Who is the American Foundation for Wildlife ??

Pages

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 9:39pm
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
Joined: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 - 12:00am

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: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

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
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

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: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

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
Joined: Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 12:00am

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
Offline
Joined: Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 9:39pm

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
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

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
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am


 

 

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
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am


 

 

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
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am


 

 

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
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am


 

 

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
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

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
Joined: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 4:56pm

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: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

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: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

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
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

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: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am
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: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am
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
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

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: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

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
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

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
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

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
Offline
Joined: Tuesday, February 5, 2002 - 12:00am

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
Joined: Friday, January 4, 2002 - 12:00am

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
Offline
Joined: Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 9:39pm

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
Joined: Friday, January 4, 2002 - 12:00am

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
Joined: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 - 12:00am

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
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

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
Offline
Joined: Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 9:39pm

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
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

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.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 9, 2002 - 12:00am

gst Said:
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.

gst,  A couple of observations.  1.  After taxation concerns are eliminated as people understand that NDGF makes PILT, the second most common concerns are either the loss of grain sold at the local elevator or loss of income to a county resident.  At least those are somewhat more legit than the tax argument.

2.  If it really only were about what the county residents wanted to do, then why are non-county entities involved at all?

Can anyone tell me the last time the FB and FU interests on this committee voted in favor of a natural lands acquisition?  How about the ND Ag Commissioner?  Anyone have a link to the actual votes over, let's say the past 15 years?

“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
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

Allen, there may be differing concerns with each of these purchases. I would be hesitant not being directly involved to make assumptions.

I never suggested it is only about what the county residents want, I stated this committee is designed to give them a somewhat weighted voice.

Can anyone tell us the last time the G&F or the state forrester or the state parks person voted against one of these land aquisitions?

Keep in mind, it was the legislature with the ability for the public to weigh in and give testimony that established this committee and format.

http://www.ndctws.org/newsletters/2005-2-may.pdf

If you go to page 9 of this site, you will see even the ND wildlife society approved the Sen bill addressing the make up of this committee. You will also see that in the case of the Eberts Ranch aquisition they pushed for possible perpetual easements, a prohibition of the sale of lands contingent  to those to be given to the state and was against your trade in kind land swap idea that was being discussed at that time that had the support of other members of this committee.
 
Often times it is little known positions such as these and others that the people directly involved with have an opposition to in these committee meetings.

Bowhuntin
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

gst Said:

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.

I thought about this a little more also, and if you want to use city zoning laws, we can debate it that way I guess. So.....lets say I own a single family dwelling in Fargo, and same story as before, I am getting old and want to sell it. I strike up a deal with this rancher from McKenzie County you use as an example, and him and I agree on a price, with the understanding that he has to keep the property as it has been, a single family dwelling. But before any money can exchange hands and the deed can be signed over I have to have it approved by the city and county government, and they say I can't sell it because they don't want any cowboys from western ND living in that neighborhood.

He's not going to change the use of the property, he's not going to start raising horses in the backyard, he's going to maintain it in the same fashion I did, but he can't purchase it just because of who he is? See where I'm coming from? Is that fair to me? I just want to sell my house to someone who will take care of it as I have, but I can't. Doesn't seem fair to me.

gst
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

bowhuntin I can't tell you the reasons why people in this county maybe opposed to this sale as I'm not involved. I gave an example of the Eberts ranch in which there were groups pressuring for things to be put in place that were not reported on and that most of the public had no knowledge of that some groups and people opposed. Perhaps this is the case here as well. I simply do not know. Often times these things are not as cut and dried as they appear. If a majority of the residents of Mckenzie county do not want this to happen in their county I respect that.

The difference in your example is that if this land was being sold to an individual such as your house in Fargo is this committee would not even be involved. However  this is being sold to a nopnprofit org. which I believe is addressed under state law as needing to be delt with in the manner in which it is. So it isn't really an apples to apples comparison. If this land was being sold to another individual who then gifted it to the G&F I believe this committee would not be involved.

Where is the funding for this purchase coming from? From the one website Tim provided it appears that it originated from the federal govt. I don"t know, I am asking.  

Bowhuntin
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

gst,
I wasn't talking so much about this sale specifically, just any sale of land that has to be approved by this board. I believe they are using the corporate farming law as an excuse to be able to yea or nay land sales aren't they? I understand the fear of corporate farms when that law was put in effect, but it seems outdated now that many fair sized family farms, in the valley anyway, are corporations themselves. It just seems a stretch to me to use an anti-corporate farming law to ban land sales when the land isn't going to be used for corporate farming, but I don't know enough about it to really form an opinion on it.

Are you sure about someone being able to gift the land after buying it? It seems that would be the way to go and bypass all the drama.

gst
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

The anti croporate farming law was intended to prevent entities that negatively affect ag as well as ND from coming into the state.  Not so much family farming operations that incorporate for tax purposes, but rather multinational type corps. that can gain a significant advantage in capturing too much of the production segment of agriculture.
I believe nonprofit orgs are brought into this arrangement of the Natural Areas Aquisition committee thru a related but separate deal. I haven't found a lot of history on the guidelines behind this. Maybe the local expert knows a little more about this!

As to this law being outdated, I have signed contracts with 3 multi national corporations to produce crops for them. If they are allowed into the production phase, what prevents them from producing these crops themselves. There is some merit to the idea that it is best for the consumer as well as the producer to keep these entities out of production ag and controlling the entire chain from production to plate.

Not every deal ends in a denial of sale. So at some point some must raise enough concern to warrant it wether the public knows what that is or not. DU OWNS over 300,000 acres mostly in Canada just north of us in the prarie pothole region.                              http://www.ducks.org/media/conservation/conservation%20fact%20sheets/_documents/Counting%20Acres.pdf

 That  makes them one of the largest land owners in the country of Canada.  Yet they want to overturn a state law that has protected ND ag producers and consumers for decades and continues to do so to gain ownership of a few hundred more acres here in the state. If this is done, what is to keep them from eventually owning 300,000 acres here in ND? Many people here in ND ask just how much land do they want or need  to own.  

I am not certain on the issue of a private individual gifting land to a state agency. Wether that has to be ran thru the govenors office or not?? Of the top of my head I can't think of this committee dealing with that type of thing. Maybe someone else knows a little more about that.  

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

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

I'm going off what the NRCS quoted in this article:
 
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/NEWS/thisweek/2005/050405/ndwildlifemanagement.html

Not that it matters, just want to be sure I am not inventing some organization.  I clicked on the link and then clicked on the link in the news release above.


 

 

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
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Been gone for three days and just caught up.  I guess I don't understand where all the hissy fits are coming from?  Are we (local government, citizens, etc) just supposed to let things stand by and happen without review?  Land acquisition is a big deal to a local environment.  What is the matter with a board and citizens showing up at a meeting and supporting or being an opponent of such a sale?  If you ask me, nothing at all.

Land acquisitions change a lot of things.  It is important to have things in place to debate the sale and analyze it as much as possible.  That folks, is ALL THAT IS HAPPENING in McKenzie County.  Even the commission said IF THE SALE GOES THROUGH they want to ensure it is usable to the public and not just a select few.  Doubt that?  Watch the video on the meeting!

This chunk of land is no gem other than the fact it most likely holds a lot of wildlife.  This sale doesn't appear to be a big deal.  I never disputed that, all I said is there should be some guarantees.  This land will be held in trust.  I grew up in an area where land is held in trust and the pulling, twisting, etc never ends.  Hence, I see no reason why a sale cannot be disputed OR supported.  These talks need to happen and like gst said, this is a local issue and should be treated as such.  Obviously, there are plenty of entities looking out for the "whole."  Think NDFU or the NDFB is just from the west?  Heck, some of the biggest pull comes from the sugar beat, soybean and corn folks.  We all know where they reside in the state.

Just remember, once land goes to groups like these they will most likely never over-turn again.  Just like folks offering up mineral rights to the state of North Dakota back in the day to retain land or the state simply could write the check for mineral rights once deemed worthless.  Once in the possession of the government it never leaves (or takes extreme cases to make them leave).  That's good and bad.  Nothing wrong with discussing it.


 

 

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

 

 
swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

TW,  No motives here.  It is highly unlikely I will ever venture back to McKenzie county and that is my loss for sure.  I just wonder why a piece of non-productive land that could be used by many if allowed to go through with this program would be a negative in the county.  It sounds like this is an arbitrary decision that enough is enough.

Mauser said

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.


You use the term "finger vomit" and after this post I have to say you were spewing when you typed it. 

It is absolutely hilarious that you are a hardcore landowners rights advocate but these landowners don't warrant your support because somebody else may benefit from it.  You my friend are a trolling hypocrite.

Gst, anti corporate farming laws have been struck down in other states and it's days are numbered in ND too.  I never want to see the 500,000 acre ADM farms that are sure to pop up when the law is changed.  The anticorporate law had good intentions, familiy farmers are more likely to be better stewards of the land and better neighbors to everyone.  I hope that mentality can return to the prarie but I'm afraid the perceived "need" for more land has already changed family farms into corporate farms.  This will be the arguement to dissolve the anticorporate farming law.

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

Tim, I saw that link to AWF on NRCS article too, thats how I figured out it wasn't the right link.

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

Greed and the desire for more land has nothing to do with it.  It is survival.  Input costs are horrendous and so is every other cost.  ONLY way to survive is have big acreage.

swift,

So what is the right link?

And in my opinion, raising question on a sale is not hypocritical.  I do get where you guys might want to pin that but negative sale after negative sale can be devastating to property rights.  It throws the whole market and balance game out of whack.

With this piece of land is there really anything to worry about?  Probably not, not a very "productive" piece but I don't think the sale should just be ignored either.  Most likely will be approved and most likely won't matter.  Doesn't mean we should just accept that on every sale though.  There are important things at stake.


 

 

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

 

 
gst
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

So swift for the record you are willing to strike down this state law so a group that already owns over 300,000 acres can buy a few more here in ND. Do you think they will be content owning a couple of quarters here in ND or 20 years from now will our kids be commenting on the hundreds of thousands of acres DU owns here in ND? Most ND producers do not have multi million dollar donations being given to them to purchase land like DU.

This law is meant to deal with corporations that own fuel supply cos., fertilizer supply cos, seed supply cos. chemical supply cos. processing cos. ect... all under one corporate entity from coming in and buying  land to grow the products they process rather than buy the product itself. CONSUMERS as well as producers have a stake in this. The state legislature saw fit to include these non profit entities in this as well, perhaps with a little fore sight beyond what someone that simply likes to hunt ducks would have.

gst
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

Swift, from YOUR "arbatrary veiwpoint" in SD how much land that is owned by the public for public use is enough in this county?

It is not corporate giants like ADM that will challenge this law, it will be narrow visioned conservation groups such as DU that will open this door irregardless of the ultimate consequences.

Bowhuntin
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

gst,
I take it you don't like the du organization, why is that? I'm not a big fan or member either, they seem to have become a money generating operation with a lot of people depending on them for a living. But what would the harm be if they bought wetlands and preserved them? I don't think anyone can deny most of the wetlands that were here when the white man arrived are all drained and gone, and that wetlands are important to the ecosystem in more ways than making baby ducks, so what would be the reason to oppose the preservation of some of what is left as a conservation measure?

Bowhuntin
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

Tim,
I see the need for oversight if the use of the land will change with the sale, such as some big foreign conglomeration coming in and starting a pig farm, but still fail to see the need if the land use doesn't change. I think a lot of the opposition simply stems for jealousy and greed. If an organization chooses to bid more than the neighbors think the property is worth so be it. If a property owner decides to sell to someone who will keep the land in similar condition and open it to all, or will keep it in similar condition and limit access, what business is it of anyone else? That was my point about property rights, where are all the people who always talk about property rights trumping everything else at now?

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

GST, once again your dislike for me clouds your reading glasses.  I am not for abolishing the corporate farming law,  On the contrary I would support it to the end.  For the record.  I just pointed out that when challenged in other states they were found to be unconstitutional and you know that. 

That group that already owns 300,000 acres should have just as much right to own as much as they can afford, if a landowner wants to sell to them.  Many landowners have to forsight to realize that ditch to ditch farming is detrimental to the people.  Also what does DU owning land in Canada have anything to do with North Dakota?  If DU bought many acres in ND and took them out of Ag production it should bolster your crop prices by decreasing supply of the commodity. 

"Narrow minded conservation organizations"  That says quite a lot there.  Conservation be damned I got a crop to plant.  And you claim the sportsman are all about ourselves.

Tim you were not the target of my statement about rigid landowner rights.  That was directed to Mauser.

Bowhuntin
Offline
Joined: Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:00am

swift Said:

That group that already owns 300,000 acres should have just as much right to own as much as they can afford, if a landowner wants to sell to them.  Many landowners have to forsight to realize that ditch to ditch farming is detrimental to the people.  Also what does DU owning land in Canada have anything to do with North Dakota?  If DU bought many acres in ND and took them out of Ag production it should bolster your crop prices by decreasing supply of the commodity. 

"Narrow minded conservation organizations"  That says quite a lot there.  Conservation be damned I got a crop to plant.  And you claim the sportsman are all about ourselves.

Tim you were not the target of my statement about rigid landowner rights.  That was directed to Mauser.

Swift,
Couldn't agree more!

gst
Offline
Joined: Thursday, March 12, 2009 - 9:41am

Bowhuntin, I generally don't have time for orgs that are often comprised of people that want to control how land is used for their recreational purposes that have no real connection to that land and how generations have used it to build communities, families and lives over the years. DU has by their own figures 50 MILLION acres that they have conserved thru various programs. NAWMP 25 million, NAWCA 15 million,WRP 2million, and 11 million in direct DU programs. How much is enough????

Swift, we have managed to have a good discussion here without interjecting personal comments in it, hopefully it can continue. We have never met  so I can not say wether I dislike you or not, nor can you make accurate assumptions about what I believe.

  The state legislature representing all ND"an's is the one stating these nonprofits have to go thru the process we have. As Tim asked what is the down side of having these discussions?  Many  people other than sportsman simply have an issue with an org like DU owning land for various reasons. And to challenge this law here in ND just to own land for conservation is IMHO narrow minded, considering the likelyhood of "family" farms to enter into conservation agreements and keep wetlands preserved is much greater than that of these corporate entities this would open our state too. How many of these corps would have the  the foresight to see dirch to ditch farming is detremental?????  You can not support the ND anti corporate farming law till the end and support DU buying thousands of acres of land here in ND. A representative from DU on Nodak stated this is an "old" law that needs to be overturned. Ask yourself this, how many more wetlands have remained for decades here in ND because these corporations were not able to come in. How many conservation programs do you think they would have enrolled land in? Answer the question, how many acres are enough?

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 12:00am

How much is enough is a very good question.  I guess it comes down to who you ask.  I personally think that the more conservation the better.  I'm no tree hugger but having wildlife on the prarie is more natural than having farms on the prarie.  (Don't twist that for your own arguement that I'm anti-farming)  For centuries both have existed due to good stewardship and conservation efforts. 

I tire of the arguements about landowner rights and big government politics here to see the staunch landowners and self proclaimed political conservatives change their stances to fit their own agendas.  Buying and selling land should be as much a right as farming it, posting it, donating it to the public or putting a fence around it, filling it up with exotics and selling hunts on it.  You claim the law is to protect fellow citizens from potential disaster scenerios.  When the anti high fence people claim the same arguement you dismiss them with the landowner rights arguement.

Back to the original topic.  Mr. Cayko is on record opposing this land sale.  That doesn't sound like discussion to me.

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
Joined: Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:00am

I watched the Kxnews video.  He said he will likely oppose the sale because of the fact McKenzie is owned almost half by the government.  He did say or felt like it would go through and if it does that it should be put in place for everyone to enjoy versus just a few.  I believe he quoted hunters.

swift,

I understand the willingness to claim us as landowner right crazies that only want to shape the argument when it works.  That isn't the case here swift.  It is as simple as making sure sale of land doesn't create a precedence and cripple local tax bases, markets, farming, etc.  That also includes all the "government" things too from conservation, environment impact, etc.

This sale will go through.  I think it makes sense myself.  But that doesn't negate the fact that there is a difference of who and what purchases a chunk of land.  It can change things for the worse.  Big difference between what a high fence operation does.  Really, all it effects is the emotions of people.  There are all sorts of rules and regulations on domesticated wildlife.  These two topics are much different from one another.


 

 

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

 

 

Pages