# North Dakota sues Minnesota man over duck refuges



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

North Dakota sues Minnesota man over duck refuges 
By JAMES MacPHERSON Associated Press Writer 
The Associated Press - Monday, February 26, 2007

BISMARCK, N.D.

North Dakota's anti-corporate farming law was put in place 75 years ago to protect the state's agricultural heritage. But a Minnesota businessman and his group say the law is unconstitutional, outdated and does nothing to protect the ducks.

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

The state says Cook, through his nonprofit Crosslands Inc., bought three parcels of land without government approval, the most recent in 2003 and 2004. The state sued two years ago after Cook ignored Gov. John Hoeven's order to get rid of the land.

The 68-year-old Minneapolis precious-metal dealer said he purchased his first property in North Dakota in 1980, "for the purposes of preserving wildlife and wetlands."

Cook, who grew up in Fargo, said the state is not doing enough to protect prime waterfowl habitat.

"We're wanting to win this for wildlife," Cook said Sunday.

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 approval.

Charles Carvell, an assistant state attorney general in Bismarck, said the anti-corporate farming law was passed in 1932.

"North Dakota's culture and heritage is family farms," said Carvell, who is representing the state in the case. "In 1932, the people in North Dakota felt that culture and heritage was worth protecting."

Carvell said he doesn't expect Bekken to rule on the case until late spring or early summer.

The state sued Cook in 2005, and he retaliated by filing a lawsuit in federal court challenging part of North Dakota's corporate farming ban. He argued that North Dakota is violating the U.S. Constitution's protection of interstate commerce by regulating nonprofit groups' land purchases.

A federal judge dismissed Cook's suit.

"They are making the same arguments they would have made in the federal case," Carvell said.

Rod Ustipak, managing director of Crosslands, said the group had no other option.

"The federal court ruled it was already in state court, and didn't allow us to go into federal court," Ustipak said.

Ustipak, of Brainerd, Minn., said he also manages about 5,000 acres of wildlife refuge land in Minnesota.

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

"It's unconstitutional," Ustipak said.

Carvell said the law is intended to stop groups from buying large tracts of farmland and taking it out of production.

"North Dakota has had this law 70 some years and it's not working," Ustipak said. "The family farm corporations now are as big as the corporations that they wanted to stop buying up all the land when the law was passed."

"In the 1930s, the whole legislature was made up of farmers," Ustipak said. "They passed laws that benefited farmers. But they didn't have the foresight to see that all the prairie would be broken up and all the wetlands drained."

Cook said he would like to continue to purchase land in North Dakota for wildlife protection.

"We don't want productive farmland," Ustipak said. "We want the roughest, rockiest, wettest land that we can find."

Carvell said it's only the second time the state's law has been challenged. In 1945, a Fargo hospital owned by a Minnesota nonprofit bought land in Cass County to lease to farmers, but the state said it was illegal.

The Minnesota corporation sued the state but lost the case in the U.S. Supreme Court, Carvell said. The Minnesota nonprofit argued that North Dakota's law violated equal protection and due process, among other things.

"They didn't raise the commerce clause, so that issue is still ripe and is still on the table," Carvell said.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I can't figure out why Cook didn't just buy the land in his own name. He could have saved a lot of money in legal fees.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Could it be a wolf in sheeps clothing???????


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

I actually like what he has done in Cavalier county. He bought some pretty prime land in the middle of a crapload of hunting pressure, and now his land has become a refuge. If gives the waterfowl and deer a much needed break during the heat of the season.

Even though he took away land I used to hunt, I think what he is doing is for the better, at least from what I have seen. I am not sure what else he is involoved in. Kind of makes a guy wonder a little bit.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

I do not know about the above case, so will not comment on it specifically. But will comment on the Law. What irks me was just the other month DU had a tract of nesting land that they wanted to protect, and they were shot down. What is up with that? An org like DU is turned away? Leaves a sour taste in my mouth. And why should only 1 man make the decsion (Gov.)? should there not be a committee. Like a farmer/rancher, G&F guy, a biologist, and a hunter on the committee along with the Gov. Say the committee is made up of 5 people, and a vote is taken. Seems it would be a more balanced way to make a decision.

I understand and appreciate the ND Law in not wanting Corp farming interests buying land, etc.. but when an Org like DU gets shut out on key habitat preservation, I think the interpretation on the law goes too far at that point. Since when is DU a farming Corp? Here NRs are willing to put up $ raised at DU events to protect key habitat. The Rs hunters benefit and the NRs down the flyway benifit too. Remember ducks and geese are interstate in that they migrate. Just like ND Rs benefit from DU protecting wintering grounds of ducks, the southern NRs benefit from the breeding grounds being protected. So maybe a slight modification of the law should be done so a group like DU can buy habitat to protect it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

There is a committee to make recomendations but of course it is stacked.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

There is a committee to make recomendations but of course it is stacked. It is the same committee that killed the purchase of the Ebert Ranch next to TRNP.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

I guess ND politicians or no different than MN policticans, in both cases, the chit heads rise to the top levels of Govt.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ever hear about some projects that DU put together and then auction them off to the highest biddr to raise money for more funds....be careful what you wish for, it might happen.

Look into the relationship that Cook has with some other MN sportsmen.....specifically, Ron Schara, and the guy that just sold Outdoor expeditions to Gander mountain.....kind of interesting. By the way, outdoor expeditions is GMs outfitter of choice.

IMO Cook has some alterior motives and an underlying agenda when it comes to putting together a wildlife refuge.....and if he's so concerned with the future of waterfowling maybe he shouldn't be looking for a way to nt pay taxes on a bunch of money and just go ahead and buy the land. He can still have it as a refuge.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I'm with Field Hunter 100% on this one, that's why Delta gets my money now. He's right about Cook, too.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

h2ofwlr said:


> I do not know about the above case, so will not comment on it specifically. But will comment on the Law. What irks me was just the other month DU had a tract of nesting land that they wanted to protect, and they were shot down. What is up with that? An org like DU is turned away? Leaves a sour taste in my mouth. And why should only 1 man make the decsion (Gov.)? should there not be a committee. Like a farmer/rancher, G&F guy, a biologist, and a hunter on the committee along with the Gov. Say the committee is made up of 5 people, and a vote is taken. Seems it would be a more balanced way to make a decision.
> 
> I understand and appreciate the ND Law in not wanting Corp farming interests buying land, etc.. but when an Org like DU gets shut out on key habitat preservation, I think the interpretation on the law goes too far at that point. Since when is DU a farming Corp? Here NRs are willing to put up $ raised at DU events to protect key habitat. The Rs hunters benefit and the NRs down the flyway benifit too. Remember ducks and geese are interstate in that they migrate. Just like ND Rs benefit from DU protecting wintering grounds of ducks, the southern NRs benefit from the breeding grounds being protected. So maybe a slight modification of the law should be done so a group like DU can buy habitat to protect it.


Nature Conservatory has had good luck in securing land or getting title to land willed to them. But DU seems to come up short? The reason is that NC and similar groups intend to preserve the land with no intent to sell it. Many of these also incorporate farm use, like grazing and haying to manage the property.

DU has established a history of enhancement and sale. For a farmer the enhancements are a negative for recreation value it is a boon. Since land is valued based on its capacity to produce not on value. It is not in the best interest of the townships and school districts to have land with intentionally lowered taxation value. I am not in full agreement with the law, but it does seem that it has kept ND lands in the hands of individuals vs Corp which is a benifit for all.


----------

