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

[johnr]

we have come to the point of our rules needing rules.

Laws are created to create more laws.

My land is only mine if they (Obama/government) let me have it, then tax me for owning it, and place laws on it telling me what I can and cannot do with it.

The land transfer around Sak is just another scam of our trust and resources.

I for one do not see how these entities seem to answer to no one, and can set their own rules and pay.

#sucksbeingthepeasant

 

[gst]

Mister r, take the time to read the info in the moose thread I shared.

A bit long, but it begins to show how it is not just the rancher these entities and the groups that drive them impact.

People may want to take that thread seriously and not be surprised when we can no longer hunt moose in ND.

 

[eyexer]

the state legislators won't have anything to say about this land deal. the feds are thumbing their noses at anybody that scoffs. it's a done deal already. Hoeven won't have a thing to do with stopping it either. he's just a piss ant in the whole scheme of things. The cor does what they choose to do.

 

[PrairieGhost]

I think the sad truth is Washington people are representing American people. The problem is most of us, even those of us who debate each other, are fast becoming the minority in this nation. Myself I am both socially and fiscally conservative, but I am first and foremost socially conservative. One has to look beyond what looks obvious to see the real dangers. For example gay marriage is not about equality, it is about destruction of society. http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-deconstruction-of-marriage.html Once everything we know is destroyed then the left can shape a society that they think will be a liberal nirvana. Communism is part of that and foolishly every generation thinks the only reason it fails is because "they" were not in charge. It's a goal of the extremely arrogant.

The problem is the left no longer respects any moral compass. The other problem is the right only respects money. They can not tolerate public land. They can not tolerate free anything including public land to hunt and recreate on without paying someone. They want to be that someone, or at least tie it up so someone is paid. That's over simplification, but people vote left for something free, or for immoral reasons. At the other end of the spectrum we see people who consider themselves independent, but they are not. Ironically our government has them on the hook also. They simply choose to ignore that fact, and strive to take the government handout, but deny it to others. I would like to back up 30 years then follow the old axiom if it isn't broke don't fix it.

Leave public land public land. Keep the gov small and attentive to those they were designed to serve. Department of agriculture to farmers, the Fish and Wildlife to hunters, etc. Sure these organizations serve all Americans, but they started with a special purpose which has somehow been lost. Unfortunately we get what we deserve and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Or we will be saying the pledge to the Chinese or Russian flag.

The problem is people are not satisfied with what they have they also want what others have. That's what this land transfer is about. People who want the public land you and I and all Americans currently have. They want it for me me me me me.

 

[deleted_account]

I think the sad truth is Washington people are representing American people. The problem is most of us, even those of us who debate each other, are fast becoming the minority in this nation. Myself I am both socially and fiscally conservative, but I am first and foremost socially conservative. One has to look beyond what looks obvious to see the real dangers. For example gay marriage is not about equality, it is about destruction of society. http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-deconstruction-of-marriage.html Once everything we know is destroyed then the left can shape a society that they think will be a liberal nirvana. Communism is part of that and foolishly every generation thinks the only reason it fails is because "they" were not in charge. It's a goal of the extremely arrogant.

The problem is the left no longer respects any moral compass. The other problem is the right only respects money. They can not tolerate public land. They can not tolerate free anything including public land to hunt and recreate on without paying someone. They want to be that someone, or at least tie it up so someone is paid. That's over simplification, but people vote left for something free, or for immoral reasons. At the other end of the spectrum we see people who consider themselves independent, but they are not. Ironically our government has them on the hook also. They simply choose to ignore that fact, and strive to take the government handout, but deny it to others. I would like to back up 30 years then follow the old axiom if it isn't broke don't fix it.

Leave public land public land. Keep the gov small and attentive to those they were designed to serve. Department of agriculture to farmers, the Fish and Wildlife to hunters, etc. Sure these organizations serve all Americans, but they started with a special purpose which has somehow been lost. Unfortunately we get what we deserve and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Or we will be saying the pledge to the Chinese or Russian flag.

The problem is people are not satisfied with what they have they also want what others have. That's what this land transfer is about. People who want the public land you and I and all Americans currently have. They want it for me me me me me.

i Really do think you're giving the average democratic voter too much credit. they don't see it as this long thought out process to make America a communist country. as I mentioned before my parents vote mostly dem (we don't talk politics at Christmas I can tell you that). and they are good people with HUGE hearts (to a fault IMO). it's too hard to explain in a forum but they are fairly well to do, aren't perverts, but just want ALL people to be happy and successful. it's like a brainwash of sorts, but I bet they feel the same way about me and how I vote and view the state of our country.

 

[PrairieGhost]

i Really do think you're giving the average democratic voter too much credit. they don't see it as this long thought out process to make America a communist country. as I mentioned before my parents vote mostly dem (we don't talk politics at Christmas I can tell you that). and they are good people with HUGE hearts (to a fault IMO). it's too hard to explain in a forum but they are fairly well to do, aren't perverts, but just want ALL people to be happy and successful. it's like a brainwash of sorts, but I bet they feel the same way about me and how I vote and view the state of our country.

I have relatives that vote liberal also Wags. Some thing Obama had done everything perfect. One is a very kind woman and thinks she is being kind to the illegal aliens, kind to the gays, kind to those who need welfare etc. Her hearts in the right place and I like her, but she doesn't think deeply about things and she doesn't think about the real end results. A very kind woman dancing along in la la land. I'm sure she doesn't like abortion, but she votes to support it. I think she thinks gays are born that way and she votes to support gay marriage, but doesn't understand it's not about equality. There are many good people who are voting for a party made up of very bad people. The democrats talk about being inclusive. What they really mean is their arms are open to every sort of social misfit. Then there are the republicans who are little better. I'm sick of politicians and their greed and power. I think that's why we see Trump in the position he is in. It's guys like people on this site who are sick of the party they have voted for years for with little results.

 

[gst]

The problem is the left no longer respects any moral compass. The other problem is the right only respects money. They can not tolerate public land. They can not tolerate free anything including public land to hunt and recreate on without paying someone. They want to be that someone, or at least tie it up so someone is paid.

I know I should likely just pass this by....

plainsman, this is a bit of advice. The reason you have no one posting on the site you moderate is because of years of this kind of crap.

You slap paint around like a little kid painting a fence for the first time that gets more on himself than he does the fence then you get mad and ban those that point that out and try to tell you what might work a little better.

I know MANY people on the "right" that support public lands, myself included. We understand the need to keep some lands open to all to use. Even to the point of leaving some undeveloped. But we have seen firsthand the mismanagemnent and inefficiencies of the Federal govt in managing these lands mostly becasue they have people that beleive becasue they have been "trained" and have a degree with a few letters behind their name they know better than anyone else. You have shared that way of thinking yourself on these sites as an ex govt employee/biologist.

We have seen a slow gradual replacement of people within govt that worked with people that are out on these lands that are now replaced with people with ideologies like yourself. It is what is pushing that pendelum.

So why try to demonize entire groups of people like you do? What do you hope to gain? Most people know better.

Yet once again plainsman here is your "sagebrush rebellion" you post about all the time. Tell us where this group wants to take public lands away like you constantly accuse. Tell us exactly what ideals they hold that is wrong?

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/get_the_facts

ALC Public Policy Statement:

One of the best resources for clearing up any misinformation is the American Lands Council Policy Statement. The American Lands Council public policy statement in regards to the Transfer of Public Lands was drafted and ratified by over 100 leaders from 14 states as well as the American Lands Council Board of Directors. The policy statement covers the basics of what we believe and what goals we hope to achieve.
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: IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS; IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; IMPROVE ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY; RETAIN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS; IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF WILDFIRE CONTROL; INCREASE LOCAL INVOLVEMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY; PROTECT USE RIGHTS; PRESERVE CUSTOMS & CULTURE; INCORPORATE FEDERAL AGENCY EXPERTISE; GENERATE SELF-SUPPORTING FINANCE.

http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/


You might try to learn something from the fable about the little boy that cried wolf palinsman.

 

[gst]

• 
  
  [*]

[h=2]Chairman of Federal Lands Subcommittee blames federal policies for dying forests, wildfires[/h]Posted by Marjorie Haun

216sc​

on May 06, 2016

As published by Sierra Sun Times
March 23, 2016- Congressman McClintock is the Chairman of the Federal Lands Subcommittee. The subcommittee held a hearing on March 22, 2016 on “Examining the Spending Priorities and Missions of the Forest Service in the President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal." Witnesses included U.S. Forest Chief Thomas Tidwell. Congressman McClintock delivered the following opening statement at the hearing:

Chairman’s Opening Statement
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
House Natural Resources Committee
March 22, 2016

Today the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets to review the President’s proposed budget for the U.S. Forest Service for Fiscal Year 2017.

We meet at a time of crisis for our national forests. They are dying.

In my district that comprises the Sierra Nevada, more than 1,000 square miles of forest have been destroyed by catastrophic wild fire in the last three years. Those acres not destroyed by fire are now falling victim to disease and pestilence. It is estimated that 85 percent of the pine tree stock in the Sierra National Forest is dead or dying.

Forty years ago, Congress began imposing volumes of highly restrictive environmental laws with the promise they would improve the environmental health of our forests. Those laws, and the regulations and litigation that followed them, has made active management of the forests virtually impossible. The harvest of excess timber out of those forests has plummeted by 80 percent in the intervening years.

California’s national forests are now choked with an average of 266 trees per acre on a landscape that historically sustained 20 to 100 trees per acre. In the lower elevations of the Tahoe Basin, we have four times the normal density of vegetation.

The Forest Service itself estimates 40 million dead trees on federal lands in California last year, with an additional 29 million dying.

Trees that once had room to grow healthy and strong now fight for their lives against other trees fighting for the same ground. With that stage set, the drought pushed us past a tipping point.

After 40 years of these laws imposed with the specific promise to improve the environmental health of our forests, I believe we are entitled to ask, “How is the environmental health of our forests doing?”

The answer is damning. These laws and the ideologues who have administered them have not only destroyed local mountain economies that once thrived on the commercial activity of harvesting excess timber, they have devastated the forest environment.

Ironically, while the National Forests have been devastated, the private lands not subject to these policies are thriving. I have seen time and again in my own district – the private lands are properly thinned and maintained; they have proven resistant to forest fire; and when they have suffered damage, owners have quickly salvaged and replanted.

Inexplicably, at a time when the Forest Service has utterly failed to responsibly manage our forests, it seeks massive increases in funding to acquire still more forest land. That means transferring land from private hands, where it has been well managed, to the federal government that has spectacularly failed in its land management responsibilities.

The administration envisions expansion of Secure Rural Schools as a “tool to strengthen economic opportunities for rural communities.” Secure Rural Schools does not strengthen economic opportunities – rather it compensates rural communities for pennies on the dollar what they lost from the economic activities that these policies destroyed.

NFS management points out that fire suppression has become its greatest expense. The House addressed this last year in the Resilient Forests Act of 2015 that now languishes in the Senate.

The fact is fire expenses will grow every year until we restore sound forest management practices to our national forests and that in turn will require very different policies than those presented by the forest service today.

These laws not only prevent us from timely and economical removal of excess timber, they even prevent us from salvaging fire-killed timber and replanting. Millions of dead trees on thousands of square miles of the Sierra alone must be removed and the acreage replanted. Yet environmental restrictions make even salvage cost prohibitive.

Even without these laws, it will cost an estimated $1,600 per acre to remove dead wood and replant the acreage already destroyed. This is where our funds should be going – not to acquiring still more land to mismanage.

Removing commercially viable excess timber before it can burn should yield about $300 of direct federal revenues per acre per year if the forests were properly managed. If directed toward reclamation, we could have healthy forests again in a matter of years.

All that stands in the way is failed public policy. This congress stands to change that policy. And I would respectfully counsel this administration to lead, follow or get out of the way.
Source: Congressman Tom McClintock

 

[Vollmer]

[h=1]Public Land: House Committee Passes First Land-Transfer Legislation[/h]
by Tony Hansen

Photo by Natalie Krebs


The bill allows for up to two million acres of National Forest lands to be handed over to state control for the primary purpose of a timber sale.




For months we have discussed, debated, and reported on the movement that would force the federal government to hand management of millions of acres of public lands over to state control.
Lands that provide hunting, fishing, and recreational access to millions of Americans, lands that many believe would soon be sold, developed, or otherwise removed from public ownership before the ink on the transferred deed was dry.
All this time, we’ve looked at this issue as a “what if” scenario. It wasn’t real. Until now.
On Wednesday afternoon, the House Committee on Natural Resources voted to adopt House Resolution 3650. Here’s the legislative summary of the bill:

“This bill directs the Department of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, to convey to a state up to 2 million acres of eligible portions of the National Forest System (NFS) in it that it elects to acquire through enactment by the state legislature of a bill meeting certain criteria.
“Portions of the NFS conveyed to a state shall be administered and managed primarily for timber production.”
​

You read that correctly. The bill allows for up to two million acres of National Forest lands to be handed over to state control for the primary purpose of a timber sale. Living in Michigan, I have some experience with timber sales. Here’s how they work:
A timber company either buys or leases a big chunk of ground. They take the trees. Sometimes they allow public access for free. Sometimes for a fee. Sometimes, well, not at all. After the timber is harvested, the land is often sold for other purposes, including residential development or to membership-only hunting clubs.
I don’t think that sensible timber management is a bad thing, at all. I grew up hunting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan back when there were deer there. Those whitetails existed largely because of sensible forest management. Since timber production has been seemingly removed from the National Forest Service’s plan, deer numbers have plummeted. There are other factors of course, but habitat is critical and sound forestry creates habitat.
I would love to see the U.S. Forest Service do a better job of forest management for game species, but that’s a much different desire than wanting to see the land I grew up hunting handed over to the state and then sold off to the highest-bidding timber company.
I drive a truck. It loves to drink gas. I worry about fuel prices and understand that mineral extraction is necessary to fuel our energy independence. I have no issue with sensible use of natural resources—that is the very definition of conservation.
But I have to wonder if this land-transfer vote is being made by legislators interested in sound conservation practices or if there's something else at play. Some pro-sportsmen groups see this legislation as little more than a charade to hide the true mission: Cashing in on the resources contained on these public lands.
“Make no mistake, these are the first votes on legislation that would legitimize the wholesale transfer or sale of America’s public lands, and sportsmen should be concerned with any ‘yea’ votes,” said Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in a media release.
Wednesday’s vote doesn’t make the legislation (introduced by Alaska’s Don Young) law. It does move the bill onto the House and pushes it one step closer to passage. The Committee moved the bill on with a vote of 23-15. All but one Republican on the committee voted in favor of the legislation (Montana’s lone congressman Ryan Zinke being the only Republican dissenter). All of the “no” votes came from Democrats.
You can see the roll call here, and use this roster to judge your representative’s perspective on the value of public land.

 

[eyexer]

like I said before this sak. land transfer is a done deal

 

[Account Deleted]

Senator Hoevens office just called me. He still supports the transfer but he has contacted some very higher up people in the COE demanding more transparency on the issue and he insists that public access must be maintained whatever the outcome. I can live with that if the transfer goes through.

 

[Colt45]

Why does Hoeven support the transfer??? Any public land transfer is a crock of horse crap if it ends up in private hands. More transparency usually means more smoke screens, obummer was going to be the most transparent POTUS in history, pretty sure its the exact opposit

 

[gst]

Public Land: House Committee Passes First Land-Transfer Legislation


by Tony Hansen

Photo by Natalie Krebs


The bill allows for up to two million acres of National Forest lands to be handed over to state control for the primary purpose of a timber sale.




For months we have discussed, debated, and reported on the movement that would force the federal government to hand management of millions of acres of public lands over to state control.
Lands that provide hunting, fishing, and recreational access to millions of Americans, lands that many believe would soon be sold, developed, or otherwise removed from public ownership before the ink on the transferred deed was dry.
All this time, we’ve looked at this issue as a “what if” scenario. It wasn’t real. Until now.
On Wednesday afternoon, the House Committee on Natural Resources voted to adopt House Resolution 3650. Here’s the legislative summary of the bill:

“This bill directs the Department of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, to convey to a state up to 2 million acres of eligible portions of the National Forest System (NFS) in it that it elects to acquire through enactment by the state legislature of a bill meeting certain criteria.
“Portions of the NFS conveyed to a state shall be administered and managed primarily for timber production.”
​

You read that correctly. The bill allows for up to two million acres of National Forest lands to be handed over to state control for the primary purpose of a timber sale. Living in Michigan, I have some experience with timber sales. Here’s how they work:
A timber company either buys or leases a big chunk of ground. They take the trees. Sometimes they allow public access for free. Sometimes for a fee. Sometimes, well, not at all. After the timber is harvested, the land is often sold for other purposes, including residential development or to membership-only hunting clubs.
I don’t think that sensible timber management is a bad thing, at all. I grew up hunting the Upper Peninsula of Michigan back when there were deer there. Those whitetails existed largely because of sensible forest management. Since timber production has been seemingly removed from the National Forest Service’s plan, deer numbers have plummeted. There are other factors of course, but habitat is critical and sound forestry creates habitat.
I would love to see the U.S. Forest Service do a better job of forest management for game species, but that’s a much different desire than wanting to see the land I grew up hunting handed over to the state and then sold off to the highest-bidding timber company.
I drive a truck. It loves to drink gas. I worry about fuel prices and understand that mineral extraction is necessary to fuel our energy independence. I have no issue with sensible use of natural resources—that is the very definition of conservation.
But I have to wonder if this land-transfer vote is being made by legislators interested in sound conservation practices or if there's something else at play. Some pro-sportsmen groups see this legislation as little more than a charade to hide the true mission: Cashing in on the resources contained on these public lands.
“Make no mistake, these are the first votes on legislation that would legitimize the wholesale transfer or sale of America’s public lands, and sportsmen should be concerned with any ‘yea’ votes,” said Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in a media release.
Wednesday’s vote doesn’t make the legislation (introduced by Alaska’s Don Young) law. It does move the bill onto the House and pushes it one step closer to passage. The Committee moved the bill on with a vote of 23-15. All but one Republican on the committee voted in favor of the legislation (Montana’s lone congressman Ryan Zinke being the only Republican dissenter). All of the “no” votes came from Democrats.
You can see the roll call here, and use this roster to judge your representative’s perspective on the value of public land.

while the "sportsmen groups" this author mentions are quick to make accusations of "land grabs" and such, the same groups are silent when it comes to holding the Federal govt accountable for the admitted mismanagement of these public lands. Just look on the outdoor sites here in our state.

How many threads are started by these concerned sportsmen over what the Federal govt is doing managing these lands?

So what will change when these sportsmen groups sit silent?

This author claims he supports multiple use. Who is speaking out in the sportsmen community when that multiple use is ended?

Why do we think the Federal govt will change how they are managing these lands when they have hopped in bed with groups such as the Sierra Club and other orgs with similar agendas?

People bitch about what will happen when the states own these lands (selling them and denying access) while they are not even aware it is happening now with the Feds owning them.

 

[Reprobait]

Senator Hoevens office just called me. He still supports the transfer but he has contacted some very higher up people in the COE demanding more transparency on the issue and he insists that public access must be maintained whatever the outcome. I can live with that if the transfer goes through.

Is he talking about the Sak transfer or the Oahe transfer?

 

[Account Deleted]

This was specific to the Oahe transfer.

 

[eyexer]

This was specific to the Oahe transfer.

more than likely because you can bet your ass the sak one is signed, sealed and delivered

 

[Reprobait]

Private land with public access. How the heck is that supposed to work. We are talking about good hunting land close to 100,000 people.

 

[Account Deleted]

As I understand it, he wants the land transfer to go through to the state, but not into the private citizens after that.

 

[eyexer]

politicians talk out both sides of their azzes

 

[PrairieGhost]

As I understand it, he wants the land transfer to go through to the state, but not into the private citizens after that.

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.