Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping System

Another Wisconsin land sale

Make no mistake, the proposal is about selling state lands. Remember, selling public lands is a plank in the Nat'l Republican platform, and both bill sponsors are repubs. The scholarship fund is window dressing. Watch for similar shenanigans coming soon to a state legislation near you. When one of these strategies is gets passed as legislation, many other states will have the same proposal instantly.
 
So let me see if I can follow this. The land is already owned by the state. The state wants to sell the land to another state agency to pay for more scholarship money. So the DNR has money to burn. Doesnt really make a lot of sense other than the somebody is being taxed too much if a public entity is buying already public land.

On another note... http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/realestate/landsale.html Not sure if that one was brought up.
 
esracerx said:
So let me see if I can follow this. The land is already owned by the state. The state wants to sell the land to another state agency to pay for more scholarship money. So the DNR has money to burn. Doesnt really make a lot of sense other than the somebody is being taxed too much if a public entity is buying already public land.

On another note... http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/lands/realestate/landsale.html Not sure if that one was brought up.
Click to expand...


Yeah, am I following the same way you are? The state owns the land, they want the DNR to buy the land to fund scholarships at UW(no matter the students income).

I think there tends to be a knee jerk reaction sometime if the headline mentions land sale. Whether this is good for WI is debatable.
 
It's hard to see where this one is going. I had initially thought the DNR would be buying it to evenutally sell but after rereading it there is no mention to it.

It could be a way to wind down the land ownership aspect of the current commission that owns it. The hard part is that the state just mandated the DNR to sell off 10,000 acted of land but now wants to add acreage?
 
I think this is more a transference of money from one entity to the other. If the DNR just flat out gave money to the scholarship fund it may look bad. The land is just a means to show the DNR getting something for their money. Why not the DNR just set up a scholarship fund dedicated towards students going into the agriculture and wildlife side of things? I guess that would make too much sense.
 
Yep,no sense reading the article if you can just draw your own conclusion from a title
Remind me how much land has Trump sold so far??
 
Well I don't know much about this, but I'd rather the DNR purchase the land and keep it than the DNR set up scholarships and the land board sell the land to private ownership. That being said, I'm slightly concerned the DNR is dropping that much money on a land purchase (that's apparently not very useful?) when it can't afford to do many of the conservation activities it once did...
 
While this bill may seem fine at face value, it is a terrible idea. Why should one state agency pay another state agency for land that is already public? All this bill does is steal money from the Stewardship fund that would otherwise be used to add more new public land for people to recreate on.
 
This is a bad idea in terms of being able to add additional public land in the state of Wisconsin. This bill would force the Wisconsin DNR to use Stewardship funds (funds that are used in public land purchases, only so much money available each year) to "buy" land from the Board of Commissioners to fund scholarships for the UW system. Many of the Board of Trustee lands have been offered for sale in the private market, but did not sell either because of low value (all swamp) or because they are landlocked. Thus, this bill would force the DNR to spend money on low-value land that may not even have suitable public access. This would take away the money that is available to spend on "higher quality" acquisitions.

Here is a good write-up on the issue: http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/outdoors/2017/05/14/conservation-groups-oppose-plan-divert-stewardship-funds/317299001/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Where hunters and anglers (still) stand on public lands
Replies
1
Views
601
Oneye
O
Ben Lamb
Congress & Transfering Public Land
Replies
6
Views
2K
katqanna
K
Matt R
Response from Rep. Young (AK) regarding H.R. 3650
Replies
1
Views
2K
James Riley
J
Khunter
Trump JR woos Sportsmen, covets Interior Secretary job
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
dannyb278
dannyb278
E
forest-lands sale
Replies
0
Views
681
ELKCHSR
E
Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping Systems

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,050
Messages
1,945,001
Members
34,990
Latest member
hotdeals

Share this page

Back
Top