Nevada land swap

[UtyoteKiller]

@NV87 posted this in the Nevada sub forum. I felt it needed to be posted here. A lot of accessible land will be lost here on a terrible trade for the general public let alone sportsman.

“This has been going around social media but I thought I would post it here as well. For those of you that aren’t aware the Gamble/Winecup Ranch (owned by Stan Kroenke under Kroenke Ranches) has proposed a land swap with the BLM which would transfer 84,939 acres of current ranch property in exchange for 235,054 acres of BLM land in Northeastern Elko County. The documents I’ve attached were received through a public records request to NDOW. If this transfer were to be approved the Gamble/Winecup Ranch could essentially lock up an entire swath of land from US 93 to the Utah border and with it some of the best elk and deer habitat remaining in Elko County. Western Land Group (on behalf of Gamble/Winecup) is giving their presentation at the NDOW Commission meeting this Friday 8/11. I urge anyone that can to either attend or call in and voice your opinion. If you can’t make the meeting in some form please pass this information on. This land transfer does nothing to benefit sportsman or the general public in the state of Nevada. We’re all getting sold out so one billionaire can play John Dutton in his spare time.”

 

[JakeH]

How does 85,000 acres turn into 235,000???

I know nothing about the area or the situation, but that doesn't sound like an even remotely reasonable trade.

 

[soupcreek]

I don’t know this situation at all, but I deal in land a lot. Most big trades are done based on monetary value, not acre for acre. 85,000 acres of good timber with good access might hold the same value as 235,000 acres of rocky and poor rangeland. But another factor could be that certain parties find value in different ways. We (the MM culture) find value in the ability to hunt on the land but lately, many governmental agencies may find value in land’s environmental, historical, conservational, archeological, or other non-monetary traits. A private landowner can make money leasing hunting rights that a governmental agency cannot. An agency acquiring 85,000 acres may be gaining public access to another 250,000 acres of public land that is currently tied up (that holds little value for a private land owner).
Again, I truly know nothing about this specific trade, but my advice is to approach it reasonably. It’s OK and even appropriate to begin with a healthy amount of skepticism. Big money deals with the government need healthy skepticism. BUT, take an honest look at it and make an informed decision. There will be guys upset that the public land they have hunted for years is now going to be private. Others will be excited because it will open up other land they have wanted to hunt for years, but couldn’t because it was private. Things like this can be mutually beneficial (for the public and the private land owners). They can also be good for “the agency” and private land owners and bad for the public. Do your research. Call out corruption when you see it. Then lobby for what you think is best. Just make sure you know what you are talking about because when you speak loud as a hunter, they are hearing all of us, not just you. Good conversations can be had and good voices can be loud, but if one of us speaks loudly and ignorantly, the rest of the hunters get a black eye.
Just my thoughts.
Soup

 

[BeDawg]

I don’t know this situation at all, but I deal in land a lot. Most big trades are done based on monetary value, not acre for acre. 85,000 acres of good timber with good access might hold the same value as 235,000 acres of rocky and poor rangeland. But another factor could be that certain parties find value in different ways. We (the MM culture) find value in the ability to hunt on the land but lately, many governmental agencies may find value in land’s environmental, historical, conservational, archeological, or other non-monetary traits. A private landowner can make money leasing hunting rights that a governmental agency cannot. An agency acquiring 85,000 acres may be gaining public access to another 250,000 acres of public land that is currently tied up (that holds little value for a private land owner).
Again, I truly know nothing about this specific trade, but my advice is to approach it reasonably. It’s OK and even appropriate to begin with a healthy amount of skepticism. Big money deals with the government need healthy skepticism. BUT, take an honest look at it and make an informed decision. There will be guys upset that the public land they have hunted for years is now going to be private. Others will be excited because it will open up other land they have wanted to hunt for years, but couldn’t because it was private. Things like this can be mutually beneficial (for the public and the private land owners). They can also be good for “the agency” and private land owners and bad for the public. Do your research. Call out corruption when you see it. Then lobby for what you think is best. Just make sure you know what you are talking about because when you speak loud as a hunter, they are hearing all of us, not just you. Good conversations can be had and good voices can be loud, but if one of us speaks loudly and ignorantly, the rest of the hunters get a black eye.
Just my thoughts.
Soup

Soup Creek,

You’re telling us that the government values everything but the wildlife (landowner tags and big game).

It is a known fact that the Texan influence of hunting, has driven ranchers to lock up big land tracks and make more off of elk hunting than they could with cattle.

 

[soupcreek]

Sorry. I was only trying to give some examples of possible motivations, not define the opinions or motivations of all parties involved. I gave some examples and provided some information about how land deals work.
The state fish and game departments usually see things differently than the BLM or USFS, but it’s typically the BLM or USFS (or state land agencies) that would have control over the land to do a trade. To believe that all government land agencies (state and/or federal) have the same motivations or opinions would be naive.
Private land owners also cannot be lumped into one giant opinion. Each individual rancher will place different worth on different things. You are correct that many ranchers do intentionally lock up land for the monetization of the elk herds, but that may or may not be the motivation for this particular land trade. That is why I suggested studying the details first.
Again, I don’t know any specifics about this potential land trade, but it is my suggestion that if one of us hunters is going to loudly express their opinion about it, a great deal of education should happen and understanding should be gained before the the opinion is shared publicly.
Thank you for proving my point. Just like you just lumped all governmental agencies into “the government” and insinuated that they all have the same motivations, many people do the same in return when one of us hunters speaks publicly. Wouldn’t it be nice if non-hunters would make good efforts to educate themselves about what we do and our motivations before they spout off about how evil we are?
Thanks to the original poster for making us aware of this potential land deal so that we can educate ourselves.

 

[UtyoteKiller]

Soup, some good points but it comes off in a lecturing tone in text. You suggested finding out the details first, but you freely admit you know nothing about this trade yet make comment on it. This ranch put up a sign a few years ago advising the pubic of the checkerboard parcels in the area. It stated something to the effect of if you want to recreate/hunt in this area please visit our website and fill out a form. This form asked for a vehicle description, plate number, number of people and date on top of that you could pick up your permission slip up at the jackpot office at 8 A.M the day that you would like to be in the area. I am not going to knowingly trespass, but I'll be damned to ask for a permission slip to access anything that is legally accessible under Nevada law. I watched the presentation the ranch gave to the board, total BS is what was proposed. It has been in process for 3 years at the ranch level but they dropped it on the board the year before they intend to fully pursue this? Seems awful shady to me. This would be a huge loss to not only sportsman but the public in general.

 

[soupcreek]

Sorry. I did come off preachy. Again, thanks for making us aware that this is happening.
Soup

 

[JB1975]

Sorry. I did come off preachy. Again, thanks for making us aware that this is happening.
Soup

I didn’t find it preachy or a lecture. You speak from experience and in general. Good advice Soup.

 

[andrew12gauge]

If you’ve ever driven through that part of Nevada, I can pretty much guarantee you there is no difference in the 85,000 acres they are giving up and the 235,000 they are trying to get. It’s all rocks and sage. I cannot for the life of me see how this could ever be seen as a fair trade by anybody who isn’t getting their pockets lined by the billionaire

 

[easy_money]

They told the wildlife commission the value difference is because they are giving up high quality ag land. Since then, I have been told they intend to keep the water rights and mineral rights. That makes it not much different that rocks and sage.