grazing or farming to a hunter freeing up equity to buy more productive land or reduce the farmer’s or rancher’s debt. I feel that the association through Cabelas is a positive, good thing for our state. Respectively submitted. Michael G. Lashley, President, Lashley Land and Recreational Brokers, Inc.
Comment By Connie Snyder, 11-29-07Michael Lashley, I like your response and I feel you are more of an expert on the subject than the person who wrote the article and the negative responses shown here.
Comment By Mark, 11-29-07Michael Lashley, your comments send a chill up my spine.
Sometimes it's about more than the just money.
No one's talking about public lands. Everyone's talking about public wildlife on private lands.
In Montana, everyone's tax dollars pay for programs like CRP. It's hunting license fees that pay for most wildlife management. And I'm damn glad to pay it.
But it's a tricky thing when folks who benefit from tax funded programs and national wildlife conservation intiatives start exclusive Texas and European styled pay to hunt and lease programs.
http://www.huntingnebraska.com/
"There will be a day when all hunters will have to pay for the privilege to hunt private property in our state."
Brrrrr.
I am a native to Arizona and have seen a big change in our state. They are not all positive but people have to work & live somewhere. My opinion of our state's vision is to establish a coalition of dedicated conservationists and sportsmen who address the issues that affect hunting, wildlife and wild habitat. My father was born & raised on a cattle ranch in southeast Arizona over 83 years ago. I would be an idiot to think that the old ranch hasn't changed. I've been there and it has changed. Where do you want our children and grandchildren live. As a real estate broker for Cabela's Trophy Properties I am not understanding your complaint. This is a free country and people buy and sale land, farms, and ranches everyday. I personally think it can be heartbreaking for farms and ranches to be sold because the newer generation doesn't want anything to do with that lifestyle. I have never sold public land to individuals. We are the middle man bringing buyers and sellers to the table. You must think we have a lot more power and influence than we do. Proud to be a broker selling recreational properties and representing the buyers and sellers. There is not a person in my office that does not love and respect our wonderful White Mountains. None of us would associate with anyone that would and that is why we live, work, hunt, fish, hike, and enjoy our mountain. I have the upmost respect for Cabela's and everything they have accomplished. Look on their website of their conservation partners like Angelers Legacy, National Bowhunters Education Foundation, Conservation Force, and Quality Deer Management Association the list goes on and on. Why do people look for the bad and not the good and believe without investigating the facts.
Comment By Craig Moore, 11-29-07Mr. Lashley's brokerage is a licensed Cabela's affiliate. See: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-11-06-trophy-ranches_x.htm
>>>>>>
Michael Lashley, a Cabela's affiliate in Sutherland, Neb., says 90% of his sales in 2000 were for agricultural use. Today, 90% of his ranch sales are for hunting, fishing and recreational use.
Although websites bring in more business, he says nothing closes a trophy-ranch deal like an on-the-ground visit. Last week, he took an out-of-state buyer to a 600-acre ranch on the Republican River in southwestern Nebraska.
"I drive my red Suburban through the brush, scare up the deer and wild turkey," Lashley says, "and the guy gets googly-eyed and says, 'Well, I'll be back with the check.' "
<<<<<<<<<<<
Any intimation that public lands hunters should be thankful for the scraps that fall off the private hunting preserves is an insult.
By the way, Ted Turner is in the news for his land acqusitions.
Vicki Hawkins, as to bow hunters see what they are saying here: http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/regional/thread.cfm?threadid=140725&MESSAGES=17&state=MT
Most are fairly upset with the Cabela's involvement.
Yes Mr. Ashley you can try to defend Cabella's but we are a little smarter here in Montana. Cabella's want's the public lands and the wildlife on private and public lands a public resource they want to 'privatize' our public wildlife.The Dovetail ranch, so-called ranch, includes nearly 1/2 public lands 12,000 acres BLM and State leases. According to the Federal Range Code BLM can deny transfering the grazing privileges to the new owner since it is not a viable ranch in the livestock business.Did you get that "grazing privileges not "rights".But we have a right to be on and use public land. Wildlife has a right to be there. Grazing on 'our land' including state leases is a privilege. Run a few cows to make it look good is fraud. It's all about a land and wildlife grab you know that. Let's take all the public lands out of the so called ranch then it's a 13,000 acre ranch not 25,000 as Cabella's advertizes which is 'false advertizing'. They also advertized "dinosaur digs". That would violate a number of federal protection laws. I see they pulled it from their site now.Waterfowl hunting on the reservoirs? 1/2 are on public land we paid for.The new owners, Cabella's, decided not to stay with FWP block management but you already know that. WHY?? Stop by the homeplace and ask permission to hunt? What is it a phone number with no one there? It's hunting for the right people the "chosen few" you know that. Excluding the public land from these so called Cabella's ranches is a good way to start let's put the heat on the agencies to do that. High fences violate the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1883 as amended. Is the RMEF going to hold elk inside high fences for the rich? There goes their donations in Montana. Ever hear of the Red Rim case in Wyoming?The federal judge ruled the landowner had to remove and /or modify 27 miles of fence within 90 days to comply with the Unlawful Inclosures Act of 1885. This applies to Montana as well a federal law. Federal law is supreme over state law.Antelope could not migrate to sagebrush winter range on BLM public land in the Lander area, many starved 1000's. That's federal law that applies to every state and Montana and Cabella's "dream properties" check it out. Wildlife;deer,elk,antelope,wild sheep,moose,bear you name it is allowed free access to and from public lands 12 months a year and fences must be "wildlife friendly" thats a 43" high fence with a 16-18" bottomwire on the Dovetail ranch area and public lands. We are still working on the legality of using alfalfa fields to "bait" wild animals in and then close the gates. Under the UIA of 1885 gates do not make a illegal 'barrier' fence legal. This may all pop Cabella's big Montana dream balloon so don't dazzle us with real estate baloney. Bottomline is the average sporstmen made Cabella's rich and now they turned their backs on us. Throw away their catalogs,cut up the old Cabella's credit card shop elsewhere.Besides Pro Bass Shop and L.L. Bean has better merchandize by mail as well. Shop locally don't by anything from Cabella's not ever a ball cap. Why help a company who want's to steal our public land and public wildlife? Wonder what they pay a real estate advisor for these real estate 'cappers'. Cabella's is following in the footsteps of Ted Turner in Montana. Buy nothing from Cabella's if you charish public hunting for the average guy,wildlife and public land access,,,,,,,,,nothing! Wake up other states as well buy nothing from Cabella's ever.
Comment By Jack, 11-29-07Yes, CRP is publically funded as ell. Started out with good intentions but now a 'gravy train'. Landowner paid to be in CRP, our money again. Can graze anytime if drought...every year drought. Look at pheasant hunting now CRP. We paid for the habitat but exclusive hunting for the 'chosen few'. Yes the wealthy love CRP.
Comment By Greg, 11-29-07I own recreational land in Colorado. It has a trophy mule deer, turkey, and herds of elk on it. It is my understanding that Cabela's Trophy Properties is ONLY promoting private land owners across the world by having a listing service for private property owners. This enables people like myself to help sell and buy property. The audience that Cabelas has are the people that I want to sell to. Recreational minded people value my property differently than "Suburbian Joe" down the block. And, if I want to buy, they have the VERY BEST SELECTION of properties avialable. There is no other source of that has the diverse inventory than Cabela's Trophy Properties! Cabela's Trophy Properties is a WIN for everyone! Cabela's are not buying the properties, the private homeowners like myself are using this service to gain and sell properties! The average real estate company has NO CLUE how to sell my property and for what price it should be valued at. Big or small, Cabela's Trophy properties has so much to offer the private investor. So, as far as a listing service, which Cabela' Trophy Properties is, it is the VERY BEST in the business!
Oh, by the way. Many recreational land purchasers dedicate portions of their properties to Conservation programs. Recreational land owners care very much about the habitat they purchase. Cabela's is helping our recreational lives and the lives of others in this free country!
Oh, by the way Cabela's is spelled with only one "l".
Best Regards, Greg
DON'T BUY ANYTHING FROM CABELA's, WITH one"L"
Comment By Marion, 11-29-07Too late, my stuff from Cabela's was delivered tonight! My son's would be upset if they got nothing from Cabela's for Christmas.
Comment By Elizabeth Fry, 11-29-07It seems to me that the issue really has nothing to do with Cabela’s . The issue is Individual Private Property Rights. Cabela’s is a retailer of fine sporting goods. Cabela’s Trophy Properties, LLC is a lifestyle listing service that provides Hand Selected Ranch Brokers an audience of sports minded customers. I'm very appalled that Cabela’s great name and reputation has been brought into this argument and slandered in an attempt to get attention.
One of my biggest concerns about this country is that it is becoming a nation of “entitlement”. Why should we feel entitled to something that we didn’t earn or pay for? Property owners have a constitutional right to sell, lease, or convey their property however they wish. We pay to play golf and to snow ski because somebody bought the property, developed it and made it available to people for a price. Why should it be different for hunting or fishing? Yes, the animals are free to roam from property to property, but someone has to pay for the land that they live on. If you didn’t pay for the property, maintain the property, pay the taxes and insurance on the property, why do you think you should have the right to use the property or hunt for the wildlife that lives on the property?
My brokerage, Showcase Properties International, Inc., is the exclusive Broker affiliated with Cabela’s Trophy Properties here in California. I can tell you first hand that our customers care about the lands and the wildlife that is supports. Often times they have their own Wildlife Management Program to ensure that there is sufficient habitat for their survival. They also care about, and often fund, restoration projects and place their property “willingly” into conservation programs.
The agents and brokers that work with me are here because of Cabela’s. They love land, they love to hunt and fish, they love nature, they love Cabela’s and all that it stands for. Many of my Agents and Brokers have been involved in Nature Conservancy, Water Conservation, Farm Management, Environmental Management, Duck’s unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, and the list goes on. We have represented no properties being taken out of Public ownership and placed into private ownership; in fact, we have facilitated Conservation easements and sales to Land Trusts for Public use and environmental mitigation banks.
You can say that your issues are only in the state of Montana, but when you attack Cabela’s and Cabela’s Trophy Properties, you are attacking the character of the people in the entire nation. We are a nation that believes in Private Property Rights.
It seems to me that this issue really has nothing to do with Cabela’s . The issue is Individual Private Property Rights. Cabela’s is a retailer of fine sporting goods. Cabela’s Trophy Properties, LLC is a lifestyle listing service that provides Hand Selected Ranch Brokers an audience of sports minded customers. I'm very appalled that Cabela’s great name and reputation has been brought into this argument and slandered in an attempt to get attention.
One of my biggest concerns about this country is that it is becoming a nation of “entitlement”. Why should we feel entitled to something that we didn’t earn or pay for? Property owners have a constitutional right to sell, lease, or convey their property however they wish. We pay to play golf and to snow ski because somebody bought the property, developed it and made it available to people for a price. Why should it be different for hunting or fishing? Yes, the animals are free to roam from property to property, but someone has to pay for the land that they live on. If you didn’t pay for the property, maintain the property, pay the taxes and insurance on the property, why do you think you should have the right to use the property or hunt for the wildlife that lives on the property?
My brokerage, Showcase Properties International, Inc., is the exclusive Broker affiliated with Cabela’s Trophy Properties here in California. I can tell you first hand that our customers care about the lands and the wildlife that is supports. Often times they have their own Wildlife Management Program to ensure that there is sufficient habitat for their survival. They also care about, and often fund, restoration projects and place their property “willingly” into conservation programs.
The agents and brokers that work with me are here because of Cabela’s. They love land, they love to hunt and fish, they love nature, they love Cabela’s and all that it stands for. Many of my Agents and Brokers have been involved in Nature Conservancy, Water Conservation, Farm Management, Environmental Management, Duck’s unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, and the list goes on. We have represented no properties being taken out of Public ownership and placed into private ownership; in fact, we have facilitated Conservation easements and sales to Land Trusts for Public use and environmental mitigation banks.
You can say that your issues are only in the state of Montana, but when you attack Cabela’s and Cabela’s Trophy Properties, you are attacking the character of the people in the entire nation. We are a nation that believes in Private Property Rights.
Elizabeth -
Thanks for taking the time to join in the conversation. It’s really good to hear both sides of things. It's great to hear that your clients are conservation oriented. And, frankly, it's not surprising.
My guess is that it's likely not a sense of "entitlement". It's more a sense of loss. In Montana, those properties are more than likely going to someone who lives a long ways from here. Likely going to someone who is not a member of our community. And likely going to someone who doesn't share our cultural values. We know that soon we’re going to be standing at our fence line looking at a big track of land owned by somebody we don’t know.
We see our state and our way of life eroding and because so many have supported Cabelas for so long and have so much respect for the brand... well it probably feels a bit like a betrayal to see what appears like Cabelas endorsing this loss.
It's much more emotional than logical. I doubt it’s personal.
I'm sure that most of the folks who've been ranting on this page - including me - share many values with your agents and brokers. I bet your folks feel the same sense of loss. This "new" sportsman/woman buying trend is a big deal. It's an escalating resource race and it's going to change Montana’s cultural and natural landscape in positive and negative ways from here to eternity.
And, let’s face it. A lot of the increased value of those properties is represented by: (1) farming and ranching families who have been good stewards of the land; and (2) public wildlife protected nationally and regionally through publicly funded programs that have operated a long, long time. Here in Montana, we feel rightly proud that hunters and anglers are by and large responsible for the great wildlife we all enjoy.
So, people are respectful of private property rights. That’s not the point. They are just a little bit ruffled and nervous by the winds blowing in a change of owners.
Personally, I'd just be pleased to see companies like Cabelas working to make it as positive a transition as possible.
And you’re absolutely correct. Any realtor could sell those properties at any time for any reason. Of course.
But, these properties are “hot” because they have wildlife value. A Cabelas endorsement certifies this value.
Presumably, you and other brokers think it’s worth the time and money to secure a Cabelas exclusive for your region. Their endorsement is worth something in the market. Being a “Cabelas Trophy Property” most probably represents an increased price. At the very least, your brokerage and the property benefits from the Cabelas name.
So, here’s the rub.
Has Cabelas considered leveraging this value by making it a condition of their "endorsement" that all properties advertised and sold in Montana will somehow reflect the core values of their customer base here in Montana and most other places, i.e., conservation easements, no sub-divisions, public access rights to public land, improved wildlife management, etc., or are these ideas just plain crazy?
Sure, asking that sales be conditioned upon public access to private property is a bit of a head-scratcher, but it's not far-fetched to see a small contribution from each sale allocated to hunter access programs. As one person suggested on the Orvis comment page, follow Patagonia’s lead and donate 1% of the sale price. That would be huge in a low-income place like Montana.
It’s also not ridiculous to consider using a portion of sales proceeds to off set perceived access losses with the purchase of other prime habitat designated as “Cabelas Wildlife Ranches” or some such thing. Boone and Crockett’s TR ranch provides a decent example here in Montana, approximately ten sections of prime ground that the public can hunt with a reservation.
Doing something like this would be a damn impressive and brave move for a company to make. I’d imagine your brokers and agents would feel like it’s the right thing to do. As you state, your clients are conservation oriented and the products seem “hot”, so it shouldn't bother the market one bit. It would mean Cabelas is getting some transparent marketing out of its investment and would bring a lot of Cabelas fans back to the fold.
I’m not a realtor and will likely never be able to afford one of these trophy properties now that they are priced beyond the means of most Montanans. So, I’m asking sincerely. Are ideas like this being discussed?
Elizabeth is right about the "entitlement" mentality.
As for the Weaver sale, it's too bad there wasn't some creativity here in how the thing will be sold. What about joint-tenancy-in-common for the bulk of the parcel (acres divided by 20 or whatever size is now being sold) with the homesites on the least productive dirt? At sell-out, then the neighborhood association or whatever could vote on BMA or not. The end product would be better for the wildlife, no matter who hunts them.