Arkansas Blog: Whose gas is it?

Ernie Dumas and I have been trading notes today about the legal authority by which the state Game and Fish Commission claims dominion over mineral rights on its land in the recent leasing of acreage for gas exploration. It's a cash-laden agency already thanks to the "conservation" sales tax, so awash in money it has more vehicles than employees.

Game and Fish cites the broad language of Amendment 35 to trump any efforts to claim mineral rights to state lands that should benefit all of Arkansas, not just hunters and anglers. (Remember, though wildlife conservation is a broad charge, Game and Fish is operated almost solely for the hooks and bullets crowd.) Game and Fish is willing to turn over a little money for environmental efforts, but not a dime for general revenue.

Dumas remembered when in olden days a committee of state officials oversaw leasing of public lands and the proceeds went to the general fund. The land commissioner now oversees that effort, but apparently it made no effort to intercede with Game and Fish.

At least one legislator isn't happy about the grab and is already talking a constitutional amendment to overcome Game and Fish if there's no other way to share the wealth. There are complications, however. It could be that federal money used to acquire some wildlife management acreage might require that mineral rights remain with the land for wildlife purposes. It's an issue that will get some serious exploring and worthy discussion. Game and Fish is constitutionally independent, but it must work with the legislature, which appropriates its money.

Comments

From the AGFC web page:

The mission of the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
is to wisely manage all the fish and wildlife resources
of Arkansas while providing maximum
enjoyment for the people.

There is no way exploitation and intentional pollution fits into the above stated mission.

Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR | July 29, 2008 05:07 PM

Ernie Dumas and I have been trading notes today about the legal authority by which the state Game and Fish Commission claims dominion over mineral rights<<,

Great! Because I posed the question yesterday 2:11 pm

Posted by: eLwood | July 29, 2008 05:19 PM

Max or Ernie,
Link to G&F enabling legislation Amendments 35 & 75 at my name

Posted by: eLwood | July 29, 2008 05:38 PM

If Federal monies are involved, 4 words come to mind: National, Environmental, Policy, and Act.

Posted by: Starguy7 | July 29, 2008 08:53 PM

I have no problem with the revenue going strictly to the game and Fish, the state benefits greatly not just from the "hook and bullet" crowd as you put it but to hikers, campers, bird watchers and tourists as well, so i dont see the issue on that one But......................

What about Arkansas' "no net loss legislation?"

Presumably these leases would mean that these lands are now unavailable to hunting and or fishing. The Arkansas Hunting Heritage Protection Act provides for "no net loss" of public hunting areas in the state. The law requires the state fish and wildlife agency, to the extent practicable, to allow hunting on all the lands that they manage. Every year, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission are required to submit a report documenting the number of acres of commission managed land to be closed or opened to public hunting.

Can we get a comment from somebody on how they are going to replace the land lost to the leases ?

Posted by: The Citizens Journal | July 29, 2008 10:26 PM

Wow! This made Larry King Tonight!

Posted by: Roderick A. Bryan | July 29, 2008 11:13 PM

The Boy Scout camp at Damascus took the gas money, and it has uglied up the facility.

Posted by: Diogenes | July 30, 2008 01:09 PM