# Crosslands Land Purchase



## Dick Monson

JOHNSON CALLS HEARING ON GRIGGS COUNTY LAND PURCHASE
Thursday, August 05, 2004 at 11:00 AM

BISMARCK - Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson has called a public hearing by the North Dakota Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee (NAAAC) to consider the retroactive request by Crosslands, Inc., to acquire a 950-acre tract in Griggs County.

The hearing will be held in conjunction with the Griggs County Commission at 10:30 a.m. (CT), Wednesday, Aug. 18, in the courtroom of the Griggs County Courthouse.

The property, consisting of six contiguous quarter sections in Tyrol Township, is located 8.5 miles north of Cooperstown.

Crosslands, Inc. is a private organization that intends to manage the property as a wildlife refuge, primarily for breeding waterfowl. The corporation is principally funded by Investment Rarities Inc., a Minneapolis-based gold and silver bullion and coin trading company. The company is headed by James R. Cook, an avid waterfowl hunting enthusiast and former North Dakota resident.

Johnson said the matter is complicated by Crosslands' acquisition of the land prior to a hearing of the NAAAC. State law requires that such acquisitions be examined by the NAAAC which then forwards a recommendation to the governor, who has the final authority to let the acquisition proceed.

The North Dakota Attorney General's office has recommended that Crossroads submit an acquisition proposal for the property.

Oral and written testimony will be accepted at the hearing. Persons with disabilities who wish to testify and who require special facilities, assistance or aids, such as readers or signers, should contact the North Dakota Department of Agriculture at (701) 328-2231 by Monday, Aug. 16. Written testimony may be submitted to Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, 600 E. Boulevard Ave., Dept. 602, Bismarck, ND 58505-0020; fax: (701) 328-4567; e-mail: [email protected] by Monday, Aug. 16.

Following the hearing, the NAAAC will forward its advisory recommendation to Gov. John Hoeven.

In addition to Johnson, who chairs the NAAAC, the committee includes Dean Hildebrand, director of the State Game and Fish Department; Doug Prchal, director of the State Parks and Recreation Department; Robert Carlson, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union; Eric Aasmundstad, president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau, and Larry Kotchman, state forester.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Crosslands Inc.?????????? Never heard of them, whats the scoop? At least the NAAAC seems to have a pretty fair mix of views.


----------



## Bobm

Why does any commisioner have to be consulted to purchase land in ND?


----------



## Bob Kellam

I am not an expert Dan B would know the correct answer. I am guessing that it has something to do with privitization of a public resource ie. the wildlife within the boundries of the property.

Have a good one!


----------



## gandergrinder

I would guess it's because the purchase is being made by a corporation. Does ND have some laws against corporate farming?

I would guess Aasmundstad will have a fit because it will take land out of ag production.


----------



## Bob Kellam

GG
To funny he will be the first one to hunt it!


----------



## Southwest Fisher

GG,

North Dakota had laws for corporate farms in regards to the state not subsidizing of them, until the legislative session in '02 (or maybe '03, I have to double-check) when it was decided that if one member of a corporate farms Board of Directors had residency in ND then the whole company would receive state subsidies as if it was a family farm. I'll have to check back up on it, but it wasn't too popular back home.


----------



## Dan Bueide

This could be a couple of things, the article doesn't do a very good job of elaborating on the issues.

The anti-corporate farming law generally prohibits entities (as opposed to individuals) from owning ag land unless the owner(s) of the entity are actively engaged in farming that land. There are exceptions. Don't think this is the gist of the article.

ND Statutes also make it very hard for non-profits (i.e. Nature Conservancy) and others to acquire lands in ND for conservation. Haven't looked at the provisions for a while (think I posted something on it once), but the hearing/approval deal is part of the process. I think the hoops (intended to deter) generally stems from concerns by some of "out of production", non-private ownership and off the tax roles.

The relaxation of the anti-corporate farming rules proposed in the '03 session got very controversial an ultimately failed.


----------



## Dick Monson

Dan said:


> The relaxation of the anti-corporate farming rules proposed in the '03 session got very controversial and ultimately failed.


Shows what happens when enough concerned people show up. I sat through that hearing and the room was packed! Only a few testified for it--many against--and they were vocal. Sportsmen take note, a good lesson there. And Dan is right. It is more than a coincidence that hunter friendly platforms are being put forward both nationaly and state.

We have the momentum going for us--don't slack off now boys. 
:******: Hell's afraid that we'll take over.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Dick

What was the outcome of this hearing, Haven't been able to find any info.

Bob


----------



## Dick Monson

Sunday's Forum had an update, but I can't access from this computer. The backer of Crosslands is gold bullion dealer from the Cities. He is still retaining ownership at this point I beleive. Trying to find another avenue for the purchase. The property was termed a "refuge" but I don't know if hunting was going to be involved.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

The land is currently posted with refuge signs and no hunting is allowed. The funny thing is that some of the land is still being grazed on.


----------



## Bob Kellam

I missed out on the Sunday Forum in lieu of ducks and other flying critters 

I will try to look it up.

Thanks
Bob


----------



## Niles Short

This is a investment company whose buisness is making money. I would venture to say that breeding waterfowl is not the way they are going to make their money, or get a return for it!!! Its nice to add that he (the CO) is a former resident of ND - makes it a lot better now you put it that way, it just gives me a warm feeling. Just seems like a lot of things are being left out


----------



## drjongy

I agree...there has to be something we don't know about. What is their benefit from doing this? I don't believe it is out of the goodness of their hearts for North Dakota. I certainly could be wrong.

The article says they "intend" to manage it as a refuge, but it is not going to be an "official" refuge, I don't believe, meaning they can probably use the land however they see fit, including hunting the "refuge" I would assume.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

I don't know why exactly, but I personally don't like it. :eyeroll:

It gives me a bad feeling in my gut.


----------



## djleye

Maybe we have just been burned too many times and we are all too suspicious of the almighty $$$, but if it walks like duck and quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck..........You know!!!! :roll:


----------



## smalls

dj, I think the correct way to end that adage is "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it won't hesitate to $hit on your face when they lock it up and start guiding."


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

smalls said:


> dj, I think the correct way to end that adage is "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, it won't hesitate to $hit on your face when they lock it up and start guiding."


I like how you finished that smalls ! :beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam

I am by no means an expert on land, but if this is a way to skirt the corporate farming/landownership rules to set up a private hunting preserve, we have got a loophole that is big enough to drive truck through!

Bob


----------



## gaddyshooter

Sounds like you nailed it there. We have places like that down here that call theirselves preserves and offer duck hunting on their property. They raise their own ducks and release them to be shot. Of course some ducks that get shot may happen to be wild ducks, but they get around seasons/limits that way and can get away with it as long as they release a certain number of their pen raised mallards. Canned hunting at its finest. uke:


----------



## Dick Monson

*Nonprofit wants to keep land that state says it can't have*
Grand Forks Herald

CURT WOODWARD

Associated Press

BISMARCK, N.D. - A nonprofit group still hopes to turn a parcel of Griggs County land into a haven for wildlife despite the state's assertion that the group can't own the property.

The tussle is over 950 acres in eastern North Dakota owned by Crosslands Inc., which wants to turn the area into a preserve for waterfowl and other wildlife.

Crosslands purchased the property last November without the required state government approval, and Gov. John Hoeven rejected the sale in September.

North Dakota officials are waiting to hear how Crosslands plans to get rid of the land. But James Cook, whose gold and silver trading firm is Crosslands' primary financial backer, says he's not ready to give up.

"The law is very complicated on the getting rid of the property side," Cook said. "We still have the property and we probably won't relinquish it without some kind of a fight."

Crosslands officials are awaiting instructions from the state attorney general's office, but they also think Crosslands may be able to transfer the land to another entity and still achieve its goal of creating a refuge, Cook said.

"We'd like to keep it," he said. "The law gives you all kinds of outs before you have to divest yourself."

Paul Germolus, an assistant state attorney general, said Crosslands' options are limited.

"It's incumbent upon them to do something about the land," he said. "I don't know that we have to tell someone to divest the property."

Nonprofit groups that want to purchase private land must go through North Dakota's Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee, which has representatives from various groups including state government agencies and farm groups.

The panel recommended Hoeven deny Crosslands' purchase after a hearing in September.

The Griggs County Commission objected to the land deal, citing worries that restored wetlands would worsen flooding. People in the area also said the preserve would attract wildlife that could damage crops.

Hoeven directed Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem to handle the disposition of the property. The attorney general can take the matter to court, but no actions have been filed, Germolus said Thursday.

"People shouldn't be expected to comply with the law only when they're compelled to do so," he said.

Cook said a letter from Hoeven indicated the attorney general would contact Crosslands to discuss the matter. Cook said he is waiting to hear from Stenehjem.

Meanwhile, Crosslands has asked the state's permission to buy 480 acres in Cavalier County for a new wildlife refuge. A hearing is scheduled later this month.

"The bottom line for us is that we just want to put away a few places for wildlife and pay our taxes and get along with everyone and live happily ever after," Cook said. "The last thing we need is a big hassle with the state of North Dakota."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
And an earlier story, (the rest of the story!)  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Posted on Sun, Sep. 12, 2004 
BRAD DOKKEN COLUMN: Nonprofit caught up in N.D. land policy

Jim Cook is a frustrated man.

Owner of Investment Rarities, a Twin Cities firm that specializes in gold and silver bullion and coin trading, Cook is an avid waterfowl hunter and former North Dakota resident. His name might not be familiar, but Cook's story has been in the news, of late, for his efforts to buy 950 acres of land in Griggs County north of Cooperstown, N.D., for the benefit of wildlife and wildlife habitat.

The plan has met stiff local resistance, and that's where the frustration comes into play.

"*There's no ulterior motive," Cook said. "We're trying to restore wetlands, but it's like we're trying to start a strip mine out there."*

As a preface to this story, Cook started a nonprofit group, the Cook Waterfowl Foundation, about 20 years ago to restore wetlands and upland habitat for ducks and other wildlife. *The nonprofit owns about 2,100 acres **of land in Minnesota, much of it in west-central waterfowl **country, and has* *a manager to oversee the properties.* Over the years, Cook estimates the foundation has restored about 600 wetlands on the property. Its North Dakota counterpart, Crosslands Inc., owns 320 acres of land in Ward County near Minot, which it purchased about 20 years ago.

Last November, Crosslands bought the Griggs County land. Cook says he didn't realize state law now requires a panel called the North Dakota Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee to examine potential nonprofit purchases of private land. The six-member panel, which includes Ag Commissioner Roger Johnson, natural resources officials and farm group representatives, then forwards their recommendation to the governor, who has the final say on whether such acquisitions can proceed.

In that sense, Cook's foundation jumped the gun, setting the stage for a retroactive approval process. The Griggs County Commission opposed the sale, and two weeks ago, the acquisition committee recommended that Gov. John Hoeven reject the purchase.

"They're making a big stink because we didn't get prior approval," Cook said. "We hadn't done anything in North Dakota for 20 years. They changed all the rules. We applied for all the permits; we're trying to be good citizens. They're just violently opposed to it for some reason. I don't understand why there'd be such severe opposition to the thing. These guys say, 'we've got enough ducks.'"

Despite the latest setback, Cook is trying to make his case to Hoeven.

"Frankly, the process for nonprofits to secure wildlife habitat in your state appears to be structured to make these acquisitions contentious," Cook wrote last week in a letter to Hoeven. "All we want is to be good neighbors, pay our taxes and replace a tiny fraction of the wildlife habitat that's been lost in the Midwest."

Cook might strengthen his case with resident hunters - a group that's well-versed in badgering the governor - if he'd open some of the property to hunting access, similar to what The Nature Conservancy, also a nonprofit, allows on its land.

Access isn't part of the plan, in this case, but Cook maintains the Crosslands project would benefit hunters just the same.

"It's good for conservation. It produces game for them. (The birds) can't stay in that one area," Cook said. "In Minnesota, it improves hunting in the area because it holds way more birds."

Meantime, Cook's vision sits in limbo. If the governor denies the purchase, Cook says he hasn't decided what he'll do next.

"I'll cross that bridge when I come to it," he said. "Maybe I'll transfer it back into my own name, but I don't want to do that. The disadvantage is the IRS would look at it as an income to me, and I'd have to pay a big wad of taxes on it."

Given the current climate against nonresidents owning land in North Dakota - and Hoeven's conservative stance on nonprofit land ownership - the odds don't favor Cook and his foundation. And if you think otherwise, well, do I have a deal on some Griggs County land for you.


----------



## Dick Monson

Think about this for a minute. If Cook is legit and actually wants to preserve and improve wetlands before they are destroyed, the state of ND is saying that's a bad thing. No can do. :x

Yet ND, through it's current hunting law, is encouraging a host of out-of-state land purchases for private hunting. Is this how we spell *LOCKOUT* and that's a good thing? I wonder if LANDS will step up and defend Mr. Cook? :wink:


----------



## tsodak

I make no comment about the good or bads found in this land purchase. You all seem to know some of the details, and the ups and downs. Let me give a great example of the positive side that dan come from a NR purchase such as this.

Two years ago a guy in Indiana was offered about $8000 an acre more or less for some farmland that was prime for developement. Said farmer decided that there was no way he could make money paying the taxes on that kind of land, so he sold, and promptly reinvested the proceeds in farmland in Iowa so he did not have to pay gain taxes on the proceeds. This is called a 1031 land exchange.

This farmer decided to go where land was cheap and bought land in southern Iowa for $4000 an acre so he could make a profit on the cheap land. The individual he bought it from could not see how he could make a living paying the taxes and raising a crop on that expensive of land, so he sold out and bought land where it was cheap, in SW Minnesota for $1800 per acre.

The individual that I have worked with thought that if some fool was willing to pay that kind of money for land, he would take the money and run to where land was cheap and he could make a profit on the land. So he purchased 970 acres of Griggs county ND land that lies directly on the south boundry of this Cross Lands area. The land is all enrolled in CRP, and has some very nice wetland complexs' on it. This MN resident contacted me and we enrolled this property into the PLOTS program for a few bucks a year, and now this piece of habitat has been purchsed and kept out of production by a NR, and is being opened up for the general public for hunting purposes.

I wonder if it would have made any difference to anyones perceptions or objections if they had listed enrollement in a public access program as there plan rather than astablishment of a private refuge???

I guess I just write this to give you a take on two faces of NR land purchases.

Later all.

Tom


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

So can a guy hunt on this "Refuge" or not?

Tom,

What about the price these guys are paying for this land? The fact of the matter is that these purchases are pricing out the farmer who actually wants to make a living working the land.

This Cook even admits that he would not want to have to pay the taxes for it if it was in his own name. The only way they can do it is with these "non-profit" (yea right) organizations. :eyeroll:

I say tax the he!! out of them! :******:


----------



## tsodak

TO a degree I agree with you huntnfish, but I will tell you that in the national tax and economic frame we have right now, there is little that can be done to stop this.

I sounded like I am promoting this as a better alternative... I did not really mean it that way. My purpose is only to inform and may be to stir the pot a bit.

As Dick posted while I was typing. this is not all good or bad. To say that it is is to not really understand the situation.

Tom


----------



## Bob Kellam

Thanks for all of the Information Tom and Dick

Does anyone know what the land near Minot is being used for today? I did a search of the Secretary of State website for all of the names mentioned above involved in the land purchase, zero, zip, nada! as far as personal or corporate registered businesses.

Mr. Cook is mentioned as an "avid waterfowler" if he has no ulterior motive for this land why doesn't he want to work with the NDGF, Delta, DU, USFW or any of the other reputable conservation organizations? if I read this properly, it was mentioned that it would not be opened to public hunting but that it would "benefit" hunters in the area because of his conservation efforts. What hunters? the O/G industry would be all over the surrounding area like bear to honey!! Like Dan said if it walks like a duck..........!

Why do I have an uneasy feeling about this land deal? I am glad that Mr. Hoeven didn't buckle to big money again! There is more to this story and I am sure we will find out sooner or later. Ya know this is another prime reason why we need to have another zoning classification in ND for recreational ag land.

Tom I would like to know the name of the NR landowner that put his land into PLOTS, he deserves a Thank You letter from every hunter that uses his land! I send cards to landowners that have PLOTS land that I hunt when I can find their correct address in the directories, I don't do it often enough though. Is there a master list of the landowners that have put land into PLOTS?

later

Bob


----------



## redlabel

HUNTNFISHND said:


> What about the price these guys are paying for this land? The fact of the matter is that these purchases are pricing out the farmer who actually wants to make a living working the land.


Not necessarily, often times land with a lot of wetlands is not interesting to a farmer unless they can drain them. If that is the case who gains? Certainly not the ducks. Plus who is the real villian in your equation. The purchaser or the seller who is trying to maxamize their profit on their asset. No one could be making a purchase if their wasn't a willing seller. Maybe you would want to increase the capital gain tax on someone selling their property for more than someone else thinks it is worth. Oops, that won't work, we live in the USA and a capitalistic society.


----------



## Bob Kellam

redlable
wetlands may not be a viable alternative to farming but to ranching there is a a positive, water for livestock *if* there are permanent sloughs on the property.

It sounds like this is an investment opportunity for Mr. Cook, as with most investments there is excess money that needs to be put to work to increase profits. I agree with the willing seller, buyer scenario but the potential snowball effect on future land prices could possibly take land that could work on a farmers spread sheet out of the mix.

This could be a very good thing for ND waterfowl. It must not have been good enough to convince the NDNAAAC of its benifits or they would have approved it.

If this is going to be a non profit scenario any good business would want a balance of expenditures, if Mr. Cook is going to sink all of this money into the land purchase and restoration, what is he going to do to balance his investment. Spending large sums of money with out the probability of a return on the investment to par, is not a very good investment in my opinion.

Canned Hunting of Ducks????

Bob


----------



## dakotashooter2

I have to chuckle at the county commissions reasoning that restoration of wetlands would increase flooding. The water commission and other agencies are telling us just the opposite that retaining wetlands REDUCES flooding. I tend to agree that there must be some benefit gretaer than that obtained by donating that land to one of the mainstream conservation groups.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Bob Kellam said:


> Tom I would like to know the name of the NR landowner that put his land into PLOTS, he deserves a Thank You letter from every hunter that uses his land! I send cards to landowners that have PLOTS land that I hunt when I can find their correct address in the directories, I don't do it often enough though.


This is a great idea and I will be following in your footsteps. I always send a thank you card and stop back into the landowners place to thank them for allowin us to hunt, but the PLOTS idea is one I hadn't thought about.



Bob Kellam said:


> Is there a master list of the landowners that have put land into PLOTS?


Anyone have info regarding this??


----------



## DJRooster

If these are permanent wetlands and are not hunted could this area in fact be a "refuge\roost" and in fact act to keep ducks and geese in the area for local hunters rather than them getting blasted off the sloughs and sending the ducks to "South Dakota?" I am not familiar with the land that we are talking about and so I am only bringing up some other possibilities based on limited information. One man's opinion.


----------



## Bob Kellam

James R Cook

We are dealing with Very Large money with this guy.

Here are a few links.

http://www.investmentrarities.com/04-29-03.html
http://www.investmentrarities.com/

Bob


----------



## JIMC_ND

Hi...I've been lurking for a while...this is my first post.

James R. Cook...There is a name from the past. This guy owned/controlled/leased thousands of acres in Ward and surrounding counties in the mid 80's and then lost them when he went through some financial difficulties. His red & white "Refuge" signs with a picture of a duck and "James Cook Minneapolis" on the bottom can still be seen in a couple of places SW of Berthold, ND. This guy is a duck hunter and what he was doing back then was posting up the land and bringing in his friends to go hunting on his own private reserve.

It looks to me like he is now trying to figure out a way to buy up land through a non-profit corporation and do the same thing... uke:

The bottom line will be less land for the rest of us to hunt. How long will it be before other big money guys figure this out and do the same thing? Will the whole state become a "Refuge" for wealthy out of state hunters. I'm not against out of state hunters, several of my friends come up to ND to hunt, but please leave your land grabbing money at home. :beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam

JIMC_ND
Welcome to the site, Thanks for the information. You hit the nail on the head! I was kinda wondering if it was a situation as you described.

Bob

ps Don't you just love the information age!!!!!


----------



## gaddyshooter

Just another way for a wealthy person to buy up cheap land. He admitted himself the reason for keeping the land in the company's name instead of his own personal name is to save money in taxes. Looks like in this case, refuge= private hunting club for his company/business associates from the city. :roll:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

uke:


----------



## jimboy

The old bait and switch:

!) Buy six sections of land under a nonprofit org. and lable it a refuge.

2) Buy an old farmstead bordering or close to the refuge and build a 
resort complex complete with camper hook ups and lodging.

3) After project is complete, pull the refuge status and enroll in CRP.
The income generated from CRP and paying clients will more than
pay for the property tax. He could also rent pasture for grazing to 
supplement his income until the operation developes a larger client
base.

It's really quite simple. this guy saves money on property tax while he plans and builds a resort of some sort. When it is completed he will dump the refuge status and start his outdoor sporting resort. Or keep it as a company write off for his trendy rich executives and their friends.

This is just a scenario. Many of you have it right. This guy is in it to make money some how. I do not believe for one minute that he is doing this out of the goodness in his heart. In my experience the hole in your wallet out-weighs any goodness in your heart. especially with big corporate types. :wink:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Once again........ uke:


----------



## BigDaddy

Here is a recent press release from the ND Department of Agriculture on this matter:



> North Dakota Department of Agriculture
> 
> NEWS RELEASE
> Dec. 2, 2004 For immediate release
> 
> PANEL RECOMMENDS AGAINST LAND PURCHASE FOR REFUGE
> BISMARCK - The North Dakota Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee (NAAAC) has unanimously recommended that a Minnesota-based conservation organization not be allowed to acquire a 480-acre tract of land in Cavalier County.
> Meeting Thursday, the seven-member committee voted against the proposal by Crosslands, Inc., to purchase the land. The recommendation will be forwarded to Gov. John Hoeven, who will determine if the sale can proceed. State law requires that any purchase of farmland by a non-profit entity must be approved by the governor, following a hearing by the NAAAC.
> "Committee members expressed doubt that much public benefit was demonstrated by turning the land into a wildlife refuge," said Deputy Agriculture Commissioner Jeff Weispfenning, who chaired the meeting in place of Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson.
> Weispfenning noted that there was considerable local opposition to the purchase. The Cavalier County Commission earlier went on record against the purchase, following a Nov. 17 hearing on the matter in Langdon.
> The property, consisting of a half section and a quarter section, separated by a township road, is located in Storlie Township, approximately 10 miles west of Nekoma.
> Crosslands had planned to manage the property as a wildlife refuge, primarily for breeding waterfowl. The corporation is principally funded by Investment Rarities Inc., a Minneapolis-based gold and silver bullion and coin trading company. The company is headed by James R. Cook, a former North Dakota resident.
> In addition to Johnson, the committee includes Dean Hildebrand, director of the State Game and Fish Department; Doug Prchal, director of the State Parks and Recreation Department; Robert Carlson, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union; Eric Aasmundstad, president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau; Larry Kotchman, state forester, and Ray Rollness, chairman of the Cavalier County Commission.
> -30-
> MEDIA: For more information, please call Patrice Lahlum at (701) 328-2231.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Strike two for Mr. Cook

Bob


----------



## JIMC_ND

At least if he buys it now, he will have to pay taxes on it like the rest of us.

Another landscam thwarted... :beer:


----------



## Dexter Westbrook

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) _ An advisory board is opposing the sale of Cavalier County land to create a wildlife refuge, saying the idea offers little public benefit.

The panel wants Gov. John Hoeven to reject Crosslands Inc.'s proposed acquisition of the 480 acres of land, about 10 miles west of Nekoma in North Dakota's northeastern corner. State law gives the governor veto power over land sales to nonprofit organizations.

Crosslands' president, James Cook, said he would appeal to Hoeven to endorse the sale anyway. Cook said he was not optimistic Hoeven would do so.

"It's a natural area where wetlands would be restored, and prairie grass planted, and it would be a nice addition for wildlife," he said.

The seven-member board on Thursday voted unanimously to recommend that Hoeven block the sale. The panel includes North Dakota's agriculture commissioner, state forester, parks director and game and fish director; the presidents of the North Dakota Farm Bureau and the state Farmers Union; and the chairman of the Cavalier County Commission. The commission voted last month to oppose the land deal.

Jeff Weispfenning, the deputy agriculture commissioner, said panel members were doubtful "that much public benefit (would result) by turning the land into a wildlife refuge."

Cook said the proposal would be good for wildlife and the environment.

"The water that's running off that land winds up in Devils Lake. If you want to stop the flooding in Devils Lake, the way to do it is plug the drainage ditches," he said. "To say (the proposed refuge) is not a public good is just flat-out incorrect."

Cook owns Investment Rarities Inc. of Minneapolis, which deals in gold and silver coins, bullion and sterling silver flatware.

He is both president of Crosslands and treasurer of the Cook Waterfowl Foundation, a nonprofit that owns property in Minnesota. Both foundations list Investment Rarities' address as their business address.

The Cook Waterfowl Foundation contributed about $140,000 to Crosslands during its budget year that ended in November 2003, according to Cook Waterfowl's most recent federal tax return. Investment Rarities donated another $11,000.

Crosslands bought 950 acres in Griggs County in November 2003 to develop as another wildlife refuge. The nonprofit did not seek state approval, and Cook said he was unaware then of the notice requirement. Hoeven subsequently rejected the nonprofit's retroactive application to buy the land.

"We're discussing some kind of a plan for that land now," Cook said, describing the subject as "pretty touchy."

Crosslands' most recent tax return lists real estate assets valued at $383,467, along with a $120,000 mortgage. Aside from the Griggs County land, Crosslands owns property in Ward County near Berthold, which was acquired about 20 years ago, Cook said.

__________
A comment: It's possible to look at the Form 990s (nonprofit tax returns) for Crosslands and the Cook Waterfowl Foundation. The Cook Waterfowl Foundation lists about $1.6 million in assets. Of that amount, almost $730,000 is listed as the value of "rare decoys."

I'm not a duck decoy collector. What would a $730K duck decoy collection look like?


----------



## jimboy

Bob, strike two?
Look who is coming to pitch now. Hoven, the "meatball king". It wouldn't suprise me if Cook hits a "home run" off of Hoven.


----------



## Bob Kellam

A $730,000.00 decoy collection could be from 2 or 3 decoys to dozens, it is unbelievable what old and rare decoys sell for, If I remember reading correctly from Cooks Website he paid $80,000.00+/- for some of them.

This is important stuff everyone, keep your eye on this story. Don't forget that James R (Jim) Cook is an old Waterfowl hunting buddy of Jay Anderson, Owner of the recent GM acquisition Outdoor Expeditions.

Bob


----------



## jimboy

Smells like something is a cookin and it doesn't smell like chili for the freelancer!


----------



## goose1965

If it's just a refuge and only for the waterfowl's benefit, fine. I am a little concerned that it is in Sheyenne River Valley.

Also, if it's made huntable, what's to stop them from putting up hunting condos and catering to the rich and famous.

Last thing I'm interested in is a new resort and outfitter.

This is taking place within 15 miles of us. We already have an over saturation of g/o's, don't need anymore.

So, again, if it's just for the birdies, then it's still a maybe.


----------



## Seymour Dux

Gentlemen, I read your comments with interest and frankly some amusement. I have followed this refuge operation with a great deal of interest over the years.

First and foremost, there is no hunting allowed on these refuges. They wouldn't be refuges otherwise. Furthermore, there never has been any hunting by anyone, especially including Mr. Cook or his "associates".

Secondly, Mr. Cook has spent approximately four million dollars of his own money over the past 27 years preserving and protecting waterfowl habitat, with very little fanfare. Trying to get the job done for ducks is the most important thing for him. This initiative is, therefore, one of the most unselfish conservation operations in history.

Third, the refuge idea has always been a cornerstone of his management philosophy because hens are most vulnerable to gunning pressure on the breeding grounds. In the good old days, 15 or more years ago, North Dakota may not have needed this, but with the amount of gunning pressure and concurrent harvest increase from approximately 70,000 to 700,000 ducks annually, there is a need to ramp up duck production. This calls for protection of those breeding hens.

Regarding cattle grazing on the Griggs County tract, the previous regimen was converted to a rest rotation system for which Crossland was paid a grand total of $700.00 this year due to the short duration of grazing. This helped to defray the $10,000.00 or so they spent on weed control and wetland restoration out of their own pocket.

Regretfully, this is all the time I can spend with you, but I hope this helps to set the record straight. You can go ahead and say "alright, time will tell." After 26 years of observation I can say it already has.


----------



## Shu

So I set up my own non-profit, donate money to it, and have it purchase hunting land that I control. I write off the entire purchase of the land in the year I "donate" the money to my favorite charity (me) and then control access to the non-profit's (my) land. I will give him credit for using the tax system to his advantage, but the end result seems sad. With him being an avid duck hunter, it's hard to believe there isn't some personal use there, which I would think disqualify the tax deduction. He can call it "wildlife restoration" but it sure seems to be a way to directly write off the cost of hunting land from your tax return.


----------



## Field Hunter

Remember, SOMEBODY WILL use the refuge.....maybe not the refuge it self but someone WILL be more than happy to lease the fields surrounding the refuge....will it be Mr. Cook and his good friend that runs the Gander Mountain company? I guess time will tell.


----------



## Field Hunter

Seymour,
Would you like to shed any light on the cnnection between Outdoor Expeditions and the land that Ron Shura has in the Linton area....have been wonderng if OE pays to use his land? They do state that they line up land from Ellendale to Linton, Shura owns a bunch of land in Linton, and they appear together on the OE website together and are listed as good friends. Oh yah Jim Cook is also on that picture. Is there any reason that others haven't drawn an inference that the "refuge" won't be used in a different manner by these guys.

The Crosslands thing needs to be stopped. Looks like another way to enhance the hunting of a few $$$ individuals. Buy the lake and make it a refuge and use it for tax purposes and then buy/lease the land around it for your personal waterfowl hunting club....what do you think would happen in ND if the Waterfowl rest areas were reinstituted? There would be a mad rush by outfitters to lease every thing around them.


----------



## Bob Kellam

S DUX

Couple of questions:

Why did Jim Cook buy the Griggs County land and then claim ignorance of the law. Sorry but I am not even in the same league (dollar wise) as Mr. Cook, but when I make a purchase I know what I am purchasing, Ignorance of the law is not a defence in any court in the nation.

Cavalier County North Dakota is not considered "Duck Country" Why was Mr. Cook trying to set up a preserve there.

With the dire need for duck habitat in Minnesota why did he select North Dakota over his home state, to try to do a "nice thing" for ducks.

How are you associated with this topic.

Look forward to your reply.

Bob


----------



## Dave Brandt

BISMARCK (AP)

North Dakota is suing a nonprofit group that is trying to establish two illegal wildlife refuges in the state, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said Wednesday.

James Cook, the president of Crosslands Inc., said he plans to fight the lawsuit.

''They can throw me in the clink. I'm not giving up those wetlands,'' Cook said.

Crosslands, a nonprofit group based in Minneapolis, asked the state last year for permission to establish wildlife refuges in Griggs County and in Cavalier County. Gov. John Hoeven rejected the plans, but Cook said earlier this week that he is ignoring Hoeven's order.

''I was hoping that we would have a better outcome, but I guess we have to cross that bridge when it happens,'' Cook said.

North Dakota law requires nonprofit groups to get state approval before buying land. The requests are reviewed by an advisory panel, which gives Hoeven a recommendation. The governor has final authority.

Crosslands already owns 950 acres in Griggs County, but Cook said he was unaware of the state approval requirement when that property was purchased in 2003. The group applied for retroactive approval last year, which Hoeven rejected.

Hoeven has ordered Crosslands to work out a plan for disposing of the property, but Cook said he doesn't plan to sell the land unless it ultimately becomes a wildlife refuge.

Hoeven later denied Crosslands' request to buy 480 acres in Cavalier County, but Cook said he is buying the land anyway.

Stenehjem said he will ask a district judge to order Crosslands to unload its Griggs County property. He also will seek an injunction if Cook moves ahead with plans to purchase the Cavalier County land.

''When someone makes it clear that they're going to violate one of our laws, we have to move quickly,'' Stenehjem said.

If Crosslands refuses to obey, the court could impose fines of up to $25,000 for each infraction, Stenehjem said.

Cook owns Investment Rarities Inc. of Minneapolis, which deals in gold and silver coins, bullion and sterling silver flatware.

The company is the principal financial backer of Crosslands and another nonprofit group, the Cook Waterfowl Foundation, which owns property in Minnesota.

Crosslands' most recent tax return lists real estate assets valued at $383,467, along with a $120,000 mortgage. The organization also owns property in Ward County, near Berthold.

Cook predicted that the legal battle will sour the public perception of North Dakota's land policies.

''It's one guy up against the farming interests,'' he said. ''They've got the power out there.''

Stenehjem said authorities usually have little problem resolving violations of the state's ban on corporate farm ownership.

''Usually, we send a letter to them and they go forth and say no more,'' he said. ''To go this far is unusual.''


----------



## Bob Kellam

This is one that needs to be watched!!!!!

Thanks for the post.


----------



## 6162rk

IN TODAYS (9 JANUARY 2004) MINNEAPOLIS STAR/TRIBUNE RON SHARA IS DEFENDING THESE LAND PURCHASES. IT'S ON THE BACK PAGE OF THE SPORTS SECTION.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Ron Shara: Doing right thing isn't appreciated 
Ron Shara 
January 9, 2005 RON0109

Some day, when future generations ask why didn't we do more to save America's vast northern prairie wetlands, we'll have plenty of excuses:

•Waving fields of grain were worth more than waving heads of cattails.

•Pro-drainage laws went on the books and never left.

•Billions of federal farm subsidies, year after year, kept drainage ditches growing and flowing to degrade and destroy wetlands, year after year.

•There were lots of good intentions to save more wetlands, i.e. Ducks Unlimited, government programs, etc., but they were either inadequate, underfunded or both.

Today, we add one more tale of lost wetlands to America's swamp archives. This one comes from North Dakota, the nation's last bastion of duck habitat.

Some day this story will make good reading material for North Dakota duck hunters when they look skyward and see skies more empty.

(That won't happen in North Dakota? Minnesotans thought the same thing only 30 years ago.)

This is a story about a Minnesota man, who in the decades I've known him, has been tireless in his personal efforts to purchase and preserve prairie wetlands, not for hunting, but for duck production.

Last week, Jim Cook of Eden Prairie learned that his non-profit corporation -- Crosslands -- will be sued by North Dakota's Attorney General for violating the state's anti-corporate farming law.

In 2003, Cook acquired, via his Crosslands Foundation, a 950-acre tract of Griggs County land to create a duck refuge, restore wetlands, plant grassy nesting cover.

This fall, Crosslands Inc. also agreed to purchase 480 acres of farmland in Cavalier County because "it has wetlands we can restore, drainage ditches we can plug and prairie grasses we can plant. There's no grassland on the place now," Cook said the other day.

Last month, Cook's wetland passions suddenly hit some deep bureaucratic muck.

Although he'd completed purchasing the Griggs County land, state officials notified Crosslands the acquisition was in violation and that Crosslands because it was a non-profit corporation would have to divest itself of the land. Cook balked. He'd already started restoring wetlands on the Griggs property,

"I don't understand it myself," Cook told the Grand Forks Herald. "With all the millions of acres of agricultural land in North Dakota, these people should be ashamed of themselves."

One of "these people" is North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven. Hoeven had the power to approve Cook's duck refuge plans but rejected both land acquisitions last week.

Lance Gaebe, a spokesman for Hoeven's office, said there's nothing in North Dakota law that prevents an individual from buying land or protecting wetlands but "we can't ignore the corporate farming law."

The governor isn't the only state official rejecting Cook's wetlands ambitions.

The Cavalier County Commissioners said no, despite the flood control benefits of Cook's wetlands plan. The county folks said they didn't think they needed a duck refuge.

A state advisory group, North Dakota's Natural Areas Acquisiton Committee, also was unanimous last month in rejecting Cook's bid to acquire land for ducks.

Amazingly, among the seven members of the acquisition committee who voted no was North Dakota's Director of the State Game and Fish Department, an agency whose mission includes guarding the state's wetland resources.

Cook said last week he expects to lose in court. But he's not going to quit.

"I grew up in Fargo; I love the prairie," he said. "I don't think it's unreasonable to set a few acres aside for wildlife."

Gaebe, the governor's aide, said there's no shortage of wetlands in North Dakota.

Not yet, North Dakota. Not yet.

Ron Schara is at [email protected].


----------



## Field Hunter

Of course Mr. Shara forgets to mention the tax angle hear. If Mr. Cook wants to restore wetlands and it's REALLY about the ducks then he's got a whole state...Minnesota....to get working on for the future.

Refer to the picture on the Outdoor Expeditions site that GM recently purchased. Cook, Shara and Anderson (OE) in the same picture. Could it be the "willife refuges" will become a playground for the clients of OE? I wonder. And how about the land that Shara owns in the Linton ND area? OE states they have land from Ellendale to Linton. Not a bad way to buy land in a state...hunt when you want.....and lease to an out-of-state outfitter (oops I mean a booking agent) to help pay off the debt.


----------



## Field Hunter

Speaking of OE. I know the gnf met with Anderson about the outfitting thing....what's happened....I've read nothing reported in any papers about what is happening with this situation...just rumors on the sites. Are they still operating n ND? Are they being sued by ND and the gnf? What?


----------



## BB

"The Cavalier County Commissioners said no, despite the flood control benefits of Cook's wetlands plan. The county folks said they didn't think they needed a duck refuge."

I found that quote to be kind of interesting. Who knows who they asked, etc. Too bad if it's true.
Just started reading about the subject after seeing the article down here. Does anyone know if there is some type of contract that can be done for people to claim land as refuge? it seems like there should be something could be done to make hunting illegal (even for the owner if the they sign something) on a certain piece of land. 
Not trying to be a biased MN guy.....but i did read this guy has given something like $4 million to waterfowl conservation....now if this is true, the guy probably isn't totally interested in his own hunting opportunities. 
Interesting issue and it's going to be too bad if cook wins and he does commercialize the land or if he loses and really intended to restore wetlands and native grasses.


----------



## 6162rk

CAN SOMEONE PUT UP THE WEBSITE ADDRESS FOR OE WITH THE PHOTO'S OF SHARA, COOK, AND ANDERSON. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO LOOK AT THEIR FACES(COOK/ANDERSON) THEN I MAY HAVE MORE TO TELL IF I CAN GET A PHOTO ID. I E-MAILED RON SHARA ABOUT MORE SPECIFICS ON JIM COOK. BUT HE SAID HE DID NOT KNOW FOR SURE. THAT SURE IS FUNNY THAT YOU DON'T KNOW MORE ABOUT THE PERSON YOU JUST WROTE ABOUT BUT YOU EXPECT EVERYONE TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS RIGHT AND THEY (THE NORTH DAKOTA) GOVERNMENT IS WRONG.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Here you go

Photo is the top left,

Jim, Ron, Jay And Ted Williams

http://www.outdoorltd.com/newsletters/no_10/page2.html

Bob


----------



## g/o

12


----------



## BB

G/O I wasn't doubting the connection there. I was seriously asking if there is some process someone could through to have their land put into a true refuge (no hunting by anyone). I don't know much about the issue and that's why i was asking. it's too bad that when someone comes forward and wants to put something into refuge, that we don't have a way to say ok, sign this, this, and this and there will be no hunting by anyone for x amount of time on that land. that way if someone were buying it for hunting reasons, it would be illegal for even the owner to hunt. I know there is more legal junk than that involved....it's just too bad if an issue like this is keeping land like from becoming better habitat than it is now and from the sounds of what the land is like right now, its not producing or holding many ducks.


----------



## Field Hunter

BB,
There is more than enough land in MN to create a refuge...please don't be so naive.


----------



## Matt Jones

I sincerely hope everything being said is true. If Cook's intentions are honest, then we have all just shot ourselves in the foot.


----------



## BB

i never said there wasn't land in MN to create one....I was just asking what the process is for anyone to do that.....say a resident farmer just wanted to create a true refuge. 
I think these guys are idiots for starting a guiding deal up there anyway. Someone above said the place isn't even duck country, and from my understanding of ND it seems too far east for snows and a decent goose flyway. On top of that, it seems like that far north always freezes up by halloween or so. With NR's being there potential clients they can't hunt til a week after the residents start. What is the pheasant situation like up there anyway. 
If I am going on an expensive hunt like that, I want to be in the middle of large numbers and then probably shoot pheasants in the afternoon. this deal won't last even if it's allowed.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

The whole thing just stinks. Ron Shara comes off as such a great spokesman for hunters..........but, when you open up the oyster..... :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## 6162rk

THIS WHOLE THING MAKES ME SICK. IF I REALLY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING SO GREAT AND HAD THE MONEY TO DO IT. WOULDN'T YOU THINK THAT YOU WOULD TEAM UP WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND GET MATCHING DOLLARS TO DO THESE PROJECTS. I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ALL BECAUSE OF BEING A DUCK ENTHUSIAST. ENTHUSIAST AND CONSERVATIONIST ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GET THESE MIXED UP. I THINK RON SHARA DID. uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## Bob Kellam

That is the part I have a hard time with. If you want to do good things for ducks Delta and DU would be the place to put your money, Unless there is potential for personal gain. I can not imagine how far 4 million dollars would have gone if had been donated to Delta or DU.

Bob


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

An editorial on this topic in the Bismarck Tribune today!


----------



## Bob Kellam

No logic to his defiance of the state
By Steve Wallick for the Tribune 
It can be noble to make a stand on principle. To risk one's freedom or pocketbook for a cause considered just merits respect.

But it's hard to decipher James Cook's position in his efforts to create wildlife refuges in North Dakota.

Cook is president of Crosslands Inc., a nonprofit group based in Minneapolis. Crosslands applied last year for permission to own land in Griggs and Cavalier counties, but Gov. John Hoeven rejected the plans. Crosslands wants to use the land to create wildlife refuges.

North Dakota's anticorporate farming law limits the number of nonprofit groups allowed to buy land in the state and says the governor must approve each of their purchases of agricultural property. Hoeven cited a lack of public benefit in the Cavalier County case, including Crosslands' plans to exclude hunters from the refuge. Cook purchased the land anyway, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said.

The Griggs County application was rejected because the purchase was made without first asking the state's permission. Cook has said he was unaware of the law when the purchase was made.

Crosslands has owned land in Ward County for about 20 years, but Stenehjem said that property also was acquired without state permission.

The attorney general has filed a suit against the foundation and is asking a district judge to levy up to $75,000 in fines against the nonprofit for its illegal holdings. He wants the fines to double if Crosslands does not sell the land within a year.

Cook admits his chances of winning the lawsuit are slim. He says if he loses the suit, the money for refuges will go to paying the fines. Despite this, he says he'll contest the suit.

Ignorance of the law isn't an acceptable excuse in court. So, while the purchase of the land in Griggs and Ward counties may have been honest mistakes, they apparently violated the law. In the Cavalier County case, he was warned, but proceeded to buy the land.

He apparently doesn't get it.

North Dakota is protective of its land. It has had laws in place for years to control how land, when sold, is used. The state doesn't want large blocks of land taken out of production without certain criteria being met. Farmers and ranchers are concerned about losing prime acreage; outdoors enthusiasts are concerned about maintaining hunting and fishing access.

It was a major undertaking a number of years ago to create Cross Ranch State Park. The current effort to purchase the Eberts ranch for a state park is facing the same opposition. Many North Dakotans say they strongly believe land shouldn't be taken out of agricultural production.

Cross Ranch, however, proves it's possible to persuade North Dakotans to make exceptions.

One of Cook's problems is that he hasn't explained his position. Why does he believe the state doesn't have the right to control land sales? Is he going to mount a constitutional argument? Why does he want to create refuges and not allow hunting? What does he expect to gain by fighting what he concedes is likely a losing battle?

Twice he purchased land without an understanding of the law. The third time he understood the law and defied it. Whether Cook has a principle to stand on or not, it appears to be three strikes and out for him.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Picking on Crosslands
By WAYDE SCHAFER, Mandan 
Your Jan. 17 editorial, "No logic to his defiance of the state," presents a one-sided view of the controversy surrounding Crosslands Inc.'s attempts to purchase land for private wildlife refuges.

First, as stated in the editorial, Crosslands has owned land in the state for the past 20 years. This means that the Ward County land mentioned by Attorney General Stenehjem was purchased before enactment of the 1987 law requiring the governor's approval of such conservation purchases. Crosslands should have been grandfathered into the law, along with other qualifying nonprofit conservation organizations, but wasn't.

This slight, alone, should warrant special consideration for Crosslands from the state. Instead, its request to purchase conservation lands was summarily rejected by Gov. John Hoeven, Crosslands thus becoming the first and only conservation organization to be denied the right to purchase land in North Dakota and manage it however it sees fit.

That Crosslands has been singled out is undeniable. One of the reasons given is that there would not be public hunting on the land. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not allow hunting on many of its Waterfowl Production Areas. That's to produce wildlife that eventually disperses into the surrounding areas to replenish wildlife populations that can be hunted. This is essentially what Crosslands does with the land it owns and manages. Yet, Hoeven and the Tribune see a "lack of public benefit" in Crosslands' mission.

You correctly point out that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But why would someone from another state even suspect that there would be a law telling a landowner he can't protect wildlife, since North Dakota is the only state with such a law?

Likewise, your criticism of Crosslands' challenge of the law seems wholly unfair. This country was founded by people taking a stand against unjust laws. Have we forgotten the Boston Tea Party and the civil-rights movement?

There is a blatant double standard in having a law restricting land acquired for conservation purposes when tax incentives are given to encourage the loss of agricultural lands to housing developments and industrial complexes.

(The writer is conservation organizer for the Dacotah Chapter of the Sierra Club. -- Editor)


----------



## Old Hunter

Keep in mind that the Sierra Club is one board member away from being controlled by antihunters. They may soon morph into the ranks of Peta. Be very wary of these people.


----------



## Matt Jones

We have all noted, and talked about, the need for more refuges in the state. If Cook was to enroll his land into a state managed rest area (since he claims all he wants to do is make it a refuge to maximize duck production on the property), would all who are objecting still be against the land purchase?


----------



## Bob Kellam

Yes Matt I would object, In all of the posts in all of the threads on this subject, Can you tell me what is the truth and what is fiction?

Second Reason, He broke the law even when he knew it was illegal he still proceeded with the Cavalier County land purchase, Is Mr. Cook or his financial advisors really that stupid or was this all a calculated risk with the intent of getting into a deep pockets legal battle?

Third Mr. Cook has had every opportunity to inform the citizens of North Dakota what his real Business Plan is, If he does not want to do this why doesn't he? If he doesn't have a business plan for his purchase, Strike two against the financial advisor.

Fourth Mr cook Has maintained all along that it would increase the hunting opportunities around his WMA, Will he work to prohibit commercialization of the land surrounding his parcel or will he attempt to commercialize it himself to realize some return on investment.

Fifth How many people do you know that will sink millions of dollars into a project with no strings attached?

Sixth History shows that some of these type of projects are approved by the Governor, if this one had that much public benefit why did the Governor and the Advisory committee reject it so fast?

Seventh Mr. Cook has his friends (Ron Sahra) write letters to national publications stating he really does not know Mr. Cook and that North Dakota is filled with a bunch of idiots that they can not see what a great man Mr. Cook is, when in fact they are long time Hunting buddies.

Like I said there is more to this story than is being told, Until the entire story and plan is laid out for the public to see, I am going to take the stance that if it sounds to be good to be true it usually is.

Bob


----------



## goosehtr4life

:beer: Bob, everything you said is right on!! Matt no disrespect, but wake up and smell the coffee!!! There is more than meets the eye, if not why else would Ron lie about not knowing his good hunting buddies( Jay and Jim) Please do not trust these people as far as you can throw them.


----------



## Matt Jones

I don't know what to think on this. Like everyone else on here I find it hard to believe that Cook is simply wanting to set up a refuge with no ulterior motives.

On the other hand, I do think putting habitat on the ground is important and I think if Cook can prove his intentions are honest (which he hasn't done at this point) then this is could be beneficial to waterfowl in ND.


----------



## Matt Jones

I also don't see where you guys are saying Ron Schara denied knowing Jim Cook?

Straight from the text of the article...

_*"This is a story about a Minnesota man, who in the decades I've known him, has been tireless in his personal efforts to purchase and preserve prairie wetlands, not for hunting, but for duck production.

Last week, Jim Cook of Eden Prairie learned that his non-profit corporation -- Crosslands -- will be sued by North Dakota's Attorney General for violating the state's anti-corporate farming law."*_

I agree something doesn't seem right here with the whole deal. But, I don't see why we shouldn't direct Cook on how to work within the system to accomplish setting up a refuge...if we can be assured that is his only intention. We've all noted the need for more waterfowl rest areas in the state.

Like I said, I don't know what to believe on this issue. I think the views presented by Ron and Cook are polarized on one end of the spectrum and the views on here are polarized on the opposite end. I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in between.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Matt 
I will admit a mistake when I have made one. They did know each other, I stand corrected.

Doesn't change my mind as to the validity of the purchase. Don't get me wrong I do think that we need more WMA's in ND without question. I just can not understand The Game and Fish reluctance to purchase land to create them. Here is a snipit of info from the Century Code Relating to the duties of the G&F Director

7. With the governor's approval, purchase, lease, or condemn real estate, when it is
required to carry out this title, and sell it when it is no longer required, in the name of
the state.

8. Lease up to ninety-nine years any department land, for the purpose of development
and improvement, to any nonprofit corporation, upon consideration of specified
improvements to be made by the corporation and other improvements the
department and the corporation may agree upon. The lease must provide that all
funds received by the corporation through lease of the property be expended upon
the leased premises for development and improvements. The corporation has the
authority, subject to approval by the director, to sublease the premises for cabin
sites and other recreational purposes. Upon termination of the lease,

So Why do we not do this ourselves within our own state???

Bob


----------



## Bob Kellam

Matt 
I will admit a mistake when I have made one. They did know each other, I stand corrected.

Doesn't change my mind as to the validity of the purchase. Don't get me wrong I do think that we need more WMA's in ND without question. I just can not understand The Game and Fish reluctance to purchase land to create them. Here is a snipit of info from the Century Code Relating to the duties of the G&F Director

7. With the governor's approval, purchase, lease, or condemn real estate, when it is
required to carry out this title, and sell it when it is no longer required, in the name of
the state.

8. Lease up to ninety-nine years any department land, for the purpose of development
and improvement, to any nonprofit corporation, upon consideration of specified
improvements to be made by the corporation and other improvements the
department and the corporation may agree upon. The lease must provide that all
funds received by the corporation through lease of the property be expended upon
the leased premises for development and improvements. The corporation has the
authority, subject to approval by the director, to sublease the premises for cabin
sites and other recreational purposes. Upon termination of the lease,

27. Carry out a program that targets waterfowl resting areas within the private lands
initiative program which includes payments to private landowners for lease of
waterfowl resting areas on private lands that during the term of the lease provides
limited public access for the hunting of waterfowl.

20.1-02-05.1. Land acquisitions - Statewide land acquisition plan. The director shall
establish a comprehensive statewide land acquisition plan that must be approved by the budget
section of the legislative council. Every land acquisition made by the department exceeding ten
acres [4.05 hectares] or ten thousand dollars must be approved by the budget section.

*CHAPTER 20.1-11
GAME REFUGES AND GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS*20.1-11-01. General penalty. Any person violating a provision of this chapter for which
a penalty is not specifically provided is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
20.1-11-02. Game refuges on privately owned or leased lands - How established.
Any person owning, or having control by lease or otherwise, for the required time, of any lands
within this state, may establish a state game refuge thereon by filing with the director a written
application containing:
1. The name of the owner or lessee of the lands described therein.
2. The written consent of the owner, or, if the application is made by a lessee, the
written consent of both the owner and the lessee, to the establishment of a state
game refuge thereon.
3. The time for which the refuge is to be established, which must be for five years or
more from the date the application is filed with the director. The lease may be made
renewable at the option of both parties and may be terminated at any time by mutual
consent of both parties.
4. The extent and legal description of the lands involved. The lands must be ten acres
[4.05 hectares] or more, but cannot exceed six sections [1553.99 hectares] in any
one township.
5. A brief dedication of the lands to this state for the purpose of a state game refuge.
6. A waiver by the owner, or, if the application is made by a lessee, by both the owner
and lessee, of all rights of that person and members of that person's family to hunt,
shoot, trap, or kill any game bird or protected animal on the land during the life of the
dedication of the lands to this state as a state game refuge.
After the application, in due form, has been filed with the director and has been accepted by the
director, the lands described in the application constitute a state game refuge for the time set
forth in the application.
20.1-11-03. Game refuges on lakes for migratory game birds - How established.
The owner or owners, lessee or lessees, of land surrounding or adjoining any lake within this
state, pursuant to section 20.1-11-02, may dedicate the lake to this state for a breeding, resting,
and refuge place for migratory waterfowl.
20.1-11-04. Game refuges on public lands may be established by director -Duration
of public land refuges. The director may establish state game refuges on any unsold
public lands of this state with the written consent of the entity responsible for the management of
those lands. The refuge continues to exist until canceled by the director or the land management
entity, or until the land on which it is located is sold to a private person.
20.1-11-05. Establishment of state game or fish management areas. The director
may establish game or fish management areas upon any state-owned lands for the use and
benefit of the game and fish department with the written consent of the entity responsible for the
management of any state-owned lands, or upon any publicly or privately owned land leased or
given by license to the game and fish department for hunting and fishing purposes. These game
or fish management areas may be opened for hunting, fishing, or trapping under chapter 20.1-08.
The director may adopt rules concerning the use of game or fish management areas pursuant to
chapter 28-32.

So Why do we not do this ourselves within our own state???
Possibly the NDFB pushing their policy??
Notice anything in here that would allow Mr. Cook to do this as long as it is controlled by the G&F? wonder why he doesn't want to do that?

Bob


----------



## Matt Jones

I emailed Ron days back about the article to let him know that I thought it wasn't very good journalism. In it I mentioned the allegetations of Cook hunting his propertys. Ron emailed me back and also forwarded my email to Cook and we've been corresponding with him answering some of my questions.

The main reason he lists as to why he wants to keep the property in his name is so he can manage it himself to maximize duck production through habitat improvements. He denies ever hunting any of his propertys that he's established as refuges. He even has his own manager who is very good at increasing duck production. He noted that when he dies his lands will go to some legal form of refuge.

I guess I can sympathize with him because I've always dreamed of owning my own land and managing the habitat on it to benefit waterfowl. I think I have a pretty good understanding for what it takes to create good habitat and taking farm land and turning it into wildlife habitat would be a lot of fun and a rewarding project for me to do if I ever have the means to make it possible. Plus with wildlife agencies underfunded and understaffed you could probably do more for a property under private ownership in a lot of cases. He manages 12 such propertys in MN. I mentioned to him briefly that private land can be enrolled into waterfowl rest areas in ND. He wasn't aware of this and is going to look into it.

Although I am still a little skeptical I'd like to believe Cook's intentions are sincere. I just don't think we should slam the door on someone who is willing to put millions into duck production because we assumed something is amiss when in fact we are not sure of it.

Remember, it was another millionaire from Minneapolis who started buying up large tracts of land outside of his own state who is responsible for starting Delta Waterfowl. So if Cook's intentions are sincere it wouldn't be the first time someone has done something as crazy as spending millions of dollars out of his love and admiration for waterfowl.


----------



## jamartinmg2

Good post Matt..... I hope his intentions are honorable. Its easy to lose sight of someone who is trying to do some good when you hear of people every day in the news trying to get away with one thing or another for the almighty $$$$. Your post puts things in perspective. I'm not passing judgement on Cook one way or the other as I honestly don't know what his intentions are.


----------



## Field Hunter

What you guys are loosing site of is that Mr. Cook probably has NO intentions of ever hunting his "refuge". What the likely senerio will be will go something like this.....buy land for refuge and never hunt it.....have a friend or a close association with someone else (Outdoor Expeditions comes to mind) lease the land surrounding the refuge for hunting. He can say without a shadow of a doubt that he never hunts the land.

Has anyone asked Shara, Cook, or Anderson if they might ever conceive of leasing the surrounding land for hunting?

I believe that they or someone else will lease this land surrounding the refuge and charge people to hunt. It's the main reason for many outdoorsmen in ND not supporting the reintroduction of the Waterfowl Rest Areas. The guides and outfitters would love it.


----------



## curty

AAhhhh I can picture it now a perfect place for the ducks..quiet ..peaceful..pretty as a picture...and in the corner of the expance of land sits a sheep.............in wolves clothing...Mr.Crook??Cook??


----------



## jamartinmg2

curty said:


> AAhhhh I can picture it now a perfect place for the ducks..quiet ..peaceful..pretty as a picture...and in the corner of the expance of land sits a sheep.............in wolves clothing...Mr.Crook??Cook??


It kind of sucks that we live in a time where if it looks too good to be true, it probably is! If his intentions are what Fieldhunter describes, I wouldn't be for it either. I do think that he does need to respect ND law in the matter, obviously, if it is illegal what he is trying to do, and apparently it is.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Nonprofit challenging land laws
By CURT WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer 
A Minnesota businessman who defied Gov. John Hoeven's order to abandon two private wildlife refuges is challenging North Dakota's limits on land ownership by nonprofit groups.

James Cook, who is the target of a state lawsuit against his nonprofit foundation, Crosslands Inc., is asking a district judge to dismiss North Dakota's claim that he illegally owns land in the state.

Cook also is planning a federal lawsuit to challenge the state's anti-corporate farming law, which includes the restrictions on nonprofit groups' land holdings, said his attorney, Tom Dillon.

"I don't know if the state of North Dakota wants to find themselves in a full-fledged challenge of the law, but they could very well be," Dillon said Thursday.

Charles Carvell, an assistant state attorney general, said North Dakota officials expected such a response when they sued Cook in January.

"Mr. Cook is a man with clear opinions, strongly held, and he likely has the resources to mount a legal challenge," Carvell said. "We recognized that when we brought a suit against Crosslands that it was a possibility."

Cook owns Investment Rarities Inc. of Minneapolis, which deals in gold and silver coins, bullion and sterling silver flatware.

He is both president of Crosslands and treasurer of the Cook Waterfowl Foundation, a separate nonprofit that owns land in Minnesota. Both foundations list Investment Rarities' address as their business address.

Crosslands ran afoul of North Dakota's law last year, when state regulators discovered that the firm had purchased about 950 acres without state approval to establish a private waterfowl refuge in Griggs County.

Hoeven eventually rejected that sale, along with a second Crosslands purchase in Cavalier County. Cook announced that he would disregard Hoeven's orders, and the state sued, asking a judge to force Crosslands to give up both parcels along with an older refuge in Ward County.

North Dakota law limits the number of nonprofit groups allowed to own land in the state, and requires those still eligible to go through public hearings, where local residents and politicians may register their opinions.

An advisory panel submits its recommendation to the governor, who has final authority over any proposals to buy land.

Supporters of the 20-year-old regulations say they help to ensure that well-funded environmental groups aren't able to take large sections of agricultural land out of production.

Conservationists counter that North Dakota's law is the most restrictive in the nation, and unnecessarily hampers efforts to set aside habitat in valuable duck-breeding territory. It also interferes with the right of private landowners to sell property to whomever they please, opponents of the law say.

Cook, a self-described duck hunter and waterfowl enthusiast, has owned one of his three private North Dakota refuges for about 20 years and said he wants to add more. Hunting is not allowed on his preserves.

"We'd like to be able to procure wetlands and restore some wetlands in North Dakota," Cook said. "I suppose people kind of look for what's your motive -- that's it."

Cook claims that Crosslands meets all of the state's legal requirements for owning land, and says the orders from a state advisory panel and Hoeven were not fair measures of the firm's qualifications.

Dillon said other nonprofits would like to purchase more land in North Dakota, but are deterred by the state's law.

"They don't want to be subject to this kangaroo-court-type procedure that's in effect," he said.

But Carvell said the government's rulings on Crosslands' purchases were on solid legal ground.

"I would be surprised if the judiciary would conclude that what the state did here was arbitrary and capricious," he said.


----------



## Dick Monson

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/59-2 ... RR0400.pdf

SB2145 has not received much attention from sportsmen or North Dakotan's in general, but it should and it ties into the Cook purchase. ND businesses should be especially concerned. Heres why.

The Ebert Ranch is a 5225 acre property that was part of Teddy Roesveldts original spread north of Medora. The Ebert family wished to sell it to the national park service. A tremendous boost for touism.

However ND has a No-Net-Gain (of acres) law for nonprofit land ownership. So the park service was out. The state stepped in to purchase the property, but because of the No-Net-Gain law, ND must divest it's self of 5225 acres of school land. Which will now be a loss for tourism.

_The acquisition authorized by this Act may not result in a net gain of state-owned land. To ensure that the acquisition authorized by this Act does not result in a net gain of state-owned land, the board of university and school lands shall sell 5,225.2 acres of land in Slope, Golden Valley, Billings, and McKenzie Counties._ Grazing must be included on the property. :wink:

Go figure. No one would argue that TRNP is the single biggest tourism $$$ draw to ND. Expanding the park would only have increased tourism, espically for western ND. Yet the property rights wackos demand the same acreage reduction, that will lower tourism in the same area they say they demand tourism to be expanded. :eyeroll: It is bizzaro world. Logic and reason do not prevail.

These property rights wackos would cut off their nose to spite their face. In a way it would be better if Cook wins his suit.


----------



## leadshot

Ok, I'm confused here. Did Cook win?? because when I was out scouting north of Cooperstown this evening, I see he has his No Hunting - wildlife refuge signs posted. If you ask me, somethings up because it's not really a ducky location :eyeroll: but on the other side of the section road there is some real good places to hunt.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Leadshot

He owns the land and is preparing to fight the state in court over the validity of the land purchase for the intent he wishes to use it for.

Stay tuned!!

Bob


----------



## leadshot

Thanks Bob for the input.


----------



## Bobm

I have read this thread and the question keeps coming up about him doing this in ND and not Mn as evidence he should be reguarded with suspicion. It seems to me that if you are attempting to establish refuges to save the ducks it would make most sense to start where the ducks are currently most prevalent and work outward from that point as the population goes up. This ND law seems to be counterproductive to the benefit of the ducks, this guy seems like a great person. Looks to me like its more about political turf than the true best interests of wildlife.


----------



## Dick Monson

Heard today that LANDS is going to spearhead the ballot measure for the eminent domain question. Meanwhile Jim Cook is going to be sued by the state for his private land purchase. :eyeroll:

1 So, if Cook wins, will the state law prohibiting nonprofits from owning land go out the window?

2 Would eminent domain play a role if it passes?

3 Would the LANDS boys go nuts if they were the ones that let the cat loose? (nonprofits buying land?) Oh there would be some major conservation purchases if it happens. Hmmmm. Might turn out he did a favor.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Correct me if I am wrong Dick but can't Non-profits buy all the land they want in ND as long as it is approved by the committee assigned to look at all such purchases?

Is this information on NR Non-Profit land sales published or available.

Later
Bob


----------



## Dick Monson

The approval committee is stacked against any nonprofit - read conservation organization - on purpose. Purely political. The Ebert Ranch was a good example. The committee was designed intentionaly to kill those land purchases.

Just north of Karank bridge there is a large chunk of native grass that was up for sale and would have tied in with an existing WMA. Perfect fit. But outfitters bought it because of another poison pill law that forbids NDGF from bidding over _appraised value_. Just another way for the anti hunter crowd in the legislature to stick it to NDGF. And they will do it every chance they get.


----------

