ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"This is certainly an exception rather then the rule. This was one of the few areas where the Game Commission owns the minerals."
And it doesnt take a large percentage ofthe vast acreage of gamelands in our state for a substantial penny to be made.
"The Game Commission can’t stop them from going in an taking their timber, their gas or their coal and they don’t have to pay the Game Commission anything to do so, other then sometimes they have to pay some surface damage if we do own the trees."
Its ashame ALL the gamelands werent that way. Then maybe pgc would worry less about timbermoney, more about habitat, andappropriate amounts of cutting would be done, and not solely dicatated by the timber market and the rediculous 1% goal.
Boy are you mixed up on that.
The Game Commission frequently goes in an cuts trees, including marketable timber, they have no intentions of selling just to create habitat for wildlife.
When we don’t own the timber we can’t do that and the ENTIRE cutting is market driven instead of having anything being cut to the benefit of the wildlife. When the Game Commission owns the timber it managed for wildlife, for both today and the future, with timber being marked and sold even when we don’t make as much money on it. That doesn’t happen when we don’t own the timber.
Where do you get these notions you come up with? Are they all just hate driven or can you possible explain where you get such ideas?
R.S. Bodenhorn