Ranchers.net Bull Session

 

Log in Register Ranchers.net Ranchers.net's Bull Session Forum Index FAQ Memberlist Search


An old story but another group buying up the Sandhills.
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Ranchers.net's Bull Session Forum Index -> Ranch Talk
Author Message
CattleArmy
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 3641

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:13 am    Post subject: An old story but another group buying up the Sandhills. Reply with quote

Mormon land holdings rise
BY JOE DUGGAN / Lincoln Journal Star
Sunday, Oct 03, 2004 - 12:35:44 am CDT
Bison baron Ted Turner may own more private land in Nebraska than anyone else, but a cattle-ranching church is hot on his heels.

Last month, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bought nearly 87,700 acres of the 126,200-acre Eldred Ranch in Garden and Morrill counties. The church, commonly known as Mormon, paid nearly $16 million, said Garden County Assessor Janet Shaul.

Although the Eldred family retains ownership of the remaining 38,500 acres, it is expected those acres will be sold to the church as well. When the sale is finalized, the church will own nearly 270,000 acres of ranchland in five Sandhills counties. Turner, who raises bison on his Nebraska ranches, owns about 320,000 acres in the state.

But don't expect buffalo to roam the Mormons' land, said Robert Lamoreaux, vice president of livestock at Farm Management Co., the department of the church in Salt Lake City that oversees its extensive farm and ranch holdings.

"We run cattle ranches. We are the largest cow-calf operator in the nation."

Lamoreaux declined to discuss specifics about the church's latest Nebraska acquisition to honor the Eldred family's desire to announce details at a future time.

One of the state's largest cattle ranches was owned by Victor and Martha Eldred, who used innovative, environmentally sensitive management techniques on their land. Victor Eldred died two years ago, and Martha Eldred lives in Texas near her two daughters.
The 87,700 acres sold to the church was held by the Eldred family foundation, a charitable trust that benefits western Nebraska community projects. Attempts to reach a foundation representative were unsuccessful.

The Eldred Ranch surrounds the Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge and is near one of Turner's largest bison ranches in Nebraska.

While Lamoreaux avoided discussing the Eldred purchase, he said the church's other ranches in Nebraska raise cattle while taking care of the land.

"That's one of our objectives, to enhance the resource over time. If it doesn't get better, we're not doing our job," he said.

The church bought its first Nebraska ranch ? 20,500 acres south of Whitman ? in Grant County in 1990. It has since bought additional properties in Garden, Hooker and Sheridan counties.

While the church brings in managers to oversee their ranches, it hires other employees locally. Often, employees who worked for the previous owner stay on, Lamoreaux said. The church is an equal opportunity employer, and its employees aren't required to belong to or join the church.

Toni Ring, county clerk and assessor in Grant County, said the Mormons are considered good neighbors by other ranchers. She has heard nary a complaint about how their ranches are managed in their 14 years there.

"You never hear anything about them," she said. "They never complain about their taxes."

The church, operating under the name Farmland Reserve Inc., manages its ranches to produce a return on its investment. Those returns help support global spiritual missions.

Although its management structure may resemble a private corporation, the church's nonprofit status earns it an exemption from the state ban on corporate farming/ranching.

Still, the consolidation of such large tracts of land by a single entity should cause concern, said John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union. The law seeks to protect the state's interest in having a diversity of resident landowners who live on and work their properties.

"It's hard for local folks to outbid an outside investor who has unlimited money," Hansen said.

In fact, the church always pays cash, Lamoreaux said, eschewing loans and debt.
In addition to keeping the land on a county's tax rolls, the Mormons try to be good neighbors, good stewards and solid contributors to local communities, he said.

"Hopefully, over time, that makes people feel good about us."


Back to top
Jassy
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 2733
Location: S. of Valentine, NE

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Confused Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Not sure what to think?


Back to top
Cal
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 3617
Location: Southern SD

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I geuss at least Turner takes it out of production...sort of. The thing is, if we had a list of all of the Mormons assets and businesses it would likely be a shock.


Back to top
CattleArmy
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 3641

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the Mormon church would ever decide to try and go tax exempt some counties such as Grant county would be financially hit hard.


Back to top
Red Barn Angus
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 279
Location: Eastern KS

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:39 pm    Post subject: An old story Reply with quote

I believe the Mormons did try to go tax exempt in Davis County, Missouri (north of Cameron, MO) several years ago. They own many acres of mostly crop and pasture land in that area plus many of their people have moved there to live. The county and the school district simply could not function with so much land being off the tax rolls. The Mormons lost their tax exemption and now pay taxes like everyone else. Many have their own schools as well. They have made it very difficult for local area farmers to grow or expand because the Mormons seem to have endless money and keep moving in to the area.


Back to top
Jigger Boss
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 1149
Location: Lakes District, BC

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well at least its still going to be ranch/farm land, unlike Alberta chopping up all the gorgeous ranch lands into small little 1 to 10 acre parcels Mad .


Back to top
flrooster
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 156
Location: sumter co,fl

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

they own one of the biggest ranches in fl.the Deseret, ive not heard anything too bad about them except for selling some of the land that became disney.and thats just my personel predjudice against the mouse.


Back to top
Soapweed
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 12096
Location: northern Nebraska Sandhills

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a rancher, if I was a Mormon (which I'm not), it would certainly rankle me to have "my church" in direct competition with me in the ranching business.

I am not sure which entity is worse for the Sandhills as a whole, Ted Turner or the Mormon Church. As Cal pointed out, at least the Turner land will no longer be producing cattle. With that many less cattle in production, theoretically the cattle that the rest of us raise should be worth a bit more (supply and demand) because of this.

The Mormons are good efficeint operators. With their extra volume and being subsidized by the pocket books of Mormon church-goers everywhere, they should be able to produce cattle for less than the average traditional Sandhills rancher.

There are not nearly as many people living on these ranches as there used to be, which hurts our local communities and schools. The bad thing about it is that neither Turner land or Mormon land will ever belong to the private sector again.This is my opinion, for what little it is worth.


Back to top
Red Robin
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 4386
Location: 8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Soapweed wrote:
As a rancher, if I was a Mormon (which I'm not), it would certainly rankle me to have "my church" in direct competition with me in the ranching business.

I am not sure which entity is worse for the Sandhills as a whole, Ted Turner or the Mormon Church. As Cal pointed out, at least the Turner land will no longer be producing cattle. With that many less cattle in production, theoretically the cattle that the rest of us raise should be worth a bit more (supply and demand) because of this.

The Mormons are good efficeint operators. With their extra volume and being subsidized by the pocket books of Mormon church-goers everywhere, they should be able to produce cattle for less than the average traditional Sandhills rancher.

There are not nearly as many people living on these ranches as there used to be, which hurts our local communities and schools. The bad thing about it is that neither Turner land or Mormon land will ever belong to the private sector again.This is my opinion, for what little it is worth.
I sure think their religion is wrong but I'd sure rather have the mormons as a neighbor than RED Ted. At least the mormons will not be giving the land to the U.N. in a few years.


Back to top
kolanuraven
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 9981

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Red Robin wrote:
Soapweed wrote:
As a rancher, if I was a Mormon (which I'm not), it would certainly rankle me to have "my church" in direct competition with me in the ranching business.

I am not sure which entity is worse for the Sandhills as a whole, Ted Turner or the Mormon Church. As Cal pointed out, at least the Turner land will no longer be producing cattle. With that many less cattle in production, theoretically the cattle that the rest of us raise should be worth a bit more (supply and demand) because of this.

The Mormons are good efficeint operators. With their extra volume and being subsidized by the pocket books of Mormon church-goers everywhere, they should be able to produce cattle for less than the average traditional Sandhills rancher.

There are not nearly as many people living on these ranches as there used to be, which hurts our local communities and schools. The bad thing about it is that neither Turner land or Mormon land will ever belong to the private sector again.This is my opinion, for what little it is worth.
I sure think their religion is wrong but I'd sure rather have the mormons as a neighbor than RED Ted. At least the mormons will not be giving the land to the U.N. in a few years.




You think everyone's religion is wrong but yours!!! I'll give you credit...at least you stay on point!


Back to top
CattleArmy
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 3641

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From being around the Mormons and having family that does direct business with them I feel I can say as far as business people that they are. They hire locals and also contract services from various local people. They also bring young families into the community with lots of children which in turn helps our dwindling rural school systems. However, they like Ted are just another large intity buying up the land in big part to having outside income to help fiance the outragous land prices. Not only Ted Turner but also the Mormons in my opinion are going to make the young self employed rancher in this area extinct.

To bad ole Ted wasn't as worried about the young rancher as he is about the ferrets and prairie dogs. Crying or Very sad


Back to top
kolanuraven
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 9981

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe he would personally invest in areas ( towns, etc) if he wasn't met with such animosity every turn. Why should he bother when he's slammed at very turn and bad mouthed.

Granted part of his problem is that he has built this sort of 'mystic' around himself that he's untouchable. But when you are met with suspicion right out of the gate, why bother?


Ya give as good as ya get.

Why didn't a group of rancher's get together and buy up those large parcels as a co-op deal that way no one particular person would bear the full cost? It could have been done...happens a lot.

I know I'm gonna get ripped for the above, but won't be the first attack!!


Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Ranchers.net's Bull Session Forum Index -> Ranch Talk All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 




Powered by phpBB
Copyright © 2001-2011 Ranchers.net
All times are GMT - 6 Hours