Story-

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

I realize that this is just one man's opinion and that there will likely be a multitude of opinions about this story. I post it here so that other's can read it and decide for themselves. The story itself is short. The comment section following is long but worth reading as well. Residents of Montana may be more interested than others. Just wanted to post this for anyone interested.

You should post this in the Campfire forum.......probably get more attention.

MM

I knew Sportsmans had gone public, and watched their service drop, but I didn't realize that Cabelas had too. With uber bean-counters at the helm, the company will now likely suffer from a lack of common sense. That's too bad.

Not really surprised by anything anymore. Disappointed yes.

It appears that real estate agents are selling private property to people. Some of those folks want to have some say in who hunts on their newly purchased property.

This means that people,often local who have hunted a place for years lose access. Cabela's Trophy Properties is one of dozens of companies that has focused on recreational properties.

When it happens to you,I recommend that instead of whineing about Cabelas or any other real estate company,you start working you a$$ off and saving money and investing in property of your own.

I bet when you do,you will want to have a say in the hunting that takes place on your property.

If buying your own property is not an option for you,get involved in organizations like Alabama's Forever Wild that promote the purchase of private land for public use.

Either way,boycotting Cabelas or anybody else in the Real Estate buiness will do nothing for anybody's access to hunting land.

There,after my rant,I feel much better.


Britt

It always amazes me how many folks living in our supposedly free country feel that they have the right to tell people what they can do with their private property. This entitlement mentality seems to especially extend into the hunting community where it seems many feel that they have a right to trespass if it's under the banner of hunting. I guess my opinion is colored by where I was raised, the deep south, because private property rights are a big deal down here. You simply don't go onto someone's land without being invited. As I understand the issue in Montana, private sellers are offering the property to private buyers and folks are upset because they've been allowed to hunt it in the past and they're afraid they'll lose access under the new sellers. My answer is: Tough $hit! Fork over some of your own money and buy the property yourself, then you'll still be able to hunt it. Someone who's been enjoying free access for years should have no say in whatever the new owner does with the property. That's like me inviting you into my house for dinner one night and after I move you show up on the doorstep demanding to be fed by the new owner. It just doesn't work that way! I really fear that our country is slipping far down the slope into socialism when attitudes like this are prevalent. This attitude of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" is wrong and shows the depths to which some in our country have fallen.

Well said Crowhunter

Cabela's is just one more facet of our increasingly cookie-cutter, Walmarted America.

I buy, maybe, one item every five years from them. I'd be glad to never buy anything from them. I'll never intentionally drive to Billings to buy their camo-sodden chit.

Truth of the matter is a retailer the size of Cabela's ,and being in the business they're in, should pay closer attention to those they serve and participate in some sort of land-ethic even if it's token.

They apparently do neither which is in no way surprising...

Either way you look at it, doesn't seem to be doing the hunting community much good. Fact is, land prices here have escalated to the extent that the average person can't afford to buy a hunting "property". An unprecedented land grab is taking place and most of us are relegated to the sidelines. There's bound to be a lot of hard feelings. And people wonder why out-of-staters are so reviled.

Hunts, Ive been following this story as I picked up on it on another forum , Bowsite.com . What a person does with their own property is their own business, when a hunting supply outfit gets involved in real estate to the highest bidder they are forgeting the spirit and intent of why its a hunting supply company. Remember awhile back when RMEF took some words off the front of their magazine " and the journal of the hunt" they too lost sight of the spirit and intent of what started them. Both were/are chasing VIP's and money and it did/will cost them. danny

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...

Well said Seafire.

There are parts of Cabelas I dislike, there are parts of their company I love. Things are usually not as simple as they appear in print.They get a fair amount of business from me every year and they treat me very well.

I'm with ruraldoc & crowhunter on this one. If you're hunting private property not publically owned you could loose hunting rights at anytime. The landowner at their discretion can decide at anytime and for any reason to stop hunting. It happens here in the eastern US all the time. In case anyone hasn't heard the fastest appreciating land in the US is recreational propertiy. Cabelas isn't the only one who is getting in on it. You guys in the western states have had it pretty good if you have enjoyed free & easy access to good private land. If you are loosing it (you will and it will only get worse)blaming Cabelas is not the anwser. Getting off your ass and working hard to find places to hunt either thru clubs, leases, investment groups, or individual purchase will get you farther than slamming Cabelas or anyone else for that matter. 163bc

Kinda reminds me of when we bought our 40 and put up our log house 13 years ago. 90% of our county is state and federal lands open to the public. But when we moved in and I posted our land I upset many hunters who seemed to think they had the right to continue hunting it cause they always did in the past. I pointed out to them, maybe they should get off the road system and get into some of the beautiful country set aside for them. Am I wrong for protecting MY land and family(not to mention some fantastic deer hunting)Maybe the folks out west should try and find a way to keep ranchers ranching and not cashing out there land to whomever.Yes it sucks to see wild country chopped up and sold, but there are many layers to this issue.
AS a side note my hunting bud moved back from Corp. cabelas to open the Rogers. Mn. store. They hired 400+ people from the area. Thats a lot of good jobs with good benefits,don't be so quick to pass judgment.

You have got to be kidding me....... Why doesn't everyone who is mad about this start protesting Real estate agents as well....... If a person who owns a piece of property wants to sell it that is their business.... period. and it does not matter who it is that does the selling for them... this is a free country people....................

This is the same mentality we put up with here in Tennessee with all the poachers..... We constantly have people tearing down gates, ripping down signs, tearing up food plots on our property.... all because we are "City folk" and "they" use to hunt that land and just because it was sold (27 years ago) does not mean they can not do what they want on it anytime they want....

Just remember.... If someone else owns a piece of property it is not yours and they can do with it as they see fit. Get over it.

What a crock..... YOur money is just a green as the people who are from out of state....... You are just mad because some of your neighbors have decided they want money more than they want the land or want the money more than they want to make sure the "good old boys" can still hunt for free........

In the East (that would be anywhere that isn't the West) the mentality is different about land ownership than in the West, or at least the Montana portion of the West, and I think the differences are showing here. Hunting in the West is also very different and ignorance of those differences are showing here too.

In the East, nearly any decent woodlot can provide good stand whitetail hunting... deer and human populations are high, public lands crowded. If you don't own or control ground your hunting options are generally quite limited. I can totally understand posting ground in the East.

In the West we have smaller populations with a lot of public ground and even more private ground owned by a very small percentage of the population (framers/ranchers).

Owning large parcels of land in the West has traditionally been viewed partly as a "trust" of the landowner with a view towards being a good neighbor and steward... often that means allowing hunting. It's a win/win thing and helps control game populations (which eat pasture and crops) and create good will ala "being a good neighbor." The "neighbor" ethic here in the West is still strong in rural areas. Once upon a time it could mean the difference between survival or going bust.

Many that move here bring their Eastern land mentality here too and, rather than try to understand or fit in to the the local view of land, just post their ground. That's absolutely their right and I support their right. However, being too hasty to exert what's your right can often lead to a lot of hard feelings and that ultimately doesn't help the person who moved here to escape wherever they came from.

Money and outfitting have changed everything obviously. For me, Cabela's is basically a metaphor for that change. I mostly don't complain about it because it's reality, and I have a firm grasp of personal rights and reality. That doesn't mean a lot of us like the change however nor does it mean we'll support it financially either.

Those that say "bear-down and buy the ground yourself" are basically clueless as to what buying a huntable piece of ground really means (at least here in MT). A couple hundred acres in most places doesn't even qualify as huntable ground. You really need to control a piece in the thousand's of acres. There are exceptions, and I know of some small 20-40 acre parcels I'd rather own than many 10,000 acre ranches. However, the cost of the "right" 20 acres can easily exceed $1,000,000.

Most of the really good, large ranches are leased to outfitters... the cost of such leases can easily exceed $30,000 annually.

Painting the entire picture of hunting in the changing West is the stuff of a lengthy PhD thesis, so the above is just a small and imperfect vignette of those changes...

I see both sides of the argument. What bothers me and what "I" think the jest of the thread is that Cabelas ought to stick with what made them in the first place, selling hunting & fishing stuff.
When they step off in to other things in all sorts of directions they start becoming Walmarted.

I doubt that they will change the direction that they are headed so I'd say that if you hunted those lands in the past you better start looking for some other places to stomp around in.

[quote=Seafire
Typical easterner's response to a western problem....
[/quote]

No no no no.... what's typical is geographic areas that think like they're not part of the whole of the United States - still the best country in the world because of the freedoms we enjoy. Other Americans aren't foreigners, not the enemy.

The problem is you can't accept what has historically (always) been legal in our society. We have the best non-perfect system in the world. We want the American people to travel freely, prosper, invest and own private property. The pains that go with that are the price of freedom, get over it.

Don't tell me you want to put conditions on private property ownership in your state for hunters. That would be the worse of the two evils.

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.

We just got a new Cabela's fairly close to my location.

Went there to check it out, and found a lot of Chi-com made clothing and got sick of the over camoed clothing and all the animal sounds.

Pretty much I saw them peddling junk and could'nt find any of the gear that I would purchase in that location.

Looked like a lot of overpriced junk to me.

One thing is for certain, they ain't makin' land anymore.
My old man told me that a long time ago. Buy if you can, and never sell......

Not trying, thats what I AM saying. Growing up in southern PA, I always had places to hunt. Farm country, great for a kid to start out with a BB gun on birds and rabbits in the many fence rows around. When i started huntin, we always went to the traditional big woods though, cause all this farm land didnt hold the numbers of deer you would see in the mountains of PA. The northern PA folks would come down for pheasants, and we would head up there for deer. Fast forward 30 yrs and theres more deer down here than up there. Bad part is southern PA holds more private land than public. All the farms I could hunt as a kid are all sold off to developers, or posted and noone hunts. Sure, I can still drive 4 hours and hunt the 3 state forests near our camp, and i do. Because I refuse to pay to lease a farm. But in doing so, I have to put up with ALOT of hunting pressure. Change is going to happen everywhere eventually. "Get used to it" might sound mean spirited, but its the honest truth.

Pretty sure that's why my old man says hold on to the stash...
[bleep] change.......

Yes, I lived back east (Tenn, Va, and WVa for 24 years. After my first 10 minutes of exposure to the northwest, I vowed I would never live back there again. In my book, anything east of Wyoming is too far east.

I had good times back there, and with each visit I see radical changes as each community becomes a bedroom town for the next closest city. The sadest thing is the lack of community with folks not even knowing neighbors across the street.

We can stop in on folks unannounced a hundred miles away in all 4 directions. And they are all considered neighbors.

I've lived in the east and the west and a lot of places in between and think that the people with money will own all the good private hunting land pretty soon and the middle income and low income people will be stuck paying for hunting rights or hunting public land.

I've learned to go with the flow and make the best of it because there's nothing I can do about it.

This is a free country based on a capitalistic economy and you people might as well learn to accept it or move to a country based on a socialist government and property ownership. Better yet... Vote for Hillary and you can have it right here... <grin>



$bob$

LDHunter,

Sorry to say this but your post has got to be the most ignorant piece of garbage I've read in awhile.

First, there are plenty of things people can do to change things they don't like. They can join sportmens groups or associations(like the NRA, etc.) They can write letters to government and corporate people who set policies. They can chose to shop with companies like Cabelas or not. To simply sit back and accept things you may not like(and try to convince other's to do likewise) shows an incredible level of laziness and stupidity.

Second, don't equate people having a conversation about something they care about and are trying to figure out with "crying". If YOU don't have something constructive to add you should just make an effort to keep your stupidity to yourself and not just try to shut down a thread. If you want to live your life as a lazy, stupid a$$ then that's your right. There are plenty of other people who don't.

Many friends and family from across the U.S(some who used to live here in Montana) come to visit us each year. To a man, and woman, each person comments on how much things are changing here and how quickly it's happening. The magnitude of change taking place is obvious. No one has all the answers to try and improve the situation here. But there are many people who are working hard trying. Sportsmen, and women, who simply refuse to get involved and try and make a contribution will be left out in the cold. People can be effective and make changes. You won't get everything you may want but thats life. Sitting on your a$$ and doing nothing sure won't make a difference!!!

Furthermore, as sportsmen we all have a duty to help provide the same experience for future hunters and fisherman as we enjoy. It's pathetically selfish to go out and enjoy the gifts of nature and not think about what will remain for our kids and grandkids.

Rant officially over!

Huntz,

I believe he's saying the same thing I was. Yes its considered whining when some are considering Trespass ok.... Furthermore I've enjoyed hunting freely over THOUSANDS upon Thousands of acres as a kid and now 30 years later leasing is the norm. Its simple to understand that either you act like a gentlemen when ASKING Permission to hunt, you lease, hunt public land or buy some ground.. Trespass is NOT AN OPTION..

Furthermore some guys up there act like the world is coming to an end and Trespass should be acceptable simply because others have purchased the ground they once hunted on. Sorry to tell you that it is pretty much a Non issue.. If they have to drive further to hunt or many of the other options then thats the way it is. If the new owners say NO HUNTING then it is NO HUNTING nomatter who the new owners are, I've lost Thousands of acres due to it myself and I don't whine or trespass I adapt.

Furthermore I have landed in Bozeman before and hunted not far away, that was 18 years ago. With absolutely No relatives up there I can guarantee with only ONE phone call to a guy I could be hunting ANY critter legal to hunt on Private ground in Montana with no money changing hands. I could do that not far from Turners ranch at that. I could do the same ALL OVER the country in many states if I had enough time or money to travel. It is simply a matter of growing up and acting like a gentleman and doing things a gentleman would do...

So yes I consider it whining from guys who are locals up there who think they should be able to trespass just because they once hunted a property, they must be too lazy to go ASK the right people on another piece of property. All it takes is alittle Gas, the phone and more importantly being a Gentlman not a horsesa$$ who breaks the law all because they think they are entitled to everything. Land will always change owners, Hunting land will always change and the successful hunter should be willing to accept that be law abiding and adapt by moving on to other land.

Who ever said anything about wanting to trespass? What a dishonest way to frame a response.

18 years ago around these parts is nearly an eternity in terms of change. Your take on what's going on in Montana is so dated as to be preposterous.

Couple thought's/questions for anyone:

How many multi millionaires and billionaires are coming to your area from all over the country (and world) buying land from 5,000 to 105,000 acres? (I promise you, for every one in your state there are 1001 coming here locking up enormous tracts of land).

What is the home range of a whitetail?

What is the home range of muledeer, antelope and elk?

Quite a few of them. No, they aren't buying tracts of the size you mentioned, but only because there are none available! Our land was cut up into smaller tracts years ago. In my county, there are not more than a dozen pieces over 300 contiguous acres...and possibly three or four of those would be over 400 acres...and not one full section is owned by any one person.
Whitetail deer have a small home range, possibly two square miles around here. During the rut a buck can cover more than that, but nothing like elk or other western game.
The point is, we have had to adapt as best we could. We either lease land, buy land or get knocking on a LOT of doors. We all want the hunting heritage to continue, and many of us do all we can to promote it and seek cooperation from landowners. But in the end, it's THEIR land and they are free to do whatever they choose with it. Many have family members and/or close friends that hunt and wish to reserve it for them. For others, leasing has become VERY popular, and it's good for both sides. It isn't free, but for many it's a better option than owning. And it's a lot better than having to fight the crowds on our limited public areas, or not hunt at all.

I would never contest the fact that the land is theirs and never would advocate trespass. But if large parcels of private land become "No Hunting" zones to the public then the state should have recourse. Too often under present rules the landowner is advantaged by the state. Some of these advantages should be revisited and perhaps changed.

Brad,

Huge corporations as well as rather rich individuals have bought what land has become available for ownership around here and locked the hunting up for themselves. Not only that the Conservation dept has bought thier fair share of ground to make some Prime Private hunting ground now public. I lost over 7000 acres of land this last fall due to new private ownership and you know what I'm simply adapting by moving on to other land. So there is no real differences to me in what is beginning to take place up there.

It is a capitalistic country and money talks so the option to own land talks when you have enough money to buy or lease. If those options don't work then you become friends with the right people who either lease or own the land and gain free access. I'll be reroofing a house this summer on a piece of property inexchange for the future hunting season rights. There are many ways to adapt.

As far as not having a concept well let me tell you that during those 18 years I've remained intouch with the landowners I've hunted on back then, so my sight is not nearly as far away as you might think.. It is called looking into the future and acting like a gentleman thinking someday I may want to take my kids on the same once in alifetime hunt that I made up there.

Personally I call it change and we can either change with the times or we can get left behind and cry that we should have been entitled to this that or the other. Those who feel entitled never seem to get very far, those who are willing to work hard towards what they want will reap the rewards of living in a capitalistic country....

Hunts, The article did a disservice to some readers who are not informed about hunting on private property in MT and why the MWF got involved. I think that is why there was a east/west pissin contest.

Everybody, You can hunt private property by asking and if the land has been signed up for block management the hunter signs a sheet and goes hunting and the farmer/rancher gets paid by the state.

MWF in years past got alot of ranches signed up for block management and with big ranches selling as subdivisions they see that as a loss and are upset.

Cabelas has 35 properties list in MT and on the east side where there's not a big bunch of public land this hurts the locals who had legally hunted there before but can't now, that weaver ranch is 29K+ acres and alot of locals are going to lose out.

Chase Bank Inc of NY owns 51% of cabelas inaddition alot of big corperations are stepping over the line with consumers.

Nobody asked anybody to stop buying from cabelas and nobody said to cross fences or postings. If somebody does get a rope. danny, anyway Merry Christmas to all.

i have felt the same way as you Westerner's at times here in the midwest when that happened here 15 years ago. leases/new owners/developers shut me out of many areas that i had free reign to roam. i too refuse to pay for hunting rights so i just had to find more land. i used to hunt whitetails for free in western IL (pike,brown,calhoun co.)!! all it took was a knock on the door. there existed the same access to private land here in the midwest years ago that you out west were/are enjoying now. i am lucky to also have farm land in the immediate family as there is no way i could afford to purchase what my parents own as their property has gone up in value way faster than what i earn. i do feel your pain. i have hunted out west and there is almost no way to purchase enough hunting land there. if you bought 10,000 acres only 500 would have game on it and you can't just buy the 'good' 500.

It's true there's been a land grab all over the United States in the last ten years... around here, however, there's been a "hyper" land grab.

In the end, the outcome is similar...

Only thing I'd add is a whitetails home area is around one square mile... western animals require substantially more.

danny and brad,

Thanks for your comments. It's sad to say that Montana is finally getting a taste of what has happened all over this country. I can understand people from outside the state thinking "why should it be any different up there?". They may even harbor a little jealousy at how good we have had it up here.

But do you throw in the towel, admit defeat and say there's nothing I can do about it or do you fight the good fight? For me it's not about winning or losing but the fight itself. Hell, sure you're probably going to lose more often than win but better to at least try. What kind of legacy do we leave for our kids if we do nothing?

I know a few old timers around here that haven't thrown in the towel yet. They've taught me how to get back up after you've been knocked down. One of them in now 80 years old and was just recently called "the toughest man in the rockies" in a Field and Stream article by Keith McCafferty a few years ago. He still hunts elk solo with bow and gun by tracking them for days only to bed down in the mountains when it gets dark. As a member of a local sporting organization he is tireless in his efforts to fight for what he believes in. He gives no quarter. I watch and learn everything I can from the man.

Too many people feel powerless to change things these days. It's too bad. Personally after I die I don't want my legacy to be how many hours I spent sitting somewhere in a tree stand. Judging from some people's comments on this thread I get the feeling that folks are threatened by someone who will get up and fight for something they believe in. Maybe it forces them to look at themselves and they don't like what they see. It's a self fulfilling prophecy to believe that you're powerless. It will make you weak. Do what you have to but don't piss on people who are out there trying to get a fair shake for us little guys. Corporate greed has come to Montana with a vengeance and we are in for the battle of our lives. Lot's of us aren't willing to sit quietly on the sidelines.

Excellent post!

Hunts, I think we can all make a difference but the world is changing and I'm afraid the tide is against us. That's my honest opinion but it doesn't mean we can't try.

Would add it's preposterous of anyone to think they really understand what's happening here because they visit every few year to hunt... living in a place and visiting are two entirely different things.

John, I read what you wrote several times and I "hear" you. It's been a long time since I've lived back East and it's easy to become out of touch. There was a time I could take my 22 and wander the farms around our house... now it's all subdivisions.

Thanks.

Gentlemen,
This thread has a little of everything regarding the subject. Originally it kicked off with a link to an article about Cabela's real estate ventures that prompted some real debate. As many have said same thing is going on over here in WV and Ohio just on a smaller scale. Working to keep property open to the public and managed properly is a tough assignment but definitely one worth working at.
As far as Cabela's is concerned I feel it is a mistake for them to be marketing property that the sale of ultimately results in the loss of property to hunt for the general public. There is nothing wrong with a person putting there farm or ranch up for sale and someone buying it to do with whatever they want but a major outdoor retailer being involved obviously generates a sour taste.
If enough hunters and fisherman speak loud enough to Cabela's maybe we can convince them to purchase large parcels, manage it and provide hunting opportunities on these properties for their customers. The marketing advantages of them doing somrthing like this would be pretty big IMO. Just a thought.

RaceTire, that's about as to-the-point as any post on this thread.

Well said!

Brad,

It IS THE SAME EVERYWHERE.... You either go with the flow and join the flow or get left behind, thats the way it is... You CAN DO ANYTHING you set your mind to with anything in life too... Me I've learned to live in the country and work in the city for one of the largest corporations in the buisness of my profession. Currently I travel 50 plus miles a day one way to get to work and you know what I'm Happy! You know why? Because I can walk out my backdoor right now and step into the woods boardering my backyard and be hunting. The kids and I will be shooting targets in just a bit with everything from BB guns to deer rifles in my backyard! I'll be resuming my bowhunting by 3 this afternoon not more then 500 yards from the house too.

Find a way to buy land and lease even more! I'm a small fry in the grand scheme of things but I've learned to adapt the same as some up there will have to do.... Get it done!

I always find it absolutely amazing that folks will continue to b!tch and complain about someone else buying land and locking it up when it is STILL the landowner's right to do as they see fit with their own property.

The EASIEST way to avoid this is to buy it yourself.

If that is not a possibility, band together with others and do so, OR, and this one just gets avoided like a leper in church, SUPPORT organizations that do so. The Nature Conservancy, for one, as well as a host of smaller state and local land trusts are normally very pro-hunting, or at least neutral on the subject and their job is to conserve land for future use.

Why we as hunters refuse to use these resources to preserve our access to good hunting land is just beyond me.

Us "whining Montanans" got the attention of Cabela's in the aftermath of them brokering the sale of the Weaver Ranch. Click HERE to read another article regarding them trying to protect/improve their public image in Montana. Our population may be small, but apparently very vocal and persuasive as Cabela's seemingly saw nothing wrong with selling their merchandise to Joe-lunchbucket while at the same time being involved with diminishing his opportunity to use it until they came to Montana. Cabela's may only be providing lip-service, but if they don't follow through with what they said earlier this month, the backlash will only be stronger.

Contrary to out-of-state opinions, we in this state largely understand and support private property rights and the concept of willing buyer and willing seller. We understand that the new owner can do what he/she wants to do with their property within legal bounds. That is not the point of bemoaning Cabela's involvement in the sale of properties, some of which have a long history of allowing public access, as exclusive recreational getaways. If you don't understand that, you don't get the big picture and have probably resigned yourself to the mindset of "If it's legal, it must be moral." Just because Cabela's CAN be involved in real estate, does it mean they SHOULD?

I think Cabela's underestimated just how dear we hold our hunting heritage and the privilege of access to our public trust resources, including wildlife, in this state. It is, after all, why some 30% of us stay here and forgo earning power afforded by moving elsewhere. I also think Cabela's was used to operating in other states where exclusive access to the public's wildlife was the norm so Cabela's met little if any resistance to their endeavors. But in Montana, the sale of one property that Cabela's listed, the Weaver Ranch in the central part of the state, is making even lackadaisical hunters stand up and realize they are on the verge of losing their way of life. Just because commercialization of wildlife is the norm in the majority of the U.S. doesn't mean it has to be here.

I can understand landowners thinking the public trust animals are theirs to profit off because many of them have no concept of the North American model of wildlife conservation and probably think they are the sole reason we have the populations we do right now. However, I'm flabbergasted when I see my brethren condoning exclusive and commercial use of public resources, ala the European model of wildlife conservation, while at the same time trumpeting the merits of America's great and dear property rights. Well, part of what has made this country great has been the fact that the wildlife was owned by EVERYONE, not just the Kings as it was in Europe. It seems as many in this country have forgotten this and are all right with being shut off from THEIR animals because the new-found kings of this country say that's the way it should be. So, if you want to argue how much better our country is than socialist countries, please use ALL of the reasons, not just those that fit your situation.

Does this mean I'm advocating the absolute right of unfettered access to public wildlife on private lands? No, not in the least. I fully support a landowner's private property rights to control who's allowed on said property. If he wants to totally close down his property that's his business. However, I think that if a landowner creates a situation where he's removing the democracy of hunting, which is one of the tenets of the North American model of wildlife conservation, by only allowing privileged trespassers, that landowner should pay for profiting from a public trust resource. In Montana, and I'd guess elsewhere, tax rates on agricultural land are very low and subsidized by higher commercial and personal property taxes. If a landowner is profiting from exclusive access to the public's wildlife, why shouldn't they be taxed at the higher commercial rate because they are no longer solely using their property for ag purposes? Also, when other extractive industries profit from public resources, they have to pay for the privilege. Why don't outfitters have to pay for the same privilege?

The Weaver Ranch sale is serving as a rallying point for the citizens of Montana who are now realizing what's going on by-and-large in other parts of the country is making its way here. The two above taxation ideas are but a few that are being offered as a way to combat this exclusivity. Another is MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks tentative proposal this year to put in place limited archery elk permits in hunting districts that previously had limited rifle permits but unlimited archery licenses. These unlimited archery opportunities are fueling outfitter leasing because they can get guaranteed licenses, which allows them to go forth and lease lands knowing they have a guaranteed funding source. Taking away that certainty takes away the certainty that the outfitter will be able to exclusively benefit from the public's wildlife.

These may seem like drastic steps to some in other states and may be viewed as having little chance of being enacted in a state where agriculture rules most factions of life. Keep in mind that the citizens banned game farms through the initiative process and that was an uphill battle too. These ideas illustrate how dearly we in Montana hold the North American model of wildlife conservation, even if not everyone understands that's what they're supporting in the end. I'm truly saddened that many citizens and agencies in other states have lost sight of our unique and highly successful model of wildlife conservation. Us hook and bullet guys and gals have been instrumental in this conservation model and it's a shame that agencies and the well-to-do among us have turned their backs on the concept that public resources are for the benefit of all. We're blessed in Montana to have both an engaged citizenry, which is fighting tooth-and-nail to perpetuate this tradition, as well as a fish and wildlife agency and Commission that still believes in the democracy of hunting.

Whenever something is proposed in this state that will have a negative economic impact on landowners, they are mighty quick to throw out the "taking" argument based on private property rights. But shouldn't the same be argued when public resources are "taken" from the public through exclusive use?

I can't recommend enough that anybody who cares about our unique hunting tradition in the USA do some research on the North American model of wildlife conservation. After all, without it we'd probably not have this bulletin board to post our views nor would we be having this conversation as fish and wildlife would have largely been wiped out due to market forces. It took all seven tenets of the model to reverse that trend. The model is a whole, not to be split or ignored, as individuals see fit. It took unselfish acts by people on all sides to make it work. It would seem the selfish acts of individuals are serving to undermine it today. I guess some people don't view European ideas as so bad when they fit their individual needs.

Some may be thinking I went off on a tangent irrelevant to the original post about Cabela's undermining those that buy their goods and why there's sour grapes. But if you think about the big picture, including where we've been and the road to where we are now, it has everything to do with why we're producing sour w(h)ine. Only time will tell where our state's hunting tradition goes but no doubt it will be a battle. I'm willing to share the public trust critters for the benefit of hunting's future and future hunters. Are you?

Nice Vernacular... I'll pass on the creation of any new taxes though, they seem to waste enough as it is...

Whttail_in_MT,

Thank You! Well said and my compliments to you.

Shame on all those folks out west who are selling their ground for top dollar, I feel that those folks are the evil ones not the brokers or the buyers. (all said in jest with a ring of truth)

You're welcome and thank you too Hunts.

Fantastic Post!

Since when do the folks out west have a monopoly on hunting tradition? Last I heard, the guys in the east have a tradition that goes back hundreds of years.

The westerners should realize that they have it good. Wildlife management was implemented before you lost a great portion of your game animals and woodlands. At one time, elk, and bison roamed the east and it was said that a squirrel could go from the ocean to the Mississippi without touching the ground.

You guys in the west may be losing places to hunt, but at least the habitat is still there and it has not been turned into a parking lot or housing development.

Whhtail in MT,

Excellent post!
I agree with almost all of it.

HOWEVER, I have to strongly disagree with one point of your post.
And that is the point of landowners should be taxed extra for rights to hunt on their property.

No, the animals DO NOT belong to them. But should a person be taxed on top of what they are already taxed upon for annual income for hunting (if they show the income from hunting on their taxes, which an honest person would, I'm not ignorant,I know many don't). The answer is no. Basically what you are saying is in that part of your post is "tax the wealthy, but not the poor".

Let me finish....

Yes, I ranch in Texas. I'm sure many quit reading my post because they saw where I was from and by my first comments on taxing for hunting. Well let me continue by saying I HATE AND DESPISE high fences, outrageous prices on hunting rights and the privatization of wildlife.

My mother and father worked their a$#es off to buy the ranch they own now. They don't leases it for hunting. Only family/close friends hunt. We were not rich. Growing up I drank plenty of powdered milk (we have beef cows not dairy cows, for you city folks that don't know the difference) ate plenty of venison and wild hogs, plus a calf or two every year and garden veggies.

Ok, here's my point. My parents place is not big but it is crawling with deer. If they did lease it, you think they should be taxed because they have deer? As long as they show their income from their hunting rights (which they WOULD be taxed on), and pay their fee to Texas Parks and Wildlife for leasing their land, which is charged according to the size of your ranch , do you with any shred of common sense think they should be charged again by the state for getting money for hunting on their land?

Anyone here that thinks so, I welcome you to get your butt out of bed EVERYDAY at daybreak(not just hunting season) and feed animals, work on tractors/equipment, cut hay, etc, etc, etc, etc, and make an average income.

Anyone who think folks who have plenty of game on their land are lucky or priveliged then get off you chickens%#t butts and scare the hell out of yourself with a giant loan on some land that has game and figure out how to make an income off of it, just like my family did.

Again this is getting away from the Cabela's post and I apologize but I had to resond to an otherwise EXCELLENT post by WHTTAIL IN MT.

Bill

Bill
You missed WT's point... He suggested they LOSE the discount they get on their taxes for being exclusively ag land if they leased it. Why should taxpayers subsidize ag land taxes when monies are being made beyond the ag values and it comes from extractive use of a public resource?

Want cheap taxes? Don't lease your land...

Not advocating, just clarifying.
art

Lots of rich retiries here in my home county, land is from $5000 and acre for a rockcliff, to $150,000 and acre for a small pasture, heck .4 of an acre bordering my land is for sell at $40,000 right now,,,,#1 place in america to retire a couple of years,,, for awile I though that half of Florida was moving up,,, the rich snooby half. Around here hunting is public lands only,,,,,,,posted signs everywhere

You guys out west have no more property rights than any other american, and property the owners have no less. Just as 100-300 acre farms are being sold every month around here and cut up into developements for the rich retiries, 500-5,000 acre ranches are being cut up out your way for the same thing. The only places that I have hunted in the last 10 years that I also hunted 30 years ago are national forest lands, the rest are gone.

Slipery slope to incourage higher taxes to help out your point of view, next thing you know the new ones may be aimed at you.


On the subject of taxes,,,, the home that I built for $130,000 here 7 years ago is now valued at $350,000 and thats just the house not the 30 acres,,, another unpleasant side to the developement and invasion by the rich. Our tax rate has also increased making property taxes a real pain.

tx270- Sitka deer's clarification is accurate and I'll add that in Montana a landowner who leases hunting privileges pays no duty, fee, or tax like they apparently do in Texas. The only way any of this money that's exchanged is taxed is if the landowner reports it as income I suppose. I have no problem subsidizing agricultural tax rates as long as that's what it's being used for. But I do have a problem with landowners who are also commercially capitalizing from a public resource, that I cannot access because I'm not the highest bidder, yet I'm still required to subsidize the low ag tax rates for their property. If tomorrow I decided to open a business on my residential lot, would I not be charged at a commercial rate instead of a residential rate? Same piece of ground that it is today, yet I'm now using it to generate money.

As far as any tax changes, what I'd like to see is both a hammer AND a carrot. If a landowner chooses to have a commercial operation on their property, they lose the ag break and are taxed at the higher commercial rate. But, if they choose not to and allow public hunting without consideration (i.e. without fee hunting), they get an even bigger break than the ag rate allows. And if they do neither, it would be status quo and their taxes would remain the same.

Yes, we do realize how good we have had it in this state and that's why we're willing to fight for it. It's not always a bad thing to be behind the curve as it allows us to learn from the ways others have tried to do things. No offense to residents of other states, but we do not want, or have, to be followers.

Thanks to Brad and tx270 for the kind words. I'll add that I have no delusions of grandeur about changing anyone's mindset on this. I realize that if I hailed from a neck of the woods where fee hunting was the norm I'd be right in line with the rest of you. I was fortunately born and raised in Montana though and old habits die hard. I'll sound like a broken record but I'll argue that the further we stray from the North American model of wildlife conservation, the more disenfranchised we are from the notion that wildlife should be managed for the benefit of all and the less passionate we are about hunting's future. If all I can do is look at animals across the fence and not hunt them because someone with deep pockets now has exclusive access to them, my interest in perpetuating the tradition will wane. After all, why should the public as a whole support something that will only benefit a few?

I hope those that are comfortable with the notion of leasing land realize that they are only place holders until someone with more money comes along; I imagine it frequently happens in a top down domino fashion until you are at the bottom of the financial pyramid before being totally removed from the market. Then what do you do and who do you look to for help in supporting your hunting privileges? Those above you on the financial ladder who've out-leased you? If they cared if you hunted or not they wouldn't have outbid you in the first place. If trends are an indicator, this is but one more reason to quit hunting because you no longer have a vested interest in the wildlife because you cannot get to it. But according to some, this is a good thing and is inevitable so I might as well go with the flow and learn to live with it. Sorry, but I ain't buyin' it. Idealistic views maybe, but why not strive................

I have been hunting Montana for 40 some years.A lot of changes have taken place.From being able to buy a Tag accross the counter to Outfitters leasing of Prime Hunting Land.Do I blame the Rancher for leasing to try and make a go of it.No way.It is The land owners responability to take care of his property and family in the best way they can.Do I like it???? No I don`t like that I cannot afford to hunt where I once hunted for free.Change will take place whether we want it or not.Protesting might slow it down,but will not stop change.It is a sad thing to see this happen,but the facts are we have an ever increasing population(That is increased by our Open Border policies).Everybody wants a piece of the Pie .The Pie is only so big and the Pieces are getting smaller.The best thing to do is convince your State Legislaters of the Importance of The State to buy land to set aside for future generations.Another is to form or join Sportsmans groups that can buy land as a group to do the same thing.One thing is for sure is that things have to move beyond a talking Stage before all the land dissappears.On another note(Merry Christmas to all)!!!!

OBTW Only 3% of all the land in the State of Texas is owned by a State, Federal or County agency, and only about half that is available to hunt on. As I remember it was set up this way to prevent the yankee carpet baggers from taking over all the prime ranchland for themselves thru the use of Emminent Domain regualtions. Until recently event the even the State's Constitution was the same one adopted in the Post Civil War Reconstruction years of 1879 in repsonse to the abuse's of power by the Federal Gvt's heavy handed and unscrupulous abuse of Texan's Landowner rights after the Federal Occupation was ended.

Ya'll out west need to fight tooth and toenail to preserve your access rights to Public Lands, as well as this effort to privitize the access to Publicly owned natural assets. Good Luck on the fight!
Ron

F'k...

Whatever.

I'll make it plain, right now.

When I get to the point that I can buy a chunk of property that suits me and mine for a goodly chunk of the remainder of my life, hunting and fishing opportunities play into that. Big time.

And, when that time comes, I will bring and leverage every single red, hard earned, American red cent that I can to afford that. If it's outside of your comfort level for your area, oh friggin' well.

I still, can't for the life of me fathom the b!tchin' and moaning, when alternatives exist and aren't explored.

BTW - don't try the "public land access" bullschit. Cabelas, nor any other realtor, is selling public land. They are selling PRIVATE land, and PRIVATE land ownership rights still carry.

[quote=Sitka deer]Bill
You missed WT's point... He suggested they LOSE the discount they get on their taxes for being exclusively ag land if they leased it. Why should taxpayers subsidize ag land taxes when monies are being made beyond the ag values and it comes from extractive use of a public resource?

Want cheap taxes? Don't lease your land...

Not advocating, just clarifying.

Sitka,
Thanks for the clarification, but I still disagree. The deer on our ranch (and most ranches in this country) roam the same pastures our cattle do. They also roam the same fields we cut for hay. The deer also graze the same oat and wheat fields that we plant for grazing for our cows.

So you think we (or other ranchers) should lose our ag exemption on these areas because deer use them also if we leased the land? I don't think you realize what the difference is in the amount of taxes that would result. Leasing the land for hunting would not pay taxes on land that was not under ag exemption. A ranch, in Texas at least, could not financely survive unless the owners were very wealthy and had money to burn. Which make up about 1% of the farmers and ranchers in America.

Believe me the money most ranchers make off hunting does not instantly make them wealthy or move them to another financial class (ex.-middle class to upper class). It merely helps pay the taxes and sometimes keeps them from going heavy into the red on bad years when cattle prices are down or drought strikes.

Now one place I will slightly agree with you and Whttail is on ranches where they do not run livestock and the sole money maker is wildlife and the hunting of it. But alas, here in Texas you can keep ag exemption by catering your land soley to wildlife and its habitat, however the requirements are stricter than they are for cattle or sheep. Why? Because hunting brings hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy here every year.

While you both make some good points, I think its quite obvious neither of you have ever had to make a living farming or ranching. If you did I think your outlook would be very different, at least on the taxing part or losing of exemptions.

Merry Christmas,

Bill

For some reason I didn't get in on this thread when it started--I should have. Very good post Brad.

My family still owns a couple hundred acres in the high country that partly controls access to public land. In some ways it's the best of both worlds--only those who are serious enough to get out and hike have the opportunity to hunt that area of public land. And if they are serious enough, my family doesn't really protest too much about hunters who occassionally "find" themselves on our land.

Besides as you say Brad, a couple hundred acres don't amount to diddly squat in the west. In 35+ years of carrying a weapon, I have killed exactly zero elk on our land--down in the valley or the high country land.

Denying hunting access to public land when private land blocks it is a HUGE wildlife management dilemma in Colorado. Even I was suprised to find land that I thought was public turn out to be private when the real estate buying spree started in the late 70's.

And you're right Brad, the commercialization of wildlife brings as many problems as it solves here in the west. When dollars begin to manage wildlife it will revert back to the sport hunting of earlier centuries--only the very rich or very, VERY dedicated who can afford large blocks of time will be able to hunt.

Don't get me wrong, I often DO make the effort to circumnavigate private land to hunt what the landowner often considers "his" piece of public land Have had more than one Mexican standoff in the past

Just like in Montana, in Colorado realtors advertise properties that "control" public land. And our land is located in a "Trophy" unit with limited licenses--and that usually is a selling point too......

Casey

I haven't even made through the first few pages but noticed your post VA--and I'm not necessarily speaking only to you--so don't take it personal :

There was a time 5000 acres of high country prime hunting ground was reasonably within my reach--but that disappeared 25 years ago.

Was a time when a million dollars could buy 10,000-20,000 acres--today that won't buy 500 acres. And 500 acres can be traversed by a herd of elk in about 5 minutes......

Otherwise, one is limited to buy 10 or 20 acres--or less--that really controls nothing--it's just a place to build one's cabin or park one's camp trailer.

But there is a lot more to it: The sheer numbers of people and the money they bring into a culture where practically EVERYBODY was "middle class" has changed the culture in the west--for the worst IMO. It is sooo ironic that so many move here for the "values" and the "lifestyle", but inadvertantly bring their own values--and money--with them....thereby overwhelming the very culture they allegedly express a kinship with.

Lastly--but very importantly--is many think that by living here there is some kind of special ability they absorb that makes hunting suddenly easy. Many, many folks find out the mountains are just as steep and the canyons just as deep as when the visited out here. They often revert to technology (like ATV's) and have about the same success they did before.

One of the Montana Universities had a long term study going about elk hunters and success rate. They released the first 10 years of the study in the early 90's. Over a 10 year period, about 10% of the elk hunters accounted for 75% of the elk harvest.

In other words, those 10% were out there every year, and over the 10 year period, their success rate ran 90-100% percent--everybody else came in a very distant second.

Because I started following my dad elk hunting 45 years ago--back when there were few elk and fewer elk hunters--and at during some periods was totally focused on elk and hunting, I often have acquaintances pop up and say "Take me elk hunting with you!"
First, most can't keep up.
Secondly, most don't have the equipment and/or are not familiar with their equipment.
Three, I have spent DECADES finding good places to hunt that haven't been developed, blocked, or roads built--I have learned the hard way not to take those places lightly.

I'm afraid this just comes across as some western snobbery--but their is one hecku'va lot of myths that still exist about the rural west.....


Casey

VA, you don't get it... sorry, you're just not hearing what's being said by "most" of us here. Mainly because you obviously don't know the West and are thinking of it in Eastern land terms.

Casey, it's a complicated subject and I think between your post and several others including my own humble contribution the point is clear. However, most won't "get" it because they don't live here.

MTwtail gave a GREAT overview of the North American game management model... I "tried" to make the point game hunted in the East is largely the whitetail with a minescule home range. Heck, I could cash out my 20 acres of mostly un-huntable land here in Gallatin County and buy a huntable piece of woodland, even a small "farm, where a lot of these guys live.

I'm sure you could say the same.

As to Forest Service Access... that's a real dilema across the West. Here in Montana it's illegal to "jump corners"... that's always pissed me off.

Prosperity has really hurt and helped our country!

You don't get it.

It's PRIVATE land. Always has been; remains so.

If you want it, buy it. If you don't, but want to hunt it, lease it or help a group that's like-minded buy it.

Otherwise, it will get bought and used as they see fit, by someone else.

'Splain me what I'm missing.

Explain why you think, because of your geographical area, there should be some special exemption which gives the public the right to control private land. Explain why it would be fair, in the USA, to limit private property owners rights in this way. The ONLY way I would agree to burden the private land owner is if their land surrounds, or is part of a group of tracts that surround, public land AND provides no access to said public land. There must be some right of way access given to ensure our public lands can be accessed. But it seems im reading here alot want public access on private land. And that must be a choice the land owner makes, not a sportsmens group, conservation group, or government.

There's been three pages of explanation, especially Wttail_in_MT's thread. Go read it... if you can't comprehend the argument, that's not my fault, really.

I did read it, and I still find it BS. The only one not comprehending is you. Fact is, wildlife conservation has changed and will continue to change. Expecting your idea of what conservation is to stay the same is ignorant to say the least. Learn to adapt, its your only choice.

You'd love Europe...

..and you'd love reality. Please step in the line which states "REST OF THE NATION" and enjoy your stay.

Just wanted to add that if I was in your position, id be glad it was Cabelas, someone who has a vested interest in hunting, selling property over some anti group. Either way, it doesnt matter because its private property. If it wasnt Cabelas it would be someone else.

No, I do get it.

20 years ago, y'all could dream of getting rich enough to buy your own spread and hunt just about anything you wanted on your own land.

You can't anymore, because property values have skyrocketed.

Guess what? They've done that everywhere.

Yes, in the East, I could buy 10-20 acres and hunt deer on it every year. IF I bought it in a decent area, IF I could afford it. Out West, 10-20 acres only gets me residency. So what? If I'm willing to drive and put in the time, I can hunt anything in the state on public land. And, I will.

I'm not thinking of it in Eastern terms; I'm thinking of it as reality. You may have imagined your own 10,000-20,000 acre spread. I am very sorry that y'alls dreams got dashed; but honestly, that dream was about two-three generations late. Hey, I have similar dreams, that are a couple generations late. I don't stew on it; I deal with it, and adapt.

As stated before, there are solutions out there. Crying about not being able to stroke the check on your own anymore, is one of them, but it won't change anything.

Exactly.

Brad,

I'm NOT trying to make this a personal issue so please understand that... However I'd like to know what you guys think is sooo special about the west specifically Montana that private land ownership shouldn't be allowed to take place? I know your going to say because they buy large tracts of land. Ummmm SO whats your point? All over the U.S. those who adapt and are successful in life in both thier career and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS seem to have MORE stuff. Newer Bigger Houses, Newer Bigger Cars, More Hunting Gear and More Land. Capitalistic Opportunity has given them that ability.

No they are not ALL Kings and Royalty, No they don't control Everything... They are simply more successful through thier own ability to strive harder and alittle luck. It has always been this way since the beginning of time, some are better at obtaining things then others and some seem to be more lucky.

Like I said I'm alittle guy compaired to some of my relatives and friends.. I know and am friends with ALOT of people who live in million dollar houses some even have 2 or 3 in different states. Some of those people own as much as 100,000 acres or more of NOTHING but hunting ground, some of those people plant lots of acres in corn and LEAVE IT, they don't harvest it.. They are wealthy enough to leave it for the animals and plow it under in the spring then replant again each year. Some even flood many acres of corn to waterfowl hunt which also cost even more. Many only let thier closest family hunt and I've yet to even set foot on most of thier land and I'm family myself.

Should I resent them and be jealous?

Sure I can hunt right out the back door for deer and small game on both my own land and my families small 80 acres, I've got more family to hunt on say another 2000 acres or so, however even with that much it gets crowded when we are trying to pass it on to the kids and I also waterfowl. SO I also lease and to lease most of my leasing is done with no money changing hands, I gain sole access for hunting on some ground through hard work. I help with livestock,farming in plant and harvest season, work on others houses and barns, and turn water pumps on to flood corn, open the gates to drain ect. I travel far away to public ground sometimes to inorder to leave enough room for the little guys to go with thier parents and for me to be able to take my own kids.

I used to have access to 100's of thousands of acres and I could hunt it for FREE as a kid. Private land ownership has changed hands and I've lost some ground, leasing has taken place, some children have grownup and hunt the family farm I used to hunt and I choose not to crowd them so I don't ask and don't hunt it, the dept of conservation has purchased some and finally a few big corporations have aquired quite a bit of land and posted it and only privileged people hunt it. Should I resent all of it and try to pass new laws or create new taxes? Or should I keep trying to aquire more land for myself in one way or another to hunt?

Now with all that said and done, just how do figure the west should be ANY DIFFERENT? Why because you have ELK,MOOSE AND GRIZZLY, or is it the Speed Goats, and prarie dogs?

If people choose to sell thier land shouldn't they have the right to sell it for the highest dollar to the highest bidder inorder to better themselves?

If some are more successful then others shouldn't they have the right to spend more then the other person if they choose to with thier own money? If others choose to band together to increase the amount of money they have to spend to buy even more ground shouldn't that be thier choice?

All I want to know is what makes Montana or anywhere else in the country special or indifferent then the rest of the country? You guys think the animals should be considered public resource now? Public means Free like going for a swim in the Mo. river wherever you want with no fee.

Common I've got plenty of UNUSED tags in my pocket right now, I've had to purchase those tags to hunt those animals. Those animals if they were really public would be Free to hunt at anytime on ANYland with no purchase of a tag required. Even with the tag purchase if they are public resource then you could chase them on private property at anytime during hunting season.

Those tags are a tax of the gov. The Gov. uses the funds from the tags to restore and maintain the numbers of the animals and to give us an opportunity to hunt on Gov. land. Even the Gov. realizes the need to buy land.

Tell me how another tax would be a good thing or more laws? It seems to me we have enough taxes going up all the time and I've seen enough laws protecting the bad guys and not the good guy. Buying or leasing land is called change and those who don't change with the country as our country changes will get left behind.

Fact is, support for individuals having the right to bear arms wanes every time a wacko decides to go on a killing spree. Following your logic, we should just go with the flow and surrender our guns, because that's the way it seems to be headed. No use in trying to fight the inevitable, is there? You seem fine with European-style wildlife ownership so why not European-style gun ownership? I guess it boils down to which traditions and principles that set this country apart from others that you choose to support and defend.

I guess I need to reiterate that I support the landowner's right to say who is on his property. However, if the landowner chooses to in effect remove them from the general public, and sell them to the highest bidder, he should pay for this violation of the public trust doctrine. Don't want to allow anybody on your property? Fine, don't. But what gives you the right to profit as an individual from something that's owned collectively by all? It amazes me that people so adamantly oppose a landowner who blocks access to public lands, yet are entirely comfortable with them blocking access to public animals, even though they are both public property.

If there are ANY SOCIALIST type viewpoints here they are NOT MINE.. I'll keep my guns Thankyou.....

The way You want it to be the animals nomatter where they roam should be huntable by you or anyone who decides to hunt them ANYWHERE.

European lifestyle? I don't consider myself royalty however if someone decided to trespass on my land while hunting as you call a public resource they would get prosecuted under trespass...... Thankfully I live in Mo. where it is clearly defined in the codebook that no one shall trespass while pursuring game animals.

Quote... I guess I need to reiterate that I support the landowner's right to say who is on his property. However, if the landowner chooses to in effect remove them from the general public, and sell them to the highest bidder, he should pay for this violation of the public trust doctrine. Don't want to allow anybody on your property? Fine, don't. But what gives you the right to profit as an individual from something that's owned collectively by all?

Your socialistic views also want to penalize the original property owner for selling land to someone who doesn't support hunting, or public tresspass? You are all about YOUR rights and the right of the general hunting public but what about the rights of the individual who works hard to own the land or profit from the sale of the land they worked hard to get in the first place? I'm Amazed... I do support hunting and gunownership and I support the right of the landowner but more importantly I support the right of each and every individual to choose what they want to doin the pursuit of happiness, as long as they abide the laws of the land. I also support capitalistic viewpoints of each individual so long as they break no laws each and everyone should have the right to make as much money or own as much land as what they want and do whatever the individual wants to do with thier own money or land as long as its within the laws..

Those animals have NOT been a Public resource since the time of the Mountain Man they are Not Free to take anymore, they are not free to hunt at anytime you choose and they cannot be chased over all the lands wherever you freely choose... Get a grip on reality............

Just to help clarify what I see as a gap in thinking here...

WT's argument is being lost in claims of socialism and lack of reality... The system as it exists was built on a foundation of public use and access to large parcels, including much public land locked behind private parcels. Tax incentives were given to those folks for ag business while the status quo included general access. Was that socialism? I see each side benefitting.

As the system evolves more and more folks are seeing an erosion of their ability to access public resources including land. The change in tax structure would be an attempt to hold that line.

Do land-owners have the right to shut down their property? Absolutely! Does the State have the right to change the tax structure to achieve social ends? Is hunting or other public access worth saving? Should taxpayers subsidize ag business profitting from public resources?

A couple things that have always bothered me: Landowners blocking access to public lands. That should IMO stop ALL tax incentives, discounts, deferrals or other payments... Leased public land being held and used as if it were private. Had a situation many years ago on the Columbia River just down from Vantage. The land on the West side is public yet the No Trespassing signs suggested otherwise.
art

Perfectly stated Art... nothing to add.

On that, we agree. However, private landowners block public access to public lands is a very small part of this argument IMHO.

Take a look at WT's take on the private landowner's violation of the public trust doctrine for blocking public access to his/her privately held land. I know a good bit about the Public Trust Doctrine, but can't recall this being any part of it.

It would appear that the general disagreement is about the private ownership of increasingly small and increasingly expensive parcels of land in the West that then make it too expensive for some to be able to purchase the large chunks of property that they wish to own for their own, and ostensibly, public access hunting. With the complaints to those ends, I disagree.

If your dealing with a landlocked public property, then by all means take it to the court system. This type of sitution isnt new, though sometimes you get the right of way, sometimes you dont. For the most part, noone has the right to block public property. Again, thats for the courts to decide.





First, we are not talking about gun laws here. Totally different set of circumstances, and if your that idiotic to draw that kind of conclusion, I can do the same MR COMMUNIST for telling me what can be done with my property. See, idiotic isnt it?

Second, I AGREE noone should be allowed to block PUBLIC property! That situation should be taken up with the court system immediately. When a landowner is confronted with the possibilty of paying stiff taxes on property he will never own he will usually grant a right of way. There are legal ways around this situation. As far as animals on private property, unless the private property owner pens them up or entices them to stay on his property, theres nothing you can do. If they pen them up or entice them to stay, and profit from it, they will be paying taxes on money earned. The state will get their money from tags sold. The outfitter will pay taxes on hunts sold. And your wildlife agency will change the way they manage game. Other states have been through this, and wildlife continue to thrive. And very favorably so.

I would suppose input from a professional land use guy from MT F&G would help folks get the big picture... Or would it?

While I do not know how much of the issue involves public land locked behind private gates I hear enough about it to believe it substantial. And as I understand it the courts have held they can continue to prohibit rights of way.

hick
This is Christmas... Did WT deserve that?

Having hunted with him briefly, I assure you he is a very good guy that knows a LOT more about the issue than either of us... or both combined...
art

Art;

IF that's the major issue, then yeah, I can see the problem. Insight from the MT F&W fella can't hurt.

Oh, and if that's what the MT courts have decided, then they are wrong (IMHO) and in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine, among several other basic tenets of American law.

I take it that WT in MT is the F&G guy?

Either way, he didn't deserve that. I still think he's off on his interpretation of the Public Trust Doctrine, but he ain't a communist.

Whether WT intended or not, I felt attacked. My apologies. If there is legally landlocked public land that the MT court system upheld, id like to know the reasons. And id like to know who is benefitting from its use. Federal or State land? Its hard for me to believe a court system would uphold the decision to keep public land from the public. It seems as though this story runs deeper than Cabelas selling land. If so, it would be best to get every conservation organization on your team and start making some waves with the politicians.

Much of the resistance to private ownership of large tracts of land in the west originates with longtime residents. A third generation Montana resident is disturbed by the loss of Montana lands to California, New Jersey, or (insert overpopulated, overdeveloped stae here)residents.
I can understand this completely. Encroachment on our recreatioal lands by urban based populations is agonising to ruralites. Purchase of large tracts of land by those who are frequently social non-producers is maddening. When all land is posessed by the out-of-state rich, we will truly have old style European hunting where the poor will become skilled poachers or they won't hunt at all! GD

Now this has become a whole different animal indeed. Why didn't you say so in the first place? If you guys are talking Public Land that is land locked with No access due to private land ownership then there is a Major problem.... There are many things that need to happen and should have happened Long Ago inorder to fix a problem like that!

Yes I've seen that type of thing in Mo. and was even wrongfully tried to be run off a state owned easement to public property once at that. You can bet I made a clear picture that I would Not be ran off of public property too. If that type of thing is what the Real issue is then you do have an issue... Sheesh sometimes it crazy what it takes to get to the real issue at hand...LOL... Merry Christmas guys.... It'll get better, catch you later on this, its now the kids time again!

hick
As I understand the issue there are many huge pieces of public land with long traditions of access. However, because the public land can be accessed from other points... though not realistically... the courts have held access can be denied.

If someone has a better understanding, and particularly if I am wrong, I would appreciate the correction.
art

My goodness�
There are Millions upon Millions of acres of public land that have been made inaccessible or completely land locked by private land ownership patterns throughout the western US. The federal government and many State agencies have very little interest in pursuing any more public access to these lands. To the contrary, since the 1950s, the USFS and BLM have abandon countless public easement to much of the subject lands that where established during the CCC era. CP.

I would like to know more about this issue. And thank you SD for making this more clear. There are usually some types of right aways, either from "Past Practice" or grandfathered in to zoning. If the access roads arent capable of being traversed by the general public, I dont see how they can come to this sort of conclusion. I need more info....

No VA, it goes beyond that. It's about community--we have waaay to many absentee landlords--as in physically absent or absent as in part of the community. It is about the loss of a culture--a culture that very few folks have ever had the chance to experience--and keeping at least some parts of that culture is a worthy objective.

And, more importantly, everytime another dream cabin is built it reduces a little more wildlife habitat--one example how unintentionally folks take remove the very thing they move here for.

And development on former wildlands is the biggest source of habitat loss--and it is often the most important of habitats.

Most who come out here also have a dream, often--you may be surprised how often--the wild west is not what they thought it would be. Of course, many of them simply have done there darnest to make it into eveything they allegedly moved away from--unintentionally on their part.


Casey

And that truely worries me.



Casey

That is exactly the case on many occasions.

In some circumstances, complaints of blocked access really translates into "I can't drive my 4wd/ATV across the property anymore".

I actually have a couple hunting spots like that. A 45 minute walk puts me onto some hunting.

Of course my favorite hunting spot is in that kind of situation, the public land was sold to a very, very wealthy individual. If you really want to see a public land give-away, see what happened after the oil shale went bust in the Grand Valley around Rifle and Parachute, Colorado. Exon patented the land under the 1872 mining law for pennies an acre and immediately sold it for thousands of dollars an acre.......

Still ticks me off thinking about it.


Casey

Similar issue in PA, but concerning a waterway, not land. A section of the Little Juniata was closed by a private fishing club......

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/newsreleases/2007/out_dep_littlej.htm

"The commonwealth based ownership of the river on historical evidence of navigation and trade on the Little Juniata River dating from the 1700s, and statutory designations of the river as a public highway dating to 1794, 1808 and 1822."

In this case the courts decided in favor of the PFBC, DCNR, and DEP(ultimately the public). That isnt always the outcome, but more often than not. I just read a little on the PLAAI site...

http://www.plaai.org/index.php

...you guys sure got your hands full. Good luck, your gonna need it!!

Wow, you guys have been busy since I left this morning!

Sitka- thanks for stepping in and giving a good synopsis of the points I was trying to make and thanks for the kind words. If you're down this way and have time to go on another birdless hunt, I'm game. What gets me is the comments of some painting all FWPers as not caring about hunters or hunting!

VA- I didn't intend to lump public land into the public trust doctrine. I realize it does not address that. Was simply trying to draw an analogy of two publicly owned items, one land and one animal, and the access required to get to both that require landowner permission. Someone had commented earlier that they supported requiring a landowner to provide access to landlocked public land but not wildlife. And for everyone for the brazillionth time, I'm not pounding the table demanding landowners provide access to wildlife on their property.

PAHick- thank you for taking the time to do some research into this subject and posting PLAAI's link. They are hugely involved in fighting for our access to public resources of all kinds.

It is true that in this state there are vast amounts of landlocked public land that the surrounding landowner does not have to allow access to. This situation then gives the landowner and/or outfitter the ability to commercially capitalize on the hunting opportunities available at the exclusion of everyone else. Outfitters are blatantly advertising this exclusivity as well, which only serves to grind the burr under the saddle in a little more. Our public lands are being included in the acreages for ranches being listed for sale too, just because they have a lease or permit for ag purposes on them. The Weaver Ranch, which was the ranch that spawned the article linked to in the first post of this thread, was listed as 29,000 acres on the Cabela's Trophy Property site. If I remember correctly, the breakdown of those acres was roughly 50/50 public/private. A quick perusal of the Cabela's Property site shows that many of the listings are including public land in the acreage totals. Somehow that just doesn't seem right to me. Cabela's listings are certainly not the only ones doing that either.

This commercialization/privatization of wildlife is a relatively new phenomenon in Montana but is seemingly exponential in growth. It's almost as if our borders served as a dam to it until now but now that it's breached, it's running rampant. In case no one can tell, I'm a staunch supporter of the North American model of wildlife conservation and as such I hate to see commercialization proliferating. I won't apologize for believing in the democracy of hunting and that kings should not be determining who gets to hunt. If nothing else, I hope I somehow got a few people to look into this model to better understand where hunting was headed in the late 1800s, what it took to reverse that trend, and how hunters, landowners, and agencies worked to get to where we are today. I don't think I can add anything else to this thread, that hasn't already been said, so am largely done. Thanks to Rick for allowing us the public opportunity to air this huge issue out and getting viewpoints from all over the country. Merry Christmas and happy New Year to all!

WT;

Don't run off now; we're just starting to get to the meat of this.

More later, but this is getting good, and most of the flak is out of the air already.

I don't disagree with this, but we still have to reconcile the other side of the coin, which is, in most states, that the wildlife belongs to everyone. So, here we are, watching our wildlife that belongs to us, walking onto this private land where we can't go get it. The government can still control when its hunted, even on the private land, because it belongs to all of us, but we can't go on that land to get it. Maybe the answer is to change the concept so that wildlife belongs to whomever's land it is currently walking on?

No, thank Sitka deer for bringing us all on the same level. Sometimes when we speak our original intent is lost in the frustration and confusion. A couple uncles and cousins hunt around Reed Point for 2 weeks every year. I may have to ride along next fall to see what MT's all about.

First, id call/email my representative and voice your concerns. Then id call the Department of Labor & Industry and ask to speak with whomever is in charge of the realty board... http://mt.gov/dli/rre/contacts.asp and ask what are the legalities of listing a property to include public land. I find that a very shady tactic and id like to know if they approve. Definately call the Montana Wildlife Federation and PLAAI to find out if there is anything you can personally do to help. Im sure the more people you get to hound the politicians, and write to the newspapers, the more action you will see. Again, good luck!

VA- can you expound on this?

I'll tell you what sucks about Cabela's...They didn't get some kind of tax concession from either Adairsville, GA or the State of Georgia so now they aren't building a store here!!!

That's what sucks!!

I'm stuck with ordering or the piddly Bass Pro Shop.

Mike

Ranches in public lands areas are almost always listed to include the leased public acres in real estate bochures. This is because the grazing rights on any included grazing leases are part and parcel of the carrying capacity of that ranch .

If you read the whole listing , it should specify the total *deeded* and total *leased* acres , and any buyer worth two shakes knows the difference.

Sure.

I can guess their rationale is that the public land is accessible from other areas, thus the private landowner blocking access in the specific area is "legal".

They are overlooking the fact that, in a nutshell, the public trust doctrine requires the government to maintain the resource in question for the REASONABLE use of the public.

If the landowner has blocked the only reasonable access point for miles in either direction, a case could be and likely should be made, that access to the area through those other avenues is no longer reasonable and thus is a de facto violation of the PTD.

Courts HATE the reasonable argument, as it will always come down to a case-by-case argument, and is probably a guarantee for appeal.

Also, I'd be sure to make one helluva run at the fact that the public has accessed the PUBLIC land beyond the private holdings for years (as long as possible), and thus has created a public right-of-way in fact, or at least an easement for the same, by acquiescence and consent and/or by adverse possession (depending on the specific state).

In most states, a landowner can be prevented from blocking a long-used right of way to access private or public lands by estoppel, if the facts present themselves so that the party arguing for the right-of-way can show that for enough years, and with clear, unambiguous, and open use, the public (or even a certain landowner) has used that right-of-way to access the other lands in question.

What about landlocked situations where there really is no public access, excluding air transportation?

Unfortunately, recreational use has not been considered adverse for the purposes of creating a prescriptive easement in Montana.

Estoppel...I will have to look that up.

Thanks for any/all professional insights you have on this subject.

In landlocked situations, are you talking about the surrounding land being owned by one, or by several, private landowners? If one, the case should be relatively easy. If multiple, they ALL must be parties to the suit, and that is going to be a friggin' mess....

The fact that recreational use has not been considered for adverse possession and prescriptive easements sucks. That needs to get changed. But, what about other uses? Grazing, mining, timber, etc.?

Estoppel means, essentially, that the other party is prevented from mounting a defense against the claim by the facts and history of the prior use. I.e. if you bought a piece of land in front of mine, with clear knowledge of the fact that I used a road through the property you now own, and that I have proof of use long enough to claim a prescriptive easement or adverse possession, estoppel would prevent you from asserting any claim to that land, or defense to your blocking it.

You can start here:
http://www.rs2477roads.com/

Unfortunately, the most active groups are motorized-recreation types. However, because of the magnitude of this problem, I�ll take the help from any quarter. CP.

I live in NW Ontario in Canada. I have a 90 acre parcel of bush with 10 acre of field. There are quite a few deer on it and I intend on planting some food plots to improve that heard. There is 180 acres to the south of me I am trying to buy unsuccessfully. I do have the right to hunt it. I do not hunt it yet but probably will next year. I agree with the posts supporting private access to that land. I do not want any Tom Dick or Harry having access to my land. My neighbours boys have bird hunted my land for 4 years and no one else. That is my right to deny access, or to allow it to those I select.

It is against the law in Ontario to enter or hunt privat land without confirmed permission of the landover. I support that and want it to be maintained. If I plan on hunting non public land I will request permission long in advance of the event. I will also share meat and hunt to those demands made by the land owner.

I will never make money from hunting on my land, and I have never been asked for money to hunt private land.

There was a post about supporting land convservation organizations which sounds very sound to me. We need to protect our hunting rights and traditions, as they are direct attack.

Randy
tired after a 36 hour long shift, hope this all makes sense

Exactly. Thank you; I was trying to remember 2477, but couldn't.

Have personal involvment in both these. Generally, the "Right Of Use" must be conferred upon an individual. And generally the courts look more favorably if the individual's access somehow affects his source of income.

Recreational access in the past has not been given as much veracity. But the importance of recreation is increasingly been given more credibility.

But, there is currently a controversial case in Boulder that was just decided (losers plan to appeal) when landowner sued to retain his access across another individuals property to hike and walk his dogs on public land beyond. Doesn't help the winner is a retired judge--accusations of favoritism have been made

There is also the famous case during the harsh winter of 83-84 when a Wyoming rancher had put up a pronghorn proof fence to stop pronghorns from migrating onto and across his land during the winter and spring. Just his luck a the harsh winter ensued and pronghorns piled up and died against his fence--Wyoming took him to court and won, forcing the rancher to remove his fence. Public Trust doctrine figured large in that decison IIRC.

Legal Gack aside, there is still the idea of community and what Cabela's is thoughtlessly doing. Keep in mind, I am probably as adament about personal and property rights as anybody.....


Casey

Yeah, and the Blue Ribbon Coalition is one of the most rabid groups I have ever had dealings with.........


Casey

I have no love for the Blue Ribbon Coalition; but they do raise some very informative and legally sound issues.

Use what works, regardless of the source. Alliances, however, need not be made.....

Whittail, before you accept that there was never any public access to a specific public land parcel, you really need to get into the Agencies archives from the 1930s and 1940s. There are thousands of miles of public trails and roads that are no longer available because of a variety of political, economic and policy positions of the Agencies. Generally speaking, SR 2477 arguments are reserved for roads and trials established before the consolidation of the USFS.

I posted the following back in 05:

The most serious issue facing both resident and non-resident hunters is the continuing loss of access to big game habitat. As a hobby, I relocate old CCC pack trails that were built for the USFS in the 30s. To gain access to the National Forest, the government acquired easements across private lands to construct the CCC trails and roads. I would encourage everyone to look a USFS map from the 50s and compare the number of access points available to the public 50 years ago to the number available today. Some Forests have given-up, without even a whimper, 70% of the trailheads that originated on private lands and have not provided alternative access to the public lands that were served by the original systems. CP.

CP;

Exactly. If there was a deeded easement, and the NF gave that up without public comment, it might be grounds for an excellent case on the public trust doctrine and public access to a public resource.

What has been stated about recreational opportunities gaining ground as a legitimate issue for such litigation is true.

IMHO, what it will take is the "perfect" test case. Get that, and then use everything at your disposal to make it work.

Id go back further than that. Check with local historians and see if any travel routes were used for trade. Check my post on page 6 where i linked an article on the Little Juniata. PA used data from as early as the 1700's as proof of public trade routes. It can be as elaborate as that, or as simple as the case we had locally years back. A guy bought a piece of property with no access, but was given the the right of way because one neighbor granted the previous owner the right to drive aross his land to cut wood, for over 40 years. In that instance the judge ruled a right of way "grandfathered in" because that trail was in place before the zoning changed.

The best way to vote is with your checkbook. If you don't like something Cabela's is doing, buy your gear somewhere else. Frankly, the past few years the stuff I have bought from Cabela's has been "hit-or-miss." I've come to the point where I mostly use Cabela's for gift cards. Most of my gear I'll bear directly from the manufacturer.

As for the age-old, dirt-tired "east versus west" crap, most of this I hear is from guys who have lived in one place or the other, but not both. In Maryland, most of the places I hunt are over 90 percent private lands. In Montana, my home county is over 90 percent public land. In both places, wildlife exists in the public trust... so even if you own the land, you can't kill game at will. Let's save the whole Native American discussion for another day. With relatively few exceptions, a private property owner has the right to grant or deny access to his property. If some guy buys 10,000 acres of prime elk hunting and decides he's a vegetarian and isn't going to allow ANY hunters on the property... it may be an ass burn, but it is his right. Period. It really doesn't matter if everyone from your great grand-daddy on down has been hunting the land with the previous owner's permission or not. Unless you have a deeded easement or other legal right recognized by the court, you are just out of luck. For that matter, maybe everybody from your grand-daddy on down has hunted one particular spot on public land. If another guys shows up and wants to hunt your honey hole, you are just out of luck.

Here's the deal, folks. This is the way it has always been, and most likely always will be. A hundred years ago, Montana had poor folk and rich folk... and the rich folk could buy more and better land than the poor folk. This is America, the land of opportunity. If you want a big chunk of land, make a big chunk of money and buy your spread. As for the access issue, there's a friend of my family, an old fart, who has access to all sorts of places throughout eastern Montana. He's a turkey hunting junkie. He's gained access by being a helluva nice guy and a thoughtful guest. If you own a decent parcel of land, in Montana or Maryland or any place in between, it's easy to sour on giving folks access. Hunters will come in, toss trash on the ground, leave gates open and basically act like a bunch of asshats. We, as hunters, have essentially the same reputation as a bunch of drunken frat boys. As for access, I know this. A man who is open, friendly, honest and helpful will always have places to hunt... maybe not every place he might like, but more than he needs.

I am also a staunch supporter of private property rights. However, legitimate private property rights have absolutely nothing to do with the capricious and arbitrary actions by many landowners to restrict or eliminate public easements on their property. This is a pervasive problem throughout the rural west, which began to build in momentum shortly after World War II and has resulted in extensive areas of public land being off limits to you, me and every other member of the public. Do you have any idea how many public pack trails (non-motorized) in Montana have been closed to the public with absolutely no repercussions to the private landowners that closed the systems? I don�t want to make friends with these people. I would rather be part of the successful litigation that forces these landowners to give back what they took from the public.

For those that have not been involved in this fight, let me give you a fundamental tenet. Your government (USFS, BLM and DNR) is not your friend in the vast majority of the actions to reinstate access. The Agencies don�t care, or will openly oppose efforts or actions to reestablish these former easements to public lands. I have spent a great deal of money and time on public land access issues over several decades, and I can assure you that it is one hell of a nasty and convoluted fight. CP.

The only sure winner in litigation are the lawyers. Absent a written, deeded easement, the government can acquire an access easement through a fee simple purchase. If the property owner is unwilling, they can acquire the easement through condemnation. As a general legal tenet, government cannot acquire private land through adverse possession.

I'm sure there are some property owners who attempt to unlawfully restrict access to public land. I'm also sure there are some property owners where the access is "traditional" rather than legal and the property owners are well within their rights to say "no." You are welcome to spend your nickels sorting out who is who. As for me, I'd rather be hunting than in a courtroom.

My wife and I just bought some land in MT (Life long resident) that had 27 yard section of access road cutting across the neighbors land. It has been doing this for 54 yeas at least and longer. We brought up the idea that since it has been used for so long doesn't that make it a right-of-way. According to our lawyer it doesn't, that the land owners can shut it off whenever they like, which would then require the owner of the property we bought to take them to court. Chances of winning that were said to very good, but they could still close it in the meantime.

Easiest way to remedy that is offer to buy the small strip of land from the neighbors. If they say yes, either to a direct sale of the property, or to a permanent easement, you're set. If not, you just found out where they are and what you oughta do next.