Anyone read the newspaper today?
- Thread starter wingman1
- Start date
wingman1
New member
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
9 years to make 3.2 billion? that is freaking unreal.
Nemont
Well-known member
My opinion is about the same as above. I would rather see these guys these place rather than the Prairie Foundation.
There are lots of large tracts of lands being bought up. $123 million for the Broken O by Augusta.
Nemont
wingman1
New member
Your tune would change if they bought up all your favorite goose hunting spots....
MHMT
Member
I hate to say it, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but if there were a good enough land trade for the isolated public land, wouldn't it be worth it?
Only a few people get to fly into this section every year, and while it might be affordable to some, wouldn't it be better to have a chunk of land that everyone could enjoy?
Obviously it wouldn't be as good of hunting, but it would provide more overall access.
I am interested on what people think about this, what would be the positives of keeping the isolated chunk that would be good for hunters as a whole?
Only a few people get to fly into this section every year, and while it might be affordable to some, wouldn't it be better to have a chunk of land that everyone could enjoy?
Obviously it wouldn't be as good of hunting, but it would provide more overall access.
I am interested on what people think about this, what would be the positives of keeping the isolated chunk that would be good for hunters as a whole?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
MHMT, I agree with you. It would be good to swap landlocked public land for land with as good or better wildlife habitat and hunting opportunity. That is always a difficult evaluation, especially with land prices all over the board and constantly fluctuating ... depending on the seller, realtor, appraiser, etal.
I would much rather see the swaps than selling off public land with wildlife habitat, hunting, and other recreational opportunities, as has been suggested more and more lately.
I would much rather see the swaps than selling off public land with wildlife habitat, hunting, and other recreational opportunities, as has been suggested more and more lately.
wingman1
New member
So what is your take on wilderness lands? If your not an athlete or own horses you are sol. Should we trade off our wilderness?
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Enjoy or destroy?
There's plenty of land for people to run around on. This on was obviously great elk hunting for those who had the initiative to get in there.
What are the odds the place traded for will be a good? Low.
I say leave it how it is. Change is rarely for the better.
wingman1
New member
Well said!! Once it's gone it's GONE! We will never get it back!
Nemont
Well-known member
Yeah because growing up on the Milk River I have never seen prized access be bought up by wealthy people from out of state
I have had to adjust my hunting around that very same thing since I started hunting.
These guys aren't doing anything illegal, it is their money, they are not forcing anyone to sell to them. It appears to me to be capitalism.
Nemont
Hell, don't be afraid to say it. That shouldn't offend anyone.
As much as I have enjoyed hunting this piece, if the public could get a better deal, the deal should be taken. The big question always being, will the public get a better deal than what currently exists.
Not just in terms of access, but game abundance, type of wildlife, etc. When all is considered, I can think of many places these guys could purchase and trade to the public that would be a far better piece of land for the public to own.
Can think of a few that are worse and would surely be shot down by the public.
As Theodore Roosevelt would say, "The greatest good for the greatest number." Seems to apply when talking about public lands and land trades.
To your question - I am interested on what people think about this, what would be the positives of keeping the isolated chunk that would be good for hunters as a whole?
It seems one could easily argue that an isolated chunk of premium ground in a limited entry unit that has world class elk hunting, even if only hunted by 20-40 hunters per year, is more valuable than an accessible piece of ground that is lacking in habitat and game. Even if I never hunt it again, I would not want it traded for some accessible wasteland that has very little hunting values.
I have a suspicion that as more people are finding out about it and flying in there by their personal airplanes, or via air charters, that makes the desire for these guys to acquire it even higher. The higher the demand to acquire, seems the greater the value to be obtained in a land exchange. Or, so I hope is the case if the BLM starts in a negotiation with them.
So, to answer your question, I could make a case to not trade it, if the trade bait is junk. And just the same, I could easily make a case that the BLM should trade it if the trade bait is good, especially if it provides access to a bunch more public ground that is currently inaccessible.
MHMT
Member
Good points, and there are always a lot of "if's" in these cases. but, what if the land trade was a for a good chunk of land? If it was in a permit area, it wouldn't be too overrun.
"There's plenty of land for people to run around on" Ok, maybe you aren't for it, but I feel like many sportsman are in favor of more or better access.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Ha! That landlocked property is great if you own a $60,000 Super Cub!
And then Wingman tries to equate horses and wilderness to a chuck of useless public land only accessible by those with a Super Cub.
I'm guessing horses are just a bit cheaper to keep on an annual basis. Just a guess
Maybe if we got flying unicorns we could all hunt that place?
And then Wingman tries to equate horses and wilderness to a chuck of useless public land only accessible by those with a Super Cub.
I'm guessing horses are just a bit cheaper to keep on an annual basis. Just a guess
Maybe if we got flying unicorns we could all hunt that place?
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Wildfire is that you?
Last edited:
wingman1
New member
You can't buy a decent super cub for 60k. But you could charter a helicopter for 700.00. This chunk of blm has more 360 + bulls in it than all of CO put together. Why trade it off and give up the best elk hunting in the state.Ha! That landlocked property is great if you own a $60,000 Super Cub!
And then Wingman tries to equate horses and wilderness to a chuck of useless public land only accessible by those with a Super Cub.
I'm guessing horses are just a bit cheaper to keep on an annual basis. Just a guess
Maybe if we got flying unicorns we could all hunt that place?
sweetnectar
New member
I don't feel these boys are out to harm anyone. In fact everything I've seen them do has shown they are good neighbors.
So my guess is that they will trade that piece out. The public will win and the Wilk brothers will win. You don't get rich being stupid. You find ways to benefit everyone.
So my guess is that they will trade that piece out. The public will win and the Wilk brothers will win. You don't get rich being stupid. You find ways to benefit everyone.
Hem
Well-known member
The amount of elk that migrate on to the Wilk ranch/holdings is obscene.These guys are driven to lock up as much as possible.I have a friend who owns a substantial ranch in that area,which these Texans have tried to buy.He told them to take their money and go piss up a rope.Would have LOVED to see the expression on their faces when this good ole' boy scoffed at their ridiculous wagon of money.FTF's
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
I do not doubt it has more 360 bulls than the entire state of Colorodo. However, i do not have $700 to fly into that spot and do not feel the BLM should spend $ to manage it with pretty much 0 access.
Similar threads
