Who is the American Foundation for Wildlife ??

Pages

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08
Who is the American Foundation for Wildlife ??

Hearing held on North Dakota land buy proposal 

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A McKenzie County commissioner says the group is likely to oppose a proposal by the American Foundation for Wildlife to buy nearly 1,000 acres of land in northwest North Dakota.

Richard Cayko says more than 40 percent of the land in the county already is owned by the state or federal government.

The wildlife group already owns more than 1,700 acres near the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers. The foundation wants to buy the new tract and transfer it to the state Game and Fish Department as a wildlife management area.

A public hearing was held Tuesday. The county commission and the state Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee will make recommendations to the governor, who has the final say on land purchases by nonprofits.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

I don't know this particular entity, but any organization that buys land in premo hunting and fishing areas  and then gifts it to the state under the condition that it be used only for a public hunting and access area can't be all bad.

That Missouri River area up there by the confluence was some of the more difficult to get on for hunting purposes and while at one time the previous owner allowed paddlefishermen to access the shoreline, that was getting less and less over time.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02

Mauser I'm curious to your opinion on this?  Does it fall into landowners rights to sell land to whom they want?  Or does the pay to hunt groups have priority over keeping land locked up to protect their interests?  Or is it truely a tax base issue and the county may go bankrupt is they don't get the $1500 a year from this property? 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Or perhaps it's simply many peoples principle belief the govt owns enough land. 40% of any one county is a significant amount.

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02

Isn't the government the people?  Is it such a bad thing to have the people of the state own and access some more land?  GST you could answer the question about landowner rights I queried above.

NDSportsman.'s picture
NDSportsman.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/13/03

swift Said:
Or is it truely a tax base issue and the county may go bankrupt is they don't get the $1500 a year from this property? 

That aint it, cause the GNF pays in lieux of tax payments to counties in which they own property.

I don't have any problem with more Wildlife management areas, just wish they were spread out across the state more. There is already plenty of public land out west, but more is needed in the eastern half of ND IMO. I'm sure land values have alot to do with that, fertile farm land is alot more spendy then pasture land out west.

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

swift Said:
Mauser I'm curious to your opinion on this?  Does it fall into landowners rights to sell land to whom they want?  Or does the pay to hunt groups have priority over keeping land locked up to protect their interests?  Or is it truely a tax base issue and the county may go bankrupt is they don't get the $1500 a year from this property? 

I have not formed an opion yet untill I can find out who these people are (American Foundation for Wildlife).    Yes I keep a close eye on any thing that might against landowner rights.   Do you look out for your profession ?  Believe it or not I do have respect for some people on this site.   I just never heard of this group and if Allen hasn't it tells me they should be looked into. 

 

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

This is one of those stand in the middle things for me.  This same group I believe bought the other river bottom land and turned it over as well.  Yes, good for the sportsman.  On the other hand, gst is right, 40% of the county is government owned.  There's good and bad with that.

I guess I'll just say it is important to have the county commission and citizens raising concerns.  It is a big deal when big groups are able to severely out-bid.  Couple in the government factor and it becomes sometimes a rather slippery slope.  There needs to be guarantees in my opinion.  Look at what the Corp (federal government) was and probably still is trying to do with Lake Sakakawea land.  There are things not right with transactions like that.

So here I am, standing on the fence again.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
Bowhuntin's picture
Bowhuntin
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/17/03

Tim Sandstrom Said:
This is one of those stand in the middle things for me.  This same group I believe bought the other river bottom land and turned it over as well.  Yes, good for the sportsman.  On the other hand, gst is right, 40% of the county is government owned.  There's good and bad with that.

I guess I'll just say it is important to have the county commission and citizens raising concerns.  It is a big deal when big groups are able to severely out-bid.  Couple in the government factor and it becomes sometimes a rather slippery slope.  There needs to be guarantees in my opinion.  Look at what the Corp (federal government) was and probably still is trying to do with Lake Sakakawea land.  There are things not right with transactions like that.

So here I am, standing on the fence again.

I'm not entirely sure it's fair to compare land controlled by the federal government (corps of engineers) with land that will be handed over and controlled by the state government (NDG&F Dept.). Everything I've heard about this group has been good, however I must admit I didn't look at the links Tim provided.

It seems to me the thing that gets forgotten about during discussions like this is the property rights of the person who owns that land in the first place. What about their rights to sell their property to whomever they wish? I know of several cases in the northeastern part of the state where someone has tried to sell land to a wildlife organization and the deal came apart because the governor vetoed the sale. WTF??? It amazes me when the same people on here continually talk about "landowner rights" however they seem to think it's OK for the governor of the state to have the power to veto a sale of land between a willing seller and a willing buyer. You can't have it both ways boys, as much as you'd like to.  

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

the only time i ever have a problem w/ sales of these types is when the sale results in the land being set aside for perpetuity to serve as a refuge of sorts.  if you take large chunks of land out of circulation so it is no longer provides any economic benefit and prevent the public from accessing it, i'll have an issue.  but, even then, i am not so sure i would be vocal about it or try to stop it; cause i do believe in the right of a landowner to sell his land to whoever he wants.  and i believe the person(s) who buy it should be able to do whatever they want w/ it as long as there isn't some great harm to the general public. 

however, this is not one of those cases.  the land will still be accessible to the public.  if the G & F is willing to take on the responsibility and the expense, i am all for it.  i'll take another WMA any time, any place. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02

Mauser,  I don't understand the exchange.  I agree with you.  Landowners should have the right to sell their land to whomever they wish.  Like DU, RMEF or the AFW.  The AFW is a new name to an old group.  They bought the Neu land and the Ochs land at and near the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers and turned it over the Game and Fish as a wildlife management area. 

40% of the county is in public has no bearing when you figure that the National grasslands comprise the vast majority of that land.  Kind of like saying Montana shouldn't have public owned land because the Bob Marshall and other forest service lands comprise a high percentage of land. 

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02

http://www.awildfound.org/About.html  is NOT the group.  Not even close.  The "American Wildlife foundation"    is not the American Foundation for Wildlife. 

Bowhuntin's picture
Bowhuntin
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/17/03

espringers,

 
Exactly right. It seems there is somewhat of a hypocritical attitude with some on FBO, they use "landowner rights" to justify and defend such things as HFH, yet as soon as someone else trys to sell or transfer their land to a government entity, or an organization such as ducks unlimited, they scream bloody murder about that.

It almost seems that if it fits their belief it's alright, however if it doesn't fit their belief then it's not alright, but I'm sure that's not the case at all............

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02
The property, owned by five landowners, stretches along 1.4 miles of the south bank of the Missouri River. An unusual feature of the tract is a large, old river channel oxbow wetland. This wetland fills with backflow waters whenever either the Missouri or Yellowstone flows are very high.

The tract has never been used for crop production and has not been grazed since 2001 because of difficult access.
 

Interesting that this is basically set aside land that has not produced in 9 years and then just pasture grazing is so important to the county.   Would somebody please explain what the downside of allowing this acquistion to go through?

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02
American Foundation-Wildlife2000 University Drive, Bismarck, ND 58504-8203(701) 222-0266

It looks to be a local operation without a website.  I've never been called by them for donations.  They seem to run a low key organization that gets results judging by their ability to get the Ochs and Neu parcels for the public.  I wish they would do a press release about who they are and what their goals are.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/59-2005/bill-text/FQSG0200.pdf

This is the legislative action that addresses what groups are involved in this decision. The public, thru their legislators had a say in structuring this thru this legislation.

director of parks and recreation
nd ag commisioner
nd state forrester
director of NDG&F
representative of NDFU
representative of NDFB
representative of NDSA
county commissioner

It is comprised of 3 "public" lands groups, 3 "private" lands groups, the ag dept, and the local entity, with the govenor providing the final detrermination.
 
Much like a city council meets and votes on wether I can sell privately owned property within city limits to industrial companies, zoning  ect......
There are other examples of property rights not being absolute. The govt right to emminent domain one of them, as well as states, counties, cities and townships being able to legislate and regulate. However most understand that an infringement on ANY property right, wether it is in a rural or urban setting must be examined thouroughly and weighed carefully as the ability to use ones property unencumbered by excessive govt regulation and infringement is addressed in the constituion. This ND Natural Areas Aquisition Advisory Committee does just that. What is important to remember, in ND  counties are given considerable influence in manners such as these, and usually it is however these counties (thru the county commisioners recomendation from his county committee representing all of that county) rule that the govenor supports.

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02

Unfortunately that looks like a stacked deck against sportsman in the state.  Mckenzie county fought the Ochs and Neu acquistion and lost we can only hope the govenor can see fit to allow this acquisition of non-productive land into something that can be productive for outdoorsman.  I vote to replace the NDFU from the list with the AFW.

Bowhuntin's picture
Bowhuntin
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/17/03

gst,
I understand the process is as you posted, but instead of using other examples such as city zoning laws to make your point, lets stick to the subject at hand. Do you feel it's right and just that all those entities along with the governor of the state can dictate what a landowner does with his property? Say I have 160 acres in your county that is a combination of pasture land and sloughs, I'm getting old and want to sell it, so I make a deal with a group like American Foundation For Wildlife to sell it to them with the intentions of them turning it over to NDG&F to manage as a waterfowl production area. Why should any one else be allowed to give that deal thumbs up or thumbs down? The land will stay in the same condition it was when I owned it, NDG&F will pay the county an equal amount that I paid in taxes, what's the problem? I honestly don't get it?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

bowhuntin, you would have to ask the parties involved in making this decision, probably most importantly the county commisioners who are answerable to those people living in that county, not someone from Fargo, Bismarck, Antler ect.......  Not trying to duck the question, but there may very well be reasons the residents of that county have I do not know and I have to respect that decision wether I personally agree or not. If the county commissioners are not representing the wishes of the residents, I guess they would be voted out. This system is designed to be weighted to give the people most directly affected (residents of the county) more of a say than the rest of the state. I guess they thought it might be best if residents of say Mckenzie county or Kidder county had more of a say what happens in their county than say the residents of Fargo. I kinda understand that line of thinking.  In regards to 2 of these groups I can tell you they have a standing policy thru resolutions voted on by their membership that oppose deals such as this for various reasons. These orgs have to abide by their memberships policy.  There is opportunity for public comment in all these advisory committe meetings regarding these purchases.

Remember, there are 3 "public" land groups and 3 "private" land groups in this committe, and typically  regardless of their positions the most weight is given to the county itself. Wether anyone agrees with the make up of this committee, it was created by the legislative assembly that is the voice of ALL NDan's. Everyone had the opportunity to provide input at the time this committee was formed. Now simply because of reasons many of us may not know the people on the "losing" side of the decision don't like it. I guess thats human nature.

TW's picture
TW
Offline
Joined: 2/5/02

Swift I have to question your motives a little here, for someone who moved from WIlliams county to South Dakota and never lived, owned land or payed taxes in McKenzie County, you seem quite well versed on what we should do and who should run our county.  I don't think you fully grasp what having the government own 40% of  a county does to your tax base.  While I make use of the abundant hunting opportunities in the grasslands and appreciate having them here how much is enough?   Any other county want to give up 40% of its tax base so Swift can have better access?  I'm betting not many takers.  TW 

StevePike's picture
StevePike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/4/02

TW,

I thought G&F paid "in lieu of taxes" which basically meant they pay what would have been paid in taxes anyway. Meaning the county is out nothing it taxes. Are you saying this is not true?

You can't aim a duck to death.

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

TW you must realize people like swift and stevepike can only see what is best for them and cost them nothing. They firmly believe they are entiitled to use all the private owned land for thier enjoyment ,at no cost,and believe it is thier right to controll what the private owned land is used for.   They come FIRST!  They believe if they pay thier taxes it makes them part owners and managers of all lands and of course they know what is best for all.  There will never be enough free access land for these types.

 

StevePike's picture
StevePike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/4/02

Mauser, you must not have realized you know nothing about many of us on this site yet you continue to troll and try to start things. I never stated and don't believe any of the word vomit that just came out of your fingers. I have never hunted in that area and probably never will. Having them spend money on a WMA in an area I will never hunt. How does that make me selfish?

It is actually funny that you and your Out of State Special Interests want ND to be how you and your buddies can make a buck off of it. You are the definition of pot calling the kettle black.

You can't aim a duck to death.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

Whoa, I am by far the local expert on non-profits.

mauserG33-40 Said:

swift Said:
Mauser I'm curious to your opinion on this?  Does it fall into landowners rights to sell land to whom they want?  Or does the pay to hunt groups have priority over keeping land locked up to protect their interests?  Or is it truely a tax base issue and the county may go bankrupt is they don't get the $1500 a year from this property? 

I have not formed an opion yet untill I can find out who these people are (American Foundation for Wildlife).    Yes I keep a close eye on any thing that might against landowner rights.   Do you look out for your profession ?  Believe it or not I do have respect for some people on this site.   I just never heard of this group and if Allen hasn't it tells me they should be looked into. 

On another note, one should remember that at one point in history the govt owned every single acre out here.  So it's not like we as a state are going back to 100% so much as that there were perhaps some acres that should have been kept in the public domain.  As always it's kind of a living and breathing concept of where there's enough quality land.  Much of what the feds and state own in western ND is garbage land without a so much as a tree on it and it is rented to a local rancher or farmer for pennies on the dollar.  Pretty good deal IMHO.  Perhaps some of those state and federal acres that are only good for cattle would be a good trade for some of these that wildlife utilize.

I  know we have a couple school sections by our land that is never hunted because it simply never holds anything more than a few grouse.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen, you hit directly on a part of the resolution governing these private land orgs. in your suggestion that perhaps acres be traded. However when this is mentioned, most sportsman orgs adamantly oppose it.

Many sportsman groups believe in a no net loss program advocating more land be added, while most private land groups believe in a no net gain policy and advocate lands be turned back to private ownership. I would guess a compromise meets somewhere in the middle.

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

StevePike Said:
Mauser, you must not have realized you know nothing about many of us on this site yet you continue to troll and try to start things. I never stated and don't believe any of the word vomit that just came out of your fingers. I have never hunted in that area and probably never will. Having them spend money on a WMA in an area I will never hunt. How does that make me selfish?

It is actually funny that you and your s ND to be how you and your buddies can make a buck off of it. You are the definition of pot calling the kettle black.

Could you please list my out of state buddies I am not aware of any,where are these bucks being made?? Or is this just more of your finger vomit? When I come to ND I leave money not take any with me.  I respect the private landowner. 

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Bowhuntin Said:
gst,
I understand the process is as you posted, but instead of using other examples such as city zoning laws to make your point, lets stick to the subject at hand. Do you feel it's right and just that all those entities along with the governor of the state can dictate what a landowner does with his property? Say I have 160 acres in your county that is a combination of pasture land and sloughs, I'm getting old and want to sell it, so I make a deal with a group like American Foundation For Wildlife to sell it to them with the intentions of them turning it over to NDG&F to manage as a waterfowl production area. Why should any one else be allowed to give that deal thumbs up or thumbs down? The land will stay in the same condition it was when I owned it, NDG&F will pay the county an equal amount that I paid in taxes, what's the problem? I honestly don't get it?

I thought a little more about this and there really is no way you can separate how you look at this from what happens in a city with zoning laws. No one is preventing it from being sold, they are regulating who it can be sold to. If I state that this particualr ruling is an infringement on property rights that can not happen because it interfers with someones ability to sell property, then I would also HAVE to be against a city council basically doing the same thing. Just because one affects an activity we on this site all like to do doesn't change the parallels between the two principals. And I highly doubt, say  the city of Fargo, would think much of a rancher from Mckenzie County telling them what to do in their city.

I know for a fact that the decisions some of these groups involved make are not done lightly as they are strong property rights groups as well. It is a very delicate balancing act that the parties involved in creating this committe considered, and the decision is given significant thought. As was noted even by swift who claims this committee is a stacked deck, that it is not always the wishes of the "private" lands group that prevail.

Pages