A wealthy ranch owner’s land exchange proposal — which would privatize thousands of acres of public land in Colorado’s Roaring Fork Valley — has rankled locals, who say they have been left in the dark and that the deal would sidestep normal regulatory processes.
Under , Out of Bounds Ranch would swap approximately 2,100 acres of private land north of Rifle for a similarly-sized parcel of federal public land adjacent to the ranch property near Carbondale. The ranch’s owners have worked with a Western Slope congressman to draft a bill authorizing the land swap instead of pursuing the Bureau of Land Management .
The ranch’s out-of-state owners have spent six figures on federal lobbying and donated to U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd’s campaign, records show, as they’ve sought congressional action on the matter.
They say the swap would improve their ranch operations and also make federal land near Rifle more accessible to the public.
But those who use the land the ranch seeks don’t want to lose access and are dismayed by what they see as an unfair process.
“One of my biggest concerns is that it deletes over 2,000 acres of public land around the Glenwood Springs area,” said Tayler Larsen, whose family has hunted on the BLM parcel for more than 30 years. “And itap gone forever.”
B. Scott Smith and Tiffany Smith bought their 1,900-acre property near Carbondale for $8.5 million in 2021 and named it Out of Bounds Ranch. Scott Smith, a co-founder of an expansive car dealership company and , operates it as a working cattle ranch. He says he and his wife plan to permanently move from their home in North Carolina to the ranch property in the future.
The land exchange would more than double the size of their ranch. The swap is necessary, Smith said, for more coherent management of grazing, fencing and the land as a whole. The ranch already grazes its cattle on the adjacent public parcel through a lease with the BLM.
On the other side of the exchange, the transfer of now-private property would connect two large parcels of BLM land outside of Rifle, making it a contiguous area of public land — one of the ranch’s primary selling points for the swap.
“The goal is a genuine win-win-win: better management for the ranch, substantially improved public access and recreation, and meaningful conservation and wildlife benefits,” Smith wrote in an email in response to questions from The Denver Post.
Proposed exchange
The Smiths first approached the BLM in October 2021 about a potential land exchange, according to the ranch. They contacted the agency again in April 2025 and spoke with the state director at the time, who said the process could take more than a decade and would not be a priority for his limited staff.
BLM staff also said they hesitated to pursue administrative land exchanges because those often prompt litigation, Smith said.
“Based on meetings, site visits, telephone conversations, and that history, it became apparent that BLM did not have a predictable administrative path, the available personnel, or the institutional willingness to initiate and complete an administrative exchange of this complexity within a reasonable period,” Smith told The Post.
Federal law prescribes a method for public land to be exchanged for private land through an internal process at the BLM. But Congress can also authorize an exchange, with fewer mandatory steps involved — a route the Smiths soon began to explore.
The ranch in June 2025 pivoted to discussions with Hurd, the Republican representing Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, about a legislative approach to the exchange.
At the same time, the Smiths began pouring money into lobbying.
Between April 2025 and June 2026, the ranch paid $200,000 to lobbying firms to advocate for the land exchange, . The couple has also $14,000 to Hurd’s campaign for reelection, federal campaign finance records show.
Hurd’s office drafted a bill — named the Greater Access for Multiple-Use Experiences (GAME) Act — but the congressman has not committed to introducing the legislation, Smith said.
Hurd’s office did not respond to requests for an interview for this story.
The promise of better-connected public land near Rifle — more than 40 miles away from the land the ranch is seeking — means little to those who oppose the deal. The exchange would limit access to public land near Glenwood Springs, according to opponents as well as Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Both parcels of land are popular, high-value hunting areas and provide important wildlife habitat, according to a Sept. 3 letter sent to Hurd from Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Laura Clellan.
While the agency did not take a stance on the proposed exchange, Clellan noted that, if completed, the swap would “severely limit access” to U.S. Forest Service land that abuts the BLM parcel near Out of Bounds Ranch. It would also remove public land from the hunting area around Glenwood Springs, where public grounds for hunting are already limited.
The land near Rifle that would become public is west of Colorado 13. It is also popular for hunting, Clellan wrote, but is steep and would be difficult for many people to access from existing roads.
“This proposed land exchange will result in both positive and negative outcomes for wildlife and recreational hunting opportunities,” Clellan wrote.
Community pushback
The draft bill first surfaced publicly during a meeting.
Jeff Small, the ranch’s lobbyist and a former chief of staff to Hurd’s predecessor representing the 3rd District, Rep. Lauren Boebert, explained the ranch’s perspective.
“We think this is a common-sense land exchange,” Small said. “It consolidates checkboards of land and makes better use of federal parcels.”
At a second county commission meeting on July 21, homeowners who live adjacent to the BLM land, which is east of Colorado 82, showed up in force with questions and pushback. The neighbors had not known about the potential exchange until it was discussed by commissioners.
“This swap will affect all of us personally and financially,” said Meme Kistner, the president of the High Aspen Ranch Homeowners Association.
Despite the pushback, two of the three county commissioners . The third commissioner did not attend the meeting.
Since the meeting, momentum against the land swap has increased. Hundreds asking Hurd to abandon the land exchange. Locals have penned letters to the editor published in local papers.
“So basically, the Smiths will buy steep, brush country outside of Rifle and trade it for verdant, irrigated, natural wildlife habitat in the Roaring Fork Valley,” Carbondale resident Holly McLain . “This is not a fair trade.”
Beyond the recreational and community impacts, the method the ranch is using to pursue the exchange has also concerned opponents.
“Itap a matter of principle,” Larsen said. “The normal hunter, the normal public land user doesn’t have $200,000 to lobby in defense of public land that they have access to.”
Land exchanges via legislation are relatively rare, but they’re becoming more common, said Nicholas Green, the executive director of , a nonprofit group based in the Roaring Fork Valley that describes itself as a “land exchange watchdog.”
Legislative exchanges often involve less transparency and less public input than an exchange completed through the administrative process, he said.
“As these legislative land exchanges increase, it just gets rid of that public outreach,” Green said. “These are public lands. These are our lands, not the BLM’s land, not a representative’s lands — these belong to the people.”
The two land exchange methods also involve differing levels of access, Green said. While anyone can initiate an administrative land exchange, not everyone has enough political sway to convince a lawmaker to pursue a legislative swap, he said.
Smith said the ranch’s ownership is open to feedback from the community and government agencies. In response to concerns from the county commissioners, Smith agreed to a deed restriction on the land — should it become his — that would keep it from being developed.
The potential exchange will undergo an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, which will include public comment opportunities, Smith said.
“The ranch wants to engage and work with anyone who has meaningful and constructive thoughts to contribute and will continue gathering and considering public comments as the proposal moves forward,” he said.
