Bowsite.com

Weyerhaeuser land sale

Weyerhaeuser has announced that it will be selling all of it's land in Montana in the first half of next year. The new owners say that they have no plans to change public access to the land. However, I'm sure that they plan on selling off the land, and then what happens to public access? I'm actually not worried about access to the old Plumcreek/Weyerhaeuser land. I've always liked hunting on the Plumcreek land, but if a private party buys a chunk of land from the new owners, I can't really expect them to allow the public to hunt on it. What I am really worried about is what will happen to access to National Forest and State land. In the past, people like the Wilks brothers have bought up private land and denied access to huge chunks of public land as it's access required going through their land. How much of the public land in NW Montana could now be shut off from the public if the Plumcreek/Weyerhaeuser lands get sold off? It's time for a change in the laws concerning access to public land. All public land should have access for the public.

I read about that this morning. Hadn't heard about the Wilks brothers connection, thanks.

I don't see much good coming from this. I suspect a lot will be sold off and then access blocked. Ran into the same thing earlier this year, about 100 yards of FS logging road ran across some private that used to be owned by Plum Creek but they sold. That 100 yards of road is now blocked by very large orange painted boulders.

While I surely respect and enjoy private property rights, cutting off established access ticks me off.

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2019/12/23/montana-timberland-buyer-says-keep-public-access/2735057001/

I didn't say that there was a Wilks brothers connection. I just used them as an example of what has happened in the past when access to public land is blocked off by new private landowners. As far as the newspaper articles that say that the new owners of the Weyerhaeuser land will allow public access, I don't doubt that at all. The issue is what happens when they sell it off to other buyers.

here is an e mail I received today about the Weyerhaeuser land trade, its just something to keep in mind:

When writing about the Weyerhaeuser land deal, I grew concerned when I saw Southern Pine Plantations is the buyer, because they sold a shit-ton of Idaho land to the Wilks Brothers only three months after they bought it. Even if the Wilks Brothers don't get involved, the buyer is not a timber company that will continue to work the land. It's a real estate flipper and you can bet the resulting deals aren't going to benefit the public. This is a huge amount of land akin to the Plum Creek Lumber sell-off.. I am concerned for the people and wildlife of northwestern Montana.

Steve is 100% right.The Wilks boys are waist deep in this deal. They have a family member running Southern Pine, or sitting on the Board, and they have their fingerprints all over this deal. Similar thing occurred in S. Idaho. But then Plum Creek did the same thing here in Montana, N. Wisconsin, and New York when they held huge chunks of ground there. They formed a real estate wing and sold lake shore property, etc for huge gains. One prime local example here in the Flathead is the ground around Little Bitterroot Lake (which is actually a very big lake). It was once all Plum Creek land and completely open to access all around the lake. It was sold off and "developed". It is now surrounded with cabins and homes with just three access points, one state, one county, and one where the road right of way touches the lake with property held by the Eagles Club. I'm sure we will see at least a larger potion of the Weyerhaeuser land experience the same fate. Fortunately, the entire corridor of the Thompson River and Lakes were protected in perpetuity years ago for the public with a land trust agreement. Like Steve said, I fear what's coming, but currently there's nothing we can do about it.

MAGA= Make America Greedy Again. It is going to get worse folks. The North American Wildlife Conservation Model has changed and will continue to change rather rapidly.

Some good news, some concerns me.

At least they are continuing with Block Management agreements (for now), and some Conservation Easements look to still be moving forward. I hope they can work on more.

But they've pretty much stated they will sell to 'private investors' and then access will be up to them. So basically, it's all about the money.

"So basically, it's all about the money." Ain't that the way it always is ... until you have the virus, cancer, heart condition, or some other life threatening condition. Then money means very little to you. Too bad the most of the "power" folks don't get it.

Anyone on this forum can be a private investor and buy up some land and keep it open to the public. Is that not correct?

That's funny Missouribreaks. I guess anyone is free to buy a Rolls Royce, or their own personal jet airplane too. From what I remember from other threads, you are one of those out of state folks who bought up private land in Montana. Is your Montana land open to the public, or is it your own private little hunting preserve with no competition?

"Anyone on this forum can be a private investor and buy up some land ... " Words are important. Anyone MAY buy up some land at the high real estate prices seen here ... that is, if they have a boatload of money. Most on this forum CAN not buy up some land unless they win the lottery or Aunt Myrtle comes through with a large inheritance.

So, people that can afford 40 or more acres should make their private land open to public hunting? What is wrong with hunting by permission?

"what is wrong with hunting by permission?". Nothing, except that the people who bought this land from Weyerhaeuser have a history of selling to folks who don't give permission to hunt, but worse still have a history of not allowing access to public land through their new property.

Of course the real problem is not the billionaires from places like Texas that come in here and buy up the private land, as there is nothing we can do to stop that. The real problem is the laws that allow them to access their land through public land, public roads, public highways, but then also allow them to turn around and block off public access to public land including through established roads. And then the absurd laws that don't allow for corner hopping where you don't even have to touch their land. I am neither a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or a liberal, but the facts are that it is the Republican lawmakers in the US, and especially here in Montana that cater to these wealthy landowners and always side with them over access issues to public land. I honestly do not understand why anyone who values access to public land, especially hunters, would vote for a candidate for office who is not willing to pledge to stand up for changes in laws to enable public access to public land.

Of course the real problem is not the billionaires from places like Texas that come in here and buy up the private land, as there is nothing we can do to stop that. The real problem is the laws that allow them to access their land through public land, public roads, public highways, but then also allow them to turn around and block off public access to public land including through established roads. And then the absurd laws that don't allow for corner hopping where you don't even have to touch their land. I am neither a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or a liberal, but the facts are that it is the Republican lawmakers in the US, and especially here in Montana that cater to these wealthy landowners and always side with them over access issues to public land. I honestly do not understand why anyone who values access to public land, especially hunters, would vote for a candidate for office who is not willing to pledge to stand up for changes in laws to enable public access to public land.

I am guessing as the California migration spreads into western Montana and beyond, Montana's Republican days are numbered. I doubt that will improve things for the sportsman in Montana, but maybe it will help access.

Disagree. The Montana Legislature, Republican dominant for the past several sessions, has introduced bill after bill, many enacted, which have adversely impacted sportsmen and wildlife. Montana does not need wingnut new Dems either, but the Montana Republicans have spouted support for sportsmen and wildlife to garner votes ... and then time after time acted contrary to those interests.

+1 What Straight Arrow stated. The Republican controlled Montana Legislature has a history of not being "sportsman friendly". They also seem to hate MT FWP.

Try voting the liberal Dems in and perhaps Montana will improve for sportsman.

I agree totally with Straight Arrow, the Republican party in the state of Montana do not act in the best interest of hunters. This has been going on for decades now. It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact - all you have to do is look at the bills that they have voted for. In November a lot of hunters will make the mistake of voting for Gianforte for Governor, and he will be horrible for anyone who wants a future of hunting in Montana.

Not all land deals discussed will trade local access for Cash. Gotta give some credit here.

https://flatheadbeacon.com/2020/07/20/lifetime-land-deal-provide-critical-missing-piece-protection/

Papa John, I am glad to see that Montana FWP, the US Fish and Wildlife, and the Trust for public lands are going to pay large sums of cash to maintain the public access to some of the Weyerhauser land. It will be a pretty good deal for Southern Pine Plantations. SPP bought this land for about $200/acre, one of the reasons being that Plumcreek removed all of the timber from it, making it pretty much of no value for timber for at least 30 years. So now they are getting a big pay check to keep the access the public already had to the 230,000 acres, while they still get to keep the land. It was going to be tough for SPP to sell the whole 630,000 acres, now they can work on selling the other 400,000 acres. Don't get me wrong, I am glad to see that the wildlife and public land groups are working hard to keep access, but this is one hell of a deal for SPP too.

Respecting private land rights does not mean you shouldn't be allowed trespass across it to get to "other" land. We do it all the time in the cities. When I lived in town the city forced me to install and maintain a sidewalk across my property so that people could trespass to other property. we need to unite as hunters in Montana and force land owners to do the same. Public land theft is what private land owners are doing by landlocking public land and it should be viewed as such.

Bigsky is right of course. If there is "public" land public should be allowed to access it. An easement of sorts allowing access, or the state might as well sell it to the landowner. Problem is, as it is, the landowner would want it for a penny on the dollar. Who else would want it if they could never access it? It's time to force an easement for access or any landowner who had land owner adjoining such a property is taxed an outrageous amount of money on that land only they can access. Even though they don't own it. Something has to change.

Huge chucks of the Southern Pines/Weyerhaeuser land has already been sold. Already it is causing problems gaining access to Public Lands. Most of it is being sold to folks from out of state. Missouri Breaks, improving access is improving things for sportsmen. Most of us don't have a big ranch to shoot our pet elk on.

Register here to reply to this topic