# DU SELLING LAND IN ND



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

In the last DU magazine I saw a full color half page ad for land sales in ND and SD. uke: I was a little taken aback by this. Just another way for more freelancers to never hunt some more land in our two great states. Its up for public auction out of the Bismarck DU office and also online. The buyer of this land retains all hunting rights. THANKS DU!! :evil: 
Here are the links for the info. I know I will never be a DU member again!! :eyeroll:

What are some thoughts on this and how could it be done different?

http://prairie.ducks.org/index.cfm?&pag ... ction.html

http://prairie.ducks.org/cld/kiddercoun ... ds/pip.cfm

H2OfowlND


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

That is the reason why I am no longer a member of DU...what better way to increase commercialization than to have DU do the work for you then commercialze it.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

DU is putting in easements which are a good thing. It also costs agencies alot of money to control noxious weeds and maintenance of these lands is pretty expensive. This program is a way to transfer those costs to private citizens who are most likely conservation minded. The goal of DU is to conserve waterfowl habitat and in that respect they are doing that.

Private land, is just that, private. You buy it and you control who goes on it. Not much you can do about that.

However DU has turned into an advertisement for the commercialization of waterfowl hunting. I don't really have much respect for that. Thats why I don't support them.

It all goes back to that wonderful saying. Follow the money.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

There is no nice way to put it THIS SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

What is DU supposed to do with land after they have restored habitat? Are they supposed to sit on it, absorb the costs, and turn it into a public hunting area? That's not DU's job.

Couldn't ND Game and Fish or some other government entity be a bidder for the property? It's ND G&F's job to acquire property for public use, not a non-profit organization like DU.

This brings me to something that I have always thought about. ND G&F owns very little public property in ND. Instead, they lease private property through the PLOTS progam. This is in contrast to the way things work in most other states, where the state actually owns public hunting lands, and those public lands are managed as hunting or conservation land.

Because PLOTS lands are private lands, they are usually managed by the landowner as agricultural lands or else planted in some cover crop and largely ignored. Therefore, they are not really managed as hunting or conservation lands.

I know that leasing lands through PLOTS is more cost-effective than buying land, but do you think that the habitat would be better if these were actually state-owned lands managed to create optimal habitat? Would you rather have a smaller number of properties managed to create optimal habitat or a large number of properties with average or below-average habitat?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Thats why the G&F Dept has people who are out in the field looking for the best habitat for plots. From what I have seen the land the plots program is getting is pretty productive stuff.

If the land is owned by the state then they are responsible for the taxes. Doesn't take very long to eat up funding with that approach.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

PLOTS is now at around 500,000 acres.If they bought land instead the amount of acreage would be miniscule compared to PLOTS.

It would be nice if DU did sell to the GNF...but do you think they would take a lower bid to do that????NOT


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

These are interesting and complicated times.

Goals and interests of conservation vs. anti-commercialization are bumping heads more and more frequently, on this site, Tony Dean, DU, PF and everywhere else too.

Check out this site: http://www.conservationforce.org/

Conservation Force purports to be about conservation, but this was also the group behind the Montoya (AZ elk and deer case). Spend five minutes surfing the site. As you can see, they also think the MN v. ND suit is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You'll also notice a heavy Safari Club International influence to Conservation Force, and these guys by and large aren't the Wayne Welder from Waconia type. Right or wrong, these are the guys I think of as "shooters". I'm told this group has notified two other Western States that suits are imminent to challenge NR restrictions as pertains to hoof license allocations. I suspect the ND deer format is in the cross-hairs.

So, here we go again, chicken or the egg? What's more important, pushing conservation or fighting commercialization. As I've argued in the past, it's the later for me - that's the tallest fire. Anything else will simply lead to conservation for the chosen.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I seem to recall that is illegal for the Game and Fish Department to buy land.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

rl, that sounds like the way it is. North Dakota is possibly the only state that does not allow land gift-reduced price arrangements to a non-profit conservation agency or G&F. And that needs to be changed.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

If it is illegal for NDGF to buy land, then who owns the state WMAs (the red lands in the PLOTS guide)? Were these given to the state or were they purchased by another state agency?

I know that G&F is doing a better job of obtaining quality hunting land for PLOTS, but I am still concerned that PLOTS land is not managed for optimal wildlife habitat. We have all seen PLOTS lands that couldn't provide cover for anything.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance on this topic. Of course I am not surprised that it involves alot of the same misinformed people found on this and other sites.

Some FACTS about Kidder County Grasslands.

1. Was for sale for months. Landowner approached DU to buy.

2. Land was open for hunting during the time DU owned it. I know, I hunted it.

3. Much of the land around it is posted up solid by guides/outfitters from Robinson.

4. A grass/wet easement was taken on the property thus preserving it forever for wildlife.

Now tell me how this is bad? You all assumed the history of this land was unposted and open to hunting. All of the original landowners other land is POSTED. It could have been posted for years. DU buys it and allows folks in to hunt it. Yea, thats real bad.

Commercialization hardly applies here. Its a stretch to suggest that. If that is the case then all of you had better condemn every farmer who offers their land up for sale to the recreation land buyer. Some of your very posts to this topic are the real cause of the problem these landowners have because in a sense you are condeming them for SELLING land they have owned for years. What right do you all have to do that?

Some other FACTS; should the governor approve other non-profits land-buying activities? For example, the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society? They both own land in ND and its not open to hunting. Why aren't you all lobbing grenades at them?

Money from the sale of this land will go directly into buying more of whats left, before the soybean subsidy and the plow get it. If thats bad and your a hunter, then you better wake up and realize that the prairie is being carved up faster than we can stop it and before you know we'll be left with feeding hybrid **** ducks in the park.

Raised and graduated in ND.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Dakota Kid,
I don't think that the things DU are doing as far as conservation are bad. However I don't like the idea of them always advertising commercial hunting in the magazine. You cannot deny the fact that DU advertises guides and outfitters. I don't agree with that. We all make decisions on where our dollars go. I support conservation, just not through DU.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I just don't like the idea of the government buying land, they could be the high bidder all the time if they wanted. Why don't the government condem it..... and just take it.


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

Why don't one of you buy it and keep it open to hunting?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND kid
I voiced a strong opinion because the piece of land in Kidder County is only a few miles from where I grew up, I know the land, have hunted it for a long time and if I could afford it I would buy it in a heartbeat!!! Our family still owns land in Kidder County. Mark my words this land will be purchased by a G/O organization or a private person and another PRIME parcel of land will be out of the system. if you Know Kidder County you know who the G/O is.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

GanderGrind,

Open up your Delta waterfowl magazine and see the G/O advertisements in there. Do they too support the commercialization of waterfowl thru those ads? Indirectly, absolutely.

Buckseye, not quite sure what your getting at with the government. DU is not the government. The USFWS does occasionally buy property in ND though.

OF, well I will bet you a 6 pack and a hunt that (not at the same time) a private person will buy that land. I doubt if it will be a G/O, but more likely a rich guy from Mpls who does not need to pocket any $$ generated off this land. After all, at this point all you can do is graze or hay it. I agree, this land is very, very nice.

I still fail to see how DU has hurt anyone in this case. I would much rather see DU own it then some OOS clowns. For example, the Hamilton Ranch sold on http://www.prairieroserealty.com/properti.htm for the full price of 1.2 MILLION. Who has more of a chance to let the private citizen on DU or Joe Money?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Game and Fish is a government service, they have government license plates even. I live by a place that was bought by the government it is called JClark Salyer NWR. The State of ND owns alot of land with all the school sections and various wildlife plots.

Where I'm going is if you did have enuff money to pay a very fair price for that land and put your bid in only to find out you were out bid by a government agency. In away you outbid yourself and against yourself, how could that be OK.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

DU has my support on this one. I just got back from North Dakota yesterday, and saw just how bad out of staters are. They put up hen houses and goose platforms, restored some aquatic vegetation, and planted food plots on their own accord. They need to be stopped!

Across the road, a property owner has his overgrazed land in the PLOTS program, and I guarantee that piece of property didn't see a single user-day last year during hunting season. The hunting value of his land isn't worth the signs the state put up declaring it open to hunting.

To each their own.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

nd kid your on bud!
I do think one way ot the other the land will be removed from the mix. It really is to bad that ND G&F can not purchase parcels like this when they come up. In the heat of the Migration that whole area is like a beehive, birds move from one pothole/slough to the other, some of the best decoy hunting I have ever had. There are still some great open areas around there but they get less accessable everytime I go back. keep in touch.

Have a Good one!


----------



## lasalle (Jan 15, 2003)

I don't understand why people are bothered by this? The land will more than likely be purchased by big money, I saw the last bid was 200,000. It's unfortunate that the land will be out of circulation for common folks like you and I to hunt on. Yet, it will still produce ducks, will be managed to produce waterfowl and will not be turned into crops.

I hate that hunting is becoming a rich mans sport, what can we do to stop it.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

OF,

Your betting its a G/O, I'm not. Correct? Gotta understand the terms of this agreement. I can't wait to shoot ducks in your spot and then later swill your beer 

Couple facts that need mentioning. Particularly directed at the original post on this topic which was mired in the usual emotion that occurs when someone feels they might be "losing" something they never had to begin with.

NDGF does not have an active land trust that pursues the buying of land. SDGF does bigtime thru their land trust. Now, DU has spent THOUSANDS of dollers in MARSH $$ (Matching Aid to Restore States Habitat) on the pruchasing of existing WMA's along with NDGF monies. This is worth mentioning as several of you make accusations that DU is causing access problems when the reality is they have provided lots of opportunities thru their contribution of $$ towards WMA purchases.

Yeah, what a horrible outfit.


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

Ever since people just had to have technology and a "better" lifestyle hunting turned from a way of survival to a sport. Buckseye, I use to battle you with the idea of sportsmen vs. hunter. I get your point now...big time! Man, I'd give anything to go back to survival of the fittest. Just watched Jeremiah Johnson for the billionth time the other day. Oh man...what a life. You didn't hunt, you died. Now, hell, go down and get a pizza. Yuck, what a crappy life. Plus, it won't be long and we'll be driving electric cars. I'm going to miss horsepower.

My point is that hunting has "cost" money for quite a time now. It wasn't until landowners and the free market world today started to show up and ruin the way a farmer worked. Before that time, farming or ranching was a way of life. Today, it is merely a business. Sickening to see, especially when it is a business that runs entirely around mother nature and now is more and more influenced by the so called free market and cost that go up but rewards or returns that go down. Show me an equation that makes the outcome of those two variables produce a positive sign. This is why you see dollars showing up in hunting where they never have (for the most part). There's a lot of pressure on a farmer and rancher to keep thier families fed and their bills paid (or paid enough to keep the bank from taking everything). Desperate times call for desperate measures. Do I like it? No, this is just my quick thought on it.

North Dakota is one of the last states to have a wonderful supply of wildlife and supply of hunting land for everyone. Well, why do you think that is? Quite simply, farming and ranching remained strongly as a way of life. Oh, and it does help to have the most refuges of any state in the U.S. However, today, the almight liberal society has started to show it's force and now the penny pinching has begun pushed on with lost moral and down right passion of life itself. Sucks but it's life (I hate growing up...I find myself saying that more and more).

Anywho, a rant for the day. Again I ask, why don't one of you but the piece of land for sale? Why don't I? I think the answer is simple and we then still expect someone else to put the money up to buy it, pay the taxes, keep the wildlife flourishing and expect to hunt and do as we please on it. Times have changed. What to do?


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

I understand the NDG and F doesn't buy much land because they don't want to step on the farmer's toes. Is this true?


----------



## CrahNX (May 7, 2004)

Well I would say you dont really have to worry about the G/O buying that land up, as Im sure they wont be able to afford it when it is all said and done. 200k is pennies for that piece of property. Once word gets out around here (Soda Metro) I can about promise you itll be some rich business man and his buddies that will buy it up and then you, I, and everyone else will never touch that land again. As Ive said on a another forum, privatization is gonna kill this sport. Even though this property was private before, it sounds like others could still hunt on it. With that being said, I can say with near certainty that when that land goes for about a Mil, nobody else is EVER gonna hunt that land except for the people who own it. Regardless of what DUs mission statement is etc. They still need the sportman there to support their organization (as those are the most ardent contributors). Without the sportsmen, ya simply dont have an organization, which means ya gotta keep as many sportsman involved in the sport as possible, and that means have public/private lands that people can still hunt without spending an arm and a leg and still have a quality experience that they will keep coming back for. Now, speaking of 200K, I gotta make some calls.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

The NDG&F department does not buy land because they cannot.

At the present time it is illegal for the Game and Fish Department to buy land so they do not.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Again, I ask the question: If ND G&F cannot buy land, then who owns the state WMAs like Lone Tree? Is it the state land department?

Buckseye wrote:



> Game and Fish is a government service, they have government license plates even. I live by a place that was bought by the government it is called JClark Salyer NWR. The State of ND owns alot of land with all the school sections and various wildlife plots.


I would contend that the state of ND owns very little land that is worth much as wildlife habitat. There are some tracts of federal land worth something, but not state lands.

The state school lands are usually leased to farmers and ranchers, meaning that they are managed for agricultural uses, not to create wildlife habitat. True to the Law of the Commons, people farming leased, public land have little or no incentive to set aside tracts for wildlife or accept any type of stewardship role. I have seen plenty of state school sections that were nothing but pasture. However, government leaders are quick to include all of these sections when they talk about all the public land open to public hunting. This looks good on paper, but what about QUALITY public land for hunting?

I cannot fault ND G&F from leasing land through PLOTS of they legally can't purchase property. It does provide access to hundreds of thousands of acres for the public. My main concern is that PLOTS lands are tied up on a short-term basis, not managed for wildlife habitat on a long-term basis.


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

FYI on DU selling land...

Properties sold:

Sold to state game and fish agency: 4 properties, 3,418 acres

Sold to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 1 property, 240 acres

Sold to conservation buyer (not a G/O): 1 property, 680 acres

Sold to private local rancher: 3 properties, 2,240 acres

FYI on DU supporting conservation in ND...

The grassroots system of fundraising in ND for DU generates under $500,000.00/year....last year, DU spent almost *$3 million *on conservation efforts in the state.

IMO, it is unbelievable that folks would rather see this land plowed up to plant soybeans just because they may not be able to hunt it because a private party owns it...that smacks of selfishness and not concern for the resource. If one truly cares about the resource and its future, how can you not support conservation organizations--DU or otherwise--who are actively working to preserve the resource and the habitats needed to sustain it?

I can see arguments about commercialization of hunting, but seems like many are choosing to place blame where it is undue. This leads to a thought representative of many private landowners in ND who I call my family. If any of you in this forum who have issues with DU have ever taken money as a guide, say for $50.00/day, took people out on privately-owned land that you got permission to hunt on as a courtesy (many landowners allow hunting on their land in ND as they believe in keeping the tradition alive), and then didn't turn around and give a share of your profits to the landowner...then you are part of the commercialization problem, as well as the problem of landowners not giving access. My grandfather, who lives off of a small social security check, no longer allows access to his land because one too many local guides masked their intentions and made money off of his property. Unfair. Unethical. And a bigger problem than DU employing a method of conservation that seems to me to be one of the best options out there to keep habitat intact.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

right on conservation1--


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

When it comes to conservation and access, a frequent comment is "why doesn't the state, fed or interested organizations just buy land for this purpose." Used to think some of that myself. Then when you get involved in the politics of hunting, you realize there are hidden currents and many impediments to this, beyond the economic limitations that are huge themselves.

Certain other people/orgs feel as Buckseye does (this is the pretty tame version of thoughts I've heard from some who represent this philosophy): http://www.ndland.org/

These feelings have resulted in ND statutes making it very difficult for organizations to acquire lands for conservation or access improvement (See NDCC 10-06.1-10): http://www.state.nd.us/lr/cencode/T10C061.pdf

And, these feelings have resulted in ND statutes making it very difficult for the State or the fed to acquire lands for conservation or access improvement (see NDCC 20.1-02-17.1, 20.1-02-18.1 and 20.1-02-05.1):

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/cencode/t201c02.pdf

Another 2,000 acres of WPA's in each county in the duck belt sounds great to most of us. Run that one up the flag pole of the Towner County Commission and see what happens. Last session one of them testified complaining about another quarter (160 acres) under consideration. Lots of unanticipated land mines in the politics of hunting.

Buckseye, nothing here meant as a dig to you.

******************

Is it "better" when the ENT from Edina buys a section of land rather than have it added to the o/g industry? I don't know, maybe. I suspect the availability of that ground to the average hunter is about the same under either scenario. Don't think the average hunter purchaser, NR or R, is much about granting general access, IF you can find him/her. The rush to exclusivity and the resulting "less hunters on more land" model can really only be justified from a "conservation" standpoint, and that is a pretty hollow justification for 95% of active hunters. "Best", from many perspectives (economic and social) based upon what ND is and likely wants to remain when it comes right down to it (taking the good with the bad), would be that it is retained by an ND and used and owned for the same purposes as the prior century. Some of the "wild" duck factory could surely see a plow for the first time - much of it that hasn't already would eat that plow and its other equipment cousins for lunch.

ND is under no obligation to create or perpetuate a scenario where landowners or certain others are able to maximize their take based upon private profiteering from the public trust to the detriment of most others. Landowners maximizing revenue through sale/lease to hunters, "mainstreet" maximizing profit from hunting and ND retaining exceptional quality hunting for ND residents cannot, simultaneously, be accomplished. Only through a cooling of demand (read: NR restrictions) can all (or for that matter, any two) occur to a reasonable degree in balance over the long term.

As Griz pointed out on the other thread, many who are pushing commercialization and are seeing short-term benefits from it will be hit HARD by the boomerang effect when commercialization fully vests. Very few "winners" and lots of "losers" in ND under the market approach.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Sadly it will come to the point that residents of ND will have to form hunting clubs like the rest of the country and purchase land to have access to at least some good land or get squeezed out by the bigger money people both NRs and Rs. This sure is depressing.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

nd kid You got it, if i have to get you a hunt and some brews so be it.

To all: I am not upset with DU nowhere in my posts did i ever say or have I ever said anything bad about DU efforts, I am upset that another piece of very very nice land from home is probably going to be removed from public hunting, those of you that have hunted this land know what I mean.

So if I read Conservation 1's post the state ND G&F purchased 3,418 acres from DU? 
Is it or is it not legal for the state to purchase land? OK i went to the Site Dan listed, and it states the Director with the Gov's approval may purchase etc.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Hey Con1, the numbers you cite make it look like DU isn't selling off that much land. But guys that work there have told me they get calls about it all the time. In fact, one told me "hunt like crazy for the next 10 years, because by then freelancing will be all over." That was 2 years ago.

I wonder how many deals DU 'brokers' by acting as a middleman, just getting seller and buyer together. That wouldn't be reported under your statistics.

What gets me, is that we have all supported DU at one time or another (I don't anymore) and then DU takes your money, enhances waterfowl productivity on a tract of land and then sells it to someone for their private playground. I for one, am not going to support that.

Nothing burns me more than seeing the usual DU sign proclaiming the greatness of a DU project, and seeing the landowners "NO HUNTING" signs stapled right to it. Only a fool would support that.


----------



## CrahNX (May 7, 2004)

TB-EXCELLENT POST!! A lot of these projects more than likely dont need DUs help in the first place. If someone is spending 100, 200 a Million dollars on hunting land, dont ya think they are gonna make the most out of it anyways, I sure as hells know I would. So why pitch in the money of hundreds/thousands of others to do the same thing?? Whats the point there? DU could still act as the middle man, but only to enact the proper long term protection policies. At that point, its gonna tighten the market of that property to those who want it for hunting. After all, the end result would still be the same. Its kinda like having a nice vehicle, selling it to a middle man, having them fix it up with your money and the money of lots of others and then dumping a Lamborgini into the hands of the highest bidder. How many of those folks whose money you used will be happy with that, when in reality, they dont see any direct results from their money. Yes duck production is good for everyone, but as was stated before, if you are paying that much money for that type of land, itd be there anyways.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

ND being the duck factory it is I bet DU would spend millions here even if they didn't have a single member in ND. Most of the ducks hatched in ND that get shot are killed down south. I figured out a couple years ago we don't need to suport DU for that reason. They have tremendous support in the south where they have caused the most benefit. They are not here to make our hunting better but more for all the people down south.

I am happy they do that because it helps keep all those folks down there in the hunt too. The more of us that hunt the more likely hunting will be preserved for the future. The longer we can maintain hunting as being necessary to control the balances of nature we have affected with our presence the longer we will be free to hunt.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2004)

Not to sidetrack everyone, but what do you all think of Delta Waterfowl?? I obviously need to switch who I send money to and start supporting someone who's not the "middleman". It's all about who has the money!! :eyeroll: Always has been, always will be.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I knew it flew right over the head of many on this site, but I will say it again: look at the big money donors to Hatch and Pawlenty and compare that to the DU MN sponsor list and you will know exactly who is behing the MN lawsuit against ND.

Money talks - hopefully no one is listening.

DU should not be in the business of buying and selling land.


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

First, it would be interesting to know who of DU employees is telling folks that DU fields requests and actually acts as a land broker? I'm well acquainted with many who work for DU in ND and that is an untruth...even if people do call and ask about buying DU land, that doesn't mean DU actually sells them land! If I called you and asked you to help me find land worth buying and you said 'no,' would that give people the right to say that you are a land broker?

Also, it is ridiculous to me that people in this forum won't donate to DU because 1) they already spend money in ND and 2) because ducks _migrate_. Please, people. DUCKS MIGRATE. A large percentage of North America's duck population comes from ND, yes, but because by their nature of being a migratory bird, you would blame DU for the birds going south to the benefit of southern hunters? So ducks should be born here and live here year round so they can be shot by you? EVERYONE benefits from protecting habitat on the breeding grounds. Where are the ducks you kill from? Unless you just never get to kill any ducks because they're all down south...which I highly doubt. Do some of you honestly believe that _you_ don't benefit from the work DU does in the state? Get real.

I was going to stop there, but one more idea needs to be reiterated...
Are we talking about conservation or hunting rights? To not support conservation because your bag numbers aren't as high or because you don't have direct access to land you probably never took advantage of when it was open to all hunting smacks of complete selfishness. Shall we not support conservation now for selfishly motivated reasons, or should we support it and allow our kids and grandkids to even know and see what a duck is? I never thought our consumptive society would penetrate the conservation community, but it obviously has. Let's use and abuse the resource now, not take care of it or support those who are trying and wonder what in the heck happened when future generations can only read about what once was.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Con1,

Right on brother, great post.

TB has made this accusation before that DU acts as a phantom land broker. I have rebuked it before and he has never given up any FACTS to substantiate. Yeah, DU has nothing better to do than act as a middleman for buyers/sellers. Get real is right.

Many on this and other boards, Ken, Fetch and others have an agenda. To rip DU at all costs regardless of facts. We are well aware of what "they" are against, but never about what they are for. Basically because they are negative, grumpy people who feel that the glass is always half-empty. They are part of the black-helicopter crowd that sees a conspiracy/threat in everything.

We all can agree that DU is not perfect but to rip DU for fullfilling its mission, habitat conservation, is just another example of their ability to think and rationalize. On this topic they are so blinded by HATE, that they can't even type a complete, logical, factual response.

Anyone who risks the perceived threat of commercialization over long-term habitat preservation is seriously short-sighted. The way to stop commercialization is NOT to grab the stick that holds the whole pile up (conservation) but rather to enact focused legislation strictly prohibiting the commercialization of waterfowl.

Con1, please keep posting. Its about time you guys woke up over there


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

Right on, DK.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Con 1-- again, great points.

I am really surprised how selfish some folks can be.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

conservation1 said:


> Are we talking about conservation or hunting rights? To not support conservation because your bag numbers aren't as high or because you don't have direct access to land you probably never took advantage of when it was open to all hunting smacks of complete selfishness. Shall we not support conservation now for selfishly motivated reasons, or should we support it and allow our kids and grandkids to even know and see what a duck is? I never thought our consumptive society would penetrate the conservation community, but it obviously has. Let's use and abuse the resource now, not take care of it or support those who are trying and wonder what in the heck happened when future generations can only read about what once was.


C1, that's crap. You're describing conservation for the elite. In order for conservation to be accepted by all but about 5% of people who hunt ND, it can't run cross-purpose with the long-term opportunities for the 95%.

One shouldn't hunt if he/she doesn't have at least some element of conservation within. And you know hunters are your best and most-strident concervationists. But, we are hunters. And the form of conservation that panders to and aids in the continued move to exclusivity is just not going to fly (at least for now) to the majority of waterfowlers in ND.

95% of us will never be able to or will want to play in the exclusivity game. And the thought of some day standing shoulder to shoulder in some public hunting area surrounded by parcels that have been "conserved" and only available to the chosen few is going to be a tough sell here.

These guys claim to be all about conservation too, but their form of conservation is also aimed at the 5% to the exclusion of the other 95%: http://www.conservationforce.org/

You're going to loose support from the masses when conservation methods are tailored to the commercialization process. Maybe it's a winning model for DU? Maybe a huge check from Pete Coors-types will offset thousands of smaller ones. But don't shame six-pack Joe for disliking conservation-for-the-chosen techniques.

NDG&F is in the process of receiving control over about 4,800 acres formerly controlled by the State Land Department. These grounds are by and large in need of significant habitat improvement. Presumably DU expertise and funding would be very helpful in these efforts. This is the type of ND conservation the 95% could get behind.

I have to agree with PH on this one; DU doesn't belong in in the land sales game. Selfish, maybe, but also a very practical concern for all but the 5%.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

...I am really surprised how selfish some folks can be


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

Dan,

I see and respect your point-of-view....please note...I've never called anyone's opinion crap. Let me first begin by saying, I could never afford this land. My dad, brothers, uncles, cousins or any of my family of hunters/sportsmen could either...the land that is in my family has been since my great-great-grandparents settled here. Your perspective is one that is frequently discussed among my family and friends, as all give to the best of their abilities to various conservation organizations, including DU, several times a year. I don't want to discredit your concerns, as I understand them. However, I can't see the value in opinions about not supporting conservation for selfish reasons. Nor can I see why it is so difficult to understand that DU isn't selling their land to the 'elite' as you call them. Check the facts. DU sells primarily to state and federal agencies, or ranchers with a conservation interest--maybe not necessarily in ducks, but in the prairies.

I know you have an affinity for this amazing place that is unlike any other in the world. DU only steps in to buy land here when it is critical to ducks _and at risk of being developed or cultivated. They then assure that they do everything possible to protect this land for as long as possible...however, they're a non-profit and if you check the numbers on non-profits since 9/11...many are not doing that well. Contrary to popular belief, DU doesn't have a giant bucket of money they throw at whatever they want. They do the research and with sound science, approach conservation strategically. Buying land is a last resort. There is no huge portfolio of land. And managing and owning land is expensive. Check out their annual report...as they are a non-profit, we all have access to their financials. The buyers aren't fat cat hunters either. I made a few calls to also check into the property(ies) post-sale. The lone purchaser of a DU property who isn't an agency or rancher is actually employing DU to manage the land for him. That seems like a huge win and like the sort of buyer they need! DU is actively seeking this type of relationship with the buyer of any of their land. Seems that DU exercises all options with the sale of the properties and uses a transparent auction method when needed. DU is not TNC. If anything, DU is trying to learn from the mistakes of other non-profits, and for that, they have my kudos.

So you may think my ideas and opinions are crap. But I grew up here, have left here and returned because it is a very special place with even better people. Though it may seem ideological, I support conservation for the future. If someone else owns conservation land, I don't care...as long as they are managing it for conservation. There will always be state land and organizations like DU will always try to help to contribute to more acquisitions by state/fed agencies...however, it is not the way of our society to put all land in the hands of the government. I want to see ND's natural resources remain intact and there are people who will be good stewards of ND's resources...even if they aren't the government.

Also, one more thought. Much of the concern expressed on this issue is based on 'maybe's,' 'probablies,' and 'could be's,' DU according to their own information states that they reserve the right to refuse sale to the highest bidder. Based on their past sales, I'm confident they won't see any of their properties sold into the wrong hands, nor will they go away post-sale. They didn't make a ton of money on their last sale and the purchaser sounds like he is in the best state-of-mind for conservation....doesn't sound like he's buying up the Dakotas to commercialize...more like an affinity for these places and the way of life they offer._


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

conservation1 said:


> So you may think my ideas and opinions are crap.


Sorry, poor choice of words. Got a little riled when the insinuation was that we were being selfish for not willingly tieing our own nooses. With commercialization coming from every and all angles, just think many are disappointed to see it too (even if on a de minimus basis) from an organization many of us have contributed to for years.


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

This is a heated topic...understandable. There are just different degrees of understanding...you may not be one of those who'd rather see the land plowed than go to a private landowner, but those sentiments exist, and it's those I'm concerned about. In-fighting in the conservation community will only serve to harm all of us. Even if a practice exists that we can't rally behind 100%, let's not use it to the detriment of the very resources we all cherish and respect. It's great that forums like this exist so opinions can be heard that otherwise may not have been...however, seems that with all of the time and energy invested in these arguments, we could redirect our energies and affect change, rather than being counterproductive and fighting with each other on the internet!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

conservation1 said:


> ...however, seems that with all of the time and energy invested in these arguments, we could redirect our energies and affect change, rather than being counterproductive and fighting with each other on the internet!


C1, For most of us, conservation must co-exist with checking commercialization. It's not an "or" deal. And for 95% of ND sportspersons, the latter is the tallest fire right now and needing the most attention. I'd love to get this thing turned around and rechannel all my outdoors issues energies to the other important issue.

Widg, should I change my site information location to "Selfish, South Dakota"? :wink:


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

I know these issues aren't mutually exclusive and I understand that hunting access & commercialization are at the forefront of many sportsmen's minds....but are you sure about 95% of ND hunters? It's always hard to quantify based on one's personal community of friends and family. And do the 95% of ND hunters vehemently disagree with DU's strategy? Could we at least agree that there are two huge interrelated issues facing hunters/conservationists, and not try and quantify based on our own perceptions?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

95% was not meant to quantify those that oppose DU. Even for my intended point, 95% is probably too high. To keep it simple, let's just say the majority of today's ND hunters will be dramatically affected and/or forced out of meaningful hunting (ND style) if we trend fully to commercialization as other states have. It's hitting hard and at an increasing rate. Without solid action soon, it will be lost forever. It is an urgent, dire issue, needing maximum attention. That was my point.


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

Well put, Dan! However, for the sake of those hunter's who are trying to place blame on a non-profit for the commercialization issue...let's all take a step back for a moment. The call to action here is not to slam or shut down DU, but rather to affect change in ND. It seems a bigger concern should be that private landowners may sell directly to commercial outfits...rather than working with a non-profit to, at least, get protective measures in place. Check the real estate listings. Just last year, there was a listing in a small SD paper for several hundred acres of native prairie to be broken up after a specified date...native prairie in the heart of the PPR. Look online. You'll find lots of land for sale by private landowners...at a price tag much higher than what DU makes on their land...not to mention, the money DU gets from sale goes directly back to the ducks....with a private landowner, it just pads their pockets. The important thing to a private interest is price...not stewardship. Let's not forget, too, with the Kidder County property, that the landowner approached DU after not having any bites when it was up for sale...not vice versa.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey guys...the plow/farmers feeds most of those ducks and geese. Their numbers relate directly to available food thru out the year and migration. I say lets produce and conserve the small farmer or land owner. They are the ones who give us permission to hunt the wildlife that eats or lives on their land. The more little guys there are the more total time that is put into all facets of conservation. I would rather see 10,000 people running 2000 acre operations than 2000 people running 10,000 acre operations. Maybe we have missed the most important conservation project there could have ever been.

As far as DU they are a fine organization and have done alot for waterfowl and waterfowl hunters. But without rain we have our hands tied. Like all non-profit orgs they will only be around as long as the volunteerism that they rely upon is there for them. Alot of non-profit orgs go stagnant.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Dan,

haha-- that would work

or you could make an alias for yourself like

Dan "me first" Bueide...

:lol:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Widg, just for you..........

Dan "Statist, ND first (which will always allow for a reasonable use by NR hunters and their economic impact), DU supporter (mostly), Republican (usually), Packers suck (but Lambeau is the Mecha of pro football and Packer fans are the best sports fans), the 'Dome sucks, only whussies don't stand in the rain and finish their round of skeet (private joke), heavy/slow steel loads, anything other than a Benelli is just a mis-shapen boat anchor, only drake mallards and bull pintails are real ducks, I do occasionally shoot a hen mallard (oops), 'welling an 'eye in excess of 18" is verboten, NOTHING like a lab, Chevy's rule" Bueide

Think that covers most of the bar-brawl stuff.  Have a good weekend all.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Ha ha. At least your honest about your faults Dan.  :lol:


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

The mission of Ducks Unlimited is to fulfill the annual life cycle needs of North American waterfowl by protecting, enhancing, restoring and managing important wetlands and associated uplands.

_Graslands for Tomorrow, _ an initiative developed by DU as one of its premier conservation initiatives, seeks to protect some of the last strongholds for breeding waterfowl. Land acquistion is an important part of the initiative. Through this program, DU purchases properties that (1) have the potential to be critical nesting habitat, but are in need of habitat restoration, or (2) provide excellent habitat, but are threatened by cultivation or other conversions. Often situation arise where landowners actively seek DU to sell or gift their land, knowing that the land will be well-managed as quality waterfowl habitat for future generations. By employing a strategy of revolving capital through sequential land purchases and sales, DU is able to improve the efficiency of every dollar gifted.

When landowners do not wish to sell permanent easements on their land and choose to liquidate a land holding, DU takes a very scientific approach to deciding on our involvement. If the land has substantial waterfowl habitat and it would likely be lost to cultivation under new ownership, DU can save substantial future cost by acquiring, protecting and re-selling the land with minimal restoration. This apporach to conservation is far more cost-effective than allowing the loss of habitat and incurring much greater cost in restoring similar habitat elsewhere. DU foscuses on the identification of threatened habitat, through a strong science program, while seeking to minimize the cost of maintaining productive waterfowl habitat.

After DUCKS UNLIMITED acquires a property, any needed grassland or wetland restorations are perfromed and the land is protected in perpetuity with conservation easements. Ducks Unlimited attempts to find suitable conservation buyers to purchase the land once habitat restoration are complete and easements are in place. To-date, restored land has been sold to state conservation agencies, the USFWS Refuge System., and private citizens.

The _Grasslands for Tommorow_ initiative has targeted the acquisition, restoration and sale of about 72,000 acres over the next 15 years, and is part of a larger plan to permanently protect more than two million acres in the U.S. prairies of the "best of the best" remaining breeding habitat for waterfowl on the continent.

A Conservation Land Directory has been designed as an innovative approach to selling DU land to private buyers interested in owning landscape dedicated to wildlife conservation.

This description seems to say that DU is in the habitat improvement game as opposed to the "land sale" game that some have proposed.

What's next on the topic? Is someone going to put a connection to land sales, Ducks Unlimited, and Joe Satrom and come up with some other ridiculous statement. I hope not.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

For those interested in forming your own opinion and supporting that view with some facts please read the 4 part series, on Prairies under Siege in your Ducks Unlimited magazines.

If you won't donate $35.00 for a membership or can't afford one you can read it on their website as well. If you go to their website check out the Grasslands for Tomorrow program as well.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Redlabel,

Thanks for the info on DU, but get some sleep man!

Those last two posts were at 4 something in the morning. You must be a DU fanatic

widg


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

No, not a DU fanatic, they're just one of the conservation groups that I belong to.

I just wanted to put some factual information out before this thread kept going in such a mis-guided and mis-informed direction.

Rather than allow rumors to run rampent people should base thier opioions on facts and not inaccurate rants.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Do not like these actions by DU with the land. First and fore most it does on a nationwide basis do more to stimulate commercialization of hunting than any of the other conservation organizations.

That being said I do not disagree with habitat restoration or preservation. I do disagree with the fact that no organization has taken on the biggest threat to wetlands and grasslands in the US and that being the conservation policies of the Farm Programs.

I would suggest DU change it's status from non-profit to a for profit entity and use the money it receives in getting legislation passed that would penalize growers for wetland drainage and plowing of native lands instead of rewarding them. It is basically double speak to continue to follow the path it has taken with the reality of CRP and ethanol looming on the horizon.

More acres will go by the way side for soybeans and corn in the next three years then DU can save or restore in the next 25. So refocus and get the best for the investment of money.

I have heard all about the matching funds etc and the they can spend on lobbing and amount of dollars lost if they did this, but doing so make more sense than what is taking place today.

Look at this project. 3 years of time to protect a few thousand acres, yet a hundred acres a day can be drained with the new machines available and with no loss to the farmer for doing it. Most farmers would not drain if they faced loss of subsides. Most farmers do not want the neighbors water on their land. Hold it where mother nature put it and the majority of landowners would be happy.

I am not anti DU but I see them as the only recognizable and respected group out there today that could,d and should make the transition that will do more in the short run then can be done staying the way it is in the long run.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Actually, there is a group out there already doing what you would like, THE IZZAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA. If you're not a member you should be.

I'm sure Ducks Unlimited gains more donations by showing a preserved wetland as opposed to sending out brochures with a request for a donation to a lobbying group.

In UTOPIA you can have all the idealistic goals and plans one wants, but in the REAL WORLD I think it is better to fight the battles you have a good chance to win.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

26 bids right now-- auction is in overtime...


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

32 bids.... still in overtime


----------



## win4win (Sep 8, 2003)

Kidder County Grasslands Sale

AUCTION IS OVER

Winning Bid: $ 266,000 
# of Bids: 37


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The south took that approach and still lost the war. Seeing the continuation of what is happening and not trying to find a reasonable solution that is workable and winnable is not acceptable to me. Like I said I am not anti DU but use the resource you have instead of fighting a forest fire with a sprinkler can.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

The Grasslands for Tomorrow's goal to save and restore 72,000 acres in the next 15 years is, at least to me, a good start. Those acres become permantly restored and represent a better solution. If you work against draining and win today, you will have to refight that battle in the future again, and again, and again.

Remember, DU's mission statement is to protect, enhance, restore, and manage wetlands and their associated uplands. It is not to preserve hunting as we know it today.

The South lost the war partially because of poor battlefield leadership, especially in the west, but they lost the war because they didn't have a chance to win it in the beginning. Of course, one of the main reasons for the start of the Civil War was the unwillingness of the South to accept change or compormise.

Is it not better to build a fire break and save part of the forest, rather than watch it all burn if your plan fails?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Just clear up one more rumor or prove it to be fact if you would. 
Is DU taking money from the Sierra club and others like them?

I am not trying to stir the pot, just want to know. I was a member for many, many years until I visited with several individuals who are in the waterfowl gear industry and they dropped them for this very reason.

I hate when politics and special interests get involved with their own agendas.

Please post up if you know.


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

The word about town is the land was purchased by a rancher from small town ND....now what was all this talk about commercialization?

Great work, DU!!!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I hope a local rancher did get the land....good for him/her. If he uses it to run cattle you can say good buy to the grass that surrounds it though and the cattle do a major job on the vegetation surrounding the slough as well. Well anyway, hope he doesn't lease to a big $$$ guy.....although that's his perogative if he chooses to do so.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

It only takes one article from DU to get hunters to ascend onto an area in masses. The first thing for some to do is profit off the hunters with land access and leasing, hence commercialization.

I was in an article in DU about 10 years ago or so, people came from Texas,Kentucky and Ohio and tried to get me to work for them as a guide. I almost did, then some of my best friends said "what ya going to do with us" I thought about it for less than a second and said I am going to hunt with my friends for food and fun, not a bunch of strangers that measure a good hunt by the numbers. 8)


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Field Hunter is right. Depends on the type of easement. I believe DU does all of its easements in conjunction with the USFWS.

There are four options for prairie and grassland easements.

1) No use

2) Haying only. Options to graze, crop, ditch, are purchased by the government. Right to hay and harvest seed is retained by the landowner but only after July 15th of each year.

3) Grazing only. Right to graze is retained by the landowner with no grazing restrictions placed on the land.

4)Grazing and Haying. No restrictions on the right to graze and landowner may hay and harvest seed after July 15th.

Depending on what easements the land has will dictate what kind of value it will have in terms of wildlife.

Wetlands easements are another whole deal and I don't have the info handy right now.


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

FYI...the land was leased for grazing by a local rancher during DU ownership and that lease is still in place with the new owner until the end. So it has been grazed...and the grass is still there...and the benefit to the ducks!


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

conservation1,
Either you work for DU or your closely connected in some way. So which one is it? If you are closely connected how? It would be nice to know how you get your info if I am to believe it.

Jed Fluhrer


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

Actually, there was a local live auction the public could attend at the local office. It was widely publicized throughout the state...lots of folks from the area around the property were there. Basically, those who didn't want to bid on the internet could win the high bid at a public auction and use a computer in DU's building to compete with their bid from the live auction online. Many stuck around until the auction closed to see who won. So I learned all of this there...I decided to go to see how everything went down.


----------



## conservation1 (May 20, 2004)

and the guy currently leasing the property was there, too.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I see. 8)


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

Here's an update from the GF Herald:

Ducks Unlimited has successfully completed its first-ever public auction of land in North Dakota, selling 940 acres of grassland habitat north of Lake Williams in Kidder County to a North Dakota rancher.

DU had purchased the land to improve the range condition and secure the waterfowl conservation values of the property.

"I'm pleased with the auction sale and happy that the land was purchased by a rancher who will use it as pasture," said Jeff Nelson, director of DU's Bismarck office. "Ranchers are our natural partners in conservation, since their pastures supply the same grass and that provides habitat for nesting ducks."

DU's "Grasslands for Tomorrow" initiative recognizes the international importance of Dakota wetlands and grasslands to waterfowl, waterfowl hunters and the states' economies. As part of the program, easements are used to secure the conservation values, but the land continues to be used for livestock production and recreation. DU continues to pay taxes assessed on the land, the same as any private landowner. Info: www.prairie.ducks.org.


----------



## Capt. Kevin (Mar 1, 2004)

I'm sick of this website being so anti DU almost everyone in this forum would rather delta kill a few predators so next year they can kill an extra green head rather than DU making a nesting island so we can keep producting ducks and keep our beloved sport alive. DU gives you the predator control with the long termeffects of habitat control. DU's office is in bismarck for a reason, it's not in minnesota for a reason also.

Tell me one thing delta does that du doesn't ?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I don't think anyone is anti DU. Differences in ideology. Support one support both I don't really care but support one of them for sure.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Capt. Kevin said:


> I'm sick of this website being so anti DU


Kevin,

Actually, if you search the duck forums across the Internet you'll find that people all over the country are up in arms with DU, not just this site.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

People complaining about DU is nothing new on the internet. It has been going on for years on those duck sites. I don't think it is a valid statement to say that this website is anti DU. A few of the people are, and they voice their opinion often so it may seem that way.

The reality is that someone complaining will tell 10-12 people about their view of the problem, while the person who is not upset will maybe tell 1 or 2 people about their experience. That is why a few complainers can sound like a majority, when in reality you have the group called, "THE SILENT MAJORITY"

DU is certainly not perfect by any means, but they do a lot of things right and primarily hold to their Mission Statement. If everyone waits for the "perfect" organization to come along to join there won't be many joiners.


----------

