School Trust lands Section 16 and 36 endangered from hunter use?

[laker1]

One of the most used land by hunters and outdoors people and used as a multi use area for loggers and all sportsmen has been managed very well by the DNR. The move would put outdoor activity and good conservation practice at the back of the pack. I use and many of you also use these lands extensively

Battle is on over 2.5 million acres of school trust land in northern Minnesota

Natural vs. economic resources is at the center of the debate over control of Minnesota's 150-year-old school trust land.

It’s more land than Yellowstone National Park, if you add up all the acres, and it stretches across northern Minnesota. Yet many Minnesotans have never heard of it.

It’s called school trust land — about 2.5 million acres of mostly forest and swamp in square-mile plots spread across more than 20 counties.

The federal government gave the land to the state more than 150 years ago to raise money for an education trust fund. That fund has grown over the years, both as land is sold and as the state earns money from mining, logging and other activities on trust land.

But some say it’s not building up fast enough. And this week a battle is heating up at the Capitol in St. Paul with new legislation introduced that would strip control of the school land from the Department of Natural Resources and give it to a trust manager housed in another state agency — a move supporters say would reduce overhead costs and shift focus away from natural resource protection and toward maximizing revenue for schools.

The bill passed its first committee Tuesday.

“I don’t want to criticize the DNR, but they have an inherent conflict of interest with trust lands,” state Rep. Denise Dittrich, R-Champlin, said. “The DNR’s mission is about conservation and preservation and maximizing recreation … and what the trustee should be doing is looking only at maximizing return. We need someone in charge with an undivided loyalty to the trust.”

From the outdoors person point of view we should be very alarmed. This is the only land that is now well managed that some people have to experience outdoor use.

[Powerstroke]

How is this land any better managed than the other million acres of state land?

I do feel that the state has a valid point. The point of the land is to generate income, with recreational use as a secondary benefit.

The changes won't eliminate use by sportsman.

[rogrod]

The changes won't eliminate use by sportsman.

It will if the change it to start leasing those lands.

[laker1]

Look also at a plat book where much of Minnesota undeveloped shoreline on lakes and good waterfowl areas exist. They might start leasing for cabins on these etc. As mentioned maybe they will go the way of paper companies and if you have $10,000 of dollars you can lease it out. Environment,hunting etc. could be taking a back seat.

It would be run by a commission appointed at will by politicians. A lot of unknown exists here and subject to change with each election. I have no problem with them discussing on reviewing existing management and consequence,but that really has not been done.

[memyself@I]

This is a huge issue that will affect all outdoor recreationists who use Trust Lands. Regrettably this will push instant gratification of coffers and that means the lands with best access and higher ground. If you think about 16 and 36 in EVERY township in MN originally, just imagine that habitat heritage we'd have, and not only that, the ability to sustain revenue and habitat. But what happened?? It was sold and gone forever. Once its gone, its gone. Its easy to say its not generating enough revenue for the trust, its a lot more difficult to do the right thing.

Denny Heckers place on Crosslake, S 36 land. Along with the rest of that lakeshore. Just one example of whats been lost and a one time payout to the trust.

If you don't think this will affect you, think again

[mallardnwalleye]

Sounds like some big money must have some interest in acquiring or leasing the school land.

To think a politician would suddenly decide that the state could make more money if we put the land under a different administering body is naive at best. It would cost a lot more just to start and run a seperate department.

Something smells rotten here.

[laker1]

Proposals today to change who manages it,charging hunters $10 to $20(If it stayed under DNR management I would not have a problem of buying a $10 sticker if that is where the changes end) to use school fund land or whatever the market would bear and to sell or do whatever will raise more money. Sports people were mentioned as using the land,and the original intent as legislatures said was not to manage it for whats best for wildlife or the environment(as we are doing at present and doing a good job of and also raising funds for schools at practically no cost to them),but what is best for schools. Better wake up and start contacting legislatures etc..

[DanH]

Better wake up and start contacting legislatures etc..

+1

H.F. 2164 is in the house now.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2164.1.html&session=ls87

From that liberal group of anti's over at TU:

* rolls back laws that protect clean water by reducing oversight of water quality permits

* weakens wetland protections

* exempts factory farms from air pollution permits

* weakens water conservation laws

* exchanges 100% of school trust lands in the BWCA with federal lands outside the BWCA (against the advice of the Permanent School Trust Advisory Committee)

* changes the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens’ Board, thereby weakening environmental review and public input to decision makers.

Good Luck,

[laker1]

Well I see the house passed legislation to create a board to take control over a million plus acres with the potential to sell much of it or lease to the highest bidder.

To many of us that will mean less places to hunt or selling of our last undeveloped shoreline on many lakes. In many counties this land makes up much of the total land that is undeveloped and open to recreation.

I hate to say it,but outdoors people only gripe after the fact. They just do not want to get involved.But yet we,yes all of us will complain about the DNR not doing something when they have no control over it. We do.

The Senate still has not voted and the bill is a little more friendly to sportsmen. Get involved.

[DanH]

The net-net of this bill (now signed by Dayton) is that it favors business intersts over hunting/fishing and conservation of public land. This is an especially big win for the sulfide mining industry and their lobgying group Mining Minnesota. This bill is the first step towards enabling School Trust Lands (80K+ acres) in the BWCA to be traded for SNF land and then mined without having to adhere to federal standards.

Good luck,

[bottomdweller]

This is just the beginning.

Our govt has overspent and overspent, now they are looking for ways to come up with some money before taking it out on us some more.

Get used to it............

Im afraid its just the start of alot of conservation going to go down the toilet

[lichen fox]

This is not about taking away hunting opportunitys...School trust land was not originaly intended for "outdoor recreation" it was created to help the schools of our state gain income to pay for the education of the children...this bill is good...it's about taking 2.5 million acres out of the direct control of the DNR commissioner and getting the school trust land money away from the DNR and into the school trust fund. This change will result in several million dollars not going to the DNR general fund and will not allow them to charge 134 FTE's against the school trust lands as well as a $2M charge to the trust lands by the DNR to fight fires.

The DNR was "charging" our school districts exorborant amounts every year to manage this land...That is money that could have been sent to the schools of Mn...All we can hope for is that the "new" managment makes money off this land and that, that money goes directly to our schools so we are not faced with school referendums to raise money in our districts every other year!

[memyself@I]

You can say that its not about taking away outdoor opportunities--You are flat out wrong on this, lichen. Tell me how best to generate money from the best of these lands? Leases and sales. Do you know how much habitat and opportunity has been lost in the Southern half of MN. It was sold decades ago for "instant gratification" and went to the school districts. Can you say ditching, drain tile, and farmed??????

Lets take a look at Potlatch corporation, for those that think private businesses can do no wrong. Potlatch (Northwest Paper) was given or sold tax forfeited lands by the counties back in the 50s and 60s. And when I say sold, think about $2.00 per acre prices. Potlatch used to be the largest private forest landowner in MN, not so anymore. Its been selling and leasing its lands, and what used to be open to all of us will be open to fewer people. More pressure on state and county land. Potlatch sold a large acreage in Western Cass and Wadena county recently, and its being cleared and grubbed as I write this. It was reforested cutover land and will soon be farmed.

If anyone thinks for a minute that the push for these things to happen on state trust fund lands, think again. And its lawmakers from the range to the metro to the ag areas that will gleefully cave, because they don't have the brains to look at raising revenue elsewhere. No new taxes? You get what you don't pay for.

All I can say to the legislature and misguided supporters of this legislation is thanks for taking away more of our natural world and its opportunities. It didn't take any particular skill in passing this junk.

[laker1]

Forestry was charging a very low rate to manage the land,like 6 to 8% of the money coming in. Their expenses were far greater than they charged. They did inventory,worked with loggers etc. at a very low fee. Look at any school section land and the majority is in bamboo size aspen because of trying to produce revenue. We can go to a 35 to 40 year cycle on cutting of smaller timber,but your out put is going to be around 25% more only and may have to sell the timber for less per cord.

If schools could become 1% more efficient you would raise more than you do from this land.

Also remember I as a tax payer understand and am willing to pay school taxes to send kids thru school,even tho I have no kids. But if you start selling off this land,why should we lose this great natural resource ,maybe the school system owes us something.

Also a side note,when school trust land was formed it was suppose to be under control of each individual township for revenue. Maybe that was suppose to be their only source of revenue.

[memyself@I]

Hey Laker 1

Are you one of the few, the chosen, the brave................you seem to know a lot about the trust lands, which makes me think we have similar backgrounds.

Forall.....................

[lichen fox]

It's a done deal...like I said, all we can "hope" for is that the "New" managers will get the income from logging, mining, whatever they can produce on these lands now and in the future....Into the School Trust coffers and not have it tied up and spent on things is was not meant for...I really don't think it will change much on what types of income are derived from the trust lands...it will only put that money in the school trust and not in the DNR general fund...And I really don't see them outlawing hunting, hiking, birdwatching, berry picking or anything else you can currently do on these lands...it's still public land...the only thing changing is they are getting the dollars generated back to the schools..."the original" intended recipients...

[DanH]

The biggest beneficiary of this change is the sulfide mining industry. Chip Cravaack, a liberal proponent of sulfide mining in Minnesota has proposed H.R. 4455 (in hearing today) to expedite opening 86,000+ acres of land in the Superior NTL Forest for sulfide mining by swapping out school trust land in the BWCA for SNF land.

The net-net is that Cravaack’s H.R. 4455 seeks to enable the sulfide mining industry to mine PUBLIC LAND with as little environmental regulation and citizen input as possible. SNF land has much stricter environmental protection than school trust land. Sulfide mining is a form of mining that has a legacy of acid mine drainage, bankrupt companies, and superfund sites.

If sulfide mining is as safe as the mining industry says it is, there should be no problem adhering to the more rigorous environmental protection that applies to Superior National Forest Land.

The solution here is to do a buy-out. Not a swap. A buyout will fund the School Trust, make the BWCA whole, and preserve the integrity of the recreational and tourism value of the Superior National Forest.

Good Luck

[laker1]

I have seen a lot of copper mines out west,I have never seen a clean copper mine.There has been various bills already introduced to reduce environmental regulations on this area. What happens when they start and hire a few people than they say well if you don't do away with certain regulations will leave. They will get what they want.

The one watershed drains into White Iron-Basswoodlake and all the way to Hudson bay. These waters have a low alkalinity level at present thus little buffer from pollution like from Sulfate. The DNR was worried about this in the 70's.

[eyebenband]

MADISON, Wis. -- The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is asking the state Department of Justice to prosecute two silica sand mining companies for pollution violations.

DNR spokesman Ed Culhane says they are the first two cases the agency has referred to the DOJ since the so-called frac sand mining boom started in the state.

The DNR alleges Preferred Sands of Minnesota failed to have a storm water pollution prevention plan in place when a dike embankment collapsed at a Trempealeau County mine. The March 3 collapse sent more than 2,100 feet of river mud into privately-owned land.

The DNR is also recommending Interstate Energy Partners and Tiller Corp. be prosecuted for failing to maintain dikes and berms around a Burnett County mine where muddy water flowed into a creek entering the St. Croix River.

[Tom7227]

To understand what the legislature did requires that you check and see what the changes were in the group that controls what happens with the land. I have included a link that gives access to the bill that was passed and made the changes. I have tried to include a copy of part of the bill but I'm not sure how well it will show up here. Italics is old language that has been removed.

I note that in the past the control was in a committee that required a broad range of subject expertise in non-elected persons. Now the committee is 6 members of the Senate and 6 members of the House with each party have equal representation.

I fail to see how this change in committee composition can be seen as an improvement. The bill makes other changes in the way things happen and those changes can be seen as positive or negative based on individual perspective.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=ccrhf2244B.html&session=ls87

5.26 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 127A.30, is amended to read:

5.27127A.30 LEGISLATIVE PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND ADVISORY

5.28COMMITTEE COMMISSION.

5.29 Subdivision 1. Commission established; membership. A state (a) The Legislative

5.30Permanent School Fund Advisory Committee Commission of 12 members is established

5.31to advise the Department of Natural Resources and the school trust lands director on the

5.32management of permanent school fund land, which is held in trust for the school districts

5.33of the state and to review legislation affecting permanent school fund land. The advisory

5.34committee must consist commission consists of the following persons or their designees:

6.1the chairs of the education committees of the legislature, the chairs of the legislative

6.2committees with jurisdiction over the K-12 education budget, the chairs of the legislative

6.3committees with jurisdiction over the environment and natural resources policy and budget,

6.4the chair of the senate Committee on Finance and the chair of the house of representatives

6.5Committee on Ways and Means, the commissioner of education, one superintendent

6.6from a nonmetropolitan district, one superintendent from a metropolitan area district, one

6.7person with an expertise in forestry, one person with an expertise in minerals and mining,

6.8one person with an expertise in real estate development, one person with an expertise

6.9in renewable energy, one person with an expertise in finance and land management,

6.10and one person with an expertise in natural resource conservation. The school district

6.11superintendents shall be appointed by the commissioner of education. The committee

6.12members with areas of expertise in forestry, minerals and mining, real estate development,

6.13renewable energy, finance and land management, and natural resource conservation shall

6.14be appointed by the commissioner of natural resources. Members of the legislature shall

6.15be given the opportunity to recommend candidates for vacancies on the committee to the

6.16commissioners of education and natural resources. The advisory committee must also

6.17include a nonvoting member appointed by the commissioner of natural resources. The

6.18commissioner of natural resources shall provide administrative support to the committee.

6.19The members of the committee shall serve without compensation. The members of the

6.20Permanent School Fund Advisory Committee shall elect their chair and are bound by the

6.21provisions of sections 43A.38 and 116P.09, subdivision 6.

6.22(1) six members of the senate, including three majority party members appointed by

6.23the majority leader and three minority party members appointed by the minority leader; and

6.24(2) six members of the house of representatives, including three majority party

6.25members appointed by the speaker of the house and three minority party members

6.26appointed by the minority leader.

6.27( Appointed legislative members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority

6.28and continue to serve until their successors are appointed.

6.29© The first meeting of the commission shall be convened by the chair of the

6.30Legislative Coordinating Commission. Members shall elect a chair, vice-chair, secretary,

6.31and other officers as determined by the commission. The chair may convene meetings as

6.32necessary to conduct the duties prescribed by this section.

[laker1]

TOM 7227:

I note that in the past the control was in a committee that required a broad range of subject expertise in non-elected persons. Now the committee is 6 members of the Senate and 6 members of the House with each party have equal representation.

I fail to see how this change in committee composition can be seen as an improvement. The bill makes other changes in the way things happen and those changes can be seen as positive or negative based on individual perspective.

Its called politics and it goes to the highest bidder.