The grasslands in the Dakotas

So a golf course is just a sod farm then. A person don't have to wonder how our elected bend the words that describes our dedicated funding and what the money is to be used for. When you two show these examples describing what "You" believe to be part of farming practice.

This is farming?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Golf - what a stupid game. How can anyone think its fun to chase a little white ball around all day. And what a waste of good habitat and farm land too. The courses are nothing but a terrible eyesore and waste of money too. I say tax the crap out of all the courses and keep raising the tax until they all go out of business. Sorry Tiger - hope you have other things to occupy your time.

I'm not the only one that thinks this way. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcnFbCCgTo4
 
So a golf course is just a sod farm then. A person don't have to wonder how our elected bend the words that describes our dedicated funding and what the money is to be used for. When you two show these examples describing what "You" believe to be part of farming practice.

This is farming?

http://www.eaglepasslodge.com/

It sure ain't no strip mall. All of our hunters are from out of state and they pay thousands of $$$$ to the state of South Dakota (whom has done nothing to help any of the landowners in our network).

Isn't that enough?

What good would zoning for commercial do? What is the purpose? Would you like that out of state hunters pay higher fees in form of increased taxes/new taxes? Any business owner in any business simply passes the tax burden on to consumer as overhead.
 
Business is business. Why should the motel 6 in town be zoned commercial? Yet the farmer who build a lodge which sleeps 20 plus people is zoned Ag along with all the property that's conducting high price recreational hunting? In many cases pen raised not native birds are placed for profit. That's not farming for food. Atleast not in whole.

We are dealing with a legislature who likes to twist the words that discribe our new dedicated funding here in Minnesota. IMO, and I don't like to say this but saying that conducting such business as "Farming for food" or I grow native poultry and consumers harvest them right on my farm. Is much the same twisting of words that is in the link below.

Senate takes on definitions of 'enhance, restore, and protect'

http://www.twinstatesoutdoors.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=6734


By Joe Albert, Associate Editor, MN Outdoor News
Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:44 AM CST

St. Paul - What's in the definition of a word?

A lot, according to those who supported Senate measures to repeal legislation last year that defined the words "protect," "restore," and "enhance."

Lawmakers last year approved new definitions of the words, which are at the crux of the mission of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council - to make recommendations for spending money raised by the Legacy Amendment that restore, protect, or enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat.

The new definitions are far different than those used by the council in making its funding recommendations, and, officials say, inconsistent with how professionals who put conservation on the ground view the terms.

Garry Leaf, executive director of Sportsmen for Change, said it's a hot topic among sportsmen.

"It's got a lot of energy behind it," he said. "People are starting to understand that changing words around is as important as stealing the money outright."

The definitions that passed last session and are now in statute are as follows:

� Enhance: to improve in value, quality, and desirability in order to increase the ecological value of land or water.

� Protect: to protect or preserve ecological systems to maintain active and healthy ecosystems and prevent future degradation including, but not limited to, purchase in fee or easement.

� Restore: renewing degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems through active human intervention to achieve high-quality ecosystems.

The L-SOHC definitions, in contrast, refer specifically to habitat, fish, game, and wildlife.

The Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee has approved two bills - one authored by Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, another by Tom Saxhaug, DFL-Grand Rapids - that repeal the definitions the Legislature approved last year. The next stop is the Senate floor.

Chaudhary's bill also repeals a "legislative guide" for spending Legacy Amendment proceeds that lawmakers mandated last year. There are no companion bills in the House.

Chaudhary said proponents of the definitions are unable to explain why they're necessary.

"There has been no showing that our conservation projects are somehow deficient enough for the Legislature to meddle into them with unproven definitions and unwarranted micro-management," he said.

Jean Wagenius, DFL-Minneapolis, said new definitions are needed because she believes that under the L-SOHC definitions, for example, protection is the same as acquisition.

"That means nothing like a fish barrier (would meet the standard for protection)," she said. "Is that what people intended when they voted for the amendment?"

Dave Schad, DNR Fish and Wildlife Division director, said the agency is primarily concerned about the effect the definitions will have on projects funded through the Outdoor Heritage Fund.

He doesn't believe definitions are necessary, and that they could limit work that's done commonly to manage habitat.

"We already do our habitat work in an ecological context," he said. "Trying to force us to go even further isn't practical. It isn't realistic, and it is really going to hamper our ability to get work done out there."

_______________________________________________

In most cases, we all do know what is being conducted or what words discribing something mean. You know what really being conducted on a commercoal hunting operation. Just like our legislature knows what the words "protect," "restore," and "enhance." means and what they were directed at.

Onpoint
 
Business is business. Why should the motel 6 in town be zoned commercial? Yet the farmer who build a lodge which sleeps 20 plus people is zoned Ag along with all the property that's conducting high price recreational hunting? In many cases pen raised not native birds are placed for profit. That's not farming for food. Atleast not in whole.

In most cases, we all do know what is being conducted or what words discribing something mean. You know what really being conducted on a commercoal hunting operation. Just like our legislature knows what the words "protect," "restore," and "enhance." means and what they were directed at.

Onpoint

The land that Motel 6 built on was most likely zoned commercial before it ever intended to build there and setup operation and also it is 100% of the time in operation of what it can legally operate there for.

Most commercial hunting in SD is only a small percentage of what the total farm income is and was an add-on to the farm and was a way to build on what the farm could produce. Farmers sell corn or cattle and they also sell rights to harvest wildlife on their land.

But I'm sure that zoning farm land as commercial will probably help open up more land for access to hunters:thumbsup:

Keep in mind now, that based on South Dakota law, any landowner that receives at least $1.00 for hunting would have their land zoned as commercial based on your suggestion/idea.
 
Last edited:
Many, many of these hunting lodges are booked for weddings, banquets, company meetings, have horse back riding, big game hunting, Etc. You don't build a lodge that sleeps 20 or more people and install a complete commercial kitchen and dinning to just let it stand there 10 months a year.

Just a few examples and I'm not picking on any of these but I find it hard to call any of these lodges part of farming. Can I build a Motel 6 in the middle of a corn field and call it part of farming?


Note, I have no idea, some of these may already be, being taxed as commercial property instead of Ag
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Onpoint, you are correct in that South Dakota Dept. of Anything does not differentiate between the mega outfitter and little miss mom and pop shop. This is unfortunate but they have created no system on how to do this. When they do impose legislation on the big guys and then is also implemented on the little guys it affects the little guys in a big negative way.

The state goes after the big guys on licensing though anyway and if they are open all year and do food and liquor well they pay taxes and need licensing and inspections on all that stuff anyway.

I would suspect you would only ever get commercial zoning on properties right in town.?
 
Last edited:
I agree, the little guy ends up getting hurt in the end. The big guy with a wealthier clientele are more able to absorb costs. Their hunters are more able to pay the higher rate.
 
That is true, but if the mom and pop shops end up offer memberships and such, and end up with a greater number of total hunters that don't necessarily need somewhere to stay, isn't it kind of the same thing?
 
Back
Top