HAS THE PROBLEM BECOME THE SOLUTION?

Cabela’s and Orvis, Afterthoughts

By Bill Schneider, 12-06-07

After two weeks of reading more than 250 comments and having a few heated phone calls about my last two columns on Cabela's and Orvis land brokering divisions, plus a long chat with Cabela's senior vice president Mike Callahan, a few things have become quite clear.

Now, for example, I know exactly how it feels to be a little fireplug surrounded by a pack of big dogs.

Thanks for all the comments everybody, seriously, even those coming from people who disagreed with me. Some comments strayed from the points made in the columns, but many were dead on and some intriguing ideas came out of the discussion. And a lot of questions.

	Most of us are willing to sit back and let the companies make the right moves.

In this column, one more time before leaving this subject, I'm going to try to summarize some of the best insight coming out of comment sections and answer a few of your questions.

First, for the benefit of many people who came to NewWest.Net for the first time, the Wild Bill column is commentary, not news. I always hope some readers will agree with me, but I also know some won't.

Have I changed my mind? No, I still wish Orvis and Cabela's (and for that matter, Mossy Oak, Realtree Camo, and probably others) wouldn't use their brand power to make recreational property transactions happen faster and more easily. And I still believe all these companies risk damage to their brands by doing it.

Orvis and Cabela's have made it clear to me that they disagree, so don't expect either company to get out of the land sales biz anytime soon. The company decision-makers have what's called "P&L responsibility," and they think they can make serious money brokering land deals. I'm afraid they're right.

Cabela's, in particular, has already become quite successful and making it easier for their affiliated brokers to find well-healed buyers for high-priced property, and I guess that's the part of what scares me. The involvement of the golden brands, trusted by most anglers and hunters, accelerates the entire land sales process.

I was wrong about at least one point. I said real estate is risky business for these companies because they can't control the buyer. Well, I still think it's risky, but alas, they can control the buyer, but will they? They can only accept listings from sellers who require continuance of public access programs, conservation easements and setbacks, and prohibit subdivision. Such stipulations would make their involvement a big improvement over the current, uncontrolled situation, but it also flies in the face of how the real estate industry works. A lot of us will remain doubters until we see proof that the companies actually refuse listings without protective covenants or easements.

Even then, it's still risky. By being a promoter and facilitator of land sales, the companies become an integral part of speeding up the sweeping cultural change from traditionally free access to private land to a mix of less-palatable situations varying from total closures, access only for friends and customers of high-net-worth owners, and various fee-based options. All of these options are foreign to those of us who grew up in the West, and yes, we're having a hard time adjusting to the pay-or-stay-home future hunters face.

We hunters, most of us at least, now have a choice of crowding onto public land or paying to hunt--or hanging up the guns in favor of the fishing rods, which is pretty much what I've done. Cabela's, Orvis and the other companies are now facilitating this painful transformation and profiting from it.

We have had our say, and Orvis and Cabela's definitely heard us. Now, the onus is now on these companies to prove to us that land sales can truly be "no net loss" in public access or quality of wildlife habitat as they claim.

We certainly don't have much evidence that no-net-loss transactions will happen. But we do have a lot of evidence of rich people buying big ranches and closing or restricting access to both private and public lands.

Nonetheless, I believe most of us are willing to sit back and let the companies make the right moves, but as a board member of the Montana Wildlife Federation told me, "If they don't come through, it won't take much to turn up the heater again."

I'll translate that. If the companies come in; say the right things; people believe them; then, the companies go back to business as usual, well, then there will be hell to pay and more controversy, guaranteed.

For those readers who misinterpreted my intent, I wrote these columns because I like Cabela's and Orvis, not because I don't like them. I have a lot of gear from both companies, and I don't want to see them go down, their brands tarnished. Although many comments confirmed my fears that the companies have underestimated the problem, they obviously don't share my concern. Like I said, I guess that's why they make the big bucks and have corporate jets and I don't, right?

Orvis and Cabela's have solid records in conservation, and they have smooth-talking brass to emphasize their records. But I can't say the same for the real estate brokers they have under contract or in their employ.

I hope you noticed that James Hathaway of Orvis gave us an excellent response, and I had several chats with him offline that mirrored his advanced communication skills that left no doubt he works for a conservation-minded company. Witness his unique title--Communications & Conservation Manager. On the other hand, his main real estate guy, John Watson, of Orvis/Cushman & Wakefield, called me up to tell me I was unprofessional and irresponsible and then hung up, a response hardly in line with the classy image Orvis cherishes.

Cabela's, too, had a good response, albeit a little slow in coming. They flew their corporate jet to Helena with the sole purpose of smoothing feathers, meet with their detractors from the Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, and even taking time to chat with Wild Bill. I have to say that interview went better than I thought it would. Cabela's man in charge of government relations was a little defensive, perhaps, but he admitted the company could have done things better, assuring us that the company would do better going forward. No name calling or blaming the press for the problems.

Cabela's brokers are a different story. All you need to do is read through the comments to see what I mean by that. Somewhere along this thread, somebody unleashed Cabela's entire real estate army on the MWF and yours truly, and they had the-best-defense-is-a-good-offense game plan. A few brokers were little more than snipers, and will be dismissed, but many had some good ideas and definitely share some of Cabela's goals and ethics. But the blatant brown-nosing did get a bit embarrassing.

I suppose all the comments from Cabela's brokers could have been a directive, but I also wonder if sudden interest in NewWest.Net wasn't partially fueled by a growing fear among the brokers that Cabela's might actually agree with the MWF and get out of the trophy property business. Cabela's Trophy Properties has obviously worked out well financially for a lot of land brokers.

Interestingly, I haven't seen a single attaboy comment from a broker on Monday's posting where Mike Callahan says he'll pull license agreements if brokers don't adhere to company principles promoting conservation and public access. And I happen to know they saw his comments because I put it in the comment sections, and it went to all previous commenters.

Anyway, here's where we are. The companies are talking a good game, but it's still just talk. When and if more firm policies go into place, I think we have an excellent chance to chock this up as a comeback victory for hunters and anglers.

And here's one point we can agree on. It was healthy for all of us to have this forum to exchange our feelings on an all-important subject. Whatever happens, I feel it will be better and more carefully done because of this discussion.

Footnote: To make it easier for readers to read related articles, I put together The Cabela's Chronology. [End of article]

Bill, excellent work. I do see a piece missing here, at least as it affects Montana. What about the FWP's vision and direction? They have seen what has happened and know full well the stress created by shutting out the everyday field sportsman from access. I have pointed to FWP's power to effect change through their administrative powers to declare closures. However, that is just my idea. What will FWP other than just standing around with their pockets turned out shuffling their feet? And what about the governor? Is he a willing participant in the "For Sale" sign hanging over Montana?

One more thing, as to your fireplug and big dogs analogy, keep a slingshot at the ready when those dogs raise their legs. The words that flow from your pen are the stinging projectiles.

Perhaps this observation by Jim Cramer explains Cabela's actions noted here at New West: http://www.thestreet.com/s/cramers-mad-money-lightning-round-clobbering-cabelas/funds/lightninground/10392924.html?puc=_tscct

>>>>>>>>>

Cramer: '"Hit that thing right over the head! Take a mallet! ... That company is simply one of the worst publicly traded companies I've ever seen."'
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Anybody else remember how and why Herter's went poof?

Good reasons for this fisherman to stop altogether buying from Cabela's and Orvis. No big deal about Orvis - they've degenerated into mostly Yuppie style clothes and Scott has much better fly rods. Too bad about Cabela's though.

Bill, you make a good point that I overlooked in my previous zealousness to put pen to paper, (or finger to keyboard in this instance). The simple fact that Cabela's, which is such a widely known and renowned brand name, is able to match well-heeled buyers to the countless monetarily-challenged agents only serves to speed up the inevitable. That fact alone should ruffle the feathers of resident sportsmen/women. Craig Moore also makes an interesting point, what is the FWP's involvement going to be in this whole mess?

To Craig Moore and others:

Regarding the future of Montana FWP and their diminishing role in wildlife management: I doubt Montana FWP has ever managed wildlife directly on private land without landowner permission and I doubt they ever will. I suggest if hunters, Cabela’s, Orvis and others want the FWP to stay involved directly in wildlife management including the preservation of public hunting opportunities (other than just issuing tags), we band together and promote the expansion of the Habitat Montana program MCA 87-1-242 and the Block Management program MCA 87-1-267. The first allows us to purchase property (perhaps identified by Cabela’s) for wildlife habitat protection and public hunting and the second is a hunter access enhancement program designed for private lands. I believe Craig and others have mentioned these programs, but to me that should be our focus. Let's work to expand both of these programs at the next Montana legislature.

Glenn's coment is right on. I originaly hale from Pennsylvania and that states game commission has purchaced land with license fees for a long time and in that admitedly more urban state it has been a godsend to all hunters.

These blogs were e-mailed to me from a friend who knew my concerns about subdivisions. When is enough. Although, we all like to go after the "big guy" in this case Cabelas we are going after the wrong guy. From what I understand they were facilitators of the sale from a web based listing service. Their brokers are no different than and any other except they have the marketing tool of the Cabelas website. I looked over the Montana Cabelas site and they don't have a lot of ten and twenty million dollar ranches that really attracts the big money such as Ted Turner. Every land real estate ad I look at (here and elsewhere) talks about the wildlife. Why are we just focusing on this one event in Central Montana. Why don't we look over the state? How many of you were mailed a flyer from the real estate brokers Hall and Hall (another one of those notorious real estate companies - only this one blatantly lies about conservation) about the Ameya Preserve. This "preserve" is a MAJOR WILDLIFE CORRIDOR from Yellowstone Park into Montana and is being - no other way to put it subdivided into tracts for the ultra rich. They call it a preserve where culture meets nature. Check out the website: http://www.ameyapreserve.com/ This subdivision will destroy the ecosystem in Paradise Valley. Who did the environmental evaluation to get this approved? And how much were they paid? This is a huge example of a beautiful private ranch going into subdivision. Cabela's didn't have anything to do with this. That gets back to my point to stop the subdivision we don't go to the real estate people we need to go to the people who make the rules and allows subdivisions to happen. Is this our county agencies or our legislature.


We need to find the answer so farmers and ranchers don't have to sell their property under the knife of subdivision. Any ideas?

What good is it to lay down terms of how we believe Cabelas Trophy Properties should do business in our state. That is like having a broken leg and putting a band aid on your knee. We might drive them out of the state but it will not stop the subdivision of our hunting and recreational lands.

In fact, as I read this back it would hurt us more than help. It would eliminate a competitor from the field of real estate. I know we all have a lot of respect for Cabelas (or we wouldn't be chastising them) and I would much rather look for property to buy from them on one website than have to go through the Montana Land Magazine and Newspapers every month. And when I get ready to sell my property I do want to get the most money for it I can get. I won't sell to a subdivider but who is to say who buys it from me won't. And I can tell you, I won't list with any Broker that tells me who, what and where I can sell my property. It is mine and won't be told I have sell to some one who will only put in a conservation easement or who will only put it into Block Management. That is a direct violation of my private property rights. So tell Cabelas to do something of more value for our wildlife and recreational programs than make their brokers tell me to go public with my land to get on their site.

I liked the idea of a Boone and Crocket type buyout. But that still doesn't stop subdivision. How many of you live in one?

Hey Bill,

I just want to thank you for reading and responding to those who commented. I often feel like these comment sections of online magazines are just to instigate fights among readers...the original writers rarely come back in and make attempts to further the discussion.

But you have and that speaks to your desire for a real conversation...so rare these days. Thanks.

lisa

Montana is huge in area, when you look at states and their size. But Montana is no big hunting state when it comes to opportunity to harvest game. Many, many smaller states have total animal harvests far in excess of Montana or any of the other Western states, for that matter.

The difference, is, that Montana offers a whole lot more diversity of big game, and way better scenery than those midwest states that harbor millions and millions of deer, some moose, fewer elk, and even wolves, black bear, and now cougars to go with a burgeoning coyote population.

The country outside the New West does not have half their state in public lands. So, it would appear that the biggest detriment to game animal numbers is the size of public land holdings. The greater the public land area, the fewer the opportunities to hunt. Look at Nevada. Something like 85% public land. You wait years to draw a deer tag, and a lifetime to draw an elk tag if you are a resident. Non-residents have even fewer chances. But in States in the Midwest and East, people just don't shoot enough game animals to keep the populations in check, and it is not for trying. Most hunting is on private land, and it must be that all that edge around ag lands, the brush draws and small timber patches, are just the right habitat to have good game populations.

On the other hand, the vast public land areas that are getting more and more crowded with hunters, provides poorer and poorer habitat for game each passing year. All the areas that will grow trees are kept timbered by intent and management, and there is less and less edge except where public land meets private land. We all know where the animals spend hunting season.

Predators in the West are protected from humans to a degree never before experienced by either the animals or humans. As a result, predation is taking a greater toll on animals in the New West than in most of the US east of the Rockies. There are even states in the NEw WEst that don't allow hunting of some predators which is new to mankind over its history on this earth.

So the habitat is no longer managed for game animals or human food, and predators are protected and allowed to consume a great numbers of the game animals. That recipe is a bird watcher's delight, and has raised billions of dollars from people who are trying hard to divest themselves of the meat eating part of their being that is their heritage. Protecting prey and predators alike, from any human populations controls, is a real good deal for an unfettered predator population, but it is now really getting hard on big game animals which are dropping below critical mass in some habitats.

Oregon DFW just trapped and transplanted bighorn sheep that had occupied habitat along the I-84 freeway along the Columbia River. First, the reason was that they caused people to look at them and some idiots stopped on the side of the freeway to look at them. Nobody ever got in a wreck, but it was supposed to be a traffic hazard. Then the excuse was that the sheep were above carrying capacity for their isolated habitat. Translation: cougars had yet to find them, or all that traffic was a deterent. So ODFW came up with a third reason. They were easy to trap and were needed to augment a couple of sheep populations that had dropped in numbers to below critcal mass due to cougar predation. Translation: the sheep were transplanted to feed cougars, with the hopes the locals could survive until some sanity came to the general human population about not allowing cougars or bears to be hunted using dogs. If you notice the thread through all this, you will understand that it is not the game that is being managed, but humans. Highway gawkers, would be hunters, ODFW jobs, and nothing about the sheep. The sheep are just a reason for humans to exist to manage humans.

The Cabelas and Orvis commerce expansion efforts are little more than that. The people with enough money to buy anything they want, and it appears that the likes of a Ted Turner is doing just that, will buy anything they want, and once they own it, it will be managed their way. If there is enough difference in managers on the Big Dough Ranches of Montana, there will be diversity on the land. Some things will work, and others will not. A buyer might be a great lawyer or investment banker or money manager, but that will never guarantee the new owner will succeed or the ranch will hold their attention for very long. The ownership will change, and that is the history of heavy duty money buying ranches for the last two centuries. Public land hunting opportunity will be limited not by the number of people who want to hunt, but by the mismanagement of the habitat, ongoing, that will provide so little game to hunt. The result is always lower bag limits and shorter seasons, and that goes for both private and public lands. A two day elk season by draw on a one chance in 40 of drawing a tag, for public land or private, will diminish the value of the ranch to absentee owners, and they will sell sooner than later. Unless, of course, they get the law changed to allow them to have x number of tags for y number of acres owned. At that point it will become the English model of owned access to any fish or game. PETA will get public land hunters off the land long before private land owners get the boot on hunting, however.

We can all sit around the campfire singing "Kumbaya" with Orivs and Cabelas execs, but federal land management decisions will make or break free hunting on public land. No game, no hunting. And if all the critters are on private land, I just guess that the groceries and security are better there most of the year. And if you want a piece of that action, you had to have been in the lucky sperm club long ago, or you have had to make a load of dough and have enough surplus you can ranch until most of the money is gone.

We can't stop the inflow of money buying private land. Just as we have the priviledge to hunt we also have the priviledge of selling and buying land how and when we want.

If private land is going out of public production is there any that is going in to Block Management that has been private?

We can whine all we want about the animals not belonging to the landowner but instead of treating the landowner with contempt because he doesn't want us or our hunting buddies ATV'ing his property, cutting his fences, or shooting his cows and horses. Or even worse having his neighbor call about the tresspassing on his property. The negotiations lie with the landowners. Some of the bigger ranches in the state allow public hunting but on their own terms. Dearborn, Sieben. This works for me - if I get a tag I can usually get in. But again it is controlled and I don't have to worry about getting ready to take a shot and a pickup comes roaring over the hill scattering my targets from hell to breakfast. If you have hunted many of the block management areas lately you know the only thing left to shoot is each other. The hunting pressure has increased ten fold with no proper management from the FWP.

There is alot of BLM land that is land locked within ranches that is not accessable for hunters. Why not have the BLM sell all those pieces and buy a prime hunting and recreation area in the state?

The FWP and MWF need to research better management instead of wasting time and money on Cabelas and Orvis.

Those of you that do not ranch and only hunt are looking at this on one side only. By demanding that Orvis and Cabelas bow down and make demands on their brokers to make more requirements for the sellers and buyers of property will only breed contempt from the landowner towards the hunter. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Jorden Thomas it is rather under whelming and disingenuous for you to claim that hunters are "...treating the landowner with contempt because he doesn't want us or our hunting buddies ATV'ing his property, cutting his fences, or shooting his cows and horses." If you have to create a strawman to support your argument, then you don't have much. Your false claim has not been my motivation, and nor does it appear to be for others who have objected.

It seems to me that your bread is buttered by these deals and you don't want any interference.

There is no strawman, in all these comments from the last few weeks there is very little from the landowner. Marion from Wyoming got stomped on. In reading all this the basic gets down to public access and how we can get the landowner to put more of his land back into public production. We can't do it by trying to put more regulations on him.

The Montana Stockgrowers Association http://www.mtbeef.org/ is meeting in Billings this next weekend - why not pose the problem of public access to them and what their take is on how we can work with the landowners. There are other ranching and land organizations - it just seems we can complain on how we want it to be but how about going to the those that make the decisions to open their land.

The PUBLIC shoved wolves up the fannys' of stockmen. Put many on the brink of insolvency. The PUBLIC ranted about greedy ranchers and grass stealers, and has made considerable headway at getting ranchers off summer range on public land. The PUBLIC has soiled, trespassed, and caused legitimate ranching entities endless problems in pollution and road damage and lost livestock when allowed on private land, and then the PUBLIC says they should better monitor who is using their land and control the hunters better. The best way is a lock on the gate. Cheapest, too. Takes the least effort. And least effort is what the PUBLIC seems to want. Easy harvest, close to the road, at no cost. Dream on, PUBLIC.

So why would any thinking person believe that private landowing livestock producers would give a whit about the PUBLIC'S problem of access to game that eats private grass for no pay, and when their cows eat public grass, it is always about subsidized greedy ranchers raping our public heritage on the cheap and they should pay way more? Holy damn, people, the ranchers are on public land in the growing season, a very short growing season, and they are making the grasses tiller and produce and stay succulent throughout the summer, and making it available and palatable to to game animals after the grazing season is over and livestock has been moved to lower, private ground, where they winter 8 or months of the year on feed grown during the summer on the home place.

And even in this discussion, ranchers continue to get beat up by the envious people in town, most making more money than the rancher, who somehow believe that their access to private property to get at public game is some sort of God given right. NOT! Get a life. It will take 20 years of good works by the PUBLIC to begin to gain any trust from ranchers who have been demeaned, belittled, impugned, spat on, sued, and otherwise crapped on by the public since the Greenies gained power with the left. If you want public ownership, go shoot sheep in some 'Stan country or elk in Siberia or Mongolia or moose in Scandinavia. There is plenty of public ownership there. Tell us if the game is available to the public at little cost and effort. Please, we anxiously await your reply.

Jorden Thomas, of course there is. To me you typify the folks gladhander that looks a person in the eye, smiles, shakes hands, pees on the persons shoes all at the same time and swears he's not doing it. You insulted all hunters (bow hunters included) with your strawman with the slob disrespectful attributes without knowing any of us who have stated our objections here. But yet you swear you aren't doing it.

For those you observe breaking the hunting laws do you call it in?

1-800-TIPMONT

I'm all for revoking hunting privileges until such time as an offender completes a hunting re-education program. 3 strikes and gone forever is OK by me.

I believe bearbait has hit a home run with his comments.

I haven't seen it yet but I was told Max Baucus has legislation tacked on to the energy bill to buy 161 million worth of private Montana land to put back in public access specifically fishing properties. This may not be exactly accurate but it is worth checking into.

I was also told the owners of the Weaver Ranch in Central Montana had already taken their property out of Block Management before it was sold. The new subdividers didn't take it out they just didn't put it back in. The FWP should have this fact.

Bill, thank you for your columns on this issue. I have dumped both my Orvis and Cabela's catalogues(As well as deleted the website bookmarks) and plan to no longer do business with either one.

I will not support companies that directly contribute to rural sprawl anywhere, let alone an incredible place like Montana.

Bearbait, you have it backwards. There are far more opportunities to hunt on public land, and the habitat is far superior on public land.

Bearbait - You also talked about how Montana has a much better variety of big game. That's due to the rich wildlife habitat that is still intact (roadless areas on public land) compared to back east.

I, "mike" with a little m, am a stockman, although I prefer the term cattleman and nobody "shoved wolves up" any of my parts; I welcomed their arrival and truly haven't had too much trouble from them because I raise the right kind of cattle to address the situation. With that said, however, I share some resentment of people who waste their own money on games and toys, never bother to earn/save to buy a place of their own and then "somehow believe that their access to private property to get at public game is some sort of God given right." As I have said before, I am not there to provide people with an amusement park, nor am I their garbage clean-up crew after their hunting party and I emphasize the term "party."

I don't like the subdividing of open lands and am not really comfortable with the industrialized brokerage activities of Orvis, Cabela's, and such. At the same time, I also have a problem with people who preach lazy fare unregulated capitalism when it applies to themselves, defiantly crow the sanctity of their own private property rights, spout libertarian nonsense, badmouth efforts at zoning and stream setbacks and the like, and disdain my efforts, and others, to protect public lands; then get on here and bash Orvis and Cabela's for doing what they, themselves, would do if they had only inherited enough money to put them in that position.

I used to see NewWest as often being a bit like a "ship of fools." In this case, it looks more like a "hotel for hypocrites."

See: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2007/12/09/news/30elk09.txt

Thank you for Cabela's and others for pouring gasoline on this fire with your self interest.

So FWP/MWF want Cabela's to put money into the BMA program and then turn heads on real problem...game ranches,high fences to fence wildlife in, a public land and a wildlife grab.That outfit doesn't speak for me and hunters of Montana.

Bob,

I concur. In this case good fences does not make good neighbors

WOW! I don’t know where to start except to call it like it is! I’m a back country hunter, a wildlife conservationist, a family man and foremost a red blooded American. I was jaw dropped after reading your article; not to mention the belittling reference about Cabela’s spokesperson being a “bone head”? Nice approach, I can’t imagine why it took so long for them to officially respond? Talk about desecrating your own brand. That’s just what this county needs is more negative, mud slinging media that sells, in addition to an uneducated columnist becoming a politician to further diminish private property rights. Shame on you! Here’s a newsflash for you folks. We live in a country based on capitalism, not socialism. I have never dealt with a private property owner whom is looking to “negatively” impact our rural, agricultural and hunting lands or waterways! On the contrary, they are hard working, family oriented conservationists whom want a place to escape the rat race just like you. They’re not heathens, villains nor “bone heads”. They’re people whom care about the environment, wildlife habitat and are willing to risk, invest and protect their cause. 99.9% are sick of picking up empty beer cans, poachers and having their experience ruined by late night partying hunters and speeding ATV’s. Your issue is with society, and the lack of trust it presents, not Cabela’s Trophy Properties. Why don’t you allow the public access to your home? It’s your private property, and you’re a promoter of such? I suspect it to be the same reasoning. You still have the right to ask permission to access private property, and the right to allow people whom you learn to trust into your home. Especially if they’re respectable, willing to pick up after themselves and watch out for your best interest. Helping out with the chores also goes a long way, not just granting access. You shouldn’t expect that everything in this world should be given to you. If you want it, earn it. It’s just that simple. Your other problem is with the local governing agencies in your state. When referring to hunters and anglers potentially losing access everywhere; don’t include me, nor hold Cabela’s liable for Montana’s poor public land management. The state and voters of Montana have everything to do with that, nobody else. Why don’t you start barking at your state governments’ door. Is there a law in Montana that says your government can’t buy land or incentives to delegate private land for public use? The Cabela’s real estate program will only help support your exact cause in other parts of the country. I reside in Oregon, where governing land use laws dictate the splitting and development of lands, not Cabela’s, not the land buyers, nor the real estate brokers. Oregon is the state of the Spotted Owl, radical environmental movements and continuous anti hunting controversies; Over 50% of Oregon’s land is federally owned, while the BLM owns an additional 16 million acres. Of the 20% +/- privately held portion, much of it is owned by large timber companies also accessible to the public. When additionally subtracting the high density cities from that, only a small overall percentage of private rural and agricultural lands exist in this state. Of the private portion referred, we have zonings, land use laws and sensitive to wildlife habitat overlays restricting higher density development put in place by county and state governments. Our ODFW biologists and land use planners have years of research to logically support their cause. Several years ago I personally witnessed a group of anti hunting eco-terrorists running through the woods smashing metal trash can lids together to scare away the game near my public hunting land. Welcome to America! Public land has its pro’s and con’s. Americans have the right to purchase their own property and to legally use it for the purpose in which they bought it. Quit supporting the communist traits this country is already heading toward. In case you didn’t know, there aren’t many buyers out there whom can afford to purchase a 7000 acre tract of land in Montana’s prime hunting area. However, there are a lot people out there whom are looking for a 200 acre tract to get away from people like you, telling them what they can and can’t do with their money, business and private property! When Montana sells out, it sounds like you would fit in well here with the other entire extremist telling folks what they can and can’t do with their lives! But as far as I’m concerned, people like you aren’t welcome here. We already have plenty.

Thomas - Ted Nugent and the Blue Ribbon Coalition couldn't have said it any better.

Both have no use for public lands and open spaces.

Welcome Cabela's to Oregon then. What will 'the right people' hunt jackrabbitts? No game there you won't see Cabela's they want it here in Montana. Lumber Co's don't own public land.Cabela's is a public land, public wildlife grab don't shop Cabela's not even in Billings,Montana.