Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Retired Educator" data-source="post: 147268" data-attributes="member: 3373">Funds for conservation doesn't bother me. I don't pretend to know what everybody is thinking but had a sense in the last initiated measure that most people thought that DU was going to use the funds to purchase land. May or not have been the case but perception drives a lot of discussion.For me, DU original goal was preserving wetlands without actually owning any land. Again, for me, that is a big difference. If an individual wants to sign an easement with DU without a change in ownership that allows the owner to continue normal farm/ranch uses and the land remains on the tax roles, that would be more acceptable to most people. Whether it was true or not I have no proof but that seemed to be one of the major issues with said initiated measure. Have no idea if what I just wrote makes sense but for me, DU wanted way to much money for plans that neither sportsman nor landowners supported.  Back to my original thinking that how did an issue that neither sportsman or landowners support, become a reason that is now dividing both groups? Perhaps it's a case of those who post their land would like to not have to do that and achieve the same result and think that would benefit all other landowners as well. I don't have an answer other than I prefer to not change our current laws.</blockquote>