# Sale of public land?



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you have access to Peterson Hunting read the article "The Fight For Your Public Land". December issue page 17.

Some politicians that I like want to sell public land and pay off debt. In other words they don't want to cut spending that much they are having a rummage sale to try buy more frills.

Seven western states are pushing to have federal land turned over to them. They say they can manage it better. I suspect that means they will put grazing associations in charge of it, and let anyone that offers money to do anything they want on it. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utgah introduced H. B. 2657 titled "The Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act". Excess????

One study found that Montana would lose $200 million per year managing what is currently federal land, even after various revenue streams were taken into account. So it has to be private interests behind most of this. I guess ranchers would get a huge benefit in Montana even though it cost taxpayers $200 million per year. I'll bet some on here will think it's a good thing right after complaining about measure 5 because one is for ranchers and one is for conservation. Let the hypocrisy begin from the Bundyites.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

The sad part is if they sell off the land but don't "fix" spending the land will be lost and in a year or two the debt will be right back where it started. It really only would be a temporary fix.........................


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

WE PAID FOR THAT LAND!!! Us TAXPAYERS... if they sell it, it is THEFT.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

I'm in no way advocating the sale of public land -but if the state can't finance the maintenance and upkeep of the public property, they kind of HAVE to sell...don't they?

And who determines the value? Auction? I don't want to sound like the materialistic weasel but- at the right price, if some forward thinking kid could really score on a deal like that! Unless it's grazing land -which in my opinion, is ground that crop won't grow on.... I personally would never spend any large amount of money on something that won't return money. ..

The State obviously can't sustain the public property on taxes or revenue -so it has to go...

Just me though!


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

The more I think about it, the less likely it is that the current generation will see opportunity in a public land sale... It's sad to say but -it's a 'ME' generation that sees the public land as a supposed birthright. The idea that you inherit your family's land is the wrong way to look at land-you are caretaker of the land for your kids. The state made the same mistake -now the state representatives who were suppose to be guardians of the public property failed in their job to ensure that the investment that was made by previous taxpayers to keep the land as public property.

Now since the new generation is going to sit on there collective a$$e$ instead of rallying together to find a solution -we get to enjoy the Blame Game and finger pointing.

Someone will benefit from the sale of public ground-but it won't be the public. ... Big ranches need to run big numbers of animals -animals that need a lot of space. ... Nobody is going to stop eating beef so-don't blame the rancher for attempting to prosper. Or the farmer for planting more/better crops... Or big oil for finding a HUGE vein-even though it very well may be destructive initially, a huge number of people will benefit by moving into nicer homes, better schools for there kids, and higher tax revenues for the states....which will then mean the state will have more money and they can keep more public land!.....

-see, I had a point! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I may have an opinion different from everyone. I often look at the price ranchers pay for grazing public land and ask myself how a rancher who owns his own land can compete. I think a local rancher around Jamestown, Bismarck, Devils Lake etc pays more in taxes than a rancher out west pays for public land. 
So my idea is charge fair market value for public land and keep it as an income source. Right now it cost the government more to administer the land than they get out of it in grazing revenue. It should at least break even, but if ranchers paid the government the same as they would pay a neighbor to graze their land it could become an income rather than an expense.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

That's a reasonable assumption. But we know that isn't how the government operates! The ranchers are going to pay the bare minimum to optimize profits- meanwhile, the public loses the land privileges...I'm not in favor of that, but I don't think it's right that a rancher should have to worry about the livestock being shot on leased ground. ..


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

That's a reasonable assumption. But we know that isn't how the government operates! The ranchers are going to pay the bare minimum to optimize profits- meanwhile, the public loses the land privileges...I'm not in favor of that, but I don't think it's right that a rancher should have to worry about the livestock being shot on leased ground. ..


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I guess I have two points to my last post.

1 We should not lease land so cheap that it hurts other ranchers.

2 We should not lease land so cheap that paying to manage it becomes a burden to the taxpayer.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Maybe the Government needs to rethink how they lease land for grazing.

The State hospital in Jamestown have a couple quarters of land that goes out for bids every three years. Its open to anyone. The catch is, that the farmer who rents it also has to pay the taxes on top the rent.(though rumor has it that the person who rented it is giving it up because he bid it up too much and can't make a go of it) That would help the Government make a profit.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

USDA approved 82,800 more acres in North Dakota for wildlife habitat. I believe this is part of the SAFE program. If public land sales happen, hopefully programs like this will help supplant some of those acres lost. I realize it's tit for tat, but it is at least something.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

82,800 acres? That's a mile wide and 130 miles long continuously! That's from the Missouri River to the eastern border or close to that- that's a lot of ground. ..

To me that's impressive but in Minnesota you might get $75 an acre for crp and cash rent of over $300 per acre... Easy choice. I can't afford to take that kind of a loss-no matter how much I'd like to see a lot more hunting acres.

I'm not a good baseline indicator though -because I farm and have my own hunting ground. ..which I don't farm and only I hunt-public ground seems dangerous and crowded... I'm in no way bragging or patting myself on the back-but I took the initiative to make what I wanted. Taking the cattle off the pasture and planting trees with slough ground and tall grass-the wildlife shows up...

I really wish more people would search for solutions instead of pointing fingers and bawling. .. no offense intended to the pointers and bawlers-I'm sure those that do that have no possible means of improving their local wildlife habitat. ..


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

As I read it, 50,000 acres are for Farmable Wetlands Program(FWD) and 32,800 acres devoted to State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement Program(SAFE). Both programs fall under CRP program. Kind of convoluted, but hey that's government for ya. Targeted species for wildlife improvement are pheasants, prairie chicken and waterfowl.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Farmable wetlands? I can't believe those two words haven't started an argument. .. I'm not familiar with farmable wetlands -I need to read up on that before I throw my two cents in, but it sounds fishy.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

Yep! Fishy. It's a downgraded version of RIM. Which bit a lot of people in the arse...myself included. But at least they tried.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

WOW! What an excellent discussion. IM old O there's a big difference between a good discussion and nasty argument! I love this website! Only rare name calling and bloody fights, lots of intelligent discussion.
Though I tend to fall on the Never Sell any public land side, other than the small bits and pieces that are expensive for taxpayers to maintain and Unrentable for much agriculture. However, we still should bear in mind that even small bits and pieces are often called home by many species of game animals and songbirds for the birders to enjoy! And don't kid yourself, birders are growing rapidly in numbers and can be our best allies regarding habitat! The last comment was a bit off topic, but just wanted to point out something we hunters often ignore.
I do agree with Plainsman that rents seem too low to me, though I'm an old farm boy I'm now a city slicker and can't comment on rents and all that. However low rents should not be supplemented by taxpayers and land should never be sold just to pay off debts that politicians would simply magically make reappear a few years down the line! 
Unfortunately God is not making more wildlife habitat. Though I did learn quite a few new to me pros and cons on this debate I still would do a Teddy Rooseveldt and hang on to what we have. Rent it, lease it, use it wisely, but don't sell it! Or plainsman could persuade God to make more habitat! :wink:

I'll have to research what FWD and SAFE are. Never heard of them till now.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

With the cattle prices the way they are now even pasture rent is going up. Leasing or rent public land prices should also follow. But it won't the government is also 10 years behind.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Or plainsman could persuade God to make more habitat! :wink:


  Maybe another island or two.  He has been working on the Hawaiian big island, but we are sometimes impatient with the speed at which he works.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

walleyecandy said:


> Farmable wetlands? I can't believe those two words haven't started an argument. .. I'm not familiar with farmable wetlands -I need to read up on that before I throw my two cents in, but it sounds fishy.


I think they are talking about temporary wetlands. Temporary wetlands are generally areas that will hold water for 2-4 weeks in the spring and provide a benefit to migrating and in some cases nesting waterfowl. After they dry up they are generally farmed but they are often succeptable to flooding and drown out from summer rains. They never hold water for any extended period of time. In my area they often provide temporary nesting areas. Sadly drain tiling of land is starting to eliminate many of these critical areas because they are drained of almost as fast as the snow melts.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

dakotashooter2 said:


> walleyecandy said:
> 
> 
> > Farmable wetlands? I can't believe those two words haven't started an argument. .. I'm not familiar with farmable wetlands -I need to read up on that before I throw my two cents in, but it sounds fishy.
> ...


Proper soil health can also add in how fast water will soak in.


----------



## walleyecandy (Aug 6, 2012)

In most cases -I support the draining of low areas in fields, but only if the reason is sustainable farming. Not to harvest a crop from it one out of four years!

I'm not interested in draining a lake to farm -I'm also not interested in draining every slough. But there are a lot of areas that hold water that don't support wildlife well enough to make it worthwhile to try to set aside as habitat.

The state should buy the immediate area on either side of the creeks and streams -and flood plains. That is great habitat. But instead, the state takes marginal ground -plugs drain tile, and cuts down trees. ... Why? Predator control is the go to answer ... Meanwhile, every other highline pole has a chicken hawk on it! Cut them down too...

I'm assuming we can all agree that it we allow the morons to continue making decisions like that- we are going to lose public ground? .... I don't want to see the general public stop caring -but I am not letting them have free reign of what I have created either. 'This land IS my land'... My land benefits all the ground within miles-it's up to the neighbors to pull some weigh too!

As soon as the general public loses the entitled attitude -we can work together -but until then, my little slice of heaven stays private.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> cuts down trees. ... Why?


I also think that cutting down trees is going to far for predator control.



> The state should buy the immediate area on either side of the creeks and streams -and flood plains.


That would be a good idea. Not only would it be a sediment/chemical barrier, but it would provide habitat. I hope the governor does increase the money for conservation to a point something like this could be done.



> my little slice of heaven stays private.


I think nearly every hunter on here would think the same if we had land. I think the only landowners that hunters sometimes get angry at are those that don't hunt, take tax money, and say no with a smirk on their face, or unneeded degrading comment. Like all other groups there are some dipstick landowners too. We hunters have to not fall into the trap of judging them all by a few bad apples.



> But there are a lot of areas that hold water that don't support wildlife well enough to make it worthwhile to try to set aside as habitat.


 I often hear people talk about worthless temporary wetlands. Perhaps I can shed some light on why some of those are preserved. As a matter of fact so many of them have been drained that it's now a priority to save some.

Years ago before the animal rights people somehow got control over even research some studies looked at survival which required starving ducklings. I don't remember the exact number of mallard pairs in each group, but I think it was 50. Fifty hens were fed grain only, 50 hens were fed grain plus 10 grams of protein (earthworms), 50 were fed grain plus 20 grams protein, 50 were fed grain plus 30 grams of protein. The biggest difference was with the first two groups. Hens with grain only laid about 5 eggs and hens that got grain and 10 grams of protein laid 10 eggs. The eggs from hens with grain only laid eggs on average 42 grams, and hens with grain and 10 grams of protein laid eggs on average of 53 grams. Ducklings hatched from hens fed grain only survived three days, while ducklings hatched from hens fed grain and 10 grams of protein survived six days before starving. Animal protein added 11 grams to the egg weight. That weight was yolk which the duckling uses for survival while traveling to a wetland, and while learning to eat.
Egg formation in females begins while they are migrating. Eggs mature in the female as she feeds on aquatic macroinvertebrates on the breeding grounds. Here in North Dakota the first wetlands to provide aquatic macroinvertebrate protein are the temporary wetlands. While eggs are maturing most of the seasonal and semipermanent wetlands are still iced over, or to cold for the invertebrate hatch. 
As some have said on another outdoor site "temporary wetlands don't feed ducklings". That's true, but without temporary wetlands you don't have eggs, and if you don't have eggs you don't have ducklings to feed.


----------

