A unique website dedicated to fishing information from Florida's Northern Big Bend. This includes the area from the Econfina River west to the Apalachicola River
I don't know enough about this sale to know if it is a reasonable...
But in general selling land that is part of a watershed of a major local lake does not sound like a good thing.
I think it is perfectly reasonable that the state is looking to sell the tract. I also think an NGO is perfectly capable, if not more so than the govt., in managing a tract like this. There are more than enough State and Fed environmental regs to limit any potential damage to a watershed, plus the property will be sold subject to an easement which will further limit it's use as anything other than what it is presently being used for: a nearly inaccessible swamp that would cost the state a fortune to properly maintain it's boundaries, much less make it safe for the use of the general public.
My view of the opposition to the sale is that it is coming from a small core of people that have had the run of the place for decades, if not generations, and they don't want there free hunting land to be sold off. A typical " Not in my back yard" argument. It would be interesting to see how many of the folks crying foul over the potential loss of their hunting land are card toting conservatives that moan and groan about how much the govt pi$$es away giving out freebees to those other folks.
Sell it all and let the private sector manage it.
Gotcha!
That sure didn't take very long, and I got called a moron on the first reply...awesome. It usually takes at least two or three more post before the last resort of adolescent name calling comes in to play, Bravo Fish! And it's Barhopr, look it up son, Ive been here for quite some time. As for your conservatism comment; why am I being adverse to conservatism by calling out those I see as posers. You must have been blinded by rage and not seen the last sentence of the post. Sell it all and let the private sector manage it.
I tend to be very conservative on most issues. That being said, one of the best uses of government is the concept of public lands. Here is a large tract of land (including wet lands) owned by the State of Florida that has very little potential to generate revenue. One condition of the sale is for a conservation easement, which further limits its value. So why sell it. I am all for smaller, leaner and smarter government entities but IMHO this doesn't fit that profile. Why dump an asset like 3700 contiguous acres in the 3rd or 4th most populous state. Once its gone, we will never get it back.
Wally:
The idea of public use lands is IMO a good idea but, it should have limits. I can understand a tract that is geologically rare or environmentally special but every 4000 ac swamp in the state of Florida is neither rare or particularly special. For that reason and the reason you pointed out (that there is very little potential to generate revenue) is why I think the state has no business holding that land. That property is nothing but an expense to the people of Florida as a whole. If it goes back to the private sector ( lets not forget that this property came to the state from the private sector to begin with) at the very least that will be 3700+ac back on the tax rolls for the county/state. Look at it this way; the state can sell the property to generate funds, tax the property every year, and have the burden of maintenance shifted to the private sector- win/win.
Well, I'm one of the ones that don't want it sold. As far as "the locals hunting it", Well yeah, it's state land and hunting is allowed so why not hunt it??? We don't need hunting lands taken from us, they . Next it will be your guns/rights, it is in the works ya know... There is a meeting tonight at the Jefferson county court annex at the old high school. Please attend if you can and like the FB link.
BH- seeing how you are in Ga and I understand your not giving a rip about this. If you are a fellow hunter you should care and support any way you can.
I beg to differ. IMHO I think an unspoiled 3750 acre swamp in Florida IS rare. What makes North Florida/South Georgia so nice are the large tracts of undeveloped land and limited population as compared to the rest of the respective states. The State of Florida holding title to this land really doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, and the gain from property taxes on land that will be taxed as agriculture and/or with conversation easement is not worth the loss to the public. BTW, I have never been on this property so I have no vested personal interest other then a concerned citizen of the State of Florida. There are few things the government does that I think they should do, holding land in the public trust is one of them.
I always think of Oak Alley Plantation in Louisiana. That beautiful plantation house with the front drive lined by a double row of oak trees. The people who built that plantation, planted the oaks before building the house, knowing full well that the oaks wouldn't mature in their lifetime. But, they could see to the future generations. Like them, we should keep this property in the public trust for future generations. The cost is negligible and the future benefits could be enormous.
I hate to be so snotty--but anyone who thinks making a public land area into a private-everyone keep out but us rich guys area is completely out of his or her mind. We are steadily losing resources to developers,big industrial farms and private hunting clubs,that soon the common man will have nothing left to hunt or fish on.The state could easily make this a WMA like so many other small tracts in other parts of the state.I have not been to this place-not knowing it existed-but if added to the WMA system it would receive lots of use-and it does not cost much to make it a walk-in hunting area.It also feeds into lake Miccosukee, making it more important to stop any possible development. You have to ask yourself if its so worthless-why does someone want to buy it.
Once wetlands are lost, they are gone forever. Thinking the state will stop the damage of privately owned wetlands is naïve at best. How is their record in South Florida on this? (think Everglades for the best example). Think STAs as a hugely expensive way to mitigate a problem caused by MASSIVE overdevelopment. I am as conservative as they come, fiscally speaking and thinking of giving up public access land, especially wetlands is insane. That is how it has worked in the southern part of the state and it is an ecological nightmare. Once politicans get involved, they will allow most any use of private land if they see a way to get reelected or make a buck in lobby money. Count me as saying DO NOT sell. Unless they will sell it to me for $20 an acre and I will take real good care of it. All BBF members get 5 free hunting days a year!
Ducks, turkeys, flats fishing. Who has time for golf?
I have always thought it was ironic that while many folks who regularly hunt and fish seem to be conservative to very conservative on most social and fiscal issues, when it come to natural resources, we're some of the most radical tree-huggers out there. It's something most non-hunters/fishers never seem to understand. I honestly don't know enough about this situation to really know what the "right" answer is but my knee-jerk reaction to something like this is DON'T SELL IT. Even with a conservation easement, I'm concerned about public access but especially about protecting the resource. I believe this is especially true when you're talking about a 4,000 swamp located in the drainage area of a major water body as is the case here. Water quality is becoming a huge issue and a swamp is also a giant filter to help clean some of the garbage we're guilty of putting in that water. Maybe the conservation easement will provide the protection but I would rather not take the risk 'cuz once it's sold, it's gone.
No FHC I don't have it listed, however I think I have a good idea who will more than likely buy it.
Just a few responses to some of the points a few of you have tried to make:
" The State of Florida holding title to this land really doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, and the gain from property taxes on land that will be taxed as agriculture and/or with conversation easement is not worth the loss to the public."
Is that true for all of the citizens of Florida? I doubt it. How many people recreate on this property each year, 20? 100? 200? 500?
Once wetlands are lost, they are gone forever.
Where are these wetlands going? There will be an easement on the land that pretty much insures that the property will remain just as it is now. There are far more acres of wetlands in the state in private hands than in govts. Should the state own all wetlands in the state? You would be surprised at how broad the descriptions are for wetlands. I'm betting many of you live near or in areas that are technically classified as wetlands, are you willing to have big brother tell you you have to move because you are destroying a sensitive environment . Maybe use eminent domain laws to confiscate them on the basis that the govt. knows best? This is a very slippery slope to a nanny state.
"seeing how you are in Ga and I understand your not giving a rip about this. If you are a fellow hunter you should care and support any way you can. "
I pay my share of state and local property taxes in Florida every year and what to me is a great deal of sales taxes every time I'm in the state. Seeing as Florida doesn't have an income tax, I have financial obligation to the state just the same as many of you, however I don't reap many of the benefits you do( that portion of taxes that go toward paying for schools and what-not)
I am not seeing much special about this tract. Which is probably why the state wants to sell it. Of course they might want to sell to get funds to buy a higher priority tract.
I am for smaller government and for government only owning those lands that are truly unique or that are necessary to protect the public welfare and by public welfare, I don't mean so Johnny can go swim or hike. Water quality is such an issue. If the state is going to hold marginal tracts for recreation, the state should charge enough in fees to maintain the tract. No where does it say in any Constitution in this country that the taxpayers should float the bill for local use by folks who can't afford somewhere else.
I am an owner and taxpayer in Florida so I pay into the system just as much as a Florida resident, in fact more than most, because I can't get the homestead and I pay out of state license fees.
_______________
