The Outdoors

By Scott Rall, Outdoors Columnist

Who doesn’t like gifts? I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t like to receive things of value. Some are small and have less meaning and others might fall under a substantial inheritance. The gift giver makes a determination that the asset is better off in the hands of someone else.

The Minnesota state legislature seems to really enjoy giving gifts of great value.  The issue is that the gifts they are giving belong to you and me. It was in February of 2023 that the politicians and the governor of our great state closed the Upper Sioux Agency State Park and transferred the property to the Upper Sioux Community for zero dollars in return. Tribal Chairman Jensvold had been asking for the return of the land for nearly 20 years. He approached local legislatures about sponsoring a bill to do so, citing the cultural significance of the land in the U.S. Dakota War of 1862, and the many Dakota relatives that were buried there. His requests were largely ignored. However, nearly everyone was caught off guard, including the Department of Natural Resources, when a metro legislator from another party, sponsored a bill to transfer the park. Only after the bill was submitted, did the DNR have an opportunity to seek input from the public on replacement recreation for the park. And local legislators were nowhere to be seen during this process.  If you remember back the Governorship and both houses of the legislature were all in the hands of one political party.

Not long after, 2024 there were two more bills introduced to transfer 84,000 acres of the Red Lake State Forest and another 92,000 acres of White Earth State Forest back to the tribal communities in those areas. These transfers are more troubling. There are some reasons those bills did not get serious traction last year but they are on the docket again this session. When the legislature gave the Upper Sioux Agency State Park back to the Dakota Community there was some documented historical significance of that particular spot to that community.

This does not equate to all of the other acres of state forests or state parks having the same well documented historical significance. The other case for concern for me was the complete lack of discussion legislators had with the general public prior to them introducing the bill to transfer the park. Those legislators were also not part of the countless meetings the DNR had with the public after the bill had been passed. It was pretty much all settled and done before most state citizens even became aware it was happening.

Transferring a small state park is a big thing but transferring 176,000 acres needs even more vetting. All that is required on the legislative front to give away state property that each Minnesotans own is a simple majority in each body and a governor who supports it. There are tons of other behind the scenes issues but they take place out of the public eye. Representative Matt Bliss has authored a Minnesota constitutional amendment that would require a 3/5th super majority in both the House and the Senate to transfer any state lands in excess of 640 acres at below market value. The DNR is also implementing a process to evaluate tribal land requests on the front end when state land is involved.

This would require more information and more interaction by the citizens before these landscape altering transfers could happen. It would certainly require a greater level if bi-partisan cooperation and the active engagement of more Minnesota citizens.  It in no way prohibits them from happening, it just requires a larger percentage of support. I certainly don’t think this would be a bad idea.

The Red Lake State Forest transfer would affect hundreds of private homes and the entire community of Waskish, Minnesota. It would also give all public lake access to Upper Red Lake, one of Minnesota’s premier fishing locations to the tribes. I have fished this lake with my son for over 20 years. Would I be able to continue that tradition?

Anyone can say whatever they want but, in the end, these are some pretty big questions without any solid answers. I tend to live in the land of trust but verify. Imagine the questions of those who own property within the boundaries of these proposed transfers might have.

Minnesota has some of the richest natural resources in the nation and are a substantial positive element of our quality of life. I would need substantially more information and persuasion for me to get behind these kinds of asset transfers for no offsetting remunerations.

Take a minute and look up HF-77 and SF 436 and read the language in these two bills. Be informed and support whatever side of this issue you might come down on. But be informed.

I live in a county where less than 2-3 percent of the land is open to the public. Every acre of those lands is a gem to me. I would not be willing to sacrifice even one of those acres. I say this not just for me but for every person who might come after me who also deserves a place to go out and enjoy the natural world. Maybe like my grandkids for example. Just because these proposed transfers are not in your backyard is no reason to sit on your hands. Public resources should stay public and be added to when it makes sense.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you have any questions, reach out to me at scottarall@gmail.com.