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.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Happy Thanksgiving.
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!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Link? Link to the link? Linkety link link link?
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.
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...
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. :)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Regarding 'slob hunters' Idaho has been having success in removing a few: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21941345/
Again, I ask Marion what do you wish to do on public lands that you now cannot? please be specific.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Would you like to build more roads? At what point, in your mind, would there be too many roads?
By the way, what folks do with their private land is none of your business.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
--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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.