# Judge hears flap over alleged ill-gotten duck refuges



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Jun 11, 5:44 PM EDT

Judge hears flap over alleged ill-gotten duck refuges

By JAMES MacPHERSON 
Associated Press Writer

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) -- North Dakota's 75-year-old anti-corporate farming law was at issue Monday in a court case over whether a Minnesota man should be able to keep three private waterfowl refuges that the state says he obtained illegally.

The state anti-corporate farming law limits the number of nonprofit groups allowed to buy land, and requires the governor to approve land purchases.

State officials say the law was put in place in 1932 to protect the state's agrarian heritage. James Cook, a 68-year-old Minneapolis precious-metal dealer, says the law is unconstitutional.

"We're trying to right what the conservation interests believe is a wrong," Cook said Monday. "We're hoping to prevail and be able to set aside this land for wildlife. Conservation organizations are keenly interested in the outcome."

Attorneys for the state asked Southeast District Judge James Bekken on Monday to force Cook to give up about 1,800 acres of property in Cavalier, Griggs and Ward counties.

The state says Cook's nonprofit Crosslands Inc. bought three parcels of land without government approval. The lawsuit was filed two years ago after Cook ignored Gov. John Hoeven's order to get rid of the land.

Attorneys on both sides don't expect an immediate ruling by Bekken.

"He has said that it is complex and important," said Charles Carvell, an assistant state attorney general in Bismarck.

Cook's attorney, Nicholas Vogel of Fargo, said no matter how Bekken rules, the case will likely be appealed.

"I assume either way, it may go to the (U.S.) Supreme Court," Vogel said.

Cook and his attorney say similar law anti-corporate farming laws have been overturned by courts in Nebraska and South Dakota. In December, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that a 1982 ban on corporate farming in Nebraska is unconstitutional. The court made a similar ruling on South Dakota's anti-corporate farming law in 2003.

Cook filed a lawsuit in federal court two years ago 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 lawsuit because the case already was in state court, attorneys said.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bob, thanks for posting this one up. I was wondering how the case was progressing. If the legislature would have split off conservation entities from corporate farming this probably wouldn't have happened, or at least not been backed like it is now. But the boys chose to ride the horse over the cliff instead of giving an inch.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Correct me if I'm wrong on this: The anti-corp land ownership law went into place in the depression of the '30s. People were losing their land because they couldn't cover the loan payments. Insurance companies and other OOS corps were picking up the mortgages for a song because the banks were cash poor. The legislature and I think Gov Langar sp passed a anti-corp land ownership law that the OOS corps had to roll the title to in-state ownership in 60 days. The Gov also put a moritorium on foreclosures, which was overturned in the courts. But by the time the case was heard, the economy was picking up again and people made their payments. The lucky ones took foreclosure and bought back their farm at a lower price. I knew one man who bought his farm back 3 times, cheaper every time.
In the late '70s or early '80s the legislature ammended the bill to add non-profit entities to it. (read conservation orgs, USFW, etc) They were afraid of losing the property taxes and there was a hate of conservation organizations too. They layered this "protection" with a no-net gain law, and and further covered their butts with a Gov appointed panel to approve any possible purchases for Conservation orgs. (Guess who is on the panel?) :wink: 
Some said the Feds and NDGF were taking too many acres for WPAs, WMAs and Natl. Wildlife Refuges, etc.
The one catch phrase you hear in ND more than any other is "my private property rights", yet the legislature crushes by law the willing seller-willing buyer relationship.
I'm not an attorney and doubtless someone will comment, but it would seem if Jim Cook wins, the door is open for land ownership, buyer-seller, including conservation orgs. :beer:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dick, part of that was a backlash over offsets that where part of continued funding efforts to complete the McCluskey Canal. I do not remember all that was involved, but I do know a number of farmers who where looking at forced sale to the Fed Gov of land not connected to the canal and other Garrison projects concerning offset issues of some nature.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

This whole thing is too bad. I'm afraid that Cook will win, the whole thrust of constituional law is the federalization and homogenization of basically everything.

I also have a serious question about Cook's motives. If he were truly into this only for the wildlife and habitat, why not just buy and hold the land in his own name? He could own as much as he wants. I'm sure his legal costs are running into the 10's of thousands or more. He could be using this money to buy more of his precious habitat, but he's not. I understand the tax deduction for donations to charities, etc. But isn't it also true that Cook and/or his corporation own land adjoining these private refuges that they use for hunting?


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

> But isn't it also true that Cook and/or his corporation own land adjoining these private refuges that they use for hunting?


Not in Cavalier County. The land around Cook's is posted really tight, but not by him. I am not sure about the other counties.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

A lot of this problem begin in the 1970's when our legislators made it illegal for the Wetlands offices to purchase land without county commissioner approval and governor approval. Of course they never approved any and the most active Wetlands Office in the state at Jamestown essentially closed it's doors and employees moved on to less draconian states like South Dakota.
Interestingly I think it was near Rugby where a lady was forbidden to sell her land to the U S Fish and Wildlife Service. Her husband had died and with mortgages she was forced to sell. The most interesting thing is one of the county commissioners who nixed the sale purchased her land for much less than the Fish and Wildlife Service offered her. Where were all these people who are concerned about landowner rights at that time? They were keeping their hypocritical mouths shut and hoping to rip of some poor person in the same fashion that's what they were doing.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I am amazed a govt entity can tell you who you can sell to, how can that be constitutional? Whose property is it private or the states???Geez.

If this goes to the Supreme court I bet its over.

How will it benefit wildlife and hunters if they law is declared unconstitutional?

Is the whole reason they dont want it to happen really tax base related, or are there other motives?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Garrison Diversion was sure part of it. The mitigation of wetland acres portion drove some organizations nuts. Just guessing but if Cook wins one would think conservation orgs could buy land again, including county wildlife clubs or have it willed to them, which is not allowed now. 
The legislature could have avoided all this by ammending the law that if the owner paid the property taxes the sale could go forward. Even added a "Ag use" clause", but nooooooooo. They wouldn't allow it on the Ebert Ranch sale in '05.
At the same time they are advocating for nature based tourism, they block the very landscape that would attract those tourists (hunters). Now if the law folds in court the OOS farm corps can move in. What did they expect from beating the dog on both ends?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Hey Dick Monson, be careful what you wish for. If your buddy Cook wins it will open the door for not just the wildlife orgs to purchase land but also large corporations. Nothing would be in place for Cabela's to buy a large parcel of land and go into the commercial hunting here. Remember Cooks sidekick Jay Anderson who also thumbed his nose at ND? You don't suppose those two might have another motive for doing this. Hell if this goes through the Human Society could buy Huey's favorite duck slough with Microsoft money and give him the boot!!!! :lol:


----------



## PJ (Oct 1, 2002)

g/o said:


> Hell if this goes through the Human Society could buy Huey's favorite duck slough with Microsoft money and give him the boot!!!! :lol:


I thought Hustad's favorite slough was the Fargo Lagoons?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I'm not wishing for it nor is Cook my buddy. I am saying that the legislature could have easily avoided this situation. Instead of walking around the ******** they grabed it with all fours. As far as Cabelas and their like, it matters little if they buy, lease, use a *front man* or an LLP. Same result.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I am saying that the legislature could have easily avoided this situation. Instead of walking around the ******** they grabed it with all fours.


Dick, could you explain this to an old dummy from Georgia.

What could they have do to avoid it?? And why would that be better

elaborate please. Do it in a Pm if you dont want the crap from anyone

thanks


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Tourism is supposedly ND's second biggest industry. Most of that is nature based tourism. TRNP draws over 500,000 tourists a year. Nature based tourism is dependent on access to public land. Makes sense, right?

So what does the legislature do? They have made it as difficult as possible to expand public land purchases that would draw tourism. Think of it this way. _Everybody needed a blood transfusion, so the legislature made it impossible to donate blood._ The ammendments were aimed solely at USFW, NDGF, US Forest Service, DU, Fedral Park Service, Nature Conservancy, REMF, my local wildlife club, etc.

Had the legislature left out the ammendments for no-net-gain, against non-profit entities, Governor's approval and County Commissioner approval, 99 year easement limitations, etc, this lawsuit would not have gone foreward. There would have been an expansion of public access that benefited all. We're not quite in the 20th century yet here in ND.

edit: The downside is that the lawsuit will probably open ND to OOS corp farming which is usually neither enviromently friendly nor open to access. And the profit leaves the state.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

So if it goes to the Supreme court and is overturned is there any down side to that result?? Doesn't seem to be to me.

thanks again


----------

