Ameya Preserve, Part IV

Private Property, Public Access and Montana Values

By David Nolt, 12-22-07

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.