North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 88 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,255 Posts
Don't know much about this precise issue but the attitude of the fed burro-crats in the fox news article is sickening.Who the hell do they think they work for?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
haven't heard anything yet. These actions always move slowly.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,737 Posts
I don't understand why they just don't leave it how it is. It's not hurting anyone. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Audubon Society won their case. Slowly ND's prohibition against NGO ownership slips away.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
Dick wrote,

Audubon Society won their case.
Can't find the story. Dick, you're going to have to post it.

Slowly ND's prohibition against NGO ownership slips away.
North Dakotas anti-corporate farming law is going to be challenged by non-profits soon enough. "For profit."

Ducks Unlimited is one of the orgs leading the charge. And why not? They used to be the 7th largest agricultural subsidy recipient.

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?cu ... =000500754

Also, after the purchase is made from a "willing seller" "wink wink" they hang on to it for a few years and then resell it to the fed/gov for a large profit.

Let's keep private lands in private hands!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I have seen no published story, just an inside source, that ND folded the case because of fear of losing and thus setting legal precedent, which would negate the illegal ND law now in place. (Easy to see the Audubon signs are in place on their property.) The same "law" that has consistently been overturned in other states where it has been challenged. :beer: And that is a win for everybody.

Makes one wonder how the ND vs Jim Cook scenario is going?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
which would negate the illegal ND law now in place.
Dick, show me where it is illegal?

same "law" that has consistently been overturned in other states where it has been challenged. And that is a win for everybody.
I know of only one state, that being Nebraska, where the anti-corporate farming law was over turned. Large corporate hog and dairy farms taking over now. Hardly a win.

The anti-corporate farming law in ND applies equally to factory farms and non=profits. Neither orgs are good for the state, the people or the land. We the people (the little guy) veiw land as that which we control the economic potential and the means of production.

I would suppose an argument can be made that our children will be richer with more lands set aside and places to recreate. An equal argument can be made that our children will be poorer with less land to build their homes, businesses and livelyhoods. Once real property is acquired by a non-profit or the fed/gov, that's it. It's gone forever.

In Nevada the fed/gov owns something like 85% of the land area. Is it great? They have more land disputes than most.

Let's keep private lands in private hands.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,678 Posts
In Nevada the fed/gov owns something like 85% of the land area. Is it great?
Yes it is great. Much of the area your talking about it would take 100 acres to feed one cow. Do you think you can make a living on that land? The way it is there is some wildlife for sportsmen. You have to walk your behind off, but maybe in a week you will find an javelin or two. I have spent some time on the desert and enjoyed it a lot.

I see some asked how much land is enough for the federal. The Audubon Society is not federal it's private. Is there any reason they are less entitled to own land that agriculture?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
Bioman, https://picasaweb.google.com/ctgilfoy/W ... 6350599986

July 4th 2009 said,

This is beyond a slippery slope. Allowing any non-governmental organization the ability to influence policy and local land use decisions is an absolute disaster that will have numerous unintended consequences.

In Wyoming, the Audubon Society successfully implemented the 'core population area' concept via a greater sage-grouse working group (http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife ... /index.asp). The core area concept was subsequently issued by proclamation of Governor Freudenthal via Executive Order (EO) in 2008. It was an extremely bad policy that was not fully vetted. More importantly, the EO was supposed to recognize existing rights and to have state agencies work colloboratively with private landowners.

Unfortunately, existing rights of private landowners have now been substantially modified. Case in point wind energy development. The resulting article shows the level of influence these types of policies can reach to the private landowner. I would guess that the Anschutz project will file a private land taking lawsuit, because the private land is now precluded from development.

The moral of the story, these NGO's are nobody's friends. Some have radical agendas and they don't act in the best interest of private landowners.
Dick and Plains, I'll let one of your own say it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Read the facts. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments ... 000651.pdf.

The core area was designed and implemented by Wyoming Game and Fish Dept to put Wyoming in charge of sage grouse restoration otherwise the feds (USFWS) would have stepped in. Audubon had little to do with it other than be consulted along with every other group including hunters and ranchers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
indsport wrote,

The core area was designed and implemented by Wyoming Game and Fish Dept to put Wyoming in charge of sage grouse restoration otherwise the feds (USFWS) would have stepped in.
The feds are already inside. They are inside these non-profits. Not sure how it works in Wyoming but here in North Dakota it goes like this.

The contact person for Dakota Prarie Audubon Society is one Lawrence D. Igl:

http://dk.audubon.org/chapters/dakota-p ... on-society

Who is Lawrence D. Igl? Well, he works at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (USGS) in Jamestown as a research ecologist. Or Larry D. Igl.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/staff.html

Audubon had little to do with it other than be consulted along with every other group including hunters and ranchers.
Like I said, Not sure how it works in Wyoming but here in North Dakota all or most of our non-profits such as Audubon or wildlife federation or wildlife society are top heavy with fed/gov persons.

Tom, I believe you know what I'm getting at. You used to work with Lawrence (Larry) D. Igl at the Northern Plains Research Center. He went to the non-profit Audubon and you went to the non-profit wildlife federation. Are you still director number number 5? And what does your position as auditer at the wildlife society entail?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,678 Posts
Tom, I believe you know what I'm getting at.
It's a shame you don't know what your talking about. If you look at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation you will find people interested in elk. Since the feds don't do much with that there is a good chance it will be either a sportsmen or a state biologist affiliated with that organization. Igl isn't affiliated with the Audubon Society because he is a fed, he is affiliated with them because the number one thing with him is birds. Simple as that. You will find that all the work these guys do with private organizations is on their own time. They don't get to work on these things during their normal work day.

You better look inside your North Dakota Farm Bureau. You have to be a member to purchase their auto insurance. I think the feds are inside and running NDFB. Makes sense to you right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Shaug, I merely pointed out that the article you reference is false. The article you posted said "In Wyoming, the Audubon Society successfully implemented the 'core population area' concept via a greater sage-grouse working group (http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife ... /index.asp)." is false and I provided the actual proclamation by the governor of Wyoming that refuted the article, nothing more, nothing less.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
indsport said:
Shaug, I merely pointed out that the article you reference is false. The article you posted said "In Wyoming, the Audubon Society successfully implemented the 'core population area' concept via a greater sage-grouse working group (http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife ... /index.asp)." is false and I provided the actual proclamation by the governor of Wyoming that refuted the article, nothing more, nothing less.
Tom, I didn't post the article, bioman did. I merely quoted him. Bioman or Ryan, worked at the time for a wind energy company in Wyoming. Maybe his job (his livelyhood) was more important to him then the greater sage grouse?

Plains, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is a trust. They often prefer not to own the land because they recognize that managing it is costly. They resell at a profit, acquired habitat or "protected land" to a state or federal agency that will be responsible for its management. Without question, land trusts promote an increase in the federal estate. The taxpayers pick up the tab to manage it.

I would suppose the Dakota Audubon Society would like to be able to purchase real property in North Dakota so that they can get in on the feeding frenzy too.

This article below is from the late nineties, but it shows the timeline to now.

Land Trusts or Land Agents?

Celebrated by market enthusiasts and conservationists alike, land trusts have become the instrument of choice across the nation for conserving farmland, sensitive habitat, and open space. Recently, however, free market environmentalists have been raising a few questions about them.

For years, friends of the market such as PERC associates have cheered trusts because of the way they go about achieving their mission: Trusts rely on voluntary transactions and respect private property rights. They buy land and purchase or receive voluntary donations of land and conservation easements. (See p. 12 for an example of the sophisticated management typical of the Nature Conservancy, the nation's largest land trust.)

Conservationists, whether market-oriented or not, applaud the mission of protecting land from development and other disturbance. Some 17 million acres of U.S. land is now controlled by land trusts.(1) That's a lot of habitat, farmland, and open space, an amount close to the size of South Carolina.

Land trusts have been growing dramatically. Prior to 1950 there were fewer than 40 land trusts in the United States. There are now more than 1200 land trusts operating across the 50 states and U.S. territories (Land Trust Alliance 1999).

Small local trusts are found in every state, led by Massachusetts with 137, followed by California with 119 and Connecticut with 113. The local trusts control some four million acres of land. The 14 larger national land trusts control 13 million acres of U.S. land. Indeed, the Nature Conservancy alone claims to have protected 10.5 million acres since its founding in 1953 (Nature Conservancy 1999).

Notice the word "control." Of the 4.7 million acres protected by local and regional trusts, only 17 percent is owned in fee simple. Some 30 percent is controlled by way of conservation easements, and the rest, about 50 percent, is transferred to government or controlled by other means such as through the ownership of mineral rights (Land Trust Alliance 1999).

The breakdown appears to be different for the large national land trusts. Nine of the 14 national trusts provide land management data. They indicate fee simple ownership of just one percent of the land they "control." Some 20 percent is transferred to government, and the remainder is managed by way of conservation easements, deed restrictions, and mineral right ownership (Land Trust Alliance 1998, 197Ð99).

The growth of land trusts raises three issues that environmentalists and conservationists would do well to consider.

First, land trusts don't always retain the right to divest ownership. Yet this is a key characteristic of private property rights. If land parcels can be transferred, they can be traded and assembled to better achieve environmental objectives. When they are able to do so, land trusts willingly sell or trade land that has been donated to them so that they can acquire more sensitive habitat.

For example, some years ago the Nature Conservancy surprised some observers by selling beachfront property that it had received as a gift. The beachfront land in the Virgin Islands was degraded and damaged and did not have any endangered animals or plants. The conservancy, whose mission was to protect endangered species, traded the beachfront property for Wisconsin land that provided nesting habitat for the hooded warbler, a rare Neotropical migrant bird.(2)

When land is set aside through easements and other agreements rather than through direct ownership, this freedom to divest is lost. Some of the traditional incentives of private property rights weaken. Conservation easements or land donated as a perpetuity freeze the present use of land into the limitless future.

Over time, both the environment and the desires and locations of human populations can change, turning a perpetuity into a millstone. Perhaps it would be wise for donors to require that court-supervised environmental reviews be made every one hundred years with an allowance for selling land that no longer satisfies the donor's intent.

A second issue is the transfer of land from private ownership to government. The federal government's track record for managing land is not a stellar one. To select a few examples: Yellowstone's outmoded sewer system spews sewage into native trout streams and prehistoric dwellings in Mesa Verde National Park are disintegrating from a buildup of oils and airborne particles (Fretwell 1999, 3). And according to a General Accounting Office (1999, 22) report, 39 million acres of national forests are in danger of going up in flames due to poor management.

Managing land properly costs money. When additional land is transferred to governmental bodies, public funds for land management must be stretched even farther.

The issue is incentives, not the character or commitment of government agents. Generally speaking, government managers and the units they manage do not reap rewards for managing resources effectively. Nor are they systematically punished when bad decisions are made.

A third problem to consider is that land trusts are making many large purchases using taxpayer money. Evidence comes from the Interior Department. Between 1985 and 1991, the Department of the Interior made 317 land purchases of land from conservation organizations. These cost $222.6 million in taxpayer funds. In some cases, the department reported, the land was sold to the government at prices that exceeded fair market value (U.S. Department of the Interior 1992, 3).

Such taxpayer-financed purchases cloud the widely held image of trust managers accepting and managing donated land or buying it with funds contributed by dedicated land trust members. It did not sit well with a member of the Nature Conservancy who wrote a letter to the editor of the conservancy's magazine (the November/December 1999 issue).

The reader fumed about the conservancy's purchase of 45,000 acres of Florida land using $133.5 million in federal funds: "If the federal government is paying for the Conservancy's purchases, then you do not need my membership pittance!" wrote Osman Latif. "An explanation would be appreciated."

The letter generated two explanations within the same issue of the magazine. The magazine's editor responded that donations from individuals "comprise the greatest and most valued source of funding for our work; nevertheless, when an opportunity arises to accomplish our conservation goals with funding from outside sources, we think our members would want us to take full advantage of the opportunity."

In his column, John Sawhill, president of the conservancy, implied an even more expansive role for government funds and government ownership. He noted that the Nature Conservancy "has a long record of working with federal, state and local public agencies to protect ecologically important land and waters," and added that "stewards from the Nature Conservancy collaborate with government officials to promote conservation on all types of public land holdings" (Sawhill 1999, 5). This description differs from the usual concept of a land trust.

For the most part, there is little journalistic scrutiny of how organizations such as the Nature Conservancy operate. However, land trust collaboration with government was described in a series of 1991 columns by the late Warren Brookes, editorial page writer for the Detroit News. For example, Brookes discussed (January 23) a provision that had been added to the Interior Department appropriation bill for fiscal 1988. It required Diamond International Paper Company to sell a 53,000-acre New Hampshire holding to the Nature Conservancy or the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; if it did not, its land would be purchased by the U.S. Forest Service for $5.25 million. This, Brookes commented, was a fraction of its actual value.

It appears that these two trusts were obtaining help from the federal government. All they had to do was to offer something more attractive than the price demanded by the Forest Service to get a deal. (The conservation group could offer a tax benefit if the land was sold at a loss and in turn gain a "profit" when the land was resold to the government.)

Today, the federal government is dangling before environmental organizations enormous sums of money that can be used to control land use. For example, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century provides some $630 million for transportation enhancements, which include greenways, bike trails, and open space easements. Millions in matching funds have emerged for the acquisition of wetlands. And billions are being proposed to enrich the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a plan that has received support from Republicans as well as Democrats.

A typical example of the close relationship between government and private organizations was the Forest Service's 1999 purchase of acreage near Yellowstone National Park. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation acted as a facilitator as the Forest Service negotiated the purchase of land from a religious organization, to the tune of about $13 million. The elk foundation, along with the Forest Service, holds a right of first refusal to assist the federal government in acquiring additional land (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 1999a and 1999b).

Such programs encourage land trusts to serve as government land agents, often quite profitably. If land trusts continue to respond to this temptation, land conservation will become ever more political. The splendid conservation incentive that comes with bearing costs and earning benefits will be compromised. History teaches us that market incentives for conservation are strongest when individuals pay market prices and receive market rewards. They are weakest when government agents spend someone else's money and get no reward for good management.

Free market environmentalism is about harnessing property rights and markets for the purpose of managing environmental resources. Beneficial outcomes depend on getting the incentives right and keeping them right.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,678 Posts
There are many hunters and other outdoor people in North Dakota, but little public land compared to other states. Trusts purchasing land and turning it over to our Game and Fish doesn't work as well as some states because our ag oriented legislature can't keep their paws off it. Look at the attempted land grab this year where they want land below Bismarck and Mallard Island turned back to original owners. It's to bad that these days their is no shame anymore. It's been destroyed by political correctness and tolerance. People tolerate groups like the NDFB constantly cutting the throat of sportsmen.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
Plains,

There are more then a few fed/gov employees on this web-forum

There are more then a few who have joined a non-profit

There has been more than a few hundred thousand dollars thrown about here in North Dakota towards activism

Permit me to put the whole affair into a nutshell

http://www.undueinfluence.com/Battered% ... nities.pdf

HOW WEALTHY PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS,

GRANT-DRIVEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS,

AND ACTIVIST FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMBINE TO

SYSTEMATICALLY CRIPPLE RURAL ECONOMIES

A REPORT BY
THE CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF
FREE ENTERPRISE
 
1 - 20 of 88 Posts
Top