texas billionaires bar hunters from Potlatch Land

[whacker1]

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2016/sep/29/texas-billionaire-bar-hunter-land/

ACCESS -- Many hunters, snowmobilers, hikers, campers and anglers have looked at free or reasonable access to vast forests held by private timber companies as a privilege they've always had and will always have.

Think again.

Idaho Statesman columnist Rocky Barker reports how Texas billionaires are spreading their land-grabbing kick-the-public-out ways from Montana to a sweet 172,000 acres of Idaho.

"They aren’t proving themselves to be good neighbors, and that’s how westerners judge people," Barker concludes.

Following is Barker's entire Letters from the West column:


Steve Wolfinger was planning to go on what was his first Idaho elk hunt starting Saturday in Adams and Valley counties.

But a week before he was planning to get on a jet to fly from his home in Arkansas, the 70-year-old got a letter from Regan Berkley, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game wildlife manager from McCall. She told him that private land  recently owned by Potlatch Corp. that covers much of the unit where he planned to hunt is now closed.



DF Development, the new owners of the 172,000 acres of timberland and a vast road system in Adams, Valley and Boise counties, informed Fish and Game that the land will no longer be open to hunting.

Wolfinger and 304 other hunters had controlled-hunt tags for units where 30 percent of the land is owned by the Cisco, Texas, company. F&G’s Berkley told those hunters they could trade their controlled-hunt tag for a general elk tag if they so choose.

Hunters go through a lottery to get controlled-hunt tags for units where hunters have higher odds of bagging an animal. But that won’t work for Wolfinger: He has time to hunt this week, but the general season hasn’t started yet.





“I hope you spread the word,” his son, Bradley Wolfinger, told the Statesman via e-mail. “Outrageous.”

I first reported in August that Farris and Dan Wilks had purchased the land owned for decades by Boise Cascade. The two Texas billionaires have been buying up land all over the West, and closing off much of the access to those lands.

Berkley’s letter reveals what most people expected and feared: The Wilks are closing off the timberlands to hunting and other recreation. They already canceled leases with Valley County to maintain roads that provided access to snowmobile trails on public land that are critical for snowmobilers, ATVers and others.

“Our people reached out to the new owners when they started getting reports from hunters who said they saw orange painted fence posts where they had not seen them before,” said Mike Keckler, a spokesman for Fish and Game. “When we reached out, they said that hunting would be restricted on this property.” The orange posts indicate closed lands.

The Wilks brothers, who made their fortune in the oil well services business, visited their new domain earlier this month for two days, said Valley County Commissioner Elting Hasbrouck. The Wilks toured the area with their forester, Colin Chambers of McCall.

Hasbrouck, a rancher who owns a big chuck of real estate himself, said the Wilks may find it hard to keep hunters out when there is so much game in the forests they own. Hasbrouck had problems with trespassing for years until he told hunters that anyone who helped him brand his calves could come hunt in the fall.





He’s had a hard-core group help him annually.

“We do our best to respond to landowners when trespass occurs,” Keckler said. “This will be handled in a similar fashion.”

Valley County officials are now trying to determine the minimum access they need from the Wilks so people can use the county’s extensive snowmobile and four-wheeler trail system. Loggers who were pulled off the forest when the land was sold have been told they will be allowed back in, but they are still waiting.

Steve Wolfinger, a retired high school science teacher, already paid more than $500 for an elk tag and a hunting license. He bought a plane ticket to Idaho and a hotel room. The area his son knows the best and had planned to take him is on the former Boise Cascade and Potlatch lands, but he said he has other alternatives for his father’s hunt.

“I’m trying the make the best of a bad situation,” Steve Wolfinger said.

So is Valley County. The decline of the timber industry has prompted the county to move toward tourism and second-home development to boost its economy, to go with ranching, logging and some mining. But when the Tamarack ski and golf resort went bankrupt, it put a huge dent in the tourism market, Hasbrouck said.

A sheriff’s sale Oct. 17 will sell off two chairlifts, a mid-mountain lodge, 14 condos, the front lobby to a hotel and three holes of the Tamarack golf course for back taxes, Hasbrouck said.

Now the Wilks.

More than 18,000 snowmobilers use the West Mountain snowmobile trail system annually, according to a study by Headwaters Economics of Bozeman, Mont. Closing those Idaho trails, the 2006 study said, would cost Valley County $832,000 in sales. Four-wheelers probably bring in even more, Hasbrouck said.

If Valley County can’t work out a deal with the Wilks, there is no easy way to get public access to the network of trails that are open on public lands.

“We’re worried it will hurt our economy,” Hasbrouck said.

I have repeatedly called Wilks Development office in Cisco, its representatives and anyone who might speak for the Wilks brothers. I have gotten no response.

The story about the Wilks’ purchase has taken on a life of its own. Opponents to the transfer or sale of public lands are using the Wilks’ closures as Exhibit A of what can happen if lands that are traditionally open to the public go into private hands.

But it’s the way the story affects snowmobilers, four-wheelers, loggers and regular-Joe hunters like Steve Wolfinger that has given this story legs, as well as the Wilks’ unwillingness to talk to anyone about their actions or their plans.

They aren’t proving themselves to be good neighbors, and that’s how westerners judge people.

[CLARKTAR]

I don't like those guys.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[KFhunter]

not good, honest law abiding people get the shaft (again)

It's swiftly becoming a world where it doesn't pay to be honest or law abiding, people who'd trespass get a huge place to hunt with almost zero enforcement for a poacher paradise while we get crowded on public lands. 

not good at all


Federal lands is about all I got mismanaged as it is at least I know I can always go there and it won't change hands.  Land's won't be traded and turn into a checker board with private lands blocking public access.

[lokidog]

But wait, shouldn't the Feds be turning over their land to the people...?          

[pcal]

The county/state needs to shutboff all law enforcement to the property and reassess the total value to $30k an acre which will even get the attention of $billionaires. Taxes on 172k acres would come to $560M .i bet they start responding to inquires
from Montana officials when they get that tax bill.

[dscubame]

Property owner rights.  Key word is "owner".

[pianoman9701]

 , unfortunately. I'm not sure under what conditions the property was sold and whether or not others had the opportunity to buy it. But, private land is private land. It's the privilege of the owners to do with that land whatever they wish. It certainly sucks for a great many people. I also agree with the sentiment that public land, whether county, state, or federal, should remain public.

[fireweed]

The people are not powerless and all states that are seeing this trend need to wake up to realities--

Re-write the property tax breaks that timberland gets , making sure top tax break includes public access.  Look at the Great Lakes states for a model.
Use all legal means, including eminent domain, to get access through private land to public land
Require any fee-for-entry system to follow the same rules as other recreation businesses meaning disabled access rules, sanitation, wheelchair accessible gates etc.
Non-timber or ag income must pay the same tax rates (B&O) as other recreation businesses pay
Reassert that the public owns the wildlife, period.  No special tags, damage tags, landowner tags unless the public is allowed on.
The public also owns the rivers and lakes.  Make sure (such as Montana has done) that the public has access to navigable waters. 
Convert some private logging roads that have been used by the public for decades to actual public roads if they access public lands, trails, or waters.


None of this is against property rights, it is just creating a level playing field and removing the special treatments timberland gets, or at least tying the special treatment to public benefits more directly. 

[pianoman9701]

 

[fireweed]

,  But, private land is private land. It's the privilege of the owners to do with that land whatever they wish.  .

Ever tried to build anything on your property?  The idea that owners can do "with the land whatever they wish" is just that, a wish. 
I'm working with a situation where a building permit is required for a FLAG POLE.  It may not be pretty, but the reality is the government regulates everything in some way or another.  What makes timberland exempt from regulations that other businesses must follow, or immune to a review of their tax break provisions? 

[pianoman9701]

That's not the issue here. The issue is that people are ticked off about not having access to private land. I understand how they feel and landowners have the right to allow or disallow the public from using their property. I agreed with you that timberland tax law should be amended.

[tjthebest]

this is another reason to support the fight against Public Lands Transfer. Randy Newberg has a good video series about the issue.

[pd]

The people are not powerless and all states that are seeing this trend need to wake up to realities--

Re-write the property tax breaks that timberland gets , making sure top tax break includes public access.  Look at the Great Lakes states for a model.
Use all legal means, including eminent domain, to get access through private land to public land
Require any fee-for-entry system to follow the same rules as other recreation businesses meaning disabled access rules, sanitation, wheelchair accessible gates etc.
Non-timber or ag income must pay the same tax rates (B&O) as other recreation businesses pay
Reassert that the public owns the wildlife, period.  No special tags, damage tags, landowner tags unless the public is allowed on.
The public also owns the rivers and lakes.  Make sure (such as Montana has done) that the public has access to navigable waters. 
Convert some private logging roads that have been used by the public for decades to actual public roads if they access public lands, trails, or waters.


None of this is against property rights, it is just creating a level playing field and removing the special treatments timberland gets, or at least tying the special treatment to public benefits more directly.

 

[JLS]

not good at all


Federal lands is about all I got mismanaged as it is at least I know I can always go there and it won't change hands.  Land's won't be traded and turn into a checker board with private lands blocking public access.

Not good is an understatement.  It's much easier to change the management practices than it is the name on the deed.  Once public access is lost, it ain't coming back. 

[WAPatriot]

Sounds like those billionaires just bought a new hunting ranch for there friends and family. Can't say I blame them for not wanting others hunting their land.

[WAPatriot]

Dan and Farris Wilk. Great Americans living the American Dream.

[jackmaster]

, unfortunately. I'm not sure under what conditions the property was sold and whether or not others had the opportunity to buy it. But, private land is private land. It's the privilege of the owners to do with that land whatever they wish. It certainly sucks for a great many people. I also agree with the sentiment that public land, whether county, state, or federal, should remain public.

thats why pman will be potus.. Always makes sense

[JimmyHoffa]

Sounds like those billionaires just bought a new hunting ranch for there friends and family. Can't say I blame them for not wanting others hunting their land.

I read before somewhere that they are building religious compounds out on those lands. 

[JLS]

Sounds like those billionaires just bought a new hunting ranch for there friends and family. Can't say I blame them for not wanting others hunting their land.

And how much does one person need?

To those whom much is given, much is expected.  It's called leaving the world as better place than you found it.  Appreciating the fact you have been very blessed, and using that to make the world a better place.

I just don't see that here.

[KFhunter]

I'm hugely anti eminent domain and some of us have had some heated arguments over it.

I need to rethink my position, or rather modify it.  I'm still hugely anti eminent domain, but in instances like this these lands aren't private domiciles, they're cooperate lands and I think ED should be used on lands that are cooperate in nature rather than private domicile.   Don't use ED on small rural farms and holdings where the family live/work and reside full time.

Reclassify huge holdings where the "owners" are cooperate or don't live there full time and ED existing roads or make new foot trails if it blocks public lands over so many acres.

re-classification would carry different taxes as mentioned also, use every tool to gain access. 

[pianoman9701]

Under the rules of eminent domain, the government must pay just compensation for the property. Why wouldn't they have just bought it in the first place? I'm pretty sure they knew it was going for sale.

But the bigger problem here is that some people somehow think that a corporation which owns land should have fewer rights than an individual. This is wrong thinking in a number of ways. First, the SCOTUS disagrees in supporting Citizens United which, when they supported it in 2010, says that corporations are individuals. Whether or not you agree with the decision, it is now law. Secondly, people incorporate for the protection of their personal assets. That doesn't give these people fewer rights to land ownership because their specific name isn't on the deed. It's still a person or persons who owns it.

This is a lot like limiting someone's rights under the 1st Amendment. Once it's acceptable to limit free speech because it's objectionable, it then becomes OK for someone to limit yours because they find it objectionable. The same applies to land ownership. You may strongly dislike what the owners of this land have done to access. But allow the government to stomp all over their private property rights and all of a sudden, the government will find reasons to stomp all over yours. Our republic is based on a combination of democracy and capitalism. Suggesting that the government should be able to step in and grab land because your don't agree with the owners sides with communist ideals, not liberty. My 

[WAPatriot]

These guys are republicans from Texas who came from nothing they like hunting and fishing. I don't blame them for not wanting random people on there property especially if they plan on hunting or have friends who want to hunt there property. I like billionaires who spend money on ranches for hunting and fishing way more than I like billonare's who are anti hunting and anti guns

[BigGoonTuna]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

[JLS]

These guys are republicans from Texas who came from nothing they like hunting and fishing. I don't blame them for not wanting random people on there property especially if they plan on hunting or have friends who want to hunt there property. I like billionaires who spend money on ranches for hunting and fishing way more than I like billonare's who are anti hunting and anti guns

Regardless of whether they hunt or not, it's one more cut that will eventually bleed out the North American model of wildlife management and lead us back to the European Model. 

Teddy Roosevelt is rolling in his grave.

[JLS]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

[JimmyHoffa]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

An effect of population growth.  Keep adding more and more people and not adding land, more will get locked up.

[pianoman9701]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

I agree.

[JLS]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

An effect of population growth.  Keep adding more and more people and not adding land, more will get locked up.

I believe it has a lot more to do with attitudes and egos than it does population.

[pianoman9701]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

An effect of population growth.  Keep adding more and more people and not adding land, more will get locked up.

I believe it has a lot more to do with attitudes and egos than it does population.

It has more to do with investing amassed wealth. If I had billions of $s, I'd buy up a lot of land, too.

[KFhunter]

I don't agree with cooperate personhood either, but in this case it's a single owner buying cooperate type lands for business.  It's not a home nor does he live on it so I think there's reason to gain access to it and through it.   

[JLS]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

An effect of population growth.  Keep adding more and more people and not adding land, more will get locked up.

I believe it has a lot more to do with attitudes and egos than it does population.

It has more to do with investing amassed wealth. If I had billions of $s, I'd buy up a lot of land, too.

So would I.  And I would also let people hunt it, because I believe in the ideology of public access to a public resource.

Edit:  I've had the privilege of hunting multi generational ranches where they still valued the ideology of sharing with your neighbors.  I've also had the privilege of hunting on a billionaire's ranch, who also learned (it wasn't immediate) the value of sharing with your neighbors, and the goodwill and sense of community that it builds.

Unfortunately, many landowners (both individual and corporate) have lost sight of the intrinsic worth of access to a shared public resource.

[pianoman9701]

I would open it up too.

[Wenatcheejay]

The people are not powerless and all states that are seeing this trend need to wake up to realities--

Re-write the property tax breaks that timberland gets , making sure top tax break includes public access.  Look at the Great Lakes states for a model.
Use all legal means, including eminent domain, to get access through private land to public land
Require any fee-for-entry system to follow the same rules as other recreation businesses meaning disabled access rules, sanitation, wheelchair accessible gates etc.
Non-timber or ag income must pay the same tax rates (B&O) as other recreation businesses pay
Reassert that the public owns the wildlife, period.  No special tags, damage tags, landowner tags unless the public is allowed on.
The public also owns the rivers and lakes.  Make sure (such as Montana has done) that the public has access to navigable waters. 
Convert some private logging roads that have been used by the public for decades to actual public roads if they access public lands, trails, or waters.


None of this is against property rights, it is just creating a level playing field and removing the special treatments timberland gets, or at least tying the special treatment to public benefits more directly.

Yes.

[NumaJohn]

Yes, fireweed! Thanks for providing a concrete strategy.

I understand that private property owners have (and should have) great latitude regarding what they do with their property, but there comes a point where greed becomes insufferable. People like Teddy R. had the means to hunt their entire lives under a European model, but he and his colleagues chose a different path for us, and I remain grateful.

John

[Bean Counter]

There are plenty of ways states can fight for hunters access for the common man that don't have to resort to selling our souls to the Devil, ie the federal government, to get a free place to hunt. If eminent domain wont work, a state could tax the living S* out of a property owner that wont grant access, to the point where G&F could use the funds to buy back other lands for public access 

As much as I hate to see public access lost, its far more ideal than the Federal government sinking its disgusting fangs into something that can and should be figured out by the states.