# Ron Shara Says ND Duck Hunters are FOOLS



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

http://www.mnbound.com/rons-ramblings/2 ... nters.html

Opinions?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Opinion.....

He is right and wrong all in the same article. Wrong for calling people fools. Wrong about some of the land he is talking about. Right in the fact the wetlands are getting lost all over the nation. Right in the fact that people blame NR hunters when in fact it is not the NR fault. But I think this article is right in the fact that land lost and wetlands not "Wet" land (like now) is a problem....loss of nesting habitat and just habitat loss is a huge issue that many are not looking at. But the way he went about it in this article is just wrong.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

another one of ron's ways of trying to change a law for his buddy. if you really are that passoniate about saving the land find someone else to buy it for your non-profit. there are trustworthy people that you could give the money to and still accomplish what you want. i would think that these guys could draw up enough legal documents to protect their investment and ideas under someone else's name.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I think he needs a good slap.

He's a whiner.

Dont let him fool you. He's just whining about being restricted in any shape or form while in ND, and he's hiding it with his conservation based arguments.

Its articles like that, that further fan the flames between ND and MN duck hunters. Was Shara involved with the 2002 lawsuit? I know it caused lots of grief for some MN hunters we talked to the following years.

If I was a MN duck hunter, id demand he retract the article and issue a public apology to ND.

Also, I dont think for one second that ND should be taking ANY resource management advice from MN!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Ron Shara is the fool. I know that many will disagree with this, but so was Tony Dean! Yea, I know that he has since passed, but I have a real problem with guys like this that get one hand greased to promote dropping the ND regs by the Devils Lake Dept of tourism and yet do nothing about the state of SD?? Their regs are far more strict! Tony never said a word about his home state though. And Ron obviously is talking out of both sides of his mouth as well. He hunts pheasants in SD on his TV show does he not?? ANything for the almighty $$$$$$. Sellout is what he is!! :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Part of an article posted in the Duck hunting forum about spring counts....



> However, nesting cover in North Dakota continues to decline. Since the beginning of 2007, North Dakota has lost more than 700,000 CRP acres, and projections for the next two years indicate up to another 1.7 million acres could be converted to cropland.
> 
> "This loss of our critical nesting cover will be disastrous for breeding ducks and hunting opportunities in North Dakota," Johnson said.


Like I stated before. Ron makes a point. But the way he went about it was total BS and yes gives NR a bad name.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

djleye said:


> Ron Shara is the fool. I know that many will disagree with this, but so was Tony Dean! Yea, I know that he has since passed, but I have a real problem with guys like this that get one hand greased to promote dropping the ND regs by the Devils Lake Dept of tourism and yet do nothing about the state of SD?? Their regs are far more strict! Tony never said a word about his home state though. And Ron obviously is talking out of both sides of his mouth as well. He hunts pheasants in SD on his TV show does he not?? ANything for the almighty $$$$$$. Sellout is what he is!! :eyeroll:


Couldn't agree more!

I'd like to ask Ron what he and his buddy have done for habitat in Minnesota? And why use a non-profit organization? If it's so important to them, why not just buy the land under their own name and set it aside or better yet donate it to the game and fish department. No, I think it's more about laundering their own money and gaining tax breaks then helping wildlife and fellow sportsmen!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

This is not about Res orN/R duck hunters, Tony Dean, John Hoeven or anyone else. It's about a law that exists in ND, like it or not it's the law. Mr. Cook challenged it and lost. Want to change it then go to the legislature or have Dick Monson get another petition going. Apparently North Dakotan's favor such action.

Published June 18 2010 
Poll: North Dakota residents back conservation
North Dakota voters strongly support a greater state role in setting aside land to protect natural areas, water and wildlife

North Dakota voters strongly support a greater state role in setting aside land to protect natural areas, water and wildlife habitat, according to a new poll.

The opinion survey, released Thursday by a coalition of conservation groups, found that two-thirds of state voters favor setting aside more land for habitat and preservation.

Strong support was consistent among geographic groups, including voters in rural and urban areas and all regions of the state, according to the poll, commissioned by The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust and Ducks Unlimited.

"Every survey shows North Dakotans are very appreciative and hold dear their outdoor values," said Mark Trego, executive director of the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust.

The telephone survey of 400 North Dakota voters was taken April 6-8 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent. The poll had a bipartisan flavor, in that it was jointly done by a firm that serves Republicans and one that caters to Democrats.

The poll results were released in a news conference Thursday in Bismarck, but conservationists met recently with The Forum editorial board to discuss the findings.

North Dakota has rich natural resources, but protecting land and water is a greater challenge with unprecedented energy development throughout much of the state, including wind farms, oil wells and pipelines, conservation advocates said.

"We thought it was very timely to take a good snapshot of where the public is," Trego said. If North Dakota fails to protect its natural resources, he added, "We aren't going to have the opportunities we have now. We think it's time to start a larger discussion."

Despite strong public support for conservation, efforts to preserve wildlife habitat are hampered by "unique" restrictive laws that make it difficult for nonprofit conservation groups to acquire land, Trego said.

"There are no other states in the country which have some of the laws we have," he said.

Years ago nonprofit conservation groups supported laws requiring them to pay property taxes on land set aside for preservation to support local governments, yet conservation projects often meet steep resistance by farm groups and other interests, conservationists said.

The restrictive laws are in contrast to public opinion, conservation advocates argue, and claim the poll supports that view.

Voters are more than three times as likely to favor allowing land owners to sell their property to conservationists than to oppose sales that would take farm land out of production, according to the poll.

Underlying that support for conservation land acquisition is a bedrock belief in individual property rights, with 85 percent supporting such sales and 11 percent against.

"That puts it in the 'mom and baseball and apple pie category,' said pollster Lori Weigel.

Among the potential projects poll respondents regarded as "extremely important" or "very important":

•Protecting and restoring the water quality of rivers, lakes and streams, 61 percent.

•Protecting fish and wildlife habitat, 51 percent.

•Protecting wetlands, 41 percent.

Stephen Adair, director of Ducks Unlimited's Great Plains office in Bismarck, said North Dakota needs development and tillage agriculture, but also needs preservation of important natural resources.


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96 (Aug 25, 2008)

I'm glad i don't really bird hunt... Never knew it was so serious before I came here.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

In regards to the above mentioned poll. Has anyone ever publically seen a poll that does not say what the sponsoring groups want it to????? The Auduban Society, DU, The Nature Conservancy, and ND Natural Resources Trust. What would one expect the results of this poll to publicaly read? Poll results are determined by the wording of the questions, and location of responding voters,it would be interesting to see the questions asked in this poll and a break down of addresses of respondents.

"Voters are more than three times as likely to favor allowing land owners to sell their property to conservationalists than to oppose sales that would take farm land out of production." Stop and think about what this response actually says for a minute. So were these voters asked what the consequences would be to rural communities and this state when these land sales are put into conservation and not into production ag on a scale that has happened in Canada by one of this polls sponsoring orgs? Production ag and energy are the backbone of this states economic strength and success. Yet according to this poll 3 times more people want land in conservation than are opposed to it being taken out of production, and yet the arguement is remove the restrictions on who buys this land and DU will not take it out of production. Can anyone share how many of the 305,000 acres DU owns in Canada is still in ag production? How about any of the other states that allow them to own land?

I wonder if the question was asked wether the voter was in favor of allowing multi national corporations to be allowed to buy land under the "I should be able to sell my land to anyone theory" If I were to ask the question in this poll today "should an individual be able to sell their property to some corporation such as British Petroleum for developement without any goverment intervention", what do you think the response would be????

Two of the three projects they state had 51% and 41% responses to these 2 poll answer choices saving wetlands and protecting fish and wildlife habitat being "very" or "extremely important". (saving wetlands being very or extremely important was not even one half of the respondents at 41%) , and yet the pollster reads this as "strongly supporting" this polls agenda ????? Clearly no bias in this factually based poll that will in all likelyhood be used as the undisputed wishes of ND voters in this discussion by the sponsoring orgs. I guess this poll is merely an example of the "bipartisan" balance that these groups claim to want to have. I hope that more than 41% of people in ND still like "mom and baseball and apple pie" !!!!!

Maybe someone from one of these orgs would care to make the poll questions and where the respondents were targeted public to show where their balanced representation of ND voters came from?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> Poll results are determined by the wording of the questions, and location of responding voters....


gst, isn't that the truth. It's difficult to find a poll worth believing, especially when you know many organizations pay groups to set up the wording for them to get the desired results. There are people who specialize in it, a career of lies. For every poll out there you can run another and get the exact opposite if needed. You just have to find the scumball willing to do it and put their name on it.

As to Ron Shara, he is the obvious fool with the narrow vision only of what affects him and his friends. It always makes me wonder why it is that when someone, or group, fails miserably they then think it automatically makes them an expert at the subject that they failed at.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

And still no rebuttel from Mr. Schara.


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

:lol:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

:withstupid:

Referring to HIS website.

One would expect the man to defend his statements on HIS website, but I guess not.


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

My guess is he made his statement and is sticking to what he said and maybe feels no need to rebuttal his statements. I think the statement about making sure North Dakota doesn't turn into MN is a great one and I feel the same way. Not because my friends have land there that they want to buy or sell(which I don't), but because I HAVE SEEN first hand how duck habitat in the last 20 years has declined in MN and since I come to North Dakota to waterfowl hunt (one of the last great waterfowling and pheasant capitals of the world) I for one do not want to see it lost to agricultural practices ie draining and ditching. SO I think that this was his point is to maybe open your eyes to what has happened. History does repeat itself unless we learn from our mistakes. Hopefully North Dakota has learned from MN mistakes and don't repeat ours.

:lol:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

templey_41 said:


> *I may be way off on this,* but does anyone wonder why they keep having to build up highway 2 that goes through devils lake? My guess is it's from tiling.


Yes, you're right on that count.....way off.

You know, the 100 wet cycle (or 1,000 year wet cycle depending on who you talk to), monstrous drainage basin, and the fact that its a closed basin (for another couple feet at least) have nothing to do it.

That and the FACT we know the lake was as high as it is now, and even HIGHER, looong before the white man ever got to dig a spade into ND soil.


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

Ron Schara is a big f***ing baby!!! He is an old shoveler shooter from MN. They kissed their waterfowl hunting down the drain over 20 years ago. I would love to punch this old bastard silly!! uke: uke: uke:

Nick Roehl


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

:roll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron makes a good point about how habitat is disappearing.

He also makes it a good point about non profits and purchasing land. I understand the concerns and why the law is in place, but the law could be re-written to loose up a little. Here is an example. If a non profit buys the land it can't be sold for 20 years unless it is to the state of ND. If land is posted or closed down to the public it can't be used for any rec activities...ie shuts it down for hunting, fishing, etc for all even owners. If land is posted it does not get any tax breaks or able to receive any funds from the state of ND....etc. You can re-write the law. So if a non-profit wants to purchase land and do improvements they can if they follow certain rules.

But his main point I think that is getting lost is the need for habitat because it is getting destroyed.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

templey_41 said:


> Boy bareback....you have an answer for everything. It may be a large watershed basin, but putting tile in makes it even bigger! Hence the water rising year after year after year for the past 5-10 years atleast! I though it was a 100 year flood or 1000 then why does it happen every year for 10 years in a row. It's just like why does the Red River keep flooding Fargo....TILE!Water is getting there faster with no where to go.


You dont get it and im not gonna waste my time explaining the whole thing to you.

THERE IS LITTLE TO NO DRAIN TILE IN THE DEVILS LAKE BASIN!!!! If you think Devils Lake is flooding because of drain tiles, your as big an idiot as Ron Schara.


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

What I'm saying is that it all adds up! Above average rain/snowfall plus whatever drain tile is there= rising waters faster than it should be. once again Fargo Flood 1997, Fargo Flood 2009, Fargo Flood 2010 .... That's what I'm talkin bout Willis! Enough said.


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

Chuck Smith said:


> Ron makes a good point about how habitat is disappearing.
> 
> He also makes it a good point about non profits and purchasing land. I understand the concerns and why the law is in place, but the law could be re-written to loose up a little. Here is an example. If a non profit buys the land it can't be sold for 20 years unless it is to the state of ND. If land is posted or closed down to the public it can't be used for any rec activities...ie shuts it down for hunting, fishing, etc for all even owners. If land is posted it does not get any tax breaks or able to receive any funds from the state of ND....etc. You can re-write the law. So if a non-profit wants to purchase land and do improvements they can if they follow certain rules.
> 
> But his main point I think that is getting lost is the need for habitat because it is getting destroyed.


Agreed!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

templey_41 said:


> What I'm saying is that it all adds up! Above average rain/snowfall plus whatever drain tile is there= rising waters faster than it should be. once again Fargo Flood 1997, Fargo Flood 2009, Fargo Flood 2010 .... That's what I'm talkin bout Willis! Enough said.


No you werent! You were talking about the Devils Lake flood...NOT Fargo! Devils Lake water has NOTHING to do with Fargo floods........yet.

Here.....ill quote you again.



templey_41 said:


> I may be way off on this, but does anyone wonder why they keep having to build up highway 2 that goes through devils lake? My guess is it's from tiling.


Nice try though.


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

:bop: :bop: :bop:


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

Wingmaster said:


> I would love to punch this old bastard silly!! Nick Roehl


Would it go down like this....





 :lol: :lol: :lol: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

templey_41 said:


> I started out thinking that DL had some tile around that area but apparently there is absolutely NO DRAINAGE TILE in devils lake area that could possibly be making any kind of contribution to the rising water. So then I was making a comparison of what is happening in Fargo and what could most likely be happening in DL, but I guess I was wrong about drainage tile and so therefore I am done with this topic. :lol: :bop: :bop: :bop:


Consider yourself "enlightened".


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

templey_41 said:


> I started out thinking that DL had some tile around that area but apparently there is absolutely NO DRAINAGE TILE in devils lake area that could possibly be making any kind of contribution to the rising water. So then I was making a comparison of what is happening in Fargo and what could most likely be happening in DL, but I guess I was wrong about drainage tile and so therefore I am done with this topic. :lol: :bop: :bop: :bop:


Templey,
Don't get lured into the drain tile bandwagon. Drain tiling that is used up here is not the same stuff you see down your way and into Iowa, IL, KS, etc. Farmers up here don't just dump nitrogen on their fields either (hence the fish issue in the Mississippi River) like they do, or use to do at least. Drain tile now has pumps and shut off valves, it is not precast pipe thrown in the ground and buried at a slope and allowed to run freely. A big issue here is a huge lack of ditch and slough maintenance. Ditches don't drain to sloughs, sloughs drain out into ditches in a lot of cases. Water sits and accumulates and runs to the valleys from all directions at once.

Farmers used to dig deeper and a lot more aggressively then they do now. There is more regulation and red tape to change grade and move water then there was even 20 years ago.

Part of Fargo's problem is that people built too low, too close to the river. Most of these properties that have been lost or damaged are not within Fargo city limits therefore do not follow under Fargo's building code regs. A few have been in Fargo though.

Ron Schara is motivated by one thing, money. Just like everyone else. Someone paid him or something to make his comments, special interest driven. Not smart either.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

First, Ron doesnt make any "good" points. He is an idealistic old fool. I had a conversation with him in the Phoenix airport a couple of years ago and he knows absolutely nothing about North Dakota. Jim Cook has him filled in all the way. I ended our conversation with the option of hunting waterfowl in South Dakota instead, but I told him that he better have his application in early, afterall,,,there are only 3,000 N.R. licences available!


----------



## templey_41 (Jul 19, 2008)

Not sure what you are referencing too on the nitrogen issue on the Mississippi. I fish the miss quite a bite and the fishery down there is awesome. The duck hunting sucks the last year but that is mostly because of the core of engineers problem. They are finally doing draw downs and getting some vegetation back in there and maybe thats what you are referencing about and you are right on with that and Im sure nitrogen plays a huge role in the natural aquatic vegetation or lack there of on the miss.

The big thing here as outsiders/NR's/jerkuffs/whatever you want to call us, we see what a great resources and opportunies you have in ND and, we enjoy what you have as well and we dont want to see it disappear! period. We want our kids to see what the land used to be like and make sure they have the same life experiences as us


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

a 100 or 1000 year flood of a basin like Devils Lake is best described by this. It may help to understand a little.

http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcg ... 42/640/480


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> we see what a great resources and opportunies you have in ND and, we enjoy what you have as well and we dont want to see it disappear! period. We want our kids to see what the land used to be like and make sure they have the same life experiences as us


Most do, not to be a pessimist but it isn't going to happen. You can't just ditch and drain as you see fit. You have to go through your water board and/or township and things like that. We are not losing much if anything from farming practices. I am not a farmer but my relatives do, so do a lot of my friends. They are all hunters, losing wildlife isn't in their best interest either.

The hunting experience in ND will be changed or disappear from a lot of other things before farming practices.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

TK33 said:


> The hunting experience in ND will be changed or disappear from a lot of other things before farming practices.


Ding ding ding ding ding.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

One look at the title to his page, (Ron's Ramblings) says it all. The rambling commentary of a old fool.

NR's are welcome to come to this state to hunt and fish, but guess what, it will be by the conditions granted by OUR state, not what NR's think they should be.

It's the same when ND hunters go elswhere to hunt, we must follow the conditions set by the state we are hunting in.

Never paid much attention to Ron's ramblings, either written, or on the air.

huntin1


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> First, Ron doesnt make any "good" points. He is an idealistic old fool. I had a conversation with him in the Phoenix airport a couple of years ago and he knows absolutely nothing about North Dakota. Jim Cook has him filled in all the way. I ended our conversation with the option of hunting waterfowl in South Dakota instead, but I told him that he better have his application in early, afterall,,,there are only 3,000 N.R. licences available!


So loss of habitat and loss of CRP for nesting purposes is not happening at all in ND. WOW....do you have blinders on?

Again from another thread on this talking about duck counts in ND from a US wildlife person....

" However, nesting cover in North Dakota continues to decline. Since the beginning of 2007, North Dakota has lost more than 700,000 CRP acres, and projections for the next two years indicate up to another 1.7 million acres could be converted to cropland.

"This loss of our critical nesting cover will be disastrous for breeding ducks and hunting opportunities in North Dakota," Johnson said."

Why do you think pressure increases.....because less duck, less habitiat, etc. So hunters get concentrated to certain areas. More pressure, more ducks move out of an area, less success, more conflicts with NR/R, more leasing, etc. See the start of the problem is loss of habitat.



> TK33 wrote:The hunting experience in ND will be changed or disappear from a lot of other things before farming practices.
> 
> Ding ding ding ding ding.


Loss of habitat will be the main reason why ducks and duck hunting will decline! Just like in MN. The more habitat that gets plowed up or developed will be the down fall of the hunting. Just like in every state that duck hunting once used to be good and now is not. I hate to sound like a DU Commercial...but it is habitat, habitat, habitat.....then on the habitat predator control....I had to add a little delta commercial as well.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I hate ducks.........good riddance.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Chuck, Where in that paragraph did I say that habitat loss wasnt happening? It is happening but NOT because of North Dakota hunters or Legislature. That my friend is the axe of the federal government and the change in the farm program. Miother nature will determine the amount of water we have. So to answer your qustion,,,,,No I dont have blinders on.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

You stated that Ron made no good points. He talked about habitat loss. So that is a good point he was trying to make in a very poor manner. But it was something he was talking about.

ND legislature..... yes is a little part of the problem. They won't let Non-profits *buy* land to help rebuild or restore habitat. That is a problem in my eyes. And before anyone goes off... I also see why the law is in place because anyone can make a non-profit organization up buy land, get special tax treatment, and still post the land and keep it to themselves. But the ND law could be tweaked to help get rid of that problem....ie any non-profit buying land if the non profit is the title holder or deed holder the land has to be open to the public. That will make it OK for groups like DU, PF, Delta, Deer hunters Assoc., etc...to buy land and can do habitat programs, restorative programs, education programs on the land. Yet the land is still open to the public for use.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> "This loss of our critical nesting cover will be disastrous for breeding ducks and hunting opportunities in North Dakota," Johnson said."


This is a bit of a mis-quote. What he meant to say is...."This loss of our critical nesting cover will be disastrous *in maintaining our 107% increase in breeding*, over the long term average, in North Dakota," Johnson said."

My point being the loss of CRP will not "destroy" our duck hunting (and breeding) it will just bring it back to the norm. Do I want to see that happen ? NO....... But even that would be better hunting than many states have. I thought hunting in the "80s" (pre CRP) was pretty darn good.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Chuck, South Dakota let the "non-profits" do just as you are referring in the 70's and 80's and even into the 90's. And just look at all the public hunting land that they have to offer! I don't care if I hurt Ron Schara's feelings or anybody elses, we are protecting what we have for ALL to use, not just residents, but all hunters and sportsman. Loss of habitat is going to be at the hands of the federal government more than any state group or legislature. I have hunted here since the mid 60's so I have been through the good and the bad. It seems that there are some out-of-state individuals that use these forums to proclaim to be experts in the field of conservation trying to tell North Dakota what to do and how to run game and fish laws to suit their own needs. Sorry, as long as I am alive and well enough to lend a hand, that won't happen.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Ron Shara must mistake himself for someone who is relevant. Fact is he's a small time outdoor writer and even smaller time outdoor "celebrity"...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, South Dakota let the "non-profits" do just as you are referring in the 70's and 80's and even into the 90's. And just look at all the public hunting land that they have to offer! I don't care if I hurt Ron Schara's feelings or anybody elses, we are protecting what we have for ALL to use, not just residents, but all hunters and sportsman. Loss of habitat is going to be at the hands of the federal government more than any state group or legislature. I have hunted here since the mid 60's so I have been through the good and the bad. It seems that there are some out-of-state individuals that use these forums to proclaim to be experts in the field of conservation trying to tell North Dakota what to do and how to run game and fish laws to suit their own needs. Sorry, as long as I am alive and well enough to lend a hand, that won't happen.


I would like to know which state has more public land. I have tried to look it up.

The thing that people are forgetting is ND laws are so different in regaurds to land. Think about it... the trespassing law. That makes it look like more public lands, when in fact it is not. Then look at Reservation lands. SD has more Res land than ND. So people need a different license to hunt, etc. So take that into effect.

Also SD did not have any law like I am talking about. If a non profit buys the land they can't sell it to another person unless it is a non profit. Thus it would keep the land open to public.

Edit::

I found a site that claimed SD has 5 million acres that are public. That is 5 million out of roughly 49 million acres of land it has. So about 10% of the land in SD is open to the public. Not sure how up to date it is.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

It is hard to say if you count state plus federal lands then you have the black hills and the grass lands for fed lands and i know there is over a million acres in the walkin program. All i know is i love the fact that we have a cap on the waterfowl that is what i really like to hunt.


----------



## PJ (Oct 1, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> I found a site that claimed SD has 5 million acres that are public. That is 5 million out of roughly 49 million acres of land it has. So about 10% of the land in SD is open to the public. Not sure how up to date it is.


Is that including ditches?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Is that including ditches?
> 
> 
> Chuck Smith said:
> ...


HAHA... no so you can add a lot more public land. :lol:

I would like to know if you take away PLOTS... how much federal, state, school, etc land is available to the public in ND?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Thanks bob,

My figure was off of 5 million acres of public land.

It is 3.6 million for SD and ND only has 2.1 million acres of public land. So in regaurds to people saying SD does not have the public land like ND it is false. But you can add I think I read somewhere 1 million acres of plots land. So SD and ND are about the same for public land.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

I allways thought that the law that limits land sales to non- profits and government agencies was about money generated by taxes on the land. Counties and the state receive payments in lieu of taxes each year from federal lands that are less than what the private land owner pays.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> Thanks bob,
> 
> My figure was off of 5 million acres of public land.
> 
> It is 3.6 million for SD and ND only has 2.1 million acres of public land. So in regaurds to people saying SD does not have the public land like ND it is false. But you can add I think I read somewhere 1 million acres of plots land. So SD and ND are about the same for public land.


Not that this has much bearing on this convo, but SD and ND are about equal with the amount of public land, yet SD caps NR's at what, 5k??, and ND has a free for all? oke:

Just thinking out loud.

Carry on...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The cap is closer to 10K than 5 K.... I think last year it was 7K. But if you want to compare.... SD gets over 100K NR pheasant hunters a year. ND gets total NR hunters (duck and Pheasant) around 60K+ (25K duck and then 35+ K or so pheasant)....plus a NR can purchase an extra pheasant license so that that 45+K is not totally accurate. So if you feel ND is over run....not even close compared to SD. But just thinking out loud. oke:

Edit....

In 2008 NR license sales were: Waterfowl was 23,490 and for Small game (pheasant) was 37,976.... So only totaling 61,466 with some duplicates in there for people who bought multiple small game licenses.

http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/ndoutdoors/ ... review.pdf


----------



## Dave Brandt (Jun 20, 2003)

Chuck,
As long as you are thinking out loud..... I can't recall anyone from Nebraska ever commenting about all the ditch parrots (a fair portion of which are raised and released for commercial operator's sports) migrating into their state after the opener of South Dakota's pheasant season. Also, the cap for the statewide nonresident waterfowl license was 3700 this year, the remaining permits have pretty severe restrictions associated with them. I heard from a fly on the wall that legislation will be introduced this year in SD to cut that 3700 in half. But we digress.......


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ohhhh snap!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck,
> As long as you are thinking out loud..... I can't recall anyone from Nebraska ever commenting about all the ditch parrots (a fair portion of which are raised and released for commercial operator's sports) migrating into their state after the opener of South Dakota's pheasant season. Also, the cap for the statewide nonresident waterfowl license was 3700 this year, the remaining permits have pretty severe restrictions associated with them. I heard from a fly on the wall that legislation will be introduced this year in SD to cut that 3700 in half. But we digress.......


That is totally wrong....Restrictions not to bad....some only can hunt 3 days other entire season, others 10 days, others on all private land and no state land. But the fact remains 6000 permits.

Unit nrw 00a-86 has 250 permits
unit nrw 00b-86 has 3725 permits
unit nrw 11a-86 has 25 permits
unit nrw 00x-86 has 1500 permits
unit nrw 00y-86 has 500 permits

http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/licenses/limi ... rfowl.aspx

So that is 6000 permits. So i guess I was off by 1000 permits.

So not so much of an OH SNAP. :beer:

Now back on topic. There is a need for public land in both states. And denying non profit groups is hurting getting more land. As I stated before i understand the negative side where a group can come in, buy the land, do the conservation or habitat work, then sell it to the highest bidder. Big problem. What can be done is put a law into effect that if a non profit buys the land it can't sell it unless to the state, federal or another non profit organization. Then have also in the law state that if a non profit owns land it is open to the public unless it is made into a reserve or sanctuary and then off limits to everyone.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Unit nrw 00a-86 has 250 permits-entire season $110
unit nrw 00b-86 has 3725 permits- TEN CONSECUTIVE DAYS.This is the main license people apply for. Best waterfowl area.$110.
unit nrw 11a-86 has 25 permits-Bennet Co. 10 days. Two tags for Canada geese $110
unit nrw 00x-86 has 1500 permits- Private land only.In 5 Counties. 3 days $75
unit nrw 00y-86 has 500 permits- 9 Counties. 3 days. $75
250 entire season,3,725 ten day,2000 3 day.

Compair hunter days to ND. Zones in ND are a joke. Plus in ND you can buy a zone buster,so zones do not apply. One third of NR licenses sold are zone buster.If ND changed to 14 straight days would really make a big impact on pressure.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am not going to lie zone busters are a joke. But think of making zones to spread people out. Make the "hot beds" places have limited numbers for NR. Like DL or other area's. I have stated that over and over that zones or permit area's would be a great idea. Plus would help out other communities. I am not saying NR hunters make communities survive. But i am saying why let one area get hammer or over run when you can push them into another area with good hunting and also the little $$ spend is just icing on the cake so to speak.


----------



## PJ (Oct 1, 2002)

Also keep in mind, of the 2 7 day periods for a NR in Nodak they count for the Early season execpt in two counties. In Sodak anyone can buy a seperate early season license and hunt in the special season.


----------



## bluebill25 (Mar 29, 2006)

If you don't think drainage has to do with the increased size of devils lake then your the fool. Go any where in ND and all u see is marshes and pot holes drained to the road ditches with in turn flow south and for those places north of devils lake they run right to it. It is the single greatest problem we have right now is the loss of wetlands and at the rate they are being ditch dry on private land it will nit be long before we all are in big trouble as waterfowl hunters. Something has to be done.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

:withstupid:

http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcg ... 42/640/480

So tell me bluebill, since you so obviously know what your talking about here.

Who was doing all the draining ohhhhh, about 250 years ago when the lake last flowed into Stump, how about 500 years ago when it did it again? Who was draining stuff 1000 years ago when the lake dumped into the Sheyenne? Were the indians out there with their spades made from buffalo scapulas draining all those potholes into the non-existant road ditches causing the lake to rise and spill into Stump Lake and by the looks of it, into the Sheyenne river three times in the last 5000 years?

Yes yes. Evil drainage. Thats why theres not one single gravel road that continues North from Hwy 2 to the Garske road between Devils Lake and Churches ferry. Theyre all underwater because of draining!!!

I dont think so.

Its a natural cycle.

Maybe you and Ron could get a show together? "Fools Outdoors" seems like it would be a fitting name.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

We are getting off topic....

But Devils lake is a freak of nature. It has water going into the lake and not many if any outlets for the water to go.

But there are things in ND like a little lake called DRY LAKE.... 30 years ago or so it was nothing but pasture and cropland. That is caused by many things....ND being wet, some tiling and draining of wetlands. So if ND ever goes through a couple of dry years in a row 3-5 and I mean very dry. These lakes like Dry will be shrinking at large rates then the land could be plowed under again. Things to think about.


----------



## bluebill25 (Mar 29, 2006)

Yeah bare, there is no drainage to the side of the road from wetlands. Those 200 yard trenches with backhose by them are natural. Also I'm not sure what u call a road ditch but the side of the road is where they are sending it. You know the place with colverts right by the road. (genius). Not saying it's the sinle greatest thing that makes the lake bigger. What I am saying is this is a wet period and the wetlands should be in better shape. Wait til a drought when they can get their equipment in there and plow and drain more wetlands to be lost for ever. Now tell me that don't happen.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I see we're still :withstupid:

Why is it, if man made draining is the culprit behind Devils Lake flooding right now, that the lake has done the EXACT SAME THING its doing right now many many times in the past loooooong before the white man stepped foot on this continent?

It went into Stump Lake roughly 250 years ago.
It did it again roughly 500 years ago.
It dumped into the Sheyenne roughly 1000 years ago.
It did that again about 2500 years ago.

Man made drainage and Devils Lake flooding DO NOT go together. Its a NATURAL CYCLE that has happened many times in the past and will happen many times in the future. Even if you were to remove all of man imprint in the Devils Lake basin, stop ALL draining in the entire basin, Devils Lake would still be flooding. Man made draining is literally a spit in the proverbial ocean when talking Devils Lake and the Devils Lake basin.

Think what you want from Pengilly MN. I grew up there. I watched it come up. This is a natural event, not a man caused event.


----------



## bluebill25 (Mar 29, 2006)

Nevermind I don't know a thing your right about everything. I was trying to bring up the ditching of wetlands point but I guess your to thick in the head. Were u there 2500 yrs ago too?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

bluebill25 said:


> I was trying to bring up the ditching of wetlands point but I guess your to thick in the head.


No, you specificaly blamed draining and tiling for the flooding issues with Devils Lake. Which isnt true.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Chuck Smith said:


> > Chuck,
> >
> > Now back on topic. There is a need for public land in both states. And denying non profit groups is hurting getting more land. As I stated before i understand the negative side where a group can come in, buy the land, do the conservation or habitat work, then sell it to the highest bidder. Big problem. What can be done is put a law into effect that if a non profit buys the land it can't sell it unless to the state, federal or another non profit organization. Then have also in the law state that if a non profit owns land it is open to the public unless it is made into a reserve or sanctuary and then off limits to everyone.


So if I'm reading this right you want to overturn a law that is used to determine who can buy land here in ND and replace it with one that determines who can buy land here in ND?????????????????????


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

GST...

To a certain point. Yes. It is not so much who can buy land. Because now Nonprofits can't (as I understand). It would allow non profits to buy land. But it would limit non profits to who they could sell the land to.

Like I stated I think why this law was made is because a non profit can come in and buy land. Get a tax break. Do a load of improvements (habitat wise or even farming wise...drain tile, etc) have all the benefits of owning land but not paying taxes. Then sell the land at a big profit to anyone. The state of ND gets screwed out of taxes on that land. Now this way if a non profit buys the land....it stays non profit. Also the land could not be posted. So open to everyone.

So what this does lets say delta, DU, PF, Elk foundation, etc what to buy land and improving for critters. They can as long as it stays non profit FOREVER or sold to the state of Federal goverment. All it hurts is who the non profit can sell the land too. This will also open the door for any ND landowner. Because now you could sell to a non profit organization, or donate the land to a non profit organization if someone wanted to go that route (tax purposes. :wink: ).


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Chuck, the problem with your arguement is that the "landowners Associations" do not want any more public land in ND. They have a standing opinion to oppose any and all sales of lands that remove lands from private holdings. The anti-corporate farming law was put in place to protect family farms from the influx of huge 'farmopolies'. The Nonprofits somehow fell under the umbrella of a corporate farm. Tax revenues are not a legitimate concern either as state and county tax codes can be amended to call for an in lieu of tax payment to be made every year. When the land grabbing non-profits offer to pay in lieu of taxes they are still opposed by the "landlords of the state". The ironic part of this whole thing is the anticorporate farming law was put in place to prevent a few people from controlling most of the land in the state. And now the few people on the of NDFB, NDFU and NDSA boards of directors are advising the govenor to control the landowners rights to sell that land to whom they want.

Another thing that is comical about this topic is having an experienced hunter, whom has witnessed the decimation of habitat in and around his home, be completely written off because of where he lives. Anyone that thinks what happened to Minnesotas waterfowl hunting could never happen in ND needs to pull their heads out of the sand and wake up.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, the problem with your arguement is that the "landowners Associations" do not want any more public land in ND. They have a standing opinion to oppose any and all sales of lands that remove lands from private holdings. The anti-corporate farming law was put in place to protect family farms from the influx of huge 'farmopolies'. The Nonprofits somehow fell under the umbrella of a corporate farm. Tax revenues are not a legitimate concern either as state and county tax codes can be amended to call for an in lieu of tax payment to be made every year. When the land grabbing non-profits offer to pay in lieu of taxes they are still opposed by the "landlords of the state". The ironic part of this whole thing is the anticorporate farming law was put in place to prevent a few people from controlling most of the land in the state. And now the few people on the of NDFB, NDFU and NDSA boards of directors are advising the govenor to control the landowners rights to sell that land to whom they want.


Swift. Thank you for pointing this out. I totally understand that the "farmopolies" could be created as a non profit organization as well. That is an aspect I did not think about. Like you mentioned about the boards they are limiting who or whom a land owner can sell to.

Another issue that land owners will have to look at is with Obama and this administration they are looking at Cap Gain Laws. Now more that ever people will start thinking about 1031 exchanges or donating land for tax breaks. The law on the books right now will hurt people.



> Another thing that is comical about this topic is having an experienced hunter, whom has witnessed the decimation of habitat in and around his home, be completely written off because of where he lives. Anyone that thinks what happened to Minnesotas waterfowl hunting could never happen in ND needs to pull their heads out of the sand and wake up.


This is also accurate. It is easier to blame others or not admit anything could go wrong than to be progressive about a situation. Just watch tax laws for the nation also hurt any property owners.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Swift. Thank you for pointing this out. I totally understand that the "farmopolies" could be created as a non profit organization as well. That is an aspect I did not think about. Like you mentioned about the boards they are limiting who or whom a land owner can sell to.


I tend to agree with the boards on this one, as much as it sucks for hunting. To say that we need to change the corporate farming laws is putting the cart before the horse. First the definition of a "not for profit" needs to be analyzed and tweaked. Then worry about the land laws, the problem for the governor is that of precedence. If the governor lets one "not for profit" buy up a bunch of land then he probably has to let the others, including some that no one here in ND wants to buy land. Maybe a lawyer on this site can answer that. I agree that some groups should be able to purchase land for conservation purposes but until the whole issue is addressed and changed it is what it is. 


> Anyone that thinks what happened to Minnesotas waterfowl hunting could never happen in ND needs to pull their heads out of the sand and wake up.


It could happen here, it may happen here. There are things in place right now like swampbuster and all the other drainage laws but they are not the only thing hurting hunting here. I have talked to a handful of state senators in ND about this, the answer and discussion always comes back to tourism. The ND Dept of Tourism seem to be the driving force against anything that could potentially limit NR's. The part that irritates me is the Tourism Dept's short sightedness, just like the commercial hunting issue it is all about money now, not about sustaining the sport and the industry for the long run for everyone.

It is just like everything else, when greed trumphs common sense and responsibility in the end everyone loses.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> The ironic part of this whole thing is the anticorporate farming law was put in place to prevent a few people from controlling most of the land in the state. And now the few people on the of NDFB, NDFU and NDSA boards of directors are advising the govenor to control the landowners rights to sell that land to whom they want.
> 
> Swift, once again your fingers are typing faster than you brain is thinking. The 3 orgs. you mention have long standing grasssroots policy regarding the developement of their standing policies. It is NOT the boards of directors that determine this policy but rather the THOUSANDS of ag producers from across the entire state that are members of these orgs that do. Each of the resolutions governing policy in these orgs are brought forth by members, thouroughly discussed and voted upon at their respective annual conventions. Each resolution is reveiwed on a set basis to keep them from becoming obsolete and if the membership believes changes are warranted they are addressed at that time. The boards only carry out what direction of policy is given them from it's members. NDFB has 26,000 members, NDFU has 42,000 members and NDSA has 2900 members So when the govenor takes into considerations the recomendations of these groups it is far more than the handful of directors he may be considering as you claim. As I have said these orgs. discuss policy on a revolving basis and this particular issue is being discussed within the ag community as we speak. So perhaps if the sportsmen community wants to see the policies of the ag sector compromise, perhaps they should be pushing these groups such as DU to accept the positions brought forth such as dropping the permanent easement part of their policy if they want to be looked at as being willing to compromise on these issues. Or the state swapping state owned nonconservation acres for parcels deemed to have greater conservation value.
> 
> The current structure we do have does work as it is meant to. These purchases are looked at on a case by case basis and the impact of each is weighed carefully after receiving testimony by groups representing all segments of NDan's not just ag as swift would like us to believe. Some are denied some are granted. Swift it seems is not happy until they are all granted regardless of the consequences or impact to the local communities. Hardly the meet in the middle attitude of compromise some on here claim is needed. There are consequences to overturning this particular law that people like swift care nothing about (TK mentioned just a few) as long as there are plenty of ducks to shoot when he comes back to ND to visit. :wink: And that is simply the mentality of far too many of the members of these "conservation" groups and there in lies much of the problem.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dave Brandt said,



> Chuck,
> As long as you are thinking out loud..... I can't recall anyone from Nebraska ever commenting about all the ditch parrots (a fair portion of which are raised and released for commercial operator's sports) migrating into their state after the opener of South Dakota's pheasant season. Also, the cap for the statewide nonresident waterfowl license was 3700 this year, the remaining permits have pretty severe restrictions associated with them. I heard from a fly on the wall that legislation will be introduced this year in SD to cut that 3700 in half. But we digress.......


Dave, you used to be the president of the north dakota wildlife federation. Are you still?


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

G, whatever or however you want to twist it, your orgs are hiding behind the veil of private property rights when it behooves you and then use collusion to stomp private property rights when it behooves you. It's about much more than shooting a few ducks. It is not suprising to see your attitude, as well as many others that posted on this subject, show that since someone lives outside the state line anything they say or have observed is not worth any consideration.

Since my family lives in the Devils lake area can you tell me what your orgs are doing for the landowners that are flooded and loosing their livelihoods in that area?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, there's no twisting going on in what I said. It is simply fact. The Ag economy is a very large part of this state and the consequences of actions regarding it are carefully considered by many when it comes to this industry. You simply don't seem to understand this. There is not one of these orgs mentioned that believes property rights are absolute, but they all beleive they are the cornerstone of what this country was built on and must be considered very carefully when any regulation of them is being considered and that these regulations must be justified. This method we have of these sales coming before this committee made up of SEVERAL representatives of all segments of those affected here in ND does do this and it does work, just not to your demands every time.

As to what these orgs are doing for your relatives in the DL area. If they are members they already know. I know you believe these ag interests are all powerful in their sway over the govenor, but even these orgs can't stop the rain. :wink:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

If your Landlord orgs could have the foresight to view each case of land purchase independently of the others, and could make an informed recommendation of whether to support or oppose those purchases, your arguement would hold water. The fact is by your own admission your orgs oppose any and all land sales that will take that land out of private hands. This is elitism at its best. This is not meet in the middle as you like to preach all the time. The day will come when this law is struck down and that will be a bad deal. If there really was no corporate farming in ND the govenor would be allowed to block land rentals as well. One family, farming 30 quarters with 10 hired men is no longer a "family farm".

Also you know full well that the board of directors make the decisions. They are supposed to be representing the majority, but I like to think that most people are level headed and intelligent enough to look at a case by case scenerio and figure out what is best for all involved.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Also you know full well that the board of directors make the decisions. They are supposed to be representing the majority, but I like to think that most people are level headed and intelligent enough to look at a case by case scenerio and figure out what is best for all involved.


Swift this quote shows you know very little of what you are rambling on about. This statement is simply NOT TRUE. Are you a member of any of these orgs to be able to make an informed post that is of any value to this conversation in regards to these orgs? We have been down this road too many times and continueing to debate an issue based of ignorant assumptions is a waste of everyones time.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Simple yes or no answers GST.

1. Does the NDFU, NDFB and NDSA have a policy to oppose all land transfers to non private buyers?

2. Does the above mentioned orgs represent a minority population in ND?

3. Do those groups advise the govenor on land sales?

4. Are there any *private *orgs on the govenors advisory council that are pro public land?

The answers are 1.yes 2.yes 3.yes and 4. no.

And my quote you stated is wrong how? Either the Boards don't make the decisions or you believe most people aren't levelheaded enough to look at case by case scenerios. You are the member of the hypocrasy not me.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift since you seem to have the answers for your own questions here are 4 for you.

1.Do any of these orgs have a "no net gain" policy regarding land purchases by public entities that would allow these sales if a like amount of non conservation public land was returned to the private sector? 
2. Do the 3 orgs you mention represent one if not the major economic sector in the state of ND? 
3.Are these 3 orgs part of a 7 member commission comprised of 3 other public entities that provide testomony to the govenor as well? 
4. Has the govenor allowed any of these purchases after weighing any and all testimony regarding the impact the sale will have?

1. yes 2.yes 3. yes 4. yes

Even though the govenors decision does not come down on the "side" of the ag orgs every time, I believe the process works. You on the other hand seem to need to have 100% compliance with your ideologies before the process would be acceptable. Nice compromise attitude.

You seem not to understand that the boards of these orgs you have this bone of contention with do not make up policy and rather the many thousand members across the entire state do. I'll make a deal with you, I will not assume I know what is best for the medical industry ( an industry I am not personally involved in even though my family members are) nor a state I do not live in if you will return the curteousy. :wink:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Gabe

Can you point out any "of this type of land sales" that NDSA has supported? Just curious.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bob, as I have said, the MEMBERSHIP of the NDSA developed and voted on a policy to oppose the expansion of land owned outside of the private sector. So by our resolutions the board of directors HAVE to follow this policy. As I have also stated these resolutions are revisited on a set schedule. As I have also stated this issue is currently being discussed as we speak. As I have also stated if conservation groups want ag to approach this from a give and take position, they have to be willing to "give" themselves. And as I have stated previously often times the Govenor "understands" this policy specifically to these individual sales and the impact forseen from each one and has made his decision accordingly.

So in answer to your question, no I can not tell you of any instances where the NDSA has supported "these types of land sales". I can tell you that the NDSA believes the stewardship of it's members and the states other ranchers in regards to conservation has proven itself time and time again in the fact that we have maintained as abundant a source of wildlife and hunting oportunities as ANY state all the while maintaining a working enviroment for both ranching and conservation. As an industry we are advocating and implementing these conservation and stewardship practices within our operations now more than ever before with substantial successs. That is why we believe COOPERATIVE programs with benefits to both conservation and ranching should be what is expanded on here in the state rather than blindly allowing orgs. to purchase and control land here in ND. http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation ... nts/ND.pdf
We simply believe the programs represented by the hundreds of red ducks are better off being cooperative volunteer projects with many private land owners whose continuation relies on their successes rather than becoming one orgs. massive land holdings they continue to control on a permanent basis.

So Bob, here is a question for you. Can you honestly say given the hunting we have here in ND (waterfowl in particular given DU is often the topic of these land sales) and the programs they have going as signified by these little red ducks that what we have here in ND is not working and needs a major overhaul as some are suggesting?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

gst said:


> So Bob, here is a question for you. Can you honestly say given the hunting we have here in ND (waterfowl in particular given DU is often the topic of these land sales) and the programs they have going as signified by these little red ducks that what we have here in ND is not working and needs a major overhaul as some are suggesting?


No major overhaul just some mutual cooperation when it (a land sale) would have genuine benefit to the resource,(not just ducks). The last land sale that was approved by Governor Hoeven had near zero AG or Livestock usability and still it was opposed by NDSA and others.

Have a good night


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bob, as I said this isue is being discussed. As I have also said, and was demonstrated in the McKenzie County case, the Govenor gets a sense of the impact and consequences these sales can possibly have and the opposition to them and rules accordingly. The system DOES seem to work, just not to everyones satisfaction every time.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Bob, as I said this isue is being discussed. As I have also said, and was demonstrated in the McKenzie County case, the Govenor gets a sense of the impact and consequences these sales can possibly have and the opposition to them and rules accordingly


So What you are saying is, The govenor really doesn't need the input of the AG orgs because he will make the right decision regardless of their pandering? You will notice that I have never said anything about hunting when discussing this issue.

This is a private land rights issue to me as much as HF hunting is a private land rights issue to you and your cronies. I don't care about little red ducks or any other contrived thought processes you and your elitist orgs come up with to squash capitalism and landowners rights. What it boils down to is you and your orgs don't want to compete for land with non-farmers with deep pockets. You (by association) are attempting to control land prices and land value.

Whether you believe it or not the Ag orgs are politicizing private land rights. There should not be Ag orgs on the govenors council without competeing orgs there to debate them. The NDSA, NDFU and NDFB are, to use your words 'controlling' who may do what with their land. That flies in the face of orgs that supposedly represent private land owners and their rights.

One last thought, You keep bringing up enconomic impact. The two largest employers in nearly every small town in ND is the Schools and the hospitals. Without those two employment bases many farms would fail to exist. Like I'm told nearly daily by the hospital staff, 'they work to support their husbands farming habits.' I know enough to realize that without the AG producers we would not have the patient base to stay open. It seems that I know we need each other maybe you should figure that out too.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

In addition to Goehring, who chairs the NAAAC, the committee includes Terry Steinwand, director of the State Game and Fish Department; Doug Prchal, director of the State Parks and Recreation Department; Robert Carlson, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union; Eric Aasmundstad, president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau; Jack Reich, president of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association, and Larry Kotchman, state forester. This is the composition of the committee that advises and makes recommendations to the governor on non profit land purchases (usually with one county commissioner from the affected county. )

True, production agriculture is the largest sector of the ND economy, but accounts for only 25% of the entire economy. It employs roughly 24% of all workers in North Dakota (ND Agriculture Department Report) The next two largest? Oil and Tourism respectively.

89 percent of North Dakota is in private ownership, 8 percent is in public ownership, and 2 percent are tribal trust lands. Of the 8% in public ownership, 5.2% is owned in fee title by the federal government (this includes water acres such as Lake Sakakawea) and 2.3% is in state ownership (mostly state trust lands).

In summary, the advisory committee on land acquisition (e.g. non profit land) is entirely state employees appointed by the governor or agriculture groups. It is chaired by the Agriculture Commissoner and is organized and based in the ND Dept. of Agriculture. No conservation organizations have a voice in the decision and their opinions are not heard. Second, I grant that agriculture is big in North Dakota, but 76% of all employed workers in North Dakota are not in agriculture.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift, I'm not going to waste my time.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/59-200 ... SG0100.pdf

indsport, As you can see from the bill itself, there is always a representative from the county commision included. Also the people you listed connected to the ag orgs are not always the ones testifying on the committee, they are simply the presidents of each respective org. Not all representatives will choose to testify at every hearing.

There is also a requirement of a public hearing. The conservation groups, even the one seeking to purchase the land, are allowed to testify and that testimony is included in what the govenor uses to make his decisions. Also the general public has an opportunity to weigh in with testimony as well.

The public and these conservation groups also had opportunity to weigh in when the legislature was determining the makeup of who sits on this Public Lands Aquisition Committee. Some did and voiced their APPROVAL of the makeup of this commission . However it seems now that 100% of these rulings are not going in their favor some are crying foul.

By your figures, 89% of ND is privately owned, however in the case of McKenzie County over 40% is owned by the federal govt, and yet thru this process some are claiming as unfair and slanted towards ag, the land aquisitions(not just this last one, but previous aquisitions in this same location) were approved and went thru. How do you explain that.

As I have said it appears if these aquisitions are not approved 100% of the time some are simply not happy.

indsport, if you would please answer the question I posed to Bob.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Typical GST fashion, If you don't give into the demands of the landlords they just snub you. Yes G, I am poking you with a stick, it really is pretty easy to get you all riled. Just allude to the fact that maybe more people than ag producers could benefit from the land in ND and you wax poetic for days.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The public lands acquisition committee, it is the natural areas acquisition advisory committee. Furthermore, (and this mystifies me and I am going to research this more), according to http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/59-200 ... SB2138.pdf there was no testimony by any conservation group at the senate agriculture committee hearing about the bill. As to McKenzie county, yes they may have more public land, but the state as a whole does not (compared to any surrounding state) and furthermore, the committee has consistently opposed non profit land purchases regardless of the location in the state or the composition of land ownership in the county. Nuff said. Off to do other work.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is another to consider when talking about "public" land so to speak. ND trespass law. Honestly. Think about it. Why have more public land when any land is open so to speak to the public just as long as it is not posted. So I am sure the AG community takes that into consideration. Why take land out of production when people can use it as long as it is not posted for certain rec use. Just something to consider before jumping all over AG producers and the organizations representing them.

Then add into the fact the Million acres or so that are enrolled into the PLOTS program. Again I am sure AG producers and AG Organizations look at that as well.

But the fact remains that with one fell swoop many of these can be taken away with not enrolling into PLOTS or Putting up a posted sign. That is what worries me and will have a more drastic affect on ND hunting than NR's like some people like to argue.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift, not riled up simply ending wasting my time with our conversations you seem to want to make personal all the time.

Chuck you bring up points seldom considered by some on here.

indsport Please answer the same question I asked Bob if you would. And when you find time go to page 13 of the link you provided. Mike McEnroe, on behalf of the ND chapter of the Wildlife Society testifies that they support the intent of the bill.

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewRe ... rt2010.pdf

Bob posted this report, based on what it says it appears that what we have is currently possibly just maybe working a little bit.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

gst, you have as usual, provided only half the story. The testimony on page 13 says TWS supports the intent but does not say it supports the measure as written. For those reading the thread, go to the same document on pages 29 and 30. There, it clearly recommends changes in the committee makeup that were not taken into consideration. Let's face it, agriculture dominates the committee and the committee will do whatever big agriculture wants. As to the question you asked Bob, I await Bob's answer.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

indsport, not half of the story at all. There was testimony where by this org supported the intent of the bill which is to have a group of representatives examine each land aquisition, provide testimony prior to the Govenor making his decision. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

I believe Bob already answered the question. What's yours, it's shared once again below. .

If you do not like that particular question, here's another. If Ag dominates the committee and the committee does whatever "big ag" wants as you claim, how do you explain the Govenor allowing the McKenzie County aquisitions?

The following comment is what many in ag feel and if you can dispute what it says please do.



> I can tell you that the NDSA believes the stewardship of it's members and the states other ranchers in regards to conservation has proven itself time and time again in the fact that we have maintained as abundant a source of wildlife and hunting oportunities as ANY state all the while maintaining a working enviroment for both ranching and conservation. As an industry we are advocating and implementing these conservation and stewardship practices within our operations now more than ever before with substantial successs. That is why we believe COOPERATIVE programs with benefits to both conservation and ranching should be what is expanded on here in the state rather than blindly allowing orgs. to purchase and control land here in ND. http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation ... nts/ND.pdf
> We simply believe the programs represented by the hundreds of red ducks are better off being cooperative volunteer projects with many private land owners whose continuation relies on their successes rather than becoming one orgs. massive land holdings they continue to control on a permanent basis.
> 
> So Bob, here is a question for you. Can you honestly say given the hunting we have here in ND (waterfowl in particular given DU is often the topic of these land sales) and the programs they have going as signified by these little red ducks that what we have here in ND is not working and needs a major overhaul as some are suggesting?


I believe this statement pretty clearly sums up my and many others stance in regards to this issue. If you disagree we will have to simply leave it at that.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I agree and fully support cooperative projects between agriculture and conservation organizations and wish we could work together much better. However, I totally disagree with part of the NDSA statements " rather than blindly allowing orgs. to purchase and control land here in ND". ... as well as the statement "rather than becoming one orgs. massive land holdings they continue to control on a permanent basis. " 
No conservation organization to which I belong subscribes to or wants to purchase "massive" amounts of land. Furthermore, conservation organizations (such as you quoted in the testimony of the TWS) agree with the intent of the advisory committee. Saying that conservation organizations want to be "blindly allowed to purchase land" could not be further from the truth. In fact, in most cases, most non profit conservation organizations have little interest in permanent ownership of land and invariably acts as a conduit to eventually transfer it to public land ownership. This is the way almost always works for land trusts and non profit purchases in the other 49 states and in some cases, reverts back to private ownership with a covenant.

Easements are another issue entirely separate from land purchases. Other than DU, I don't recall any other non profit conservation group requesting to purchase easements. Even so, a well written easement management contract could easily allow certain agricultural and grazing practices to continue and still increase the wildlife habitat quality along with transfer to any future land owner without taking it out of production. Yes, the new owner would have to abide by the easement contract, but still the free market would operate since the price of the land would be affected by the easement restrictions.

As to Governor Hoeven, he has been moderate in his approvals of non profit purchases to both sides. The McKenzie purchase was a good decision on his part and I am always heartened when he disregards the committee recommendation (which has almost always been against the purchase). Big ag looks only at the dollars and cents of the agricultural production when they do a cost benefit analysis so therefore 3 of the 7 committee members also look at any purchase the same way. This ignores the economic costs and benefits of the same piece of land to things like watershed protection, ground water protection, and wildlife habitat.

lastly, and my final argument before I leave for the weekend to enjoy the outdoors undisturbed by agriculture, my question to you. Why can't a willing seller and private landowner be deprived of their right to do what they want with their property including sell it to a non profit group? Why should the government get to decide by legislative fiat that I can't sell my land or an easement to either a non profit or my neighbor and why are the farm groups insistent on telling me I can't?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

indsport, 
How many acres does DU OWN in the prarie pothole region of Canada directly across our border?

What would the consequences be if one non governmental entity was to own say 300,000 acres in ND?

Once a nonprofit org starts buying land unregulated in ND how can you stop how much they can own without being right back to where we are now?

Once one org you may agree with is allowed to purchase land unregulated how do you prevent one that society may not agree with from purchasing land?

Please take the time to answer these 4 questions

Your statement these orgs "invariably" transfer this land and do not maintain ownership is simply not true. Do a little research and you will see these groups often maintain ownership of some of the most prime areas, or sell them to large dollar "donators" which then keep them as their private hunting preserves.

You seem to be having trouble answering one simple question. Given the hunting opportunities and wildlife populations as well as VOLANTARY cooperative programs we have here in ND why do you believe what we have here in ND needs to be overturned?

The answer to your question is the same reason I can not purchase land in the city of Fargo to build a feedlot. The population of this state thru their legislative representatives have determined that because of the impact certain things may have there are to be regulations accompanying that action. Those responsible for the longterm wellbeing of ND believe that allowing unregulated land sales to these nonprofits, corporations and other orgs to happen in our state could lead to a negative impact in more ways than some stop to consider and so believe the consequences of such sales must be considered. One could say that perhaps history has proven them right.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> The answer to your question is the same reason I can not purchase land in the city of Fargo to build a feedlot. The population of this state thru their legislative representatives have determined that because of the impact certain things may have there are to be regulations accompanying that action. Those responsible for the longterm wellbeing of ND believe that allowing unregulated land sales to these nonprofits, corporations and other orgs to happen in our state could lead to a negative impact in more ways than some stop to consider and so believe the consequences of such sales must be considered. One could say that perhaps history has proven them right.


Gabe
The ND legislature has little to do with buying land in Fargo for a feed lot, that is a largely local control called zoning ordinances. I am not sure but most larger cities in ND are governed by zoning ordinances they created. I'm sure there are some township and county boards that have created zoning ordinances to control construction in their extraterritorial boundaries. It has little if anything to do with this discussion unless the county, township etc has a zoning ordinance against selling land to non profit organizations.

Admit it the big 3 AG orginazations in ND have a no net gain policy to benefit them and their membership. it really is as simple as that. Littering the discussion with half truths and BS only muddies the water even more. I thought you were more up on your civic lessons than that.

By the way there is animial agriculture within the city of Fargo in the extraterritorial boundaries of the metro area, some pretty large ones at that, I drive past them every day going to work.

Have a good night


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bob, I am aware the regulation of nonrofits purchasing land in ND is a result of the STATE legislative governmental body, as well as the fact the regulation of a feedlot not being able to purchase land for the sole specific purpose of building a feedlot in Fargo is the CITY governmental body. I am aware of a bit of civics, if you recall there has been this discussion regarding the municipal zoning you speak of before . Regardless if it is at the state, city, or township level this regulation is done in ALL cases because of the consequences of allowing either to happen UNREGULATED.

Of course ag groups create policy designed to be of a benefit to ag and their members , much like DU designs policy to benefit DU and their members and every other org has policy to benefit themselves.  Shocking I know. In the case of the laws developed where these land sales must go thru an approval process it is the result of those responsible for makinng the decisions that benefit this state believing this is necessary to prevent possible long term hard to reverse negative results proponents of these sales may not stop to consider. If there are found to be none these sales are allowed to go thru. A somewhat common sense approach to this issue IMO. The question I am asking people to consider is that given the abbundance of wildlife, hunting opportunities, and volantary cooperative conservation programs already happening here in ND, why does an overhaul have to take place????

Now Bob if you would please answer the 4 questions I asked above. These are just a small handful of the consequences those responsible for more than just a few more ducks to hunt have to consider when looking towards the future of this state. And if you are going to accuse someone of "littering the discussion with half truthes and BS" at least be specific and provide proof other than ones personal opinion why it is to be considered such.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Bob you are wasting your fingertips trying to explain to Gabe that there are differences in city zoning and State law. I've been down that path many times and he has his head too far up the SA's "best interests" to even realize they are too completely different topics.

Since Gabe was so eager to point out the Mckenzie county 40% public land fact, lets look at Griggs county where Mr Cook tried to preserve some land for wildlife. 99% of the county is private owned.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, If you would like to contribute something to the debate, I have asked 5 questions, bob has answered one. Please answer them if you would.

And if you choose to here is one more, do city zoning laws regulate what a property can be used for there by possibly preventing the sale of that property to a buyer.

Example: Both you and indsport have stated that anyone should be able to sell their property to anyone they choose. I own a residential property on the edge of an industrial park, no one wants to buy this property because of it's location other than one industrial company, however they are going to build an industrial business if they buy it. They(potential buyers) meet with the zoning board, after receiving testimony from parties that maybe affected (neighboring residents), the zoning board denies them from doing this and as a result they no longer will purchase my property. By regulating the usage of property because of concerns over the affects that sale and usage will have I have been prevented from selling my property to a willing buyer. The very thing you are saying should not be able to happen. So once again, in this scenario have I been denied the ability to sell my property to a willing buyer because of a form of govermnental regulation? Yes or No?

In the cases of these sales to nonprofits it is quite similar. They (potential buyers) testify as to what the usages (ie. easements, turning over of land to a public entity, ect... along with others that maybe potentially affected) and a govt entity decides wether to allow it to happen or not after hearing testimony regarding the impacts of the sale. In some cases the sales proceed, in some cases they do not. How is this so different from the above example.

Since swift mentions it, I do have a question regarding the Cook properties (I don't know the answer so if anyone does please share) were these properties bought with the intent of being open to the public or sold to someone else who would open them to the public as indsport claims these properties "invariably are" or were they to be a posted private hunting preserve for him and a few of his buddies ran thru a nonprofit ?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> How many acres does DU OWN in the prarie pothole region of Canada directly across our border?


a lot


> What would the consequences be if one non governmental entity was to own say 300,000 acres in ND?


less farmland. less tax input. 
Unless it was crap land or water to begin with, then it wouldn't really matter all that much.


> Once a nonprofit org starts buying land unregulated in ND how can you stop how much they can own without being right back to where we are now?


you can't, that is why it has to go through the executive branch. The law has to be fine tuned to prevent PETA or Save the Whales or whoever else from buying land. Maybe define it as production, ag or wildlife I guess. 
Does the NDSA, NDFB, or NDFU actively encourage their members to enroll in PLOTS or Delta's programs?
Does the NDSA, NDFB, or NDFU receive state funding?
How much influence do outfitters or pay hunting landowners have in the NDSA, NDFB, and NDFU?
What has changed in the last 10-20 years to make this more of an issue?

The problem here is that there is a growing number people in ND that want more public land open. When groups that receive taxpayer funding protest these things it is bad PR. If the ag groups were to be more vocal in their support of private landowner programs it would help. As more and more land is closed off it is only going to get worse.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Mr Cook didn't try to preserve land for anything else but self gratification. The land would have been off limits to anybody but he and his friends (Ron Schara) comes to mind!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK, Thanks for answering a few of the questions. In regards to yours. The NDSA does not actively suggest land uses to it's members. We do how ever have an eviromental services department and staff which advises and helps our members work with NRCS and the EQUIP programs which have many conservation aspects to their VOLANTARY ,COOPERATIVE projects such as water shed protection, rotational grazing, plantings of native grasses, tree plantings ect...

We also participate in the Enviromental Stewardship Program in conjunction with the NDG&F every year. This is a national program which identifies and recognizes producers that have implemented funtional, effective, workable conservation practices and commitments in their operations. ND has had a number of regional winners. At our yearly convention we have people involved in conservation at boothes and speaking every year. As I have said producers are implementing conservation practices in their operations more than ever before. Many people driving in the country simply see a pasture with cows in it not knowing it is enrolled in a rotational, once over conservation program that has been proven and implemented to increase not only production but wildlife(ie. duck nesting) as well. Or see cattle standing at a water tank not realizing it is part of a conservation program providing alternative water sources for cattle while controling access to other natural water sources which both increase production as well as protect wetlands. All accomplished quietly by producers involved in these conservation programs most know little about.

As to state funding I can only speak for NDSA as I am the most involved there. We do thru our enviromental services program receive funding from NRCS specifically allocated for their conservation programs. All dollars are simply pass thru dollars used in these NRCS involved projects or to fund the salary of the enviromental staff person. The Brand Recording program does also receive dollars back from the state that are paid in by producers on a per head basis to offset the cost of running our brand recording and inspection programs. Both are annually audited.

There is very little if any inluence by outfitters or fee hunting in the NDSA. I would imagine some may be members but there are no resolutions regarding this, nor have any met with our org that I can recall for the last few years.

As to what is changing, you and I have talked about how the makeup of even rural states such as ND is everchanging. These ag groups are charged with protecting the future of ag and realize this. We need to constantly take into consideration these changes and how they affect how we do this. This issue in particular is frustrating to many of us in ag as we proactively take it upon ourselves to implement conservation practices on our own and thru these many volanteer cooperative programs avalible thru many other orgs. including DU that already exist. As I have stated given the current status (bob shared a report of one on wetlands and duck production) we are seeing substantial success in conservation here in ND. Because of what we see everyday on our own operations (these successes) there are many in ag that do not see the necessity to overturn what seems to be a pretty good program whereby all sides have a chance for input into these land sales and whereby some are approved and some are not based on this ability to examine each of these sales on their merits and possible long term consequential impacts.

I would guess people like swift and indsport know very little of the conservation programs these ag groups and producers they are condemning as "big ag" implement all across our state and the positive affects they have had on wildlife. We have as abundent populations of almost every species of wildlife here in ND, more conservation programs, as well as hunting opportunities currently as we have ever had and still some say it is not enough. So the question remains as has been asked before, how much is enough?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK33 said:


> [
> 
> 
> > Once a nonprofit org starts buying land unregulated in ND how can you stop how much they can own without being right back to where we are now?
> ...


The problem is how do you "fine tune" the law to stop PETA or Save the Whales type nonprofit groups while allowing DU, Delta, RMEF without another group claiming what swift, bob and indsport are claiming now or addressing this "fine tuned" law in court. What keeps PETA from then claiming "big wildlife" or "big hunting" is preventing them from owning land here in ND??? Once this happens what stops ADM or other global corps from using a courts ruling as precedence? Once these global food production corps. gain access, how much conservation do you believe will happen on the land they own? Had this law not been in place and these multi nationals owned land in ND and producers had to compete beside them with their input cost advantage, how many acres do you think would have been enrolled in conservation programs? There's a bigger picture here than some are looking at. It's simply not as easy as swift and indsport want to make it seem. There are long term consequences to these actions that must be considered. The format we now have does exactly this and was developed for a reason. It is a form of compromise or "fine tuning " if you will, some sales are denied while some are granted for various reasons. As I said it seems some will not be satisfied until 100% are granted regardless of the long term cost to our state.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Million dollar question. I am not a constitutional lawyer or a business lawyer so as for now as far as I can see the law has to stay the way it is. The reality is there may not be a way. Too many lawyers and too much money involved, once the door is cracked some organization or another with deep enough pockets will kick it open.

The last thing we need is one of these ginormous companies buying land, as I mentioned above or on the last page precedence would/is the issue. They buy it up you can forget about hunting or even wildlife production. I'm sure they will suck every last nickel out the land as human, chemically, and genetically possible.

The answer to me is what Delta is trying to do with some of their programs that benefit waterfowl and production as well as involve and compensate the landowner without land ownership changing hands. There is a good article in the summer 2010 edition of Delta Magazine but I can't find the article or the link. Basically it says that cooperation between landowners, researcher, and hunters is the key.


----------

