Kerfuffle at Cabela’s

I just wonder if Cabela’s is “underestimating the potential of the problem” or if the writer here is overestimating the PR spin against Cabela’s by some misdirected, but very vocal opponents?

I’ve posted on this in several places before, but the argument that blames Cabelas Real Estate for the division and sell-off of Montana hunting land is sorely misplaced and ridiculously out of touch with reality. May as well accuse them that selling high-powered scopes encourages unethical long-range shooting… or that selling accessories for 4-wheelers encourages the destruction of wild lands.

They’re just a store. They sell stuff. In the case of the Realty organization, they’re not even technically selling…they’re just listing and brokering. Local agents are selling the property, and if Cabela’s doesn’t list it, someone else will (and usually is).

I have been selling farm & ranch real estate for over 30 years. In Nebraska, we have enjoyed good hunting & fishing for a long time. I have noticed in the past 10 years that the numbers of upland game, pheasant & quail, have slowly diminished. The reason for this is clearly lack of habitat. The margins in farming & ranching have narrowed so greatly that every sq. ft. of soil has to be farmed or grazed. Without habitat, you do not have wildlife. Without wildlife, there is nothing to hunt. States such as South Dakota and Kansas have figured out that there is more productivity in tourism than there is in farming and ranching. These 2 states are prime examples of what habitat development and farming for wildlife can do. What has happened is there is a tremendous increase in the amount of numbers of game to hunt. However, no longer can a person, particularly an out of state person, or even an in-state person walk up to a farmer’s door and ask permission to hunt. A farmer or rancher will give permission only if there is a fee paid for the service. Over the past 5 years, recreational real estate has boomed in Nebraska. I have been fortunate enough to be a broker that has sold these lands to the hunter. In every case, it is the individual’s desire to improve the habitat on the property. Because of the increase in value of this type of real estate, the farmer next door is becoming more aware of habitat development himself. Our government has provided excellent programs to take farmland out of production and improve the habitat through such programs as the CRP Program (Conservation Reserve Program) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (C.R.E.P.). What eventually will happen is there will be much more game to hunt in all of the areas of Nebraska. The farmers and ranchers are becoming very aware of the value of wildlife. This is all because of the marketing efforts of brokers like myself. Our association with Cabelas allows us to tell our story much more effectively. I cannot see what selling farm and ranch real estate to people for the purpose of developing wildlife habitat has to do with taking away public lands. None of the lands that I have sold were previously public. I believe you will see a change in the attitude of ranchers and farmers giving permission to just anybody to hunt. Because of the above mentioned lower, narrower margins in farming and ranching, the land owners will be looking at leasing their land out exclusively for hunting. There will be a day when all hunters will have to pay for the privilege to hunt private property in our state. There are currently thousands of acres of public land that is excellent hunting throughout our state. I cannot see that the sale of private property will affect any of the public hunting lands. If anything, the additional habitat development that will occur will increase the success of the public hunting lands. As a result of the recreational property sales in Nebraska, it has stabilized the farmer and rancher in many instances. An example of this would be the farmer that sells his riverbottom ground that is no good for grazing or farming to a hunter freeing up equity to buy more productive land or reduce the farmer’s or rancher’s debt. I feel that the association through Cabelas is a positive, good thing for our state. Respectively submitted. Michael G. Lashley, President, Lashley Land and Recreational Brokers, Inc.

Michael,

Your post was an interesting and informative perspective.

A couple of notes:

First of all, Cabelas is hardly the only large outdoor entity involved in this business. Mossy Oak and RealTree, among others are also getting into it. Why is Cabelas being singled out?

Secondly, the problem seems to be the selling off of this land. The question that folks need to address is why the farmers are selling out, and how to deal with that problem. Get to the root of that, and I’m pretty sure the real enemy will be revealed.

Finally, in general, my previous comments (I think they were on Tom’s Black Bear Blog..and on my own site) were pretty much in keeping with Ms Fry’s post above. The people who are complaining don’t own the land. It’s not now, nor was it, “public” land. It’s private property that was made available to some members of the public through a cooperative program between the State of Montana and the landowner. Nobody is selling off the public land (well, unless you wanna talk about the BLM, but that’s another can of worms).

If the landowner can’t afford to keep the land any longer, or even if he/she doesn’t WANT to keep the land any longer, how the heck is it the realtors’ fault that the land is for sale?

The argument makes no sense.

I am an independent Cabela’s Trophy Property broker and proud of it. I do not work for Cabela’s, Cabela’s works for me and my clients.

One of the pillars this country was founded on was the private ownership of land and the private property rights that convey with it. Most of the arguments I have read sound like the class envy that liberals always try to use to stir the masses simply to amass power for themselves.

The fact is we should be applauding Cabela’s for giving sellers and buyers of recreational property common ground to find one another. Every lead I have received from the Cabela’s Trophy Properties web site has been from someone just as interested in hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities as I am. This allows me to begin my relationship with a client from a point of common interest. You will not find many anti-hunters or anti-gun clients sourcing real estate from Cabela’s. If an owner of recreational property has made the tough decision to put it on the market, we as hunters, fishermen and other users of these properties should be happy there is source for other like minded people to find these opportunities so there is a better chance of the land being purchased by someone friendly to our way of life.

If we want to keep our private lands accessible to the general public, then we need to keep it in the hands of people who respect others who take the time to develop a trust between land owners and those seeking the privilege of trespass. If I did not have the Cabela’s marketing behind me, I would have to take a more general approach to finding buyers and in the mix would be many buyers more interested in diminishing our opportunities to hunt and fish than those who respect it. I would much rather the buyer of prime hunting land come from the Cabela’s web site than the New York Times.

Cabela’s does not own the properties nor do they buy the properties listed on the web site. Attempting to make Cabela’s or a local Trophy Properties franchisee responsible for a new owner’s decision to close access to a property is like the big cities suing gun manufacturers for crimes committed. I have attended two gatherings of Cabela’s Trophy Properties brokers and each time there have been presentations by professionals concerning the tax benefits of conservation easements. Not everyone who owns a ranch has a tax problem, most have an income problem.

Not once have I heard a Cabela’s staff member or independent Trophy Properties broker conspiring to break up a ranch for development. There are many in my profession that make their living solely on this approach to marketing. I am sure there are developers who find target properties on the Cabela’s web site, but these investors would find the properties from other sources if Cabela’s was not there. The fact is, Cabela’s is our best chance of finding outdoorsmen, rather than developers, to purchase and preserve these recreational properties.

As a potential C T P broker, I showed up for my interview in Nebraska in a pickup truck, but they treated as if I had flown in on my own private jet.
They wanted to make sure I was a true sportsmen and the token they collected for the franchise fee was only to test my commitment.

Some things had to change when the company went public. From my perspective, Cabela’s remains a family operated, family recreation oriented outfit. Their philosophy in franchising Cabela’s Trophy Properties is to put brokers who are also outdoorsmen in a position to offer other outdoorsmen early and better access to sellers of recreational land, which is far more likely to remain open to public hunting than if it were marketed by developers or the general real estate sales network.

Never know what’ll pop up when you turn over some stones, huh?

Good thread!

That should be Cabela’s…

WOW! I don’t know where to start except to call it like it is! I’m a back country hunter, a wildlife conservationist, a family man and foremost a red blooded American. I was jaw dropped after reading your article; not to mention the belittling reference about Cabela’s spokesperson being a “bone head”? Nice approach, I can’t imagine why it took so long for them to officially respond? Talk about desecrating your own brand. That’s just what this county needs is more negative, mud slinging media that sells, in addition to an uneducated columnist becoming a politician to further diminish private property rights. Shame on you! Here’s a newsflash for you folks. We live in a country based on capitalism, not socialism. I have never dealt with a private property owner whom is looking to “negatively” impact our rural, agricultural and hunting lands or waterways! On the contrary, they are hard working, family oriented conservationists whom want a place to escape the rat race just like you. They’re not heathens, villains nor “bone heads”. They’re people whom care about the environment, wildlife habitat and are willing to risk, invest and protect their cause. 99.9% are sick of picking up empty beer cans, poachers and having their experience ruined by late night partying hunters and speeding ATV’s. Your issue is with society, and the lack of trust it presents, not Cabela’s Trophy Properties. Why don’t you allow the public access to your home? It’s your private property, and you’re a promoter of such? I suspect it to be the same reasoning. You still have the right to ask permission to access private property, and the right to allow people whom you learn to trust into your home. Especially if they’re respectable, willing to pick up after themselves and watch out for your best interest. Helping out with the chores also goes a long way, not just granting access. You shouldn’t expect that everything in this world should be given to you. If you want it, earn it. It’s just that simple. Your other problem is with the local governing agencies in your state. When referring to hunters and anglers potentially losing access everywhere; don’t include me, nor hold Cabela’s liable for Montana’s poor public land management. The state and voters of Montana have everything to do with that, nobody else. Why don’t you get off your lazy butt and start barking at your state governments’ door. Is there a law in Montana that says your government can’t buy land or incentives to delegate private land for public use? The Cabela’s real estate program will only help support your exact cause in other parts of the country. I reside in Oregon, where governing land use laws dictate the splitting and development of lands, not Cabela’s, not the land buyers, nor the real estate brokers. Oregon is the state of the Spotted Owl, radical environmental movements and continuous anti hunting controversies; Over 50% of Oregon’s land is federally owned, while the BLM owns an additional 16 million acres. Of the 20% +/- privately held portion, much of it is owned by large timber companies also accessible to the public. When additionally subtracting the high density cities from that, only a small overall percentage of private rural and agricultural lands exist in this state. Of the private portion referred, we have zonings, land use laws and sensitive to wildlife habitat overlays restricting higher density development put in place by county and state governments. Our ODFW biologists and land use planners have years of research to logically support their cause. Several years ago I personally witnessed a group of anti hunting eco-terrorists running through the woods smashing metal trash can lids together to scare away the game near my public hunting land. Welcome to America! Public land has its pro’s and con’s. Americans have the right to purchase their own property and to legally use it for the purpose in which they bought it. Quit supporting the communist traits this country is already heading toward. In case you didn’t know, there aren’t many buyers out there whom can afford to purchase a 7000 acre tract of land in Montana’s prime hunting area. However, there are a lot people out there whom are looking for a 200 acre tract to get away from people like you, telling them what they can and can’t do with their money, business and private property! When Montana sells out, it sounds like you would fit in well here with the other entire extremist telling folks what they can and can’t do with their lives! But as far as I’m concerned, people like you aren’t welcome here. We already have plenty.