doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Running out of places to hunt? Thank Cabela's...

"...Cabela’s Trophy Properties opened an office in Montana and started listing what the Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF), the state’s largest group of hunters and anglers, calls 'traditional public hunting properties.' Those listings shot up a warning flare to the MWF’s 7,000 members, and the result was a strongly worded letter from executive director Craig Sharpe going to Dennis Highby, president & CEO of Cabela’s. In the letter, Sharpe warned of a 'strong response' to the real estate marketing, such as mailing back or burning catalogs, unless Cabela’s addressed the group’s concerns and agreed to a meeting to discuss the issues.

A flash point in the controversy was the sale, planned subdivision and eventual closure to public hunting of two large ranches in central Montana by Cabela’s Trophy Properties. 'Is this in line with Cabela’s mission?' Sharpe asked in his letter."

Full article

And it's not just in Montana - this link will take you to a site where Cabela's Trophy Properties is a partner in selling a number of tracts of Boise Cascade timberland in Minnesota that used to be open to the public for hunting.

It's not my intent to make Cabela's out to be the only bad guy in the loss of public hunting land, but they are clearly part of the problem. Maybe some of us will take this into consideration when we decide where to buy our next shotgun or hunting vest.

This has nothing to do with Cabelas. The land was never publicly owned. The land is and was privately owned. The owners allowed the public onto their property, and now the property is for sale.

Many western states have not invested in buying land for public use, and now it's getting serious. Blaming the real estate agent is BS.

No it's not. Not one little bit. Fug the greedy bastards. I won't buy there until the discontinue this practice. Fug the paper and timber companies, too.

So buy a one of the subdivided properties if you want to hunt there. The sale of the land to a private owner was done long ago, as Yeti pointed out. Public rights ended there. This ain't Cuba.

Here's another lousy thing Cabelas does: they sells things for more than they pay for them.

I know - WTF! Don't look now, but I hear other people are doing it, too - from Wal Mart to McDonalds.

What a bunch of greedy jerks.


OWD, tongue firmly planted in cheek.

The loss of public access to hunting ground is a serious concern to Montana hunters, especially bird hunters. Our state has a long tradition of allowing bird hunters access to farm and ranch lands. But most of those farmers and ranchers are making a marginal living at best, and when someone (almost always from out of state) waves an obscene bunch of money under their nose, it can be difficult to resist. Property changing hands is not the problem. The problem is when a large piece of land whose owner has allowed public hunting access passes to an owner who either locks it up and shuts out the public, or chops it up into pieces - 10 acre ranchettes or the like - that simultaneously destroy wildlife habitat and end public access. To suggest that a disgruntled Montana hunter should be grateful to buy a 10-acre ranchette where there was once a large intact piece of wildlife habitat is to show a lack of understanding of the situation. This is not about our oh-so-sacred property rights. It is about keeping land intact, about finding ways to keep farmers and ranchers on their land and rural communities intact, and about preserving the tradition of public access to private land that is Montana's heritage, and that used to be common elsewhere. Montana is special because it is NOT (yet), chopped up entirely into ranchettes and subdivisions, and it is special because all the hunting opportunities are not (so far) restricted to pricey shooting preserves that exclude the average hunter who wants to spend a morning watching his or her dog work, and mabye shooting a couple of huns. The point is not that 'this ain't Cuba.' The point is that Montanans don't want our state to become Texas. (And I mean no offense to Texans. I am only speaking of the loss of public, non-paying hunting opportunities in that state, or many others for that matter.)
No, Cabela's is not the only guilty party in this issue. But they are guilty of helping to accelerate the loss of public hunting in our state. And none of my hunting friends here who are concerned with Montana's hunting heritage will give them our business.

So organize, raise funds, and buy the land. Boycott Cabela's if you wish, but you won't change anything.

What your state will become is dictated by economics, not by tradition or idealism.

I'd like to go back to the world of local merchants and thriving small community downtown areas instead of Wal-Mart and Meijers on every used to be corn field too. It isn't going to happen.

The loss of hunting ground is due to a greed mentality that says This is mine, you cant be here. Even here in NW Kansas we are seeing wealthy, greedy jerks buying up ground, calling it a "Hunting Club" and limiting its use to a select few. Excluding locals, I must add. I second clayws comments, well spoke. We, here, respond by NOT allowing these "Club Owners" to hunt on our ground. They have a few hundred acres, we have many thousand. When they allow public access, they can hunt ours. Sad situation, but fact. Shotgunjones seems to have given up, we aint gonna.

Make no mistake, the loss of hunting ground is not due to greed. It's due to too many people. As our population continues to grow, we will continue to loose hunting ground. The fact that a private landowner allowed public access was a gift. To believe the next owner "owes" it to the public to allow public hunting or denying his right to sell to whoever he wants is rediculous.

I recall a similar situation in downtown L.A. where a landowner had a large lot that he allowed locals to farm a vegetable garden. When he decided to sell it, they protested publicly (picketed) and badmouthed the landowner, then sought an injunction and further legal action. These people were given a gift for years and they thanked the landowner by calling him names and threatening to sue. Go figure?

Well, thats the kind of response I would expect from a Californian. And prolly a Democrat. The thing people like you dont get, is that if all of us farmers made our land available to hunt, and all you defeatists would quit trying to post your lil piece of it, we'd all be happier. I dont care what happens in California, it ceased being part of the real world a long time ago. FYI, I know what I am talking about, Graduated Palo Alto high school and Stanford U. If I ever go back to Californa it will be by accident....go buy some birds. Also the fact that I allow hunting on my ground is not a "gift", its my right and privilege. lose, not loose, rediculous dont got no e in it..