# Tony Dean 4/30/06



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

im Cook wants to do the right thing
Tony Dean
The Forum - 04/30/2006
Darned if I can find anything sinister about Jim Cook, the former North Dakotan who moved to the Twin Cities, built a successful business, and then bought some property in his home state with a goal of improving duck production.

Yet, when I browse various Web sites, I find there are still many resident duck hunters critical of Cook, suspicious that his real goal is to further commercialization of waterfowl hunting.

Nonsense. Why is it so hard to believe there are people who want to do the right thing on behalf of wildlife and natural resources?

Cook formed his own non-proft corporations to purchase land in three counties that he's said he wants to maintain as waterfowl refuges, allowing no hunting by anyone including himself, for the sole purpose of raising more ducks.

He's doing this, he says, because North Dakota isn't doing everything it can to improve duck production. There's some truth in that, and when I write that, I'm not being critical of either the North Dakota Game & Fish Department or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

They're doing everything they can, within constraints enacted by the North Dakota Legislature. Ridiculous constraints that even prevent the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service from purchasing critical wetland habitat within the most important duck production state in America.

Some ask, "Why doesn't Cook try to do this in Minnesota?"

Good question, but if you want to raise ducks, you go to the area most capable of doing so, and that means either of the Dakotas. Cook chose his home state. So, they reward him by hauling him into court.

Minnesota has already drained most of its wetlands and raises few ducks. Why? Supposedly, to further agriculture and stimulate the rural economy. If draining wetlands did that, well, then we'd have to give this a different look.

However, half of North Dakota's wetlands have been drained since the homesteading days, and since 1914, we've seen the number of individual farms and ranches dwindle from 77,000 to somewhere around 25,000 today.

In spite of draining a lot of wetlands, North Dakota's farms have been going out of business at a rapid pace, a trend that started well before the CRP program or programs that protect wetlands. If you call that progress, you simply don't understand economics.

I guess I can understand why Cook left North Dakota. Economic opportunities are greater in the Twin Cities, the economic center of our region.

An example of the poor judgment of some past elected officials is the law that prevents Jim Cook from maintaining his three parcels of land - 320 acres in Ward County, land he's owned for more than 25 years; 1,000 acres in Griggs County and 480 acres in Cavalier County. Can anyone provide real evidence that these land purchases have negatively impacted agriculture in North Dakota?

I didn't think so. Jim Ringleman of Ducks Unlimited calls the law that Mr. Cook is accused of violating "onerous," and I agree with him. That law prevents people with high motives from trying to accomplish good things.

The first thing my home state should do is scrub this absurd law from its books. Meanwhile, Jim Cook wants his day in front of a jury, and I think he'll win if he gets it. So will our kids.

Tony Dean is the host and executive producer of "Tony Dean Outdoors," a television series that airs across the Upper Midwest. His daily radio show, "Dakota Backroads," airs 42 times daily on 39 North Dakota and South Dakota radio stations, plus two in Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected]

I wonder what web sites he's talking about?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

If Cook wins, will all non-profits be able to purchase land? Wonder how far the dominos might fall? Since NDGF is currently blocked from land purchases, will the legislature prefer out-of-state nonprofits purchasing the land (lockout) or public access through state department purchases? And which is better for the tourism dollars?

Thought Tony had a good column in the Forum as always. A great improvement to the outdoor page.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Did not read it all, but relates to one thing I saw this weekend in the paper.... Stutsman County, during the period 2000 to 2005 during one of the best farm bills in history and a time of generally positive famr prices, declined by aprox 1100 people from just over 22000 to under 21000. I can tell you it was not Jamestown that accounts for that loss, it is the farms and small towns.

Is the farm bill doing anything? Or this ban on nonprofit purchase??? Or are they both just feel goods that do less than nothing would???


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Our current law has a real value, one that is missed by many is that it really has restricted and slowed the growth of the corp farm. Now all of ND may not be at risk to this many areas are. Most of us think of a corp farming operation as big feed lots and hog farms etc. Most times they are the exception not the norm.

One only needs to look to IA as a prime example of what can and will happen if our current law is struck down. You have Corp such as ADM start making purchases and this leads to a real unfair marketing advantage for the remaining independents!

So while Tony makes a point in that this land very well may be land purchased as Cook has said as a way of preserving and protecting. It does not offset the harm that will come to both family operations and wildlife. Can our current law be tweaked to be more user friendly to conservation? I think so, but not until the value of a wetland and grassland is understood by the voters of this state.

Tsodak asks a question that can be answered easily. The farm program has rewarded bigger operations, which pushed many to try and grow when they should not have, or could not. The farm program has few if any real help for a young farmer starting out.

In regards to nonprofits and our current law, well it remains a taxation issue that frankly I do not have a answer for. I see how the surrounding landowners would feel they where being forced to make up the lost taxes. Yet many do not realize that these areas may enhance the value of their land for resale. It becomes a highly emotional issue and many times rational thoughts never get looked at!!

The one fact in regards to Tony is that he is no longer a ND resident and is of a status in his life that he no longer is an average JOE! Because of that it may or may not mean that his words will fall on deaf ears!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Sorry Tony, "other websites". As long as TD does nothing to help open up land to the average joe in SD, where he now lives. (4000 NR waterfowl tags) and when he stops trying to manipulate ND laws, nothing he says really holds water to the "average joe".

I know that TD is involved in a bunch of great habitat projects in SD and in Promoting habitat nation wide but this just smacks of one big gun trying to help another......sorry some of you......just my opinion. If Mr. Cook really wants to help duck production then there are many ways he can do it other than suing the state of ND so he can have a tax shelter.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

FH



> If Mr. Cook really wants to help duck production then there are many ways he can do it other than suing the state of ND so he can have a tax shelter.


You hit the nail on the head with this comment.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here are the Current Century Code Sections as it pertains to Land acquisitions by the NDGF.

*20.1-02-04. Duties of director.* The director shall:

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, the leased property, together with all improvements, reverts to the department.

*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.

*20.1-02-17.1. Procedures and conditions for land acquisitions for wildlife and fish restoration.*

1. The director shall submit proposed wildlife and fish restoration programs or projects and updated segments thereof involving proposed acquisitions by purchase, lease, easement, or servitude of wetlands, water, or land areas by certified mail with return receipt to the board of county commissioners of the county or counties in which the affected areas are located for the board's approval prior to agreement with and
approval by the secretary of the interior.
Page No. 12

2. The board of county commissioners of the county affected, or a designee or designees of the board, shall, within twenty-one days of receipt of an acquisition proposal, physically inspect the proposed acquisition areas. The board shall give public notice of the date, hour, and place where the public may comment on the proposed acquisitions. The notice must be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in the official newspaper of the county or counties in which the land and water areas are located. The notice must set forth the substance of the
proposed action and must include a legal description of the proposed acquisitions. The board of county commissioners shall give its approval or disapproval by certified mail with return receipt within sixty days after receipt of an acquisition proposal.

3. A detailed impact analysis from the state game and fish department shall be included with the acquisition proposal for board of county commissioner consideration in making recommendations. The analysis by the game and fish department shall include, but shall not be limited to, the recreational and wildlife impacts. In addition, the county agent of the affected county or counties shall prepare an impact analysis for board of county commissioner consideration which shall include the fiscal, social, and agricultural impacts of the proposed acquisition. The state game and fish department shall reimburse the county or counties for any expenses incurred by the county agent in preparing the analysis. The analyses shall
also be forwarded to the department of commerce division of community services which shall furnish copies to all interested state agencies and political subdivisions, which agencies and political subdivisions shall have thirty days to review thec analyses and return their comments to the division of community services. Upon expiration of the thirty-day period, all comments received by the division of community services shall be forwarded to the state game and fish department. The state game and fish department may, after consideration of such comments, file a final impact analysis with the division of community services and the board of county
commissioners.

4. Any landowner may negotiate the time period of a lease, easement, or servitude sought under the federal Acts cited in section 20.1-02-17. Except with respect to flowage and access easements, a lease, easement, or servitude shall terminate upon the death of a landowner or upon change in ownership of the affected land.

5. A landowner may restrict a lease, easement, or servitude by legal description to the wetlands, water, or land areas sought under the Acts and may drain any expanded wetland or water area in excess of the legal description.

*20.1-02-18. State's conditional consent to United States' acquisition of areas formigratory bird reservations - State retains jurisdiction. *

North Dakota consents, subject to the approval of the governor for each proposed acquisition, along with the conditions of sections 20.1-02-18.1 and 20.1-02-18.2, to the United States acquiring, by purchase, gift, devise, or lease, land or water in this state as the United States may deem necessary to establish migratory bird reservations in accordance with the federal Migratory Bird Conservation Act [Pub. L. 70-770; 45 Stat. 1222; 16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.]. North Dakota reserves such full and complete jurisdiction and authority over all such areas of land or water so acquired by the United States as is not incompatible with the administration, maintenance, protection, and control of such areas by the United States under the terms of said Act of Congress.

*20.1-02-18.1. Federal wildlife area acquisitions *- Submission to county commissioners, opportunity for public comment, and impact analysis required. The governor, the director, or their designees, responsible under federal law for final approval of land, wetland, and water acquisitions by the United States department of the interior, its bureaus or agencies, for waterfowl production areas, wildlife refuges, or other wildlife or waterfowl purposes, shall submit the proposed acquisitions by certified mail with return receipt to the board of county
Page No. 13

commissioners of the county or counties in which the land, wetland, and water areas are located for the board's recommendations. The board of county commissioners of the county affected, or a designee or designees of the board, shall, within twenty-one days of receipt of an acquisition proposal, physically inspect the proposed acquisition areas. The board shall give public notice of the date, hour, and place where the public may comment on the proposed acquisitions. The notice must be published once each week for two successive weeks in the official newspaper of the county or counties in which the land and water areas are located. The notice must set forth the substance of the proposed action and must include a legal description of the proposed acquisitions. The board of county commissioners shall make its recommendations by certified mail with return receipt within sixty days after receipt of an acquisition proposal.
A detailed impact analysis from the federal agency involved must be included with the acquisition proposal for board of county commissioner consideration in making recommendations. The analysis must include the recreational and wildlife impacts. In addition, the county agent of the affected county or counties shall prepare an impact analysis for board of county commissioner consideration which must include the fiscal, social, and agricultural impacts of the proposed acquisitions. The department of the interior shall reimburse the county or counties for any expenses incurred by the county agent in preparing the analysis. The analyses must also be forwarded to the department of commerce division of community services, which shall furnish copies to all interested state agencies and political subdivisions, which agencies and political subdivisions have thirty days to review the analyses and return their comments to the division of community services. Upon expiration of the thirty-day period, all comments received
by the division of community services must be forwarded to the federal agency involved and to the state official or agency responsible for final acquisition approval. The federal agency may, after consideration of the comments, file a final impact analysis with the governor, the board of county commissioners, and any other state official or agency responsible for final acquisition approval.

*20.1-02-18.2. Negotiation of leases, easements, and servitudes for wildlifeproduction purposes*. 
A landowner may negotiate the terms of a lease, easement, or servitude for land, wetland, or water areas sought to be acquired by the United States department of the interior, its bureaus or agencies, with moneys from the migratory bird conservation fund [16 U.S.C.718d ] for use as waterfowl production areas, wildlife refuges, or for other wildlife purposes. A landowner may:
1. Negotiate the time period of the lease, easement, or servitude being sought; however, the duration of an easement for a waterfowl production area acquired by the federal government, and consented to by the governor or appropriate state agency after July 1, 1985, may not exceed fifty years.
2. Restrict a lease, easement, or servitude by legal description to the land, wetland, or water areas being sought, and may drain any after-expanded wetland or water area in excess of the legal description in the lease, easement, or servitude.

*20.1-02-18.3. Suspension of federal authority to acquire interests in land.*
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 20.1-02-18, or any other provision of law, the United States may not acquire by any means any land or interests in land for migratory bird reservations, and the governor may not approve the acquisition of any land or interests in land with moneys from the migratory bird conservation fund until December 31, 1985, or until the date a management plan for such land is approved by both the legislative assembly and the governor, whichever date is first. The management plan must be jointly prepared by the secretary of the interior and the governor and shall address the extent and general locations of all proposed acquisitions with moneys from the migratory bird conservation fund, the management of all such lands whether already acquired or to be acquired, and the relationship of such acquisitions to
mitigation acquisitions for federally financed or permitted projects.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So Yes there are hoops to jump through but it can be done. Question? if Mr. Cook wants to do this Why didn't he work through NDGF? This is not just for the benefit of the Ducks. It appears Mr. Cook needs to shelter money because of tax issues. He could put the land in his own name and be done with the deal. I would like to see ND change the laws, in todays ND political climate it has a slim chance unless the opposition sees a way to benefit from it.

Bob


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I read another article (DC ??) by Tony and in it he called Devils Lake, "Our cash cow". That to me means that he is only in it for himself. Tony lambasted me on his website a year or two ago after I asked a question. He was ranting about how selfish most ND hunter are and that there shouldn't be a cap on OOS hunters. I asked him what he had done to get rid of the caps in SD and while criticizing my views he never did answer the question. Which leads you to believe that only when there is a cash cow does it seem wrong to have caps. Tony Dean has the right philosophy when it cames to habitat but his judgement is surely clouded by greenbacks when it comes to ND issues!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

It is obvious whose bed he is in when every hunting show is filmed with a G/O or someone from a chamber of commerce.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

djleye said:


> That to me means that he is only in it for himself. Tony Dean has the right philosophy when it cames to habitat but his judgement is surely clouded by greenbacks


When has Tony supported anything that didn't affect his wallet? Do you really think he's going to support something that isn't something supported by his sponsors?

He's a commercial hunting puppet and various guides hold the strings. He should add a service next to the $2000 speaking fee on his website that claims, "Outdoor personality for hire - Will testify and belittle opposint opinions on behalf of any organization that's out to commercialize a public resource and traditional heritage. Just sponsor my show."

I really think Tony's heart is in the right place, he's just stuck trying to balance his own views and his wallet.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

When Tony Dean came to Bismarck and testified against our waterfowl bill last session really showed his true morels. I just got done reading Mr. Deans article in Dakota Country mag he once again shoots one over the bow of Nodak Outdoors. If Mr. Cook wants to make private waterfowl refuges with his 1800 acres go for it, just do it legally. I don't see how these 1000,480, and 320 acre refuges will effect waterfowl production in ND? I think the NDGF have to play by the same laws?
Until Tony Dean goes to the SD legislator and testifies against their NR waterfowl restrictions that are way more restrictive by far than what he testified against in Bismarck he is a hypocrite

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2/16/05 
Tony: 
Could you please verify a couple of things you mentioned in regard to testifying in ND. You claim you've been opposed to SD silly NRs waterfowl restrictions and that you believe they are unfair. So for the record, would post on your web page that you would be in favor of eliminating the caps on NR waterfowl hunters in SD State wide, eliminate SD current six zones, and make a NRs waterfowl licenses good for two seven day periods, instead of the current 10 or 3 day licenses.

Kevin Hayer 
Fargo, ND

Response 
"No Kevin, I wouldn't do that. You must have a reason for wanting me to do it. What is it?"

2/17/05 
Tony: 
The reason Tony is to give you a chance to clear the air. You are on record by testifying in ND that you believe ND should not have a cap on NRs waterfowl hunters, and zones do not work. You posted on your web site that SD restrictions are silly. By not answering my question, I have my answer. It is about your character. If you truely believe that caps and zone are not right, you would do something to make a change in SD like you did here in ND. I sure hope you do the right thing. 
Kevin Hayer 
Fargo, ND

Response 
"Kevin 
By calling South Dakota's restrictions "silly," I think I made quite clear how I felt about them. I'm not sure just what your point is. And you have no knowledge of what I've done about South Dakota's silly regulations in the past. To assume, as you have, is CHILDISH. It is also inaccurate." 
2/17/05 
Tony: 
I listened to your testimony in Bismarck. You told Rep Todd Porter that you testified in SD in regard to SD waterfowl restrictions. You did not elaborate. Did you try to have the cap and zones restrictions removed like you did here in ND? When did you do this testimony? 
Kevin

Response(none)


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

One more thing. I think Tony should run for politics, he would fit right in.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Drakekiller for GOVERNOR!!!!!!

:beer:


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Live2hunt,
Thanks, but no thanks. Are you from Devils Lake? A friend of mine used to be a member of the DL chamber and he told me that almost all of their advertising budget went to Tony Dean. Supposedly tens of thousands$. No wonder he came to testify against HPC. Maybe you could talk to someone in DL and see what the chamber pays him now? Would be interesting to know.


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

I've never really known much about tony dean before, but have respected him as an outdoorsman, after reading the above posts I believe I have re-evaluated my opinion of TD. seems like his agenda is pretty self-centered. why would he come to ND, ***** about NR caps, when there are tighter restictions in his own state?? :******:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Most of us have a reason for our opinions of Tony good or bad! I guess to me this issue is more about our laws of our state and how a court ruling can affect ND.

As I posted before, I wonder how many of us really know the threat of Corp having the ability to own land in our state! I tried finding the piece, but if memory served me well that during the late 90's when hog prices went into the tank, most of the major packing houses did not need to look outside of their own corp for hogs. Wholesale prices did drop, but in relationship to the market we should have been paying about $.46 a lb for good pork chops. We did not!

That is one example of why we should not allow Corp to own land in ND. Now look at the grain markets. ADM or Cargill could buy and operate farms in ND along with those in other regions of the nation. Grading of quality is one way they rip the farmers. Now if they can take the grain they have grown and place it into the market at the highest market rate, and force Joe Farmer to accept lower market price along with transportation costs and then lower the value even more with grading issues the playing field which is not level now will be even more slanted against a small farmer or any farmer not connected or partially owned by one of them!

These may be oversimplifications, but it is right at the heart of the reason we need this law to stay on the books! That is why I said I do not think TD has a clue anymore as to reality of farmers, our state and our way of life!!!!!! For him he has doors open to prime hunting as a way for the commercial operator to cash in on his name recognition! I dare say that if in many areas if he sent his camera man up to the door the answer would be a lot different!


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Tony Dean Outdoors
Issues
Did Tony Testify against Hunter Pressure Concept?

Tony:

Is it true that you testified against the hunter pressure bill in the state of North Dakota. If so why? I was always under the opinion you wanted the politics out of game management and to let the game and fish do there job.If you did testify against it,was it for the benefit for the guides and outfitters.

FREELANCE HUNTER 
Roger Patterson

Dear Roger:

You bet your booties I testified against that bill, because the hunter pressure concept, especially the idea of ordering the Governor to create at least eight separate zones, is a thinly veiled attempt to make it nearly impossible for a visiting hunter to shoot a few ducks in North Dakota.

Roger, if you truly are a FREELANCE HUNTER, then you certainly know that ducks are transient. In Bottineau today, Sand Lake tomorrow, mostly due to weather. Does hunting pressure move birds? Sometimes. But try to put yourself in the boots of a guy in say, Minnesota, who wants to shoot a few ducks in North Dakota. He selected Zone 2 or 4 or 6 only to find that the ducks aren't there. He doesn't return because it's an unfair system. And Presto, that's exactly what supporters of the zone concept want to see.

I fear that hunting is becoming a "me first" deal, and I think that's wrong.

But what saddens me even more is the fact that none of the leaders in the revolution against non-residents, have fought to keep wetlands intact and grass on the landscape, at least none I can think of. Where were those same leaders when a small band of welfare ranchers tried to get the federal government to make grazing the dominant use of our national grasslands?

By the way, I thought that the leader of the anti-non-resident group, Dan Buide, was way off base when he tried to convince lawmakers that eight zones would spread the wealth among rural communities. Hmmm, first that sounds like a socialistic approach to income redistribution. But more important, it's a false argument because hunters will always go where the ducks are. If rural communities aren't getting their share of hunters, there's a time tested way to get them.

(Editor's Note: Dan Buiede called me several times today, Feb. 21, and we tried to have a conversation, though his cell phone died shortly after on each of two attempts. Dan says he's "not a leader" and resents the implication that he supports a "socialistic" income redistribution scheme. I'll admit the socialist comment might be too strong and I apologize to Dan for that one. However, he positions himself as a leader in most of his email posts to the NODAK website, and he was one of only two speakers representing that group before the ND legislature. He also suggested the Devils Lake Chamber paid me to testify. They did not.)

Restore drained wetlands, don't drain any existing ones and put grass on the land. Mother Nature does the rest in most years.

I still think it's wrong when basic fish and game decisions are taken to the legislature for a decision. But then I didn't have any part in introducing that legislation.

Tony


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

"Kevin 
By calling South Dakota's restrictions "silly," I think I made quite clear how I felt about them. I'm not sure just what your point is. And you have no knowledge of what I've done about South Dakota's silly regulations in the past. To assume, as you have, is CHILDISH. It is also inaccurate." 
2/17/05 
Tony:

Hey Tony,
There is a big difference between calling something "silly" and actually doing something about it. Like coming here and testifying.

"But what saddens me even more is the fact that none of the leaders in the revolution against nonresidents, have fought to keep wetlands intact and grass on the landscape, at least none that I can think of."

Tony you have no knowledge of what I have done for wildlife here in the great state of ND. To assume I have not done my share, as you have, is CHILDISH. It is also inaccurate. Also to assume people that believed in HPC are anti NR is also way off base. 
Kevin Hayer


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Tony Dean Outdoors
Issues
Another Fargo Hunter Blasts Tony

Tony,

I know that you testifiesd against the HPC in ND and you state that you were against the zones. You were also against the HPC last time were you not? What was the reason then?

You stated on your website that the birds are moved only a litttle bit by pressure, but you are so wrong! You hunt guided areas that see little pressure, but you should try and hunt public land after the non resident opener in ND. There is a reason that there are 100,000 birds on Sand Lake in SD after the non resident opener in ND.

This brings me to another topic, why would a guy from a state that has such huge waterfowl restrictions on Non Residents tetify against the same in another state? Have you tried to get your home state to ease the waterfowl restrictions on non residents? I would guess not. Seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it?? Why are the restrictions ok for your home state but not for mine?? Oh yea, you were only against the zones, so you say, but then why were you against HPC last time? To me this does not add up??!! I bet this letter won't make your web site.

Sincerely,

Daniel J. Levin 
West Fargo, ND

Dan:

Wrong on all counts.

You made the website.

It's beyond me how you guys get so worked up about everything you view as a threat to "your" hunting. So far, the folks like you frequenting the NODAK outdoors website have attacked Scheel's, Gander Mountain, Ron Schara and anyone who disagrees with you.

I was opposed to the Hunter Pressure concept last year as well. The only difference this year was the addition of zones. My reasons for opposing it is that it isn't necessary. If there are no ducks due to drought, lack of habitat, etc., hunter numbers will fall off by themselves.

What's driven so many duck hunters to North Dakota is simple. That's where (along with South Dakota) the ducks are. Because South Dakota did a stupid thing many years ago, you're getting the Non Residents. And the talk that eminates from all of you about how there's more non residents in North Dakota than Canada, overlooks a couple of really big factors: the perceived difficulty in getting shotguns across the border and the fact that you have to pay, as I recall, a $50 bill to do so. The other big thing is some understandable anger from Canadian farmers over US attitudes toward them over the Mad Cow hassle, plus continued political efforts to stop grain imports from Canada. Unfortunately, Canadian farmers react the same way some ranchers in western South Dakota do. They take it out on hunters. If you want to see some of that anger, spend some time on the cattleman's websites.

Sand Lake has always been a great attraction for mallards, especially after a snow or front in North Dakota. That has a lot more to do with it than hunting pressure.

And all you know about my hunting is what you see on TV. I've hunted North Dakota every year but 8 years and am a native. I've been a freelance hunter, I am betting, for more years than you are old. And I'll be the first to tell you that shooting a television show is a lot more difficult than freelance hunting.

Do you go out and knock on doors or do you see a "no hunting" sign and blame it on non-residents? I still knock on doors and am rarely turned down in North Dakota.

You're also wrong on my opposition to the silly restrictions on South Dakota waterfowling. I've been opposed to it from the first day I learned about them in South Dakota, let's see, back in 1968. I don't think it's fair to keep hunters out of either Dakota just to avoid the competition. After all, our National Wildlife Refuges (and ND has more than any other state), were paid for by Duck Stamp buyers from everywhere. Ditto for WPA's. This hatred some of you hold for non-residents is despicable. And without looking, I'm betting the cheap shots toward me are starting on the NODAK website.

Why not direct some of your energy toward preserving wetlands and keeping grass on the North Dakota landscape?

Tony


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Hey Tony,
Have you ever gone to the SD legislator and testified against the NR waterfowl restrictions? Caps,zones, day restrictions, and lottery. YES or NO

If not are you going to? YES or NO

Did the Devils lake chamber ask you to testify? YES or NO. We already know they pay you thousands of $$$ a year.

Quit side stepping, and stand up.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Yea, The Devils Lake COC didn't pay him directly to testify but we all know the truth. He is in their back pocket. He never does directly answer the question about what he has done to get rid of the "silly" restrictions that SD has in place, my guess is nothing!!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Trying to change the mind of Tony Dean or have him acknowledge open dialog is probably asking a little much. He doesn't have the guts to put his money where his mouth is.

As it is now, Tony is in the drivers seat. He can openly chastize, without recourse. He controls his own website and he can choose when to answer or if cornered to not answer at all.

Benjamin Franklin comes to mind in this particular instance. "If you would persuade, appeal to interest and not to reason."

Its clear where interest and reason lie in Tony's world. Interest followed by reason.

Tony Dean has been TALKING about making a difference in conservation for longer than I am old.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Whoa! Is this thread criticising this guy Jim Cook, or Tony Dean or both??
What Cook is trying to do is do his conservation thing and write some of it off from taxes. (He has no tax "PROBLEM" - he just would like to get a tax break from doing a civic minded project) This is exactly the same as a heck of a lot of people do with conservation easements, etc. Read about conservation easements in the journals of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, DU, Delta, NRA, NWTF, or any number of good outdoor organizations, assuming some of you may be members. The rest of you, if you are not members of at least some of these organizations, you should be! Other individuals set up foundations to benefit the arts, sciences, sports programs, etc. Same idea via different routes.
So why not do a conservation easement through DU, Delta, the G&F or another waterfowl organization you ask?? Because North Dakota Law won't let you, at least up to now. He's willing to form his own conservation organization and possibly challenge this law, for better or worse. I have no opinion on the law, although I am aware of a number of other individuals who would love to put land into conservation easements to benefit EVERYONE in perpetuity (as in FOREVER!) and cannot do it in ND! The state did not tell Cook to get rid of his property because they didn't want another refuge! Heck No! It's just that the way he's trying to do it is technically in violation of present state law which may or may not be constitutional. 
All Tony Dean is saying, is that it may be time to change this law, as it truly is a bit archaic. To twist it to say if would invite more guiding or out of state hunters or corporate farming like so many semi-paranoid people on this website will do, is silly! Conservation easements and refuges benefit everybody, for generations to come. And a non profit conservation organization is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from corparate farming - not only NOT on the same page or in the same book, but even in different libraries! Absolutely different things! This has nothing to do with corporate farming, although our ND state law apparently lumps non profits conservation projects like this into the same category! So we stupid North Dakotans might be throwning the baby out with the bathwater! This law definitely deserves a critical objective reappraisal!
From reading some of the posts, it is obvious that a lot of people out there have absolutely NO concept of what a tax write off or a tax exempt thing really is. It tells me that most of you probably have never donated a buck to any worthy cause, (or at least deducted it under "charitable contributions" on your tax returns) and resent those who have the expertise, ingenuity, hard work and good luck to make enough money to do it. Suffice it to say, that the best "tax exempt" deal you can get is to pay out about $3.00 to get $1.00 back!! The bottom line; you still have donated $2.00 instead of $3.00! So it is hardly that the guy is sneaky and trying to cheat Uncle Sam out of some tax money. He has to donate a lot of money or equivalent property to you and I and the rest of us to get a little tax break, equivalent to about a third of it back! That's all there is to it! The guy donates $3.00, gets $1.00 back on his taxes, leaving $2.00 in his refuge for all of us to enjoy forever! What's wrong with that? Then it sounds like he is the type of guy to likely donate the other $1.00 back in another worthy conservation cause. So why all the resentlment about "tax breaks" and "tax write offs?" Were it not for such charitable contributions a lot of very worthy non profit foundations would not exist. 
In my humble opinion we need more guys like him - who work hard enough to make enough money and feel strongly enough about the outdoors to do projects like this for you and I and our decendents and maybe leave the world a little better off than when he entered it. Can all of us boast and aspire to the same ideals?? Wish I could! 
As far as Tony Dean is concerned - I've read a lot of his stuff, and sometimes I disagree, and sometimes agree with what he says, and other times I don't know enough about the subject to have a strong opinion or another. But I don't automatically and almost violently have a knee jerk negative reaction to EVERYTHING he says just cause it happens to be coming from Tony Dean! The guy has both good and bad ideas, in my opinion. And in this case he may be right! It may be time to change this ND law for everybody's benefit, either in the legislature or by a challenge in the Supreme Court on its constitutional basis. Not being an attorney I have NO opinion on that! 
But try to stay open minded, guys, and look at every idea, no matter who proposes it, objectively! Throw it out or accept it on its own basis, not simply because a certain individual happen to suggest it.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

HH Wrote


> So why not do a conservation easement through DU, Delta, the G&F or another waterfowl organization you ask?? Because North Dakota Law won't let you, at least up to now. He's willing to form his own conservation organization and possibly challenge this law, for better or worse.


It can be done. Read the following article I posted some time ago.

Thanks to all involved with setting this land aside for future generations.

River bottoms to be opened for recreation

By ELOISE OGDEN, Regional Editor [email protected]

WILLISTON ­ About 1,500 acres of undeveloped land, near the confluence of the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers southwest of Williston, will be available later this year for the public to use for outdoor recreation such as hunting, fishing and birdwatching.

The land will become part of the North Dakota's wildlife management areas system. 
The 1,500-acres is comprised of two parcels: an approximately 500-acre parcel referred to as the Neu property and an approximately 1,000-acre parcel called the Ochs property, both of which has been acquired by the American Foundation for Wildlife from the private landowners.

The wildlife foundation is in the process of finishing details and will transfer both properties to the state of North Dakota, said Ken Sambor, Bismarck, North American Waterfowl Management Plan coordinator for the N.D. Game and Fish Department.

The transfer of the Neu property is expected to be completed soon and the Ochs property will be transferred probably by mid-July, Sambor said.

The N.D. Game and Fish Department will manage the properties as part of the wildlife management areas system.

A dedication of both properties is being planned for April 29 in conjunction with Lewis and Clark events planned for April 29-May 1 at the Missouri-Yellowstone Confluence Interpretive Center and Fort Union, southwest of Williston.

During the dedication the partners in the land project and the families will be acknowledged for their contributions, and the parcels will be open for public use, Sambor said.

"It's going on almost three years since we began negotiating on these properties," Sambor said. "Both private owners approached us wanting to sell and preserve the properties, and make them open for public use for the future."

"They're two of the three key pieces of properties right at the confluence where the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers meet southwest of Williston, Sambor said.

The two properties essentially form the view from the new multi-million confluence visitor center, Sambor said. "They're the view shed from the state historical site (Fort Buford) and from Fort Union," he said.

The properties are located east and west of the Yellowstone River, and on the south side of the Missouri River. The parcels are located in McKenzie County.

The confluence interpretive center and Fort Union are on the north side of the Missouri in Williams County.

"They're actually two of the remaining large blocks of native woodlands at or near the confluence of these two rivers," Sambor said of the two parcels.

He said the two parcels are heavily forested, mainly with cottonwood trees. "These provide excellent turkey (and) deer hunting and access for fishing, especially for the spring paddle fishing. That's the key spot for paddle fishing, as well as these are going to be open for compatible day use," he said.

The properties both are classic river bottom land of big mature cottonwood trees, said Andy Banta, superintendent of Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, a National Park Service property southwest of Williston.

He said Fort Union participated in the discussions to preserve these lands because of its interest in having that natural view protected. "One of the thoughts we had was when the 300th anniversary of Lewis and Clark comes around, that view will be just like it was," he said.

"From the history perspective, we wanted to try to protect that natural scene. To me it's just a great win-win because the land is still available for the public access and use," Banta said.

There will be no development at the sites, with the exception of some public accommodations for parking, Sambor said.

About 13 combined partners contributed to the package-deal of obtaining the two parcels: North Dakota Game and Fish Department, N.D. Natural Resources Trust, American Foundation for Wildlife, The Conservation Fund, the Northern Great Plains Joint Venture, the United Sportsmen of Williston, Friends of Fort Union/Fort Buford, Ducks Unlimited Inc., Pheasants Forever, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, N.D. Wild Turkey Federation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service.

"I think it's a tremendous opportunity to make available for everyone to use and enjoy some really unique lands in North Dakota, and to celebrate the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark trip," Sambor said.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Different deal, Bob. I'm well aware of the confluence being purchased by the G & F, as well as several large pieces of land around Bismarck being donated to the G & F. For example, where I have about 73 bluebird nests, the Herderson WMA and the Menoken WMA and otherf Bismarcks well.
What this guy Cook is trying to do is different. Sure he could donate the land to the G&F or USFW and turn over all responsibilities and management to them. But he is trying to do something different.
Suppose you won the powerball and wanted to set up a wildlife foundation to propogate waterfowl, and did not want to allow any public acess or hunting, including yourself - that is, be a total sanctuary duck producer. If you turn it over to the G & F or other public entity you lose all control over it, and you no longer have say in it. So you want to do it your way, and set up a "Bob Kellam Waterfowl and Muskrat Foundation" with the express purpose to be a waterfowl and muskrat production area and not allow hunting, trapping,skydiving, birding, scuba diving, etc. You want to be a non profit in perpetuity and have your "Bob Kellam" foundation run it forever. (Assuming you have the funds to finance it, run it and finance it forever, etc.) Why not, it's your money and your land?? As long as you are not breaking any laws and are a true public spirited benevalent non profit approved by the IRS, why not?? Should corporate farming laws apply to this situation? I'm not convinced.
As I understand it, that's what he is trying to do. Nothing whatever to do with guiding, hunting, private hunting ground, or corporate farming and all the other allegations and accusations on this site. 
Sure he could donate the land, but he loses total control of it, and must trust the state to keep it as he wanted it (after all it's his money - he bought it then s) and not to sell it, change the rules for some political gamesmenship, and gosh knows what, over the next hundreds of years. He doesn't seem to want to allow hunting, even for himself, his family or buddies, and give it to the state it would be open. By putting it in the "Bob Kellam Foundation" he protects it as he sees fit. We may or may not agree to how he sees fit, but it's his money and if he is good enough to give it to the rest of us, I don't think it's unreasonable to let him call the shots, as long as they are legal.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

HH,

The problem with what your saying is private foundations and trusts can be changed as I understand. So what he is peddling now in conception may NOT be the end product a few years down the road. Let the game and fish manage it and get your name on a plaque and live happily ever after.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

You know everything HH says makes sense to a point! The point being that he wants to do things that are not within the current laws of the state of ND!!!!!!!!! While I whole heartedly agree that there are some bad provisions in our current law, the fact remains that it protects a lot of livelihoods and has kept ND from becoming MT light! Just last night I talked with a friend from Madison WI. He has been hunting on two ranches in MT for the last 7 years. Both ranches had land into the BLOCK program.

A very wealthy business man via his Corp came in and bought 33,000 acres. Which included not only the two ranches but others surrounding it! Now that is great for the seller, but the community surrounding it is going to see a real drop in hunting traffic,retail sales from displaced families who worked on those ranches and also the business owners who supplied product to them. He has gotten to know one of the hardware/feed store owners. He was informed that 90% of the supplies going into the ranch operations have been bought outside of the area.

So HH it remains clear to me that the single most important thing the state of ND can do for wetlands,wildlife and hunting heritage is to keep ND from being bought by outside corporations. We have seen what has taken place out in western ND already. If Cook wins regardless of his intent on this land. ND loses a lot more than we have gained in his trying to preserve his land via a tax free situation! This issue requires a lot more looking at than how you presented Mr. Cooks situation!

Because of that it underscores TD lack of forethought and understanding of reality, as he does not face any of the situations that the rest of us average Joe's do and will. He will always have prime places to hunt, and will have a red carpet treatment when there. I would like to see him do a show, showing freelance hunting. But he chooses to go where it is a guarantee!!!!!! Kyle in DL for an example!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

HH, Nice try but your theory holds no water. Problem being he will still be able to do as he pleases. Example, I have a youth hunting area. Signs read open to anyone under the age of 18 accompanied by a non hunting parent or guardian. So HH you go out there (I take it your over 18 ) I catch you or the warden catches you, guess what. You go directly to jail you don't pass go or collect $200.00. Now Ron comes to pay me a visit and I say Ron lets go hunt my youth area. Nothing happens to me or Ron because I own the land and I gave him permission. If the game and fish controlled this then I could not do this. So Jim Cook is able to do the same if he got his deal through. But like Ron said It's Not Legal. That is what keeps getting missed here. He had several hearings with, Roger Johnson,Dean Hildebrand,the presidents of the Farmers Union,Farmer bureau, and several more. Clearly a group of people on most days would take issue on things, They all voted against Mr Cook, not once but twice. Send him home or let him do by the book.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Thanks for at least thinking about the state law thing, Rod. 
Although the land you spoke of in MT was bought up by a corporation, it would have happened here and is happening everywhere by individuals, rather than corporations. If someone wants the land they buy it, clear and simple, as an individual or group of individuals (a partnership) or as a corporation. The paperwork and what they call themselves is fairly immaterial. It would be impossible to stop them from banding together and buying land in a free country. 
Don't get me wrong though. I hate what's happening in Mt. ND and everywhere else as much as anyone. I have no POSITIVE suggestions to offer, except to watch we don't lose credibility with all the non hunters and non fisherpeople out there, who make up the majority of voters, even in little rural North Dakota. That's one of the things I fear most. 
And G/O - although I don't follow exactly what you are saying, what I gather you are saying is exactly what he could do anytime as a private individual, but would be prevented if the land was in a non profit trust. As a non profit trust he is bound by the provisions and bylaws of it like anyone else, even if he is the president. But as an individual he can do anything he darn well wants! 
Remember, when he abolishes his "non profit corporation" he would just put it back in his own hame anyway, (after all, He has owned the property for what?20 years or so?) and the public would be probably less well off in the long run. Then did we shoot ourselves in the foot or not?? I don't know.... If he dies and that prime property gets sold to the higherst out of state non resident bidder then we've not just shot ourselves in the foot but higher up in a very personal place! Then listen to the bellyaching about non residents snapping up all "our" good duck land! 
Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just get irritated to see instant knee jderk reactions without anyone knowing or looking at the facts, or pros and cons and instant negative responses just because TD endorsed it. Sounds like the old joke "my mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts!" Just because you think someone is a jerk, it doesn't make huim always wrong!
And I don't know Dean or this guy Cook, so please don't call me their buddy. I've already been accused of being a guide/outfitter on this website because I disagreed with someone's bellyaching, but I'm not a G/O either.
And those people you quoted (USFW, G&F, etc) did NOT dislike the idea of a refuge, they just told him he couldn't do the paperwork the way he was planning to because of state law, so he would have to get rid of his non profit corporation, but certainly NOT his land! With the exception of the farmer's union, for crying out loud! They are against anything not in private land using it for anything other than agriculture. Get it through your head, G/O that the wildlife agencies are happy as heck to see him continue his dream, but he just set up the paperwork like he wanted to because of state law. 
Anyway, thanks for listening, Rod......eeerrr..reading and thinking I really do respect that!


----------

