That’s what the deal is about. That’s the first thing that I thought of. The state keeps the same trust acres and now can access minerals= more state money for the coffers. Normally I’d agree that’s a good thing but given the track record of them fucking away our money while our costs keep rising….. I’m gunna have to go with the no more allowance until you prove you can spend it wisely theme here.
Of course the tribes win the most. They get free land. The state keeps the same “acres” only now gets better mineral producing acres instead of landlocked acres on the Rez. You know who gets fucked the most? The average taxpayer outdoor enthusiast. I’m all for this trade if a the acres of public land stay the same as before and the new “state” land is managed for multi use or with wildlife a predominant management priority.
Or worse… they pull out the subsistence/commercial netting bullshit and wipe the lake out completely. I would hope and pray they embrace and realize the sustainability of the entertainment/lodging/recreation aspect of the lake which it seems they are pointing that direction now. I would hope to god they aren’t that dumb to think they could commercially net it
Yea i know of the are lost bridge area . That has to be a bill that nodak ers know about so how can we get that thing up front on the forum. The area is great for hunting if they are tring to keep it from the taxpayers im in on hunting rights bill.
Yeah man when is this bill bieng published the area is a great place to hunt also van hook gma an all the corps of engineering and lets keep it state.also does this take all state game management areas down on the reservation.
How can we fight this i hope armstrong is against this bill
It’s only state trust land on the Rez. Not wmas. School trust land from my understanding.
Bro that sounds terrible. Call me i have a now 7706939
Haha wtf bitch I don’t know you
How can we stop this bill that area around litlle missouri badlands is not good for hunting
Oh hey u a bitch if u scared to talk to a good man.Haha wtf bitch I don’t know you
That is a joke bro i am the best dude u will ever talk to try it.Haha wtf bitch I don’t know you
The reason i care is that land is or has been an area that is close to home i know it dosnt matter. white people will still hunt it but dont come an anexx it that is crap. Just as the electronic postong bill.
Brock sw have seen u on forums hunt talk i know where u hunt but lets try to inform people about these bills (baker is a good town) i used to drive out that it blew my mind how few mulies on that gumbo i saw more coyote than mules once saw a coyote Broad daylight tring to eat a mule fawn an the doe was agressive running it off. Thought to kill that big dog wanting to eat that mule deer. Also had an asshole charge me with hunting on posted land in north dakota cerkony in billings that is bullshit.H.R. 2405/ S.1088
Currently, there is approximately 37,000 acres of surface Trust lands within reservations. Most of which are in the standing rock reservation. If this bill passes those acres would then belong to the tribe. The state would then get to pick from another approx 180,000 acres of mineral acres from the BLM that would be transferred to the state.
This transfer would happen no public involvement, no public comment, and could result in a huge loss of public land acres in western ND.
It’s important to note that it’s not a guarantee this bill results in a negative impact to public land holdings. But again, it could result in a significant loss of public land depending one the details of the transfer.
North Dakota BHA wants transparency in this process. We may not oppose certain transfers if it’s a fair deal for the public hunters. But we want to know which acres of surface and mineral are being targeted, and why the Tribe is not being asked to trade 10,000 acres they’ve purchased outside of the fort berthold on the SW corner of the reservation. See below.
Red line is approx reservation boundary
With any public land transfer the public should be able to participate in the process and comment on which lands they are ok with transferring and which they are not.
Instead, our federal delegation will not respond to any requests about transparency and will not give any information as to which acres (surface or mineral) are being targeted.
The trust lands department has already sold off over 70% of the lands granted at statehood through the enabling act. And there is nothing that would prevent them from trading lands and then turning around selling them off.
I will update when I know more. For now, we are opposing this bill due to a lack of transparency. We do not support open ended land transfers that could result in the loss of 10s of thousand of acres of public land, public access, and public hunting opportunities.
