No Net Gain-A Different Perspecitve

[PostFrontal]

I've heard all perspecitves for each side. The hard part of it, I feel, is that they are all legitimate arguments on all sides. Noone is completely right or wrong which makes it complicated.

I would think that most would agree that we need public land and at the same time most hunters would love to own their own land if they could.

If we looked at it from a purely basic economic perspecitve of supply and demand, say that the Federal and State governments didn't own the millions of acres of land they do right now. All that land is private, and is available to us to buy. What would it do to prices of land per acre, and our dream of owning our own property if these millions of acres were availilable?

At the same time, I would think most would agree that not everyone would still be in the position to buy, and some still wouldn't want to. So we do need public land. But how much is enough? Do we have enough? What is the exact number of acres that needs to be public for those on that side to say that it is enough? What research have the people who are for No Net Gain done to know whe have enough, and to ensure that those that don't have access to private land still have enough access to enjoy our outdoors as those that can afford their own land? Is there too much public land in one area and not enough in others? I would think if we could figure out how much land needs to be public for access, habitat, how much the DNR can legitimately manage it would be a good starting point.

I personally feel there is an amount that is too much for the government to own, while at the same time, I feel we need enough public land for the public to enjoy and access.

If No Net Gain does pass, I would like to see that when the state goes to sell the land, they put a conservation easement on it, put it in RIM, CREP, and if need be easements for access to other properties. Then those proceeds could only be used for purchase of new properties in target areas that don't have alot of public land.

Just a thought.

[B. Amish]

a lot of the public land up north was private once. they tried to drain it, it didn't work, the went bankrupt and the gov't bailed them out.

[Tom7227]

Is the price of recreational land driven only by supply and demand or is it tied to other factors?

It seems to me that if the land has any ag potential the value is going to flow with commodity prices. Of course the productivity would have to be figured in but I suspect it is the main driver. If the land has any logging potential then I would think the same thing applies.

It seems obvious that pure recreational land isn't selling right now driven by the economy. So doesn't it make sense that if land is going to be purchased by the state then now is the time to do it, at least for the very marginal lands? Ag land prices are going to do what they do and as long as ethanol has the value it has now I don't see how those prices are going to go down dramatically.

The original post seems to me to focus on what I will cal current active use by humans. I think a things that should be considered is the passive value such as the effect the area has on water - surface and subsurface. I don't know if that figures into the purchase decision but it is something that is important.

There was a story in the Tribune yesterday about the incredible amounts of assets that are going to be transferred over the next 20 years. http://www.startribune.com/local/116010849.html As this process occurs there is going to be a lot of land going onto the sales block. It seems fair to expect that a lot of out-state MN is going to see a lot of this and if supply and demand controls then the prices are going to plummet. Shouldn't it be the same for purely recreational land as us FOWGs age out? The experts want us to believe that no one under the age of 40 wants to spend time outdoors so they're not going to want it are they?

Maybe the smartest thing a rec land owner could do would be to run high speed internet out to the shack and set up wi-fi coverage on all the deer stands.

Finally - IMO no net loss is a foolish position to take given the Legacy money availability. I agree that it has to be managed properly, but there should be plenty of money around for that now.