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

[KDM]

Maybe this thread will shed some light on the realities of how LITTLE control over anything, we as a people actually have. The only land anyone controls is that which they OWN!!! I don't mean land that someone makes payments on, because until the loan is paid off, YOU DON'T OWN IT. The bank owns it until you pay them back. This "Public" everyone speaks of isn't about people at all. It's the convenient title politicians, money grubbers, and other diseased individuals use to stave off outrage by the common folk who not only pay the bill, but get BOHICA'ed to boot. Public land is NOT controlled by the public. Never has been. ALL "Public" land is controlled by some small group of individuals, be it the BLM, COE, Park Service, F&W, G&F, yadda yadda, yadda and it is THEY who decide what happens on those lands they control. In the same fashion, "Public" transportation is NOT controlled by the public. "Public" Utilities are NOT controlled by the public. "Public" buildings are NOT controlled by the public, BUT WE AS THE "PUBLIC" SURE AS HELL PAY FOR THEM!!!!! In each of these examples, the control is held by those few so called "elected officials" "Council Members", "Board Members", or "Representatives" who then decide IF, When, How, Why, and for HOW MUCH, people are allowed access to these so called "Public" items. Most of these so called "Public Lands" being discussed are simply "Open" to public access for various activities. These lands can be "Closed" just as easily by those who control them. If the controlling entity wants to sell, transfer, burn down, plow under, or otherwise exclude people, there is very little we as a people can do about it, because it's NOT OURS. Even congress doesn't have control over these lands as most of the authority has been legislated or delegated to these smaller groups through various means. Like it or not, this is how it is right now and until we, as a people, force it to be changed though active lobbying, voting, and exposing these realities, this is how it will remain.

 

[eyexer]

Maybe this thread will shed some light on the realities of how LITTLE control over anything, we as a people actually have. The only land anyone controls is that which they OWN!!! I don't mean land that someone makes payments on, because until the loan is paid off, YOU DON'T OWN IT. The bank owns it until you pay them back. This "Public" everyone speaks of isn't about people at all. It's the convenient title politicians, money grubbers, and other diseased individuals use to stave off outrage by the common folk who not only pay the bill, but get BOHICA'ed to boot. Public land is NOT controlled by the public. Never has been. ALL "Public" land is controlled by some small group of individuals, be it the BLM, COE, Park Service, F&W, G&F, yadda yadda, yadda and it is THEY who decide what happens on those lands they control. In the same fashion, "Public" transportation is NOT controlled by the public. "Public" Utilities are NOT controlled by the public. "Public" buildings are NOT controlled by the public, BUT WE AS THE "PUBLIC" SURE AS HELL PAY FOR THEM!!!!! In each of these examples, the control is held by those few so called "elected officials" "Council Members", "Board Members", or "Representatives" who then decide IF, When, How, Why, and for HOW MUCH, people are allowed access to these so called "Public" items. Most of these so called "Public Lands" being discussed are simply "Open" to public access for various activities. These lands can be "Closed" just as easily by those who control them. If the controlling entity wants to sell, transfer, burn down, plow under, or otherwise exclude people, there is very little we as a people can do about it, because it's NOT OURS. Even congress doesn't have control over these lands as most of the authority has been legislated or delegated to these smaller groups through various means. Like it or not, this is how it is right now and until we, as a people, force it to be changed though active lobbying, voting, and exposing these realities, this is how it will remain.

you never have full control of your own land. you need permits to do anything. And your really just renting from the state due to property taxes.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

There is some public land very close to my hometown. The kids would take their off road motorcycles there to ride and made a small track. The golf course is across the river and the golfers didn't like the noise. The golfers were adult and organized while the kids were not. The golfers made a deal between the Park Board and bowhunters. A ninety-nine year lease. The park board paid for the fencing, the bowhunters put it up and the dirt bike riders were ousted.

That is how public land works.

Read an article awhile back about some bowhunters who were taking deer in a suburban park. The Sierra Club lobbied for a bike path through there. When early mornings joggers using the new running trail saw those bowhunters dragging deer out, the bowhunters got ousted.

 

[gst]

I got a letter from Hoven's office implying that, but I think he knows it will not stay multiple use once our legislature gets their grubby hands on it. I knew the guy I talked with couldn't get my name straight. The letter come addressed to Mr. Sampson. Should smack him up side the head with a donkeys jaw bone.

Maybe there is someone writing in all the time calling them "perverts" and "money worshipers" named Mr. Sampson.

 

[Rowdie]

They are pissing on us and telling us its raining!

 

[PrairieGhost]

They are pissing on us and telling us its raining!

Well don't get depressed. The survey we had shows that about 80% don't trust the state not to sell off public land. I know the lobbyists with the thickest wallet usually wins, but if politicians start getting tens of thousands of calls against (nationally) they may loose some of their arrogance. Still one worries. As an example the queen perverter of the truth was just interrogated by the FBI and some people still trust her.

 

[gst]

Well don't get depressed. The survey we had shows that about 80% don't trust the state not to sell off public land.

And there is the predictable spin.

Out of a whopping 53 responses to a poorly written poll, 26 thought there was a 50% or less chance the states would sell it and 27 thought it higher than a 50 - 50 chance.

And the person that created the poll either intentionally or foolishly left out the simple fact that the "state" will likely not do anything the people do not allow.

Claim what you wish about lobbyists or organizations, it is the individual person that marks a ballot and politicians know that. And here in ND on numerous issues, when those people have been presented the facts of an issue they are being asked to vote on they have voted accordingly.

Here in ND, it does not necessarily come down to the largest wallet.

Both HSUS and DU had far larger wallets than those opposing them on two separate measure of late, and yet once facts and truth were told, the people of this state figured it out.

Now if plainsmans ;poll was to be of any real value, the question should have been would you support the state selling Federal lands once they are turned over to the state.

I am betting there would have been a larger percentage that would have voted no. And if we have gotten to a point where 80% or more of the voice of the people are not being followed by elected officials, we have more to worry about than whether it is the state or feds that hold title to this land.

And at that point,perhaps just like those fellas 240 years ago, those fellas in Oregon and Nevada had it right.

Happy Independence Day.

 

[eyexer]

it'll boil down to what the ag community wants done. that much I think most understand

 

[gst]

it'll boil down to what the ag community wants done. that much I think most understand

Out of curiousity eye, what percentage of the states legislators are directly involved in ag or an ag related business?

(hint, the majority of legislators on both the House and Senate Ag committees are not even involved in ag)

What percentage of people in this state are directly involved in ag or an ag related industry?

It comes down to what the people of the state want.

That is if people give a shit enough to get involved in the process that governs them instead of making excuses why they do not.

 

[Fly Carpin]

[h=1]Oahe transfer put on the shelf[/h]

• LAUREN DONOVAN Bismarck Tribune

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven will not submit a bill that would have had the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers transfer land on Lake Oahe to the state and possibly to private landowners.

Hoeven’s chief of staff Ryan Bernstein said Thursday a bill draft will not be submitted because there’s no consensus among residents, local officials and outdoor recreationists on the issue.

At stake are about 9,000 acres in Emmons and Morton counties that are above the Oahe reservoir flood pool. Some legislators want the land returned to North Dakota and some of it restored to original owners or heirs on both sides of the Oahe complex south of Bismarck-Mandan.

Bernstein said Hoeven wants consensus from all sides before moving forward.

“It’s up to the Legislature on how that should be done,” he said.

The former wildlife chief for the State Game and Fish Department Randy Kreil said Hoeven deserves credit for recognizing that the transfer would have had a negative effect on thousands of outdoorsmen and women who use the area to the personal benefit of a select few.

“That’s good to hear,” said Kreil, describing the Oahe region south of Bismarck as one of the most heavily used recreation areas in the state because of the good habitat on corps land along the reservoir and the development of Wildlife Management Areas.

Rep. Jim Schmidt, R-Huff, was a sponsor of a bill in the 2015 Legislature that asked Gov. Jack Dalrymple to put the transfer in motion with the Washington delegation. Schmidt said earlier his family would benefit if about 300 acres that are part of the Oahe Wildlife Management Area were returned and that he’d met with all the family’s 13 heirs on that possibility.

Schmidt said Thursday sportsmen have the wrong idea and that access to ramps and other public facilities would not have been interrupted. Any land returned to his family would have gone into production of agriculture and hunters might have found themselves able to drive into good hunting spots, instead of hiking, he said.

Andrea Travnicek, the governor’s natural resource policy adviser, said the office received a number of calls and emails on the proposed transfer, which included the possible return of private land, and relayed those to Hoeven’s office.




“We had … questions on assurances of public access,” she said.

The State Game and Fish Department did not take an official position on the proposed transfer, but current wildlife chief Jeb Williams said traffic counters show that thousands of people are on the recreation areas along Oahe.

“It’s some of the best habitat in the state. From my standpoint, I’m always trying to grow the resource for the public. This (proposed transfer) doesn’t help it,” he said.

One Emmons County landowner says he and his neighbors want the excess corps' land returned so they can manage noxious weeds, be better stewards and increase the land’s property tax value.

“If it were returned to us, we will do a better job,” said Glenn McCrory, who farms and ranches on the east side of Oahe near Highway 1804.

While the Oahe transfer appears to be a dead issue for now, the 2015 bill was the third in a row and only successful attempt to get the Legislature to support the concept.

Kreil said people will need to remain vigilant because certain legislators might bring it back again.

“It baffles me why the governor’s office would even agree to be involved in this,” he said.

Schmidt said he isn't sure what will happen next and that he would pursue the transfer only if his constituents push for it.

"For me, though, probably not," he said.

 

[Account Deleted]

Mark one in the W column.

 

[PrairieGhost]

“

We had … questions on assurances of public access,” she said.

Those who supported this knew public access would be lost. It's one of the reasons they wanted it. Never trust anyone who supported this.

 

[pluckem]

Schmidt said Thursday sportsmen have the wrong idea and that access to ramps and other public facilities would not have been interrupted. Any land returned to his family would have gone into production of agriculture and hunters might have found themselves able to drive into good hunting spots, instead of hiking, he said.

Another way to put it is "Once my family has the land we will lease out the hunting rights and THOSE hunters can drive their Polaris Rangers right up to the elevated and heated "deer blinds".

 

[gst]

plainsman, can you tell us how many acres of private lands here in ND allow public access?

 

[pluckem]

“
Those who supported this knew public access would be lost. It's one of the reasons they wanted it. Never trust anyone who supported this.

Exactly, these landowners trying to portray that the "public" lost out because they were going to take better care of the land are nuts if they think anyone buys into that.

 

[gst]

Funny how the voice of the people can impact what happens with these lands and how they are managed. PErhaps the states would be better off managing lands rather than people like Sen Dirty Harry Reid.

Hopefully the Corp and other Federal agencies like the USFWS starts controlling noxious weeds.

 

[ndlongshot]

GST give it a break. why can't you ask everyone that question instead of going after an individual, like always? And to answer, alot of private land in ND is not posted, meaning open to hunting, not necessarily "public access"....but I dont like the idea of losing public access to prime river bottom.

The quotes from landowners in that article are ridiculous. Definitely "both sides" of the story.

 

[Fly Carpin]

GST give it a break.

Speaking of longshots! For some reason I don't see this happening

 

[Allen]

Hopefully the Corp and other Federal agencies like the USFWS starts controlling noxious weeds.

Nothing a little tax increase wouldn't help take care of for us. :::

I wonder (because I don't really know), if State managed lands are more frequently sprayed for weeds than the federal stuff? Anyone have some information on this outside of anecdotal observations?

 

[Duckslayer100]

Nothing a little tax increase wouldn't help take care of for us. :::

I wonder (because I don't really know), if State managed lands are more frequently sprayed for weeds than the federal stuff? Anyone have some information on this outside of anecdotal observations?

All I know is that my favorite deer hunting WMA has become so choked with Russian olive and buckbrush in the past 10 years it's nearly impossible to hunt any more. Sharptails used to be thick in there and I haven't kicked one up in a half decade.

That's state land, if that answer your question...