If you think there is opposition to the state game agency buying land, wait till the howl of protest when it's the Nature Conservancy, buying the ground. I can cite you a couple of examples, in one case the Nature conservancy privately negotiated a sale from a private willing seller, and closed before the screaming local politicians had a chance to block the sale. This is now preserved remnant prairie, managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation and open to hunting as well as many other activities. If the Nature Conservancy had gone public,rather than quietly closing the deal, it would never had happened. In another case it got out and the source of funding was the Rockefeller foundation, ( you know Standard Oil, also the people who basically bought and delivered Grand Teton National Park), Well the screaming and howling about elitists and out of staters involved in our local affairs, locals unable to compete financially, all brought that to a screaming halt. Now instead of native prairie it's one of the prettiest monoculture soybean fields in the state. There's win-win for everybody.
No More Public Land
- Thread starter pheasantaddict
- Start date
If you think there is opposition to the state game agency buying land, wait till the howl of protest when it's the Nature Conservancy, buying the ground. I can cite you a couple of examples, in one case the Nature conservancy privately negotiated a sale from a private willing seller, and closed before the screaming local politicians had a chance to block the sale. This is now preserved remnant prairie, managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation and open to hunting as well as many other activities. If the Nature Conservancy had gone public,rather than quietly closing the deal, it would never had happened. In another case it got out and the source of funding was the Rockefeller foundation, ( you know Standard Oil, also the people who basically bought and delivered Grand Teton National Park), Well the screaming and howling about elitists and out of staters involved in our local affairs, locals unable to compete financially, all brought that to a screaming halt. Now instead of native prairie it's one of the prettiest monoculture soybean fields in the state. There's win-win for everybody.
Referendums have a place. Governing bodies have a place. What rises to the level of public votes as opposed to the business of the governing body? I guess when the majority of the public sees something that they dissagree with strongly enough to do something about it.
pheasantaddict
New member
Use the money from pheasants forever, ducks unlimited, grouse partnership, or land donation. Divert money from CRP payments which has basically payed for some ground, it's private instead of being public. There's always solutions unless you think there's none.
onpoint
Active member
SURE! Read the first story in this link by Curt Wells. Big Ag is controlling everything as you will soon read. NO PRIVATE LAND SALES TO CONSERVATION GROUPS AND THE LAND OWNER HAS NO SAY IN IT.
http://www.sdwf.org/documents/OutofDoors4.09-MAR.pdf
Private Property Rights Squashed in North Dakota
The way it sounds, the ideas in North Dakota have migrated to South Dakota
Last edited:
onpoint
Active member
Lets hope some how, some way that the powerful livestock and farm industry gets stopped, along with their puppet county and state elected officials.
I have heard word of pushes in Minnesota to get things passed that would allow the timber/paper industry access to the overwhelming amount of timber still available on private land. The word is, 90% of the mature timber is on private land. THEY WANT IT! They have stripped the county and state land of it's timber.
Correct me if I'm wrong but all new state owned public hunting areas are bought 100% by GFP dollars which are sportman generated dollars. Also taxes are payed also by GFP again sportsman generated dollars. Also the GFP does not actively bid on land. Nearly all new aquired lands are purchased when landowners approach GFP to by their land. If I want to sell my land to GFP shouldn't I have the right?
I have no idea if you are right or wrong. But the GFP is a state entity therefore I would think any GFP dollars are South Dakota dollars. It is fine with me if you want to sell your land to the GFP. Whether or not the GFP can buy it is another matter. I am sure there are many sides to this. The guy that I talked to at GFP indicated that there is a debate about how much land the state should own and that the optics of a state that is struggling with its budget and buying private property at the same time. This reminds me of bumper cars. In one car you have ag interests, in another you have taxpayers, then you have sporstsmen that want alot of public acsess. I am sure that there are more bumpercars in my analogy. Maybe too many bumper cars for the amount of area available. All the bumper cars are just trying to do their thing but every once in a while one of the cars bumps another one or gets in the way of one of them and then somebody does not get to be happy. Things change we get rid of some bad and some good. We figure out how to do something better but at the expense of something. My dad missed praire chickens, I miss huns and gopher hunting.
onpoint
Active member
Not according to many public officials bought off by special interest. In a ever growing move, your sale would have to meet Their approval. Kind of a way to make you have to sell it to someone connected to that special interest group. Many things to consider when election time rolls around, don't be swayed by just 2nd amendment issues. Pretty tough to go hunting when there are those that are at work to eliminate you having a place to conduct the sport.
Uncle Buck
New member
Pretty much what goes on in SD. Do pay going tax rate.Seems like west River folk get more up tight than east, but with corn prices this desease will spread.
Uncle Buck
New member
The GF&P will seldom pay more than market price. There is a fair amount of land for sale because prices are high. Alot of heirs and trusts seem to be selling off, taking profit so to speak as individuls are at or beyond retirement.
Uncle Buck
New member
Whatever you want to say re the GF&P, they are not the bad government landowners. You have to look to the Feds for that.
Uncle Buck
New member
I do not think they have too much $ after what the floods did to the State Parks. The too much $ if it exists comes from hunting license revenues it should be spent there. The walk in issue is much different also. The State does not buy walk-in., it leases it. Some of it is rather crappy pasture and range land to boot.
I agree, do not do it if you can't afford it, but lets not ignore the agendas. Most of the prime pheasant areas are not densely populated---they don't want the hunting revenue?????
I am sure the flooding did take its toll. I am not dead set against some land aquisition. But there are other points of view besides buy more land for public hunting. I know that the state leases walk in, whether owned or leased it is public hunting. The rather crappy pasture might be good deer or coyote hunting. I have a cousin that put some pasture in walk in and grazed it. The conservation officer told him if he was going to graze it he then he would not get paid as much. That amazed me that land that was worth $25 as grazing should be left for walk in for alot less. I think it boils down to how much public land is the proper amount. Is the state obligated to provide public hunting for all pheasant hunters that want to come? And then there is the food angle.
pheasantaddict
New member
If there's land that serves a better purpose to the public than so be it. If it's public hunting it's already providing the food angle. My meat consumption is 95% wild game and fish. I guess that covers the food angle.
ranchodeluxe
Member
I hear this about SD walk-in areas a lot.Crappy habitat,not worth hunting,etc.This depends on where your hunting interests lie.A piece of land that we fez hunters use as an example of dollars wasted, may be holding a Mulie buck to die for.It happened this year,a 200 plus inch Mulie off walk in land in Lyman Co. that most people look at from the highway and keep driving.
If you look at the GFP record of procuring top-shelf public land in recent years,you can only say, Bravo.Take a look at the public land and walk in maps for SW SD and NW SD,for instance.They have made some great trades on some very significant pieces of prime land,and worked with aging landowners who did not want to see rampant development on their lands,to take those lands into public trust at very minimal cost.We don't tend to pay attention to those lands because there aren't a lot of fez on them,but if you happen to be the lucky dog who draws an elk tag,your going to be hunting some Fall River Co land that a lot of people would throw-down thousands for access to.
I think that we South Dakotans,with the financial assistance of you folks who drive out here every year and spend your money,do our part to provide access to quality public land to anyone who wants to come here and hunt,fish,dirt bike/ATV,climb,bicycle,hike etc.I suspect,in fact after living in Wi I know,we provide a lot more opportunity than most states.Keep that in mind as we demonize the GFP.
A lot of times these no net gain trades are for the benefit of recreational users.An example I can think of was a trade our Black Hills neighbor made on his ranch.As development approached his dairy farm,he traded a piece that was owned by the Forest Service,between his place and the development and not accessible to the public because it was landlocked,for a 120 acre piece of prime deer country that he owned which bordered the Natl Forest.If the Forest Service had been allowed to sell their piece at market value,the money would have been squandered and there would have been,pardon the pun,no net gain.
Uncle Buck
New member
I realize some of the Western walk-ins are fine for deer. I thought we were talking pheasants, grouse etc. here. The lease amounts are based on hunting value and if there is money available they will lease some grounds at very low per acre amounts, particlarly if heavily grazed. Of course the rain/cover conditions are unpredictable. The Grasslands south of Pierre are well managed, even for the Feds, but in a dry year even they can be pretty sparse.