Ameya Preserve, Part IV

Private Property, Public Access and Montana Values

By David Nolt, 12-22-07

Editor's Note: This is the fourth installment of a series about the proposed Ameya Preserve development near Livingston, Montana.

• Click here to read Part I
• here for Part II
• here to read Part III
• here to read Part V

	Spring on the Ameya Preserve overlooking Wineglass Mountain, coveted hunting terrain.

The arguments over wildlife habitat and the sale of state sections to the Ameya Preserve are part and parcel of a more emotional issue: whether the development is in tune with Montana "values."

Despite all their efforts to be sensitive to the community, the developers have committed more than a few faux pas and are paying for it. Following the contentious land sale meeting with the county commissioners, Dokken wrote a lengthy response in the Livingston Weekly in which he accused his critics as having “class envy… directed at people who have had more success in life… Perhaps they were smarter. Perhaps they worked harder. Perhaps they were more ambitious. Perhaps they managed their money better,” Dokken wrote.

The remark resulted in nearly two weeks full of incensed letters to the editor in the local daily paper, and though Dokken apologized - saying the remarks were taken out of context and only directed at two critics - his reputation here hasn’t been the same since.

There are also passages in Ameya literature such as “spirited angling for native brown trout” (brown trout are not native to Montana) or providing “access to private heli-skiing in the Absaroka Wilderness Area” (not legal), which seem to reveal a disconnect with the area. Though Dokken knew about the brown trout error this summer, it stayed on the Ameya website until late November. When a local conservation group informed the Ameya team about the illegality of heli-skiing in a wilderness area, the developers changed it to heli-skiing in the “surrounding national forest,” but have since retracted the helicopter claims altogether.

Ameya promotional materials even indicated Ameya residents would be allowed to play biologists through a partnership with the Wildlife Biology Department at the University of Montana: "We intend to tag our bears, lions, wolves, moose and elk and allow residents to follow the migration and hibernation patterns from their homes at Ameya Preserve or their primary homes.”

However, the department director Dan Pletscher says the partnership fizzled because the parties couldn’t agree “on the finer points.”

“You can’t do that [tag wildlife] just for fun,” Pletscher says.

Part I: Conservation, Development & Class Conflict: The Case of Ameya Preserve Part II: The Rural Subdivision, Deluxe Part III: Montana State Land for Sale Part IV: Private Property, Public Access and Montana Values Part V: The Race to House the Super-Rich

And then there is the issue of public access. Montana has the nation’s strongest law protecting public access to rivers and streams, and while no similar law applies to land, all public lands are open to hiking and – most crucially – hunting. There is also a tradition in Montana of ranchers allowing hunting access (though the truth is that some do, and some don't).

Dokken has repeatedly called Ameya a “private national park.” Such a statement is an oxymoron to Montanans who cherish the public value of two national parks within the state’s borders.

"There appears to be a disconnect between how Ameya and local Montana residents value wildlife and public land," says Tom Lemke of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "It may not make good business sense to Ameya, but to many folks in Montana, wildlife and public land resources are more valuable than dollars and cents alone. They really are."

Dokken has tried to address these issues too, citing the allowance of 75 hunters on his property last season when Lemke requested Dokken to allow hunting.

“We have more public hunting than any private property in Paradise Valley,” Dokken insists. “It sounds like we’re pretty responsive to me.”

In 2007 there were 475 hunter use days on Ameya property. While it is hard to get exact numbers on public hunter access on private land, Bob Anderson – who lives near Ameya on Trail Creek – allowed 614 hunter use days on his property in 2006, according to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP).

	“We have more public hunting than any private property in Paradise Valley,” Dokken insists. “It sounds like we’re pretty responsive to me.”

In the summer of 2006 Dokken contacted Hayes Goosey, president of the Park County Rod & Gun Club (an affiliate organization of the Montana Wildlife Federation), about organizing a bow-hunting program at Ameya in time for the 2006 hunting season. Goosey says although he was hesitant, he thought if the program was set up right the ends would justify the means of working with developers.

Goosey and Dokken began to formulate a bow-hunting program, but due to increased pressure to allow hunting from the MFWP that fall, Dokken called Goosey – “almost panicked,” according to Goosey – wanting rifle hunters at Ameya the next day.

“He wanted access only to club members but limited the days to hunt to three days a week,” Goosey recalls. “He didn’t want to upset the outfitters.”

Goosey responded by saying his organization would not come in to play “clean-up” and asked Dokken to allow the public 51 percent of the hunting access.

“He kind of approached it as, ‘If your club wants on the gravy train, these are the things you’re going to have to do,’” Hayes says.

Hayes then presented Dokken’s proposal to members of the Rod & Gun Club, who were not interested. Soon after, Dokken began sending Goosey hunting permission slips, which did not sit well with the sportsman; he wanted to further involve the public and the MFWP.

“What you’re doing is completely against what our group stands for,” Goosey told Dokken, which prompted the developer to offer Goosey one more chance “to avail yourself,” according to Goosey. Goosey declined.

“For true conservation, you need public access,” Goosey asserts. “You can’t have a perpetual conservation of land without having people who are interested in conservation. How do you draw interest in that conservation without access to it?”

When asked about the sale of the state sections, Goosey responds, “Once you sell that land, it’s gone. You don’t just come in and buy our lands with the full intention of subdividing them.”

The access issue also arises in relation to Dokken's pledge to put most of the property in a conservation easement. Such easements carry big tax breaks; a property owner can basically take the difference between the value of the land with full development rights and the value of the land if it can't be developed as a tax deduction on both the federal and state level. Easements have become a major tool for conservation in the West, but some argue the tax subsidy should come with a requirement to allow at least some public access.

Dokken seemed to imply early on that he would allow public access to parts of Ameya, but a one-off deal with the Livingston Rod & Gun Club is not what access advocates had in mind. Once again, by allowing even a few hunting permits Dokken is going beyond what is required, but it may be not far enough to win true local support.

Editor's Note: This is the fourth installment of a series about the proposed Ameya Preserve development near Livingston, Montana. (Click here to read Part I, click here to read Part II, here to read Part III, and here for Part V. [End of article]

This past hunting season, our club (The Park Co. Rod and Gun Club) again approached Dokken about public hunting access on Ameya. It has always been our goal to encourage him into a FWP block management program. Again Dokken tried to bribe our club with exclusive hunting access, even stating in an email to me that if our club would write letters to the editor of the Livingston Enterprise newspaper supporting Ameya "it would be greatly appreciated" eluding that our club would be compensated in some fashion. The PCR&GC;declined this exclusive access which would no doubt expire as soon as Dokken used our club for his, and his alone, means. He contacted me again, in an almost challenging fashion, stating he had his property enrolled in FWPs block management program. Some simple checking on my part revealed that to be not true...a fabrication on Dokkens part to give the appearance that he was interested in something other than himself and his 'private national park'. He still promotes privatization of the public's resources through exclusive outfitting and bully tactics aimed more at disruption than true stewardship of the land.

Wade Dokken is not interested in Park Co. or in sustainable, environmental development (oxymoron). He is not interested in protecting wildlife habitat or traditional heritage of the lands. He is not interested in providing conservation through reasonable public access or even being a productive member of any community. He is not versed in the concept of what a firm hand shake means to most Montanans. In his mind, he is an elegant peacock showing his plumage to the whos in whoville. To the rest of us, he is a barnyard bird building mud nests out of dung.

My experiences with Wade Dokken are simplistic in nature due to his transparent objectives of making money at all costs. If this statement finds me me guilty of class envy...so be it.

Perhaps FWP could accommodate Mr. Dokken and declare his 'private national park' CLOSED to all hunting.

By the way, it looks like he's betting his $2000 on Hillary Clinton. http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Dokken&fname=Wade&search=Search

For what its worth Bill Schenider wrote a multi-part series about Cabela's Trophy Properties and touched upon many of the same issues. Lot's of discussion there. Ameya is not the only one to be concerned about but the interests of Mr. Dokken appear thinly veiled given all of the additonal detail. Thank you David and Hayes Goosey.

My hope is that FWP will be more assertive in managing the sovereign's animals for the sustainable enjoyment of the people. Having Governor Schweitzer 'on board' would seem to help turn this thing around. If not, perhaps he doesn't intend to run again and merely retire to his own million dollar gated community lake home situated on a piece of Montana heaven.

Gosh, Craig, I'm sure no supporter of Wade Dokken or his attempt to make a run on a cheap purchase of public lands to incorporate into his development; but, I am an advocate for consistency and a foe of hypocrisy. In that context, I recall that you weren't nearly as concerned about government being "more assertive in managing the sovereign's animals for the sustainable enjoyment of the people" when you were defending Rex Rammell's defiance of state regulations in connection with his elk shooting pen operation in Idaho. I sure don't remember you voicing any opposition to Rex keeping "his 'private national park' CLOSED to all hunting." Was that because of his party affiliation or were there other "principles" involved that I missed.

mike, blessings of the Season to you. May you receive a sharper eye and more discering intellect.

Last year you tried to erroneous tag me as a defender of Rex Rammell. See:http://www.newwest.net/main/article/red_deer_genes_confirmed/

There is a major difference between Rammell's private property herd of privately owned elk and the sovereign's animals that roam Dokken's land. Completely different interests at play require different approaches to the issues.

Now, I'll bet David would appreciate you staying on topic and not resort to our usual and predicatable digression into personal nastiness.

mike, I know you read this but it was unimportant to your rant. Read Bill's column: http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/game_farms_will_we_learn_our_lesson_before_it_is_too_late_or_is_it_already/

>>>>>>>>>
By Craig Moore, 9-15-06
I don't have a position on this matter either way, other than if the Rammell broke the law he should be held to account...
<<<<<<<<

Unless Ameya is to become a private game preserve with privately owned animals I don't think your comparison of Rex Rammell to Wade Dokken holds up.

Mr. Dokken claims his Ameya subdivision to be a "green" operation. I don't care how many trees you plant in North Dakota, it will never make up for the destruction of the critical winter range in Montana. There are lots of places to plant trees and very little critical winter range for elk and deer. The price put on the two state sections was $3.9 million. A pretty sum until you find that he is going to sell one lot for $2 million. He would only have to sell two lots to make up the cost of the two sections of State Land. As near as I can tell, the only green thing he is interested in can be folded and put in his pocket.

Profits are taxed and government works. America. That be who we are. I have not known anyone who has hunted in a National Park, and Dokken is probably correct in his analogy. But, he did let people hunt, which does not happen in National Parks, unless, of course, you are a "sharpshooter" killing elk in the Rocky Mountain National Park. Government can do it better than the public. Comforting, that, knowing the government is telling us they are better at killing than the public. Makes you want to keep the Second Amendment.

All over the U.S. people build in wetlands, and then have to buy wetland mitigation land from willing private sellers. So what is impossible about having winter range mitigation land? In fact, if you want to build on any open space, you should have to provide winter ground mitigation land somewhere for that privilege. That would surely double the price of property and keep the hoi poloi out. Would that make a ranch whole again or what? I see people out here taking hydric soils out of ag and building a berm and calling them wetland mitigation lands. That gets you money from Uncle to create, and then you sell portions to people who need to mitigate. Wonderful concept. A great way to exit farming in crummy ground and let the swells in town build on the former duck marsh. Ain't America great? Mitigation. Mediation. Multiplication. We got the answers if you got the problems.

A lot of people who have had monetary success of late did so without a lot of social skills, real public awareness (they spent all too much time studying and then working to socialize). Perhaps there should be a Park county sponsored cultural awareness class for prospective land purchasers. Teach the nerds who ended up with too much money how to act in the local economy and culture. FITTING IN 101..Becoming part of the local community...instructor TBA...meeting in the wine room at Chico. How to come from elsewhere and not totally piss off the locals.

The ecoadvocate people still are pursuing a snapshot of their favorite environment, and it keeps changing. Not knowing that it will change as surely as the sun will come up in the morning, is perhaps their greatest shortcoming. Worse, thinking that a committee of humans can control that process is another MacMansion built sitting upon a sand foundation on the banks of a great freestone trout river. Great view, river access, and a sure bet some future spring runoff will move the house closer to the ocean on one side of the Continental Divide or the other. You hear the phrase "herding cats." People can be much more obstinate and unforgiving. Look at Afghanistan.

The ecoadvocates have driven the process of tax breaks for conservation easements. As usual, they have managed to have left handed financial support for their programs---tax payers put up the money for Dokken, et al, to claim the conservation easement. The higher the valuation for the developed ground, the larger the deduction for the "conserved" land. When the devil is found in the details, ecoadvocates all whine to the same tune about rich guys, knowing full well it is rich guys who fund their every lawsuit and appeal. It is what they proposed, and there are unintended consequences they are not prepared to live with. The rancher has to live without public graze, with wolves, and that is dismissed as deserved. Dokken is their creation. It is up to them to mold his ways to their liking or get the laws changed, and again be dealing with unintended consequences, uncomfortable as they may be.

1200 acres of winter habitat can be replaced or moved. It really can. Habitats and ecosystems move all the time. It is called seral stage development in forests. Make lemonade. All it takes is some sugar. You already have the lemon.

If Dokken likes money I hope he has a fall back position. He has spent a bunch of bucks and so far and is no where with a very wild eyed dream. I would guess that he is in trouble with his development. If the critics get nothing else out of this they may have lots of fun watching him flounder around with a failing or very unlikely development. It takes a bunch of folks willing to dump $2,000,000 for a speculative lot in a troubled developmemt.
Most people with that kind of change don't like to buy into trouble and start out at odds with the community. I know a few people with that kind of money and they would want to be part of the community and not an outcast in it. We have some with big money living in Paradise Valley now and they mostly fit in and most people don't know who they are. They look and act like the rest of us. If you don't want the true Montana experience you might as well stay home!

Test me: Several millionaires eat quite regularly in the Old Saloon. If you don't know who they are-try to pick them out. Good Luck!

Goosey,
Very well done! Your stance and steadfastness to hunter ethics and principals represents the majority of us in our state. Keep telling this bum (because it doesn't matter how much money he has, he's a freakin' bum) to go to hell.

Class envy, Dokken?
Bet I can kick your ass, and that's good enough for me.

You're the man, Goosey! When I read about people like you, my despair for the future of Montana is suspended. If more Montanans were like you, it would disappear altogether.

Quite simply wealthy transplants are ruining Montana. I lived in the Flathead and have seen firsthand what these people are about. The have a sense of entitlement that would make the worst welfare queen blush! Send them packing back to where they came from!!

Hi folks,

I am still new around here but I've been a flash designer for almost two years. I recently created a new layout for my replica site <a > http://www.replica-handbags-shop.com</a> , and I would really like some reviews from you folks. Please write honest comments! Positive and Negative reviews would be equally appreciated!

Please pay attention to the header. I worked really hard on it

Shalom

I join & happy i did.
It looks like a very cool place!!!

I moved here from TX .

Before moving i found this site <a >Movers and realtors</a> it helped me all the way from finding a house to a movers & even my mortgage broker was listed in the great source.
I thought i will share it with you all :-)

Anyway, It is great to be back in NJ!!!!!

I am looking for some great action.


<a >Relocation Directory</a>

BTW, I HAVE USED <a > moving quotes</a>

I am working on line saving money to people.....no i am not gieco :-)

I work as a director of business development for <a > BPO SERVICE</a>