TELL US WHAT HAS REALLY CHANGED
Montana Wildlife Federation Wants More Assurances from Cabela’s
What has really changed since controversy over Cabela's amenity land marketing business erupted a year ago?
By Bill Schneider, 12-03-08
A few weeks ago, I revisited the controversy over Cabela’s Trophy Properties (CTP). Shortly thereafter, with November 12 letter, the Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF), the state’s largest group of hunters and anglers with 7,200 members, did the same.
In the heat of another hunting season, asked MWF, Executive Director Craig Sharpe, what has really changed since controversy over Cabela’s amenity land marketing business erupted a year ago.
“We believe it is time to re-engage with Cabela’s and evaluate outcomes of prior communications,” Sharpe wrote to Gregg Severinson, Director of CTO. “We are asking for help in understanding what Cabela’s is doing differently than a year ago.”
One thing is obviously different, Sharpe noted. “We are concerned that Cabela’s Trophy Properties is now marketing three times as many properties in Montana since we last communicated, around 180 properties are now listed in comparison to 60-70 a year ago.”
Sharpe also included a list of specific questions such as how many properties were in Montana’s Block Management Program (a state-run access program), were sold and then subdivided, and had negotiated conservation easements, and asked what furthers steps had been taken to preserve historical and traditional uses of the properties, something Cabela’s promised to do.
Sharpe quoted Joe Arterburn, Corporate Communications Manager for Cabela’s, as saying his company would “safeguard our nation’s outdoor heritage and serve as an advocate for sportsman and women who share the same passion for our natural resources and their historical value and uses,” and then asked what policies Cabela’s has instituted in its CTP program to make sure this happens.
Arterburn told NewWest.Net that the company is working on a reply to Sharpe’s letter. When I get it, I’ll update this article.
For an entire series of articles on the Cabela’s controversy, click here.
I become more suspicious of the MWF every year. Fence-riding is not the position to take if you really represent sport hunting,public land access and access to the public wildlife resource.Anything controversial the MWF can't be found like the wildlife unfriendly fence issue! You should know it is always the few people who ruffle the feathers and take the heat that get something done not an organization. Remember the state Land access Law suit MWF? The MWF came in after the battle was won and took credit ..for what? You didn't donate a single dime to the attorney! You are naive MWF the Cabelas objective is clear and even to the casual observer.They want to 'privatize' the public wildlife resource,provide hunting for the chosen few and prevent public access to/on public lands.I don't want to hunt on their little piece of private land. I want to hunt on my public BLM and public state land. Do you even look at the maps MWF?I have them I contacted BLM on the Lewistown and got them a year ago on Cabelas caper next to the Missouri Breaks there, did you? I have all the maps including the so-called grazing allotments. Large blocks of public land,our land. Over 1/2 of the so called ranch is public land,our land about 13,000 acres BLM and state leases. Also 13 reservoirs,BLM for waterfowl hunting. If you do have the maps you will see how much public land is associated with these so-called "working ranches".Here is the scam MWF. Buy the family farm with wildlife on it, run a few cows to retain the grazing privileges on the state leases and BLM. That way you can control public access.You are not really in the ranching business and you have no intention to be. Next begin building high fence with big game animals inside. Build you own antelope herd for example. Advertize for hunting for the right people including bird hunting. If you are good at scams you can get a landowner permit and landowner preference in the drawings for big game. If you are really clever you can get an outfitter licence with set-a side NR licenses in Montana. Play the game with FWP like you are providing access for hunters, your hunters. Get the givaway block management dough from FWP.Allow a few Montana hunters to hunt(walk around) where no game is,thats 13K in your pocket. You have the best areas set aside for your clients. Also the so-called ranch will receive those agriculture subsidy checks, that always comes in handy.
It is people like Bill here that will 'ruffle feathers' to get to the truth and put these corporations feet to the fire. The MWF cannot agree on the time of day alone pursue something controversial. Put the heat on BLM and DNRC about the so called grazing on the so called ranches.They should not receive the grazing privileges since they are not in a legitimate ranching busisines. Refer to the Federal Range Code rules and state lease statutes. Remember without the public land our land they have no ranch at all!! So will the big wigs from Cabela's fly into Helena again in corporate jets to meet/dine with the MWF and FWP for another slick deal? Sounds like the bailout in Washington. Leave the public out and 'especially' the hunting public not MWF members,the trouble makers...clever. You don't speak for me.
Did FWP send back the last pay off check approved by the MWF of 30K to Cabela's? Is Cabela's a member of the MWF? Cabela's real easte deals will destroy our state and public hunting opportunities. No block Mgt. to Cabela's FWP don't pee away our sportsmens money!
If Cabela's is really interester in preserving Montana's outdoor heritage they should agree to fund conservation easements that include public access on an equal number of properties that they broker and are sold. A one for one arrangement would be appropriate. Sell 5,000 acres/ place a permenant con. easement on another 5,000 acres to be administered by the MT FW&P;.
John Gibson
It's all about public land control John we don't need easements on our public land.
Comment By Jack, 12-04-08Typo corrections for the record:"advertise","estate'.
Comment By John Gibson, 12-05-08We need easements on private land that is blocking access to public land. We can kill two birds with one stone if we could convience Cabelas to aquire easements on these properties blocking access to our public land.
Comment By Jack, 12-05-08We need new small one track road around the private land(Cabela's) that connects to other public roads. We need BLM and DNRC to provide access to and on our public land. We don't need Cabela's private land at all, not at all. Cabelas wants our public land more than we want or need their private land for hunting. Without our public lands Cabela's doesnt even have a so-called ranch.Public land is what Cabelas real estate wants.Don't you know they advertise they have public land on the 'so called ranch' under their control? I have spoke to BLM about a new road as well.I have spoken to them about fences as well,only wildlife friendly fences.I have been to the area as well, have you John? Cabela's cannot fence our wildlife in or prevent free access to and from public lands of big game animals. Easements are breaking the sportsmens coffer right now.We need the money to PURCHASE winter range for big game. Now FWP wants a $300.000 easement on the Royal Teton Ranch and to fence big game animals and wild bison in all illegal. Easements are expensive and a give-away with nothing in return.The public really got ripped off recently on the Pumpkin Creek Land Exchange of BLM.We are loosing our public land concentrate on that. I have no desire to hunt on Cabela's worthless land.
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/montana_wildlife_federation_wants_more_assurances_from_cabelas/C41/L41/