North Dakota public land transfer

bstrasheim55

bstrasheim55

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
22
Location
North Dakota
Senator John Hoeven has secured a commitment from Secretary Zinke's advisor to advance a bill that would transfer public land to the state around Jamestown Reservoir. His goal is for these lands to be sold as residential lots. According to him this has statewide support, even from North Dakota Game and Fish.

Please, send him an email if you get the chance!



https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/news/news-releases/hoeven-secures-commitment-from-interior-official-to-help-advance-jamestown-reservoir-legislation
 
Amazing since I just heard Zinke on the radio this morning state that no Public lands were for sale...I guess he must have meant no public lands are for sale except the public lands that he is selling...He is a flat liar as far as I'm concerned. Then people like Sytes wonders why Zinke is doubted. Actions speak much louder than his words.
 
As I am unfamiliar with the Jamestown reservoir, What is this land currently like? Grass? Trees, hold deer, pheasants etc?
 
This is similar to what happened at Canyon Ferry Reservoir in Montana, circa 1998. More details at this link - http://www.mtconservationtrust.org/

Summary:

Once adequate public boat ramps and beaches were secure and protected, the BLM and BOR sold some of the land that previously was leased to cabin owners. They were allowed to by their lots and thus the land went from public to private. A lot of public land was retained around CF Reservoir.

The proceeds were deposited to the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Trust. The earnings on this Trust have been used to help with some very critical acquisitions.

I was a skeptic at the time it was introduced, then swayed to not oppose the idea. With 20 years to look in the rear view mirror, I think it was a great solution, especially given it allowed for a lot of the public land to be retained and only sold the existing cabin lots.

Not sure if something similar is being proposed with Jamestown. Maybe there are no leased cabin lots. If there are leased cabin lots, and enough public access to the lake was maintained, and if you have a high water mark access law like MT, an arrangement like this might be something to consider. The proceeds might be leveraged to increase net access over time.

If it is just a sell out of existing access to private parties, with the proceeds going to DC, fight it.
 
Thanks for the example Fin. It doesn't say where the money is going. Looks like all of the federal land around the reservoir is being transferred to the state (parks, boat ramps, etc.), with control of the dam and waterway staying with the feds. I did write him with a recommendation to be smart with the money if it ends up being transferred, but made sure to note that the big picture land transfers aren't in the best interest of his constituents.
 
Dieseldog said:
As I am unfamiliar with the Jamestown reservoir, What is this land currently like? Grass? Trees, hold deer, pheasants etc?
Click to expand...

I grew up in Jamestown and graduated from HS/College there and have spent a lot of time on that reservoir. Trees-no. Deer-not too many. Pheasants-essentially none. Pipestem reservoir to the west a few miles has much more game but still not anywhere close to the hunting closer to crop land. The only thing ND has going for it is an easement along every section line allowing the public to travel.
 
It's too bad they couldn't have gone about this right. They did something similar with Fort Peck about 5 years ago with the CMR Enhancement Act. They sold the cabin sites around the Reservoir and then used those funds to purchase inholdings within the CMR in other areas. I wish they could have gotten the second part right.
 
Schaaf said:
It's too bad they couldn't have gone about this right. They did something similar with Fort Peck about 5 years ago with the CMR Enhancement Act. They sold the cabin sites around the Reservoir and then used those funds to purchase inholdings within the CMR in other areas. I wish they could have gotten the second part right.
Click to expand...

This is my biggest complaint as well. We are working hard to get our BHA chapter up and running and hopefully be more efficient in responding to issues like this in the future.
 
Lived in Jamestown my whole life. I do not own lake property but from my understanding of the situation is the cabins that are on it are on Army corp land. So people do not actually own the property their cabins are sitting on. The west side of the lake is allowed to have docks on the shores while most of the east side is not able to do so. I do not see a problem with this, There is some decent deer hunting north of most of the cabins but I do not think this will harm that. I think the intent of this is what Fin was saying giving the cabin owners actual ownership over their property rather than a lease.

I for one will not fight this certain battle. If they start selling the land around the Pipestem then that is a different story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
PRIDE Month Celebtrations at Public Land Management Agencies
6 7 8
Replies
144
Views
9K
Harold357
H
Pucky Freak
American Wildlife and Public Lands Legacy Act
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
woods89
woods89
Pucky Freak
Iowa legislative assault on public land and wildlife
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
Gellar
G
SD_Prairie_Goat
Hawaiian Electric Utility, operation changes due to lawsuit? Domino Effect?
Replies
17
Views
1K
hank4elk
H
elkduds
CPW Roundtable official summary for 7/22/23 meeting
Replies
9
Views
887
CptCasual
C

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,034
Messages
1,944,414
Members
34,974
Latest member
ram0307

Share this page

Back
Top