Screech- You are absolutely correct that land is being lost to the north and south of us, but those weren’t lands being addressed nor the point of the post.
The lands you mention are state lands, or at least the Minnehaha Land. More on that in a second.
The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge is in a very precarious situation in terms of it’s future and why it was created in the first place.
The proposed refuge boundary was full of willing sellers when the refuge was created. Those people wanted the land to go to the refuge. The sellers include private landowners as well as mining companies. All of these people have been waiting for 15 years or more but funding was never made available. Now these people are no longer willing to wait and are no selling off to other private interests. These people have no intention to re-sell the ground to the refuge. They are becoming home sites and private playgrounds.
Politics plays a heavy role in refuge funding. Congressmen have to ask for it. These are not special earmarks. Our Congressman prior to Elsworth refused to request funding for 12 years.
Go to Snakey Point Marsh someday and enjoy view. Just remember, in a couple of year’s time the large grassland area on the other side may not look the same.
As far as Minnehaha and the state of Indiana. Much is going on at Bluegrass and Interlake. The state could only buy what they could afford to buy.
Minnehaha has always been a land lease deal. the cost was $99 for 8,000 acres. A purchase deal was close two years ago but at the final hour, the coal company wanted to retain surface rights on all 8,000 acres so they could mine as they move a giant dragline from north of Minne to south of Minne. That was simply a bad land deal and luckily the DNR realized (besides losing grant money for the purchase). So the state continues the lease agreement but the cost is now more like $80,0000 a year for 8,000 acres. The state simply will not be able to sustain that for long unless the coal company changes their request. Why should they? They know private interests will step in as buyers, they’ve already sold off several perimeter tracts.
Note, money to pay the lease has to come from operational budgets and not federal reimbursements and grants.
Now, I’m a bird watcher. But I’m also a hunter. The biggest difference between a hunter and birdwatcher when it comes to fish and wildife areas…and only fish and wildlife areas, is that I helped pay for these, you did not.
Don’t take that the wrong way. It’s a system thing.
Lands within the Division of Fish and Wildlife are paid for by the sale of licenses and the excise taxes we pay on hunting and fishing equipment that comes back to the state based n the number of licenses sold.
There have been attempts to create a mandatory land usage stamp for those who do not purchase licenses. The money would be dedicated to land acquisition. Current debate would make this voluntary. A big help that would be.
A few years ago, the DNR reached out to non -hunters and non-fishermen to buy licenses just to get the license on the books so federal reimbursemnts would increase. A few actually bought one.
On this front, all I can say is when a non-hunter enjoys a fish and wildlife area, please do so with gratification of the hunter.
You’d be surprised at the number of people who simply do not realize how the system works.
But in the end, when it comes to Patoka Refuge, it doesn’t matter whether you have a license or not. What matters is to use your voice to support the refuge and demand it be funded. It’s waited far long and opportunities are being lost.
Login
Search 
Forums
Topic RSS 
