"Excess" Corp lands above 1620 in Emmons and Morton Counties to Private Owners

[BDub]

Here is where to go to contact he governors office, if anyone doesnt know.
https://www.nd.gov/contactus.htm

Thanks for the link.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Contact Heidi:
https://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-heidi

 

[gst]

My big question is our state is dependent upon commodities. Commodities swing and when they swing they swing hard. Our budget is a bit of a mess now and would the state have the money available to take care of the lands and develop the lands any better than the feds in times like this? I think that's a fair question to ask!
.
.

Tim even today ND is FAR better off economically than the Federal govt. Name one thing the Fed. govt does efficiently. The main group behind the transfer of these lands wants to keep them public. They want to keep recreation on them. They just believe what history has proven true the Federal govt is a piss poor manager of most anything it involves itself in.

And an important thing to keep in mind is they are not advocating forcing states to take any or all of these lands, only those states that are willing. The state itself can decide. If the people of the state were to decide not to take control of these lands so be it.


https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...riginal/1439325292/GetTheFacts.pdf?1439325292

An objective comparison of state and federal public land
management clearly reveals western States consistently
out-perform the federal government. While the federal
government manages public lands at a financial loss,
states generate a net profit, and they do so while
protecting the environment, providing recreation,
enhancing fisheries and wildlife habitat, and generating
jobs and revenues.
Better management is vital. States are equipped and
motivated to provide it. Our history and experience
confirm better decisions are made by those closest to the
subject matter.

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

Tim even today ND is FAR better off economically than the Federal govt. Name one thing the Fed. govt does efficiently. The main group behind the transfer of these lands wants to keep them public. They want to keep recreation on them. They just believe what history has proven true the Federal govt is a piss poor manager of most anything it involves itself in.

And an important thing to keep in mind is they are not advocating forcing states to take any or all of these lands, only those states that are willing. The state itself can decide. If the people of the state were to decide not to take control of these lands so be it.


https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...riginal/1439325292/GetTheFacts.pdf?1439325292

An objective comparison of state and federal public land
management clearly reveals western States consistently
out-perform the federal government. While the federal
government manages public lands at a financial loss,
states generate a net profit, and they do so while
protecting the environment, providing recreation,
enhancing fisheries and wildlife habitat, and generating
jobs and revenues.
Better management is vital. States are equipped and
motivated to provide it. Our history and experience
confirm better decisions are made by those closest to the
subject matter.

I cannot really argue with you here. But I will still argue I've seen the state slash the shit out of road budgets dedicated to enhancing recreation roads (to recreation areas). I also see the state favor the east of Sakakawea over the west. So I'm not passing flying colors that just conceding is the answer. Need representation of money...maybe that is the better way of stating it.

- - - Updated - - -

Contact Heidi:
https://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-heidi

Thanks Lycan. I forget that this page doesn't have all the contacts. This page does: http://nodakangler.com/forums/showthread.php?5547-2016-Lake-Sakakawea-Land-Transfer

Who to contact and how:

John Hoeven Bismarck, ND US Federal Building 220 East Rosser Avenue, Room 312 Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: 701-250-4618

Washington, D.C. 338 Russell Senate Office Bldg. Washington DC, 20510 Phone: 202-224-2551

Email:https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-the-senator


-----------

Heidi Heitkamp Bismarck Office 228 Federal Building 220 East Rosser Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: (701) 258-4648

Washington OfficeSH-502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2043

Email: https://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-heidi


-----------

Kevin Cramer Bismarck 220 East Rosser Avenue 328 Federal Building Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: 701-224-0355

Washington, DC Office 1032 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-2611

Email: https://cramer.house.gov/contact/email-me


-----------

Governor Jack Dalrymple Office of Governor State of North Dakota 600 East Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505-0100 Phone: 701.328.2200 Email: http://governor.nd.gov/contact-us

-----------

ACOE Project Manager: Larry Janis

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: CENWO-OD-T Larry Janis 1616 Capitol Ave. Omaha, Neb. 68102 Phone: 402-995-2440

Email: larry.d.janis@usace.army.mil

-----------

Linda F. Burke

Freedom of Information Act Officer http://www.usace.army.mil/FOIA.aspx (link is external) 1-202-761-8557 (Washington D.C.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District ATTN: CENWO-OC 1616 Capitol Avenue, Suite 9000 Omaha NE 68102-4901

Email: linda.f.burke@usace.army.mil

-----------

Maggie Oldham

Chief, Public Affairs Office Omaha District - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office: 402-995-2416 Mobile: 402-650-8154

Email: margaret.e.oldham@usace.army.mil

 

[espringers]

But, the idea of turning over excess lands that aren't really excess and expecting that the state will manage them in a similar fashion is silly. So, when the state gets them, you can bet your last dollar they will be sold or gifted to individuals. Likely with little to no restrictions on use. Can you imagine farming or grazing right up to the shore of sakakawea? The stated project purposes and managing for those purpose are thrown right out the window then... less recreation, more erosion, more silting, increases in fertilizer and chemical run off, poorer water quality, etc... say what you want about the feds. But, from what I've read of that master plan so far, it looks like an extremely detailed, well thought out and well written document. Maybe it's cause it came from a time when the feds actually did decent work. I don't know. But, I am somewhat impressed by what I see. Additionally, I see this project as a completely different animal than tens of millions of BLM grazing acres spread out over many states.

 

[pluckem]

I think the wording of the title here and elsewhere make this easy for people to see and forget. Many don't even know what Corp land is and even more have no idea what elevations land is at.

The titles should be something like, Little Heart Bottoms and Graner Bottoms to be Closed and Given Away. Or 10,000 Acres of Public Land to be Given Away. Maybe that would make more people open their eyes.

 

[gst]

indeed these are differing land use/management issues/animal espringers. But what is the same is a Federal agency apparently not honoring what was granted in various Acts regarding the usage of Federal lands. Sometimes because of corrupt politicians, some times because of agenda driven ideals.

I get and support sportsmen's anger when these agreements are not honored. Not so much different than ranchers/loggers/miners ect... anger when agreements are not honored by other Federal agencies.

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

espringers,

I won't go as far as to say the private landowner will not care for their property. I don't know many who don't. And yes, grazing access water will and should remain.

Anyway, looks like the cat is out of the bag...(p.s. can't believe I'm agreeing with the left).

Dem-NPL legislators, candidates join outdoor enthusiasts in opposing transfer of public lands

(BISMARCK, ND) - Dem-NPL legislative candidates today joined with outdoor enthusiasts from across the state, including the North Dakota Bowhunters Association, in opposing the transfer of so-called excess lands from the U.S. Corp of Engineers.

“Dem-NPL legislators and candidates strongly oppose the governor’s plan to privatize recreational areas and access to water south of Mandan,” said District 34 House candidate Jessica Perkins Petrick. “Thousands of people, myself included, enjoy hunting and fishing along the Missouri River. Taking this land from outdoor enthusiasts is unacceptable and we vow to repeal HB 1456 in the 2017 session so that we can maintain public access to those lands and water.”

“Giving land back to relatives of the original landowners would be a gift from the government to individuals and violates the North Dakota Constitution,” said District 30 House Candidate Tom Asbridge. “The governor has not been transparent with our state's outdoor enthusiasts, and we must do everything we can to prevent the privatization of public recreation areas south of Bismarck and Mandan without the public being involved and having input.”

Background

HB 1456 was sponsored in 2015 by Reps. Mike Brandenburg (D-28), Jim Schmidt (D-31), William Kretschmar (D-28), Karen Rohr (D-31), and Sens. Donald Schaible (D-31) and Robert Erbele (D-28), all Republicans.


Governor Dalrymple’s office recently provided a directive to discuss returning public land south of Mandan back to the State of North Dakota. Further notice has been given to the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands to return the land to the original individual owners.

If the transfer occurs, it could include up to 9,000 acres of public land, which includes Wildlife Management Areas, rifle ranges, boat ramp parking, access to waters, and more.

# # #

Robert Haider
Executive Director
North Dakota Democratic-NPL
c: 701.721.6093<tel:701.721.6093>

 

[dean nelson]

Someone needs to put together a Map of the areas it will affect.

If you go off of the simple description of all land above 1620el. Then you are talking about 90%+ off all the little heart bottoms (Schmidt), same thing for Graner Bottoms. Those are just the large sections of land.

For the Emmons county side it doesn't look as severe in the northern parts, parts of the southern tip of the range, parts of badger bay area. But as you go south, all the public around Beaver Bay, Beaver Creek, Cattail, Langliers.....

We are talking thousands of acres. Many of which are some of the best public hunting, fishing, and camping areas close to Bismarck.

- - - Updated - - -

If anyone wants to do some research on their own. Download Google Earth and if you look on the lower right portion of the screen you will see the elevation of the land that the mouse curser is currently over.

Just remember that little hart and the rest up north have long since been returned to the state and made into wma's so you can bank on those staying put because the politicians know it would be suicide to try and and give away the bottoms. Now the little chunks of higher ground dotting the rest of it as you go south are surely up in the air. Surprised not to see standing rock getting involved in this.

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

Just remember that little hart and the rest up north have long since been returned to the state and made into wma's so you can bank on those staying put because the politicians know it would be suicide to try and and give away the bottoms. Now the little chunks of higher ground dotting the rest of it as you go south are surely up in the air. Surprised not to see standing rock getting involved in this.

For Oahe, no lands are taken off the table. So any WMA would be up for transfer.

Heidi is drawing up stuff for Standing Rock (Sioux County).

 

[Account Deleted]

espringers,

I won't go as far as to say the private landowner will not care for their property. I don't know many who don't. And yes, grazing access water will and should remain.

Anyway, looks like the cat is out of the bag...(p.s. can't believe I'm agreeing with the left).

Dem-NPL legislators, candidates join outdoor enthusiasts in opposing transfer of public lands

(BISMARCK, ND) - Dem-NPL legislative candidates today joined with outdoor enthusiasts from across the state, including the North Dakota Bowhunters Association, in opposing the transfer of so-called excess lands from the U.S. Corp of Engineers.

“Dem-NPL legislators and candidates strongly oppose the governor’s plan to privatize recreational areas and access to water south of Mandan,” said District 34 House candidate Jessica Perkins Petrick. “Thousands of people, myself included, enjoy hunting and fishing along the Missouri River. Taking this land from outdoor enthusiasts is unacceptable and we vow to repeal HB 1456 in the 2017 session so that we can maintain public access to those lands and water.”

“Giving land back to relatives of the original landowners would be a gift from the government to individuals and violates the North Dakota Constitution,” said District 30 House Candidate Tom Asbridge. “The governor has not been transparent with our state's outdoor enthusiasts, and we must do everything we can to prevent the privatization of public recreation areas south of Bismarck and Mandan without the public being involved and having input.”

Background

HB 1456 was sponsored in 2015 by Reps. Mike Brandenburg (D-28), Jim Schmidt (D-31), William Kretschmar (D-28), Karen Rohr (D-31), and Sens. Donald Schaible (D-31) and Robert Erbele (D-28), all Republicans.


Governor Dalrymple’s office recently provided a directive to discuss returning public land south of Mandan back to the State of North Dakota. Further notice has been given to the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands to return the land to the original individual owners.

If the transfer occurs, it could include up to 9,000 acres of public land, which includes Wildlife Management Areas, rifle ranges, boat ramp parking, access to waters, and more.

# # #

Robert Haider
Executive Director
North Dakota Democratic-NPL
c: 701.721.6093<tel:701.721.6093>

Where did you find this Tim?

 

[dean nelson]

For Oahe, no lands are taken off the table. So any WMA would be up for transfer.

Heidi is drawing up stuff for Standing Rock (Sioux County).

Yes now come back down to the real world where normal people are. Those lands have been state land longer then many on here have been alive and WONT be traded away because it would be political suicide! Once you get south of the bottoms then you may have to deal with it but the bottoms are safe.

 

[ItemB]

I haven't read all this thread, but is there something a guy should reference or has there been a canned email or response to leave for those of us in dis agreement with this?

 

[Bret]

It doesn't make sense to do any of this with or without the WMA's. But Rep. Schmidt is the main mover behind all this and his families claim is to Schmidt Bottoms WMA from what I understand. The problem is, if you transfer land at 1620 msl it includes WMA's, and that's what HB 1456 says.....

 

[dirtybirds14]

It doesn't make sense to do any of this with or without the WMA's. But Rep. Schmidt is the main mover behind all this and his families claim is to Schmidt Bottoms WMA from what I understand. The problem is, if you transfer land at 1620 msl it includes WMA's, and that's what HB 1456 says.....

This Jim Schmidt has no relation to Schmidt bottoms/Little heart - Fairly common name which coincidentally goes with the land this would give back.

 

[pluckem]

This Jim Schmidt has no relation to Schmidt bottoms/Little heart - Fairly common name which coincidentally goes with the land this would give back.

The relation or no relation has little to nothing to do with what has been proposed.

I am surprised, given his background, Mr. Schmidt would sponsor such a bill that would remove WMA and other public land. His bio claims he was a "Game Management Area Assistant" in Colorado and then made a 33 year career working for the USDA. One would think he should have seen the value a WMA provides for the general public.

 

[gst]

Perhaps he understands better than most govts inefficiency and failure...............

The "relation" does have a "little to do" when people are wrongly making accusations of personal gain if there is none.

 

[pluckem]

Perhaps he understands better than most govts inefficiency and failure................

Because the WMA's in North Dakota are inefficient and have failed somehow? Please explain.

The "relation" does have a "little to do" when people are wrongly making accusations of personal gain if there is none.

Ill agree it has some relevance in this thread because it seems like the accusation might be incorrect. However, to me it doesn't matter if the land is given to Jim Schmidt or John Smith. In either case mine and 100's of others will lose access.

 

[gst]

Because the WMA's in North Dakota are inefficient and have failed somehow? Please explain.



Ill agree it has some relevance in this thread because it seems like the accusation might be incorrect. However, to me it doesn't matter if the land is given to Jim Schmidt or John Smith. In either case mine and 100's of others will lose access.

Easy there, I'll have to start using the ::: icon instead of just the winky one. But if you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the control of noxious weeds on some of the WMA's is rather inefficient...........

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

This Jim Schmidt has no relation to Schmidt bottoms/Little heart - Fairly common name which coincidentally goes with the land this would give back.

That may be the case. But it is moot in the overall argument. The fact is, Jim has ties somewhere to land that is within the transfer area because he was against having wildlife management areas removed from legislation to be transferred.

- - - Updated - - -

There seems to have been some changing tides for the better. If a bill is drafted it will be void (or as I'm being told) of transferring lands to any heirs but it will be transferred to the State of North Dakota.

I still believe there are no acres (land) that are no longer needed for the project purposes.

And if land is somehow to be found to be no longer needed the public deserves at least 3 local meetings to allow testimony and discussion.

So people, your voices do matter and while this has moved in a more favorable fashion you must not let complacency stop or slow you. Keep contacting your representatives and the Governor's Office.