Herky Huffman Bull Creek Land Swap 10/20/16 Meeting

2»

Replies

  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,797 Admiral
    FLDXT wrote: »
    I see the REAL issue now.

    And for 1 minute U think the family is in it for anything less?
  • gottheitch22gottheitch22 fort Meade FLPosts: 4,315 Captain
    FLDXT wrote: »
    I see the REAL issue now.

    YOU AINT THE ONLY ONE
    living life as i like
  • gottheitch22gottheitch22 fort Meade FLPosts: 4,315 Captain
    And for 1 minute U think the family is in it for anything less?

    Who cares what is right is right and they should get there land back .
    living life as i like
  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,797 Admiral
    Why is that? Didnt they make a deal?
  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,797 Admiral
    Should we give back Diner Island to the Hilliard family?
  • bgeorgebgeorge Plant City FLPosts: 1,634 Captain
    This is not giving their land back. It is using it in payment for other land they once again want to take from them. The only reason I am good with the WMD considering using it as payment is because of the conditions in which it was acquired from the same family originally. Sucks for some but you might want to consider using it as a springboard to get something else opened up and ask for a two year transition plan on removing it as a WMA. Landowner may be willing to throw the community a bone.
    The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones. Hopefully the next man is not dropping his stones on the mountain you are trying to move.
  • N. CookN. Cook Posts: 2,105 Captain
    Somewhere I noted the Native Americans would probably like to have Manhattan Island back after they sold it in the past....The world changes....and Florida has changed drastically since 1967....and priorities, public and private, change as well. Bull Creek in 1967 had a "public" value as a "flood zone" to hold water...and as a private ranch. The land was purchased at the going price of the day for "the good of the public" need for water storage and supply.

    Today, Bull Creek has a vastly more complex "value" as public land. The population of Florida has multiplied and natural land available to the general public is very valuable in a different context...recreation opportunities and preservation of the habitats in control of the public through their elected government. How can you attach a "value" to the generations of Floridians to come using and enjoying Bull Creek WMA? What is lost if this land returns to being a cattle ranch with high dollar private hunting leases?....

    Those questions should be enough to stop any transfer of this property from public to private hands.

    The Kempfers are no doubt good folks...and they are doing ok with what land they have I am sure...and all farmers/ranchers need to be recognized for their work...as does that "drywall hanger"....And they have every right to try to "get back" this land.....However, the "greatest good for the greatest number" concept sometimes has to be applied....and this issue is one of those times...
  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,797 Admiral
    I love the comment throw us a bone... yeah, that works!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8CMWNIbLJk
  • gottheitch22gottheitch22 fort Meade FLPosts: 4,315 Captain
    Why is that? Didnt they make a deal?

    Pretty sure it was one of those deals either you taker the deal or we take your land . That's how the government works normally . Like I said before how would you feel is it was your land
    living life as i like
  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,797 Admiral
    bgeorge wrote: »
    This is not giving their land back. It is using it in payment for other land they once again want to take from them. The only reason I am good with the WMD considering using it as payment is because of the conditions in which it was acquired from the same family originally. Sucks for some but you might want to consider using it as a springboard to get something else opened up and ask for a two year transition plan on removing it as a WMA. Landowner may be willing to throw the community a bone.

    Have you seen the land deal yet? Do you know what land they are using and how many acres are being considered? Land swaps are the new National scam going on, this one qualifies on many levels.
  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,797 Admiral
    If it was my land, i'd burn it before it was taken from me.. I wouldnt sign any deal. That's just me
  • gottheitch22gottheitch22 fort Meade FLPosts: 4,315 Captain
    If it was my land, i'd burn it before it was taken from me.. I wouldnt sign any deal. That's just me

    And they still would take it and you still would want it back
    living life as i like
  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,797 Admiral
    Absolutely, but I would have NEVER signed a DEAL
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,199 AG
    FLDXT wrote: »
    I see the REAL issue now.

    The REAL issue...is you are sitting behind a computer...rendering your point relatively moot.

    Unlike Mr Cook who was there and spoke very well....and many more...who took the time...and spent the treasure to go to the meeting...You have no standing since your involvement is some bytes on the internet.
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,199 AG
    Have you seen the land deal yet?

    No one has....or so says the district..... :rolleyes
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • binellishtrbinellishtr Posts: 8,797 Admiral
    duckmanJR wrote: »
    No one has....or so says the district..... :rolleyes

    I was wondering if BGEORE had some inside none of us knew about?
  • bgeorgebgeorge Plant City FLPosts: 1,634 Captain
    Have you seen the land deal yet? Do you know what land they are using and how many acres are being considered? Land swaps are the new National scam going on, this one qualifies on many levels.

    No and I try not to over speculate. Like much of politics certain things can be used against you no matter how you feel. I have not been saying that they should swap any given piece of land for another or that the underlying plan is a good one. I as many others do not know the facts of the deal. At which time as the facts are laid out for public eyes, I and others will be able to have a Yes / No opinion.

    I do fully respect and believe that the family should be able attempt to get some land back that was questionably taken from them, especially since the parties that took it are now coming back wanting more. That is my opinion. That being said I am in no way trying to interject my opinion into the process. AKA I am not dropping my stones on your mountain.

    As Newton pointed out what is best for the good for the masses. I am not opposed to that, but also firmly believe our individual rights need to be protected from the masses. I like to hunt and fish. Just because the masses do not an some are opposed does not mean that I should not be able to do so.

    In respect to land swaps on a larger scale it may tend to point that the agencies are purchasing land that they really do not need for the stated purpose. Any such lands acquired as a result in a larger land deal should be parceled off and transferred in to an agency like FWC for wildlife management and recreational opportunities.
    The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones. Hopefully the next man is not dropping his stones on the mountain you are trying to move.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 10,553 AG
    duckmanJR wrote: »
    The REAL issue...is you are sitting behind a computer...rendering your point relatively moot.

    Unlike Mr Cook who was there and spoke very well....and many more...who took the time...and spent the treasure to go to the meeting...You have no standing since your involvement is some bytes on the internet.
    I'm so glad Mr cook has his finger on the pulse on what all of florida needs, from hp restrictions on Leon county lakes( lost some UWF members over that), to QDMA/deer management in western Levy county (he almost got his *** beat to a pulp in Chiefland), and now rubbing salt in an old wound by speaking on something he knows nothing about..
    I used to have a little respect for you, not anymore.

    Kudos Newton!!
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • FLDXTFLDXT Posts: 2,521 Captain
    duckmanJR wrote: »
    The REAL issue...is you are sitting behind a computer...rendering your point relatively moot.

    Unlike Mr Cook who was there and spoke very well....and many more...who took the time...and spent the treasure to go to the meeting...You have no standing since your involvement is some bytes on the internet.

    Lol....I literally did.....
  • MackokidMackokid Posts: 918 Officer
    Let me first say that the Kempfers are a great set of people to meet. I've met them a few times dropping off deer at the processor in Deer Park. Real nice folk who are willing to talk to anyone and (more importantly) listen to others. You don't get as big as they are by being dumb and driving people away.

    Now, when it comes to public land sales or land transfers, I staunchly oppose any of it. Bull Creek (didn't know Herky Huffman, probably a great guy but that place will always be Bull Creek to me) is a special place for me. 4 generations of my family has hunted out there. My grandfather hunted out there after it opened to the public when there were no real roads and required a 4x4 to get anywhere (they got some real nice bucks right after it opened). My father's first deer was shot out there (8 pt.). My first deer was shot out there (6 pt.) and just this past spring I took my son on his first turkey hunt out there. It is also the last place my grandfather shot a deer (who has since passed on) and I was there with him. I still remember that grin on his face that said "Yea, I still got it!". I can honestly say that I've traversed 80%+ of that property and have walked the perimeter in its entirety all the way around. I would be extremely saddened if it was no longer accessible.

    Now on to my arguments against the transfer, based on simple math (thank you DuckmanJR for the info on page 3) and the fact that they (the Kempfers that is) are no dummies and know how to tend the land for maximum profits:

    ***DISCLAIMER: There are many assumptions in the below analysis. I am by no means a rancher but have been around ranches (and even worked one summer on one) most of my life. I will error on the side of caution but will be close***

    1. If they sold the property in 1967 for $2,505,000 (16,700 acres @ $150 an acre) then the adjusted value (based solely on inflation) is approximately 7.2x or $18,036,000 in 2016's dollars.

    2. I'm sure they invested that money into buying more cattle (and more land a few years later but I digress on that topic). In todays $ you can by weaned calf's by the heard at roughly $800 a head. Which means you could buy over 22,000 calf's with the money they received from the sale. A more realistic purchase would be 500 cow's and 50 bulls (given that a bull at a minimum is 10x the cost of a cow), roughly $800,000 purchase.

    3. If we assume a 80% calf rate from the herd purchased (which is a low number, but good enough for this analysis) that means 400 calf's were born the first year.

    4. From what I remember roughly 5% - 10% of the calf's are retained for growing the heard and the remainder sold for beef. That said (lets go with the 5% figure) 20 calf's will be retained to grow the heard and 380 will be sold off for meat.

    5. At an average weight of around 600 lbs per head and average selling price of $170 per cwt, we can safely assume a selling price of $1,000 per head.

    6. According to Cattlenetwork.com, the production cost per head of cattle is $783. This includes labor (ranch hands), auction costs, vets, land taxes, cattle death rate, etc.

    7. This means a profit of $217 per head of cattle for the ranchers.

    8. If we assume the same rate of production per year, there would be 52,920 cattle sold over 48 years and a 2016 herd size of 3,100 head (this number is too large as Florida Today stated he had roughly 2,500 head earlier this year). Which means they retained less than 5% of their heard for retention, which means more sales.

    9. All that said, that is approximately $52,920,000 in sales, $41,436,360 in costs which comes to $11,483,640 in profit. Not including the sale of any bulls!!

    10. With $11.5M in profits from the fictitious scenario above, plus the remainder of the $17.2M of the purchase price, your talking roughly $30M in "equivalent" exchange.

    All of the above numbers are based on 1 possible scenario but the point is there. If they want the property back for nothing, they should fork over all profits made from the initial purchase, plus the lands purchased with the money from the original purchase, plus the costs the state paid to create the infrastructure at Bull Creek since the purchase of the land. The Kempfer's are no dummies and I'm sure they made plenty of lemonade from the lemon deal they were given.

    Just my $.02.
    "History is much like an endless waltz; the three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever" -Mariemaia Kushrenada
  • MackokidMackokid Posts: 918 Officer
    As others have mentioned as well, I think this will set a dangerous precedent for other landowners to pull the same crap. Next thing you know, all of them will want their land back for nothing.
    "History is much like an endless waltz; the three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever" -Mariemaia Kushrenada
  • Walker DogWalker Dog Posts: 2,155 Captain
    The big difference between this case and the vast majority of large land purchases the state has made over the years is that the typical scenario involved purchases from willing sellers. In those cases, the sellers got what they wanted from the negotiations. Not so in this case. The family was compelled by the courts to sell and the intended purpose of the purchase was never achieved. I don't see any precident being set here, if the district ends up doing what is best for both parties.
Sign In or Register to comment.