# Cabelas



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Monatana Outdoors: Sportsmen's group does battle with Cabela's over land sales
By MARK HENCKEL
Montana Outdoors

The Montana Wildlife Federation is waging a war of words with outdoor gear retail giant Cabela's over its Cabela's Trophy Properties recreational real estate listing business and how it may affect hunter access in Montana.

It began with a letter to Cabela's president and CEO Dennis Highby from MWF executive director Craig Sharpe on May 30. It continued with a letter back from Trophy Properties' manager David Nelson a few days later. And it resumed last Tuesday with another letter from Sharpe to Highby.

What sparked the controversy was Cabela's involvement in selling key pieces of wildlife habitat, including the 29,000-acre Weaver Ranch, north of Winnett, which had been enrolled in the state's Block Management Program. Through the Block Management Program, farmers and ranchers are paid by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to provide free public access to resident and nonresident hunters.

MWF notes that with sales of recreational property, public access for hunting and fishing is typically lost to Montana sportsmen. And, frankly, the MWF wonders why Cabela's wants to be a part of that. Sharpe's May 30 letter began, "The first words on the website of Cabela's Trophy Properties, under the question: What is Cabela's Trophy Properties? reads, 'For over 46 years, sportsmen have trusted Cabela's.' Regrettably, we now come to the conclusion that we sportsmen of Montana can trust Cabela's no longer."

The letter continues, "The MWF Executive Board finds that Cabela's is trading on its trusted reputation as a merchant of sporting goods to engage in a real estate marketing activity that is calculated to subvert and destroy the very system of North American wildlife conservation that has provided Cabela's with the hunter-and-angler markets that gave your company life in the first place."

It goes on, "Many MWF members have come to live in Montana precisely to escape the results in other states of such 'recreational land marketing' that squeezes out hunters and anglers of ordinary means from access to publicly owned wildlife that is located on private lands."

Cabela's responded with a letter from Nelson which stated that Trophy Properties was simply a listing service. It sells no land and puts no restrictions on what's done with properties.

Nelson wrote, "Cabela's Trophy Properties is a recreational property listing service. Similar to a MLS for residential properties, we have a marketing relationship with independent recreational real estate brokers who are members of our listing service.

Nelson's letter continued, "All of the properties marketed by Cabela's Trophy Properties are already for sale to the public. All listings are available for purchase by any entity, public or private. All listings are promoted to the general public on www.CabelasTrophyProperties.com. We do not get involved in the sale or purchase of any property. Cabela's does not own any non-commercial land. Cabela's Trophy Properties does not have, nor will we be opening, any offices in any states."

Cabela's gets its listings from brokers and agents in the state, including Western Skies Land Co. in Lewistown, which bought the Weaver Ranch to subdivide.

Sharpe commented that this doesn't mean that Cabela's isn't profiting from these land dealings. Certainly, using the Cabela's name to sell recreational land puts the firm's blessings on Trophy Properties' dealings.

Cabela's Trophy Properties currently has 72 listings for recreational land in Montana with price tags of up to $6 million. And some of the sales verbiage on these properties being sold is enough to raise some eyebrows:

• "Last large bighorn sheep range in Montana."

• "Waterfowl sanctuary entwined along 1.5 miles of the Yellowstone River with three private islands."

• "Large Montana ranch containing approximately 16,900 acres (7,195 acres deeded)" or "Access to over 375,00 acres of BLM" or "3,200 acres against the USFS (U.S. Forest Service land)."

• "Excellent CRP coverage and payment make this the perfect investment hunting property" or "480 acres, 345.7 in CRP."

• "In fact, Pheasants Forever used to raise birds on this parcel."

In his letter to Cabela's last week, Sharpe wrote, "You cannot expect to escape the glare of public scrutiny or a reaction by Montana sportsmen that believe Cabela's is complicit to large blocks of highly prized wildlife and hunting and fishing habitats being sold to interests that may either break up the properties because they view the attractive wildlife-rich lands as 'Trophy' real estate or to exclusive wildlife privatization and hunting commercialization ventures."

Sharpe continued, "Some of our members have noticed the 'For Sale' notices for traditional public hunting, private properties on the Cabela's website, and in local ag-news publications, and are now calling for a strong public hunter response in Montana, such as burning or mailing back their Cabela's catalog."

MWF asked in its recent letter to meet with Cabela's officials in regard to its real estate activities. "MWF would like to discuss the circumstances with Cabela's in this regard and offer some meaningful options that take into consideration the values of conservation-minded Montana sportsmen," Sharpe wrote, adding, "We recognize that previous experience in marketing real estate as hunting properties may have left you uninformed of how strongly this practice is opposed by hunters and anglers in Montana."

As of Friday, Cabela's hadn't replied.

Mark Henckel is the outdoor editor of The Billings Gazette. His columns appear Thursdays and Sundays. He can be contacted at 633-2598 or at [email protected].

Published on Sunday, July 01, 2007.
Last modified on 7/1/2007 at 2:22 am


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

Cabela's has approached my company regarding us representing their properties. It is not going to happen.

The only way this part of their business will go away is to hit them in their pocketbook - their retail sales. Now; if all of you who read this will do as I have and write a letter, letting them know that you will no longer purchase from them until they get out of the realestate business, this will be a non issue in 3 months.

If you would rather continue to ***** about it and sit back and hope things get better, good luck. All of you can change this business practice - if you want to.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

I have read the rants here before about Cabelas listing "hunting" properties for sale. Many of the same people also ranting about free speech, etc. Seems like the same arguement should apply. Do you really think it will take these ranches off the market if you don't patronize Cabelas. The fact is these properties are on the market because there is a good market for "hunting" properties. They will sell with or without Cabelas.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

4590 said:


> I have read the rants here before about Cabelas listing "hunting" properties for sale. Many of the same people also ranting about free speech, etc. Seems like the same arguement should apply. Do you really think it will take these ranches off the market if you don't patronize Cabelas. The fact is these properties are on the market because there is a good market for "hunting" properties. They will sell with or without Cabelas.


This is right!!!!!!!!!! Thw owners of the properties will list them someplace.
With the demand for these hunting properties an owner can sell them private and many have. If you are not going to patronize anyone or any Co. that has brought or sold hunting properties that are no longer open to the public you might be in for a big surprise!! Check it out and see how many hunting properties are owned by oil co.,manufacturing co.,banks,insurance co. and ect. that are not open to the public.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Cabela's gets its listings from brokers and agents in the state, including Western Skies Land Co. in Lewistown, which bought the Weaver Ranch to subdivide.


This pretty much sums it up, of course the Montana Wacko Federation seems to think Cabela's is selling public land. The Wackos are concerned about loosing land they once hunted for free. No where does it say it will not happen again.



> Some of our members have noticed the 'For Sale' notices for traditional public hunting, private properties on the Cabela's website, and in local ag-news publications, and are now calling for a strong public hunter response in Montana, such as burning or mailing back their Cabela's catalog."


Wow they are burning their catalog's !!!! That should send a real message, and they want Cabela's to meet with them???? Get real boys its private property and if one wants to sell it they have every right to do so.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

g/o you are 100% oorrect

Get real boys its private property and if one wants to sell it they have every right to do so.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

It is kind of comical that the outfitters and one with unknown motives are coming out of the woodwork to defend the proliferation of commercial hunting. Maybe you should all get together and sing around the campfire after you list and sell your properties with Cabelas Trophey Properties.

Oh and BTW 280 I resent the he!! out of being called a freeloader because I make the chioce to hunt freelance style, you have no ideas and never will know what I have put into relationships with ND landowners. So maybe you should keep your insults to yourself.

Good to see you still kickin 4590, g/o next time you can drag yourself away from the gold mine and get up to Fargo call me we can go to Peppers and BS for an hour or two.

Bob


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Bob wrote

Oh and BTW 280 I resent the he!! out of being called a freeloader because I make the chioce to hunt freelance style, you have no ideas and never will know what I have put into relationships with ND landowners. So maybe you should keep your insults to yourself.

I resent the hell out the continueing attack on the bussiness that Dick&Jim Cabela bulit form a little store in Down town Sidny Ne to what it is today. It is up to the seller of thier land who they want to sell it for them. I resent the hell out of the continueing attacks on guide and outfitters who are with in the law,and having the right to make a living the way they want!!!!!!! You can burn my post along with your Cabela's catolog!!!!! You might want to findout just what the Cabelas brothers have done in the support of fishing,hunting &camping.

There are some states that reguire guides and outfitters is some areas and while hunting some game. There are some bad ones and there a lot of dam good ones!! You are very good at finding facts just how many game violation tickets where written to R hunters and how many to G/O.
what where the %'s. There is still free interprise in this country, there still is the right to make aliving with in the law,and there is the right to freelance or to pay to hunt. This constant attack on some elses why of doing things is stupid!!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> interprise


Enterprise???? :wink:

Bob, If Jim is buying at Peppers, let me know. I am in. I am one of the freeloaders too!!!!


----------



## bandman (Feb 13, 2006)

djleye said:


> Bob, If Jim is buying at Peppers, let me know. I am in. I am one of the freeloaders too!!!!


Now dat's funny right darr.. :rollin:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> What sparked the controversy was Cabela's involvement in selling key pieces of wildlife habitat, including the 29,000-acre Weaver Ranch, north of Winnett, which had been enrolled in the state's Block Management Program. Through the Block Management Program, farmers and ranchers are paid by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to provide free public access to resident and nonresident hunters.


Bob, Someday when we meet I'll be glad to buy especially djleye if he shows. Maybe then you can explain what Cabela's did wrong in listing property that was purchased by another party and divided and offered for sale.



> Cabela's gets its listings from brokers and agents in the state, including Western Skies Land Co. in Lewistown, which bought the Weaver Ranch to subdivide.


To put this in a perspective you can maybe understand. If I decided to put my land for sale and it was some of the most pristine hunting land in North America. Should I list it with a local realtor it will x amount. If I list it with one from Fargo it would yield y amount. If I want the best results why should I not list it with Cabela's?

Now if this was in ND and we were looking at this being PLOTS land the PLOTS agreement would go with the land until expires. I don't know how the block management in Montana works on this but maybe the Montana boys should look into the mirror. It still boils down to one thing Bob and that is it's private property.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

This is a response I got from Cabela's on an email I sent them.

June 29, 2007

An open letter to Montana sportsmen and women:

In response to comments and concerns received from Montana sportsmen and women, Cabela's would like to take this opportunity to explain our real estate business activities and relationships in Montana.

For background, one of Cabela's business entities is Cabela's Trophy Properties, which has been in existence for a little more than three years. Trophy Properties is best described as a recreational property multiple-listing service for a select group of real estate agents nationwide who specialize in serving their landowner clients. These agents are licensed to use the Trophy Properties name, materials and resources in their marketing efforts, including advertising properties their clients wish to sell.

It is important to understand that virtually all these properties are privately owned, the owners desire to sell them for reasons of their own and, as in any real estate transaction, the real estate agents merely help facilitate those sales. Trophy Properties-affiliated agents are not required to advertise any properties through Cabela's, but often choose to do so because of the benefit of targeted advertising to outdoor enthusiasts. Cabela's does not inspect advertised properties and all sales negotiations are conducted strictly between these independent affiliated agents, the buyers and the sellers. Cabela's is not involved in these negotiations for any reason or at any time. Cabela's does not know who potential buyers are or their intentions for any property. In fact, by law, real estate agents are required to keep all buyer and seller information confidential until the sale closes, at which time the information becomes public record.

Whether or not to allow public access is a decision made by the property owner. It is the buyer's right to decide, just as it was the seller's right to decide when he or she owned the property. It should be noted that, according to our affiliated real estate agents, only three of the 73 Montana properties currently featured on the Trophy Properties Web site currently allow public access.

By the way, contrary to rumors, the Lincoln Ranch along the Marias River is not listed or advertised by any of our affiliated real estate agents.

Further, neither Cabela's Inc. nor Trophy Properties - or any other division of Cabela's - owns, buys, sells, leases or solicits for sale or lease any recreational property anywhere, not in Montana or any other state. The only real estate Cabela's owns or leases is that required to support its business operations such as Retail Stores, Distribution Centers, Call Centers, Return Centers, Corporate Headquarters and other business support functions.

Cabela's Trophy Properties is not alone in this field. Others, such as Orvis and Mossy Oak, offer similar services. Sotheby's, Hall and Hall, Christie's Great Estates and Faye Ranches also market land in Montana and elsewhere nationally and internationally and have done so for years. Our service is not new to the real estate industry in Montana.

Montana is, perhaps, the focal point because the buying and selling of recreational property there has been occurring for a long time. Montana is a beautiful state, which is why it attracts buyers. Montana is very fortunate in having some of the largest blocks of public land in the U.S., with approximately 33 million acres - about 35 percent of the state - in public land. And another 8.5 million acres of private land are open to public access. In total, this is more than the size of the entire state of Iowa open to public outdoor recreation in your great state.

Cabela's shares concerns about public access to hunting and fishing opportunities in Montana and all over the United States. We realize one of the threats to the sporting traditions we all hold dear is the loss of access to hunting and fishing opportunities. We have long been strong, active advocates and supporters of increasing access to both public and private lands through a host of national, state and local organizations specializing in conservation and land-access issues. Our advocacy and support of national, regional, state and local conservation groups is widely documented and well known.

It should also be noted Cabela's Trophy Properties offers services - Land & Water Mapping, Fisheries Management, Habitat Development and Timber Management - to new and existing landowners to help them enhance their property for wildlife and conservation. In addition, independent real estate agents within the Trophy Properties network work with groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the American Land Conservancy and the Five Valleys Land Trust to share information about conservation easements, habitat development and related matters with potential buyers and landowners.

Any interested individual, group, agency, or conservation organization can use Cabela's Trophy Properties free Web site as a resource to monitor properties on the market and to work with both sellers and buyers to reach mutually-beneficial agreements regarding conservation, access and other issues; or, for that matter, negotiate their own purchases. These properties will soon change hands; our web site allows the seller's intentions to be seen by the public's eye.

It is, of course, the right of any person to buy or sell private property, just as it is the property owner's right to decide whether to open the property to public access. To many, it is the American dream to own their own home. For some, that dream includes owning land for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes. For many who appreciate natural beauty, that dream is best realized in Montana.

We hope this letter will help those Montanans who have expressed concern better understand Cabela's role and relationship with licensed real estate agents in Montana.

Sincerely,

David Nelson
Manager
Cabela's Trophy Properties
Office:	308-255-8257
Cell: 402-669-0244
Home: 308-254-5787
2335 Fawn Court
Sidney, NE 69162-2805


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o Where did I say that Cabelas did anything wrong? All I did was post the news item.

280 if you want info find it yourself.

Bob


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

280 if you want info find it yourself.

No problem I will get a g/o to do that for me I want it to be accurate and spelled right!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

280IM,



> No problem I will get a g/o to do that for me I want it to be accurate and spelled right!


I can certainly see why you don't want to do it yourself then.

Jim


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

jhegg said:


> 280IM,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I quess I could go knock on some doors and use someone else's computer for nothing. Freelance my search rather than use a guide.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

If the email received by Turner is on the up and up, it would seem to take the wind out of the original post in my opinion. If you stop and think about it for a moment, if the land is up for sale anyway, who do you want looking at the property. Hunters and sportsmen visiting Cabelas or some real-estate speculator sitting in New York.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

I have quoted Tom Remington, author of Black Bear Blog, before, and once again he makes a lot of sense. Here's his piece:

I Think Montana Wildlife Federation Is A Just A Bit Too Big For Its Britches
Thanks and no thanks to J.R. Absher, the Newshound from Outdoor Life, I worked up another ulcer after he wrote an article on his blog about the antics of the Montana Wildlife Federation. Somehow J.R. I think you knew this story would ruffle my feathers.

This is one more reason I think that the biggest threat to outdoor sportsmen today are outdoor sportsmen today. When groups like the MWF become a dictatorship seeking whom they may devour, it drives me to ask the question, just who in the heck to they think they are?

J.R. Absher raises an eyebrow or two and asks some questions as well.

Here's the deal. The Montana Wildlife Federation has written a letter to Cabala's in opposition to Cabela's Trophy Properties listing lands for sale that are good hunting and fishing habitat. According to an article in the Billings Gazette by Mark Henckel, Cabela's Trophy Properties is like a multiple listing service. Their function is to only list properties for sale. They make no determination as to what anyone can and cannot do with the lands they list and sell.

Montana Wildlife Federation takes issue with this.

"The MWF Executive Board finds that Cabela's is trading on its trusted reputation as a merchant of sporting goods to engage in a real estate marketing activity that is calculated to subvert and destroy the very system of North American wildlife conservation that has provided Cabela's with the hunter-and-angler markets that gave your company life in the first place."

I suppose that the MWF would also take issue with one of our websites, U.S. Hunting Today, because we provide a link to the listing of properties specifically for hunting. We have no control over who buys this land or any other land. Who does? I guess MWF believes they should have a say in who buys land and what they can do with it.

MWF chastises Cabela's for participating in an activity that might take land away from hunters and fishermen. As an advocate for hunting and fishing heritage, I don't like to see valuable hunting lands and fishing access lost through the sale of lands to people or entities wishing to shut it down. As much as I don't like to see that, it is far beyond me to think that I have the right to tell the buyer of such land that they can't do that, say nothing about attempting to dictate to the seller or in this case, the listing service (Cabela's) of the land.

It appears to me that the Montana Wildlife Federation has gotten just a bit too big for its britches. Here is an organization that boasts to be "an organization of conservation minded people who share a mission to protect and enhance Montana's public wildlife, lands, waters, and fair chase hunting and fishing heritage". On the one hand, I admire and support efforts by anyone to find ways to keep lands open for hunting and fishing but stepping beyond the bounds of property rights and individual rights to prohibit those who wish to practice capitalism, is going too far.

I also find them to be a bit hypocritical as well. A page on their website lists quotes from varied people like Aldo Leopold, Erik Fritzell, Jim Posewitz and others sharing their views and perspective of hunting, fishing and the ethics of such. Here's an example of some of the quotes that they must deem a valuable part of their mission.

"&#8230;When I hunt I am immersed mentally, physically and even spiritually in an age-old predatory relationship among animals. I am participating in a common ecological process -just as a fox seeks her prey."

"To me, hunting is a very intense personal relationship between myself, the prey, and the environment in which the chase occurs."

"This participation, to me, is a form of ecological worship." - Eric K. Fritzell, Hunting as Religion, Wildlife Forever Symposium.

"A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter obviously has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of this conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscious, rather than a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact." -Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949

"There are some activities that are clearly unfair as well as unethical. At the top of the list is shooting captive or domesticated big game animals in commercial killing areas (game farms) where a person with a gun is guaranteed an animal to shoot. These shooting grounds are alien to any consideration of 'ethical hunting'." Jim Posewitz, Helena, Montana, Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting, 1994.

The Montana Wildlife Federation wants us to believe that their aim is to protect hunting and fishing heritage. What they don't tell us is that this heritage must fall in line with their own beliefs and ethics and anyone not kowtowing to their philosophies is wrong and deserve to have their rights taken from them.

Any individual has every right in the world to believe that hunting within an enclosure is not what they prefer to call "hunting". They do not have a right to strip others of that right nor do they have a right to dictate to a landowner how he can use his land.

Montana in recent years passed a bill that prohibits shooting any animals within enclosures.

Montana Code Annotated §87-4-414. (2) The licensee may acquire, breed, grow, keep, pursue, handle, harvest, use, sell, or dispose of the alternative livestock and their progeny in any quantity and at any time of year as long as the licensee complies with the requirements of this part, except that the licensee may not allow the shooting of game animals or alternative livestock, as defined in 87-2-101 or 87-4-406, or of any exotic big game species for a fee or other remuneration on an alternative livestock facility.

MWF participated in shutting down viable businesses in their effort because they seem to believe they are bigger than God. They feel the right to attempt to dictate to Cabela's how they can run their business in much the same way as they did with Montana ranchers trying to make a living by offering hunts or harvesting opportunities.

MWF wants Cabela's to stop listing land that might be sold to individuals or corporations that will not leave the land open to outdoor pursuits. There belief is that Cabela's makes a living selling merchandise to people who need that land to use the equipment they buy and buy participating in selling it, is wrong.

If this is really how they think, then they should stop taking away hunting opportunities from those who would willingly choose to hunt on a game ranch. Ranch hunting has been around for a long time and is part of our hunting heritage whether they like it or not. As they quote Aldo Leopold, "Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscious, rather than a mob of onlookers," they too should practice what they preach. Aren't they being a mob of onlookers trying to "dictate" someone's conscious?

The Montana Wildlife Federation should climb down off its high horse and get back to doing what it says its goals are in preserving hunting and fishing heritage. It is quite un-American and a bigger blemish to hunters and fishermen to practice the dictatorship of private enterprise and personal rights, while hiding behind the guise of a hunting conservation group, than it is for a small percentage of those who choose to hunt game ranches.

Yes, the biggest threat to hunting and fishing heritage comes from within the hunting and fishing community from individuals and organizations such as the Montana Wildlife Federation running a Marxist regime, dictating who can buy and sell land, how they can do that and where.

This is wrong and it divides the hunting community. It will ultimately destroy what they deem worth saving.

Tom Remington


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Guest Opinion: Trophy property marketing hastens loss of hunting ground
By RON MOODY
Guest Opinion

The accelerating loss of access to public wildlife, lands and waters feeds a growing sense of confinement for Montana's outdoor recreationists, hunters and anglers. Yes, we are free to drive the public roads and look out at wide vistas of mountains, plains, rivers and streams. Yet our freedom to leave the road and actually enjoy these landscapes is rapidly being walled off.

News that a major national sporting goods merchant, Cabela's, has turned its high-powered marketing muscle to promoting the conversion of privately owned agricultural lands into "trophy hunting properties" exacerbates that locked-out feeling. Worse yet is the sense of betrayal among hunters and anglers who have been loyal customers for years only to see the catalog merchant put our democratic wildlife heritage on the auction block for a quick buck.

Fury over exclusion
Ironically, as wealth consumes our wildlife heritage, the enclosure becomes invisible for well-to-do sportsmen even as it raises a stone wall to everybody else. For those among the nine out of 10 Montanans who either don't own a ranch or don't qualify for multi-million-dollar mortgages, the feeling of being excluded feeds a growing fury.

Powerful new marketing tools that expose wildlife-rich rural Montana properties to larger markets of wealthy nonresident buyers will smash the status quo represented by FWP Block Management and neighborly tradition.

Cabela's will quickly force Montana hunters and anglers to choose among three futures. Montanans can (1) stop hunting and fishing - or take what you can get on public lands and waters, (2) spend thousands of dollars of your personal income each year to compete for privately owned hunting access or (3) organize politically to demand a fair deal for public rights to Montana's publicly owned wildlife.

The new challenge raised by Cabela's is complicated because their activities are both legal and tied directly to sacrosanct private property rights.

Being legal, however, is not the same thing as being right or being in harmony with the democratic conservation tradition that created our modern wildlife bonanza.

Conservation tradition
Three big problems stem from Cabela's marketing strategy:

• Hunting and fishing opportunity allocated by wealth is destructive of the American democratic hunting heritage, now known as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Today, there would be no free-roaming wild game in America to enjoy if the privatization that Cabela's has elected to promote had not been constrained by 140 years of public, democratic conservation effort by hunters, anglers (and many private landowners).

• Cabela's confers legitimacy on privatization because they hold a top-of-mind position among millions of hunters and anglers whose relationship with the merchant is otherwise positive. In other words: "If Cabela's does it, it must be OK."

• Acceleration. The ownership change of former agricultural lands into "recreation properties" is a process that moves at a market-driven pace. For a major national brand like Cabela's to enter the market is to jolt that process into overdrive.

Cabela's (July 6 guest opinion) said they are not actually engaged in buying and selling real estate. I liken that assertion to an athletic coach who provides steroids to a competitor then claims he is not unbalancing the fairness of the contest.

Cabela's also said that Montana land fetches astronomical prices because of its beauty. I remind them their customers do not buy rifles and fly rods (and trophy hunting properties) just for their appearance. The premium real estate market Cabela's and others are exploiting is created specifically by the presence of huntable populations of wild game animals. And those animals - each and every finned, feathered and furred one of them - is owned solely and exclusively by the people of the great State of Montana.

We the people intend to have a say in how equitably the opportunity to enjoy our public property is allocated.

Ron Moody of Lewistown is a longtime Montana hunter, angler and writer.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

It is quite clear that Ron Moody would be very comfortable in a socialist country. Why does he never critize the property owners who of all things feel they have the right to sell their property to these wealthy sportsman to take advantage of the wildlife resource on the land. Its unthinkable that a land owner should have that "right". Does he not think that someone with the wealth necessary to buy a Mont. ranch is sofisticated enough to find a the type property he wants without the help of a Cabelas listing.

The issue of a public asset on private land where the land owner has control of access will be an ongoing debate. Its always easy for us to point fingers out of our frustration, but Cabelas is not the bad guy here.

The real culprit is our free enterprise sustem that has allowed for the creation of a mega wealthy class in this country that can afford to buy "recreational" property with no concern for its productivity. Maybe socialism wouldn't be so bad, then we could all be poor together. Course then we probably couldn't afford to hunt either.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It is quite clear that Ron Moody would be very comfortable in a socialist country.


And there is a big problem. Land is disappearing to the rich. The average landowner in North Dakota is far more wealthy than the average city dweller. As the average citizen gets ripped off more by big oil, health care, etc socialism will look better and better. If this continues Hillary will get her health care, oil will be government owned, and slowly private property rights will erode. Hunters have always been allies of landowners, but I see that eroding year by year. It is eroding exponentially with the pay to hunt wildlife for sale segment of our society. Say good bye to the landowner rights you fellows so cherish. It's just as endanger as hunting. You young fellows that want to farm go to college, get an agricultural degree, and see if you can get a salaried farm worker job on a government owned farm.

I am conservative, but the above scenario will happen. No doubt about it. It's only a matter of time. Dump on the sportsman today, and they will not care about you tomorrow. What do the outfitters and guides care, they will make a mint and sit in Arizona while your kids bust their buns on the old family farm while on a government unprofessional (low wage grade) salary. Look at your two and three year old children or grandchildren and realize this: the way this nation is going their children aren't going to be farmers. Maybe you don't care either. If your old now and think you will never meet these descendants maybe a buck today is more valuable to you.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Don't remember where I read it but several months ago I found a article about small farms in ND disappearing through out the last 40 or so years. The article went on to say that small towns were turning into ghost towns because the people were packing up and leaving after selling out their small farms. Funny thing about the article though is it wasn't guides and outfitters or rich out of state fat cats that were buying up these farms but ND farmers themselves. As these farmers continued to expand and bought more and more land, the number of small farms declined but the land in production remained constant or increased.

What does all this mean to hunters and sportsmen. Well, at one time it use to take a dozen farmers to post their land and remove a certain amount of acreage from hunting. It now only take one to remove land for hunting that the previous dozen owned. It goes without question some of you have this passion of hatred towards G/O's and out of state land owners but it appears to me the the fleas in your house are being brought in by your own dogs.

As a side note, just by reading his article and knowing better, I think Ron Moody is a expert in bs propaganda. I would challenge anyone to prove Cabelas is doing anything more than what they say in their letter. That land is going to be listed on the market and sold whether Cabelas lists it or not.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree, someone is going to sell, and someone is going to purchase. I think sales through Cabelas has a better chance of going to hunting groups, or outfitters, or any other entity that is more likely to take it out of public access than the average run of the mill realtor. 
I guess my point was off subject. If you remember the old Biblical proverb of you reap what you sew you should realize that landownership as we know it will not last. The framers of this nation put wildlife in the public trust. Todays greedy landowners have found a loophole by charging "access". The framers of the nation were unable to think low enough to see this happening. 
I do think private land ownership will be lost. I think this nation will become socialist because the poor and the lazy combined outnumber the productive. The greed shown by oil, healthcare, and yes landowners will doom them. Charging for wildlife is just another shovel full of dirt while they dig their own graves. 
Landowners get tax brakes beyond any other type of business, and they drain the federal tax dollars more than any other entity. I think when the average citizen realizes that farming is his greatest tax expense, and that food is cheaper imported it takes only a little more squeezing of his pocketbook to make him forget the farmer. Who is going to support you? Who? In the not to distant future kiss your landowner rights good bye. Your generation of landowners have thrown the last few shovel full from the grave of private land ownership.
Farming, ranching, and all forms of private landownership have seen their glory days. It's only down hill from here, and no I'm not happy about that.
I don't think there is anything we can do to stop it. Hunters, farmers, everyone in general is complacent and no one will do anything until it is to late. I don't think this can be stopped. I am sure it will happen. All of us have seen a better America than our grandchildren will ever see. Our society has turned to everyone for a buck, including landowners. What's a man to do, climb aboard and ride the wagon to the bottom of the hill?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

wow, what makes you think we will witness the demise of the property owner? our whole system is built on private enterprise and landownership is no different. i don't see this happening, but yes, i do see more pay to hunt ops coming down the road. today, it is all about the money. whether you go to a ball game, concert or movie, it's all entertainment and you are gonna pay, hunting is just catching up to the trend.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I sure hope you're wrong Plainsman. I haven't reached that conclusion yet but I can see where you are coming from. Back when you and I were kids, the small farmer was what supported this nation and was pretty much the bedrock foundation we sat on. Today though the population has doubled and we are feeding more of the world compared to then. So in a way it was almost inevitable that co-op type farms along with corporate farms would become the norm. Here is a very interesting read on on how farm subsidy payments are hurting the small farmer. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/f ... alltowns1/
The article is 6 years old and I don't think much has changed but it still applies as far as the problem goes but then again I haven't kept up on these things. Maybe someone else can chime in if things are different now.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> wow, what makes you think we will witness the demise of the property owner?


I am sure we will. I am sure we will also loose the second amendment rights, but we can hold on for another 20 years, perhaps 30. In 1976 we had our bicentennial. When America has it's 300 year celebration if we were around we would not recognize it. It think it will be more socialistic than Europe is now. I would not be surprised if we were just a world state under the United Nations. 
The reason I have a few more firearms than I need is because I don't think my grandchildren will be able to purchase firearms. I hope they will still be able to inherit firearms. 
Those landowners who thumb their nose at the hunter now will see their grandchildren work for wages, even if they farm. There are so many people that think the world owes them something, and I see that attitude has spread to many farmers. That's not good, because when you get more people feeding at the government trough than putting into it something has to give. Socialism is only a next step.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

$50 Million For Hunting Land? 
By Erin Kelley

With public access dwindling, it seems as though you need to own your own chunk of land to enjoy the outdoors. But what would you pay to hunt or fish on your own turf--$50 million?

This spring, Mason and Morse Ranch Company listed the Ochoco Ranch in central Oregon for just $48,500,000. "The ranch is our top listing and the top in the ranch market right now," said John Stratman, real estate broker and third generation rancher. Part of what is driving the price at $11,500 per acre is the vegetation: Property with pine trees can run anywhere between $1,000 and $10,000.

But the pines aren't the highlight of the 42,428-acre sportsman's dream. Large numbers of Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, antelope, grouse, quail, and turkey call the property home, and trophy trout waters, Wolf Creek and Horse Heaven Creek, run through the estate.

The land has the potential for many uses from private ranch and recreational use to commercial development. The government could even add it to the national forest reserves. "Oregon doesn't like to see their good forest and agriculture land converted to residential use, so they have some say on what the land is used for," said Stratman.

Despite the steep price tag, Stratman said that there have been several inquiries about the ranch. "There are a fair number--not a lot of us--that have a lot of money and are looking to find a place for private recreation or a place to invest in," said Stratman. "This land is a good investment."

Stratman said the size of the ranch is not uncommon. In August 2005, a ranch in Nevada that was over 58,550 acres sold for $8,900,000. Mason and Morse Ranch Company have sold several multi-million dollar ranches in Nevada, Colorado, and Montana. "For a frame of reference, there are several $50 to $75 million ranches for sale in the West and Canada," said Stratman.

The ranch has been on the market for about 90 days. "Ideally we would like to see it sell in the first year rather than year three," said Stratman. "It's all about reaching the right buyer."

Click here for pictures of the Ochoco's elk, mule deer, antelope, and more.

Ochoco isn't the only multi-million dollar ranch for sale by Mason and Morse. Here is a list of 10 of their other most expensive properties (to see pictures and more ranches visit: www.ranchland.com)

1. Fortune Ranch in Gardner, Colo. $19,500,000
2. Exclusive Residence at Diamond Star Ranch in Eagle, Colo. $10,500,000
3. Walker's 91 Ranch in Centennial, Wyo. $7,500,000
4. Jewel of the San Juan Mountains Ranch in Lake City, Colo. $7,000,000
5. Cache Ranch in Carbondale, Colo. $6,250,000
6. Star Valley Ranch in Afton, Wyo. $5,550,000
7. Hot Springs Guest Ranch in Gunnison, Colo. $4,900,000
8. Cedar Bench Ranch in Montrose, Colo. $4,400,000
9. Whistling Acres Guest Ranch in Paonia, Colo. $4,250,000
10. Grand Lake Log Home in Grand Lake, Colo. $4,000,000


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

So what's the point? A privately owned ranch is being sold and when done it will still be a privately owned ranch. It's not like public land being sold to private individuals which would be a loss to all of us. Post makes no sense.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Bob Kellam said:


> $50 Million For Hunting Land?
> By Erin Kelley
> 
> With public access dwindling, it seems as though you need to own your own chunk of land to enjoy the outdoors. But what would you pay to hunt or fish on your own turf--$50 million?
> ...


What does this have to do with Cabelas? I quess they are now the leading infuence in the sale of any land that has game on it now. Every generation land changes hands. There was huge ranchs 50 yeas ago that have been sold then and were broken up and now there are people buying land putting big parcles together. Why is it such a voilation of your rights if someone buys land, and is not a hunter that lets eveyone walk all over his property?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Gohon

The only reason I posted it was to highlight the price that land can fetch. It has nothing to do with Cabela's, they are just one of the many companies out there cashing in on the trend. It is just another example of how much disposable income is out there. I don't think many people in ND realize it. I hold no malice toward anyone who has attained this level of success in their life.

50 Million for hunting property?? wonder what it will sell for the next time.

It is kind of ironic that many of these listings use public trust resources to help sell their property though.

Bob


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Bob wrote
"It is kind of ironic that many of these listings use public trust resources to help sell their property though."

280 Asking

Are the peolpe that are getting these listings part of the public? 
Is there something wrong with telling the public that there is are "public trust resources" on,or near,or crossing this propery?

Do the poeple who have enough money to buy these properties have the right to make sure thier kids and grandkids have a place to hunt in thier life times?

The only thing in life I ever got FREE was poverty, everything else came with hard work and cost money!!!!!!!!

Now I see you are looked down if you are poor and dislike if you are sucessfull!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Now I see you are looked down if you are poor and dislike if you are sucessfull!!!!!!!!!!!!


I wish you were wrong about that, but I see it to often myself. I tell you what 280, if I pull out my handcuffs I don't care if your rich or poor, black or white, male of female, or a pink and green striped hermaphrodite Martian. 
I have seen poor people who are the best this earth has to offer, and poor people that think they can do anything and you should forgive them because they are poor. I have seen rich people who were so kind they would give you the shirt off their back, and rich people who think you should bow to them because of the money they have. I have seen the same with minorities. People are people, and jerks are jerks. The rich are a minority in this nation and a lot of people get angry when they buy up a way of life enjoyed by the majority. Politicians respond to numbers and that will change things in America. Not for the good either, but in a democracy the rich will loose in the end. It's best not to thumb your nose at the masses. Look at the liberal MO (method of operation). They promote their agenda by creating class warfare, and it's working for them.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> pink and green striped hermaphrodite Martian.


Are you referring to djleye?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > pink and green striped hermaphrodite Martian.
> 
> 
> Are you referring to djleye?


G/O, I find it hard to be on the other side, so to speak, with a man who has a sense of humor. Some day over a cup of coffee you have to tell me your story. 
After a lot of arguing I think I have you categorized in the not so bad guide group. I just have to destroy your sense of loyalty to the high fence operations, and the 50,000 acre lease public resource hog outfitters. I don't think you belong in that group, and I don't think you owe those low life your loyalty. 
I will not stick up for the jerks in my profession, and can not understand why other people do. There are bad apples in every segment of society, and those that fall into the same grouping do not owe loyalty to these people. As a matter of fact it is socially advantageous to set yourself apart. 
The best thing the small outfitter or guide could do for his own business is to support a bill eliminating high fence hunts. Many states have already taken that step, and we need to follow. You and I should not bang heads on canned hunts, we should stand shoulder to shoulder. If you want to debate, we can do that after we eliminate the bad apples.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The best thing the small outfitter or guide could do for his own business is to support a bill eliminating high fence hunts.


They probable do support something along those lines but the big problem is most people, including many on this forum tend to lump all guides and outfitters into the same group, regardless of whether they are (1) just a small business on their own land with maybe guide services outside their property or (2) the giant lease gobbling high fence outfitters. I've seen some jerks on this forum that insist and never miss a chance in taking cheap shots at G/O's in threads that have nothing to do with that line of work. And then one wonders why they are defensive.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't like access fees. Perhaps simply because they are not. When I hear that, I hear people playing with words like our old friend Bill Clinton "it depends on what is is". The whole world knows it is selling wildlife. Only an idiot believes the access mantra. 
I don't group them all the same. It's a landowners business what he does on his own land, but when he ties up wildlife for profit far beyond his land boundaries it is societies business. When they take my tax dollars for CRP or any support it is my business. If the landowner doesn't like that don't take money for crop insurance and disaster from the taxpayers pocket. I don't think landowners should be able to have their cake and eat it too. 
Canned hunt operations are very low in my book. What is a person willing to do for money? There are limits and in my book these operations went below those limits. Sportsmen and women, and small outfitter operations need to eliminate this bad apple from the barrel. It makes us all targets if we consider them one of us. They will play the loyalty card to fellows like G/O, and we can only hope they don't bite on this bait. They need support, but I think there is very little. If we can educate the public they are history. State by state they have been dropping like flies, and if they are still in business after seeing the handwriting on the wall they are not very smart business men.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> G/O, I find it hard to be on the other side, so to speak, with a man who has a sense of humor.


Hey PM, Let me know when you find one!!!!! :withstupid: :withstupid:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > pink and green striped hermaphrodite Martian.
> 
> 
> Are you referring to djleye?


Gohon responded with:


> I've seen some jerks on this forum that insist and never miss a chance in taking cheap shots at G/O's in threads that have nothing to do with that line of work.


As the above quote attests he hands it out also. Dish it out and you have to expect it back don't you? Right Gohon?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I've seen some jerks on this forum that insist and never miss a chance in taking cheap shots at G/O's in threads that have nothing to do with that line of work. And then one wonders why they are defensive.


I know what you mean, most days I feel like the guy on the stetcher


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

And Bert is no longer around to help you out......Poor guy!!!! :roll: :wink:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

You know you miss Bert, he was a pleasure to have around. :roll:


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Plainsman, g/o,and the rest of you guys what is your definition of the rich?

When are you a sucess? At what point in your life as a working man are you over the hump and can be called a sucess? How do you slow down and be satisfied that you have done all you can to reach the point of being a sucess?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

280IM

Definition of rich: Well, 280 you know how it is; everyone who makes more money than you is rich. It sort of falls in line with who is the little guy. The guy who makes $100,000 looks at the guy making a million and considers himself the little guy. The guy who makes a million looks at the guy who makes ten million and considers himself the little guy. Then the guy who only makes ten million looks at Bill Gates and considers himself the little guy. Most Americans no matter what they make consider themselves the little guy and anyone who makes more rich. That's why the liberal class warfare works so well. Everyone thinks the liberal is for them because they are the little guy. 
What it all boils down to is if your happy your successful. In reality money has little to do with it. Many rich people are miserable. That's why they charge you to hunt, they want more, more, more, and they want you to be miserable too. Pay them April 15, pay them at the store, pay them at the door, pay some more, more, ,more.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Well this thread starts by bashing Cabelas and ends with bashing farmers, guides/outfitters, and game farms. Nothing much new here.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

:withstupid: :fiddle:

Little cheese with your whine????


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

4590 said:


> Well this thread starts by bashing Cabelas and ends with bashing farmers, guides/outfitters, and game farms. Nothing much new here.


I was in Cabela's in KC today, going out to Sidney this weekend. For a week day the place had a lot of people in it, they are not run out of bussiness yet.

farmers,g/o's,game farmers,rich or poor,freelance or pay to hunt hunters, all welcome. They even welcome NR's,they will even let a liberal in. You don't have to spend money while there you can look around for FREE!!!!! Never say a no hunting sign any where while there.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

> I've seen some jerks on this forum that insist and never miss a chance in taking cheap shots at G/O's in threads that have nothing to do with that line of work. And then one wonders why they are defensive.


well spoken, and true.

cabelas is just the billboard these lands are being listed on. and i know as well as any of you, that if it was one of our personal property, be it a car, land, a house, a gun, that we would use any resource possible to get the best price out of it.

im just plain sick of people bashing others for how they make a living, or run theyre business. if theyre breaking the law, something will get done about it. we're a like a bunch old ladys at the local chit chat club.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> if theyre breaking the law, something will get done about it.


And that is why we complain. The laws need to be changed so that some of these people are breaking the law. If no one complained everything you can think of would still be legal. Not a very well thought out statement. 
When your wife gets old are you going to knock her in the head and get a new one? Before humanity became civilized it would have been legal for you to do anything. I know I am speaking in a hyperbole, but you do get the point right?
Your proposing that we sit here with our thumb in our rear and a smile on our face. I don't think so. Did it cross your mind that your doing the same thing? Complaining that we are complaining. Brilliant, just brilliant.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

your right, it wasnt a well thought out statement. i guess i meant to direct that more towards this topic in particular, in that its private property changing hands. i dont want someone telling me that i shouldnt sell a gun to a legal private buyer because that person has expressed that they plan on using that gun for self defense, and said person doesnt believe in using firearms for self defense. im speaking in hyperbole now, but you get my point? i dont agree with canned hunts, and i dont like seeing private land with public access being posted, but im not going to try and tell someone they cant do it. but thats not even what this discussion is about, its about cabelas listing land for private sellers described specificaly as recreational land, and people who are mad that the land is being placed out of theyre reach, even though that may or may not have happened without the name "Cabelas" being placed on the listing. do you feel that local businesses should be scorned for advertising to a larger customer base in order to increase profits? as far as im concerned, there is no need for a new laws stating that the trade of private land should be further regulated in regards to hunting and fishing. that may change someday, and if it does, i will put my two cents in, until then, i wont step on anyones toes if theyre not doing anything wrong.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

ne_bo by outlawing g/o this will reduce NR hunters and reduced hunters giving the home boys better hunting oppertunities to hunt. Take someone eles's right away to hunt the way they want to just to make hunting better for themselves. For the hunter living in a city with no way of scouting, by getting rid of the g/o it will pretty much make him give hunting and again give the home boys the complete area. This way the freelance hunter can get more for nothing. It has nothing to do with what is moral or leagal,it is just greed with a smoke screen. Thank God we do have the right to choose how we wish to hunt as long it is with in the law.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> by getting rid of the g/o it will pretty much make him give hunting and again give the home boys the complete area. This way the freelance hunter can get more for nothing. It has nothing to do with what is moral or leagal,it is just greed with a smoke screen.


Completely and totally false. What color is the sky in your world 280?

1. Nobody is saying we outlaw and get rid of g/o's.

but let's just say ND didn't have g/o's. Wouldn't that give more land for Non-residents to hunt as well?

Please provide data that would say only resident hunters would benefit if this state didn't have g/o's? 20 years ago everyone including R's and NR's could hunt almost the entire state and many hunted side by side. With the increase of g/o taking land away from R's and NR's it has caused more friction than partnership between the two.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Live, Quit making sense, You will screw up 280!!!!! :roll:


----------



## mike2766 (May 11, 2007)

Where was the Montana Wildlife Federation a few years back when the bill which made all land in Montana posted flew through the legislature unopposed? Seems that a wildlife group would want to keep as much land open to hunting as possible.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

280IM said:


> ne_bo by outlawing g/o this will reduce NR hunters and reduced hunters giving the home boys better hunting oppertunities to hunt. Take someone eles's right away to hunt the way they want to just to make hunting better for themselves. For the hunter living in a city with no way of scouting, by getting rid of the g/o it will pretty much make him give hunting and again give the home boys the complete area. This way the freelance hunter can get more for nothing. It has nothing to do with what is moral or leagal,it is just greed with a smoke screen. Thank God we do have the right to choose how we wish to hunt as long it is with in the law.


I don't agree. 10yrs ago much of the land in ND was unposted. As the G/O business expanded much o.f the land was posted to stop the G/O's from running their customers through private land basically for free. When it was just the freelance hunters a few weekends a year landowners were willing to "leave the gates open". Now when a G/O moved into an area and started running folks through every day many landowners posted so that the game got a break. Some of the landowners saw the money the G/O was bringing in and leased out their property to him and got two benefits. 1. The lease money whether up front or after season on a per head basis. 2. They no longer have to deal with deciding who gets permission and who doesn't. They are no longer interrupted by folks knocking on the door.

I live in the city in ND, and I've always lived in a city in ND. I am still able to freelance hunt in MN and MT as a non-resident and be successful for birds and big game. I get too much satisfaction out of doing the hunt all on my own to use G/O's. Reducing or limiting the number of G/O's doesn't reduce the hunting opportunities for NR's. It may however reduce the number of guarenteed successful hunts for NR's.

If you're looking for a "Hunt" freelance in my opinion is hunting in it's truest _available_ form. Using a G/O is but a mere shooting expedition.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Well this thread starts by bashing Cabelas and ends with bashing farmers, guides/outfitters, and game farms. Nothing much new here.


No kidding, but thats all these guys know how to do.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > Well this thread starts by bashing Cabelas and ends with bashing farmers, guides/outfitters, and game farms. Nothing much new here.
> 
> 
> No kidding, but thats all these guys know how to do.


Oh please stop, my hanky is saturated, and I can't stop crying.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

> No kidding, but thats all these guys know how to do.


once again, i agree.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> > > Well this thread starts by bashing Cabelas and ends with bashing farmers, guides/outfitters, and game farms. Nothing much new here.
> ...


So much for taking the high road. I guess being a super duper moderator you can respond anyway you choose to whoever you choose. Anyone who opposes your point of view will be cast into your moral abyss. 
:lame:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK, I'll bite if it makes you happy.

4 curl, both sides were whining. Sort of the pot calling the kettle black, so I thought I would have a little fun.



> Anyone who opposes your point of view will be cast into your moral abyss.


Kind of a catch 22 isn't it? You fell into the same trap. So I think it's time for you to look in that mirror. Maybe that will get you off your high moral horse. What is it that would keep you happy? A no mind no opinion, or only opinions that will agree with you? Seriously. I'm kind of wondering what tripped your trigger.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

how did we(including me) go from arguing about the morality of cabelas listing real estate, to just taking shots at one another?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think it started with 4590 complaining about others complaining. Then g/o got in on the act and I thought that was sort of funny and didn't take it very serious. My sense of humor made 4curl want to be a moderator. You didn't really take a shot at anybody I don't think, but it's admirable of you to get us back on track. We have digressed. Back to the subject.

I don't blame Cabela's, I don't blame anyone for selling to the highest bidder. I do lament the loss of public access.

There is nothing wrong with complaining. That's how things get changed. If no one complained we would still be getting smoke blown in our face in every restaurant, there would be no speed limits, etc. Perhaps in a couple years we will not have high fence killing operations. If the world was a perfect place and the framers of this nation would have had a little more insight not only would they have made game the property of the state they would not have allowed charging for "access". We all know it's selling wildlife.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I don't blame Cabela's, I don't blame anyone for selling to the highest bidder. I do lament the loss of public access.


But you see, that's the rub. There was nothing to document that public access to this land was in jeopardy. As a matter of fact there was nothing in the article to even indicate there was public access to start with before the land went on the market. It was nothing more than Cabela listing property that was already in the public domain as being for sale to anyone. Yet there were those that immediately jumped up, waving their arms in the air and shouting down with Cabela, I'll never buy from them again, they are ruining hunting, they are anti-hunting and so on and so on. I think that is where some people get ticked off at those that seem to think that every square inch of this country should be made available to them for their own recreational use. You can't deny that there are those on this forum that present that attitude.

Personally and as I've said before, I think Cabalas is doing us all a service by making the availability of that land for sale known to all of us. Probable most if not all of Cabalas customers are of the outdoor type whether it be hunting, fishing, camping or just bird watching and these are the type of people I'd want to see in a bid for that land. Not the Donald Trumps of the world.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

That was very well put Gohon.

I was out to Sidney this last weekend Cableas are doing fine, I was able to talk with some people about this "access" problem and the hunters are doing more to hurt than to help. This constant cuzing the landowner for not letting everyone hunt on his land because you pay taxes is growing very thin all over the country! There are different types of hunters and each hunt differently, this constant cuzing how someone else hunts does nothing but divide all hunters.

Cabela's and Scheels work at keeping all outdoor sportsmans happy!!

Not every Duck,Deer,Elk are born to be shot, nature has a food chain,not every piece of land that has game on it, has to be hunted because you pay taxes on the 15th of April.

Complaining causes change alright it divides.

This is a good site for the hunter,fisherman,and trapper but there are other opions than are legall.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

280IM said:


> This constant cuzing the landowner for not letting everyone hunt on his land because you pay taxes is growing very thin all over the country! not every piece of land that has game on it, has to be hunted because you pay taxes on the 15th of April.
> 
> Complaining causes change alright it divides.


280, not aimed at you directly, take this as a "blanket statement"

The above is sort of the same argument NR's use. We bring in X amount of $$$ so you should value us. It's a similar argument to the "we pay taxes and should be allowed to hunt" argument. Neither gets either party too far. Most often both arguments are counterproductive.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon, without going back and looking, I thought much of this land that is for sale was in block management If it is being advertised as hunting land and someone buys it for that I doubt it will continue in block management. That is the loss of access I said I was lamenting.

I also don't think landowners owe hunters, unless of course they are receiving money from the public coffers, and then only on that land. I advocate writing into the farm bill that CRP should be much like the state habitat program. If you are enrolled in it you can not post it. The landowner would be free to choose, just like he is free to choose the state habitat program or not. I don't know if that program is still running or not.

My brother had a field that had been in production since 1877 (old records from many previous owners). In the early 1980's he put it into the state habitat program. Then when CRP came along he couldn't get it in because it had not been cropped in 1982 and 1983 (I think that was the years). If it wasn't cropped those years it wasn't considered cropland. So much for government common sense.

You guys are right the landowners don't owe us -------- except for moral and monetary support. But the inverse is also true we owe them nothing with the exception of access to hunting. I simply want it to always be a two way street. If it turns to a one way street then we are like the Europe our ancestors were trying to avoid and landowners become the aristocracy.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman said, " But the inverse is also true we owe them nothing with the exception of access to hunting."

This is a comment I am not sure I understand but I think you feel there is some obligation on the part of land owners to allow access for hunting.

Your arguements seem to revolve around two concepts - wildlife is in the public trust, thus I have a right to acces it - and, if the land owner receives any tax revenue, that also obligates him in some way to give you access.

First the public trust of wildlife presents an on going situation between land owners and hunters. This is a very unique situation in our free enterprise system. Typically if an asset has value, then the owner has some responsiblilty for liability and maintenance. Hunters rant about not having access to "their" asset, the wildlife, but no one ever suggests they take any responsibility for it. As I see it the land owner owes no one anything until someone starts paying him say a grazing fee or damages for crop loss. Yes I know some get depredation funds, but that does not begin to pay for the onging cost of having wildlife on ones property. Now I think most farmers and ranchers enjoy having wildlife around and many make efforts to enhance the wildlife on their place. Many hunters tend to think that wildlife is just free, but reality is everything has a cost. As a farmer I often had losses to migrating waterfowl, and crops tramped down by deer and moose. No one every reimbursed me for these losses. Like I said it is a unique situation to have someone elses asset wandering around on private property. In all other cases I can think of the owner of that asset would have some obligation to the property owner - but hunters, of which I am one, seem to think the obligation is the reverse. The ones who are really making a profit off the wildlife are the G/F. Has anyone checked lately to see how many millions of hunters dollars are in their reserves. That is all money for permits to hunt your wildlife. Also do the wildlife of a state belong just to that state. We have seen this issue in the courts. Is it fair that I should have to $500 to $1000 to hunt an elk in Montana if they belong to the public. Why not just have a lottery for everyone and only a processing fee. I think G/O have just as much right to profit from their service as do G/F. At least they compete in free enterprise as opposed to a gov. agency.

As far as government subsidies to farmers, those funds have nothing to do with buying access to property. Yes I know Plainsman feels we will ever be indebted to him for his tax dollars, but that is a very complex issue. Every dollar of subsidy that a farmer receives is the result of a contract he has with our government. Since that contract does not include language allowing for hunter access, then there is no obligation. I would certainly not be opposed to open hunting being included as an option to CRP contracts. I think many farmers would go for that with some type of incentive. Subsidies are offered to farmer for many reasons, most of which have to do with stabilizing our countries food supply and commodity prices. I have argued for years that we may have been better off without them. I also realize in a global market where our main competitors subsidize heavily, it would be very tough to compete. We could cut and run on farmers and become dependent on foreign countries for food as we are for oil. Not a prospect I find favorable. Subisidies have also been used for other reasons but one thing they have not done is buy access to private land for hunting.

Contrary to another comment by Plainsman, I don't believe complaining will solve any of these issues.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

4590 That pretty much tells it the way it is. I am a landower,have owned a lot more in the past, and have hunter most of my life and you just hit all the bases. Wildlife is not free nomatter what side of the fence you are on. Just be glad there are someplaces you can still hunt the way you what to and have a choice.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman said, " But the inverse is also true we owe them nothing with the exception of access to hunting."
> 
> This is a comment I am not sure I understand but I think you feel there is some obligation on the part of land owners to allow access for hunting.


No, what I meant was I have a feeling of obligation and loyalty towards a landowner that lets people hunt, and it doesn't have to be me. I think landowners and hunters have a symbiotic relationship. Many landowners including, I think you and 280IM think everyone owes them because they have the land. I don't think farming can survive long without government support. Why should we support farmers? Seriously, if they do nothing for us but take our money why support them? My intention is not to cause hard feelings I am serious about this question.

I think when they say animals are the property of the state the intention was that no one can sell them. There was no intent to pay farmers because deer, trees, or rocks were on their land, it's all part of the ecosystem like the weather is. Wanting to be paid for deer damage is like wanting to be paid for any other natural disaster. Which by the way they normally are (disaster payments anyone). Farming is one of the few things government steps in and pays and pays. You may have years that you make less than other years, but doesn't government nearly guarantee you success. At least as long as you don't spend everything in Vegas.



> Hunters rant about not having access to "their" asset, the wildlife, but no one ever suggests they take any responsibility for it.


I think because wildlife is considered an asset to the nation, not just hunters.



> As I see it the land owner owes no one anything until someone starts paying him say a grazing fee or damages for crop loss.


How about the thousands of dollars your recieve from people via the government. That money the government gives you didn't grow on trees you know. 
Wildlife was there a million years before you moved onto the land. No one is going to pay you for removing the rocks, cutting the trees, draining the wetlands. Well, I guess they do subsidize much of that too. I would say if you didn't like it you shouldn't have purchased it.



> Like I said it is a unique situation to have someone elses asset wandering around on private property.


Like I said it is the nations assets, and that includes you. If you want it different might I suggest Germany, France, or any other European country they are set up the way you like it. That's the way they are. This is the way America is.



> Is it fair that I should have to $500 to $1000 to hunt an elk in Montana if they belong to the public.


That's a tough question. Most of the elk are on federal public land. That makes it as much mine and yours as theirs. However, the Game Fish and Parks does put a lot of money into winter management and that is paid for by the taxpayers of Montana. So I guess they do have a right. I think the cost is prohibitive to many and perhaps a little out of line.



> I think G/O have just as much right to profit from their service as do G/F.


If your talking about showing a person around, providing meals, providing living quarters I agree. They don't have a right to profit from wildlife.



> Yes I know Plainsman feels we will ever be indebted to him for his tax dollars, but that is a very complex issue. Every dollar of subsidy that a farmer receives is the result of a contract he has with our government.


Every farmer that gets thousand of dollars in public support does owe every taxpayer. Do you have no appreciation to the guy who can just make ends meet, and still he is taxed? You get that money. You expect all of us to appreciate you, yet you have no appreciation for the American taxpayer. And if every farmer thought like you I would say drop all those contracts and all government support. I would say that any land croped or CRP that receives support from the rest of working America owes those Americans something. I feel that way about any government support. As a sportsman I am thankful to all my fellow sportsmen for the 11% excise tax they pay to support wildlife. I suppose many landowners would like to get their hands on that money also.



> I would certainly not be opposed to open hunting being included as an option to CRP contracts. I think many farmers would go for that with some type of incentive.


The incentive should be the payment they are getting to conserve the soil and improve the value of their land. If it isn't enough don't sign up.



> We could cut and run on farmers and become dependent on foreign countries for food as we are for oil. Not a prospect I find favorable.


Me either, but I would prefer that situation to being dumped on, and looked at like a sucker. I don't think God put me on this earth to serve royalty and it appears that's the attitude of some landowners. Not many, but it only takes a few to turn everyone off.



> Subisidies have also been used for other reasons but one thing they have not done is buy access to private land for hunting.


There is that access ploy again. This simply isn't true. It's the sale of wildlife.

Contrary to another comment by Plainsman, I don't believe complaining will solve any of these issues.

It will solve many issues when enough people feel the same way. People complained about second hand smoke, and how many restaurants have open smoking today? People complained about seat belts not being used and how many states require their use today. Currently our firearms are in danger by the left leaning politicians. New farm bills will come up, some times here in North Dakota we vote on things like making farm implements nontaxable. When new legislation comes up who will support landowners if the only link landowners want with any of us is the almighty dollar?

All I want is mutual respect. In our complex society we all owe each other. Farmers often see themselves as independent, but nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, I owe you, and you do owe me like it or not. I doubt you could make it five years without millions of people like me paying you at the grocery store and on April 15 for the same product. I don't think it's fair to take our money and spit on us too.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Kim

Good to see you are still around, sounds like it is a little dry down there.

*4590 Wrote*



> No one every reimbursed me for these losses.





> Yes I know some get depredation funds, but that does not begin to pay for the onging cost of having wildlife on ones property.


That usually gets thrown out when the "Access" issue comes up. How much are your losses due to wildlife, what is the dollar amount? I have asked that question of others before but to date it has not been answered by anyone.

Take Care

Bob


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

> Is it fair that I should have to $500 to $1000 to hunt an elk in Montana if they belong to the public.


Yep, I think it's fair. My liscence fees go directly towards providing access to *EVERYONE* by funding MT's Block Management program. I haven't researched the figures but I've been lead to believe that the program is ENTIRELY funded by NR liscence fees.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Horsager I hope your right, that would be wonderful. Instead of complaining I would like to thank every sportsman in Montana for letting me come and hunt their beautiful state. The opportunity is immeasurable, and beyond dollars.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

From the Montana Game and Fish website
http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunteraccess/ ... fault.html

INFO on BMA's

*A Montana Partnership*

A cooperative program between private landowners and FWP, Block Management helps landowners manage hunting activities and provides the public with free hunting access to private land, and sometimes to adjacent or isolated public lands. Block Management addresses fall hunting only -- spring bear and turkey hunting access are not included in the program.

There is no charge to hunt on block management lands (referred to as Block Management Areas or BMAs). _Program funding comes from the sale of various licenses, including the resident and nonresident hunting access enhancement fee, nonresident upland gamebird licenses and nonresident variable-priced, outfitter-sponsored combination deer/elk licenses._

Landowner participation in block management is voluntary. Contracts are negotiated annually in the spring and summer, and thus some fluctuations in enrolled acreage occur from year to year. After enrollment is complete, each FWP administrative region publishes a Block Management Hunting Guide, which lists the block management opportunities available to you for the current season. These regional guides are published on or before August 15, annually.

Formally started in 1985 and expanded significantly in 1996, block management has provided quality hunting experiences across the state since its inception. Positive working relationships have been formed between landowners, hunters, and resource managers. The future looks promising, but is dependent on you. By following the rules for the BMA hunted on, as well as demonstrating courteous, legal and ethical behavior, sportsmen and women can do their part to assure future access to private lands in Montana.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

A re-wording is in order. Block management is "Primarily" funded with NR liscence fees. There is a large disparity between what residents and non-residents pay, I've got no problem with that, I don't live there and pay taxes there all year. I am happy to pay their NR fee because I am creating access for everyone.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Boy we have come a long ways from Cabelas!

Block management is an interesting concept. One that I think is great by the way. However for the purist like Plains, it is a contract with land owners for access. It may be free to the hunter but as you rightly said you are paying for it through license fees. I am not opposed to the fee structure either, I just think ND G/F could do more with the multiple millions they have from permits. Why can't ND have a block program. If they would have offered me a few bucks an acre for access I would have jumped on it as many farmers would.

Bob it is getting a little dry down here but the rumble now is not thunder it is Harleys.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

4590 asked "Why can't ND have a block program"

It is funded by NR funds off NR permits. ND R don't make the NR hunter welcome. Thats why it won't work.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

4590
Does't the plots pay as much as block management?


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

zzzzzzzz


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

280IM said:


> 4590 asked "Why can't ND have a block program"
> 
> It is funded by NR funds off NR permits. ND R don't make the NR hunter welcome. Thats why it won't work.


Well, I have news for you. My son lived in Helena, Montana, and we always drove his pickup when we went out hunting because nonresident license plates would get your vehicle vandalized. When I did drive mine we got flipped off a lot. So people are the same everywhere, so don't give me that North Dakota unfriendly crap. 
I still like Montana because I know like here they are not all the same. Besides it isn't every nonresident that people are ticked at. They are ticked at the rich boys who came and changed their way of life. Some fellow from the cities offered a farmer $1000 to hunt his land for the season and the guy the farmer sits next to in church got booted. It's access, but some people have misplaced blame. You simply have to judge people one individual at a time. They are not all horses rears. 
I think you know this, you just took a cheap shot because you don't like our attitude of not paying the landowner to hunt. I will hang it up before I pay some money worshiping jerk to hunt. I will die American before I live European, so you aristocrats can keep your access.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

:fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, oh, carefull with that sense of humor. Now your in for it with 4CurlRedLegs. He don't like sarcastic humor.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

The ND Real Estate Brokers like the NR. I have been working on a 3 way trade for some ground and they are on the ball and want the bussiness.
Without asking anyone I have talked to, they bring up the hunting on each piece of ground they have listed. Several have listed the possibilty of leasing land to hunters as add income to help sell the ground.

There is also some agencies that are participating with Cabela's Trophy Properties,LLC that are in ND. They are all over the country and there to help the sportsman in his hunt for property and investments. The day of the 5 cent candy bar is gone.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I thought it was guys from up north that went south after the civil war and were called carpet baggers? It looks like your turning the table 280.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I thought it was guys from up north that went south after the civil war and were called carpet baggers? It looks like your turning the table 280.


The carpet baggers bought things cheap!! But I really think you will see ground a lot higher in both SD&ND. I thought ground in Mt a few years ago was high but it is still going up. With the internet poeple have a faster way of finding out what is listed and what isn't.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

> So people are the same everywhere, so don't give me that North Dakota unfriendly crap.


what? sorry, i guess in all the places ive hunted, ive never been flipped off just because i had nr plates. if someone did that to you here, and us residents found out about it, its likely they would get theyre vehicle immobilized. im not going to say we dont have our ********, but they are not the majority.

that statement also goes 2 ways. im sure there are some nd residents who like to roadhunt, litter, trespass, and be disrespectful to landowners and residents when they hunt out of state, just like there are from every state. is that the norm? probably not, but one jackass can ruin it for everyone as the saying goes.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

neb-bo
Agree. It's like a dog chasing it's tail. One bad person ticks off another, then that one ticks off ten more. We just have to ignore it or it will never end. I fully realize that Montana is full of nice people, just like Minnesota. I know it's not true that North Dakota is windy because Montana blows, and Minnesota sucks. Funny, but not true.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

same thing here about iowa and wyoming. this is the very reason it ticks me off when i here people badmouthing "non residents". you guys are non residents here, and im a non resident there. i am respectful to landowners, as i truly believe you guys are too. but one idiot from anywhere but here usa can piss off alot of people, and change an entire towns attitude toward nr's. i understand that people may want some laws pertaining toward nr's changed, i just hope its for the right reasons (i.e.- game populations, revenue, and yes, sometimes land access). and this is fine if the reasons are properly based. ive had bad encounters with nr's, but i realize that doesnt mean they are all like that, and i am pretty happy with the way our state runs nr licensing. this is always going to be an argumentative topic, im just asking everyone to check themselves every once in awhile, and look at what theyre real reasoning behind theyre feelings toward nr's are.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

I have posted the following on this site before, with many compliments I might ad. Obviously it needs to be restated:

G/O's absolutely have no place in North Dakota. And they are not welcome by most North Dakota sportsmen. Hopefully there will be a groundswell of support to ban wildlife prostitution and the selling of something no one person owns.

North Dakota is one of the last places in the United States a true hunter can enjoy his craft. Scout the ducks, ask permission, and have a fine hunt. We call it freelance hunting. The vast majority of North Dakota duck hunters are sick of some folks on this website bashing non-resident hunters. Non-resident hunters are not a threat to the North Dakota hunting tradition. It is great to see hunters coming from near and far to enjoy something that is disappearing. They are actually supporting our tradition by partaking in it.

No, the threat to our freelance hunting tradition is not the non-resident. The threat to our hunting tradition is the outfitter. These wildlife exploiters who lock up thousands of acres of land for profit and give sportsman a bad name through the crimes they commit that you read about in the news papers several times each year. These money grabbers have managed to singlehandedly change the North Dakota hunting landscape in the last decade. The ability to scout ducks and get permission to hunt has effectively been eliminated singlehandedly by guides in many areas of our great state. This is truly sad.

My belief is that North Dakota needs to promote its hunting resources as a freelance experience. Come and stay in our motels, eat at our diners, stop at our gas stations, meet our citizens, ask permission, and go hunting. This is what will be best for our freelance hunting tradition and best for the North Dakota economy. The outfitter selfishly takes away from all of this, they should have no place in North Dakota.

Hydro


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Hunter_58346 said:


> MWF notes that with sales of recreational property, public access for hunting and fishing is typically lost to Montana sportsmen. And, frankly, the MWF wonders why Cabela's wants to be a part of that.


Uh, to make money??? Duh.

Cabela's is a corporate, publicly traded, company. Why people think they're going to operate as some small mom & pop business is beyond me.

I'll be the first to admit that it sucks to see this stuff happen. Just like it sucks to see american jobs go over seas. Or small businesses close when a Wal-Mart opens in town. Or lawyers to be involved in everything these days...

But lets be real, this is how america has gone and is going. We want how we hunt to be the same as it was in the 50's. Look at everything else has changed since then too. Really, I'm suprised hunting has made it this long as something you can do by knocking and a few doors and gaining access with a some small talk and a hand shake.

If you don't like it, don't do business with Cabela's. That's really all you can do. It's a free market. You can choose to not buy things from Cabela's. Just like landowners can choose to sell to the highest bidder.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

I don't want this to be taken the wrong way; I'm not trying to be a smart alec or anything about it.

Reading the North Dakotan's (not to mention many NR) responses to this and the other Cabelas thread, I get the strong impression that this type of service (hooking hunters up with landowners for a fee) is pretty much universally despised by the posters.

If that's so, then why do you allow multiple companies providing these services to advertise here? I have been reading the ads that rotate positions right above the "topics" name on the index page, and I have seen at least three different ads for companies who seem to hook prospective hunters up with (presumably) willing landowners.

That seems odd to me; that a practice can be so unpopular with essentially all the users (and by inference with the ND population as a whole, and at the same time you tolerate ads for it.

What am I missing?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Skip ok, I'm kind of old and a computer dunce, but I'll give explaining this a shot. The site has no control over some advertisements you see pop up. I don't know if it is google or what search engine, but the adds pop up without any control from nodakoutdoors. If Chris comes across this he can explain it, but all I can do is tell you these are not nodakoutdoors advertisers. I do know that Chris has explained this a number of times before.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I don't think that is exactly true Plainsman. The control on the ads is to allow or not to allow Google ads. I think that is a choice made by the owner of the site. Just guessing but probable using Google Adsense or Adword which pays the owner of the site a commission every time someone clicks on the ad. The adds are keyed to home in on certain words of the page. Kind of takes the steam out of the often used comment "the almighty dollar" doesn't it.


----------

