pheasantaddict
New member
I thought SD was a state that valued conservation and wildlife. New law for the state that requires no net gain of public land. I hope it gets reversed so new areas can be aquired by state.
No More Public Land
- Thread starter pheasantaddict
- Start date
SDJIM
New member
Yep they slipped that thru and the sportsmen (me included) missed it somehow and now the state gov. can not add more public land to it's holdings unless it gives up a like amount somewhere less--no net gain.
Gotta be some special intrest group somewhere that did that one. Guess we can't have more public hunting land--your gonna have to pay to hunt on their land by God would be my guess.
Gotta be some special intrest group somewhere that did that one. Guess we can't have more public hunting land--your gonna have to pay to hunt on their land by God would be my guess.
Our conservation commission faces the same arguements here in Missouri. Farmers complain that the conservation commission drives up prices beyond the reach of the local farmers, counties gripe that the commission lands get a lower tax rate, and cuts into the county budget. Even when the commission gets a gift of land and agrees to pay the same tax rate as currently assessed, they get complaints. Looks like these political types might have something better to do than engage in this sort of mischief.
1pheas4
Moderator
I don't understand this. We deal with the same mind set here in IL haymaker. Our pollutions severely underfund our already anemic DNR/public hunting land/opportunities to save $ despite knowing that increasing hunting opportunities increases tax revenue.
Being that pheasant states are dropping like flies and SD, for now, is still one of the few pheasant producers luring in pheasant hunters and their $, you would think SD politicians would begin to plan for higher NR hunters coming into the state in the coming years. i.e. increasing public hunting opportunities/lands
I don't understand this. We deal with the same mind set here in IL haymaker. Our pollutions severely underfund our already anemic DNR/public hunting land/opportunities to save $ despite knowing that increasing hunting opportunities increases tax revenue.
Being that pheasant states are dropping like flies and SD, for now, is still one of the few pheasant producers luring in pheasant hunters and their $, you would think SD politicians would begin to plan for higher NR hunters coming into the state in the coming years. i.e. increasing public hunting opportunities/lands
I have not heard the discussion that went on in the legislature, but let me take the other viewpoint. Let us say that your a farmer or rancher and you have two sons that want to join the operation. The place a mile down the road is coming up for sale and you think that if you can get it bought for $2000 an acre you can make it work. Sale day comes anf the GFP bids $2750and turns it into hunting and public use. At the same time your daughter who is a school teacher has gone three years without a raise because the state has lowered the amount of funding for education. This is all hypothetical but SD has budget troubles and has reduced funding for edication, private land that could be generating income has been bought and turned into a park. Your point is valid but where is the balance? GFP is working on more walkin areas all the time. The CREP program is supposedly succesfully adding acres. How much land shoul the state own?
How much ground should the state own? Maybe all of it, if we base the condition of the eastern great plains on whether the public or private sector does a better job of preservation. This is the same arguement used by forces opposing the creation of the national parks, and still used today to argue for mining in the Grand Canyon area. Just a different point of view.:cheers:
ranchodeluxe
Member
Ah yes,the ole Buffalo Commons theory.They have a word for that,Communism.
This is the same policy the Feds have in-place precisely because we don't want the Gov't in the land business.If you want to see some real buddy deals on your prime public land that end up shutting you out,just let the gov't get into the buying and selling of rural land .There's a buttload of public and private land out West that is mismanaged,and a bunch that isn't.Still has no effect on procuring private land for the Walk-in program.Just means if the State wants a thousand acres,they have to have something to trade.Also means no net loss,too.
I have not seen the bill. Does it say no net loss in there somewhere?
moellermd
Super Moderator
1pheas4
Moderator
I see your point,
but I don't believe SD would be better off (financially/tax revenue) without a thriving and robust hunting industry. Private lands are going to the plow. Public land will be the last stand. I fear SD will be just another Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, etc. This will bring SD tax issues to a whole other level.I see your point,
No doubt about it pheasant hunting is a big deal South Dakota. It is a big deal to me too. I just wrote a fairly large check to South Dakota for sales tax. Not all private lands are going to be farmed. I would like to buy more land too but I think I have some other obligations to meet first. The state has some obligations too. We have had a good winter and if we have good hatch conditions we will have more birds again next year. I saw a poll that indicated about half of the CRP would be re enrolled. The half that is going to be farmed will produce tax revenue too. It comes down to the question, How much land should the state own?
pheasantaddict
New member
There's plenty of land in every state that is not suitable for farming. Wether it be a 5 acre plot or 400 acre tract let the state buy up these areas. Win win for everyone, money coming into the state from hunters, fisherman,birdwatchers.
onpoint
Active member
Does anybody think that the commercial hunting Ind. could have been behind this? Maybe Big Ag? The state don't pay property taxes on it's own land.
Trust me, somebody motivated by money was behind such a move and they have a reason. With land prices so high and big Ag wanting to get a hold of all the land they can and get it under till/grazing. I can see that being a possibility. The WPA's are already being grazed or cut for hay nearly every year now. That right there shows the demand by the Ag industry. I'm sure they don't want anymore of this land being tied up, where they possibly can't get access to it for their own needs.
Then you have the old adage, if they can't come here and hunt for free on public land. They have to pay "ME! to hunt here in my private land. I'm sure the commercial pheasant hunting Ind. just loves it, when they see a WPA cut or grazed near flat, in their area. They say to themselves, well that's one less place for the public to hunt. Now maybe they will have to use my services.
In Minnesota, I'm glad they are trying to buy up even more public land each year with our dedicated funding $$$. The only way to assure that land is fully being used for habitat, is to take it out of the hands of the private land owner. Minnesota is pretty good about not letting WPA's and WMA's not get farmed, grazed or any of the sort. I'm not against private land ownership, just that the state, in Minnesota's case, is not driven by greed and doesn't look to put a plow to it every time corn or soy beans takes a hike or let it be grazed because some rancher has more cattle then his own land will support and needs it for grazing. The Ag industry is far too powerful in South Dakota and many other states in the west/great plains.
Trust me, somebody motivated by money was behind such a move and they have a reason. With land prices so high and big Ag wanting to get a hold of all the land they can and get it under till/grazing. I can see that being a possibility. The WPA's are already being grazed or cut for hay nearly every year now. That right there shows the demand by the Ag industry. I'm sure they don't want anymore of this land being tied up, where they possibly can't get access to it for their own needs.
Then you have the old adage, if they can't come here and hunt for free on public land. They have to pay "ME! to hunt here in my private land. I'm sure the commercial pheasant hunting Ind. just loves it, when they see a WPA cut or grazed near flat, in their area. They say to themselves, well that's one less place for the public to hunt. Now maybe they will have to use my services.
In Minnesota, I'm glad they are trying to buy up even more public land each year with our dedicated funding $$$. The only way to assure that land is fully being used for habitat, is to take it out of the hands of the private land owner. Minnesota is pretty good about not letting WPA's and WMA's not get farmed, grazed or any of the sort. I'm not against private land ownership, just that the state, in Minnesota's case, is not driven by greed and doesn't look to put a plow to it every time corn or soy beans takes a hike or let it be grazed because some rancher has more cattle then his own land will support and needs it for grazing. The Ag industry is far too powerful in South Dakota and many other states in the west/great plains.
onpoint
Active member
I stand corrected in Minnesota, and it's not so much the state as it is the county IMO that's behind this.
Read this...there is greed and the vision of money behind this thinking. Apparently...they don't even want land donated with the thought of it being preserved forever for the public's use either.
Supported by non other then Gerde said the county has received resolutions of support from the Minnesota Corn and Soybean Growers and Cattlemen's Associations for its "no net' lands policy.
Prime hunting land is target for 'no net gain' debate in west central Minn.
By: Tom Cherveny, West Central Tribune / MCT
Published April 30, 2011, 07:12 PM
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/202058/
LAKE JOHANNA TOWNSHIP, Pope County - Kurt Nelson has 80 acres of land in the southeast corner of Pope County that are the kind often touted in the classified ads of outdoor publications as "prime hunting acres."
Last winter he dished out more than 3,000 bushels of corn to pheasants and deer just outside the back door of his home here.
"I'm too busy feeding them to hunt them,' laughed Nelson, a conservation officer with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
This spring he's watching waterfowl splash in the four-acre wetland he restored, and anticipating the green-up. A prescribed burn conducted a couple of years ago has revived a wide-range of native prairie plants on much of the land. He knows it will soon be shooting forth a fireworks display of colorful flowers through the warm months ahead.
Part of the property holds natural fens, where the water table furnishes moisture to plants from below. There is a glacial esker creating a prominent ridge covered by oak trees, a haven for deer.
Mud Creek, arguably the clearest running water in Pope County and its only designated trout stream, cuts a path through a corner of the land.
A good portion of the land had been grazed until he bought it several years ago. Nelson feels its use for agriculture does more harm than good. "Put a cow in here and it would sink to its belly,' he said.
He kept goats for a while, and even they wouldn't venture beyond a baseball diamond-sized island of dry ground.
It's what he considers a prime location for a public hunting area, and that's his intention. The Pope County chapter of Pheasants Forever has an agreement to purchase roughly 75 of the 80 acres from Nelson, with plans to transfer those acres to the state of Minnesota for use as a public hunting area.
Perfect location for a controversy too, Nelson has since discovered.
By a three-to-two vote, the Pope County Board of Commissioners on April 5 made known their opposition to turning the land over to the state, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in particular.
Pope County is among a number of counties in the state to have adopted a "no net gain of state-owned land,' explained Paul Gerde, a Pope County commissioner who represents the southeast corner of the county.
It's similar to the bill State Representative Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, has introduced in the Minnesota legislature.
There's a strong sentiment among many that the state owns more land than it should. Taking more land off the tax rolls harms local governments, according to Gerde.
If the state owns the property, it will pay Pope County an annual fee equal to three fourths of one percent of the appraised value of the land. In this case, that will represent a greater annual payment than Nelson now pays in property taxes because the appraised value is greater than its current assessment, Nelson pointed out.
Five years after it becomes public land, it will be re-assessed and that value will likely reduce the payment in lieu of taxes, resulting in less revenue to the county, counters Gerde.
But for Gerde, the bigger issue is economics. There are lots of parcels in Pope County that are desired for habitat and hunting opportunities, but these are also properties where people can start small farming or other operations, he explained.
"It's in the best interest of the county to have private individuals on this property contributing to our local economy,' said Gerde.
There's more economic activity when people are living on the land, whether they've set up a small shop, hobby farm or a productive farm, he said.
He also believes there is enough public hunting land available now in the county, adding that it appears the number of hunters is starting to decline.
Gerde said the county has received resolutions of support from the Minnesota Corn and Soybean Growers and Cattlemen's Associations for its "no net' lands policy.
The local chapter of Pheasants Forever has made known its feelings too. In a letter published earlier in the Pope County Tribune of Glenwood, it pointed out that only four percent or 18,732 acres of land in the county is public. That includes the Glacial Lakes State Park and the Nature Conservancy's Ordway Prairie.
The chapter argues that public lands for hunting are a "definite plus' to the Pope County economy.
A recent study by the University of Minnesota found a $4 return in recreation dollars spent for every $1 invested in land, according to Matt Holland, senior field coordinator with Pheasants Forever in New London.
"There are tremendous benefits in public land, and not just for wildlife and habitat,' said Holland. Public lands offer hunting and other recreational opportunities for local residents, and represent an important quality of life issue beyond the economic benefits they offer, he explained.
He also points out that there is a huge disparity in the availability of public lands. In some northern, forested counties, public lands can represent more than one-half the land base. In farm country, public lands represent usually as little as two, three or four percent of the land base.
Nelson believes there is also an underlying property rights issue at stake for him as a property owner. He asks -- and his attorney has posed the question as well -- whether the county can interfere with the potential sale of his property by opposing its transfer to another party.
Gerde said the county isn't looking to stop the sale: Nelson is free to sell to Pheasants Forever.
He also points out that the county would not oppose the sale if the state would put a like amount of public land up for sale to private ownership.
Most of all, he said the county is making the point that it believes the state owns enough public land. Gerde would also like to see more open communication with the DNR, Nature Conservancy and other public entities about their intentions in the county.
As for Nelson, he said the sale is basically on hold.
He's had inquiries from individuals who are looking to own their own hunting land. Nelson said he feels strongly that this land is worth protecting for public use and for future generations, and that's what he wants to assure.
Holland said Pheasants Forever recognizes that there are legitimate concerns from both sides of the issue, and hopes the right balance can be struck to address all of the needs.
Resolution in place in
at least dozen counties
It's not known how many counties have adopted a "no net gain of public lands' resolution, but a survey conducted by the Minnesota Association of Counties gives some idea.
The association surveyed county administrators and coordinators in February 2001 as to whether or not their counties had passed a "no net gain of public lands' resolution.
The association reports that 58 counties responded, with 12 indicating that they had. Those counties are: Beltrami, Fillmore, Itasca, Kittson, Lake, Lake of the Woods, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, Roseau, St. Louis and Traverse.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Kind of defeats the purpose of Minnesotan's voting in dedicated funding to purchase land and improve habitat. when people at the county level enact a law to block such a sale. We have counties burning up money as fast as they can, or if not they loose that money in the coming years budget. I kid you not, a few years back...a near by county employee said they were told to leave their trucks run all night to burn fuel, because they needed to use up that years money's that were budgeted to them or they would loose that money in the coming year. A guy from the core of engineers once came into the shop I worked at and bought numerous pieces of new equipment from us. He said he had to burn up this money or face loosing it in next years budget. He said he had just ordered a brand new tandem dump truck, low boy trailer and cat and still needed to burn up more money before year end. this style of financing of our Fed, local and state government needs to be STOPPED!!!!! I see them going down the hwy when we have 1 inch of snow plowing away..sparks flying and nothing coming off the plow. Just to burn up the money. Pure unadulterated bull $hit IMO and they use the excuse they need more tax revenue and want no net new public land. So they can collect and spend it like that? (smash fist on desk several times!!)
I see little difference for this move in South Dakota, as is in Minnesota. Start's and ends with the county and Ag Industry
Onpoint
Read this...there is greed and the vision of money behind this thinking. Apparently...they don't even want land donated with the thought of it being preserved forever for the public's use either.
Supported by non other then Gerde said the county has received resolutions of support from the Minnesota Corn and Soybean Growers and Cattlemen's Associations for its "no net' lands policy.
Prime hunting land is target for 'no net gain' debate in west central Minn.
By: Tom Cherveny, West Central Tribune / MCT
Published April 30, 2011, 07:12 PM
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/202058/
LAKE JOHANNA TOWNSHIP, Pope County - Kurt Nelson has 80 acres of land in the southeast corner of Pope County that are the kind often touted in the classified ads of outdoor publications as "prime hunting acres."
Last winter he dished out more than 3,000 bushels of corn to pheasants and deer just outside the back door of his home here.
"I'm too busy feeding them to hunt them,' laughed Nelson, a conservation officer with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
This spring he's watching waterfowl splash in the four-acre wetland he restored, and anticipating the green-up. A prescribed burn conducted a couple of years ago has revived a wide-range of native prairie plants on much of the land. He knows it will soon be shooting forth a fireworks display of colorful flowers through the warm months ahead.
Part of the property holds natural fens, where the water table furnishes moisture to plants from below. There is a glacial esker creating a prominent ridge covered by oak trees, a haven for deer.
Mud Creek, arguably the clearest running water in Pope County and its only designated trout stream, cuts a path through a corner of the land.
A good portion of the land had been grazed until he bought it several years ago. Nelson feels its use for agriculture does more harm than good. "Put a cow in here and it would sink to its belly,' he said.
He kept goats for a while, and even they wouldn't venture beyond a baseball diamond-sized island of dry ground.
It's what he considers a prime location for a public hunting area, and that's his intention. The Pope County chapter of Pheasants Forever has an agreement to purchase roughly 75 of the 80 acres from Nelson, with plans to transfer those acres to the state of Minnesota for use as a public hunting area.
Perfect location for a controversy too, Nelson has since discovered.
By a three-to-two vote, the Pope County Board of Commissioners on April 5 made known their opposition to turning the land over to the state, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in particular.
Pope County is among a number of counties in the state to have adopted a "no net gain of state-owned land,' explained Paul Gerde, a Pope County commissioner who represents the southeast corner of the county.
It's similar to the bill State Representative Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, has introduced in the Minnesota legislature.
There's a strong sentiment among many that the state owns more land than it should. Taking more land off the tax rolls harms local governments, according to Gerde.
If the state owns the property, it will pay Pope County an annual fee equal to three fourths of one percent of the appraised value of the land. In this case, that will represent a greater annual payment than Nelson now pays in property taxes because the appraised value is greater than its current assessment, Nelson pointed out.
Five years after it becomes public land, it will be re-assessed and that value will likely reduce the payment in lieu of taxes, resulting in less revenue to the county, counters Gerde.
But for Gerde, the bigger issue is economics. There are lots of parcels in Pope County that are desired for habitat and hunting opportunities, but these are also properties where people can start small farming or other operations, he explained.
"It's in the best interest of the county to have private individuals on this property contributing to our local economy,' said Gerde.
There's more economic activity when people are living on the land, whether they've set up a small shop, hobby farm or a productive farm, he said.
He also believes there is enough public hunting land available now in the county, adding that it appears the number of hunters is starting to decline.
Gerde said the county has received resolutions of support from the Minnesota Corn and Soybean Growers and Cattlemen's Associations for its "no net' lands policy.
The local chapter of Pheasants Forever has made known its feelings too. In a letter published earlier in the Pope County Tribune of Glenwood, it pointed out that only four percent or 18,732 acres of land in the county is public. That includes the Glacial Lakes State Park and the Nature Conservancy's Ordway Prairie.
The chapter argues that public lands for hunting are a "definite plus' to the Pope County economy.
A recent study by the University of Minnesota found a $4 return in recreation dollars spent for every $1 invested in land, according to Matt Holland, senior field coordinator with Pheasants Forever in New London.
"There are tremendous benefits in public land, and not just for wildlife and habitat,' said Holland. Public lands offer hunting and other recreational opportunities for local residents, and represent an important quality of life issue beyond the economic benefits they offer, he explained.
He also points out that there is a huge disparity in the availability of public lands. In some northern, forested counties, public lands can represent more than one-half the land base. In farm country, public lands represent usually as little as two, three or four percent of the land base.
Nelson believes there is also an underlying property rights issue at stake for him as a property owner. He asks -- and his attorney has posed the question as well -- whether the county can interfere with the potential sale of his property by opposing its transfer to another party.
Gerde said the county isn't looking to stop the sale: Nelson is free to sell to Pheasants Forever.
He also points out that the county would not oppose the sale if the state would put a like amount of public land up for sale to private ownership.
Most of all, he said the county is making the point that it believes the state owns enough public land. Gerde would also like to see more open communication with the DNR, Nature Conservancy and other public entities about their intentions in the county.
As for Nelson, he said the sale is basically on hold.
He's had inquiries from individuals who are looking to own their own hunting land. Nelson said he feels strongly that this land is worth protecting for public use and for future generations, and that's what he wants to assure.
Holland said Pheasants Forever recognizes that there are legitimate concerns from both sides of the issue, and hopes the right balance can be struck to address all of the needs.
Resolution in place in
at least dozen counties
It's not known how many counties have adopted a "no net gain of public lands' resolution, but a survey conducted by the Minnesota Association of Counties gives some idea.
The association surveyed county administrators and coordinators in February 2001 as to whether or not their counties had passed a "no net gain of public lands' resolution.
The association reports that 58 counties responded, with 12 indicating that they had. Those counties are: Beltrami, Fillmore, Itasca, Kittson, Lake, Lake of the Woods, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, Roseau, St. Louis and Traverse.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Kind of defeats the purpose of Minnesotan's voting in dedicated funding to purchase land and improve habitat. when people at the county level enact a law to block such a sale. We have counties burning up money as fast as they can, or if not they loose that money in the coming years budget. I kid you not, a few years back...a near by county employee said they were told to leave their trucks run all night to burn fuel, because they needed to use up that years money's that were budgeted to them or they would loose that money in the coming year. A guy from the core of engineers once came into the shop I worked at and bought numerous pieces of new equipment from us. He said he had to burn up this money or face loosing it in next years budget. He said he had just ordered a brand new tandem dump truck, low boy trailer and cat and still needed to burn up more money before year end. this style of financing of our Fed, local and state government needs to be STOPPED!!!!! I see them going down the hwy when we have 1 inch of snow plowing away..sparks flying and nothing coming off the plow. Just to burn up the money. Pure unadulterated bull $hit IMO and they use the excuse they need more tax revenue and want no net new public land. So they can collect and spend it like that? (smash fist on desk several times!!)
I see little difference for this move in South Dakota, as is in Minnesota. Start's and ends with the county and Ag Industry
Onpoint
Last edited:
With what is the state supposed to buy these areas. The state is using its reserves and laying cutting the budget to balance its budget now. Where is the money going to come from. We are not Washington DC and can print it.
If GFP has too much money they can contribute it to the budget.
onpoint
Active member
In Minnesota's case, even if you have the money at state level. The county passes measures to prevent the state from buying anymore public lands in "Their" county. A lot of good voting a tax hike for dedicated funding did.
That right there is the problem.."Their" county. Who's county? The peoples county We the people own all the county and state lands. It's about time they stop being treated as certain people's "Private Property"
I am talking about South Dakota since that is what this topic was about. In the case that you cite it seems like the solution is that Pheasants Forever buy it and let the public hunt it. DU has been doing that for a long time.
onpoint
Active member
IMO, shouldn't these kind of decision's be put to a vote by the people of the county/state, not just passed in some back office behind closed doors? I bet most people in counties/state that have passed the no new net gain of public lands. Knew nothing about such a measure. Funny, some wealthy person who owns 100s of 1,000's of acres can buy all the land they want. Yet the public tax payers are being cut off from doing the same thing. Kind of seems like a attack on pubic access and the future of hunting to me.