# North Dakota versus James Cook



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

From the VC Times Record:

James Cook says running afoul of North Dakota law is worth it to protect ducks.

The 67-year-old Minneapolis precious-metal dealer and duck hunter is not giving up his fight to retain three private waterfowl refuges in North Dakota that the state says he obtained illegally.

Cook says his refuges were not ill-gotten. And he wants to buy even more wetland-rich parcels to protect ducks.

Cook, who lived in North Dakota as a boy, claims the state is not doing enough to protect prime duck habitat. So he got out his checkbook. He is the sole member of two nonprofits that purchased land in the Dakotas and Minnesota for waterfowl protection.

The refuges are off-limits to hunters.

"Since I was a youngster, I've seen the great flocks of waterfowl diminish," Cook said. He blames the reduction on overhunting and fewer wetlands, which are "under attack all the time by agriculture interests."

"This is hugely important," Cook said. "Without waterfowl production from North Dakota, I don't know if you'd have much waterfowl hunting left anywhere."

The number of nonprofit groups allowed to buy land in North Dakota is limited under state law. The law, added to the state's ban on corporate farming in 1985, also requires government approval for land purchases, with the governor having the final nod.

Cook said North Dakota is the only state that does not allow private landowners to sell land to whomever they want.

Robert Carlson, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, said the restriction is needed to stop groups from buying large tracts of farmland and taking it out of production.

"People don't want the state's resources owned by foreign corporations, basically," Carlson said.

The state says Cook bought three parcels of land without government approval, the most recent in 2003 and 2004. The state sued after Cook ignored Gov. John Hoeven's order to get rid of the land. The state is now asking a judge to force his firm to give up property in Cavalier, Griggs and Ward counties.

"My foundation has owned the refuge in Ward County for over 20 years," Cook said. "They're asking us to divest something owned for about a quarter-century."

Cook retaliated by filing a lawsuit in federal court challenging part of North Dakota's corporate farming ban. He argued that North Dakota is violating the U.S. Constitution's protection of interstate commerce by regulating nonprofit groups' land purchases.

A federal judge dismissed Cook's suit late last year. The state's case likely is headed to trial later this year.

"I'm willing to take this to the Supreme Court, but I'd much rather have a positive settlement," Cook said.

Cook's Investment Rarities Inc. of Minneapolis deals in gold and silver coins, bullion and sterling silver flatware. Investment Rarities' Web site claims the company has done $2.5 billion in business over the past 30 years.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

The article forgot to mention his affiliation with Ron Shura and the guy that runs the Gander Mountain Guiding operation!

This guy is worse than the gov and att. general in MN...he thinks he can do what ever pleases him.....the law was passed....live with it.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Field Hunter said:


> The article forgot to mention his affiliation with Ron Shura and the guy that runs the Gander Mountain Guiding operation!


His "Very Loose" affiliation. Suprise, suprise...a rich hunter from the cities has connections to a guide and a local outdoor personality. :roll:

I know most of you guys are looking for any reason to vindicate this guy, but what it comes down to is that the state of ND has passed laws to make it very hard to preserve waterfowl habitat. Instead they have chosen to side with agriculture, the biggest business and tax base in the state...suprise again.

Let's step back and take a look at this situation...

You have a rich guy who loves waterfowl and wants to ensure that future generations will have the chance enjoy an abundant population that he already feels is diminishing. He loves them so much he is willing to spend millions out of his own pocket because he feels the other conservation entities in current existence aren't getting the job done.

Do you honestly think that a WELL RESPECTED BUSINESSMAN is going to dump MILLIONS OF DOLLARS into habitat, to profit a mere several tens of thousands of dollars on it from leasing it out or guiding on it?

Give me a break...there's no way the guy is in this for the money.


----------



## oatsboy (Mar 29, 2005)

count your lucky stars,a state that actually sides with agriculture,your politicians must truely respect N.D.'s hunting heritage.why else would they not even consider expanding their tax base through land developement.
with that said,if mr cook wanted to use his cash to preserve the lands in question im sure fish + game would have bent over backwards to help him find a legal way to get it established and if mr cook has to give up ownership to make it happen one would think he would gladly do this after all he claims his only objective is to save quality waterfowl habitat


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Preserving wetlands for a private duck club?? Preserve all the wetlands you want but do not take anymore more shrinking land mass away from the public including farmers that if given the oppurtunity, may invest the land in CRP or even PLOTS. Outfitters are doing a good enough job at land grabbing.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I do NOT agree with this....... From 3/2306 GF Herald

OUR OPINION: Time to let nonprofits buy landFor North Dakota's sake, here's hoping Jim Cook wins his case.
That's because the state would be better off if it lifted its restrictions on nonprofits owning land.
Cook is a Minneapolis precious-metal dealer and duck hunter who is fighting to retain three private waterfowl refuges in North Dakota, the Associated Press reported.
"He is the sole member of two nonprofits that purchased land in the Dakotas and Minnesota for waterfowl protection ... . (But) the number of nonprofit groups allowed to buy land in North Dakota is limited under state law.
"The law, added to the state's ban on corporate farming in 1985, also requires approval for land purchases, with the governor having the final nod."
And because Gov. John Hoeven ordered Cook's Crosslands Inc. to get rid of its land, the state is suing Cook for refusing to do so.
The case is bringing needed attention to North Dakota's unreasonable prejudice against nonprofits owning land a prejudice enshrined in state law.
It's time for the state to reject that prejudice and reform the law.
• North Dakota is the only state that makes nonprofits get government approval to buy land. It would be one thing if people elsewhere got wind of North Dakota's actions in 1985, then turned around to right the heinous wrong in their own states of the Nature Conservancy and other groups easily buying land.
After all, everyone respects a trailblazer at least, when others follow the trail.
But that hasn't happened. Exactly zero states have followed North Dakota's lead. We're out on this particular trail all by ourselves.
Now, that could be because the other states haven't yet realized how bad off they are, and soon will crack down on the wild proliferation of refuges and conservation areas.
Or, it could be because those states are happy to let nonprofits supplement their state parks department and help protect land for future generations to enjoy.
Which of those do you think is the case?
• Nonprofits have given no reason to justify their shabby treatment under state law.
Look around. Are nonprofit landowners in, say, Minnesota a source of discord? Do Minnesotans routinely complain about the Minnesota Land Trust's hamhanded actions or the Parks and Trails Council's thumbing its nose at its neighbors? Are actions against these groups pending in the Legislature? No?
Case closed.
• Across America, rural counties with scenic amenities continue to grow faster than rural counties without. There's gold in them thar hills: the gold of nature tourism. North Dakota should be doing all it can to foster tourism, which already is the fastest growing (and second largest) industry in the state.
That includes letting nonprofits add to the state's comparatively tiny acreage of wild lands.
• Nonprofits' 'quasi-public' land ownership can serve North Dakotans' interests. For hunters and other nature lovers, the problem isn't too little nonprofit ownership. The problem is near-complete private ownership, which lets owners lock up the best land for wealthy "fee hunters" alone.
To sum up, nearly 300 million people in 49 states can't be wrong. North Dakota should recognize the unreasonableness of its prejudice, and let nonprofit groups buy land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Dennis for the Herald


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Matt,
I can see your point. I find it rather hard to believe that this guy is doing this for the wildlife.....maybe I'm wrong. If he's so concerned with putting good habitat asside then why not promote that within the state of MN, where he made his money. You'll have a hard time convincing me with no shadow of doubt that his intentions are as noble as you say.

If he wants to provide a nature preserve then I'd say let him do it...only use a different format. The state of ND has made it illegal for an out of state non-profit corps to own land in ND. I think I can say that we ALL would welcome a new waterfowl production area with a bunch of good habitat to raise ducks or a state managed wildlife management area. If it's truely to increase habitat, then do something within the confines of the law.

For some reason this guy wants to retain the control over the habitat...and I'm sorry but IMO there are alterior motives behind that retetion in the ownership of the land.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Okay, once again back to the facts. The problem with the current titled owner of Cook's land are the non profit organizations he founded. In North Dakota, a non profit may not own land unless approved by state government. Cook could easily retain ownership to the land by transferring it back to himself as a private owner. One of the many reasons that NDGF cannot take over the land is that Cook wants them maintained as non hunting refuges.

As the article pointed out the Farm Bureau is opposed on the basis of restriction in corporate farming. In the ND century code, the corporate farming ownership restriction is seperate from the non profit restriction.

However, there is a valid point Cook is trying to make which is fighting the non profit restriction on ownership. The unintended consequences of the non profit restriction are many. Examples as a landowner, who wants to keep his native prairie, allow public access and hunting, is not allowed to sell it to a non profit for those purposes. As a landowner, who wants to have a long term or perpetual conservation easement on his land to keep it wild and wants to do the easement with Ducks Unlmited or Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation cannot do it. Shouldn't a private land owner do what he wants with his land?? Why don't we see the private property rights groups supporting a change to the law???
Ducks unlimited, which has the funds available, cannot preserve tracts of land in perpetual easements because of the north dakota law.
Based on my experiences, there are many farmers and landowners that want some method to keep their grasslands or pastures as grasslands or pastures, but have no way to ensure that legally and the law of North Dakota prevents working with non profits to do this. Not too long ago, I heard there was a farmer that wanted to keep 20+ sections in grassland, but could find no one he could trust to keep it in grass and the local county wouldn't approve a sale to a non profit. He ended up selling out and over half the area was converted to row crop agriculture. 
Land trusts in many other states are run by the citizens of an area, and work to preserve land, limit development, provide more public access to wild places, help farmers stay on the land by helping with taxes, and aid state agencies by purchasing wild land until the state agency can come up with the money to pay for the land. But we can't do it here. In North Dakota, if you want to sell your land that you have not posted and allow access, to a private individual, who will then post it, and deny public access, you can do so. If you want to sell your land to a non profit that would manage the land and allow public access, you cannot do it.

North Dakota IS the only state with such restrictions on non profit land ownership.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Why don't we see the private property rights groups supporting a change to the law???


 Probably because they are founded on "drainage rights". 

As a farmer and landowner I am agreeing with indsport on this position. When I first read about Cook's deal it sounded like a outfitter endrun. But think about it. If this law were not in place the Ebbert ranch purchase would have been a done deal and you'd be enjoying it now. Probably more of the badlands and other special habitats would be public. Right now NDGF pours millions into rental, when they and like minded nonprofits should be allowed to purchase the ground for public enjoyment. Or place a long term lease.

The elietists can get around the current law now by going with a LLC or LLP instead of a corporation so this nonprofit law preserves nothing. But it does hinder the Natural Resources Trust, N. Conservancy, DU, etc.

We have been sandblasted with the economic developement-tourism arguement by the legislature, yet they refuse to put apples in the pie they are trying to sell. TRNP draws 500,000+ tourists a year. If more land was public would it not draw more people to benifit the whole state?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I want to know what is the big deal by some of the people on this forum.....this guy want to have this land be NON HUNTING REFUGES.....that equals more duck habitat that will let the birds rest.....takes pressure off of birds...etc., etc., etc.,

Now I understand that some are afraid that he knows some guides and think this land could be tied up in that way....but he stated he wants the land to be a NON HUNTING refuge.....Maybe he is seeing what many have stated before...ND is a duck producing state for the Mississippi Flyway. He want to help preserve that.....Why get ****** at the guy because he is trying to make some good. Who cares if he knows guides or is from out of state.....it looks to me he is trying to help out .....for the good of all.

Now there might be more to this story than we know....but what I have read. He is trying for the good and duck hunters should be behind him. Now that is just my opinion


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

I think it all boils down to,non-profits do not have to pay land taxes.The NDGFD and the USFWS make payments in liu(sp) of taxes which is less than what Joe Blow down the road pays.I am all for saving habitat,but like it or not,nothing is going to change until non-profits pay higher tax on there land.Cash strapped counties such as Griggs will never approve of the sale.Neither will the state,when land is taken off of the tax base.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Mallard, couldn't a simple change in the law fix that? You buy it, you pay the tax. The Ebbert Ranch deal wasn't killed over taxes because NDGF would have paid them.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Dick Monson said:


> Mallard, couldn't a simple change in the law fix that? You buy it, you pay the tax. The Ebbert Ranch deal wasn't killed over taxes because NDGF would have paid them.


Sure it would Dick.Yourself,Being a life long North Dakota farmer,do you think that the rural districts would support a law change concerning non-profits and taxation?Would they also support allowing non-profits buying property in the state?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Point being communities can't have it both ways. How will county commisioners reasonably request more duck hunters when they don't support wetland retention that produces ducks? Like being for chocolate chip cookies and against chocolate chips.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

As far as I am aware, all the non profits that own any land in ND have always made payments in lieu of taxes. The Nature Conservancy (at Cross Ranch, for example), do make payments in lieu of taxes. When last involved in this issue, I believe that the non profits supported a change to the law that ensure that tax payments were made . 
Even so, the law was interpreted that non profits could not enter into easements either. Taxes were still being paid by the land owner and still non profits were not allowed to have long term easements. 
Taxes paid to the county is not a valid argument.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

At what rate are the payments made compared to private ownership?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

AS far as I know, the rate of taxation is whatever the local county assessor says it is, depending on its prior use and is the same as a private owner. In our county, I do not believe there is a category for recreational, so i would expect that most non profit land is taxed the same as pastureland.


----------



## oatsboy (Mar 29, 2005)

seems to me , the land in question is niether homested nor agricultural and is not your typical privitely owned recreational property,this organization even though carries a not -for proffit status is still a comercial endeaver and fees /taxes should reflect that.

i live in one of those other 49 states,any time property is removed from or improperly assessed it burdens the remaining ,leaving them to foot the bill.taxes is controll and big money,wheather talking ag.,tourism dollars etc. will always be part of the equation.
maybe its laws like this that help keep your state the hunting mecca it is today.
be carefull of what you ask for,nodak should be in no hurry to become #50 .after all how many of you are planning your vacation around ahunting trip to my once great state. :2cents:


----------

