Hunting land for sale $376 dollars per acre

[KDM]

Yep!! Thanks GST. The "Significant Modification" would be the key IMO. I can do quite a bit with those two words. Thanks again!!

 

[gst]

No worries, any time people can learn about what is happening everyone is better off.

Most often these issues pushing the envelope are the result of legal actions by orgs that neither sportsmen or ag benefit from. Some try to sell themselves as "sportsmen" orgs and even on occasion try to spin how they have ags interests at heart (HSUS actually has a livestock productions board where livestock producers are a part of) We have gone far beyond what some of the original intents of these agencies and Acts were.

I know I can get going beyond what many have a tolerance level for on these issues, but the simple truth is those orgs that I and fritz share concerns over are in fact likely not in the best interests of sportsmen in the long run.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

So where does the fed/gov get the money to purchase easements? There are several funding mechanisms. There are many proposals put forth looking for money. North Dakota has been staring down the barrel of a big one since 2011. $588 million dollars worth.

The Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area. Keep in mind at this point it is just a proposal. But it could grow legs.

https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/refuges/lpp_dkg.php

Dakota Grassland Conservation Area—North Dakota, South Dakota

Documents | Open / close all

The Service has established the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area and will work with private landowners to accelerate the conservation of native prairie — both wetland and grassland habitats — within the Prairie Pothole Region in the eastern parts of North Dakota and South Dakota.
The conservation area is an easement program that will be part of a landscape-scale, strategic habitat conservation effort. The focus is to conserve populations of migratory birds by protecting the unique, highly diverse, and endangered ecosystem known as the Prairie Pothole Region.

• Land protection with conservation easements bought from willing sellers — 240,000 acres of wetland habitat — 1.7 million acres of critical grassland habitat
• Project area map (5 MB PDF)

The overall purpose of the proposed Dakota Grassland Conservation Area is to preserve, at a landscape scale, the ecological integrity of the area’s mixed-grass prairie, tallgrass prairie, prairie pothole wetlands, and riparian woodlands with the support of the associated ranching culture. More specifically, the project is designed to do the following:

• Maintain and enhance the historical native plant, migratory bird, and other wildlife species.
• Preserve working landscapes based on ranching and livestock operations that support a viable livestock industry.

Completed Plan Contacts​

The Service completed this plan in 2011.
Landowners interested in easements may contact these offices.

---

NORTH DAKOTA

Bismarck
Wetlands Acquisition Office
3425 Miriam Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
701 / 250 4415
Minot
Wetlands Acquisition Office
2001 6th Street Southeast, Suite 5
Minot, North Dakota 58701
701 / 852 0318

---

SOUTH DAKOTA

Huron
Wetlands Acquisition Office
200 4th Street Southwest, Room 307
Huron, South Dakota 57350
605 / 352 7014
Sand Lake
Wetlands Acquisition Office
39650 Sand Lake Drive
Columbia, South Dakota 57443
605 / 885 6357

---

WYOMING

BRANCH OF LAND PROTECTION PLANNING
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
303 / 236 4378

• Support the recovery and protection of threatened and endangered species and reduce the likelihood of additional listings under the Endangered Species Act.
• Prevent further habitat fragmentation.
• Protect an intact north–south migration corridor for grassland-dependent wildlife.
• Provide a buffer against climate change by providing resiliency for the mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie ecosystems and associated prairie pothole wetlands.
• Use this ecosystem resiliency to climate variability to ensure the continuation of wildlife habitat in the face of the uncertain effect of climate change.

Conservation easement contracts will specify perpetual protection of habitat for trust species and limits on residential, industrial, or commercial development. Contracts will prohibit alteration of the natural topography, conversion of native grassland to cropland, drainage of wetland, and establishment of game farms.
Easement land will remain in private ownership. Therefore, property tax and invasive plant control will remain the responsibility of the landowner, who also would retain control of public access to the land. Contracts would not restrict grazing on easement land.

So how are any of us to know when proposals like this are going to grow legs? Easy....when surrogate pretend sportsmen orgs begin singing its praises.

I have talked about this at length the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf produces about $5 billion a year in oil and gas lease revenue into the US General Treasury. The Land Water Conservation Fund is an Act that was passed in 1964. It can be but doesn't have to be funded up to $900 million. It's not dedicated funding so a proposal better be good and have much support. Surrogate pretend sportsmens orgs make for a good cheering section.

 

[gst]

This is the proposal Loyd Jones was presenting that a went to a few years ago. I specifically asked him if the govt changed the parameters of the perpetual easement as he admitted they retained the right to do so if the current land owner would have the right to opt out and after having to repeat the question again after he avoided answering he said no they would not.

While this is sold as a sportsmen supported program, if one digs a little deeper you can find orgs involved that have a different ideology of what these lands should be used for than your typical ND hunter would.



http://www.voicesforourplanet.com/2011/05/11/dakota-grassland-conservation-area/

http://www.voicesforourplanet.com/about/

"At age three, I stood in awe, transfixed in front of the tigers’ enclosure at the Toronto Zoo. Since then, my love of wildlife has helped to support numerous conservation organizations. As I learned more, I realized that the world’s people also need to be helped. Those who are involved in Africa’s bush meat and similar operations need alternatives that respect both people and wildlife, before they empty the forests."

Single generational, renewable, responsible conservation easements that benefit both parties involved should be the goal that we could find common ground on.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

When a fed/gov agency puts forth a proposal, by law they have to hold public hearings all over the State to gauge support or interest. Slick Lloyd Jones (head of USFWS in ND) (retired) (yea) would MC the meetings. I attended the one in Bismarck concerning the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area. Ninety percent of the people attending were against. Only two people in the room supported it. If and when they get serious, they will bring bodies to give the appearance that North Dakotan's support it.

Of course they don't have the $588 million but if they ever get it that will be serious. Unwilling sellers can be bought. And selling/donating a conservation easement/conservation covenant/conservation restriction/conservation servitude has tax advantages.

(H.R. 4 The Pensions Protection Act of 2006), in 2006 and 2007, conservation easement donors were able to deduct the value of their gift at the rate of 50% of their adjusted gross income (AGI) per year. Further, landowners with 50% or more of their income from agriculture were able to deduct the donation at a rate of 100% of their AGI. Any amount of the donation remaining after the first year could be carried forward for fifteen additional years (allowing a maximum of sixteen years within which the deduction may be utilized), or until the amount of the deduction has been used up, whichever comes first. With the passage of the Farm Bill in the summer of 2008 these expanded federal income tax incentives were extended such that they also apply to all conservation easements donated in 2008 and 2009 and then this provision was extended again to apply to donations in 2010 and 2011. The provision has since expired and currently for 2012, conservation easement donations may only be deducted at the rate of 30% of the donor's AGI and after the first year the donor has a five-year carryforward.

 

[Yoby]

thought I would throw this up in here since there was a side bar on the easement and how it may be determined Fed agencies control what you can and can't do.

[h=1]Bumble bee declared endangered[/h]By John Myers Today at 11:47 a.m.[FONT=&quot]









[/FONT]

Rusty patched bumble bee (Courtesy Smithsonian Institute)

The rusty patched bumble bee, a native of Minnesota and Wisconsin that was once common across the Midwest but which has declined rapidly in recent years, was officially declared endangered Tuesday by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

It’s the first species of native bee in the continental U.S. to be placed on the endangered species list.
The chubby bee with a rusty patch on its back once thrived in 28 states across the Upper Midwest and East Coast as well as large parts of Canada. But in the last two decades the bee has disappeared from nearly 90 percent of its historic range — seen in the last 15 years in only 13 states, including Minnesota and Wisconsin, and Ontario.
Most of the remaining populations are small and isolated, a problem that could speed the bee’s demise.
Experts believe the bee is falling prey to habitat loss, climate change, diseases and, especially, neonicotinoid pesticides — some of the same problems believed to be hurting butterfly populations.
Neonicotinoids are a group of insecticides used widely on farms and in urban landscapes for flowers and gardens. They are absorbed by plants and can be present in pollen and nectar, making them toxic to bees.
The decision to use the Endangered Species Act to try to recover the bee’s population comes after years of calls from conservation groups and scientists to protect the native species. Bumble bees are important pollinators for berries, vegetables, clover and native flowering plants. The value of wild bee pollination is estimated at $3 billion annually across the U.S., officials say.
“Our top priority is to act quickly to prevent extinction of the rusty patched bumble bee. Listing the bee as endangered will help us mobilize partners and focus resources on finding ways right now to stop the decline,’’ said Tom Melius, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest regional director.
The government’s moved to list the species as endangered is “the best and probably last hope for the recovery of the rusty patched bumble bee. Bumble bees are dying off, vanishing from our farms, gardens, and parks, where they were once found in great numbers,” said Rebecca Riley, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement.
The listing comes after the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation filed a petition to list the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species in 2013. Xerces and NRDC filed a lawsuit in 2014 challenging the government’s failure to act. The government settled the suit by agreeing in September to list the bee as endangered, action that became final Tuesday.
Rusty patched bumble bees occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies, many of which have been lost, degraded, or fragmented by conversion to other uses, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says. This bumble bee needs areas that provide food, nectar and pollen from flowers, as well as nesting sites (underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses above ground) and overwintering sites for hibernating queens, namely undisturbed soil.
The bee emerges in early spring and is one of the last bumble bee species to go into hibernation in the fall. Because it is active so long, it needs a constant supply of flowers blooming from April through September.
The federal government in September listed seven species of Hawaiian yellow-faced bees as endangered. These were the first bees in the United States listed under the ESA but are found only found in Hawaii and they are not bumble bees.
What you can do
To help the rusty patched bumble bee and other pollinators like butterflies and moths,
grow flowers, including flowering trees and shrubs — but make sure they do not contain neonicotinoid pesticides.
Have a mix with something in bloom from early spring through fall. Include native milkweeds for monarch butterflies.
Bumble bees and many other pollinators need a safe place to build their nests and overwinter. Leave some areas of your yard un-mowed in summer and un-raked in fall, in your garden and flower beds leave some standing plant stems in winter.
Provide a pesticide-free environment. You can report sightings of the rusty patch to bumblebeewatch.org.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 

[Duckslayer100]

thought I would throw this up in here since there was a side bar on the easement and how it may be determined Fed agencies control what you can and can't do.

Bumble bee declared endangered

This is going to be a NIGHTMARE for farmers, ranchers and landowners.

Just ask the folks in southern Oregon and Northern California that work the Klamath Basin what fun it is to make a living with endangered species in the mix.

I feel for you, GST.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I guess I haven't been paying attention if we have less bumble bees now than I was a kid. But I do see them. At my farm we don't use pesticides except for sunflowers. Bees love sunflowers. If there is a weevil infestation in the flowers they are sprayed by airplane.

Have a beekeeper with several colonies of "honey bees" on my property and we notify them if we have to spray. They say do it early in the morning. I mean these colonies are located right beside the sunflowers. Maybe what the crop sprayer is using isn't a neonicotinoid pesticide?

It doesn't seem to negatively impact the honey bees much but maybe bumblers are different.

 

[gst]

There are some legitimate concerns over the ability to maintain adequate pollinators in our environment, but this is an issue that I find amusement in from the typical environ.

The answer to decreasing pesticide usage increasing the resistance to pests damage in crops thru genetically modifying them which dramatically reduces the need for the pesticides that impact pollinators.

Yet these idealists living on fairy dust demand the end to genetic modification of crops.

So on one hand these environs want to ban pesticides, the other ban GMOS yet have no solution how to feed a global population of 9 billion in 30 years.

The problem here is these environs are infiltrating the Federal agencies that dictate and enforce these decrees.

Hopefully the next 4 years reverses that trend.

 

[KDM]

I really enjoy informing these panic mongers that bees aren't the only insect to pollinate plants. In fact, male mosquitoes pollinate a very significant portion of the small grain crops in this nation. Most of the flowers for these grasses are much too small for honey bee sized insects to effectively pollinate. They are important pollinators for just about every crop we grow in the US that uses flowers to reproduce. So if they really want to "Conserve" pollinators we need to stop every mosquito control effort currently in operation as they are eliminating millions of pollinators every summer. I usually get a stunned silence when I mention this little fact.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I don't like mosquito's, maybe it's the bloodthirsty female mosquito's I don't like?

 

[KDM]

I don't like mosquito's, maybe it's the bloodthirsty female mosquito's I don't like?

Those are the ones I don't like so why should you be any different??

 

[Fritz the Cat]

When a person disputes an easement with USFWS, it's his money against theirs. They have more. For instance, grandpa signed an easement back in 1965 and they drew a circle of ten acres in the middle of 160. Today's farming is way different and a landowner needs to have them mark it out or delineate. With GPS and/or today's technology it shouldn't be that hard. But then remember who you are working with.

In 2013 there was a House Bill 1399 introduced that would appropriate $350,000 to the ND Attorney General to sue the USFWS on your behalf.

13.0707.01000
Sixty-third
Legislative Assembly
of North Dakota
Introduced by
Representatives Headland, Belter, Brandenburg, Damschen
Senators Dotzenrod, Erbele, Wanzek
A BILL for an Act to require legal action by the attorney general against the United States fish
and wildlife service.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1.
Suit against United States fish and wildlife service.
The attorney general shall bring legal action against the United States fish and wildlife
service to have the United States fish and wildlife service delineate and properly describe every
wetland easement that has been acquired by the United States fish and wildlife service in this
state.

Maybe it was a little huff and puff. I attended the hearing and tempers flared. Even if this wasn't doable, obviously something needed to be done.

The above was deleted and the below is the outcome.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-2013/documents/13-0707-03000.pdf

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Subsection 2 of section 47-05-02.1 of the North Dakota
Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:
2. The duration of the easement, servitude, or nonappurtenant restriction on the use of
real property must be specifically set out, and in no case may the duration of any
interest in real property regulated by this section exceed ninety-nine years. The
duration of an easement for a waterfowl production area acquired by the federal
government, and consented to by the governor or the appropriate state agency after
July 1, 1985, may not exceed fifty years. A waterfowl production area easement that exceeds fifty years or which purports to be perpetual may be extended by negotiation between the owner and the easement and the owner of the serviant tenement. A waterfowl production area easement that exceeds fifty years or which purports to be permanent and is not extended by negotiation is void. The duration of a wetlands
reserve program easement acquired by the federal government pursuant to the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 after July 1, 1991, may not exceed
thirty years.

Page No. 1 13.0707.02001
ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL NO. 1399
FIRST ENGROSSMENT
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act becomes effective on June 30, 2017.

This law is going into effect June 30th, 2017. I'm not aware of any challenge to it. The underlined part is new legislation. It is my understanding if you purchase land with an easement signed before 1985, you are pretty much SOL. Easements signed between 1986 and 1991 have a fifty year life or 2036. Easements signed after 1991 are good for thirty years or 2021.

It'll be interesting. If you decide "not" to negotiate for more years of servitude, then what? Your money against the USFWS? Not if I'm reading this correctly. The ND Attorney Generals Office will get involved.

 

[gst]

Here is another example of what the Federal govt tries to do under the Endangered Species Act.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/court-decision-may-mean-california-owes-billions-in-water-rights/

Within hours of the release of a potentially adverse federal court decision in late December, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) extended by two months the open public comment period for consideration of its Bay-Delta Plan.
Elements of its plan include an uncompensated mandate to increase flows on several major California rivers by depriving long-established water-rights holders of access to their water. Now a federal court says the state must pay for water it takes, establishing a precedent that might lead to billions of dollars in unanticipated costs for the state.
U.S. Court of Claims Judge Marilyn Blank Horn’s decision in favor of an irrigation district opens the door for water-rights holders to sue California for compensation when the state takes water for environmental purposes.
The court order dealt with water from the Klamath River that the federal government held back from the suit’s plaintiff, an irrigation district that straddles the California-Oregon border. The feds took the water in 2001 in the name of protecting endangered species, including the Lost River sucker. The suit has slowly wended its way through the courts for 15 years.


Until Wednesday’s decision, the state has not paid compensation to those deprived of their water under various environmental laws and regulations that require transfers of water from rights holders to fish, animals, birds, habitat, recreation, Native American tribes and water-quality uses. Now an influential jurist says the state’s interpretation of its powers as so-called “regulatory takings” is incorrect.
Judge Blank Horn’s decision establishes a precedent that the takings of Klamath River water from California and Oregon farmers in 2001 were physical acts, not regulatory ones, making them subject to the Fifth Amendment’s unreasonable seizure clause and encumbering the government with the responsibility to pay owners for their losses when they deprive them of their property.
Horn noted that government officials used “physical means” to cut off the water to farms, triggering a “categorical duty” that the government compensate the holders of water rights that were infringed.
Since Governor Jerry Brown declared his drought emergency in January 2014, the SWRCB has acted with near impunity to take water by stripping water-rights holders of their water allocations and forcing water transfers without compensation. If Blank Horn’s court decision survives appeal, the state will be responsible for the cost of all waters that they redirected, an unpaid bill potentially totaling many billions of dollars.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/c...-owes-billions-in-water-rights/#ixzz4W4R0kVUk



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/c...-owes-billions-in-water-rights/#ixzz4W4QvRG5N

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Hey PrairieGhost,

do you live in District 12 or District 29? Take a look at what District 29 Senator is introducing:

https://www.legis.nd.gov/lcn/counci...?enhlcNumber=508ab0ee9a94f4f7e627188c9e120aca