Cabela’s Bowing to Pressure on Real Estate Dealings –
A while back I posted a response to an article about complaints that Cabela’s Trophy Properties (their real estate listing branch) was out to destroy public access to hunting lands, particularly in Montana. The Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) was leading the charge, centered around this claim:
”The MWF Executive Board finds that Cabela’s is trading on its trusted reputation as a merchant of sporting goods to engage in a real estate marketing activity that is calculated to subvert and destroy the very system of North American wildlife conservation that has provided Cabela’s with the hunter-and-angler markets that gave your company life in the first place.”
I feel now, as I did then, that this is a ridiculous complaint. To blame a real estate listing agency for the loss of public hunting access is like blaming your corner gas station owner for global warming… you just can’t get there from here.
Regardless, Cabela’s appears to be taking the criticism to heart and trying to make a positive change.
Tom Remington reported a couple of weeks ago that Cabela’s had offered a financial olive branch to the Montana Wildlife Federation in the form of an initial $50K check, with the promise of an additional $60K over the remainder of the year. As I mentioned then, this was a pretty transparent effort that hit totally in the wrong place and for the wrong reasons.
Cabela’s is not in the wrong here. In my opinion, they don’t owe anyone anything. Even so, as a business, they do take customers’ concerns to heart, and what I consider a misguided gesture was at least a good attempt to illustrate that they are listening.
Well, apparently Cabela’s recognized that the first attempt didn’t quite achieve their goals, so they’re coming back to the drawing board with a new approach. As I just read in an article on the New West online magazine, Cabela’s Trophy Properties (CTP) will now be requiring their affiliated realtors to follow strict business practices regarding the listing and sale of properties. Realtors who do not follow the new rules will lose their affiliation with CTP.
The article didn’t specify what these specific practices were, but I’m led to assume that they will be focused on keeping outdoors properties out of the hands of developers and available to the core clientele of Cabela’s… sportsmen. One example given was of a Montana property listing which was part of the Block Management program (allows public access to private land). To sell the property, a condition of sale must be included which prohibits the buyer from taking the property out of the Block Management program. This is a direct answer to the challenge posed by the MWF and other detractors.
Now I like this idea much better than simply throwing hush-money at the MWF, and I do think it shows that Cabela’s is willing to try to help stop the loss of open lands… but will it work as intended?
First of all, I wonder if such conditions of sale are even binding. Can you do that, as a seller? I don’t pretend to be a real estate lawyer, so I’ll have to trust that the folks at CTP know what they’re talking about. I do like the idea, and would think the folks in Montana would be happy enough with this solution.
Of course, once the buyer owns the property, they can simply re-sell without the conditions. I know enough about real estate developers to see a huge loophole when I see one. But at least then the onus is off of Cabela’s… which is where it never should have been in the first place.
I do hope this works out for Cabela’s… not so much because I want to see them grow into a super-wealthy, mega-corporation, but because it’s just not right for them to take the beating for something they have nothing to do with (and yes, that was a very convoluted sentence). It’s just not right, and I really hate injustice.
Oh, and thanks to the Outdoor Pressroom for posting the news release.
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.
Eric Hundin
January 31st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Interesting stuff. I don’t know much about real estate, but I do know that there’s only so much of it to go around — and once it’s gone, it’s gone. I say that anything we can do to protect what’s left should be done. If you’re the agent that is facilitating the selling of land that isn’t protected, then you sure are right in the thick of things.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Thanks, Eric. Enjoy!
Bryan, the thing is, it’s not the realtors who are selling the land… it’s the previous owners. The problem is not the realtors and brokerages… the problem is knowing why all this land is being sold off.
Nobody wants to see the land sold off and developed, or locked up in high-dollar retreats. The old-timers don’t want to see the family farm dozed under to become part of another factory farm or subdivision. The economy and changing social structures in the rural U.S. are driving the survivors off the land.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Phillip,
Just like the “railroad companies” bought the mineral rights to millions of acres of American soil which can now be private as well as public. The legal rights which are imposed upon a certain piece of land can hold up through several generations of land owners.
This means that if you learn to interpret some of the fine print written into your title/deed, you may discover that some distantly located corporation may very well have the rights to bulldoze a road right into your heavenly retreat and start drilling for oil!
I have found out the hard way about these intrusive situations and now read “all” of the fine print when presented with information about a prospective piece of dirt.
Also when looking at a tract of land for purchase it is best to go to county records and investigate back as far as the records will show (this can be as far back as 200 years in some instances) and see for yourself what contigencies are involved with that particular parcel. And by no means should you rely upon the Realtor/Trust company to divulge all of this information which quite frankly, they themselves might be ignorant about relating to any of the legal stipulations which come along with the purchase!
There is also the “Williamson Act” to consider as well, This seemingly “good for the ol’ family farm” lower my taxes if I sign up situation, only works if all of your neighbors can be convinced to sign up and do the same.
I have seen this seemingly innocuous little law cause a lot of hard feelings amongst what used to be close friends and relatives.
But back to my information, An agreement made concerning a piece of land can be upheld in a court of law through many generations of land owners. Even if 150 years after that agreement was made it has been proven “not” to be applicable to a modern day situation. And it very nearly takes an act of god (providing he/she has a lot of money) to change that agreement/stipulation located in the Title/Deed.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:46 am
Phillip,
I am with you on the fact that Cabela’s trophy properties should not be blamed for selling land. I also find it amazing that hunters think that they have a RIGHT to hunt land that never belonged to them. I understand that it may have been previously enrolled in a public hunting program, but that is just it… the OWNERS put it in it, and they can take it out. They also can sell it. That is what PRIVATE property is all about.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the concerns of hunters about losing access, and maybe we need to create more public hunting programs. But there are other factors to consider about the land sale than just who is selling it for the OWNERS.
For one, why are they selling it? Maybe they can no longer afford to pay the taxes on it. And seeing how some of the area’s hunters think that they should get to hunt for free, obviously they can’t lease it without people complaining. So they decide to sell it, then the same hunters that did not want to pay to lease/hunt it then complain that the new owners may not enroll it into their free public hunting program.
Sounds like they should have quit spending so much money on brand new 4x4s and paid for a lease, then the owner might have had some money to pay their taxes and held on to their land.
I understand that all land sales/owners are different, but I find this exact thing happens here in the South all of the time… Hunters do not want to pay high lease prices to the farmers (who are just trying to hang on to their ancestor’s land and probably just barely making it anyway) so they end of selling it to survive. Then the hunters complain that some corporation or commercial hunting operation now has it.
I work hard (and don’t waste my money on unnecessary material objects) to make sure I can afford to hunt great private land. I suggest some of those whiners out there do the same.
Or hunt public land. Or hunt whatever land other OWNERS have been kind enough to keep enrolled in the public hunting program. But whatever they do, they need to count their blessings for what land they have to hunt and quit crying. Or move to England (or another Socialist country) where you have to give access to the public if you own over so many acres!
February 1st, 2008 at 11:16 am