To think, some states are blocking such generous donations.

You'll have to explain a little more. Which states have laws against this?

South Dakota. They have a net zero in land owned by the state, because they have a different tax base, and cut into the local coffers. Missouri had to pledge that no "new" public ground to the conservation department will have the same tax base as before the acquisition. This slows conservation land conversion, in both cases. Currently the landowner in Kansas, is paying the taxes, the hitch will come when the state takes control, and the county whines about lost revenue.
 
South Dakota. They have a net zero in land owned by the state, because they have a different tax base, and cut into the local coffers. Missouri had to pledge that no "new" public ground to the conservation department will have the same tax base as before the acquisition. This slows conservation land conversion, in both cases. Currently the landowner in Kansas, is paying the taxes, the hitch will come when the state takes control, and the county whines about lost revenue.

Wouldnt the land be "owned" by PF though? Or isn't that how it works?
 
I believe Minnesota has a program to support such donations. ironically a state which so much public ground and good water bye the way, will take and preserve more!
 
South Dakota. They have a net zero in land owned by the state, because they have a different tax base, and cut into the local coffers. Missouri had to pledge that no "new" public ground to the conservation department will have the same tax base as before the acquisition. This slows conservation land conversion, in both cases. Currently the landowner in Kansas, is paying the taxes, the hitch will come when the state takes control, and the county whines about lost revenue.

What you are saying is not the same thing as having a law against donating property to charity. I know of no state or local laws that can prevent a property owner from donating their property to whomever they wish. If they did I am sure it would be ruled unconstitutional the first chance it was challenged.

What I think you are talking about is the classification of property for real estate tax purposes. That is very different. Charities usually have to pay property taxes, I believe the only exception being religious institutions and then only the property they use as churches and schools for the direct practice of their religious beliefs.

That may affect the costs to ownership going forward but not the ability to donate.
 
What you are saying is not the same thing as having a law against donating property to charity. I know of no state or local laws that can prevent a property owner from donating their property to whomever they wish. If they did I am sure it would be ruled unconstitutional the first chance it was challenged.

What I think you are talking about is the classification of property for real estate tax purposes. That is very different. Charities usually have to pay property taxes, I believe the only exception being religious institutions and then only the property they use as churches and schools for the direct practice of their religious beliefs.

That may affect the costs to ownership going forward but not the ability to donate.

You got me! Sure you can donate property, the beneficiary will try to reduce the property tax, because it is now, non-productive ground. I have an interest in several WRP tracts, it's like pulling teeth to get the tax rate down. To dismiss the tax rate for either side, is an over-simplification. You might find there are less takers than you believe. Witness D.U. sells of property with easements to the public, transferring the taxes and upkeep to other conservationist, Sometimes it's the state, but it won't be in South Dakota! Look at the state law. Lot of western states have counties lobbying to reduce BLM lands and forest service lands and privatize.... because they get higher taxes. Show me a government agency which does not believe they don't need more money?
 
This may be the best example of what big money and the powerful AG industry is doing to block the sales of Private Land.

http://www.sdwf.org/OutofDoors/2009/Out_of_DoorsMarch2009.pdf

Here's a additional piece on it from D.U but it lacks much of the facts that are in the above link.


http://www.ducks.org/news-media/ducks-unlimited-says-north-dakota-ignoring-private-property-rights

b. 16, 2009 - Ducks Unlimited says the decision of North Dakota?s governor to turn down the conservation organization?s request to buy property in Kidder County does not respect basic private property rights. Governor John Hoeven has refused DU?s application to buy an almost 600-acre piece of land from a private owner.

?The governor should not be denying this type of request,? said Steve Adair, director of DU?s Great Plains Regional Office. ?The state law that requires the governor?s approval is unfair to private property owners and non-profits. The landowner, Mrs. Hetletved, should be allowed to sell this land to whomever she wants.?

Under North Dakota?s corporate farming law, non-profits cannot buy land without going through a lengthy process to gain approval from the governor. First they must go before the local county commission and then the state Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee. Both boards make a recommendation on the sale to the governor.

?No harm to the state would be caused by DU owning this property,? Adair said. ?We pay taxes on our land, manage it well and keep it in grass-based agriculture by renting it out to local ranchers.?

The property in question is in the heart of the Missouri Coteau, a continentally unique landform with some of the highest amounts of nesting ducks in the world.

?Maintaining North Dakota?s grasslands and wetlands is important to the state?s strong hunting traditions and the growing eco-tourism industry,? Adair said. ?This decision to downplay these values does not reflect North Dakota?s strong outdoor recreation culture.?

Nearly one in every three North Dakota residents hunts or fishes. The total economic impact of sportsmen in North Dakota is $358 million a year. More than 283,000 resident and non-resident sportsmen hunt and fish in North Dakota every year, generating $232 million and $20 million in state and local taxes. These sportsmen support 4,500 North Dakota jobs.

With more than a million supporters, Ducks Unlimited is the world?s largest and most effective wetland and waterfowl conservation organization with more than 12 million acres conserved. The United States alone has lost more than half of its original wetlands - nature?s most productive ecosystem - and continues to lose more than 80,000 wetland acres each year.
 
Here's another good read on this matter.

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/a ... 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.
 
Then donate the land to your states DNR and then they sell it..that would really tick me off.

Houle Wildlife Management Area sale ruffles feathers

By Dave Orrick
dorrick@pioneerpress.comtwincities.com
Posted: 04/28/2012 12:01:00 AM CDT
April 29, 2012 2:31 AM GMTUpdated: 04/28/2012 09:31:23 PM CDT

photo galleries http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_204 ... s-feathers

Some 25 years ago, Hank Houle sold a cherished tract of hunting land to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for a song - and the belief it would be forever protected from development and open to hunting.

Now the land is posted no trespassing, no hunting.

Turns out, the DNR retained rights to sell the land, as Houle and other donors have found out in recent years -- after the sale.

The surprise sales have proved a public relations problem for the DNR, which is considering changing the way it handles land gifts. It might be out of the agency's control, as some state lawmakers are pushing their own set of reforms.

'BARGAIN SALE'

In the late 1980s, the landmark Reinvest in Minnesota program, or RIM, was just

getting started, en route to protecting more than 100,000 acres statewide.
Houle jumped at the chance to gift the parcel where he and his offspring hunted pheasants, ducks, deer and coyotes. "A lot of memories, a lot of first shots, a lot of good hunting here," said Houle, 86, on a recent day as he overlooked the site, a quilt of wetlands and low-lying grasses and willows just east of Interstate 35 near Forest Lake.

In what was known as a "bargain sale," in 1988 the DNR paid Houle, a dairy farmer-turned-real estate broker, $27,750 - half the appraised value - for the 80 acres along the border of Washington and Anoka counties.

A ribbon-cutting was held for the Houle Wildlife Management Area, also known as Brown's Preserve, named after Houle's chocolate lab, Brownie, which he had buried there.

The namesake for a hunter, his dog and a legacy can still be found on maps of public hunting grounds sold in sporting goods stores throughout the state. But don't go there expecting to hunt.

LAND SOLD

Last year, the DNR sold the land to the Rice Creek Watershed District, which has jurisdiction over a ditch running through the land and is planning a major drainage project there. Houle found out about the sale last fall when a

Hank Houle was surprised when he saw this sign on the land he donated in Washington County where he grew up hunting, Thursday, April 26, 2012. The DNR bought and sold the land but no one bothered to tell Hank Houle who is now waging a campaign to protect future donors. (Pioneer Press: Jean Pieri) friend planning to coyote hunt called and told him the Houle sign had been replaced by the no-trespassing sign.
"I was devastated," Houle recalled. "I didn't do anything for a while because I was so shocked. But then we started asking questions."

What Houle and his family learned was that the DNR, the watershed district and other governmental bodies had been negotiating the sale for years. No one had bothered to tell Houle.

"That was an oversight on our part, I must admit," said Kim Hennings, a land acquisition coordinator for the DNR. Hennings wasn't only instrumental in the 2011 sale, he also closed the 1988 deal in which Houle gave title of the land to the DNR. "I've called and apologized to the family."

Legally speaking, it appears the DNR was always free to sell the land - as they are with nearly every parcel they've acquired.

It might seem counterproductive in a state where taxpayers have approved a sales tax hike to protect more land, but the DNR sells lands regularly. Usually, they're small, isolated parcels with no public access and thus, little practical chance of being managed by the agency or used by the public. Sometimes the Legislature orders the DNR to sell land to raise money.

And occasionally a small WMA is sold. In recent years, suburban and rural development has encroached on WMA borders, making hunting a thorny, if not unsafe, proposition.

In 2010, the DNR auctioned off the 32-acre Jackson WMA in Stillwater, the bulk of which was bought by an individual. The heirs to the original landowner found out afterward; like the Houles, they weren't pleased.

Such sales are also closely watched by groups like Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited because they often raise money to buy lands and then donate them to the DNR.

REFORMS SOUGHT

Hennings said the DNR doesn't promise that gifted land won't ever be resold. "Over time, things change," he said. "With development and other things, sometimes these lands no longer can be managed in the way they were intended."

Still, Hennings acknowledged, potential land donors become cautious when they hear of such events. The DNR is considering adopting a "Donor's Bill of Rights" that would mandate donors be told, in

After Hank Houle donated land in Washington County where he grew up hunting, the DNR bought and sold the land. No one bothered to tell Hank Houle who is now waging a campaign to protect future donors, Thursday, April 26, 2012. (Pioneer Press: Jean Pieri) writing, that land might be sold in the future.
Several of Houle's offspring, including son Dan, son-in-law Jim Sederholm, and grandsons Dave and Jason Sederholm, have waged a campaign to raise awareness of the sale scenario in hopes that no future landowners are blind-sided.

Sen. Ray Vandeveer, R-Forest Lake, sponsored a bill that would require the DNR to disclose in advance that a donor or seller knows land might be resold.

Vandeveer's bill, which was approved by the Senate as part of a larger fishing and hunting bill, also included another clause: It would require the DNR to repay the original landowner, or heirs, the original market value of the land at the time of donation. That provision appeared destined to be removed from the final bill to be presented to Gov. Mark Dayton, but Vandeveer said he plans to push again next year.

The good news for the former Houle WMA is the habitat actually will be improved - to the tune of more than $1 million.

LAND PROTECTED

The Rice Creek Watershed District has begun a five-year wetland restoration project there. The area will become a high-quality "wetland bank" in which landowners who destroy other wetlands can offset those destroyed - as required by law - by buying credits in the bank.

"We are confident that this entire property as a whole will be much improved from a biological and wildlife habitat perspective," said Phil Belfiori, administrator for the watershed district. All but 1 acre of land will be forever protected from development by a conservation easement, he said.

Creating a wetland bank is not allowed on a WMA under current DNR policy because the larger goal is to protect wetlands everywhere, but even the Houle family agrees that the district's plan will improve the site.

In addition, the larger deal surrounding the sale allowed the DNR to purchase about 10 acres of buildable land adjacent to the nearby Lamprey Pass WMA. Hennings said building on that land could have threatened portions of that WMA.

"We want to be clear: It's really not a bad thing that they're doing here," Dave Sederholm said. "It will be a big improvement. Except for the power station."

That would be the roughly 1-acre corner of the parcel that the watershed district is selling to Connexus Energy to build a substation there. The family opposes that but appears to be making little headway.

And then there is the question of hunting.

Belfiori said the no-trespassing signs are needed while restoration work is under way. Hennings said the DNR wants to see hunting return to the land when work allows, but Belfiori said the long-term future won't be determined by the watershed district.

"It's anticipated that once the work is completed, that it will be handed over to another entity, perhaps the city of Columbus, and they would decide," Belfiori said.

Dave Orrick can be reached at 651-228-5512. Follow him at twitter.com/OutdoorsNow.
 
Back
Top