1 December 2007 11:30

Turner becomes largest private landowner in US

By Leonard Doyle in Washington

Published: 01 December 2007

Ted Turner gave the world CNN, but the legacy he intends to leave America is not the incessant drumbeat of television news, but millions of acres of wide-open spaces teeming with wildlife and protected endangered species.

Formerly known as the Mouth from the South, the patriarch of cable news is no longer in the media business, having left Time Warner in 2003. Today, he is America's biggest conservationist as well as its largest private landowner.

Like many American outdoorsmen he is both a committed hunter and environmentalist, except that he has managed to turn his passion into a profit-making business.

Over the past few years, Ted Turner has used his $2.3bn (£1.1bn) wealth to create wildlife sanctuaries across many of the two million acres he owns in 12 states as well as in the southern tip of the Americas, Patagonia.

His mostly western lands are filled with bison, native cut-throat trout and cougars in habitat that he manages in an environmentally sensitive way. Hunters and fishermen pay big fees to bag elk, deer and catch and release rare species of trout, which he has brought back from the brink of extinction. His Nebraska ranches are home to America's largest herd of buffalo, some 50,000 strong, which supply his restaurant chain, Ted's Montana Grill, with bison burgers.

The Turner land grab has, however, generated suspicion among ranchers who are complaining that this is another land grab by a rich liberal environmentalist, which is putting them out of business.

But Turner says he is more than a philanthropist, and tries to make money from all his ventures. His Vermejo Ranch in northern New Mexico was once a hideaway for Hollywood celebrities. These days it is a hunting preserve for the wealthy who come to bag elk, deer, antelope and Merriman turkeys. But he is also mining for propane natural gas from the immense coal reserves beneath the ranch – in an environmentally sensitive way, he says.

In the Nebraska Sandhills region, the Turner organisation recently outbid 19 local ranchers to pick up another 26,300 acres of prime ranch land for nearly $10m. The ranch had been in the same family for more than 100 years and is adjacent to a 100,000-acre spread he bought in 1995. According to the general manager, Russ Miller, the Nebraska spread was bought because it offered good grass and good water, despite a persistent drought in recent years.

"We're resilient, the bison are resilient and the Sandhills are resilient," Mr Miller said. Turner paid $17.78m for a 58,000-acre ranch in the Sandhills in 2005 and bought a 45,000-acre ranch in Sheridan County in 1998.

Mike Phillips, executive director of the Turner Endangered Species Fund, a Turner spin-off, says his boss is just a "doggone serious rancher," dedicated to preserving the environment.

Along with his land-buying, Turner has given more than $1.5bn to charity, including the United Nations Foundation, and an initiative aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons. The Turner organisation is now in discussions with the World Wildlife Fund and the World Conservation Union about conserving bison.

Both groups are hoping to develop a huge park where bison could once again roam the Great Plains freely. Reports of Turner's buying spree – like the Associated Press account of his Nebraska purchase – have generated numerous conspiracy theories. One is that he is scheming with the United Nations to create a vast wildlife refuge that would put Nebraska ranchers and farmers out of business.

But Turner spokesmen insist that the driving force behind his land purchases is simply the desire to make money. The Vermejo Ranch offers week-long elk hunting excursions at $12,000 a pop. And there are now more than 51 Ted's Montana Grill restaurants across the country serving the famous bison burgers.

Interesting but I am admittedly skeptical.
How do you spend "2.3 billion" on vast land holdings and expect to recoup that by selling some $12,000 Elk hunts at Vermijo Park and a bunch of Buffalo burgers!

Ain't gonna happen.

There is something wrong with this article! I remember reading in a magazine several years ago that Mr. Turner attempted to get a hunter arrested for hunting an adjacent ranch. Not that the hunter was breaking any laws-- just that he was elk hunting. Further suspicion arises when Mr. Turner has been on record politically as being an 'anti hunter' and was the husband of Jane Fonda. This looks like a BS press release to me.

Buckeye Shooter;That is not B.S.I live in Montana and a friend of mine used to work on The Flying D,One of Turners Montana ranches and they hunt elk and Buffalo on the ranch,trophy bull elk go for $12,000.w/regards

i wouldn''t trust him as far as i could spitt!
the western ranchers know who their fighting!
why do you suppose their comming together too oppose him?
people are white-washed every day with lies from big money. this earns the bigest.... there is peroid

When I was in Gunsmith school I built a rifle (at least did part of the work) for someone attached in some way with Vermejo Park. I got a very nice engraved invitation to hunt on the ranch. Have always regretted not using it. I did go there but did not hunt. Spectacular place but a little awesome for a 20 year old to take in at that time. This of course was long before Ted Turner. They even had their own fire department if I remember correctly. Have hunted all around it through the years but never actually on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:
Interesting but I am admittedly skeptical.
How do you spend "2.3 billion" on vast land holdings and expect to recoup that by selling some $12,000 Elk hunts at Vermijo Park and a bunch of Buffalo burgers!

Ain't gonna happen.

He did not spend $2.3B, he is using his $2.3B to buy. He does not need to recoup his money when buying land, he can liquidate the land later, so for now, his land investments only need to generate positive cash flow. When you are a cash buyer with large reserves, you invest with long term returns in mind; not worrying about the immediate profitability of the operation. He lost millions in the early years of his networks. But he knew that eventually, they would provide a handsome returrn.

Shottist, I completely understand the economics but the numbers still don't add up. Of course they don't have to when you have an enormous amount of money and your hobby is gathering land and making it your own private agenda like re-intrduction of Wolves and the free Buffalo dream.
The overhead it takes to run a large range is stupendous and in a premium setting that cost may be offset or covered completely with the $12,000 Elk hunts. But other land holdings he has will support no such premium hunts and we all know that the cattle business is not altogether lucrative on a consistant basis in the west thats why these big tracts come up for sale, and a chain of Buffalo Burger grills I'm sure makes a tidy profit but once again is it enough to maintain the overhead on 2.3 billion worth of land?
My point is the article makes it all sound so warm and fuzzy and like poor Ted is just trying to fit in with the ranchers of the west and run a nice little operation with a little hunting here and there but my personal feelings are it is not so quaint. I think the man has an agenda that will not do any of us in the west any favors and that cover story don't "cover" it.

quote:

Originally posted by buckeyeshooter:
There is something wrong with this article! I remember reading in a magazine several years ago that Mr. Turner attempted to get a hunter arrested for hunting an adjacent ranch. Not that the hunter was breaking any laws-- just that he was elk hunting. Further suspicion arises when Mr. Turner has been on record politically as being an 'anti hunter' and was the husband of Jane Fonda.

Many people change their opinions regarding hunting. He now sells $12,000/week elk hunts. He is not "anti-hunter". He divorced Jane Fonda. People change during their life. Maybe, he realized how much he enjoys nature, maybe he grew really sick of the corporate media biz and cashed out and decided to do something that has meaning. He obviously wants to leave a legacy; he wants to do something positive for nature. If he was an "anti", why sell elk hunts? That N.M. ranch was a celebrity retreat, he could have bought it and kept it that way. It is possible that someone convinced him to try hunting (or fishing) and he actually liked it. Too many of his ranches offer guided hunts; the man has had a change of heart. So what if he makes money at it. At least he is buying land and not turning the land into golf courses and condos.

It's his money. As far as I know, no one has held a gun to the head(s) of anyone selling these ranches to him. They're selling to him because he's paying the most money. Don't like it, outbid him.

Read, DEVELOPMENTS! Turner is just trying to lower his holding costs while he plans for the future development of his vast holdings. If anything he does understand return on investment and how hard it is to recover from letting any land investment sit w/o development.

If one thinks a tiger changes his stripes well about that ocean front propety in Arizona!

Land is not going to go down in price, we create more humans but no one creates more land.

The problem I see, is that by selling $12,000.00 elk hunts on his property, the folks that still own property next to his him, want to try and charge the same price.

The price of all elk hunting goes up.

As hunting goes up in price, the number of folks that can affrod to hunt goes down.

As more people drop out because they can no longer afford it, the fewer licenses are sold.

As fewer licenses are sold more states increase the price of the licenses they are selling.

Pretty vicious little circle if you ask me, also in a very diabolical way, a more drawn out, but just as effective way of bringing about the end of hunting as we know it.

Just keep running the prices up, and as fewer and fewer people are able to afford it, fewer and fewer people will have any reason to fight against moves to outlaw hunting.

Ends up with a system like the old Communist bloc countries had, where only the very rich or the higher political officials are allowed to hunt, and the general populace is SOL. JMO.

Ol' Ted won't live forever and the next owner will run things differntly I suppose. However, given the size of the elk at Vermejo, it would be worth it to me to get away from the yahoo's on public land for a chance at a monster.

I really don’t think Ted Turner gives a damn if his ranches are making money or not. My guess is he is buying up land as tax shelters. He has the Federal Government subsidizing his buffalo operation by $4-5 a pound on meat he sells IIRC. I’m sure he needs a little loss here and there to get a tax break with the IRS.

Shottist-- I hope you are correct. It is my experience that leopards do not change spots.

let me see if i have got this right. according to CHC, Ted Turner is going to singlehandedly drive the cost of Western hunting beyond the reach of all except the very rich and ultimately bring about the end of all hunting as we know it( and as an added fringe benefit, help establish a quasi Communist style system where only select government officials have their own little hunting preserves). once again the domino conspiracy theory rears its head!!! in a nutshell, Ted Turner is "killing" hunting by selling hunting trips- just when you think you have heard it all, up pops another grand conspiracy.

old teddy saw it coming

Just to refute one theory expressed in here. Land can and does go down in price. Right now, in most areas land is on an inflationary push upswing, but if the housing collapse continues, or worsens, land prices very likely will go down. Just for one local example, in the early 80s some midwestern farmers came in and bought tens of thousands of acres of local farmland, pushing the prices from $200/300 per acre to $800 to $900/acre. To a man, they all went broke, or nearly so, packed it up and went home, and 10 to 12 years later you could buy the same land they'd paid $800 or more an acre for for $400 or less and all of it you wanted or could stand. Now its selling for $1200 to $1500 an acre and whether it will go down or not, only time will tell. But I'd bet on a decline, but hoping I'm wrong, since I have a few thousand of said acres. Why do you think many of those big ranches are selling to Turner? Answer, they are getting more than they ever thought their land would be worth and cashing out.

PS: The concept of "developing" 2 million plus acres, most of it a helluva long ways from any significant population center is ludicrous.

I am ALMOST (but not 100% certain) Positive that there is no current government subsidy for buffalo meat. There was a program in 1999/2000 to support the collapsing buffalo meat market, a program of which Turner was a big beneficiary, but I think it has expired. I fully agree that it was ridiculous and should not have been instituted but pull enough strings, have enough money, and things happen in DC.

Unfortunately I don't know Mr. Turner (I'm certain he'd be a very interesting person to have as a friend) but I have a suspicion that he will leave his land holdings in some kind of trust or donated to a overseer type organization and they will not come back on the market again upon his death.

The concept of developing 2 million acres, etc is ludicrous, etc - 10-4 on that. One only needs a few thousand to get ones money back and the rest can then be held indefinately.

Personally I know very few high net worth people who enjoy putting their money into a big dark hole and watching inflation eat it away.

Just my experience you understand. Any idea the compounding effect at just say 5% over 50 years on that kind of investment? Just understand it would gag the so called maggot.

Mr. Turner does not behave like a developer. He hires biologists, does various habitat enhancements such as stream improvement, rotation grazing, etc, etc. I've never observed a developer put a penny more into the land that didn't generate a return.

Now, I suspect Mr. Turner has an agenda. I once read a story about an interview with Mr. Turner where the reporter asked him why he was buying properties in areas so far apart. The answer, paraphrased, was something like " if you put together a puzzle, you start with the corners, don't you?".

Mr. Turner behaves as if he's sympathetic to the "rewilding" project, which is a little bit frightening, sort of like Soros supporting Moveon.org. However, the scale of his ambition may not be matched by the size Mr. Turner's fortune. JMO, Dutch.

muygrande:

Assume by a "few thousand acres" you mean 5000, that would mean that he would have to sell ALL that "developed" land, assuming ZERO development costs, for 400 times his cost per acre to "get his money back." Yeah, right.

NOT to get a RETURN on your investment one does not need to get ALL his money back immediately. However if one invests a dollar today and is happy with no return, my guess is that he will go broke somewhere down that investment line. One does need to pay some amount of overhead? Least that was what my eco 101 prof told me.

quote:

Originally posted by muygrande:
NOT to get a RETURN on your investment one does not need to get ALL his money back immediately. However if one invests a dollar today and is happy with no return, my guess is that he will go broke somewhere down that investment line. One does need to pay some amount of overhead? Least that was what my eco 101 prof told me.

Well, I'm not broke yet and I've bought millions of dollars worth of land with negative returns (have to pay taxes and occasional maintenance of infrastructure such as fences). It depends on your investment goals and time frame. All returns are not monetary. Like a lot of Texans, I enjoy being "lord of all I survey" as long as I don't survey too much. In the meanwhile, the underlying value of the land with all those negative returns has roughly quadrupled. I'm quite certain that if Turner wanted to, he could sell his land holdings for substantially more than he paid for them given a reasonable amount of time. Obviously one has to have reserve funds large enough to cover the interim costs. But you may be right, I could go broke, but if times get that bad, I won't be in the first fifty million or so broke ones in the bread line.

Gold is another example of an investment with negative returns, that has paid of reasonably well in the last few years. Rare coins are another. All investments aren't stocks and bonds and all don't pay an interim return, hopefully you learned that in eco 101.

Yes, I did learn it and lived it in the 70's when the "goldbugs" saw their holdings move from $200 oz to 800 oz and back down again. I recall a guy with last name of Hunt, yeppers another rich Texian, who tried to corner the silver market, yep he about cornered the market but forgot about smelting! What goes up must come down - someone called it timing I think or was it gravity. Well gold is once again "dusted off" and ready for another drop?

We all are blessed with opinions and mine remains the same - Ted has something in mind and it isn't to lose money. Yeppers even some "fat cats" I know in Texas enjoy a little ROI on occasion.

Guys,

Ted bought the land now it is his to do with as he sees fit or pretty much anyway. He has tied up some land that people might have been able to hunt on more cheaply than what he charges but the other side of the coin is that his land will not be covered with a zillion small house lots. The ranchers and farmers here have sold a pile of their land to developers and I don't blame them but there are houses now where they just don't look right. They just don't belong there. Anybody that keeps this blight off the land is a good guy in my book.

Mark

Mark, certainly agree with your comments for our generation anyway. Just beware the fox is guarding the henhouse in this case. Ted's past would tell one that he is no long term friend of the hunter.

quote:

Originally posted by muygrande:...
Just my experience you understand. Any idea the compounding effect at just say 5% over 50 years on that kind of investment? ...

You are thinking like a person with limited resources. No offense.
Ted Turner had $2.3 Billion. He thinks like a person with alot of money that wants to do what he wants. He can spend $2Billion and still have more money than you and I have, and live off the interest on the $300 million left.
Any person with $2.3 Billion looks at life and money differently than you.

If you were his age with that much money, would you be concerned that you might run out of cash before you died?

Leopards may not change spots, but people do change; some for the better, some for the worse.

I have seen prime land in huge amounts bought up by the oil rich in my area. To give them credit they treat their employes good. I guess that land will never be devoloped but I spent time when I was growing up packing a 22 for ground hogs on a lot of it. I will now never be able to set foot on it again. I have had friends say its at least its not devoloped my thought is so what, if you will never be able to set foot on it again you have just traded the loss of it one way for another. If it is made into lots or small plots at least the little guys would have a piece of the action.

"Limited resources" is such a relative term but certainly admit to having less than Ted. Have had the pleasure of working with several high net worth people and two traits they have all possessed were (1) the value of A basis point and (2) they were never going to die.

Now as to gatogordo: My math tells me that by using YOUR 5000 acres of development Ted would need the paltry sum of only $3.50/AC. to get all his money back. I don't know about you but most high net worth people I know in commercial real estate think that $3.50 a foot is a steal.

I remain convinced that "good ole Teddy" has a plan and it involves "basis points".

We all have our thoughts and ya'll are certainly welcome to yours. I remain commited to ROI.

Pretty sure Ted did not spend 2.3 bill on his land, that is his net worth. also he lost something like $8 bill in the dot-com bust. He had left all his stock in AOL. He would not be offring hunts if he had not lost the 8 bill. I read a story in Fortune or some other financial rag some years ago that detailed all this. He is being forced to do this to cover the taxes and operating expenses. Also the 1 bill he supposedly gave to the UN with all the hoopla. He never paid it, he pledged it but never paid it gave then some small amount and was supposed to make payments but did not.

IMO Ted T. is not our friend.

M

Having hunted the Flying D ranch for free; Elk hunts are not $12,000. When I hunted it cow tags were a draw, not A7 so you could use your bull tag elswhere in the State, and hunts were a 4 day period in late Jan. Bull tags you bought and paid the ranch $1,000 a point to hunt. 5 point bull on a side was $10,000, 6x6 $12,000. An acquaintaince working the check station at the top of Gallatin canyon remarked that some of his hunters "about sh*t themselves" when they saw bigger bulls come in from public land.
Ted buys ranches cause he can. He pulls of the cattle raises Buffalo and game without pushing the land to it's limits. I think he wants it to own it not to have others on it. He understands sustainable harvest. I think he is a jerk that would be a jerk whether or not he had money, as he has no regard for his neighbors. His grandkids may develop them but we won't see it in our lifetimes is my best guess. Gianni

KSTEPHENS asks a good question and that is " How does using someone else's tag corrupt the chase?" Let me explain from my prospective as a retired Conservation Officer and Wildlife Manager.

Game departments set the number of tags to harvest the surplus crop of animals with a secondary goal to spread the resource out over as many hunters as possible. The tag doesn't give you the right to an animal but gives you the right to hunt for that animal. When you use someone else's tag you are taking more than your fair share and you are depriving one or more other hunters of the opportunity to hunt for an animal. The law is designed to keep a few greedy hunters from taking a disproportionate share of the resource.

My opinion on hunting methods is that the only moral authority we have to reconcile with is our own conscience. We develop our moral compass about hunting based on how we were taught by our hunting mentors when we started to hunt and by the laws in the states where we learned to hunt. These can vary based on where we grew up. I have my own does and don'ts when it comes to hunting. They are mine and I don't expect others to follow them. I do expect others to follow the law and if they are not satisfied with the law then seek to change the law. That is the American way as described in our constitution and laws.

For instances you can't imagine how many true trophy animals I have passed up in Africa because my conscience tells me that it is taking unfair advantage of animals if I see them from a vehicle and all I have to do is step out and shoot it. On my first day in the African bush the first animal I saw was a 43 1/2" sable. I wouldn't shoot it much to the dismay of the land owner. My moral compass said to me that I didn't dream about hunting the wild bush of Africa for many years to shoot such a magnificent animal from the road. I suspect most of you would have and if your conscience didn't tell you it was wrong then it wasn't wrong.

465H&H

Amen 465H/&H; I took my handicapped son elk hunting and refused to do the road hunting... no elk but lots of pride. From the gut piles most elk in the area were shot less than 200 yds from the road... don't know what time of day that happened either.

VR
Earl

Ted Turner is not an anti-hunter. His son, Bo, goes on big game hunts all over the world. At least on his Montana ranches, he has both trophy hunts and management hunts. His Flying D ranch near Bozeman has been managed for the benefit of wildlife. A friend of mine has done extensive stream restoration work on several of Turners ranches. The past couple of years, Turner has managed the timber on the Flying D with some intelligent logging, removing old and diseased trees, thus helping to stop the spread of tree killing insects, reducing the risk of fire, and opening up the conifer canopy to allow grasses and deciduous plants to grow giving the game animals something to eat.

But perhaps the best thing Turner has done is that he has put a Conservation Easment on much of his land. Yes, this gives him a large tax break, but it protects the land forever from development. The land is still private and off limits to most of us, but it will never be ruined with condos, summer homes, ski areas, subdivisions, etc, like is happening to much of the West.

Ted Turner is pro money.Money trumps his distaste for hunting every time.

The biggest problem with ted,is he pays sometimes double what property is worth.Which raises the value of surrounding properties and forces people out. All of his properties in nebraska are in 99 year easements. They go back to state ownership in 99 years.

Because of my choosen profession I know most of Mr. Turner's managers and have been on all of his "northern" ranches. Right or wrong there is no hidden agenda with Ted he just buys a lot of land and each ranch is owned personally by him. He is a serious bird hunter, his kids hunt a lot as well, and Jane was a bird hunter and angler right along with Ted. I am a board member of a land trust so I asked Russ Miller, Ted's Manager of all the western properties, about easements and he told me they put an easement on the first Montana ranch north of Bozeman but wouldn't do it again because it's not worth it. If you ever wonder what's going on with Ted you can just call the office in Bozeman and they will tell you. They don't really have anything to hide.

quote:

They don't really have anything to hide.

Then what's with all them black helicopters coming and going at all hours, and all those guys who talk into their wrists??? -TONY

Tony,
You obviously have never had to gather up a large herd of buffalo. The blacker the helicopter the better.

Yes,the nebraska lands that ted owns,are a prime example of ted going into an area and ruining it. The average acre price in cherry county was $125 to $150 an acre. Ted went in and paid up to $350 an acre.It raised all the taxes and effectively ran a bunch of people out of business. Not to mention ted doesn't allow bordering ranchers to trail cows across his land.A practice that has been allowed for a century or better.

The nebraska lands were originally in janes name also.Not teds.