Bill, I think the answer is to transcend the ownership transfer and the parasites like Cabela's trying to make $$$$$$ from selling trophy animals on private access. These properties wouldn't have nearly the cache or premium value without the exclusivity to the wild animals. On your other column I mentioned a 50% solution. A private landowner would get half the season for his exclusive use. The other half the public would have access under rules and requirements put forth by FWP. I could see rules that mirror public access on BLock Management. If the owner didn't agree the entire landholding would be declared CLOSED for the season. In Montana the wild animals belong to the sovereign, and the state may regulate such resource to the benefit of everyone. I invite others to post their ideas as well on transcending this trend.

One other thing, "Goodbye Orvis!" Like Cabela's you used to be classy and a valued partner to the field sportsman. Now, you are another "ho, ho ho" just in time for Christmas.

A question I have is to what extent is Cabela's and Orvis contributors to Trout Unlimited. Just wondering considering the 'dust up' over TU being seen as backing away from supporting stream access for the common man in favor of supporting those outfitted with new Orvis and Cabela's gear.

Thanks for the head's up on Orvis. I've pushed Cabela's aside with letters and by returing their catalogs. I even went as far as to cancel my Cabela's credit card. I've never been a purchaser of Orvis goods but will never start. Companies like these, in my opinion, should not get a second chance. Cut ties and keep it that way.

Are you guys aware that there are some real estate brokers and firms out there in the world that rely heavily on a good conservation ethic in their business? Many promote conservation in their sales efforts and are very successful at it. By the way, conservation easement cannot be "mandatory" without destroying the deductibility of the reduction in fair market value.

Craig - do you view all real estate brokers as "parasites"?

Well, I think Orvis and Cabelas are going to judge this by their bottom line. If they make more by selling ground than they lose in revenues from MWF members, they'll keep on going.
I guess if the nose-ringer kooks can browbeat HoDepot and Lowes, plus Office Max and Staples into offering politically-correct wood, the Hunter and Angler Militia can take their shot....

Bill, the reason you can't understand why Orvis would take such a risk is because you're a journalist and Orvis is run by business people.

Dave - "nose ringer kooks" are not the only people who believe in sustainable wood harvest. There are many people you may classify as "normal" who understand that natural resources are finite. Trying to label all those who oppose unsustainable forestry practices as some kind of tree hugging hippies might have worked years ago but people are smarter now and don't buy that crap. You lose all credibility with this kind of generalization.

Also, there is nothing the "Hunters and Anglers Militia" can do that will stop the real estate industry. If you succeed in getting Orvis and others to close their real estate doors the listing will just end up down the block at Century 21 or some other firm.

One of the main organizations opposing Montana's Stream Access Law is the Realators Association. Why...because land is worth more if it can be sold with 'Private' access to rivers and streams. Conservation is achieved through access. Organizations like Cabelas and possibly Orvis sell their names to individuals who by default restrict access. Cabelas and the like as well as the realator does this all for one simple purpose, to fatten their pocket book. I'm not sure of what everyone's definition of a parasite is but when you screw the people, the fish and wildlife, the historical heritage, the traditional use of the land, the environment, the purity of a sport's reliance on access for money...you are a parasite!!! Business man or not you suck ass!!

There are many Realtors who STRONGLY oppose the position of their Association in regard to stream access!! Yes, land is worth more if it offers private access but it is very wrong to say that "conservation is achieved through access". Access is access and has nothing to do with conservation. In fact, many properties, from a conservation point of view, would be best conserved if people would just stay the hell off of them and let them heal from decades of misuse and abuse!!

Also, it is not the Realtor who restricts access... that is the new landowner's decision.

By the way, can you tell me the name of any "for profit" business whose purpose does not include profit? Personally, I seem to like it when my wallet is fat rather than skinny. I bet you do too.

Craig: Now you're saddling Orvis with TU's stream access nightmare? How clueless can you be?

I recently fought a stream access issue in my own county, and Orvis was the only fly fishing company to offer any help. So please stop with the whiny conspiracy theories. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The realtor association is not "one of the main organizations opposing Montana's Stream Access Law." That would be the Montana Farm Bureau and the Montana Stockgrowers Association since they represent farmers and ranchers that own property adjacent to streams and rivers. The realtors very lightly opposed SB79 last session (it was not testified or lobbied against) on the grounds that it was giving too much to those wanting the access. From what I understand, the Stream Access Law works a vast majority of the time. It's that minority of cases where landowners and outdoor enthusiasts have problems with access that has a select few hot under the collar. Of course, their concern of the outdoor enthusiasts is not for the present situation, it's what could happen if nonresidents continue to buy up ranches for playgrounds without an understanding of the folkways and mores of Montana. The Montana Stockgrowers developed a DVD for nonresident ranch owners to educate them on these cultural folkways and mores. The DVD was called "Owning Eden" and it can be viewed at http://www.pathtoeden.org/ . That project morphed into the "Path to Eden," which I believed is being spearheaded by the Rural Land Use Institute. The web site is http://www.pathtoeden.org/ . Here are the sponsors, which includes the realtors: http://www.pathtoeden.org/supporters.html . Obviously, education can often go a longer way than legislation.

Craig- I hate to be pessimistic but I don't think the 50% idea would ever fly here in Montana because of the high esteem that private property rights hold. Who would enforce this closure on private lands? We already don't have enough game wardens to cover the public land in Montana. And as it stands now, game wardens are not allowed on private property to enforce laws unless they are given permission or can readily observe a violation on private land from a vantage point on public land. I am sorry but you are really pushing an idea that, in reality, is unachievable without some major overhaul of the Montana state constitution and new precedents set through case law. It is not as simple as the FWP putting forth "rules and requirements". I commend you, however, for throwing solutions out there. I wish I had some.

Craig and Bill
I had been in the commercial real estate, banking and development business 32 years. Buy it, Cut it, Split it, Sell it, Build it, Pave it. All in the name of bank. My clients wanted it and I gave it to them. Cabela's, Orvis, Mossy Oak, Thank God Sports minded companies getting into a field dominated by Guy's that I once was. I now work with Sportspersons, Conservancies, Landowners all with the interest of preservation, conservation, habitat management and development of green properties. I make less $$$$$ and know its the best decision of my life. Take a look at the Real Estate ad on this page and tell me who's out for the $$$$$.

Now, Elfie, did I strike a nerve? ELF....you mean Earth Liberation Front?
And I doubt deeply you support wood harvest of any kind unless it involves sustained subsidy of loser projects. Further I must look askance at your comment about leaving streams alone, as in no fishing at all. That's indicative of how you probably feel about forestry, despite the reality that the landscape is in fact a cultural artifact with major historical HUMAN influence for thousands of years by Indians. The vegetative and animal makeup of much of North America was a direct function of deliberate Indian behavior. The white guys then took over, screwed it up in many ways, but there you go, human management, enlightened or not, key word being management.
As far as realtors who oppose private property rights, yes, there certainly are a good number who play both sides of the fents, selling selling selling the Montana dream while piously bemoaning its destruction. It's called the Janus Syndrome.
Stream access is a hot issue on those reaches where the streams are worth accessing. Some trophy buyer gets a guided trip on a stream one vacation and comes back later to score the stream for himself, paying a ridiculous price for it. But he can't get in there without elbowing aside Everyone Else.
Same thing goes for best hunting grounds. Tycoon 2 buys his ranch for a gazillion, he's not going to be enamored of Joe Riffraff asking on for free. I mean, Ted the Turner charges twelve grand a pop for "his" elk.
Finally, it is a good bet that the Cabelas and Orvis customers that avail themselves of these realty services are, almost without exception, going to be the loyal hard-core, high-dollar customers these companies have targeted themselves to. So I think Bill's basic premise is off the mark.

Again, why not make this a positive? Rather than jumping on these "easy target" companies to get out of the bad property selling business, why not nudge them towards getting into the good property business?

Why not suggest that you will continue to support Cabelas, Orvis, etc. once they choose only to endorse property sales that reflect a certain set of values?

It's quite easy for a seller to put conditions on a sale that provide for reasonable public access, limits future division and development, protects key habitats, etc., etc.

If a seller is willing to put those conditions on the property prior to sale, it "wins" a spot on the Cabelas trophy property list.

"Cabelas, Orvis, etc. will only endorse sales that meet the following criteria:" Then each sale could be accompanied by a public description of how that particular sale meets the criteria.

This would likely be good marketing tool for the companies and would strengthen their relationship with their customer base, rather than weaken it.

I sure would think twice about where to buy that next gizmo if I knew my purchase was going to support smart, private sector driven land conservation and hunting/fishing access.

Rather than alienate these potential powerful allies (and I know personally that Orvis is a very sincere supporter of fisheries conservation all over the world), why not create a solution?

TCWriter, I merely asked a question that, apparently, you don't want answered.

By the way Hal Herring wrote an article that appeared here last January. See: http://www.newwest.net/main/article/in_montana_a_clash_of_populism_and_property_rights/

Everyone should read it again, and the comments, in context with Bill's Cabela's and Orvis columns.

And one more thing....

Let's face facts. It's not the fault of these companies. It's our fault. We're the folks who live here. We're the ones letting "Montana" slip into oblivion because we're too afraid to put up some boundaries on the playing field.

The market is simply capitalizing on our failure to get off the bar stool and do anything about it.

We can't even build up enough steam to adopt decent set-backs on our rivers and streams. Instead its, "Oh, damn, some rich out of stater put in another trophy home in the flood plain." Of course they did. We give the market free reign and then cry in our beer when it tromples over our most valued possessions. Big surprise.

Anybody hear of "Land Use Planning and Regulation"? It's this cool little tool that citizens all over the world use to collectively decide how to manage private and public lands to conserve community values like open space, wildlife habitat, and development.

Shame on us. Not shame on some company in Nebraska.

TCWriter, I also direct you to Hal Herring's TU article: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/trout_unlimited_proposes_backing_out_of_stream_access_debate/C41/L41/

I would still like an answer to my TU-Orvis question if anyone has the answer.

Thanks for the links to Rural Landscape Institute.

This is informative re: legal mechanisms.

http://www.rurallandscapeinstitute.org/projects_opengates.php

James, 1-800-TIPMONT basically creates a Coast Guard Auxiliary for drylanders. That creates a lot of eyes in the field.

This article is very interesting to me because Orvis has begun a new real estate development here in Grand County. They bought land on the Colorado in Granby. I don't know much of the political side of it but this article was enough to be weary of it and to watch more carefully as their plans are made public.

Mark, the lack of local land use planning is a void that is causing a lot of problems for everyone.

I really feel all this is going after the wrong people. There are thousands of R.E. Agents/companies selling Montana. At least these companies are targeting outdoors/sports people and not the real problem (Developers). We all should unite and try to promote smart growth/conservation easements etc

GREAT!!! another company down the drains...sheesh

I want to see Pete Geddes and his pals at FREE wade into this issue. The crew here has already demonstrated the quite predictable divergence between their usual loudly espoused support for an unfettered free market system and where they stand when it's one of their favorite oxen being gored; but, the crew here are just crows. I want to see how some of the big demons rationalize the situation.

I have read 24 comments and they ALL avoid the real problem! Blame someone else is the common theme! The truth is that more and more private property will be bought and closed to the public because the public is destructive to other peoples property. If I buy my own access I can control it. There will be no shooting anything that moves including livestock. No more shooting rabbits. squirrels, cayote, fox, and other non game animals. No more garbage dumped or just thrown out of the windows. No more noxious weeds from the vehicles. No more 4 wheelers building their own roads thru the crops. the graze and everywhere else. No more drunken fights.
No more wild shots flying by the buildings. No more fawns, calves, does or cows shot and left. No more cut fences. No more toilet paper. No more signs and water tanks shot full of holes. No more ruts cut in dirt roads. The problem is impossible of solution so long as the public has a high percentage of disrespectful clods.

I read every post above and didn't see on person mention the private property rights of a landowner? The last I looked we lived in the United States of America and had property rights.

If I or you own property. Who has the right to tell us how we sell it, to whom we sell it, under what rights we sell it?? There is local zoning, etc, that governs a lot of this but not to the extent I read above.

Do you or I not have the right to profit from the sale of real estate?? I hope not.

Dave, I hope this posting will perhaps be a good lesson to you in making unfounded assumptions about people. First of all, I have no affiliation with the Earth Liberation Front and, in fact, deplore their beliefs and practices.

Read more closely... I did not say anything at all about shutting down streams to fishing. Instead, I wrote that "...many properties, from a conservation point of view, would be best conserved if people would just stay the hell off of them and let them heal from decades of misuse and abuse!!" I realize now I should have used the word "rehabilitated" instead of "conserved" but the point is still made. Of course, I am referring to the undeniable damage that has been done to so many of our streams from poor management (lack of riparian fencing, excessive dewatering with "surplus" water rights instead of considering in-stream flow leases, etc.). More importantly, I love to fish. I probably have about 6 fly rods and a McKenzie. Why on earth would I want to shut down fishing???

You may "doubt deeply" that I "support wood harvest of any kind unless it involves sustained subsidy of loser projects" but you would again be wrong. On what do you base such a ridiculous assumption about me?! I have owned and logged two of my own properties. I built a home out of wood. I am not at all against logging... as long as it is done sustainably and responsibly. Do I need to say more?

Dave - I have a final question for you. If you owned a ranch in Western Montana with 2 or 3 miles of a great fishery and a few thousand acres of great elk and deer habitat who would get to hunt/fish there?

I agree with the content from Mark. I was not contesting about what private property rights are. I was commenting on why people who can afford it buy property and close it to the public. I was also stating why it would continue to happen and why the market is there for Cabelas and Orvis to profit on.

Mark, everyone has the right to profit from the sale of their property. However, in my opinion, noone has the right to profit from the sale of wild animals title to which does not belong landowners. These Cabela's deals are backdoors to value the land with the value of wild animals that don't belong to the landowner. The dirt, the betterments, and other improvements definitely are saleable while the animals are not and should not be valued as part of the sale.

Just to clarify. There are now two "Marks" posting. Another "Mark" recently joined this conversation with the private property rights comments.

The State clearly has a right to tell you what you can do with your property. That's pretty settled law.

I believe that private property rights can and should be limited when they involve securing public interests. These arguments are clear when it comes to some things, i.e., dumping toxic waste. They are not so clear when it comes to public wildlife. Some argue that Montana's stream access law is a limitation to private property rights. Few argue that it's a bad thing. Same can be said for endangered species. Try doing anything you want to your property if there's a pair of bald eagles nested on the site. Most accept that wetlands can't be modified without a State and Federal permit. This is another limitation to private property rights for the purpose of conserving the public's interest in wildlife habitat.

My family's all "native" Montanan (our son's fifth generation) and we happen to live in a very rural part of state where zoning limits private property rights significantly. We are very pleased by this. In fact, it has likely increased the value of our property. We know that our land and our neighbor's land can't be subdivided.

And our neighbors hunt on our place and we hunt on their's.

Craig - the value in the wild animals is not in owning them but owning a piece of property that is preferred by them. A strategically located property conducive to wildlife habitation indeed has a valuable amenity. Y'know... location, location, location.

Genius blog you’ve written here “Wild Bill” – where did you get that original nickname?

So let me get this straight, target Cabela’s and Orvis because they have websites that helps sportsmen find recreational real estate? Burning catalogues?? Are you guys from the Middle East? What a joke.

Where is the logic in going after Orvis and Cabela’s? These are private companies who donate large sums of money to conservation efforts. Would you rather Coldwell Banker and Remax sell them? Yeah, great idea “Wild Bill”, lets hurt their business so they have less to donate.

Gee, do you think if someone really wants to sell their land they could do it with or without Cabela’s or Orvis helping? Would you rather non-sportsmen sell it? Would you rather have commercial realtors inviting their clientele to purchase?

It’s one thing for a blogger to try and slander big companies without doing research… I’m just surprised at all the ignorant responses. Do some research people. How many agents are there in Montana? How many are listing on Cabela’s and Orvis’s website?

Think about it. Is Wild Bill just trying to be a “shock blogger” to get attention? Is he bringing up this topic because he knows this is a sore subject for Montana residents? What is the real reason? Where are the facts?

Here is what Cabela's and / or Orvis need to do to get back in the graces of Montana sportsmen:

1./ Get out of Trophy Properties business.

2./ Set up outdoor access endowment fund at the FWP Foundation with an initial contribution of $10,000 ,000 .

3./ Donate 1 % of their sales from and to the 59xxx zip code to Montana Access organizations. ( Ala Patagonia and their 1% for environmental causes.. )

4./Make major annual contributions to MWF , PLAAI , Trout Unlimited, and other sporting organizations with access a high priority.

5./Donate one million $ per year for Habitat Montana conservation easements with public access .

6./Fund the entire cost of hunter ed programs in the state.

7./Fund the acquisition and maintenance of 10 new Fishing Accedss Sites ’S -

Gus, you forgot 8./ Make unrealistic demands that cause these companies to eventually run out of money, go out of business, layoff 20,000 people, reduce sales tax revenue to states, and make it harder for sportsmen to find good hunting gear due to forced closures of retail stores and fly shops.

Your plan to blackmail some of the top private supporters of conservation and hunting issues is genius. Pure genius.

Bill,

Interesting column. Help me understand a few things:

1) What did the companies have to say when you contacted them for this story? Maybe I just missed that part.

2) You write "you can't control what the buyer does, and you will pay the price". If Beretta pays Field & Stream for a page in their magazine, and someone buys a Beretta and then robs a bank with it, are you saying Field & Stream should pay the price for the actions of the buyer?

3) Newwest is promoting real estate developers and brokers on this website (Montana Land for Sale; New Day Homes & Land, etc see above). By doing this, isn't your company promoting the loss of hunting lands in MT?

Just my $.02

Hi-

I'm James Hathaway, Communications and Conservation Manager for The Orvis Company.

As you can imagine, I have been reading this thread with interest since it was published on NewWest. In fact, I read it soon after it came out as Bill (the author) sent me a link to it as soon as it was published. I appreciate the courtesy of him doing so. I just wish he would have afforded me the same courtesy before the piece was published, so perhaps we could have headed off some misunderstanding that now may exist with his readers about our brand.

I have since had the chance to talk to Bill on the phone and told him he can always reach me in the future if he has any questions about our company. He's a good guy, but I think he may have given some of you the wrong idea. The Orvis/Cushman Wakefield partnership is not your run of the mill real estate company.

Conservation is not a buzzword at Orvis. It is part of who we are. Five percent of pre-tax profits are donated to conservation efforts every year. We care about this stuff as much as you do and we put a lot of money, time, and other resources where our mouth is.

Perhaps Bill did not get a chance to drill down into the Orvis/Cushman Wakefield website where we address the very concerns he raises above. So I would like to pull some information from it here for you all:

"Conservation and Land Stewardship are Integral to the Orvis/Cushman & Wakefield Mission

While kindling tradition and sense of place, private land ownership provides one of the most straightforward opportunities to preserve open lands and intact ecosystems. Conservation easements with tax incentives, forestry management, and stream rehabilitation are just of a few of the ways that landscapes and habitats are being preserved for future generations by private landowners. Many outstanding ranch and recreational properties are sold into development parcels, causing irreversible fragmentation and loss of habitat. If the right buyers had known these properties were for sale, they might have been preserved. Orvis/Cushman & Wakefield works toward the conservation of open land through private ownership via the following:

**Matching sellers who prefer to see their property transfer into the stewardship of conservation-minded buyers and investors who will preserve and enrich its natural value.

**Marketing specifically to buyer/investors who share a conservation ethic and can benefit from the tax incentives associated with conservation easements. Orvis’ longstanding leadership in conservation makes it a strong resource for these individuals.

**Conducting biological reports on each listing, analyzing ecosystem and fishery health, and outlining opportunities for habitat management and enhancement.

**Working closely with regional land trusts to educate buyers about the benefits and specific opportunities for placing conservation easements on their land.

**Introducing buyers to qualified design and construction professionals, experts in property, agricultural and wildlife management, as well as stream restoration"

Bill states that we have no control over who buys the land and what they may do with it. That is true to a point, however by evaluating easements on the land and vetting the sellers with whom we work, we believe that we are approaching this in a way where we are doing the right thing by the buyer, the seller and the environment as a whole.

I truly believe we, and future generations, are all better off with this approach. There are many, many other real estate companies that would not make these efforts to ensure the land brokered is properly cared for and protected.

Thanks, Bill, for bringing this all up for discussion. I look forward to working with you in the future. And thanks to the rest of you for the valuable feedback.

First of all, once more Cabelas and Orvis are just the middle men selling a product. They are selling privately owned land for a private individuals. I can'at imagine that anyone of you would be happy to find out you would not be allowed to sell your home unless everyone who wanted to comment had a chance to do that.
Would it not make more sense to more or less organize and when a particularly important piece of property comes on the market, buy it as a group for hunting or whatever it is that you want to do. It doesn't take a real estate broker to sell land, look what happened this week in Nebraska, Turner bought that property at an auction. He gets 12 grand for a hunt.
Ranchers and farmers have been against the wall for a long time, from developers, taxes, enviros, etc. How much help did you offer to them to fend off these things? Or did you complain if it cost you 20 bucks or so to hunt and thumb your nose at the guy?
The problem is the ranchers and farmers being pushed off the land, not who sells the land for them.
I watched the Copperleaf development for the last few years. the land had been for sale for several years and no one bought it or even tried to I guess. Then when it was bought for an upscale community development all he** broke lose. I'm sure more has been spent on lawsuits to try to stop it than it would have cost to buy it in the first place. But those screaming the loudest felt that the original owner owed it to them to keep it open space at his expense.
None of the articles/comments are going to change anything, only trying to solve the problem at it's root (saving the rancher/farmer) is going to help. Irealize most of your license money goes for habitat etc, but how much of that money does the landowner himself get unless he sells some of the land?
Those ads on Newwest pay for us having a voice via this forum.

Mr. Hathaway, I applaud Orvis' efforts at environmental stewardship. However, my objection remains as you have not addressed public access to the sovereign's animals. Above I proposed a 50% solution whereby landowners would follow the structure set forth by Montana's Block Management program. Now, until you vet your candidates to address and agree to reasonable public access as per such a program, than I don't think you are out of the hot water you find yourself in with the average field sportsman. The key words are Preserve, Protect, Enhance, and Access. Without Access the rest are mere fuzzy warm feel goods for most people and have no particular value until they can see it, touch it, and experience it. Please address reasonable Access. Thank you.

Mark MT, not to nitpick but governments don't have "rights". They have authority given to them by the people. Zoning is such an authority but it exists by virtue of the fact that property owners have due process rights in the zoning process, in particular the right to protest.

One thing all of you need to understand... almost every broker who hangs his shingle out with Cabela's was in business long before Cabela's ever contemplated entering the real estate business. Same with Orvis. If both of these companies pull out of the business the very same brokers who work for them now will continue to be in business (as they have been for years) albeit as XYZ Realty or something of the like. Hanging a name over the door like Cabela's or Orvis does not mean they are any better or worse than your average real estate agent. This idea of dealing in real estate with a conservation outlook is nothing new. Cabela's and Orvis are just following in the footsteps of many other real estate companies who have been around for a lot longer than they have.

The sole motive for Cabela's and Orvis entering this business is profit... and there is nothing wrong with that. They saw others making a good profit and wanted to get in the game. Get over it, people. These are not non-profits. They sell fishing and hunting gear. Now they sell real estate.

The new ranch harvest of today: reaping the fruits of the lefty enviro no grazing dictum as expressed by selling to subdividers. Predicted, ignored, and becoming the reality.

No, or vastly reduced, public land graze has societal benefits in real time. More fine fuels to power wildfire, devaluation of ranches as operating livestock economic units, and the extremely popular trophy home money dump in devalued habitat now enhanced value real estate.

If it were not for the trophy home investment crowd, the dry, water challenged New West would be a third world economy if only because of Old East urban money and trusts demanding that public lands, at least half of all land in all the states of the New West, and more that 3/4 in some, be closed to commercial use for any reason. The New West is saddled with a disproportionate volume of the US Public Land holdings, and their use or non use is dictated by Federal Court opinions and the direction of Congress, which ought to scare the hay out of anyone who lives there. As the old cowboy once told me, "They cain't pour piss out of a boot with a hole in the toe and di-rections on the heel." And are proving that daily.

I went the State Fair once, and watched the bird show. Some of those chickens, ducks, and pigeons look just like Congressmen and women, what with the feathers sticking up and out at odd angles like a bad comb-over, the cow pie wig, and the strutting and preening and making noise just to hear themselves crow and be noticed. Some were quite striking, and other were the personification of vanity for its own sake. They all left something on paper.

Take some classes, put in your time as a neophyte, and you, too, can become a real estate broker. The New West seems to puke them out in an endless bout of economic dry heaves, and there will be many, no thousands, to take the place of a Cabelas or Orvis. Castigation of Cabelas or Orvis or Sotheby or whoever is just another glass of white whine. All the illegal aliens are waiting to be able to frame, floor, drywall, paint, roof and landscape the next one being built. Why, just the thought of those hardworking farm laborers having to go back to chopping weeds in sugar beets to survive is as racist as it gets. How will they get ahead without trophy homes to build? Or wildland fires to mop up? Are you nay sayers of trophy homes and amenity ranching trying to kill the other Babbitts' dreams? They are here, too, you know. Just ordinary folks trying to make a buck. Please plant two blue spruce trees in their honor.

If you want to contol public lands and private as well, under one grand design of Ecotopia, you need to go to Eastern Europe and live where total government control is the accepted economic and social norm.

Elfman, I understand how brokers would defend their livelihood. Now, how much less would these Trophy lands be worth if the states closed down all hunting and fishing? 1/2 maybe? Therefore, that 'amenity' premium is built on something the landowners don't own, the wild animals. These animals are not anything like a lake or view that stays with the property. Private property rights extend to the minerals, water rights, dirt, betterments, and improvements, NOT the wild animals. I wish every broker success in selling property for what the property is truly worth and without the amenity premium for the exclusive harvesting of the sovereign's animals. I renew my objection to Cabela's and Orvis lending their names for a profit to these transactions where the enhanced value is based on exclusivity over public access.

I sure hope Orvis' Mr. Hathaway will return and discuss how Orvis will champion public access with the same zeal as they have for environmental sewardship.

Craig - I just posted the following on the other article as well in response to your point: what they own is a strategically located piece of property on which resides wild game animals owned by the people. Your viewshed example is a good one. What about a ranch that is located near a forest service boundary with an exclusive view of one of the most beautiful mountain peaks on earth (that happens to be located on forest service land) that nobody else gets to see because of the fact that the property is situated in a manner that prevents this? Do you want to somehow regulate the right of that owner to achieve maximum proceeds by disallowing him to sell the ranch by touting the exclusive view as an amenity. He does not own the mountain any more than he owns the game traversing his ranch but he, nonetheless, has exclusive enjoyment of the same.

Craig-You keep harping on getting Public Access-Why don't you start with harping about the inexcusable damage that the public does to the properties over which it does have access. Until that problem is resolved there will be very limited public access on private property and more people with funds will continue to buy their exclusive access rather than mix into that public mess.

Does Bill Schnieder just hate all outdoor companies or all real estate people? I'm confused! First it's Cabela's then it's Orvis. Maybee he can go after LL Bean next. Schnieder talks about how much he loves to shop at Cabela's then rips them a new one. Is there somekind of special on bi-polar disorders? Bill, write another hateful article but go after Santa and those damn elves this time. Tell us how he is sneaking into Montana at night once a year and tresspassing on private property only to steal milk and cookies and leave sub standard gifts that are actually made in China by slaves against their will. Rally the troops to call the North Pole and send hate mail. Make sure to only tell half truths so you can mislead good people into the BILL SCHNEIDER ARMY OF HATE AND MISDIRECTION.
It is clear that the acronym for Bill Schnieder is BS!

Now Treebeard...

As one of few people who has had the opportunity to until recently have coffee every morning with Bill and a small clan of well educated people. I can tell you this for sure and for certain as I am typing this today. Bill LOVES to shop at Cabela's and IS the consumate outdoorsman. Due to my recent schedule, I have missed our morning coffee get togethers, but I am sure he has not changed in his love for Cabela's (at least he old Cabela's) and I am sure that IF Cabela's chnges it's mind set he may just go back to shopping there. I could be wrong and your mileage may vary. Back to your regularly scheduled venting.

Jerry,

Next time you have coffee with Bill ask him how many real estate companies advertise with the company he works for. Ask him if those companies have ever sold land that was once leased for public use. Ask him if he thinks it is fair for his company to be treated the way he is asking people to treat Cabela's.

Elf,
"Sustainability" is an amorphous gas used to obscure reality. I want to make a couple more guesses: 1., If you logged and made money on your ground, I would hope you would be sympathetic to doing the same not only on other private holdings, but on public ground as well; 2., If you did PC sustainable logging only for habitat, I commend you for that but I feel safe in saying you could not "sustain" doing so if the work was below cost.
As for my fantasy ranch, I would allow only my family and a few select friends to hunt there if that was enough to control game numbers so as not to interfere with making cows. If not, then I would probably go with block management. However, if I had serious trophy animals gadding about, and the cow business stunk, I would give serious thought to guiding at Ted rates. And if MWF; TU et al gave me any guffola about it, I would get even. Somehow.
Close roads? Subdivide? Sell to Ted at an outrageous premium?
Why do I say these things? Well, guess what. I'm only a generation away from the farm. I know lots of ranchers, and we have had many long, cholesterol-and-other-hol fueled conversations about these very options and outcomes. I would point out that it is THEY who face these bitter realities every day of the year, not just in autumn. For that reason alone, I have to respect their decisions, and their rights -- even if it means my favorite haunts become someone else's.

Thanks Jerry... it never occurred to me that I too am mourning the loss of an old friend, i.e.the way Cabela's once was (Orvis mostly sold high end products until the most recent years, so exclusivity is a big component of their business model). I don't want to quit using their service but I can't abide by their facilitation of the sale of our "public estate"... Cabela's or Orvis certainly have the right to do business any way they see fit, but I also have the right to spend my hard-earned paycheck where I'm most appreciated. Montanan's become increasingly angry each time a locked gate is found on a public thorofare because the land behind it is more valuable as "private access" to the public lands behind it. Now both Orvis and Cabela's are using their national profile to expedite that practice; at the very least they have taken no steps to prevent it. If they hope to gain my trust again, they'll need to consider this, but then again, maybe my money isn't quite green enough.

To Sweed, I get just as angry and frustrated at my fellow sportsmen who abuse their privelelges, but playing the victim does nothing to fix the problem, nor does their bad actions negate the reality that we have public property rights that are as important and sacrosanct as private property rights. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

I hate to tell you guys but access to public land has been severely diminished by the environmental movement in the last few years, and more land is take out almost on a daily basis. That has also impacted the ability of ranchers to make a living and how many of you did anything to stop it? That would have been your best shot at continued access to public land, but now many roads have been plowed shut.

Perhaps we all need a refresher on the north american wildlife management model - I know Cabela's and Orvis do. Thanks to Orion the hunters institute, here it is.

What is the North American Model?
http://www.huntright.org/heritage/AldrichConservationModel.aspx

The North American model has endured despite widespread changes in society, technology and in the landscape of the continent. It has become a “system of sustainable development of a renewable natural resource that is without parallel in the world,” Geist said. Furthermore, it has benefited not only huntable wildlife, countless species of songbirds and shorebirds are protected, becoming specifically designated as nongame species. Seven features make the North American model distinct.
1. Wildlife is a public resource. This is a notion that dates back to the Bible, in legal codes of ancient Rome. A wild animal was owned by no one until it was physically possessed. The concept was solidified in the Unites States to the extent that wildlife was held in common ownership by the state for the benefit of all people. And it has withstood tests in the U.S. courts.
2. Markets for trade in wildlife were eliminated. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to sustaining those species. At the same time, however, allowing markets for furbearers has helped managed them as a sustainable resource, in conjunction with restrictive regulations, and advocacy of trappers for land stewardship.
3. Allocation of wildlife by law. States allocate surplus wildlife by law, not by market pressures, land ownership or special privilege. The public gets a say in how wildlife resources are allocated; the process fosters public involvement in managing wildlife
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons. Under the “Code of the Sportsman,” hunters use as much as they can. The harvest of wild animals must serve a practical purpose if society is going to accept it.
5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, transcend boundaries and one country’s management can easily affect a species in another country.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. This is a key concept of wildlife management. It has its roots in the Prussian Forestry System, arising in this country as the basis of wildlife management by the convincing forcefulness of Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold. By spawning the profession of wildlife management, North Americans were decades ahead of their global neighbors.

In the United States, the concept of science-based, professional wildlife management really took off with passage of the 1937 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program. In this phenomenally successful program, excise taxes on hunting equipment are returned to states for wildlife management, restoration and research, along with hunter education.

According to Greg Moore, a lifelong hunter and now Delaware’s acting wildlife administrator, those dollars go a long way. “Because of sport hunting and the Federal Aid dollars that it provides to the Division of Fish and Wildlife, we can conduct scientific, professional management that benefits all species, not just game or nongame,” he said.

7. The democracy of hunting. In the European model, wildlife was allocated by land ownership and privilege. In North America, anyone in good standing can
participate.

wow....we got the USFS doing their very best to make sure that any use of public lands is on foot. Not on atv, horse or mule, snowmobile. Healthy hikers only. Then you have a growing population of slob hunters without any land ethic or concept of respect for the land, improvements on the land, or the very animals they pursue. So when did it become an issue when private lands became closed to the general public? It always has been that way. And habitat and critters are most likely the better for it.

My logging son says no guns at all are allowed on Weyerhaeuser land. None. Not even an empty one on the gun rack. That is a pretty good whack of private land that is gunless. I do think they open up for a day or two of hunting each year. We are more civilized here in the New West, as opposed to the SE area of the US. I remember reading in the last year or so about a chunk of land that G-P owned in the Florida Panhandle, and it was changing hands, the new owners announcing they were going to gate it and keep the public out at all times. The public told them that it would be all black before they ever logged it. If the public was closed out, then it was sure to burn sooner than later. And often. Meetings were held, and the public use policy was changed to meet with local approval. It must have been a William Faulkner moment, a timber company meeting with the Snopes and friends.

The land poor, jealous enviro community has used the courts, the courtship of the political left, and nasty prose to villify the ranchers needing summer graze so they could grow winter feed on their private ground. Cattle Free by '03 and all that rubbish to make ranching as hard as possible has worked in many areas, and ranches have been sold because they could not provide even a college education for the rancher's grandchildren out of annual income. That was an economic decision, made for them from the armies of the environmental left, and ranchers gladly take the money in order to provide for their familiies. The land was sold to someone who then entered into some sort of conservation easement which is a devaluation of the land in favor of environmental protections, allowing the new owner to show a paper loss in the business deal, and then he gets to recover taxes paid in the immediate past. Bill and I are paying for part of the new owner's tax refund because we are tax paying citizens. Poor Bill. He is paying part of the real estate fees Cabelas will reap, a refund his friends of the environment in Congress have allowed. The less fortunate in the money department buy the entry closed ranches for the new owners. It is how the system works. We buy the goods and services that produce the profits, and our tax money pays the new land owners to not raise cattle or irrigate or whatever. Does that grate, Bill? Does that chafe just a teensy bit? It should, because it was the greenies who devalued the place to begin with, as a working ranch. The rancher's option is to work it until he loses it to declining economic returns, or he sells it while there are people and tax laws to make it easy for others to buy it. Cabelas, et al, are just middle men in commerce. They don't make policy. They don't make value. They are just there to facilitate a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. That the seller was forced into his willingness by zealots of the Green Variety is not Cabelas' problem, it is your problem. Go talk to TNC, Sierra Club, PETA, et al....leave the merchants out of this. Boycott the Green Lobby organic grapes. Boycott apartheid in Los Angeles. Leave Cabelas alone.

This old WW11 poem says what happened when the greens started on the ranchers and other outdoor folks did not speak up.

First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

Larry, Yes, Public land is as sacrosanct as private land but Cabelas and Orvis are not helping sellers of Public land!

THE FIRST RULE OF DIVIDE AND CONQUER: DEMEAN THE VICTIM.

GREEDY RANCHER...GREEDY RANCHER....GREEDY RANCHER...GREEDY RANCHER....GREEDY RANCHER...AND NOW THE RANCHER SOLD OUT BECAUSE HE HAD NO OTHER VIABLE OPTION. HE LOST HIS SUMMER GRAZE AND HIS ECONOMIC VIABILITY TO PUBLIC LAND CLOSURES AND THE RESULTS OF PLANNED CONFLAGRATION. NOW THAT HIS HOME PLACE IS VALUED AS A RETREAT BY SOMEONE NOT A RANCHER, HE IS CALLED GREEDY ONCE AGAIN.

I WATCHED, FOUGHT, YELLED, DEBATED, BUT STILL I WAS A GREEDY LOGGER, A GREEDY TIMBER BARON, THE TALKING HEAD FOR A GREEDY MILL OWNER. AND THE MILL IS GONE, AND THE JOBS ARE GONE, AND THE COUNTRY STORE IS GONE, AND THE GAS STATION IS GONE IN THE LITTLE COMMUNITY, AND THE SCHOOL IS CLOSED, AND TREES KEEP GROWING ONLY TO BECOME FUEL FOR "NATURAL WILDFIRE", A VALUE ONLY FEEBLE MINDS SEQUESTERED SAFELY IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPE CAN CELEBRATE.

WELL, THE REAL TIMBER BARONS ARE STILL WITH US, MORE PROFITABLE THAN EVER, CONTROLLING THE MARKET, LIVING WITHOUT THE COMPETITION FROM EFFICIENT SMALL MILLS USING PUBLIC LAND TIMBER. THAT TRUTH IS WITH US TODAY. THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARY OF THE TIMBER WARS WAS BIG TIMBER AND THEIR EXPANSIVE PRIVATE TIMBERLAND HOLDINGS AND THEIR ABILITY TO PROSPER WITH LESS COMPETITION. ALL THE NEW WEST GOT WAS MORE AND LARGER FIRES AND FEWER JOBS, AND THE LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES DON'T HAVE MONEY TO MAINTAIN REDUCED LEVELS OF RECREATION SINCE THEIR TIMBER MONEY DEPARTED.

THE TRANSITION WAS EASY, FROM LOGGERS AND MILL WORKERS TO RANCHERS AND FARMERS. THE MACHINERY TO DEMEAN THEM, TO SUE THEM, TO HARRASS THEIR EVERY ATTEMPT TO MAKE A LIVING, ALL IS A STILL IN PLACE, STILL FINANCED BY TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATIONS FROM TRUSTS, FOUNDATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS. THE ECOCOMMIE LOBBY IS ALIVE AND WELL AND FLOURISHING. IT IS A LEFT HANDED GOVERNMENT FUNDED OPERATION. MARX WOULD BE PROUD. THAT THE TAXES FORGIVEN MIGHT HEAL THE ILL, OR EDUCATE THE UNEDUCATED IS LOST IN THEIR ZEAL TO BE MOTHER NATURE'S BEST FRIEND AND APOLOGIST, AIDED AND ABETTED BY THE STREETWALKERS OF CONGRESS PATROLLING THEIR HALLS FOR MONEY AND GOVERNING WHEN THEY HAVE TIME.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE A MACMANSION IN THE ONCE PRISTINE RANCH MEADOW, POINT YOUR ACCUSATORY FINGER AT YOURSELF. IF YOU DON'T LIKE ALL THE TRAFFIC ON THE ONCE NEIGHBORLY COUNTRY LANE, THINK WHERE IT CAME FROM. IF YOUR FAVORITE TRAIL IS BLOCKED BY DEAD AND DOWNED TREES, AND NO MONEY TO OPEN IT UP, LOOK IN THE MIRROR. YOU ARE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION. YOU DON'T SIT AT THE TABLE AND HONORABLY DISCUSS COMMON PROBLEMS. YOU SUE. AND LAWSUITS AND COURT DECISIONS CHANGE LAW AND EVERY TIME THE LAW CHANGES, SO DO THINGS ON THE GROUND. THE ECOCOMMIE LOBBY HOLDS THE REINS TO THE RUNAWAY HORSE OF UNFETTERED RANCH DISPOSALS, AND EXPERTS AS THEY ARE IN ALL THINGS, HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO END THEIR DANGEROUS FOLLY. THE WRECK YOU ARE WATCHING IS REAL ESTATE BROKERS CARVING VIABLE HABITAT INTO PROFITS, AND YOU CREATED THE SITUATION. THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ARE OF YOUR DOING. THE TYRANNY OF THE URBAN, ARROGANT MAJORITY IS WORTHY OF HATRED. I AM ONE WHO HARBORS THOSE EXTREME FEELINGS. THE RANCH IS BEING SUBDIVIDED AND THE UN-TAXED NGOs ARE THE CAUSE. NOT THE SOLUTION---THE CAUSE.

NEITHER CABELAS NOR ORVIS ARE THE PROBLEM. THEY ARE MERCHANTS TRYING TO GENERATE SALES AND BY SO DOING, THEY CREATE COLLECTABLE TAXES ON ALL THE HUNTING AND FISHING GOODS THEY SELL WHICH IN TURN SUPPORT MOST OF OUR FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES. IF THEY MAKE A PROFIT, CABELAS OR ORVIS GENERATE INCOME AND PROPERTY TAXES THAT SUPPORT OUR NATION, OUR STATES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND SCHOOLS. BY THEIR ENERGIES AND CAPITAL, THEY CREATE THE WEALTH THAT ALLOWS OUR FREEDOMS. NON- PROFITS DO NOTHING TO ENHANCE THE NATIONAL OR STATE COFFERS. IT IS RATHER INSANE THAT I HAVE TO LISTEN TO NON-PROFITS WHINE ABOUT BUSINESSES THAT SUPPORT THE FINANCIAL BASE OF OUR COUNTRY. DISTASTEFUL AS THEY MIGHT BE, REAL ESTATE BROKERS HAVE A PLACE, WORK UNDER LAWS, AND CREATE WEALTH THAT SUPPORTS THE LOUTS, LAYABOUTS, AND MISFORTUNATES WHO DO NOTHING TO EARN THEIR KEEP UNLESS IT IS EASY, IMMORAL, ILLEGAL OR GOVERNMENT SPONSORED. I HAVE NOTHING BUT ADMIRATION FOR HARD WORKING COMPANIES SUCH AS CABELAS AND ORVIS.

THAT ASIDE, THEY HAVE NEAT STUFF. LOTS OF REALLY NEAT STUFF.

James -

Thanks for the explanation and thanks for trying to do the right thing. I've always liked that little Orvis 4w.

DANG, MY EYEBROWS ARE SINGED!

Dave, what do you expect being a Ron Paul supporter as per the Flathead Beacon dustup. ;~p

James Hathaway, Communications and Conservation Manager for The Orvis Company, said he was monitoring these discussions. He made an impassioned plea for people to take into account Orvis' commitment to environmental stewardship. I applauded him for that and asked that he return and discuss how Orvis supports public access opportunities for the average field sportsman. To date, he has not responded. As I recall he chided Bill Schneider for not contacting him first before writing this article. Given his silence on public access I have to wonder if contacting him would have made any difference.

Here again is what I wrote:

"Mr. Hathaway, I applaud Orvis' efforts at environmental stewardship. However, my objection remains as you have not addressed public access to the sovereign's animals. Above I proposed a 50% solution whereby landowners would follow the structure set forth by Montana's Block Management program. Now, until you vet your candidates to address and agree to reasonable public access as per such a program, than I don't think you are out of the hot water you find yourself in with the average field sportsman. The key words are Preserve, Protect, Enhance, and Access. Without Access the rest are mere fuzzy warm feel goods for most people and have no particular value until they can see it, touch it, and experience it. Please address reasonable Access. Thank you."

As a gesture of good faith to the common field sportsman, I would like to see both Cabela's and Orvis take all of their frachise fees from these land deals and contribute them to public access programs such as Montana's Block Management program.

Until the public cleans up it's act "warm, fuzzy feelgoods" are all it will get from most land owners. Cabelas would be better off donating money to enhance enforcment to get the criminal hunter and garbage disposer off the fields. Where did the idea come from that the public is entitled to private access. If you are a responsible hunter ask a rancher for access. You might be surprised.

The land owner does not own the wild animals! The sovereignty dies not own the wild animals. The wild animals are free. The sovereignty passed laws to protect those animals from the public and gives qualifying people the privilege to hunt them in a limited fashion. Who better to have the privilege-the rancher who helps feed them or the guy who gets his pickup and gun out during hunting season and shoots everything in sight. The slob hunter is not shut out but I am not concerned that he has limited access. That leaves more areas where non-game animals are safe! Am I bitter about trespassers and indiscriminent shooters? You Bet!

Hi Craig-

My apologies. My "silence" was not due to me avoiding your question, but rather not knowing you asked it.

Ok... you said in your last post:

****James Hathaway, Communications and Conservation Manager for The Orvis Company, said he was monitoring these discussions. He made an impassioned plea for people to take into account Orvis' commitment to environmental stewardship. I applauded him for that and asked that he return and discuss how Orvis supports public access opportunities for the average field sportsman.*****


Access is, as you know, a complicated issue. A sticky, thorny one with good people on both sides, with otherwise common interests, disagreeing passionately.

This is a cause best left to people with not only a firm grasp of the law, but also those that know the importance of sporting traditions in this country.

Remember how I told you that at Orvis 5% of pre-tax profits go to conservation? A piece of that 5% goes to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP).

Who are they? Here is a bit from their website (http://www.trcp.org):

"The TRCP is a non-profit organization driven by a Board of Directors and a Policy Council made up of leaders from many of the country’s top hunting, fishing and conservation groups. We have a national focus on access and conservation issues affecting hunting and angling and are supported by our own nationwide network of over 90,000 sportsmen and women and more than 1,400 affiliated local and state-level clubs and organizations, that themselves represent nine million Americans.

Our Mission: The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is a coalition of leading hunting, fishing and conservation organizations, labor unions and individual grassroots partners working together to preserve the traditions of hunting and fishing by
a.) expanding access to places to hunt and fish,
b.) conserving fish and wildlife and the habitats necessary to sustain them, and
c.) increasing funding for conservation and management."

Read a great piece on them written by Ed Dentry in the Rocky Mountain News Here:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/recreation_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_85_5679367,00.html

This organization is fighting for your access every day. I have visited their offices in DC and, if you are a sportsman, these are a great bunch of folks to have on your side.

We have donated thousands to them, in addition to catalog space to educate people as to their efforts (if you need a catalog, let me know, I'd be glad to send one!) But we don't just give them money, our Vice-Chairman sits on their board and is a very active member.

I encourage you to read more about this organization, http://www.trcp.org, and join them in their efforts. They are fighting the good fight and could use your help as well as ours.

Not to be rude, but this will be my last comment here. I am not avoiding you, but moving on. You can reach me, personally, by emailing hathawayj (at) orvis.com

Best,

James

Mr. Hathaway, thank you for rejoining the conversation and for Orivis' continuing environmental stewardship commitment.

Regarding your comment that it would take lawyers to sort things out for Orvis to show leadership on public access reminds me of Mitt Romney's disastrous answer at one of the debates regarding his capacity to act as Commander in Chief. Leadership requires verbalized commitment, courage, and a vision, not lawyers to do a simple thing like contribute to state programs, such as Montana's Block Management, that work to build public access. The Montana program is often mentioned by TRCP's 'Life in the Open' series on Versus as a model for private-public partnering to create public access.

My suggestion that corporate Orvis and Cabela's take all of their brand franchise fees from land deals and contribute them to state public access programs is to show average field sportsmen that you care about their future in having "Life in the Open." These fees have nothing to do with selling your branded products that average sportsman have been buying until recently. Just my opinion that a more even-handed demonstration of intent is necessary. I remain firm in my objection to your program as it is currently constituted.

Craig... Your suggestions show a way towards doing business and still be cognizant of the little guy. I'd be happy for a small portion of the proceeds being returned to the landscape from whence it came, not all of it. I truly believe Cabela's, maybe not Orvis, I don't know, were simply trying to do business with the advent of Cabela's Trophy Properties and that the public backlash was an unforseen circumstance. I'm glad MWF noticed and brought the inequity to the forefront, unlike the haters posting here. Now, something might get accomplished; I don't believe Cabela's is so arrogant to think they can go forward without the everyday guy buying their goods as well as the neo-rich.

Cabela's Reacts to Land Sales Debate

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/cabelas_reacts_to_land_sales_debate/C41/L41/

Ducks Unlimited has partnered with a major real estate company for "conservation properties." This means that fat cats can own their little piece, DU will prbably put membership dollars into building dikes and levees and the average guy won't have any access. These areas hold ducks, but are typically outside of the breeding grounds. ARkansas, Mississipi, California...meanwhile duck numbers and production on the prairies declines.

DU is no longer about people shooting ducks, and the habitat it takes to keep enough around to shoot. DU is about their own bureaucracy, their own salaries and bennies, their own agenda of land conservation for conservation's sake. They bought the green lobby agenda, drank the Kool Aide, and have foresaken the Joe Sixpack constituency....you might as well send your money to the Trust for Public Lands, PETA or the Wilderness Society, because they are anti- hunting on the surface. You know where they stand. DU, and the rest of the NGOs for critter enhancement have become partners with State Fish and Game agencies, in setting aside refuges, and taking care of their salary and bennie needs, and have drifted away from the hunters and fishermen who suported them.....Probably the NRA is the only lobby left for hunters. Fishermen are so intent on taking out commercial fishermen they can't see that when that is over, it will be time for PETA, et al, to take out sports fishing. Even catch and release torture of innocent fish, a torture that has a 30% or greater mortality rate, will be outlawed. Sort of like wolves sport hunting, isn't it? It is not the meal but the chase. When nothing dies and ends up on the plate, the integrity of the whole process is in doubt. And the process is the realization that we evolved as hunters, and not refuge managers or photographers. Cabelas and Orvis have to understand that hunting or fishing has to have a large constituency to survive, and for their business to thrive. I think this on line conversation is that realization.

Since many of you who commented on this article aren't from Montana, I thought yoo would be interested in the newest development. Please note the link to an article in the Helena Independent Record by my friend Eve Byron. Cabela's is giving some money back to the State of Montana, $50,000, but willl it be enough to calm the controversy?....Bill


http://helenair.com/articles/2008/01/18/top/60st_080118_cabelas.txt#