# Ducks Unlimited's proposal shot down



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Ducks Unlimited's proposal shot down*
By James MacPherson, Associated Press
Published Wednesday, January 17, 2007

BISMARCK - Ducks Unlimited says it intended to buy wetland-rich ranch land in Sheridan County, north of here, to preserve the parcel and showcase its conservation and research practices.

Gov. John Hoeven shot down the hunting and conservation group's plan.

Hoeven said the 2,320-acre tract of private land in the Coteau Hills southeast of McClusky is protected enough.

"We're disappointed," said Jeff Nelson, director of the Ducks Unlimited Great Plains Regional Office in Bismarck. "We did our best to try to explain the project to people. We were fairly optimistic the governor would see the value in what we were trying."

Ducks Unlimited made an offer to pay about $400 an acre to the two separate owners of the land. Nelson said the group is exploring its options after the governor's rejection.

James and Dorothy Meckle, of Denhoff, have a ranch on the land. Dorothy Meckle said she and her husband intended to lease the land back from Ducks Unlimited after it was sold.

"That was the plan," she said Tuesday. "Now we have to start over."

Steven Roberts, of Ely, Minn., owns the bulk of the tract included in the proposal. He could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.

In a letter to Ducks Unlimited, Hoeven said the group's proposed acquisition "would not create any significant new level of protection."

The property "is already almost entirely encumbered by wetland and grassland conservation easements that essentially keep the area in its existing natural state," Hoeven's letter said.

In North Dakota, Ducks Unlimited owns 160 acres that was given to the organization about four years ago, Nelson said. That land abuts the tract the group tried to buy and joins about 7,000 acres owned by the Nature Conservancy, he said.

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.

The Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee, which advises the governor on land purchases by nonprofits, recommended last month that Hoeven deny the Sheridan County sale.

The North Dakota Farm Bureau, the Stockmen's Association, the Sheridan County Commission and the Agriculture Department voted against it. Three state agencies voted for the sale: Game and Fish, Parks and Recreation, and the Forest Service.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Interesting to know the farmers. I know exactly where their place is and that would've been some good conservation land.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

What was DU going to do with it?Leave it open to the public or enhance it and the auction it off like they have said they are now doing?If the latter.....good thing Hoeven vetoed it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> The property "is already almost entirely encumbered by wetland and grassland conservation easements that essentially keep the area in its existing natural state," Hoeven's letter said.


I see no advantage to sell to DU. Its not going to be drained or broke up anyway.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I would rather see our own GNF dept buy the land and manage it rather than some outsiders. I think we really need to get the laws changed to allow the GNF to purchase lands like these.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

This is a slap in the face to our Constitution. Private landowners should NEVER be told by a Governor who they can or can't sell THEIR land to. Do we live under the rule of a King? Ridiculous. I don't know whether to call this communist or socialist, but it definitely is not democracy. Scary.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Okay, so I don't mean to start a conspiracy theory...just a thought.

Any relation you think that his opposition last election was Satrom...from DU?

Ya I know........far stretch, just a coincidence I guess.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Chris Hustad said:


> Okay, so I don't mean to start a conspiracy theory...just a thought.
> 
> Any relation you think that his opposition last election was Satrom...from DU?
> 
> Ya I know........far stretch, just a coincidence I guess.


Not likely.

We know a fair number of land owners from that area and they were opposed to it. One landowner claimed it would be posted tight and used for corporate Du shmo's solely, cannot confirm but it does show the distain of this aquistion to some locals. Another claimed that after DU aquired this tract that another tract adjacent was going to be bought by another individual who had ties to DU but not as a DU purchase to gain more prime wetlands.
Once again I cannot confirm or deny these but I do know some of locals had some farming oppurtunities to lose from the aquisition.
I'm glad they shut it down. Many of the farmers there are consevation minded, sell it them for $400 an acre.


----------



## Mac (Jul 9, 2006)

Sounds like the law was never intended to be written to include NP conservation groups....just organizations that can combine to affect the price of grain.
Sounds like DU got unintentionally caught in the net.
Could be a case here....just depends on how far DU is willing to take it.


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

4curl,

It mentions right in the article that this was to be open to public hunting.

This land would be butted right up against the Davis ranch preserve owned by the Nature Conservancy. This would have placed a piece of land near 10,000 acres in some of the prime native habitat in ND. This land would have been managed with the intentions of producing wildlife. The landowners selling the land were also going to be leasing the land, so these landowners must have thought the cause was noble. Is $400/acres a high amount for that kind of land up there? Or did the landowners want to do this for conservation.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

target,

Where does it say it would have been open to public hunting?


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> Could be a case here....just depends on how far DU is willing to take it.


I agree. The Nebraska corporate farming ban went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Nebraska ban on corporate farming was found to be unconstitutional. North Dakota will most likely be challenged next given the results of the Nebraska case.

This land sale Veto by the Governor is clearly unconstitutional as well. It totally flies in the face of the rights of North Dakota land owners and private citizens. The sale of my land should never have to be approved by a King. It should be between the buyer and seller. This is America. There are bigger issues here than hunting/farming opportunities.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

There are bigger issues here than hunting/farming opportunities.

Exactly right -- that's why we need the law.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> Exactly right -- that's why we need the law.


??????? Please explain.


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

I am with Hydro. A person should be able to sell to who ever they want. Plus it would used for habitat.

It's not something that should be up to the Gov.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I oppose all state, federal or non-profit tax-exempt organizations' ownership of agricultural lands except those needed for absolutely essential purposes. The right to own and enjoy the use of private property is the cornerstone to a free society and I firmly oppose any infringement of its LAWFUL use. Any effort that results in diminishing value or returns should be considered a taking and just compensation provided. just my thoughts.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> target,
> 
> Where does it say it would have been open to public hunting?


It doesn't.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

For those of you not familiar with topic or from outside the state, North Dakota Century Code section 10-06.1-10 applies to sales to non profits which requires the govenors approval. For those that believe in private property rights, why should a willing seller be denied the option to sell their land to anyone? Alternatively, the argument is heard that North Dakota already has too much public land and land owned by non profits. However, North Dakota, in reality, has a much smaller percentage of public or non profit land owners than any other surrounding state.


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

WOW, I must have been hallucinating. I could have swore I read that in there. Sorry it does not mention that in there.


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

BISMARCK TRIBUNE
1-17-07

Governor denies Ducks Unlimited request for land buy

Associated Press Writer

By JAMES MacPHEBy JAMES MacPHERSON

Gov. John Hoeven has denied a request from Ducks Unlimited to buy a large wetland-rich parcel in Sheridan County.

The hunting and conservation group said it wanted to buy the 2,320-acre tract of private land to preserve wetlands in the Coteau Hills southeast of McClusky.

Hoeven, in a letter to the group, said its proposed acquisition "would not create any significant new level of protection."

The property "is already almost entirely encumbered by wetland and grassland conservation easements that essentially keep the area in its existing natural state," Hoeven's letter said.

"We're disappointed," said Jeff Nelson, director of the Ducks Unlimited Great Plains Regional Office in Bismarck. "We did our best to try to explain the project to people. We were fairly optimistic the governor would see the value in what we were trying."

Ducks Unlimited intended to use the land to "showcase" the group's conservation and research practices, Nelson said.

In North Dakota, Ducks Unlimited owns 160 acres. That land abuts the tract the group tried to buy, Nelson said. The land also joins about 7,000 acres owned by the Nature Conservancy, he said.

Ducks Unlimited made an offer to pay about $400 an acre to the two separate owners of the land.

James and Dorothy Meckle, of Denhoff, have a ranch on the land. Dorothy Meckle said she and her husband intended to lease the land back from Ducks Unlimited after it was sold.

"That was the plan," she said Tuesday. "Now we have to start over."

Steven Roberts, of Ely, Minn., owns the bulk of the tract included in the proposal. He could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.

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.

The Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee, which advises the governor on land purchases by nonprofits, recommended last month that Hoeven deny the Sheridan County sale.

The North Dakota Farm Bureau, the Stockmen's Association, the Sheridan County Commission and the Agriculture Department voted against it. Three state agencies voted for the sale: Game and Fish, Parks and Recreation, and the Forest Service.

State Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said the region already is considered some of the best waterfowl habitat in the United States.

"I think we saw it as the governor saw it," Johnson said. "Everything is protected right now and nothing would change except the ownership of the land."

Nelson, of Ducks Unlimited, said 960 acres of the parcel are not protected by any easements. "It could be cultivated in the future," he said.

Nelson described the parcel as a "wetland-rich, working ranch full of grasslands, with some crop and hay land involved." He said Ducks Unlimited had planned to keep it that way. The land also would be open to hunting, he said.

Sheridan County Commissioner Eldon Ehrman said the county held a hearing on the sale in November.

"There was no support in the county," he said. "All the people who showed up were against it."

Ehrman said most county residents feel the sale would hurt economic development by restricting the placement of wind turbines or pipelines. He said Sheridan County has more than 100,000 acres dedicated to wildlife.

"The feeling in the county is that we have enough wildlife land," he said.

I knew I wasnt crazy.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

target said:


> .
> 
> The land also would be open to hunting, he said.
> 
> "There was no support in the county," he said. "All the people who showed up were against it."


It wasn't in the original post.

The last statement is exactly as I commented.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

It says "open to hunting", not open to *public* hunting. :wink:


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> It says "open to hunting", not open to *public* hunting. :wink:


Yeah Yeah yeah Same darn thing. :wink:


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

target said:


> HUNTNFISHND said:
> 
> 
> > It says "open to hunting", not open to *public* hunting. :wink:
> ...


Not necessarily! :wink:


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... ghlight=du

But it is open to public hunting.


----------

