antlerradar
Well-known member
Can someone post up a link to the article today on the issues between the Diamond Cross and Trophy's West Outfitters. I am pay walled out.
Billings Gazette Article
- Thread starter antlerradar
- Start date
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,968
Sent you a pm
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,968
Link that Art was referring to.
billingsgazette.com
Funny story. It does confirm what ive believed for a long while. Some common statements that are objectively false:
"no one is buying a multi million dollar ranch for elk hunts"
"You could buy a lot of out of state guided hunts for what it costs"
The people in the article prove that wrong. Emperically and objectively.
The irony of it while we talk about "devaluing" property with corner crossing isnt lost on me. Did FWP, the citizens of the state, elk, or sportsman somehow get a dividend for this "increase" in value for these NR recreational ranch owners to "hunt every year"?
I suppose that will be mark taylors (or one of his well compensated lobbyists) next line when repealing 635 next session.
Elk, the baroness and an outfitter: A modern Montana tragedy
The legal filings provide insight to how much money an outfitter proposed to pay a landowner for a 2026 hunting lease and also reveals a multi-million-dollar, no-broker land sale.
Funny story. It does confirm what ive believed for a long while. Some common statements that are objectively false:
"no one is buying a multi million dollar ranch for elk hunts"
"You could buy a lot of out of state guided hunts for what it costs"
The people in the article prove that wrong. Emperically and objectively.
The irony of it while we talk about "devaluing" property with corner crossing isnt lost on me. Did FWP, the citizens of the state, elk, or sportsman somehow get a dividend for this "increase" in value for these NR recreational ranch owners to "hunt every year"?
I suppose that will be mark taylors (or one of his well compensated lobbyists) next line when repealing 635 next session.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
No subscription = No read.
Carl 9.3x62
Well-known member
I was able to read it without a subscription.
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
We just learned a 10 million dollar ranch that has ELK on it is worth 15-20 million! If that ain’t incentive to keep all the public’s elk on “YOUR” place, idk what is. That should be illegal. My wildlife is not a bargaining chip for One Man only.
There is a war on elk and a war on the public land sportsman in Montana.
There is a war on elk and a war on the public land sportsman in Montana.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Clearly with UPOM and other such politically influencing groups pushing for private property rights that don't exist with respect to wildlife and Montana's bison "livestock", the Public Trust Doctrine is in serious jeopardy.
El Jason
Well-known member
Good article. It’s hard to believe there was a time when folks would let hunters who drew a permit hunt for free.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Another giant problem created from concentrated wealth.
Allows people to pay stupid prices for property. Then once purchased at those stupid prices, they can also afford to pay off and elect people that can change and bend laws to their favor. You know, cute little things like trying to change the way wildlife is managed via the NAM and PTD. Of course, they also don't like it, and try to stop it, when a conglomerate of people fund things like American Prairie that do believe in the public trust doctrine, public access, and the North American Model.
Hunters, anglers and recreationist's better pull their heads out...and fast.
We aren't fighting these bastards and winning mano e mano...but collectively we can.
Allows people to pay stupid prices for property. Then once purchased at those stupid prices, they can also afford to pay off and elect people that can change and bend laws to their favor. You know, cute little things like trying to change the way wildlife is managed via the NAM and PTD. Of course, they also don't like it, and try to stop it, when a conglomerate of people fund things like American Prairie that do believe in the public trust doctrine, public access, and the North American Model.
Hunters, anglers and recreationist's better pull their heads out...and fast.
We aren't fighting these bastards and winning mano e mano...but collectively we can.
Last edited:
sapperJ24
Well-known member
@Straight Arrow or anyone else, in case you didn't find a work around.
Elk, the baroness and an outfitter: A Modern Montana Tragedy
Brett French
Jul 25, 2026
In a dispute worthy of a “Yellowstone”-like television series, an expansive southeastern Montana ranch once owned by a Mars candy heir is at the center of legal wrangling involving a Belgian baroness, a Forsyth outfitter and a Texas oil-drilling couple.
The quarrel was revealed in a complaint recently filed in U.S. District Court in Billings, unveiling a clash that would otherwise take place out of public view.
Like a peak behind the Wizard of Oz’s curtain, the legal filings not only provide insight to how much money an outfitter proposed to pay a landowner for a 2026 hunting lease — an estimated $92,750 for 33 hunts — but also reveal a multi-million-dollar, no-broker land sale that otherwise may have went undetected.
All about elk
At the base of the conflict is access to elk, said one Eastern Montana native who asked not to be identified.
As proof, the resident pointed to another ranch in the Forsyth area, covering more than 35,100 acres, that recently sold. The advertised price: $34.47 million.
Atop the list of the landscape’s features: “Perfect habitat for elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, antelope, upland game birds and turkey."
The buyer, Minnesota-based Western Flight Farms LLC, has the same name as a Kansas-based company that advertises the “hunt of a lifetime on natural prairie.”
Instead of seeking riches like gold, timber, cattle or oil that defined Montana’s earlier exploitative ventures by wealthy out-of-staters, this new land rush is all about trophy elk.
Appraiser Andy Rahn said elk are the new gold, having a “major impact on land value, especially in Eastern Montana, which doesn’t have other recreational amenities compared to western Montana.”
“Interestingly, the impact is on land value but not really income,” Rahn added. “The money that can be made in income from elk on an annual basis is not that high. The income itself doesn’t justify the land values. It’s recreation for the owners.”
From few to many
The southeastern corner of Montana — composed of Hunting Districts 702, 704 and 705 — was once void of elk after homesteaders cleared the land for cattle and sheep herds, yet the country was long well-known for producing trophy-class mule deer.
Then, in the 1990s, scattered sightings of a few elk prompted Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks to begin issuing four tags for the Ashland Ranger District, the largest swath of public land in the region.
Now the three southeastern hunting districts contain an estimated 4,300 animals, and FWP issues more than 1,200 tags for bulls just in Hunting District 704, which includes the Ashland forest, as well as more than 2,000 for cow elk.
The problem for the average hunter is finding access to land, since much of the public ground is overrun, pushing elk onto private property where hunting leases or access fees bar entry.
Trophy elk
Boosting the region’s popularity among hunters was a bull elk shot by an archery hunter on private land in 2000 that scored 411 points. Then, in 2016, an archery hunter on public land in the same corner of the state killed a bull that scored 430 points, the current Pope and Young typical world record.
Adding to the area’s fame, in 2017 a bull with nontypical antlers scoring 431 7/8 inches was killed by a rifle hunter on public land.
The Boone and Crockett Club, which keeps records of trophy game animals, considers any bull elk scoring a minimum of 375 points for entry into the all-time record book, 360 points for entry into its awards book. The animals are scored based on measurements of their antlers.
A hunt for a trophy bull elk in southeastern Montana with a guide can now cost $18,000 or more, which includes lodging, transportation and meals for five to seven days. This price doesn’t include the cost of the tag, which for nonresidents is more than $1,100.
Despite the high fees, such outfitted hunts are often booked two years in advance.
Plaintiff is exclusively seeking declarations of law from this Court that extinguish Defendant’s claims to certain real property and to seek monetary damages from Defendants.
Caught in the crosshairs
Given the lofty fees for such hunts and limited access to trophy animals, it’s no wonder Troy and Tina Sams, owners of Forsyth-based Trophies West Outfitters, are attempting to hang on to the contract they claim they had to hunt the Diamond Cross Ranch this season. This fall the couple booked 33 clients, according to court exhibits.
The contract is now being contested as a Belgian baroness attempts to sell the 95,867 acres of deeded land, 149 square miles, that creates the Diamond Cross Ranch.
The ranch is located along the Tongue River in Rosebud and Big Horn counties. In December 2017, candy heir Forrest Mars Jr. sold the 119,500-acre Diamond Cross Ranch (93,280 deeded acres) to Heal Holdings LLC. The asking price was $64.8 million.
Baroness’ Montana ranch
Heal Holdings LLC was formed by Baroness Charlotte de Mevius of Belgium. Her family, one of the wealthiest in the country, traces its history back to a brewery founded in 1240. Along with two other Belgian families that founded the brewery, Business Insider valued their net worth at $36.8 billion in 2020. That’s based on the fact the family members are shareholders in the brewing conglomerate AB InBev, which produces such well-known beers as Budweiser, Corona Extra and Stella Artois.
Heal Holdings has signed a contract to sell the Diamond Cross Ranch to David and Crystal Watts, a Texas couple who own oil and gas drilling companies, two other ranches and who are also “passionate” about hunting, including safaris to Africa, and specialize in "land and wildlife management."
The sale of the Diamond Cross Ranch to the couple’s DC Montana LLC is set to close on Aug. 24. Upon closing, the Watts expect “any and all existing hunting agreements and/or leases” terminated immediately.
Complaint filed
To ensure the hunting leases are terminated, Billings-based attorney Emily Cross, who represents the Watts, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court on July 21 claiming Trophies West did not properly record its hunting lease before the buy-sell agreement for the ranch was signed on April 23.
It wasn’t until May 5, the complaint stated, that the Texas buyers received a copy of the alleged contract.
In a “desperate attempt to remedy these problems,” on June 17 Trophies West filed a Verification of Hunting Lease Contract with the Rosebud and Big Horn County Clerk and Recorder's offices, the complaint stated.
By filing the lease contract after the buy-sell agreement was reached, the Watts claim that Trophies West attempted to encumber the title of the ranch and therefore plans to request damages "in excess of $75,000" if the complaint goes to trial.
Included in the complaint's exhibits is a copy of a lease signed in January by Andrew Anderson, identified as a representative of Diamond Cross Ranch. The three-year contract proposes to pay the ranch $56,500 for 37 turkey, deer and elk hunts in 2026-27 along with $10,000 for rental of the Hanging Woman Lodge during portions of the spring turkey, archery and rifle seasons.
“In 2027-2028 we have a reachable goal of $80,000-$100,000/year,” the contract from the Sams reads, with an aim to move to a five-year lease after the three-year contract ends. The contract also includes a provision that says if Trophies West is not notified by Dec. 1 of the “PRIOR year,” the hunt lease will transfer to the new owner for the length of the term.
One of the exhibits in the lawsuit is an undated letter reportedly sent around May 4 from Troy Sams to a ranch employee and resident, Austin Marchant, saying that Sams is aware the ranch has sold, but is relying on the outfitting contract to be honored.
Through “aggressive marketing and a strong client base,” Trophies West was able to book 33 hunts, including 17 bull elk and 14 cow elk hunts, for 2026 on the Diamond Cross Ranch. With the additional bookings, Sams estimated a payment of $92,750 to the ranch. If more cow elk hunts are sold, which Sams recommended based on the ranch’s bull-to-cow ratio, that could rise to $126,000.
Elk, the baroness and an outfitter: A Modern Montana Tragedy
Brett French
Jul 25, 2026
In a dispute worthy of a “Yellowstone”-like television series, an expansive southeastern Montana ranch once owned by a Mars candy heir is at the center of legal wrangling involving a Belgian baroness, a Forsyth outfitter and a Texas oil-drilling couple.
The quarrel was revealed in a complaint recently filed in U.S. District Court in Billings, unveiling a clash that would otherwise take place out of public view.
Like a peak behind the Wizard of Oz’s curtain, the legal filings not only provide insight to how much money an outfitter proposed to pay a landowner for a 2026 hunting lease — an estimated $92,750 for 33 hunts — but also reveal a multi-million-dollar, no-broker land sale that otherwise may have went undetected.
All about elk
At the base of the conflict is access to elk, said one Eastern Montana native who asked not to be identified.
As proof, the resident pointed to another ranch in the Forsyth area, covering more than 35,100 acres, that recently sold. The advertised price: $34.47 million.
Atop the list of the landscape’s features: “Perfect habitat for elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, antelope, upland game birds and turkey."
The buyer, Minnesota-based Western Flight Farms LLC, has the same name as a Kansas-based company that advertises the “hunt of a lifetime on natural prairie.”
Instead of seeking riches like gold, timber, cattle or oil that defined Montana’s earlier exploitative ventures by wealthy out-of-staters, this new land rush is all about trophy elk.
Appraiser Andy Rahn said elk are the new gold, having a “major impact on land value, especially in Eastern Montana, which doesn’t have other recreational amenities compared to western Montana.”
“Interestingly, the impact is on land value but not really income,” Rahn added. “The money that can be made in income from elk on an annual basis is not that high. The income itself doesn’t justify the land values. It’s recreation for the owners.”
From few to many
The southeastern corner of Montana — composed of Hunting Districts 702, 704 and 705 — was once void of elk after homesteaders cleared the land for cattle and sheep herds, yet the country was long well-known for producing trophy-class mule deer.
Then, in the 1990s, scattered sightings of a few elk prompted Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks to begin issuing four tags for the Ashland Ranger District, the largest swath of public land in the region.
Now the three southeastern hunting districts contain an estimated 4,300 animals, and FWP issues more than 1,200 tags for bulls just in Hunting District 704, which includes the Ashland forest, as well as more than 2,000 for cow elk.
The problem for the average hunter is finding access to land, since much of the public ground is overrun, pushing elk onto private property where hunting leases or access fees bar entry.
Trophy elk
Boosting the region’s popularity among hunters was a bull elk shot by an archery hunter on private land in 2000 that scored 411 points. Then, in 2016, an archery hunter on public land in the same corner of the state killed a bull that scored 430 points, the current Pope and Young typical world record.
Adding to the area’s fame, in 2017 a bull with nontypical antlers scoring 431 7/8 inches was killed by a rifle hunter on public land.
The Boone and Crockett Club, which keeps records of trophy game animals, considers any bull elk scoring a minimum of 375 points for entry into the all-time record book, 360 points for entry into its awards book. The animals are scored based on measurements of their antlers.
A hunt for a trophy bull elk in southeastern Montana with a guide can now cost $18,000 or more, which includes lodging, transportation and meals for five to seven days. This price doesn’t include the cost of the tag, which for nonresidents is more than $1,100.
Despite the high fees, such outfitted hunts are often booked two years in advance.
Plaintiff is exclusively seeking declarations of law from this Court that extinguish Defendant’s claims to certain real property and to seek monetary damages from Defendants.
Caught in the crosshairs
Given the lofty fees for such hunts and limited access to trophy animals, it’s no wonder Troy and Tina Sams, owners of Forsyth-based Trophies West Outfitters, are attempting to hang on to the contract they claim they had to hunt the Diamond Cross Ranch this season. This fall the couple booked 33 clients, according to court exhibits.
The contract is now being contested as a Belgian baroness attempts to sell the 95,867 acres of deeded land, 149 square miles, that creates the Diamond Cross Ranch.
The ranch is located along the Tongue River in Rosebud and Big Horn counties. In December 2017, candy heir Forrest Mars Jr. sold the 119,500-acre Diamond Cross Ranch (93,280 deeded acres) to Heal Holdings LLC. The asking price was $64.8 million.
Baroness’ Montana ranch
Heal Holdings LLC was formed by Baroness Charlotte de Mevius of Belgium. Her family, one of the wealthiest in the country, traces its history back to a brewery founded in 1240. Along with two other Belgian families that founded the brewery, Business Insider valued their net worth at $36.8 billion in 2020. That’s based on the fact the family members are shareholders in the brewing conglomerate AB InBev, which produces such well-known beers as Budweiser, Corona Extra and Stella Artois.
Heal Holdings has signed a contract to sell the Diamond Cross Ranch to David and Crystal Watts, a Texas couple who own oil and gas drilling companies, two other ranches and who are also “passionate” about hunting, including safaris to Africa, and specialize in "land and wildlife management."
The sale of the Diamond Cross Ranch to the couple’s DC Montana LLC is set to close on Aug. 24. Upon closing, the Watts expect “any and all existing hunting agreements and/or leases” terminated immediately.
Complaint filed
To ensure the hunting leases are terminated, Billings-based attorney Emily Cross, who represents the Watts, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court on July 21 claiming Trophies West did not properly record its hunting lease before the buy-sell agreement for the ranch was signed on April 23.
It wasn’t until May 5, the complaint stated, that the Texas buyers received a copy of the alleged contract.
In a “desperate attempt to remedy these problems,” on June 17 Trophies West filed a Verification of Hunting Lease Contract with the Rosebud and Big Horn County Clerk and Recorder's offices, the complaint stated.
By filing the lease contract after the buy-sell agreement was reached, the Watts claim that Trophies West attempted to encumber the title of the ranch and therefore plans to request damages "in excess of $75,000" if the complaint goes to trial.
Included in the complaint's exhibits is a copy of a lease signed in January by Andrew Anderson, identified as a representative of Diamond Cross Ranch. The three-year contract proposes to pay the ranch $56,500 for 37 turkey, deer and elk hunts in 2026-27 along with $10,000 for rental of the Hanging Woman Lodge during portions of the spring turkey, archery and rifle seasons.
“In 2027-2028 we have a reachable goal of $80,000-$100,000/year,” the contract from the Sams reads, with an aim to move to a five-year lease after the three-year contract ends. The contract also includes a provision that says if Trophies West is not notified by Dec. 1 of the “PRIOR year,” the hunt lease will transfer to the new owner for the length of the term.
One of the exhibits in the lawsuit is an undated letter reportedly sent around May 4 from Troy Sams to a ranch employee and resident, Austin Marchant, saying that Sams is aware the ranch has sold, but is relying on the outfitting contract to be honored.
Through “aggressive marketing and a strong client base,” Trophies West was able to book 33 hunts, including 17 bull elk and 14 cow elk hunts, for 2026 on the Diamond Cross Ranch. With the additional bookings, Sams estimated a payment of $92,750 to the ranch. If more cow elk hunts are sold, which Sams recommended based on the ranch’s bull-to-cow ratio, that could rise to $126,000.
sapperJ24
Well-known member
Contract contested
However, the Texas-based buyers contend that Anderson had no authority to sign the outfitting lease and that Trophies West fraudulently obtained the verification from Anderson, which is therefore voidable.
Even if the contract had been signed by the Diamond Cross Ranch’s owner, or their ranch management team, the attorney seeks to terminate the agreement for several reasons, including that Trophies West failed to notify the ranch of “excess game harvesting” in April and May by killing more than the 10 turkeys outlined in the contract, violating the “Alleged Contract’s terms and conditions.”
The Watts’ attorney also argued Trophies West made “unauthorized” plans to harvest more bull and cow elk, “far in excess of the specified numbers” and without agreeing to a price to compensate the ranch.
In addition, third-party commercial outfitters were allowed onto the property by Trophies West, the complaint contends, without authorization by the ranch owner or manager.
In a letter dated July 6, Miles City attorney Bryant Martin told the ranch owners on Trophies West’s behalf that the Sams intended to “enforce the Lease terms for the 2026 hunting season.”
“If the Lease were to be breached or terminated at this time it would not just destroy Troy’s business and reputation, but also the dreams of his clients,” Martin wrote.
Should Trophies West not receive assurances by July 24 that the lease will be honored, Martin said the outfitter would have no choice but to “commence litigation” for breach of contract. In addition, the Sams would seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to ensure Trophies West could conduct hunts this season.
Martin also noted a “simple buy-out” of the lease would not work because the damages are not all monetary.
“If Troy is unable to hunt Diamond Cross, his reputation will incur irreparable damage as his clients will not be able to hunt at all,” Martin wrote. “He will loose (sic) these clients not only for this season but forever. They will never book with Troy again.”
The Miles City attorney went on to suggest that the sale closing be moved until the end of the year as the “least expensive and most ethical way to solve this issue.”
Requests for further comments from Bryant, Sams and the buyers’ attorney were not returned in time for this story.
What’s the real threat?
Stepping back from this specific incident, it's relevant to look at what else has been happening in Montana that indicates a troubling trend where land sales, elk and elk hunting are concerned.
For years, a group affiliated with a former Republican party official has publicly opposed the nonprofit group American Prairie’s purchases of land in northeastern Montana.
American Prairie, which provides public recreation and hunting access, seeks to create a nature reserve and has reintroduced bison to the landscape.
Backed by the Montana Stockgrowers Association, the fight against American Prairie touts the threat the group poses to traditional agriculture, ignoring that several ranches have grazing leases on the property and that many other recent out-of-state purchases of ranches have led to skyrocketing land prices that exclude traditional landowners from the market.
The same political operative and group behind the “Save the Cowboy” push has also sued Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks claiming it has not done enough to reduce elk herds where they are over population objectives.
Conservation and hunter groups see the move as a way to authorize landowners, whether they are residents or nonresidents, greater authority over management of wildlife on private lands.
Martin Nie, a University of Montana professor of Natural Resources, wrote in a 2024 article that the lawsuit is evidence of “tumultuous time in State wildlife management.”
Public trust doctrine
For now, Montanans still consider wildlife a public resource, unlike states such as Texas or New Mexico where wildlife can be privatized.
Yet Montana's Republican-dominated Legislature has continued to launch attacks at the state’s wildlife agency, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, to make it easier for nonresident landowners to acquire coveted bull elk tags amid protests by resident hunters who named the effort “bulls for billionaires.”
“Critics view it as yet one more example of a creeping monopolization and privatization of wildlife in the State; as one more backward step towards a feudal system that ties the ownership of wildlife to the ownership of land,” Nie wrote.
With the purchase of large ranches in Montana increasing since the pandemic, some resident hunters and conservationists fear today’s oligarchs are focused on eventually shredding the state’s public trust doctrine.
“The public trust doctrine (PTD) is the legal bedrock of wildlife management in the State of Montana,” Nie wrote. “The earliest PTD cases in the U.S. involve wildlife and place restrictions on the privatization and monopolization of trust resources.
“The PTD, based on a state’s sovereign ownership of wildlife, was in part a response to commercial exploitation and private capture of wildlife, and part a direct repudiation of an English system that privileged landowners over the public-at-large.”
A 2022 lawsuit, challenging the state’s management of wolves, prompted the state to write in its defense “that terrestrial wildlife has never been and is not now covered” by the public trust doctrine, Nie noted, calling it a “striking reversal.”
Now at issue is public access to public lands where the corners of two parcels meet. Montana Republican officials have declared such corner crossing a trespass. The state has been sued by access and conservation groups over its stance.
However, the Texas-based buyers contend that Anderson had no authority to sign the outfitting lease and that Trophies West fraudulently obtained the verification from Anderson, which is therefore voidable.
Even if the contract had been signed by the Diamond Cross Ranch’s owner, or their ranch management team, the attorney seeks to terminate the agreement for several reasons, including that Trophies West failed to notify the ranch of “excess game harvesting” in April and May by killing more than the 10 turkeys outlined in the contract, violating the “Alleged Contract’s terms and conditions.”
The Watts’ attorney also argued Trophies West made “unauthorized” plans to harvest more bull and cow elk, “far in excess of the specified numbers” and without agreeing to a price to compensate the ranch.
In addition, third-party commercial outfitters were allowed onto the property by Trophies West, the complaint contends, without authorization by the ranch owner or manager.
In a letter dated July 6, Miles City attorney Bryant Martin told the ranch owners on Trophies West’s behalf that the Sams intended to “enforce the Lease terms for the 2026 hunting season.”
“If the Lease were to be breached or terminated at this time it would not just destroy Troy’s business and reputation, but also the dreams of his clients,” Martin wrote.
Should Trophies West not receive assurances by July 24 that the lease will be honored, Martin said the outfitter would have no choice but to “commence litigation” for breach of contract. In addition, the Sams would seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to ensure Trophies West could conduct hunts this season.
Martin also noted a “simple buy-out” of the lease would not work because the damages are not all monetary.
“If Troy is unable to hunt Diamond Cross, his reputation will incur irreparable damage as his clients will not be able to hunt at all,” Martin wrote. “He will loose (sic) these clients not only for this season but forever. They will never book with Troy again.”
The Miles City attorney went on to suggest that the sale closing be moved until the end of the year as the “least expensive and most ethical way to solve this issue.”
Requests for further comments from Bryant, Sams and the buyers’ attorney were not returned in time for this story.
What’s the real threat?
Stepping back from this specific incident, it's relevant to look at what else has been happening in Montana that indicates a troubling trend where land sales, elk and elk hunting are concerned.
For years, a group affiliated with a former Republican party official has publicly opposed the nonprofit group American Prairie’s purchases of land in northeastern Montana.
American Prairie, which provides public recreation and hunting access, seeks to create a nature reserve and has reintroduced bison to the landscape.
Backed by the Montana Stockgrowers Association, the fight against American Prairie touts the threat the group poses to traditional agriculture, ignoring that several ranches have grazing leases on the property and that many other recent out-of-state purchases of ranches have led to skyrocketing land prices that exclude traditional landowners from the market.
The same political operative and group behind the “Save the Cowboy” push has also sued Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks claiming it has not done enough to reduce elk herds where they are over population objectives.
Conservation and hunter groups see the move as a way to authorize landowners, whether they are residents or nonresidents, greater authority over management of wildlife on private lands.
Martin Nie, a University of Montana professor of Natural Resources, wrote in a 2024 article that the lawsuit is evidence of “tumultuous time in State wildlife management.”
Public trust doctrine
For now, Montanans still consider wildlife a public resource, unlike states such as Texas or New Mexico where wildlife can be privatized.
Yet Montana's Republican-dominated Legislature has continued to launch attacks at the state’s wildlife agency, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, to make it easier for nonresident landowners to acquire coveted bull elk tags amid protests by resident hunters who named the effort “bulls for billionaires.”
“Critics view it as yet one more example of a creeping monopolization and privatization of wildlife in the State; as one more backward step towards a feudal system that ties the ownership of wildlife to the ownership of land,” Nie wrote.
With the purchase of large ranches in Montana increasing since the pandemic, some resident hunters and conservationists fear today’s oligarchs are focused on eventually shredding the state’s public trust doctrine.
“The public trust doctrine (PTD) is the legal bedrock of wildlife management in the State of Montana,” Nie wrote. “The earliest PTD cases in the U.S. involve wildlife and place restrictions on the privatization and monopolization of trust resources.
“The PTD, based on a state’s sovereign ownership of wildlife, was in part a response to commercial exploitation and private capture of wildlife, and part a direct repudiation of an English system that privileged landowners over the public-at-large.”
A 2022 lawsuit, challenging the state’s management of wolves, prompted the state to write in its defense “that terrestrial wildlife has never been and is not now covered” by the public trust doctrine, Nie noted, calling it a “striking reversal.”
Now at issue is public access to public lands where the corners of two parcels meet. Montana Republican officials have declared such corner crossing a trespass. The state has been sued by access and conservation groups over its stance.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,968
"Incentive" and "compromise" to quote someone paid to sell the benefits.
You suppose long time ranch owners are seeing the benefits? Or just lobbyist$ and their well connected friends? What could be better than buying a property, buying a lobbyist, and then changing the "value" of the property?
Hard to lose at real estate (ranch investing) when you can rig the game. Especially when well meaning and deceived people who are advocates get tricked into supporting the con.
Sounds like a fairly benign contract dispute, I’m sure they will figure it out.
The second half of the article clearly seems to focus on stoking class-envy, but failed to establish any sort of relevant connection to the issue.
The second half of the article clearly seems to focus on stoking class-envy, but failed to establish any sort of relevant connection to the issue.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I think it focused more on trampling all over the NAM and PTD...which is what the wealthy class has been doing for decades while hunters, anglers, and recreationists have been asleep at the wheel.
The case really has nothing to do with that though.
My first impression was that it was poorly written- upon second though, I think the author of the piece understood that the target audience really did not require any sort of logical connection between the two distinct issues.
I don’t recall seeing anything requiring access to private lands in my research into NAM or PTD. I do recall there being something about democratic allocation of resources, but that has been discarded long ago and continues to be.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,968
Yeah it does.
If it hadnt been for the conservation con men who sold this - these people wouldnt be entitled to a gauranteed an opportunity hunting here. And would be treated like you - a non resident.
Good for them.
That arrangement is much more in-line with the democratic allocation of resources than you guys trying to hoard everything for yourselves.
I think the main issue really is that people get envious and butthurt that they can’t hunt these areas like they used to be able to. That really has nothing to do with PTD or the NAM, but that doesn’t stop people from connecting them.
Last edited:
El Jason
Well-known member
It does. I remember when SE Montana was largely comprised of longtime family ranches. The NAM and the PTD were understood and practiced by many.
Then outfitting began infiltrating the area. Then hunt clubs and leases. And now, it’s full on purchases simply for the hunting. The play has been in effect for decades, but the accumulation of ridiculous wealth has accelerated it.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,968
Montana's New Game-Changer: House Bill 635
House Bill 635 Empowers Non-Resident Landowners to hunt Elk on their own land, Plus Four other proven strategies for non-resident landowners to maximize…
landinvestor.com
Its almost like legislation made that market accelerate. Huh. Weird.
