Home

Gmack, you unintentionally but perfectly illustrated some of the points in my thread...

The reason that I bought a small parcel of hunting land in eastern Montana,is that land there is still a real bargain.
My criteria for who gets to hunt on my land is the same east or west.

First you have to ask,it is amazing how many people won't ask but would rather tresspass. Second you have to be my friend year round not just in hunting season. Where I live I have turned down exactly one person who has asked permission in the last ten years. I caught him trespassing the year before,did not prosecute him,and he still talked bad about me to anybody that would listen afterwards.

Since buying land in Montana,it is amazing how many neighbors and locals have invited me to their place or offered to lease my ground or offered to lease me theirs. If this makes me or them the bad guy,it's hard for me to understand why.

The times they are a changing,recreational properties will continue to appreciate in value IMHO. There are still small tracts of land with fine hunting that can be bought really cheaply in eastern Montana,and western North Dakota. Instead of bitchen about the way things are,find a piece of ground,buy it,improve it ,enjoy it and profit from it. I have been doing it since I was a broke teenager. You will be amazed at the benefits of hard work and the willingness to take a risk.

After all,this is America.

Britt

Yeah, I know nothing of either

So Britt, what's your "cheap" whitetail place going for in Eastern Montana?

I have 20 acres that I'll be putting on the market this winter... the asking price will be around $250,000. Is that "cheap?"

Point is, "cheap" or "affordable" is a relative term in a state where wages generally vie with Mississippi for the lowest in the nation.

"Affordable" to an out-of-stater is different than to many in-staters.

Would add, I understand that all too well and have no issue with escalating land costs... it ties directly in with one of the ways I make my living. I also understand the resentment of many native Montanan's too... some of it is nothing more than sour grapes, but some of it is understandable and even justified in a few cases.

Britt [/quote]


So Britt, what's your "cheap" whitetail place going for in Eastern Montana?

I have 20 acres that I'll be putting on the market this winter... the asking price will be around $250,000. Is that "cheap?"

Point is, "cheap" or "affordable" is a relative term in a state where wages generally vie with Mississippi for the lowest in the nation.

"Affordable" to an out-of-stater is different than to many in-staters.

Would add, I understand that all too well and have no issue with escalating land costs... it ties directly in with one of the ways I make my living. I also understand the resentment of many native Montanan's too... some of it is nothing more than sour grapes, but some of it is understandable and even justified in a few cases.

[/quote]

Brad,I'll take 300,000 for a it,it's a little more than 200 acres so it is cheaper land than your 20 acres for sure. It is pricey because it is river frontage land. But there are lots of tracts that can be bought for less than 500/acre. That is cheap hunting land and anybody that is willing to work hard,save and borrow can buy some of it.

When you sell your 20 acres will you reserve a conservation easement that prevents further delelopment,subdivision and allows public hunting forever? Perhaps such reservations might effect the value of the property.But if you are unwilling to accept a loss in value,is it fair to expect others to do so?

I grew up poor in rural America,my dad had a fifth grade education,my mom finished eighth grade. I realized early on that nobody would give me anything so I have worked very hard to get where I am. Meanwhile,my buddies were dropping out of school to hunt and fish and have a good time.

I am all for expanding public opportunity,but not by taking away property rights of private landowners like me and you.

Britt

Well said Seafire


Typical easterner's response to a western problem....

I'm sure you'd proudly tell someone in Montana to keep their opinions to themselves, if they came down and told you folks what to do in Mississippi... well a bar room door swings both ways...

land opened to hunters for generations gets sold and all of a sudden, you get some rich out of stater who comes in and the first thing he does is invest heavily in no trespassing signs and no hunting signs...

and Cabelas is only selling this stuff to out of state folks with megabucks, who can afford it and then act like they just purchased their own little country... [/quote]

This isn't a reply to any particular post. As far as I'm concerned, Cabelas can do what it wants, the consumers can do what they want, the rich out-of-stater can do whatever he wants, and local community residents can do what they want. For years I've been hearing stories about Cabelas leasing pheasant hunting rights in SD, thereby increasing hunt costs, but the people doing the complaining are people already flying in from other states-the locals already were impacted.

It is saddening to see people with big bucks impacting the ability of the locals to survive in their communities, much the same as we saw in Colorado resort towns over the last 30 years. But, it�s a free country and people can do what they want with their money. The difference between ranch land out in the middle of nowhere and resort properties is that the ranch owner is going to need some community/government support for things like road maintenance, snow plowing, predator control, water, and use of gated easements, so he�d better have very deep pockets if he intends to snub the locals. And, he needs to be prepared to accept the consequences of game herd growth once the $10,000 rack hunters leave (worse if he doesn�t allow hunting). I have a friend who bought some acreage in rural Kentucky over which the locals thought they had a God given right to access and to hunt 24/7/365, and it takes a lot of grit to live in the community where everybody hates you and every judgment call is going to go against you. Cabelas, Inc. doesn�t get a vote, and Ted Turner only gets 1, if he lives there. (Of course, if Ted owns the whole county his vote wins. ) They both pay taxes. So, there should be some moderating influence once things shake out.

As for me, I'm just banking my pennies and biding my time in case the mortgage meltdown impacts pricing and availability of vacation and recreational properties.

Very good posts Brad. I don't expect the Easterners who have never known anything else, to understand how we live in the West. I'm a strong believer in personal rights, and property rights. Does Cabelas have the right to buy and sell land as they want? Yes they do. Does it show a total lack of understanding of their customer base in the West? Yes it does. I'm sure their bean-counters have calculated all angles, and figure that they can make more money screwing Western hunters with their land holdings deals than they'll make by selling marked up, made in China camo.

McDonalds is (the last time I checked) the largest private land owner in the world. It became that way by selling billions of burgers then reinvesting the profits in land. There's no reason not to think Cabelas has the same game plan. They've got the right to do it sure, but telling us in the west to shut up, and get over it, and compete with them financially just shows Eastern ignorance of the situation.

It looks to me like 2 business organizations scratching each others backs, and yes, there is profit involved. We have several classes of buyers out there including: ranchers, investors, developers, amenity ranchers, and conservation groups.

The newer issue is really about amenity ranches or properties. Remote properties are selling for more than could ever be recouped from ranching or farming the land. The difference between what a buyer is willing to pay and the potential yield of the land is its amenity cost. Several things can contribute to or inflate amenity costs including: large intact properties, nearby destination resorts, privacy, being an inholding surrounded by federal lands, perennial streams, and fine hunting or fishing potentials.

The amenity buyers are generally not profit motivated as most of their income will come from other sources. They may or may not elect to participate in the community, and will likely not live 24:7 on the property. Operations are handled by a site manager or leased to neighbors. Owners are mostly interested in part time lifestyle, ambience, or escape from the rat race, and will not want to deal with small-potato local issues.

As to conservation it's a toss up. The land may get exploited, simply be let go, or be well managed. I think most amenity owners though have a conservation mind set.

Like it or not, amenity owners are the wave of the future. As properties become available, I think we should establish some non-hostile communications with both sellers and buyers and try to convey the value and contributions that their holdings have for our communities. If we want something though, we will also have to give something back. The owners will not want to deal with one on one propositions or requests for access. If we start out antagonistic though, we will make little to no headway.

I live in a county that is about 75% public land. In the last 12 years, 3 of our largest ranches totaling about 400,000 acres, have sold. Two are simply hunting/fishing camps for the owners (amenity ranches), and the third is part of a larger interstate cattle operation. With the exception of trespass for bighorn sheep tag holders, public hunting and fishing have been eliminated from those properties. Some of these closures were probably contributed to by locals. They view the owners as targets, and rustle cattle, trespass, vandalize, and steal equipment with the mind set that they can afford it. I'd probably seal the gates too.

Again, like it or not, we will see more amenity owners. We as a group need to get on the front end of thinking and talking with those folks if we want them to share their resources. Being from a public land state, I probably have less worries than most on this forum, but yes, some of the best hunting and fishing is found on private land.

Part of the problem with giving primary consideration to property "rights" is that conveniently leaves the wildlife component out of the issue. The wildlife that lives on these properties is owned by the state and not the landowner. If the landowner decides to eliminate hunting and or access isn't this a "taking" of some sort from the state? Should FWP have the right to haze or remove game animals off of such properties? If the state's ability to regulate game populations is gone then what will happen to hunter's?

There is a lot more to this issue than a simple capitalistic reward system for people who value conspicuous consumption. You have to live HERE to understand that I guess.

If the "westerners" on this thread weren't so quick to decide the "easterners" didn't rate an opinion, the "westerners" might be able to see what their future holds. Wouldn't we all like to know in advance what the future holds?

In the small farming community where my father grew up in the '50s, in what would be considered by westerners to be in "the east," he had the run of the entire area around his less than 200 acre family farm since he had permission to hunt basically anywhere he wanted to. Now, despite the area still being rural, there are subdivisions popping up, land is getting posted, and basically the only property open to us for hunting is property owned by immediate family (my father and his siblings/their heirs). Similar things have also happened in other parts of the same state where years ago (really decades ago) property was bought by timber companies for growing pine trees and eventually they figured out they could make money off selling the hunting rights as leases rather than just letting the locals hunt for free. So over the past few decades, there has been the growth of hunting clubs among the poor, rural southerners/easterners so they can pool their money to lease some property so they still have a place to hunt. Would they prefer to be able to hunt local properties for free? Yes, but that option is not available in their areas any more.

You "westerners" can tell "easterners" they don't understand how things operate in "the west" all you want, but we can tell you what your future holds and how you can best position yourselves for it if you aren't so arrogant.

Hunts: You are correct regarding the technical ownership of wildlife, but trespass for deeded property is completely up to a landowner. The only successful challenges I am aware of involve fishermen and their right of passage on a stream or within the high water mark of a navigable stream. In most states in the west, we can fish about any stream that can float a row boat. The same has not been extended to terrestrial game, however, and it would indeed be a sad day if it was. We do have some historic country roads that pass through some large holdings, and they are a great frustration for the owners because they can not regulate travel.

In some states, if a person plans on high fencing to subsequently market hunting, they must haze out all of the state's wild animals and purchase private stock for their operation. I'm not aware of a Supreme Court review on this, but suppose that an owner could challenge a state and give them 2 weeks to clear their animals off the property. That might prove successful for a large holding, as the state would likely not have the funds to clear 200,000 acres.

If the present regulations were not place, we have some operations around here that, depending on when they closed the gate, could start up business with a thousand or more of the states elk enclosed. Oregon is not particularly friendly to high fencing and game farming, but obviously some states like Texas go the other way.

We do have some larger private holdings that market their big game hunting. They have some landowner tags to disperse to hunters and others can go through our state drawing system to acquire tags for the same unit. What the ranches technically market is trespass rights and other services, but not a specific animal.

With private game, one could indeed purchase an 8 x 8 bull that was named Big Eddy and lived in a specific pasture. Seasons and tags are not an issue in those instances.

The whole deal is a frustrating issue. We recently had some land exchanges in this county and lost about 200 square miles of access to previously public and prime land for pronghorn hunting. In the exchange the ranch gave up about 25 square miles of more productive, high elevation deer and elk habitat and they picked up about a $9 mill check that they used to buy another ranch. That purchase locked up about 5 miles of trout habitat.

Happy holidays

I own some land in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. On the road about 4 or 5 miles from my place there are two parcels with Cabela's Trophy Properties signs on them. If sold, they're probably ripe for subdividing - they have a combined half mile or so on a good trout stream, road access and utilities. I'll be emailing Cabela's and Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC). While Montana may be the first place where people are getting vocal about this issue...I think it has national implications and we all ought to writing Cabela's and letting them know how we feel. The next thing you know they'll be re-writing history and hiding the fact that they started as a hunting and fishing supplier.

Very disappointing in the attitudes of some of those who supposedly value property rights, but are quick to demand that landowners cede to their whims.

I would note that the 1917 Revolution started essentially the same way, with the "workin' man" using armed force to take what property owners had paid for. Those "workin' men" were called Communists and for a long time most Americans used that term as one of derision. Seems like time are a-changing.

I live in Texas, which is about 98% privately held. I would love to freely walk onto many of the private lands in this state and shoot a big 160-pt buck, or kill an exotic. However, that would make me a thief and subject to a whole host of criminal and civil penalties. Nevermind the fact that a ranchowner might decide to blow my head off with his .30-.30 (and justifiably so, I might add). I know if I want to have the right to hunt private property in this state, I need to earn it by saving my $$ and buying some myself. I guess it would be easier to just demand that I be given unfettered access, but too many people around here are too used to that whole "freedom" thing.

I can't believe the guys here wo seem to think trespass is ok... It is this simple guys and yes I've lost hunting ground this year due to both new ownership or others leasing who pay more then I can. Without permission of the owner to hunt then you are Trespassing......... Since when did it become ok to Demand hunting rights? Next thing you know some will consider it ok when a guy comes in your home thru force and demands the wild thing with your wife or girlfriend at gun point.. Me I'll be using my own force to remove the scumm from my house or land... Stop WHINING and go get permission by ASKING the owner NICELY, Buying land or quit hunting....

According to the map, I am an easterner...bred, born and raised. Have any of you folks who hail from the west lived back east? You must have because you seem to know a lot about how things are back here!
I've lived east of the Mississippi for my entire life, and hunted the majority of those 50+ years. When I was a kid we could grab a shotgun or 22 and walk outside of town to hunt rabbits or quail. We always asked permission ahead of time and never once got turned down. We could walk all day if we wanted to and never see a no trespass sign. As I grew older it pretty much remained the same until about 15yrs or so ago when deer hunting started to become extremely popular. All of a sudden I started seeing farms posted that never before had so much as a private property sign nailed to a post. The next thing that happened was folks coming out from the city and leasing up a farmer's acres to deer or bird hunt. Leasing? You mean someone was actually going to pay a farmer to hunt on his property? Thought that only happened down in TX! Nowadays, property in the country that has timber on it brings more per acre than good tillable land. Folks from the big cities, baseball stars, rich lawyers, average Joes forming a partnership, you name it, they're all coming out and buying up every piece of land they can to deer hunt and play on. The locals are getting squeezed out little by little. The writing is on the wall, either own land or lease it if you want to continue hunting on a long term basis. Other thing is, around here the public acres are few and far between. At least you western folks have millions of acres of BLM and forest service lands to use if you get squeezed out of the private lands.

Some of the sentiments & comments posted here are also some of the reasons many folks post their land and won't let anyone hunt it. Some folks just don't respect landowner rights and feel entitled or something. Landowners just don't want to deal with that BS. Cabelas is helping our sport by putting recreational land opportunities out there for those who are interested. 163bc

Sounds like someone should come east for a season or two. All im gonna say is count your blessin's, you dont know what you got.

+1 to what all has been said by the eastern posters

None of my comments (if anyone bothered to read them carefully) are a put-down in any way of anyone from "the east" and I'd be an absolute hypocrite to pit an Easterner against a Westerner. That's not my way anyway. It's just apparent to me a lot of the comments from those "back East" here really show a lack of appreciation for what's happening out here. Will say, some of the Westerner's comments on this thread haven't helped any.

As for my regional resume, I'm NOT a native Montanan (few are!) but am a Californian by birth (left age 3, 1964) who grew up "back East" in New England (left age 19, 1980) with my Minnesota born parents who left their beloved Montana for a better living . Have lived in Oklahoma as well and finished College in St. Louis, Missouri too where I met and married my wife.

Said all that to say I think I can relate to any and all sides. Good people are from everywhere as any time on this forum will show. Often the Westerners resentment of "move-ins" as they're haughtily referred to around here is really unfair. It is a free country, and I'll gladly tell any native I'm more a Montanan than they are because while they may have been born here, I CHOSE to be here and have made SACRIFICES to be here. Montana is a place you have to badly WANT to be, unless you're retired or have other means.

Both sides need to try to put themselves in each others shoes and find some understanding. The world is changing at an alarming pace and not all of it is for the better. People in rural areas are often on the short end of the economic benefits from that change and that's where, I think, a lot of the Sour Grapes I referred to comes from in relation to wealthy out-of-state landowners.

As to the topic at hand, I still think it's unwise for Cabela's to handle this situation the way they have and shows a certain "corporate arrogance" that's offensive to Montanan's.

That I CAN understand and they should know better...

Brad,
I think what many of us "easterners" are trying to say is that we've already been there and done that. You folks out west are just now getting a taste of what we've been chewing on around here for many years! We didn't/don't like it any better than you do...but we have even fewer options with little to nothing in the way of public lands to fall back on. And I'm not talking about folks from the cities having problems in finding a place to hunt, I'm talking about the rural/small town folks who grew up in the country and still reside there. As for Cabela's to be in the real estate bizz...I see Mossy Oak and Realtree are into it as well. There are buyers out there and if they don't get the sale, someone else will.