2016 Lake Sakakawea Land Transfer

[Enslow]

I know I will upset 2 bears running, but IMO, it should not go to the Indian reservation. I'm undecided about the sale to the public. It could limit access to the lake but it could open opportunity for cabins, boat ramps, camp sites, etc. I am pretty sure I am not a fan of the Core though.

Cabins, boat ramps, and campsites... Yuck that sounds terrible. This very thing has happened on devils lake and unless you are paying big lot rentals you are not allowed to access the lake through that land and the campgrounds are full of people. Just people people people everywhere.

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

Tim Do you have a dog in this fight? ( family land that was bought for the dam or water storage )

If the land goes back to the state I know there is a few ND state legislators that want it returned the original owners. This land was bought at fair market value and should remain property of the people for use by everyone.

The question is, do I have a dog in this fight? The answer is we all do. I'm not in this for selfish reasons, I use the lake more than many just because I grew up in the area and think it's one of North Dakota's treasures but this lake is for all of those who live or travel to ND to recreate at.

But yes, my great grandfather homesteaded at the door step of the Missouri River and was involved in the process of lands purchased for the Garrison Dam project. That is not why I am vocal.

- - - Updated - - -

The land could become unexcisable? Making certain camp grounds and boat ramps unusable?
Is that the fear for the most part?

I like to use the lake and land that our taxes paid for, not sure the tax base the tribe has put towards our ramps and recreation in comparison to what they receive for some unknown reason, but I am sure hoping that the land stays to the use of all of us.

There have been so many attempts now in the past 25 or so years that its hard to keep track of. I have thousands of lines of text I have written in the past 10 years. Many before me. But to answer your question, we don't know. Currently, you must have a tribal hunting license to access lands held in trust for the TAT. So any acres that get transfered would now fall into that category.

In the past, the acres were all encompassing, then reduced to 36,000 and I believe in 2013 were reduced to 24,000. But since there is zero transparency from the ACOE in the 2016 land grab we have no idea what is going on. I meet with the Governor's office today sometime to discuss this a little more and will be recieving letters written by the Governor's office regarding the issue. That hopefully will shed more light on the recent attempt.

Circling back to the access. For fishing, there is a memorandum of understanding in place. No TAT fishing license is required if you access the lake from lands within the reservation. No access fee is required to access state, private or federal lands to hunt. But who know what is in store for the future. At any time an MOU could be replaced.

If you look at funding and upkeep of recreation areas, there is a conclusion that can be drawn regarding those areas held by lease via the tribe. Ken Danks spends much of his time and money trying to keep things operating at Skunk. Pouch is normally maintained by the cabin renters. So going forward, if things were to change one can ask the question how they would end up being maintained...if at all and if there was access fees required.

But again, many of the recreation areas were removed (negotiated out of the transfer). Whether that is still the case is yet to be seen because the ACOe isn't being transparent.

- - - Updated - - -

Being that this is under the Obama administration, I hope that everyone realizes that there is a hidden, and very negative (even evil), purpose for doing this.

BINGO!

And guess who I'm told didn't sign the joint letter to the ACOE against the transfer? Hint, has a D behind her name. Going to get more clariffication from the Governor's Office later today on that.

 

[Vollmer]

I'm glad you brought this topic to attention Tim. It is a scary thing that this is a real possibility. Even scarier, is that most sportsmen have no idea. I hope everyone digs in and contributes to making sure this doesn't happen.

Nothing scarier than the unknown, especially with our precious resources.

 

[fnznfwl]

Funny how many people are anti federal government until it benefits an interest of theirs.

 

[arrowdem]

Funny how many people are anti federal government until it benefits an interest of theirs.

how did i know when i saw that you had posted that i would come on here and you would be trolling... shocker..

 

[Vollmer]

Funny how many people are anti federal government until it benefits an interest of theirs.

In my opinion that is what the basis of people in our government are supposed to do. If it fits your needs/wants, then support/vote for it.

 

[walihunter]

Tim,,,,can you supply more info about the MOU that a TAT fishing license is not needed for lake access on tribal land? I've been told for years that one is needed and have heard stories about tribal wardens seizing guns,fishing equipment etc....if crossing tribal lands with fish in possession and not having a license.

 

[Riggen&Jiggen]

Back in the late 80s the Tribe charged to access Sak around New Town. People complained enough that the state got involved which put pressure on the Corp leading to the Tribe being told they could not charge for access or fishing licenses. For many years now you don't need to have a tribe license to fish or pay for access.

 

[NPO_Aaron]

I recently heard an analogy that did a great job of explaining why the transfer of federal land to the states is a bad thing for sportsmen. All of our federal lands require funding. It doesn't matter which state, or which tract of land, money is what keeps things the way we like them. For the most part, the federal government can generate the resources necessary to care for the lands much better than the individual states can. When the lands are transferred to the states, they are responsible for footing that bill.

The analogy was that your neighbor owns a 3 million dollar house on 1000 acres. It is a beautiful house that you would love to have. So, being the nice neighbor he is, he gives it to you. Along with the mortgage payment, the land taxes and the cost of maintaining the house and property. Most people couldn't afford that and the payments would cause serious financial hardship. So, what would most people do? They would sell the house so dang fast it isn't even be funny.

This kind of thing is happening all over the western states to state owned lands, and I fear the same would happen here if the lands were transferred. Not to mention, federal lands (for the most part) means public lands. They belong to all of us. That is why we can go to Montana or Colorado and have a place to hunt, or how out of staters can come here and hunt pheasants. Personally, if for example, Montana transferred their federal lands to the state I would be pretty pissed. It would in effect take away my portion of ownership to those public lands and potentially forfeit my right to use it.

Just my .02

 

[Account Deleted]

I think MT actually said they couldn't afford to manage a proposed land transfer of BLM/USFS lands and would have to sell it.

 

[fnznfwl]

In my opinion that is what the basis of people in our government are supposed to do. If it fits your needs/wants, then support/vote for it.

I disagree. IMO that's exactly whats wrong with politics, and much of todays society. Alot of needs/wants are self based and don't benefit the good of the people.

I know people who are huge "Bundy ranch" and "Malheur refuge occupation" supporters, yet they don't think we should be turning over the COE lands. Smell the hypocrisy?

That was my point. (or "trolling" as arrowdumb put it)

And FTR I support keeping the lands in the hands of the COE, despite all their shortcomings. I see far more downsides to them ending up in tribal or private hands.

 

[Zogman]

In my opinion that is what the basis of people in our government are supposed to do. If it fits your needs/wants, then support/vote for it.

However the reality is if it fits the needs of the special interest group that has bought and paid for them that is what they support.

Sorry did not mean to be so cynical.

 

[snow]

Ain't this a beech? and just think,we non natives pay these knuckle heads with our tax $$$,why not offer these lands up 4sale? Seems the natives have plenty of casino money these days,here in Minn the natives destroyed our prestine walleye fishery mille lacs lake,it took 15yrs of our dnr to regulate the lake because of the netting,business's have been destroyed,homes lost and guess what,the natives are buying up all the lake shore they can for .50 on the dollar with casino $$$ plus take cash ,grants and loans from the feds.With this admin we have today goodluck with your fight,as stated above our gov't won't stand up to the natives in a court battle.Their motive is to control the entire lake.

 

[Tim Sandstrom]

Here we go. Asleep at the wheel for a lot of our state representatives and organizations. Complete deceit by the federal government.

http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Media...land-transfer-of-some-garrison-project-l.aspx

 

[Vollmer]

The MOA, itself, does not transfer jurisdiction over the lands, but describes the next steps in that direction. The MOA is consistent with Public Law (P.L.) 98-602, the Fort Berthold Mineral Restoration Act (FBMRA) and provides that the current land use will continue unchanged after the transfer. It also provides that public access will be granted and prohibits residential development, mineral harvesting or other activities that could threaten the operation of the Garrison Project. The Corps will retain management of Recreation and Wildlife Management lands.


How long until this part is forgotten, and we are faced with a worst case scenario?

 

[eyexer]

the day after it happens. get ready to pay big time for access boys.

 

[Bfishn]

Here we go. Asleep at the wheel for a lot of our state representatives and organizations. Complete deceit by the federal government.

http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Media...land-transfer-of-some-garrison-project-l.aspx

When i look at the attached map and the FAQ's it seems to me that all of the recreational areas and WMA's will be retained by the gov't. Everything else(green) will be given back. I'm not saying i agree with this transfer but if the gov't is retaining all of the access points and WMA's then access shouldn't be affected at all, which is what they say in the FAQ's. I know there is more to this than just access but that seems to be what people are focusing on and doesn't seem to be part of this transfer. Am I missing something?

 

[johnr]

Are the owners of these lands still alive? And are they buying the land back at fair market value? The offspring of a once owned piece of land, does not constitute a former land owner.

If my grandpa owned some land in south Fargo and the government took it from him at fair market value at that time in history for a needed school house, at what point is that land now going to be giving back to me? What the eff did me being born have anything to do with that land?

At no point should this land be given to anyone, other than the highest bidder.

sovereign nations need to be assimilated back into the grand old USA also, you are either an American or you are not. This racism of classifying groups of Americans on their heritage is as outdated as yesterdays farts. Are black folks in Europe considered African Europeans? if so I guess the Europeans are as effn retarded as our PC politicians and the divisions they force us to live with.

 

[Brian Renville]

Let's not forget that there is a lot more to access than rec areas and boat ramps. The Corps has been taking access to the lake away for years by herding people into designated areas. Keep in mind that there is a lot more to the big lake than activities requiring a boat large and expensive enough to feel safe if/when the wind comes up. Those of us that grew up around tobacco garden for instance have seen the Corps clamp down with their fences and signs. Now I'm usually one of the first that says a person doesn't need to drive up to the shoreline but making people stop on an access road that in many cases can be hundreds of yards away is a bit much, it's not like there is a shortage of shoreline. Imagine telling an old timer he has to fish at the boat ramp because he can't drive down to the beach. Well that's the case now. Anyway if it isn't bad enough now I fear the unknown would be worse. Once this is turned over I get the feeling what little access there is away from the designated ramps might disappear altogether.

 

[Bfishn]

Let's not forget that there is a lot more to access than rec areas and boat ramps. The Corps has been taking access to the lake away for years by herding people into designated areas. Keep in mind that there is a lot more to the big lake than activities requiring a boat large and expensive enough to feel safe if/when the wind comes up. Those of us that grew up around tobacco garden for instance have seen the Corps clamp down with their fences and signs. Now I'm usually one of the first that says a person doesn't need to drive up to the shoreline but making people stop on an access road that in many cases can be hundreds of yards away is a bit much, it's not like there is a shortage of shoreline. Imagine telling an old timer he has to fish at the boat ramp because he can't drive down to the beach. Well that's the case now. Anyway if it isn't bad enough now I fear the unknown would be worse. Once this is turned over I get the feeling what little access there is away from the designated ramps might disappear altogether.

So whats worse, basically having no access as you describe it is now, or having to buy a tribal license for say $30 and being able to access most areas?