# Shady Ron Schara



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

I used to have so much respect for Ron Schara...now I don't know. He uses his national stage to bash ND for stopping the crossland's purchase, but doesn't inform his readership what a close hunting buddy he is with Cook and what else Cook might have up his sleeve regarding this purchase by Crosslands.

I can understand putting pictures of your friends and family in the newspaper as an outdoors writer (because I do it  ) but to use such a national stage to push this agenda is shameful, and to not enlighten folks of his connection is shady. Read it below...

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/tv/columns/ ... 74564.html


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

edit


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Nick
Here is one for you.

Notice the people in the picture and connect the dots!!!

http://www.outdoorltd.com/newsletters/no_10/page2.html


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

For a person recently becoming involved, all I can say is WOW! These guys are out for themselves only. It is amazing on how many of these different "Hot Topics" tie into each other. Schara should be ashamed of himself. He can scratch me off as a viewer. I just watched his show the other night.

If he has such a problem with ND, maybe he shouldn't ever come to hunt again...wait...his boy from OE can hook him up! :******:


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Bob -

Yeah, when I read his article after seeing that picture and story, I was furious. He obviously has NOTHING to gain from his buddy's purchase right? Argh! He reminds me of some legislators from ND!


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

Here's Ron's email address [email protected]

My next question is does anyone have a good picture of a middle finger?


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

870 -

I had an email all drawn up...but slept on it last night, and decided not to email him. A board bashing is good enough for my ire!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Guys

Ron is already in North Dakota. He currently owns a bunch of land around Linton ND. and yes these guys are all connected. I also believe that some of this sessions Legislation has been influenced by this, Like I said pay attention and connect the dots.

Bob


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I have not followed this that close and I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But if Jim Cook is truly sincre why doesn't he give the money to Delta or DU to buy and manage????


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Well Zog, A while back a guy by the name of Jim posted this. I think this may explain why Mr. Cook does not want to get Delta and Du Involved. Plus Delta and DU need approval from the Natural Areas Advisory Board also.

_*Hi...I've been lurking for a while...this is my first post.

James R. Cook...There is a name from the past. This guy owned/controlled/leased thousands of acres in Ward and surrounding counties in the mid 80's and then lost them when he went through some financial difficulties. His red & white "Refuge" signs with a picture of a duck and "James Cook Minneapolis" on the bottom can still be seen in a couple of places SW of Berthold, ND. This guy is a duck hunter and what he was doing back then was posting up the land and bringing in his friends to go hunting on his own private reserve.

It looks to me like he is now trying to figure out a way to buy up land through a non-profit corporation and do the same thing...

The bottom line will be less land for the rest of us to hunt. How long will it be before other big money guys figure this out and do the same thing? Will the whole state become a "Refuge" for wealthy out of state hunters. I'm not against out of state hunters, several of my friends come up to ND to hunt, but please leave your land grabbing money at home. *_


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Down with Raven's owner!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

Thanks for the email link. I just sent him a nasty letter. :eyeroll:


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Scathing e-mail sent.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I e-mailed him back when he bashed HPC. He, of course, never bothered to respond. All these "hunters" on TV, you wonder if they could actually go out and freelance on their own or if they need the boys to go out, tie up the land, set the dekes, amd maybe even shoot for them. That, as I have said a thousand times is not hunting, that is shooting. Huge difference. I haven't watched his show since he bashed HPC back when!!!


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Very often the "promoters of wildlife" morph to the "promoters of self" when it comes to the commercialization issues. As Dan mentioned, they don't functionally hunt the way we do (lots of "help" along the way by those who wish to portray ND as the land of endless hunting) and their "wildlife and hunter promotion" gets subsumed by their business interests when it comes to the topic of restrictions - it just never seems to come out that way when they join the debate.


----------



## mpduckman (Dec 30, 2003)

I know everyone here is going to bash me, but I'm going to say this anyhow. I am not totally familiar with Cook's past pracitces when it comes to buying up land, and I'll say for the record that I am in complete agreeance with all of you that I hate to see land bought up by big money for the purpose of rish men's playgrounds and taken out of the pool of huntable land. Fact of the matter is though, that the land in question was heavily posted prior to Cook buying it. We weren't able to hunt it before either. Cook is already working with oranizations to restore wetlands, and bring back grass for nesting waterfowl in that neck of the woods. Fact is, he is making a difference that positively affects waterfowl. It is my understanding, that the property truely will be a refuge. There is no underminded intention to use the land for g/o purposes. There is a lot more at stake here than Cook getting his way. Granted he'll most likely lose his case at the state level, but if appealed all the way to the supreme court, he could win his case. This could potentially open the door for conservation nonprofits, like DU and Delta, to purchase land for the benefit of waterfowl in our state in the future. And as for the argument that this land will be used for his personal hunting benefit and closed to the rest of us, I'll nip that in the bud right now.

CORPORATE OR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FARMING SECTION 10-06.1-10 SUBSECTION 2 C. clearly states the following:

IF ANY PARCEL OF THE LAND IS OPEN TO HUNTING, 
IT MUST BE OPEN TO HUNTIG BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

So that takes care of that arguement. Fact is that if he is not allowed to keep title with the nonprofit org. he will be forced to divest the land. Which he could do into his own name, which WOULD allow him to use it as his own personal hunting grounds. While in the name of a nonprofit, this is not the case.

If you truely have the resource in mind, that is protection and restoration of duck habitat, that in turn will pump out more ducks, you should step back for a moment and reconsider how you feel about this. The ducks produced on that land aren't gonna just stay there. They're going to move and migrate. Maybe even right into your decoys.

mp


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/534/5174734.html

I would love to see this guy while hunting in Northern Kidder County. He would get an earfull.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

mpduckman

If Mr. Cooks motives are so pure why did the Governor and the committee not approve the Plan, for either area? Griggs County or Cavalier County?

I think it is a fair question, I would like to hear the response.

Bob


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

there are ways to go about this. What if we all decided to start our own non-profits and purchase lands with "donated" money? What then when suddenly we could purchase land, develop it for waterfowl then be able to control whether we would like leave it open to the public or we could let select groups enter.

This type of conservation needs to be very casrefully regulated so that there is not an abuse of this privilige.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Bob - What's this? I found some reasoning by the state in their suit...

In Cook's purchase of 480 acres in Cavalier County, Hoeven cited a lack of public benefit, *including plans to ban hunters*, in denying the request. Cook was then sued by Stenehjem, who says Crosslands also illegally transferred ownership of its 320-acre refuge in Ward County from another nonprofit Cook operated. *[emphasis added]*


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

and the plot thickens


----------



## mpduckman (Dec 30, 2003)

Bob,

this is a good question, and one that I don't know the answer to, but I can give a very educated guess. Nonprofit purchases and gov. purchases of land in our state, especially that neck of the woods are not looked at favorably by the farming community. There is a lot of pressure to keep such lands in base farming acres. Turning it over to nonprofits or say the USFWS takes that land out of production. The USFWS can win, nonprofits because of the Corporate Farming Laws are at the mercy of a governor who wants reelected (understandably so) in a state dominated by citiizens with with strong interest in ag. and not so much in habitat conservation. We're the only state in the country with such stringenet laws. It handcuffs nonprofit conservation organizations. 
bottom line is, it doesn't matter wether or not his intentions are honorable, if his nonprofit was given approval, the land would, by law, be open to everyone or noone to hunt. It would do a lot more for ducks and duck hunters to have it restored for the benefit of duck production and closed to us all, than to remain a wasteland of drained wetlands and grassless prairie that was posted up tighter than h*** in the past anyhow.

mp


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Fair enough but as to ability to buy and restore land in ND by DU and others, They are able to do it now with out much problem. DU restored a nice chunk of land in Kidder County and sold it without much of a problem last year.

And just because land is posted doesn't mean it is not hunted.


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

Raven is alright. :run:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

If he really wants to help waterfowl then all he has to do is put the land in his name and do what he originally planned.

I understand the tax implications and why he wants to do it as a corp but there is really nothing stopping him.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

We should have a new hunting season this year..............can anyone guess what types of people we would be able to hunt???? :wink:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

.....now, if you close off hunting to ALL on one parcel that's mostly water by owning it through your non-profit and individually own or secure the hunting rights to some other land (and maybe connecting water) around it......

Don't know any details of this situation, but there is opportunity for abuse with the "private non-profit" scenario. Again, don't know any of the details, but with the other available work-arounds, it just doesn't feel right.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I'd take Raven!!!!!!!!!! :run:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I would like to chime in on a point being made here. The NArural resource aquisition board which denied the request to allow him to purchase this land is made up of a number of members, not all from a conservation angle. This is the same board that a bill currently in the legislature seeks to remove the Game and Fish Director and replace it with the Director of the Stockmans association. I will be the first to decry someone buying land and making it his own private hunting spot with tax free dollars or something, but the fact is, as MPduckman says, that this land will raise more ducks in the refuge ownership than it was before. Period.

When we have a willing buyer and a willing seller, why do we have an outside entity controlling the deal?? Seems like Private Property rights are important as long as they are good for me and not for you, but when you want to do something I dont like, then we should take those rights away.

Personally, I welcome Mr. Cooks court battle to shed some badly needed light on these draconian laws, and maybe serve up the chance to restore perpetual easments and other forms of conservation on private lands that are currently not allowed because they are just too darn succesful in ND.


----------



## mpduckman (Dec 30, 2003)

Bob,

I think you would be overwhelmed to learn what DU has to go through to purchase land as a nonprofit. It is not, as you suggest, easily done. If that were the case, you'd see a lot more of it. How many instances of fee title acquisition can you think of in this state in recent history, be it DU, Delta, TNC,.......? You're not going to be able to think of many. The reason is there is way to much hoop jumping and rigamarol for nonprofits to do so.

mp


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

mp

I really do agree with you and Tom about the complexities of land purchases by some. but in order to not get lost in the discussion we must still realize that Mr. Cook with his purchase of this land did so in a manner that was against the current law.

Mr. Cook says he is a business man that wants to do something good for ducks and North Dakota. How often does a "Business man" make a major purchase without knowing every aspect of the purchase? Remember He purchased the land and then said I did not know the laws had changed.

He can do as he wishes with the land As Gandergrinder has said prior, all he needs to do is pay the taxes, so he knows enough about this to know he is better off as a non-profit.

I am not an attorney but I do know that ignorance of the law is never a defense in any court of law. Mr. Cook leaves the impression that he is dumb like a fox and in my opinion has never been straight with the facts. all we hear is that we should feel sorry for him in article after article because North Dakota is not being reasonable to his request.

The other troubeling thing to me is that if he wanted to do a good thing for ducks why did he not look to purchase land in his home state? He could have done so without much fanfare.

There is more to this story and we may never know the real truth but it seems to me that if his intentions and history with North Dakota were pure the board and the county may have been a little more in favor of the projects.

Just my two cents.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

tsodak,
I agree with you on the whole willing party aspect and third party approval. This state protects farming even when it is detrimental to the state as a whole.

I have had this discussion with some of the profs here at the NDSU ag econ dept. The NDSU extension departments should be figuring out how to grow wildlife and crops/livestock together. Imagine the economic impact to the state if we grew more wildlife and could have 45,000 NR waterfowlers or 80,000 NR pheasant hunters per season and still maintain the quality.


----------



## Boy (Jan 24, 2005)

Regarding the land aquisition...

I was at the meeting in Langdon. All of the farmers in attendence did not want this land used to produce more ducks. They cited numerous cases of depridation caused by the currnet number of ducks.

Heck, I even got a couple of names and phone numbers so I can go on a hunting trip next fall.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

What a festering scab!


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

This article has been around for some time now. By most on this site the dots have been connected, but by many who read the article these dots have not been connected. Obiously lack of information, but those who count know what is happening. Or so I hope. Thumbs up to those who struck down the initial purchase. Hopefully the courts do not see it differently.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Boy said:


> Heck, I even got a couple of names and phone numbers so I can go on a hunting trip next fall.


Do you know anyone that wants to erradicate their land of pheasants? They eat a lot of grain!!!!!!!! :idea:


----------



## goose1965 (Sep 3, 2004)

That does it!!!! I've had enough. Have any of you actually been out to this land? I'm gonna have to go take some pics this weekend and post them up on here. This land is not.....in my opinion....wetlands, except for the Sheyenne River that flows through it. Looks pretty damn hilly and nicely suited to build a resort on to me.

Not to mention it happens Griggs County is not that well off and we need any and all taxes that we can get.

If he's really in it for the ducks...then take the money he spent on this land purchase and use it to build hen houses and distribute them throughout the county. That would have more effect than anything he's proposing.

As far as Ron goes, he makes me ashamed to be an ex-Minnesotan. Shame on him!!!! :******: :******: :******:


----------



## Boy (Jan 24, 2005)

Do you know anyone that wants to erradicate their land of pheasants? They eat a lot of grain!!!!!!!!

Unfortuantely not. I just got into an arguement with a guy on FB about paying for access. The guys I met in Langdon were more than happy to offer places to hunt, without money in return for access. Those are my kind of guys!


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

goose,

I have been out to this land, the sheyenne river *does not* run through it! There are two large sloughs on it, but for the most part it is crp and pasture land. I used to be able to hunt ducks, grouse and deer on this land, but those opportunities a gone now thanks to Cook. :******:

It is not very good for raising ducks because the sloughs are too big to attract mallards and other puddle ducks in the spring. Oh and they have also torn out several tree rows on this land since taking it over. Cooks not doing anyone any favors by purchasing this through his nonprofit organization. Just pissing off alot of locals. :******:

If he wants to do this, why the he!! doesn't he do it in Minnesota? They need all the help they can get!!! :******:


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

if he is doing what is right for North Dakota and the waterfowl then why would he tie up so many of our assets monetarily to fight this, couldn't they be spent somewhere more productively?

There are channels he could go through in order to work within the system or to help better the system, but he seems to want to overturn the system that ahs been put in place. This is not how change happens, not through guerilla tactics and propogantic antics. This smells awfully strong of a well planned legal strategy. How will the outcome of this case affect other potential lawsuits in the future if he wins? How will non-profit organizations be regulated if they are not regarded as corporate farms?


----------



## goose1965 (Sep 3, 2004)

Hunt,

I meant runs through that area. Sorry to hear that you lost access that you had before. We lost our deer hunting access in MN because of the death of a great friend. I know what it feels like to drive by and know you will never have that opportunity again.

As for Cook doing this in MN......the land there is too expensive to even fathom something of this magnitude. I, like you, believe they should try to improve their own state first.


----------



## zettler (Sep 7, 2002)

Random thoughts from an Illinois instigator:

Do NFP's (not-for-profits) have to pay property taxes, or if they do, at the same rate as others in ND? What financial impact would this have on the area it occurs?

Dan Buiede said, "now, if you close off hunting to ALL on one parcel that's mostly water by owning it through your non-profit and individually own or secure the hunting rights to some other land (and maybe connecting water) around it," what if someone transfers some of said property that still maintains their "special" status BUT then can someone still do the above, or heaven forbid, build a commercial operation (lodge, etc.) on it?

In Illinois, there are numerous instances of people having their commercial waterfowl interests greatly improved by lobbying our DNR (Natural Resources) and the like, to move refuges, roost areas and the like, and creating a severe negative impact on public hunters.

People find it amazing that sometime after they grant special status to an individual or entity, that entity either changes the rules, goes belly-up on paper BUT still retains the opportunity offered by a resource obtained under specious means, and then proceeds to make money or accrue a gain in some fashion - when that might have been the intent all along...

Once again, random thoughts from someone a 1,000 miles away wishing he was there and not here - here being Illinois!


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Zettler,I am not sure,but I believe that non-profits pay what is called payment in leu of taxes.The amount payed is substantially smaller than what is payed in normally.Many townships and counties are allready strapped for money to maintain there roads etc.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

I have heard from a couple reliable sources that his dogs are kinda like Paris Hilton...they look good on camera, but smart as fence post.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

If any of your folks have questions about North Dakota laws concerning driving on waterfowl production areas ask Ron Schara. He would be able to give you some information on rules, regulations, and dollar costs for violations.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

LIKE I SAID BEFORE RON SCHARA WRITES ARTICLES ABOUT THINGS BUT, WHEN I E-MAILED HIME HE DID NOT HAVE OR WANT TO ADMIT THAT WHO HE WROTE ABOUT WAS A PERSON THAT OTHER PEOPLE ALSO KNEW IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT. I WOULD GUESS THAT GAME FAIR IS ANOTHER EVENT TO BOYCOTT BECAUSE THEY ARE ANOTHER BIG RON SUPPORTER. YOU KNOW I NEVER WOULD HAVE READ THE ARTICLE IF I HADN'T LOOKED AT THE MINNEAPOLIS RED STAR PAPER THAT SUNDAY IN A CAFE. ONE THING WE CAN ALL DO IS NOT SUPPORT THESE TYPE OF PEOPLE. DON'T BUY THE PAPERS THEY WRITE IN, DON'T WATCH THEIR TV SHOWS, DON'T SHOP AT THEIR STORES (GANDER), AND DON'T SUPPORT THEIR SPONSORS. ALSO LET EVERYONE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T NO THAT THEY WERE BEING SCREWED IF WAS RIGHT IN THEIR OWN HOME. AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Ron Schara has been buying land up around the Linton area check it out.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Righto. Nodak members from South Central ND tell us Ron S is really pushing the land grab there. Dandy fellow.


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Here's Ron and Jim's reply to me concerning the purchase of the Crossroads property.

Ron: Greg, there's some stuff you missed in your research on mr. cook. he doesn't hunt the land he buys and nobody else does either. i know 
because i've never been given permission either.

What don't you understand about a person wanting to preserve wetlands 
to raise ducks that will fly to other marshes where you can hunt?

Under N.D.'s plan, the wetlands never will be restored. Does that make 
you feel better?

Ron

Jim: 2/1/05
Greg,
Ron Schara sent me your e-letter. You have it wrong. None of the land I purchased was ever hunted by anybody at anytime, including myself or my friends. In fact, I hired people to keep out trespassors. In that way we maximize duck production.
Jim Cook


----------



## birddog131 (Oct 28, 2004)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> goose
> 
> If he wants to do this, why the he!! doesn't he do it in Minnesota? They need all the help they can get!!! :ticked:


AMEN!!! I think you hit the nail on the head! These guys complain about not having habitat and the ducks that ND has yet, they focus their $'s on buying things out of state: I wish they would put the land into MN, we do need all the help we can get! No one will deny that! Mr. Schara, put your money where your mouth is and start buying land in MN if you want to change the face of Duck Hunting:


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

I'll also bet that Jay Anderson will be guiding on some of Ron's land next year...Through his Gander owned leasing company...I'll bet he won't write an article in his paper about that..These guys make me sick uke:


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

I'll also bet that Jay Anderson will be guiding on some of Ron's land next year...Through his Gander owned leasing company...I'll bet he won't write an article in his paper about that..These guys make me sick uke:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

This is the reply I got form Ron when I e-mailed him and asked him specifically about the crosslands purchase. He does tiptoe around the fact that he owns land for pheasants.....



> Okay Doc/ Let's set the record straight; I have never hunted Mr. Cook's land in NoDak; I haven't bought a ND duck license for years, although I usually try to get out to your wonderful state to hunt pheasants.
> Mr. Cook's effort to preserve and restore wetlands by purchasing land in NoDak has nothing to do with land open or closed to hunting. Maybe it is you who just doesn't get it.
> I guess you'd rather have somebody else own the land who drains and plows and produces no ducks. Is that your wish? Wake up, my friend.


----------



## Boy (Jan 24, 2005)

> Okay Doc/ Let's set the record straight; I have never hunted Mr. Cook's land in NoDak; I haven't bought a ND duck license for years, although I usually try to get out to your wonderful state to hunt pheasants.
> Mr. Cook's effort to preserve and restore wetlands by purchasing land in NoDak has nothing to do with land open or closed to hunting. Maybe it is you who just doesn't get it.
> I guess you'd rather have somebody else own the land who drains and plows and produces no ducks. Is that your wish? Wake up, my friend.


As I said before, I was AT the meeting, and according to the farmers in attendence, there are already entirely too many ducks in the area, causing huge depridation problems. That is why most of the locals are against this purchase. They do not want more ducks produced and 480 acres of opportunity closed to hunting. Plain and simple. What do they not understand about that?

One thing I don't understand, and has been brought up before is if they want to increase duck habitat, why don't they do it in Minnesota?


----------



## JIMC_ND (Oct 29, 2004)

Gunner said:


> Here's Ron and Jim's reply to me concerning the purchase of the Crossroads property.
> 
> Jim: 2/1/05
> Greg,
> ...


Well then, Mr. Cook has changed his ways from the bad old 80's when he certainly *did *hunt his leases around Ward County. :eyeroll:

It's admirable if Mr. Cook wants to spend his millions on ducks and duck production. I just wish he could be more upfront about his reasons for doing so. We just don't need/want any more land grabbing G/O BS up here in ND, if that's what he's up to.

Build a "refuge", lease the surrounding land, and put up a lodge. Then Ron and Raven will have a new place to hunt... :eyeroll:

Maybe his money would be better spent in Minnesota.


----------



## george (Dec 3, 2005)

Anyone notice the new fancy "Beaver Creek Addition" in
Linton, ND? Ron Schara is listed along with the owners.
Maybe it is a different Ron Shara than the celebrity.
Oh well, there's cul de sac in Medora for sale, might as
well include Linton ND in on the "Land Rush".
GOLF ANYONE? :idea:


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

It's him.


----------



## t lars (Dec 29, 2005)

Here is what is happining in Minnesota, we are also losing land to the big Twin City Hunting partys who have the money to purchase and remove from local tax rolls as much as they please. This is a letter to the editor in one of our local papers that pretty much sums it up. 
Lars

In February, 2005 Todd County was one of the first counties in Minnesota to pass a resolution restricting the DNR from increasing its land holdings within the county. If the want to acquire additional parcels they must sell and equivalent amount of acreage that is located in the county. Since then at least 16 additional counties have passed similar resolutions which are known as "No Net Gain" resolutions. 
Why would a county do this? Are they short sighted? Well let's take a look.
When privately held land is either sold or given to the State the basic tax status and basic land use is changed forever. The State of Minnesota has a PILT program whereby property removed from the tax rolls qualifies for Payment in Lieu of Taxes. The State pays to the County an amount determined by formula each and every year the program is in effect. The problem here is that in most cases the payment is considerably less than the privately pad tax amount. Besides, this is somewhat of a sham since these payments are being made with tax monies you and I have paid to the State. In addition, in the last budget negotiation process in 2005, the PILT payments were used and an item to either be frozen or eliminated completely. It is obvious that these payments are not for certain and could be eliminated at any time as compared to property taxes, which as you and I know are for certain! The more land the State buys with yours and my tax dollars the smaller the property tax base becomes for the Counties and local Townships.
In addition these lands will not be used for community growth and basically make no economic contribution whatsoever. As a matter of fact the townships and counties are mandated to provide roads for access for these properties with no direct reimbursement for actual expenses considered. My township, Turtle Creek, has in excess of 20 percent of its lands in the hands of the State right now and they want more.
Is this enough to pass a resolution as they did? Yes it is but there's more to consider. Something is happening right in front of us, right under our noses, and we think it's just okay! There are many environmental land trust groups that operate in our community such as The Nature Conservancy (the largest) which are silently buying up or tying public land every chance they get. Once they control the land it is likely to be encumbered with a permanent type easement which prevents the land from ever being developed. Forever!? Yes forever! You must ask yourself is it reasonable to make something permanent/forever, especially if it eliminates future uses that could make the difference between success and failure of your future generations. These properties, in most cases are then limited to use by the general public. During a recent hunting trip to Lac qui Parle I observed posted signs on The Nature Conservancy owned land that stated "NO HUNTING" OR "COLLECTING". In real words stay off! These land trusts are getting bigger and bigger. The Nature Conservancy is with well over three billion dollars and growing. That's big. As a matter of fact, I believe The Nature Conservancy is the largest real estate broker the DNR has. When the DNR doesn't have the funds TNC at times steps in and makes the purchase and holds the property until the DNR's budget allows it too purchase the property. TNC gets their money back from the State and can go right out and do it again and again. In a sense they are using tax dollars over and over. It must be remembered, you cannot limit special interest groups from doing what they want to do with their land. They have the right to limit and to exclude. Should nonprofits be required to pay property taxes just as we do? Why shouldn't they! Some laws need to be changed to make taxation more reasonable and fair. 
The Todd County Commissioners have good reasons to limit the encumberments on land within the county. I commend them for making and taking the first step. If the DNR gets the message just maybe they will take better care of the lands they currently hold instead of continuing to focus on what to buy next with yours and my tax dollars. Maybe enough is enough


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

lars, how does a MN county prohibit private land sales by a resolution? Not sure that it would work that way in ND. Over here in ND we also have a no-net-gain law which seems foolish to me *if* that land would be open to public access, and I would think MN must be very concious of the importance of the tourism-access relationship. Nature Conservancy doesn't always grant access. But I thought their function was to preserve critical and historic habitats, which seem more important to me than ranchetts and starter castiles. We are going through a similar tussel in ND with the Ebert Ranch. The short sighted opposed the sale to the sate or Feds, yet the same people see nothing wrong with ranchetts destroying that ranch forever. Speaking of forever, private permanent easements are pretty close, but again they are willing buyer-seller transactions done in plain sight. The next buyer is well aware from the abstract. Selling conservation rights are no different than selling mineral, wind, or water rights. Private deal. The state can keep their long nose out of it.

Don't know how your DNR is funded, in ND G&F is funded by license fees, not tax dollars. So our liscense fees should go to these types of projects. Many people who never bought a hunting license benifit from NDGF activities. Our ND sportsmen haven't figured that out yet because our legislature keeps robbing that budget for unrelated activities.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Dick,
I think there are plenty of sportsmen who know what is going on. Its just difficult to pin down whose azz we should put our boot to. You are probably right in the respect that there are too many azzes and not enough boots.

I also agree with you about the easements being done in plain sight and also on the deed. I got into an arguement with a farmer one day trying to explain this whole concept. He didn't get it and I was getting tired of beating my head against the wall.

I kept telling him that if the land comes up for sale and it has easements and you want to farm it then you shouldn't pay as much for it. It is that simple.

If I had a troublesome wetland that was giving me grief the first thing I would do would be to try to get it into an easement. The US Fish and Wildlife Service pays nearly full market value for an easement. On land that probably shouldn't be farmed in the first place. You get to keep the land and you get paid not to have to worry about the decision to drain. Which in most of my calculations doesn't make sense anyway.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

:thumb:

When Jim Cook bought that land in 3 counties I thought it was a terrible idea but I'm not so sure anymore. ND was going to sue him to break the sale, but if the state looses, it might break this strangle hold on public ownership as well. One thing that the editorial letter from MN didn't state was the large % of public land that MN has. It is a bonus to everyone, more power to 'em. We will never be that smart.

The bit of in-lieu-of-taxes is just a red herring. Very simple to set up a trust account to cover taxes, any nonprofit or state agency could do it. South Dakota is still way ahead of us in this regard also as they still purchase more land for state school lands. And they eyeball it first with a regard to future public use and recreation. Hats off to them and another black eye for ND.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> In February, 2005 Todd County was one of the first counties in Minnesota to pass a resolution restricting the DNR from increasing its land holdings within the county. If the want to acquire additional parcels they must sell and equivalent amount of acreage that is located in the county. Since then at least 16 additional counties have passed similar resolutions which are known as "No Net Gain" resolutions.
> Why would a county do this? Are they short sighted? Well let's take a look.
> When privately held land is either sold or given to the State the basic tax status and basic land use is changed forever. The State of Minnesota has a PILT program whereby property removed from the tax rolls qualifies for Payment in Lieu of Taxes. The State pays to the County an amount determined by formula each and every year the program is in effect. The problem here is that in most cases the payment is considerably less than the privately pad tax amount. Besides, this is somewhat of a sham since these payments are being made with tax monies you and I have paid to the State. In addition, in the last budget negotiation process in 2005, the PILT payments were used and an item to either be frozen or eliminated completely. It is obvious that these payments are not for certain and could be eliminated at any time as compared to property taxes, which as you and I know are for certain! The more land the State buys with yours and my tax dollars the smaller the property tax base becomes for the Counties and local Townships.
> In addition these lands will not be used for community growth and basically make no economic contribution whatsoever. As a matter of fact the townships and counties are mandated to provide roads for access for these properties with no direct reimbursement for actual expenses considered. My township, Turtle Creek, has in excess of 20 percent of its lands in the hands of the State right now and they want more.
> ...


This view point spells disaster for wildlife and hunting. As long as land owners (farmers) take money from the government, then the government has the right to control land through easements that benefit all of us. You can't have it both ways. If there were no subisidies we would not have a habitat crisis because 50% of the land that is currently farmed would be in grass or pasture. End of story!

hydro 870 - who admires the rancher - he does it on his own, without a government handout.


----------

