• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

An old story but another group buying up the Sandhills.

CattleArmy

Well-known member
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."
 

Cal

Well-known member
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.
 

CattleArmy

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

Red Barn Angus

Well-known member
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.
 

Jigger Boss

Well-known member
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: .
 

flrooster

Well-known member
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.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
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.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
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.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Soapweed said:
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!
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
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. :cry:
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
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!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
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!!

VALENTINE, Neb. (AP) - Ted Turner has purchased a 28,000-acre ranch in the Nebraska Sandhills for $9.5 million -- adding to the nearly two million acres he already owns in seven states.

The CNN founder, who is the largest private landowner in North America, bought the land Tuesday at a public auction. A ranch manager for Turner Ranches placed the successful bid of $364 per acre ahead of 19 other bidders.


Kola- probably quite simply that unless you have a bunch of moldy money laying around, that needs to be reinvested-- the land probably isn't worth that much to a legitimate producer- only to a rich investor that needs some places to stick it...I know in this part of the country I can't think of any grazing land worth that much- that would pencil out and give a payback to the producer (s) or even pay the payments...

I don't know the country- but up here it takes on average about 20+ acres to run each pair (varies from about 5- to 100's of acres)-- which would figure out to over $7000 an animal unit- which is hard to make money at or payback at todays prices....And that is the reason that "real" ranchers are in business......

And I don't know of too many real ranchers that need investments for tax writeoffs or have that "moldy" money laying around for that kind of investment anymore.....
 

katrina

Well-known member
My family ranched nexted to the Mormans and they were fine neighbors and friends..... Fit right end with us and helped carry their own weight... Nice people if you ask me......
 

JF Ranch

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
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!!

Oldtimer has it about right in my opinion. Many years ago neighboring ranchers would have gotten together and divided it up. These days the price per acre/animal unit has pushed ordinary ranchers out of the market, especially on these large ranches. Small places can be absorbed and undoubtedly there were a few neighbors willing to buy part of it, but none that I know of have that kind of money when it must pencil out at least a little bit.

I don't think any so called animosity towards Ted Turner has anything to do with it. He knows what he wants to do with his money and it doesn't matter to him what anyone else thinks about it. It would be comforting to me if he actually did care about what the locals think.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
JF Ranch said:
kolanuraven said:
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!!

Oldtimer has it about right in my opinion. Many years ago neighboring ranchers would have gotten together and divided it up. These days the price per acre/animal unit has pushed ordinary ranchers out of the market, especially on these large ranches. Small places can be absorbed and undoubtedly there were a few neighbors willing to buy part of it, but none that I know of have that kind of money when it must pencil out at least a little bit.

I don't think any so called animosity towards Ted Turner has anything to do with it. He knows what he wants to do with his money and it doesn't matter to him what anyone else thinks about it. It would be comforting to me if he actually did care about what the locals think.

It looks like half the fun of buying a nice ranch such as the McMurtrey place would be showing up live and in person to bid on the ranch at the auction. Many feedlot operators are too busy to buy cattle at the sale barns, so they hire order buyers to do the deed. Evidently Ted is too busy to show up to bid on a nine and a half million dollar ranch. He has an order buyer do that. What is the point of owning all that prime ranch land if you can't "enjoy" having the place and at least spend a little bit of time living there?
 

JF Ranch

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
What is the point of owning all that prime ranch land if you can't "enjoy" having the place and at least spend a little bit of time living there?

Because he has a motive in mind. I can only guess what it might be, but I am certain that it has nothing to do with any interest in the local economy or what anyone else thinks of him.
 

Tap

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
JF Ranch said:
kolanuraven said:
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!!

Oldtimer has it about right in my opinion. Many years ago neighboring ranchers would have gotten together and divided it up. These days the price per acre/animal unit has pushed ordinary ranchers out of the market, especially on these large ranches. Small places can be absorbed and undoubtedly there were a few neighbors willing to buy part of it, but none that I know of have that kind of money when it must pencil out at least a little bit.

I don't think any so called animosity towards Ted Turner has anything to do with it. He knows what he wants to do with his money and it doesn't matter to him what anyone else thinks about it. It would be comforting to me if he actually did care about what the locals think.

It looks like half the fun of buying a nice ranch such as the McMurtrey place would be showing up live and in person to bid on the ranch at the auction. Many feedlot operators are too busy to buy cattle at the sale barns, so they hire order buyers to do the deed. Evidently Ted is too busy to show up to bid on a nine and a half million dollar ranch. He has an order buyer do that. What is the point of owning all that prime ranch land if you can't "enjoy" having the place and at least spend a little bit of time living there?

Here's my slant on it Soapweed. I think you are being to "rational" about it. :wink:

Turner may have purchased the ranch, but it will never be "his". Or he will never be a part of it. The man, or woman for that matter, who lives on, and puts his/her heart in the land will always "own" the land more than an absentee owner who sees the land as nothing much more than property. Turner may have bragging rights on the total # of acres in his kingdom, but I bet the acres of land that he has his heart in is awfully small.

I don't like the fact that he is gathering up all of this land (mainly because of his love for the UN, and that scares me), but this is still the good ole' USA where we still have reasonable rights to do as we choose.
So I imagine he will keep adding feathers to his cap. :?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Red Robin said:
Soapweed said:
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!
Kind of a stupid statement but I have come to expect nothing less of the georgia prune. If I thought their religion was "right" I'd switch.
 
Top