Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Tim Sandstrom Said:

wstnodak Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me.  Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's.  Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed.  To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess.  All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

My question then is why isn't it worded as so?  The way it is currently worded, which is very vague in my opinion, gives me and many others the impression that there will be no further regulation against the industry from this point on.  I've visited a few individuals deeply rooted in the industry and they agree.

I am with gst on this just like the rest of you, the vagueness is rather puzzling but as mentioned again by gst you do not see the Constitution go great into detail either.  Its one of those catch 22's I guess.  I suppose why we have supreme justices to complain about.

But I will say this, if this has the power to just make a free for all I cannot believe with my right mind anyone would even consider it.  I'm guessing there are stipulations to that we are not fully researching.  Just because the US Constitution says I have freedom of speech doesn't mean I am 100% free to be an idiot or I won't get in trouble.

We have the right to bear arms but we all know there are rules galore on that.

The list goes on and on.

What needs to be considered is that as a farmer and rancher I do not want my neighbors to be able to operate unregulated or uncontroled any more than they wish me to be able to do so as some suggest this measure will do.
 
I do not wish to have tordon sprayed by my wells or hog barns built directly across the road from my house ect.....

If this measure would allow these things to happen unregulated, there is no way I would support it.

Those of us in agriculture for the most part SUPPORT the ability of the legislature to impose common sense regulations as the alternative is not in our best interests either. If the STATE govt. does not retain the ability to regulate, the FEDERAL govt will step in to do so. It has happened in other states.
 
Therein we lose ALL voice in what regulations we must abide by. We NEED common sense regulation at the state level where EVERY ND voter has a say and chance to testify and impact these state decisions.  This measure supports that.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

but, gst, everything you just said seems to fly in the face of the plain language of the measure.  that is exactly what we have all been saying all along.... that each regulation/issue along with the regulated activity should be able to be debated on its own merits.  this measure seems to fly in the face of the way that process works.  if this measure doesn't do anything to affect the normal legislative and/or regulatory process, then what the fuc& is the point of it? 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

gst Said:

What needs to be considered is that as a farmer and rancher I do not want my neighbors to be able to operate unregulated or uncontroled any more than they wish me to be able to do so as some suggest this measure will do.
 
I do not wish to have tordon sprayed by my wells or hog barns built directly across the road from my house ect.....

If this measure would allow these things to happen unregulated, there is no way I would support it.

Those of us in agriculture for the most part SUPPORT the ability of the legislature to impose common sense regulations as the alternative is not in our best interests either. If the STATE govt. does not retain the ability to regulate, the FEDERAL govt will step in to do so. It has happened in other states.
 
Therein we lose ALL voice in what regulations we must abide by. We NEED common sense regulation at the state level where EVERY ND voter has a say and chance to testify and impact these state decisions.  This measure supports that.

Yup, how I see it.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

espringers Said:
but, gst, everything you just said seems to fly in the face of the plain language of the measure.  that is exactly what we have all been saying all along.... that each regulation/issue along with the regulated activity should be able to be debated on its own merits.  this measure seems to fly in the face of the way that process works.  if this measure doesn't do anything to affect the normal legislative and/or regulatory process, then what the fuc& is the point of it? 

Exactly... why even support it then if it isn't going to change anything from the way it is now?

J

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

I think gst's latest post kind of answered that.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I think gst's latest post kind of answered that.

what?  where?  holy sh7t am i confused!

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
but, gst, everything you just said seems to fly in the face of the plain language of the measure.  that is exactly what we have all been saying all along.... that each regulation/issue along with the regulated activity should be able to be debated on its own merits.  this measure seems to fly in the face of the way that process works.  if this measure doesn't do anything to affect the normal legislative and/or regulatory process, then what the fuc& is the point of it? 

espringer, the POINT of the measure is NOT to prevent the citizens of ND from having input into how farming and ranching are regulated, but to prevent them or outside influences from saying farming and ranching practices can not be engaged in.

Of course here in ND the practices of farming and ranching themselves as a whole will not be targeted, but individual "practices" will and can be banned as they have in other states. As I have asked espringers if Measure 5 passes because of it's wording, could you engage in establishing a horse slaughter plant here in ND?

The answer is no. It is the back door purpose behind this measure 5. Death of a horse by insanguination would be a felony. Therefore if this measure 5 were to pass without measure 3 on the books, an accepted ranching practice of selling horses for slaughter would be effectively banned.

So legal scholars argue there is open for interpretation that even if the horse is not slaughtered here in ND, but was sold knowing it's death would occur by insanguination that one could be held responsible. MAybe there is mayge not, who knows what an activist judge will rule. There were proposed Federal statutes to enforce that very situation that were attempted to be included in the Federal Horse Protection Act that would make it illegal to sell a horse knowing it would go to slaughter back a couple of years ago.

Espringers did you even know there was a Federal Horse Protection Act as part of a bigger Animal Welfare Act? The lawyers for HSUS indeed do and know how to entertwine Federal and state laws.   

If a measure was written to regulate how horses are cared for prior to slaughter here in ND, it would be allowed under this Measure 3, but a measure such as 5 effectively banning the practice of slaughter itself would not be constitutional.

Indeed it may be a precedence setting amendment guaranteeing the "right" to engage in an occupation, but given we have guaranteed the "right" to hunt, trap and fish not be taken away is this such a big step?

So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

Maybe I'm missing something because right now anyone can say what they "think" this measure is intended to do but NO ONE can give a definitive answer as to what it potentially could do.

The way it reads to me is that it will end all further regulation in the farming and ranching industry.  Sure, there are laws in place right now that regulate and they will still be there.  But one has to consider how much farming/ranching has evolved in the last 20 yrs to understand what we might be dealing with 20 yrs from today.  Now what happens if there is a modern farming/ranching practice that shows up 10 yrs down the road that you think needs to be regulated gabe?  What are you going to do then?

It really is a non issue as the way it is worded it sounds like a warm fuzzy pro farmer/rancher measure and in ND it will pass with flying colors.  The true color I see in it is gray, and that is my only issue.  If it was worded to put the hammer down on the anti's I would rent a billboard to support it.  The potential harm it could cause the way it is worded now makes me very hesitant. 

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

gst Said:
...So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?...

you guys like how i get rid of most of the quote for you?  to answer the question:  no.  but, the language of the 2 measures is completely different.  maybe you best go back to the thread from this spring and read how i explained the difference in great detail in that thread. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

west, unfortunatelyas you say,  the interpretation of what this measure will do has been left out there for people to make claims. As someone who makes my living in agriculture indeed I do not wish to have excessive or agenda driven regulations imposed, but as said, state regulatory abilities are a MUCH better option than the other choice.

So all I can say is I have asked a couple people whom are not in the ag industry whom I respect and are the most knowledgable people I know in gaining some insight legally what this measure will do and both have said as it is worded they beleive the legislature will still retain the ability to regulate agriculture.
 
As Tim has said, to not do so would be fool hardy and ultimately not last anyways as the legislature AND the people can move to overide such an amendment if the negative consequences some claim came to pass. So common sense says why bother to create something that would not be allowed to continue to exist anyway.

Does a claim this measure will allow feedlots or hog barns to be built on rivers or by towns ect.... pass the standard of common sense in that this would be allowed to stand even here in ND????

I encourage everyone to ask questions of someone they beleive will have the proper insight into what this measure will do.

But please realize unfortunately not everyone or every org will give an unbiased fact based answer.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
so, gst, you are saying that the farmer's union has a history of stepping on the toes of farmers and ranchers?  strange... since they supported the right to farm statute no? 

No espringers that is NOT what I am saying. What was stated fairly clearly I thought was that regardless of what it is, FU will oppose FB and FB will oppse FU. 

Hatfields and McCoys, Packer fans/Vikings fans, longbow shooters/crossbow shooters

ANYONE that is familiar with these two orgs. knows this.

This is untrue. They are both members of North Dakotans for Responsible Animal Care (and oppose Measure 5)

They are both opposed to perpetual easements as well.

I can probably grab a lot more but these two were a few I knew off the top of my head. 

J

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

ok... i will bite again for god's sake... and i will take an existing farming and ranching practice... like field tiling for example... lets say some new info comes up that says it has some unintended consequences on surface water quality standards that is severely detrimental to fish, amphibians, whatever... hypothetically... and the state legislature decides they want to ban tiling... if this measure passes, will they be able to ban field tiling?  yes or no?  or would they have to repeal this measure with a 2/3 majority to do so? 

i will answer for you... no, they would not be able to ban field tiling without repealing the measure first. 

why on god's green earth do you think farming and ranching deserves such special treatment?  shouldn't we (the citizens in the case of initiated measures and the legislature in the case of introduced bills, and regulatory agencies) be able to decide each and every issue of initiated measures, legislation, regulations based upon the merits of each without having to repeal a damn constitutional measure to do so or rely on the feds to regulate it for us? 

the only people i've heard defend this measure is farmers and ranchers.  and even then its not all of them.  for god's sake, the farmer's union doesn't even defend it. 

here is another example for you... again... just hypothetical... if we gave the oil industry the same protection and it turned out that fracking put something in our beloved aquifer that made us all grow a third nipple, should we really have to repeal a constitutional measure to get it banned? 

this whole measure is so assinine i am surprised it has made it this far and even though i know its your livelihood and you've defended anything that protects your livelihood continuously on this site, i, for one, can't believe even you would defend a measure like this gabe.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:

gst Said:
...So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?...

you guys like how i get rid of most of the quote for you?  to answer the question:  no.  but, the language of the 2 measures is completely different.  maybe you best go back to the thread from this spring and read how i explained the difference in great detail in that thread. 

espringers "maybe you best" read the ENTIRE text of the measure and not just the last sentence you seem focased on as the first is just as important in the wording within our constitution and interpretation of the measure as a whole .

Espringers what I remember from the thread this spring was after much discussion, you finally admitting this measure as written would NOT prevent the regulation of agriculture as claimed. Perhaps my memory too is failing, but we can revisit it if you wish.

Do you beleive a judge if ruling on the interpretation of this amendment will not consider the very first sentence as to intent? THAT key point is what the two people I asked about this measure pointed out as something many choose to overlook in only focasing on the last sentence.

In regards to constitutional amendments even though they may be vague, all the words do have meaning. So indeed "abridged" has a meaning in context with "engage". And so the first statement "The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state."
sets the basis for the second to be interpreted by.
"No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."

This is not the resulting interpretation after staying a nite in a Holiday Inn Express, but was the explanation given to me by people far smarter in legal rulings and constitutional interpretations than I.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:
west, unfortunatelyas you say,  the interpretation of what this measure will do has been left out there for people to make claims. As someone who makes my living in agriculture indeed I do not wish to have excessive or agenda driven regulations imposed, but as said, state regulatory abilities are a MUCH better option than the other choice.

So all I can say is I have asked a couple people whom are not in the ag industry whom I respect and are the most knowledgable people I know in gaining some insight legally what this measure will do and both have said as it is worded they beleive the legislature will still retain the ability to regulate agriculture.
 
As Tim has said, to not do so would be fool hardy and ultimately not last anyways as the legislature AND the people can move to overide such an amendment if the negative consequences some claim came to pass. So common sense says why bother to create something that would not be allowed to continue to exist anyway.

Does a claim this measure will allow feedlots or hog barns to be built on rivers or by towns ect.... pass the standard of common sense in that this would be allowed to stand even here in ND????

I encourage everyone to ask questions of someone they beleive will have the proper insight into what this measure will do.

But please realize unfortunately not everyone or every org will give an unbiased fact based answer.

Are you familiar at all with right to farm laws in ND or any other state for the matter? I'll keep it simple with just one question. 

J

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
so, gst, you are saying that the farmer's union has a history of stepping on the toes of farmers and ranchers?  strange... since they supported the right to farm statute no? 

No espringers that is NOT what I am saying. What was stated fairly clearly I thought was that regardless of what it is, FU will oppose FB and FB will oppse FU. 

Hatfields and McCoys, Packer fans/Vikings fans, longbow shooters/crossbow shooters

ANYONE that is familiar with these two orgs. knows this.

This is untrue. They are both members of North Dakotans for Responsible Animal Care (and oppose Measure 5)

They are both opposed to perpetual easements as well.

I can probably grab a lot more but these two were a few I knew off the top of my head. 

iluvswand, can you "grab" a measure or bill that NDFB has written or intoroduced that NDFU has endorsed?

Possibly there are but I can not recall any of the top of my head.

Yes there are policies that both beleive are  mutually beneficial to agriculture as they are BOTH agricultural orgs and I should not have used the word "regardless", but one would be hard pressed to suggest these two orgs "support" what the other one comes up with. There is a long history of one saying tit the other saying tat.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 So it's unanimous, "No on #3" ???

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

Indeed it may be a precedence setting amendment guaranteeing the "right" to engage in an occupation, but given we have guaranteed the "right" to hunt, trap and fish not be taken away is this such a big step?

So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?

I'm so glad you brought this up! That is ND Constitution, Article XI, Section 27 and it has a saving clause in it that reads:

"Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good."

That last little blip is the key. Measure 3 has no savings clause in the language so it would appear to be directed against state regulation. 

Hell, one of the drafters, Eric Aasmundstad was quoted saying "two key words are 'modern' and 'abridge' because they allow the industry to continually develop and use updated technology and practices, and no laws could deny producers that right."




J

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

frankly i don't care if it prevents regulation or the outright banning of a practice.  your industry deserves no special protection from either.  take a look at my examples above.  you already have your warm and fuzzy right to farm statute.  you certainly don't need protection from legislation or regulation of any potentially harmful "modern farming or ranching practice" anymore than the coal industry does, the oil industry does, the natural gas industry does, the medical industry does.... get the point... defend the possibility of interpreting the wording of this measure all you want with your interpretation or the interpretation of your friends.  but, the simple fact of the matter is that you are asking for special treatment.  if your interpretation is right, then the measure is pointless.  if our interpretation is right, then we've opened a can of worms and dumped them down a slippery slope... you get my point. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
ok... i will bite again for god's sake... and i will take an existing farming and ranching practice... like field tiling for example... lets say some new info comes up that says it has some unintended consequences on surface water quality standards that is severely detrimental to fish, amphibians, whatever... hypothetically... and the state legislature decides they want to ban tiling... if this measure passes, will they be able to ban field tiling?  yes or no?  or would they have to repeal this measure with a 2/3 majority to do so? 

i will answer for you... no, they would not be able to ban field tiling without repealing the measure first. 

why on god's green earth do you think farming and ranching deserves such special treatment?  shouldn't we (the citizens in the case of initiated measures and the legislature in the case of introduced bills, and regulatory agencies) be able to decide each and every issue of initiated measures, legislation, regulations based upon the merits of each without having to repeal a damn constitutional measure to do so or rely on the feds to regulate it for us? 

the only people i've heard defend this measure is farmers and ranchers.  and even then its not all of them.  for god's sake, the farmer's union doesn't even defend it. 

here is another example for you... again... just hypothetical... if we gave the oil industry the same protection and it turned out that fracking put something in our beloved aquifer that made us all grow a third nipple, should we really have to repeal a constitutional measure to get it banned? 

this whole measure is so assinine i am surprised it has made it this far and even though i know its your livelihood and you've defended anything that protects your livelihood continuously on this site, i, for one, can't believe even you would defend a measure like this gabe.

espringers  no they would not be able to pass a law banning field tiling.

However would the legislature be able to enact a law stating that field tiling can not occur where by water from said tile enters surface water whereby negative consequences to reptiles amphibians ect...yadayadayada  legal ease....  occur?

Yes they would. And so while no the legislature would not be able to enact laws banning practices they would be able to pass laws regulating them for causing the negatives to happen.

So espringers will this measure prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture as some claim?

If I recall correctly espringers this was the direction the previous discussion took even including the third nipple example.

So bottom line espringers will this measure prevent the state legislature from regulating agriculture?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:
west, unfortunatelyas you say,  the interpretation of what this measure will do has been left out there for people to make claims. As someone who makes my living in agriculture indeed I do not wish to have excessive or agenda driven regulations imposed, but as said, state regulatory abilities are a MUCH better option than the other choice.

So all I can say is I have asked a couple people whom are not in the ag industry whom I respect and are the most knowledgable people I know in gaining some insight legally what this measure will do and both have said as it is worded they beleive the legislature will still retain the ability to regulate agriculture.
 
As Tim has said, to not do so would be fool hardy and ultimately not last anyways as the legislature AND the people can move to overide such an amendment if the negative consequences some claim came to pass. So common sense says why bother to create something that would not be allowed to continue to exist anyway.

Does a claim this measure will allow feedlots or hog barns to be built on rivers or by towns ect.... pass the standard of common sense in that this would be allowed to stand even here in ND????

I encourage everyone to ask questions of someone they beleive will have the proper insight into what this measure will do.

But please realize unfortunately not everyone or every org will give an unbiased fact based answer.

Are you familiar at all with right to farm laws in ND or any other state for the matter? I'll keep it simple with just one question. 

Yes

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/28895/ND_42-04-01.htm

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

Are you familiar at all with right to farm laws in ND or any other state for the matter? I'll keep it simple with just one question. 

Yes

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/28895/ND_42-04-01.htm

Excellent. Have you gotten any insight from your "legal minds" as to what effect the proposed measure will have on our current right to farm laws? 

Do you disagree with our current farm laws that you think we need this additional measure? 

J

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

Indeed it may be a precedence setting amendment guaranteeing the "right" to engage in an occupation, but given we have guaranteed the "right" to hunt, trap and fish not be taken away is this such a big step?

So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?

I'm so glad you brought this up! That is ND Constitution, Article XI, Section 27 and it has a saving clause in it that reads:

"Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good."

That last little blip is the key. Measure 3 has no savings clause in the language so it would appear to be directed against state regulation. 

Hell, one of the drafters, Eric Aasmundstad was quoted saying "two key words are 'modern' and 'abridge' because they allow the industry to continually develop and use updated technology and practices, and no laws could deny producers that right."




No law could deny that right of engaging in the practice, but could that "right" be regulated if it is causation of  "public or private nusiance" to end said "public or private nusiance" ?

I'm "so glad you brought up "the right to farm language within the NDCC as it shows the legislatures ability to define what is a farming practice and what will fall under it's regulatory scope as written in the state century code.

You guys do not seem to be willing to consider that this measure as well has a "savings clause" to be used in a judicial interpretation of intent of it's scope in the very first sentence in the usage of the word "engage".

I would bet any lawyer worth their salt would be able to argue the "intent" of this constitutional amendment was to prevent banning of the "engaging" in the practice not banning regulation of said practice in supporting the legislatures right to regulate ag after this measures passsage.

Like I said from the start, I wish this measure would have been worded better, but simply because it is not does not man there is some great conspiracy factor by the states most hated ag org by some to end regulation of agriculture.

Gotta go cook fish at a community fish fry. Fresh Canadian walleye!! We will "engage" later.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

gst Said:

So bottom line espringers will this measure prevent the state legislature from regulating agriculture?

yes... if the regulation has the effect of "abridging" any modern farming or ranching practice.  and abridge does not equate to ban.  in case you haven't looked it up lately.

Abridge
verb
1.
to reduce the length of (a written work) by condensing or rewriting
2. to curtail; diminish
3. (Law) Archaic to deprive of (privileges, rights, etc.)

Abridge:  Verb: 

1. reduce in scope while retaining essential elements
2.  lessen, diminish, or curtail;  example:  "the new regulation might abridge our ability to engage in the practice of field tiling.

so... given the definition of abridge... we wouldn't be able to pass any regulation at all that would even lessen the scope of your ability to lay field tile under the example you gave above

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

Are you familiar at all with right to farm laws in ND or any other state for the matter? I'll keep it simple with just one question. 

Yes

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/28895/ND_42-04-01.htm

Excellent. Have you gotten any insight from your "legal minds" as to what effect the proposed measure will have on our current right to farm laws? 

Do you disagree with our current farm laws that you think we need this additional measure? 

Not much of any effect. 

More that it would fit nicely with them.

Where in our "right to farm laws" does there exist the language to prevent a Measure 5 that will effectively ban horse slaughter?

Or had the wording been slightly different ban say a veal operation?

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

The bottom line is this is a terribly written measure and for the life of me I don't know how in sam hell it got on the ballot.  However, the way it is written and because it made it to the ballot, it will most likey be inserted into the ND state constitution.  After it is adopted, in the farming/ranching industry,  ...."No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."

This is a dangerous ammendment folks.  We're not talking about a little mom and pop industry here.  This is the largest industy in ND and now as long as they can prove any "activity" as modern farming and ranching there is no way that there can be a law devised against it.  Unless it comes from the feds right?  Well, we all know how well that would work if something needed to be regulated in short order.lol

I would think most farmers/ranchers would see this as potentially dangerous to their operation!!!?

Hell, maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way but in comprehending the writing of it at this point I don't think so.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

Are you familiar at all with right to farm laws in ND or any other state for the matter? I'll keep it simple with just one question. 

Yes

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/28895/ND_42-04-01.htm

Excellent. Have you gotten any insight from your "legal minds" as to what effect the proposed measure will have on our current right to farm laws? 

Do you disagree with our current farm laws that you think we need this additional measure? 

Not much of any effect. 

More that it would fit nicely with them.

Where in our "right to farm laws" does there exist the language to prevent a Measure 5 that will effectively ban horse slaughter?

Or had the wording been slightly different ban say a veal operation?

When you say horse slaughter do you mean you can't slaughter your own horse right?  Isn't horse slaughter already banned?  That is a whole other issue that I guarantee we agree on.

We also agree that measure 5 is bullshit.

Where we disagree is the fact that measure 3 has the potential to be BAD NEWS for everyone in ND.....including you gabe.

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

wstnodak... you are not reading this wrong.  and if there are legal beagles giving gabe advice to the contrary they are dead WRONG.  and i will argue it till i am blue in the face with them via private email if gabe wants to give me their names in a PM.  attorneys have been known to tell their clients what they want to hear.... and in this case... what gabe wants the public to hear.  but, his interpretation that just so happens to be extremely favorable to getting a measure passed that he is extremely in favor of is WRONG... and i will go to my grave arguing otherwise. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:

gst Said:

So bottom line espringers will this measure prevent the state legislature from regulating agriculture?

yes... if the regulation has the effect of "abridging" any modern farming or ranching practice.  and abridge does not equate to ban.  in case you haven't looked it up lately.

Abridge
verb
1.
to reduce the length of (a written work) by condensing or rewriting
2. to curtail; diminish
3. (Law) Archaic to deprive of (privileges, rights, etc.)

Abridge:  Verb: 

1. reduce in scope while retaining essential elements
2.  lessen, diminish, or curtail;  example:  "the new regulation might abridge our ability to engage in the practice of field tiling.

so... given the definition of abridge... we wouldn't be able to pass any regulation at all that would even lessen the scope of your ability to lay field tile under the example you gave above

espringers yet once agin you seem to be dismissing the very first prepatroy sentence as to what the intentof this measure is under which the second sentence can be interpreted as to teh scope of this measure.

Lets at least be fair and consider the measure in it;s entire context okay?

2. lessen, diminish, or curtail; example: "the new regulation might abridge our ability to engage in the practice of field tiling.

But will it prevent the "right" to "engage"?

The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state."

Yes or no?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

the first sentence is the feel good introduction sentence... there is no wording in that sentence related to prevention or abridgment.  the second sentence lays out those parameters.  the first sentence of your measure is no different than the beginning of the hunting and fishing measure... "Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage..."  it just lays out why we are doing what we want to do.  the real teeth of the measure is in the 2nd part of measure 3 that lays out the actual parameters... "No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices". 

how bout this... you go cook some fish, talk to your attorneys again, hand them the measure along with the definition of abridge (cause i admit i hadn't looked it up in years) and then ask them to give you an honest opinion.  come back here and tell us what they have to say... pallleasse!

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
wstnodak... you are not reading this wrong.  and if there are legal beagles giving gabe advice to the contrary they are dead WRONG.  and i will argue it till i am blue in the face with them via private email if gabe wants to give me their names in a PM.  attorneys have been known to tell their clients what they want to hear.... and in this case... what gabe wants the public to hear.  but, his interpretation that just so happens to be extremely favorable to getting a measure passed that he is extremely in favor of is WRONG... and i will go to my grave arguing otherwise. 

West,  horse slaughter is NOT already banned, in fact Obama reinstated the inspection of the plants which is how it was stopped previously.

Measure 5 will ban a "modern ranching practice" of slaughtering a horse thru the process of insanguination  that is used during slaughter.

espringers not only is west incorrect about the horse slaughter statement he makes, but  you are as well  about me being a "client" of these legal professionals.

If you have legal verbage  that proves what these professionals have shared as friends with me is incorrect, please share PUBLICALLY what it is.

Unless you choose to share what disproves what has been suggested what choice do we have but to beleive it is as inaccurate as wests claim horse slaughter is already illegal.
 
Perhaps if I knew you personally as well as I do the friends I have talked with, I could place more faith in your claims, but as I do not please forgive me for asking for actual documentation to prove what you are willing to "take to your grave".

And espringers, I do not make a habit of giving the names of my friends out to people I have never met to "argue with till they are blue in the face". Hopefully you can understand.

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

Are you familiar at all with right to farm laws in ND or any other state for the matter? I'll keep it simple with just one question. 

Yes

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/28895/ND_42-04-01.htm

Excellent. Have you gotten any insight from your "legal minds" as to what effect the proposed measure will have on our current right to farm laws? 

Do you disagree with our current farm laws that you think we need this additional measure? 

Not much of any effect. 

More that it would fit nicely with them.

Where in our "right to farm laws" does there exist the language to prevent a Measure 5 that will effectively ban horse slaughter?

Or had the wording been slightly different ban say a veal operation?

When you say horse slaughter do you mean you can't slaughter your own horse right?  Isn't horse slaughter already banned?  That is a whole other issue that I guarantee we agree on.

We also agree that measure 5 is bullshit.

Where we disagree is the fact that measure 3 has the potential to be BAD NEWS for everyone in ND.....including you gabe.

west, I have stated that if you or anyone else can actually prove this measure will end regulation of ag beyond an opinion, I would not support it.

Pages