2016 Lake Sakakawea Land Transfer

Fritz the Cat

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Posts
5,015
Likes
555
Points
413
You got that right Eye,

$50 thousand bucks. Eide Bailly LLP was hired to do the analysis for HB 1338. Can't find anything on the web about that analysis. Did find this story:

http://www.agweek.com/crops/3793699-farmers-fight-control-lake-oahe-lands

What Eide Bailly found at the public forums or listening sessions:

After Eide Bailly concluded its work, listening sessions were held in the region in September and October 2014. The seven options included:
Status quo (doing nothing).
Return land to original owners.
Return the land to the state of North Dakota, with the state managing it.
Return the land to the state of North Dakota and to Native American tribes, so each would manage their own land.
Return the land to the state of North Dakota, tribes and local governments, with the state managing all of it.
Continue with the Corps owning the land but turning over management to the tribes, state and local governments.
Transferring land to North Dakota and then the state transferring land to "preferential lease holders."

However, the Tribes are opposed to any parts of the analysis because it would interfere with their plans to reclaim lands taken by the Corps in violation of an 1878 Fort Laramie Treaty.
 


Rowdie

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Posts
10,097
Likes
1,865
Points
623
As the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers moves toward returning 30,500 acres of land taken as part of the Garrison Dam reservoir, debate is growing on who should be on the receiving end.

Marilyn Hudson, longtime Three Affiliated Tribes historian and elder, says the excess land around Lake Sakakawea should not go to the tribe, but to the families it was taken from in the first place.

The transfer from the corps to the Department of Interior and in turn to the tribe as trust land could happen this year, said corps spokesman Larry Janis. It’s been in the works for more than a decade, after a request from then-tribal chairman Tex Hall.



But Hudson, whose grandmother Many Dances lost half of her 320-acre allotment to the dam back in the ‘40s, says the corps is doing the right thing the wrong way.

“The land needs to go back to the original owners. That was always the effort of this,” she said. “If the corps can’t give it back to the original owners or their heirs, they should keep it for the people of the United States.”

Tribal chairman Mark Fox said, in general, the law provides for the return of land only to the tribes.

"The intended use would be for recreation and economic development, including tourism, and enjoyment by many," Fox said.









Advertisement







Pause

Current Time 0:00

/

Duration Time 0:00

Remaining Time -0:00

Stream TypeLIVE

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00


Fullscreen


00:00


Unmute

Playback Rate


1

Subtitles
  • subtitles off



Captions
  • captions off



Chapters
  • Chapters








Janis, the corps’ chief of recreation and natural resources, said the transfer will be initiated when the agency receives the $250,000 it requested to implement it. Janis said the transfer will not include any recreation sites on corps land, nor any Wildlife Management Areas managed by the state Game and Fish Department.



A series of public meetings in 2014 found overwhelming sentiment mirroring Hudson’s by tribal members, who just want their family land restored or left as is.

Terry Fleck, chairman of the Friends of Lake Sakakawea advocacy group, said the corps’ process and reasoning has been inscrutable and he predicts a daunting process lies ahead.

“This is as delicate a process as they’ve been in. I don’t envy the one who has to communicate this to the people of North Dakota,” Fleck said.

Janis said the corps identified excess lands, but doesn’t plan to conduct an on-ground survey. Fleck said that emphasizes the difficulty people will have trying to figure out if the corps land between them and the lake has suddenly become tribal trust land.

“What lands are these and who’s charged with the responsibility of ensuring recreation and all that goes with it? The corps? The tribes? The Bureau of Indian affairs?” said Fleck, adding it was clear from tribal members' public comments that Hudson speaks for many. “The tribal people don’t want it."
 

johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
20,094
Likes
3,847
Points
813
Location
Dickinson
Was the land "taken" or bought and paid for?
Cause once something is paid for, it is no longer own by the previous, nor are they entitled to any of it
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
708
Points
438
Location
williston
just change the damn law. where the hell are the clowns in D.C. on this
 


Kentucky Windage

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Posts
5,323
Likes
465
Points
368
Location
Wendy Peffercorn’s Bedroom
Was the land "taken" or bought and paid for?
Cause once something is paid for, it is no longer own by the previous, nor are they entitled to any of it

Were the previous owners given an option not to sell at the time of construction? I would argue that those and/or their decedents should be given the option to buy back at fair market value. If they no longer exist or decline to buyback, then it's sold to top bidder.
 

Vollmer

Founder
Administrator
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Posts
6,345
Likes
856
Points
483
Location
Surrey, ND
Access Stories Roundup: Idaho’s Track Record Predicts What Happens When Public Lands are Sold

by Tony Hansen


Screen%20Shot%202016-05-05%20at%2012.15.33%20PM.png

Idaho Land Sales: A Prediction of the Future?

For months now, the debate over whether states should be given ownership of Federally-owned lands has raged. Proponents of the move say the Federal government is incapable of properly managing the land and claim the ground should be returned to state control and that doing so would mean only improved management and not a public lockout.

Opponents say that doing so would almost certainly mean a net loss in access by the public.

So which side is telling a closer version of the truth?

Perhaps we can look to Idaho for historical insight.

The Wilderness Society recently filed a public records request for an analysis of the Idaho Department of Lands. What they found is interesting indeed.

Since 2000, the state of Idaho has sold more than 100,000 acres of publicly-owned land. The buyers? Timber companies, cattle ranchers, lakeside homeowners and privately-owned fishing clubs along the banks of prime trout waters.

That 100,000-plus acres is part of more than 1.7 million acres of public land the state has sold of the roughly 4.25 million acres Idaho received at statehood. That’s a sell-through rate of roughly 41 percent.

“History is clear on what will happen if our national public lands are given to the state,” Brad Brooks, The Wilderness Society’s Boise-based deputy regional director told the Idaho Statemen. “They’re almost certain to end up in hands that will lock the public out.”

You can read the full Wilderness Society Report here.




 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
708
Points
438
Location
williston
Sadly I'm sure this land transfer is a done deal already. Not much we can really do at this point.
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
Volmer, you should include the issues states like Idaho are facing when you post these things from groups like the Wilderness Society based out of Washington DC

http://www.quitandliveglobal.com/news.asp?id=17

"BOISE, Idaho, Jan. 31, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ On the heels of heart wrenching public testimony at historic Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee hearings last week regarding harsh Medicaid cuts, things may be going from bad to worse as estimates for state budget shortfalls soar from $35 million to roughly $185 million and counting."

But then again, the Wilderness Society land use management programs have directly lead to an increase all across the west to results like this instead of using these lands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieTQvIdG-Vo

Is there a balance that needs to be reached? indeed. But groups like The Wilderness Society push the pendelum just as far one way as those "greedy" folks do the other. The article in your link mentions the American Lands Council.

Here is their mission statement. Tell us what are the negatives.

Our Mission

American Lands Council is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization of individuals, counties, business, and organizations that was founded by County Commissioners in 2012. The Mission of the American Lands Council is to secure local control of western public lands by transferring federal public lands to willing States. ALC is leading the charge by giving leaders the knowledge and courage to battle for the only solution big enough to ensure better access, better health, AND better productivity through the Transfer of Public Lands (TPL) to local stewardship.

here is their public policy statement.


Public Policy Statement

Ratified by unanimous consent Oct 9, 2014 at ALC Multi-State Workshop​
Salt Lake City, UT and Oct 20, 2014 by American Lands Council Board of Directors.​
1. WE URGE THE TIMELY AND ORDERLY TRANSFER OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS TO WILLING STATES FOR LOCAL CONTROL THAT WILL PROVIDE BETTER PUBLIC ACCESS, BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, AND BETTER ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY;

2. WE SUPPORT EXCLUDING EXISTING NATIONAL PARKS, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREAS, INDIAN RESERVATIONS, AND MILITARY INSTALLATIONS FROM THE TRANSFER; AND

3. WE SUPPORT EQUIPPING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES WITH RESOURCES NECESSARY TO PLAN FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO STATE-BASED OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSFERRED PUBLIC LANDS; AND

4. WE URGE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES FOR THESE LANDS THAT WILL:

i. IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS: Protect public access, rights of way, and multiple-uses on public lands for all people including sportsmen, tourists, recreational users, subsistence and sustenance activities, and emergency access; and

ii. IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Reduce catastrophic wildfire fuel loads that threaten communities, infrastructure, watersheds, critical wildlife habitat, and our environment. Facilitate restoration of healthy forests, range lands, and waterways; and
iii. IMPROVE ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY: Secure jobs and economic growth through responsible natural resource stewardship and use including tourism and recreational opportunities; and


iv. RETAIN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS: Federal public lands shall become state public lands to be managed in accordance with state and local plans; and

v. IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF WILDFIRE CONTROL: Provide state, local, and tribal government with adequate wildfire prevention and control resources and develop interstate/interagency cooperative agreements necessary to combat wildfires effectively; and


vi. INCREASE LOCAL INVOLVEMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY: Ensure state-based public land management activities are consistent with local government plans, policies, and objectives; and

vii. PROTECT USE RIGHTS: Protect all valid existing rights and multiple uses, and enhance the viability of compatible, land-based livelihoods; and

viii. PRESERVE CUSTOMS & CULTURE: Preserve and protect important wild, scenic, cultural and economic resources; and


ix. INCORPORATE FEDERAL AGENCY EXPERTISE: Seek to utilize federal expertise and research through employment and/or cooperative agreements; and

x. GENERATE SELF-SUPPORTING FINANCE: Foster compatible economic productivity to support essential government services such as local roads, utilities, emergency services, public health and safety, education, justice, and other civic functions while reducing tax burdens on citizens nationally and offsetting federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural Schools funds.

On the other hand here is what the Wilderness Society supports. Note the sign, it shows what the "conservation mission" of these groups truly are. Perhaps hunters should not be so easily fooled into supporting their "mission".

The focus of our work

Achieving the BLM's conservation mission


ACanyonScottJones.jpg
Araviapa Canyon, Arizona, by Scott Jones, flickr.
The BLM is responsible for managing a wide range of lands and resources, as well as the types of activities that take place on those lands. Energy development and grazing are two well-known activities the BLM manages, but there is another very important mission. Conservation is an integral, yet often overlooked, part of the agency’s responsibilities. We work to help the BLM embrace its conservation legacy by ensuring that conservation objectives are integrated into BLM plans and policies.

poster5.Large_.JPG

McKenna Peak, Colorado, by Soren Jespersen
An extensive network of off-road vehicle trails and roads traverses much of our public lands. Keeping some of our land accessible to a non-motorized experience is an important means of protecting our natural heritage. We consider the increasingly rare opportunities for quiet and primitive recreation on BLM lands to be a resource that all people should be able to experience.
 
Last edited:


Account Deleted

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
4,641
Likes
50
Points
246

[h=1]Report: Idaho Has Sold 1.7 Million Acres to Private Interests Since Statehood[/h]Public News Service - ID | May 2016 | Download audio
Budget Policy & Priorities
Cultural Resources
Energy Policy
Environment
Public Lands/Wilderness


play.jpg


getimage.php


A new report shows the state has sold off 1.7 million acres of land over the past century, many for industrial uses that cut off public access, such as this gravel pit near Boise. (Brad Brooks, The Wilderness Society)

[h=6]May 4, 2016[/h]BOISE, Idaho - In its history, the state of Idaho has sold 1.7 million acres of land to private interests, according to an analysis of land sale records by The Wilderness Society.

In a report released today called "Sold! Idaho lands - and recreation access - lost to the highest bidder," the society found that once-public lands the size of the Sawtooth National Forest have been privatized over the past century.

Brad Brooks, the Wilderness Society's deputy regional director for Idaho, said the new owners often have eliminated all public access for fishing, hunting, rafting, hiking and snowmobiling.

"A couple of the parcels that we found in our research have been turned into gravel mines, plowed into agricultural production, turned into strip malls, and even large open-pit mines in the northern part of the state," he said.

The state Legislature has passed several bills exploring the idea of transferring federal public lands to state control. Supporters have said the state would do a better job than the federal government of managing the land and insist that public access would not be limited. But sportsman Jerry Bullock of Blackfoot said the state would likely follow its constitutional mandate to maximize profits from the land - and sell it off rather than preserve it.

"The record of the state -- not just in land management but their overall approach to wildlife and to conservation -- is deplorable," he said. "They seem to go out of their way to do things that are contradictory to good wildlife science."

The report found that some of the private interests that have purchased land from the state of Idaho include Simplot Corp., Potlatch and Boise-Cascade, as well as cattle companies, law firms and Blue Lakes Country Club in Twin Falls.

- See more at: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/20...tehood/a51728-1#sthash.faQ1PfJh.CbkPOUfp.dpuf
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
http://www.wildlandfire.com/docs/2007/western-states-data-public-land.htm


Idaho:


Total Land Base: 53,530,880 acres
Forest Service (NFS) Acres: 20.5 million
BLM Acres: 11.9 million
Population: 1,466,465
Forest Service Percentage: 38%
BLM Percentage: 22%

So the Federal govt and two Federal agencies own and control 60% of a state or 32.4 million acres.

The state still owns 2.5 million acres

So roughly 35 million acres out of a state that is roughly 54 million acres is "public" lands and yet apparently that is not enough?

If roughly 2/3 of a state is not enough public lands for groups such as The Wilderness Society based out of Washington DC, who here are the "greedy" ones.
 

Account Deleted

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
4,641
Likes
50
Points
246
What's that word you like to use all the time? Incrementalism? Pretty sure that's it. Idaho has a history of selling off its land. By your numbers above, they've sold off nearly half of what they had. Do you suppose they'll sell off more if they get transferred federal lands? You're damn right they will.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
708
Points
438
Location
williston
I don't believe this crap about states being in the hole financially. According to all the libtards the economy is roaring. it'll take care of itself
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
Ghost, why can it not be written into transfer agreements that certain lands can not be sold? Did you read the statements of the ALC?

Out of curiousity, how much land do you think the residents that live and work and raise their families in Idaho should be forced to keep "public?

Should a group based out of Washington DC be the ones determining that or should it be the people of Idaho?

Should the people of ND be deciding what happens with this Corp land here in our state or should it be people in Washington DC in the 4th branch of govt answerable to no one influenced by groups and tribes and agendas?

Why do we here in ND think we should have more say over what happens with these Federal lands here in our state than residents of other states should have over theirs?

- - - Updated - - -

I guess I think I don't l have anymore right to tell Idaho what to do in their state anymore than Idahoans or Sconis have a right to tell us what to do here in our state.

If a state decides they do not want the responsibility of managing Federal lands so be it, it would be their choice. But if a state wishes to accept that responsibility of managing these lands, with the purpose of keeping a percentage of them public lands, I support that states choice.

Why should states that have 60 - 80% Federal lands be handcuffed more than states like ND that have a MUCH lower percentage?

What exactly is the "equal footing" doctrine and what did it imply when states entered into the Union?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the good dialogue and do not wish to side track this thread or issue, but we are simply getting a glimpse into what other states are dealing with ALL the time over this Corps land issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Per sources the land transfer of old is now back again and further along then it should be. A Corp official is quoted to say, "they [Army Corp of Engineers] were continuing to move forward with the project but didn't have a time frame." Furthermore, the ACOE told Hoeven's office "they are moving ahead with the project regardless of how you [the public] feels."

Basically the public has been ignorned, the facts have been ignored and the master manual is being ignored. You can bet your last dollar this presidency wants to make a splash and given the regime's history they don't give a damn what the people have to say. Especially the majority.

These emboldened statements apply squarely to what other states and folks are dealing with with these Federal agencies like the BLM and USFS. Please keep that in mind.
 


wstnodak

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Posts
222
Likes
16
Points
125
How's it going super rancher? I see you are still using your time wisely by posting thousands of words on a hunting and fishing website! Well I heard you thought another member was myself so I had to stop by and say hi. Go ahead and carry on with your simple life and waste some more hours on the internet now. Take care guber!
 

Kenneth

Established Member
Joined
May 2, 2016
Posts
110
Likes
4
Points
98
How's it going super rancher? I see you are still using your time wisely by posting thousands of words on a hunting and fishing website! Well I heard you thought another member was myself so I had to stop by and say hi. Go ahead and carry on with your simple life and waste some more hours on the internet now. Take care guber!

the butt hurt flows strong with this one
 

wstnodak

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Posts
222
Likes
16
Points
125
Haha. Hardly there Ken. Guber brings my name into a conversation after not conversing in any way for over a year and you think I am the one that is butt hurt?
 

gst

Banned
Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Posts
7,654
Likes
122
Points
308
Ah west, how have you been? .

Someone simply had the same "style" of posting that was reminiscent of your personal tirades on past sites. My mistake, I did apologize for suggesting he might have been you.

Perhaps you can contribute something to a discussion instead of taking it in the direction you seem to want to ???

This is an interesting subject important enough that Tim S. broke his sabatical so please don;t turn it into your typical pissing match. ;)
 

Account Deleted

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
4,641
Likes
50
Points
246
How much should they have to give up for you to consider them not greedy? 1% and they should be happy to get it?
Your "no sale" provision would never happen. The states have said they couldn't afford the burden and would have to sell. Landowner groups would certainly lobby for it.

Heres the deal g, I support these lands being multiple use. Ranching, forestry etc. for a fair market price of rent. I don't want anymore refuges or national park that limit use.

I get a day because they are federal lands that my tax dollars support.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 197
  • This month: 162
  • This month: 149
  • This month: 137
  • This month: 124
  • This month: 102
  • This month: 93
  • This month: 93
  • This month: 88
  • This month: 81
Top Bottom