measure 5 phone call

just got a call from steve adair and now im on a live conference with a measure five meeting?  whats the deal?

pigsticker's picture
pigsticker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/05

I am on the phone call too. I am guessing that they are trying to bolster support since so many organizations are against it.


This is my BOOMSTICK!!!

love2hunt's picture
love2hunt
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/13/05

why would we want to vote it in and bring in out of state money...if california voted yes for it im already voting NO. 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

there is so much out of state money in ND for everything already. 

 

zoops's picture
zoops
Offline
Joined: 12/30/09

 

love2hunt Said:
why would we want to vote it in and bring in out of state money...if california voted yes for it im already voting NO. 

Explain please...

love2hunt's picture
love2hunt
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/13/05

If im reading and understanding this right, measure 5 will allow out of state animal groups to help control what we decide is cruelty or not.  Well as soon as you get an animal group in state with any kind of control where do you think that control is going to try to head to next.  Them saying they want to control clean water and also make it a felony for abuse torwards dogs and cats and what not will soon lead torward other animals like the animals we hunt.  Like i said maybe im competely understanding this the wrong way but I see it as someone trying to get their foot in the door.  They go on to say that they are going to make more grasslands and what not for wildlife but does it say anywhere that these grasslands are meant to be used by sportsman or is this another trap to make it sound good and when its passed its all put into some kind of land that can't be hunted on.  Please tell me if im wrong, like i said i've only done research the last 10 minutues.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

love2hunt Said:
why would we want to vote it in and bring in out of state money...if california voted yes for it im already voting NO. 

Why would Kalifornia be voting on a North Dakota measure? 

love2hunt's picture
love2hunt
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/13/05

The state of california already in the past voted measure 5 into it... they have nothing to do with us voting im just saying w/e they are doing for their hunters/'sportsman can't be a good lesson to learn from... A bunch of long hair, skateboarding hippys.  Just my 2cents.

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

Ask steve to explain the difference between "allocation" and "spending" when it comes to the billions this measure will take.

He publically claims this measure does NOT have mandated spending, but rather mandated allocation. And for some reason that is supposed to be better.

they claim this will be used for state parks. how many state parks can you hunt in?

kdm's picture
kdm
Offline
Joined: 9/5/08

NO!!!!

mhanson6's picture
mhanson6
Offline
Joined: 10/6/06

 Fuck NO

SlimBlundt's picture
SlimBlundt
Offline
Joined: 11/1/05

 My phone rang @ 7, didn't answer. Googled the number, came up as measure 5. "Let's throw a lot of other people's money at the problem" never solves anything. Ever. It's a plan for control, not a solution to a problem.

So now we have a "state agency" with a virtually limitless checkbook gobbling up every parcel of land that's up for sale. (What happens when a buyer shows up with bottomless pockets and says they want to buy land? Let's ask the folks out west...)

And the language is totally vague, basically leaving a giant pile of money to be controlled by a handful of appointees to do whatever they want with it.

THIS MEASURE WREAKS OF CORRUPTION.


The boys are back! www.nodakangler.com

SlimBlundt's picture
SlimBlundt
Offline
Joined: 11/1/05

 My phone rang @ 7, didn't answer. Googled the number, came up as measure 5. "Let's throw a lot of other people's money at the problem" never solves anything. Ever. It's a plan for control, not a solution to a problem.

So now we have a "state agency" with a virtually limitless checkbook gobbling up every parcel of land that's up for sale. (What happens when a buyer shows up with bottomless pockets and says they want to buy land? Let's ask the folks out west...)

And the language is totally vague, basically leaving a giant pile of money to be controlled by a handful of appointees to do whatever they want with it.

THIS MEASURE WREAKS OF CORRUPTION.


The boys are back! www.nodakangler.com

SlimBlundt's picture
SlimBlundt
Offline
Joined: 11/1/05

 My phone rang @ 7, didn't answer. Googled the number, came up as measure 5. "Let's throw a lot of other people's money at the problem" never solves anything. Ever. It's a plan for control, not a solution to a problem.

So now we have a "state agency" with a virtually limitless checkbook gobbling up every parcel of land that's up for sale. (What happens when a buyer shows up with bottomless pockets and says they want to buy land? Let's ask the folks out west...)

And the language is totally vague, basically leaving a giant pile of money to be controlled by a handful of appointees to do whatever they want with it.

THIS MEASURE WREAKS OF CORRUPTION.


The boys are back! www.nodakangler.com

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06

I am voting yes. There has to be more of a balance between development and conservation. I am born and raised in North Dakota and have been around along enough to realize that this state has gone through tremendous change in the last 5-10 years. I never in my almost 30 years of life imagined North Dakota could ever change so much. The decisions that are made in these times of huge economic development will have long lasting effects on the future, heritage, and of the quality of life in North Dakota. Development is not going to slow down for years and years to come. This measure is a great chance to provide funding for a wide variety of conservation/recreation projects, and will not destroy agriculture or oil and gas development. This measure wont be headed by out of state interests, and the money will not leave the state. The governor, ag commissioner and attorney general will make up the commission and will approve every single penny that is spent.

One of the biggest things this measure could fund is voluntary conservation programs, which will put money into the pockets of landowners, while enhancing habitat and promoting soil health, protecting wetlands, etc. These types of conservation programs could be designed by the state, rather than rely on the federal government. The state has lost over 2 million acres of CRP, and in ten years the decline will be even more substantial. Many landowners are rejected when applying for CRP these days, and obviously will farm that land because they don’t get incentives for keeping it out of production.  There needs to be a way to incentivize landowners to keep land out of production and still maintain productive farmland and ranchland. Measure 5 can do this, and landowners will benefit. These programs will be approved by the commission (governor, ag commissioner, attorney general). You can guarantee they will consider the opinions of agriculture and energy interests when approving any program or approving funding.

I don’t want a personal check every year from O+G development, I want to be able to see the state enhance and protect what is important to so many of us. I feel it is only right for money from the oil boom to go directly back into the state in the form of conservation. There have been huge impacts to the quality of life across the state, mostly in the western side, but in general all over. A lot of them good, and a lot of them bad. Fact is we are all impacted by this boom in one way or another. It is only right to provide this type of funding for the people of North Dakota. We can balance development and conservation and this measure can benefit everyone including the agriculture industry.

 Fishingbuddy members, If you are concerned with future outdoor opportunities within this great state, I recommend for you to do your own research on this measure. As hunters, if you think wildlife populations are going to be able to sustain the huge loss in habitat in the next 20 years, think again. We need to be able to replace a program like CRP, and this fund can do it. Yes, there is the OHF, but simply put, it isnt enough. There  is a lot of false information being spoken about this measure. Everyone has an opinion, and more important everyone has a vote. Decide for yourself. Your kids will appreciate it.

Link to amendment:

http://www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/amendment-text

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06

Wrong measure

love2hunt Said:
If im reading and understanding this right, measure 5 will allow out of state animal groups to help control what we decide is cruelty or not.  Well as soon as you get an animal group in state with any kind of control where do you think that control is going to try to head to next.  Them saying they want to control clean water and also make it a felony for abuse torwards dogs and cats and what not will soon lead torward other animals like the animals we hunt.  Like i said maybe im competely understanding this the wrong way but I see it as someone trying to get their foot in the door.  They go on to say that they are going to make more grasslands and what not for wildlife but does it say anywhere that these grasslands are meant to be used by sportsman or is this another trap to make it sound good and when its passed its all put into some kind of land that can't be hunted on.  Please tell me if im wrong, like i said i've only done research the last 10 minutues.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

SlimBlundt's picture
SlimBlundt
Offline
Joined: 11/1/05

 Spoken like a true politician. There's as much ambiguity in this lengthy rant as there is in the bill itself.

i make a living communicating. Words matter. This dialog is crafted in such a way that he's not exactly "lying", he's just not revealing a realistic outcome. Bravo, quite the wordsmith.

odocoileus Said:

I am voting yes. There has to be more of a balance between development and conservation. I am born and raised in North Dakota and have been around along enough to realize that this state has gone through tremendous change in the last 5-10 years. I never in my almost 30 years of life imagined North Dakota could ever change so much. The decisions that are made in these times of huge economic development will have long lasting effects on the future, heritage, and of the quality of life in North Dakota. Development is not going to slow down for years and years to come. This measure is a great chance to provide funding for a wide variety of conservation/recreation projects, and will not destroy agriculture or oil and gas development. This measure wont be headed by out of state interests, and the money will not leave the state. The governor, ag commissioner and attorney general will make up the commission and will approve every single penny that is spent.

One of the biggest things this measure could fund is voluntary conservation programs, which will put money into the pockets of landowners, while enhancing habitat and promoting soil health, protecting wetlands, etc. These types of conservation programs could be designed by the state, rather than rely on the federal government. The state has lost over 2 million acres of CRP, and in ten years the decline will be even more substantial. Many landowners are rejected when applying for CRP these days, and obviously will farm that land because they don’t get incentives for keeping it out of production.  There needs to be a way to incentivize landowners to keep land out of production and still maintain productive farmland and ranchland. Measure 5 can do this, and landowners will benefit. These programs will be approved by the commission (governor, ag commissioner, attorney general). You can guarantee they will consider the opinions of agriculture and energy interests when approving any program or approving funding.

I don’t want a personal check every year from O+G development, I want to be able to see the state enhance and protect what is important to so many of us. I feel it is only right for money from the oil boom to go directly back into the state in the form of conservation. There have been huge impacts to the quality of life across the state, mostly in the western side, but in general all over. A lot of them good, and a lot of them bad. Fact is we are all impacted by this boom in one way or another. It is only right to provide this type of funding for the people of North Dakota. We can balance development and conservation and this measure can benefit everyone including the agriculture industry.

 Fishingbuddy members, If you are concerned with future outdoor opportunities within this great state, I recommend for you to do your own research on this measure. As hunters, if you think wildlife populations are going to be able to sustain the huge loss in habitat in the next 20 years, think again. We need to be able to replace a program like CRP, and this fund can do it. Yes, there is the OHF, but simply put, it isnt enough. There  is a lot of false information being spoken about this measure. Everyone has an opinion, and more important everyone has a vote. Decide for yourself. Your kids will appreciate it.

Link to amendment:

http://www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/amendment-text

The boys are back! www.nodakangler.com

pigsticker's picture
pigsticker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/05

After listening for 40 minutes about how this will be beneficial for ND I'm still voting no. It is an open invitation to special interest groups.

Any out of state corporation can establish a ND branch and apply for those dollars, including anti-hunting organizations. Whats to say that our committee runs short on grant requests and is forced to give these crooked and damaging entities money so they don't fall short on the required yearly spending as required by this measure.

It's not good. Too much bad language in this measure. There could be some good programs developed for this surplus but this is not the right way to go about it.


This is my BOOMSTICK!!!

Dick McFiddleton's picture
Dick McFiddleton
Offline
Joined: 4/9/14

 The money allocations wont get us one more hunting opportunity.  The reason crp worked was due to economics.  Things have changed.  Landowners are in business to make money.  I see this measure getting voted no just like the property tax measure then when things do not change a similar measure will appear down the road.  The reality for hunting and fishing to thrive is water.  If the wet years continue then there will be lots of great hunting and fishing.  If things dry out the there will be no cover and winter will take the small lakes and the lack of regulations will destroy the big lakes.  

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

 Ya I'm tired of the sd side of oahe  being nd sides nursery. Get some slots and regs up there.

 Adn

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

odorcoileus said,

 The state has lost over 2 million acres of CRP, and in ten years the decline will be even more substantial. Many landowners are rejected when applying for CRP these days, and obviously will farm that land because they don’t get incentives for keeping it out of production.  There needs to be a way to incentivize landowners to keep land out of production and still maintain productive farmland and ranchland.

Pay people not to work or farm?

How's that again: There needs to be a way to incentivize landowners to keep land out of production?

Odorcoileus maybe works for one of these sponsoring non-profits where they don't create anything.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
It is an open invitation to special interest groups.

Have you ever thought about what a special interest group is?  A few landowners on here like to use the term, as if they themselves are not a special interest group.  Hunters are a special interest group.  Within hunting we bow hunters are a special interest group.  Farmers are a special interest group.  Teachers, police, carpenters, any group of people have special interests and things they will vote for and against as a group. 

There are special interest groups for and against measure five.  Within agriculture there are special interest groups against five.  The Farm Bureau is against measure five.  I find it odd that some ag special interest groups fought to sell wheat to Russia during the cold war.  They still fight to sell commodities to Cuba.  Why on earth would they aid the enemy?  To eat up the surplus so commodity prices go up.  Who do they go up for if they sell to the enemy?  They go up for their neighbors back home.  They go up for you and I while if they had their way Cubans would be eating North Dakota products.

There are groups in agriculture that want better prices by limiting production.  Reagan tried that with his Payment In Kind program.  It backfired and farmers were paid for taking fields out of production, but they broke up land that should be grazed and not farmed and we had high production.  Today that land is the highly erodible that we want into CRP.   The other side of the coin are the agriculture group that wants to increase their profits by increasing production.  That's why they don't want a single acre into conservation.  At least they don't want anyone else having any say about who purchases, leases, or decides what will be done with any land.  This is the land mining side of agriculture.  Every kernel at any cost. 

The first group above most conservationists, hunters, and other outdoor people would have no problem with.  The second group are not stewards of the land, but businessmen who will take everything the land can give with no consideration for the future.  Some know what they are doing, and others who will pass it down to their sons and daughters act out of ignorance.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plains, isn't it time we go through the sponsors again?

INITIATIVE PETITION

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE,

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

We, the undersigned, being qualified electors request the following initiated law be placed on the ballot as provided by law.

SPONSORING COMMITTEE

The following are the names and addresses of the qualified electors of the state of North Dakota who, as the sponsoring committee for the petitioners, represent

and act for the petitioners in accordance with law:

Stephen E Adair, Chairperson

1009 Cottage Dr

Bismarck ND 58501

Mylo S Candee

2107 N 7

Bismarck ND 58501

Marlene Frei

118 Riverside Park Road

Bismarck ND 58504

Lloyd Jones

18460 Hwy 1804

Baldwin ND 58521

William Boyd Bicknell

4435 Riverbend Lane

Bismarck ND 58504

William Wagner

863 52

Hazen ND 58545

Franklin G Larson

11686 River Road

Valley City ND 58072

Mike F Lalonde

408 Tulsa Dr

Bismarck ND 58504

Bonnie T Johnson

2029 N 2

Bismarck ND 58501

Gabe Brown

3752 106

Bismarck ND 58503

Keith Trego

9100 Sycamore Lane

Bismarck ND 58504

Karen Kreil

831 N Mandan St

Bismarck ND 58501

Eric Rosenquist

1401 River Road

Center ND 58530

Jennifer P Kross

320 17

Jamestown ND 58401

Deborah Brude

315 Main St N

Pekin ND 58361

Naomi Thorson

942 9

Dickinson ND 58601

Richard E Monson

3434 114

Valley City ND 58072

David Nix

525 Dohn Ave

Bismarck ND 58503

Paul H Myerchin

8725 Spruce Creek Road

Bismarck ND 58503

Joseph J Cichy

1220 N Mandan St

Bismarck ND 58501

Lisa M Omlid

1325 N 21

Bismarck ND 58501

William E Cornatzer

400 Restfull Drive

Bismarck ND 58503

Kim C Christianson

1006 W Ave C

Bismarck ND 58501

Joseph A Satrom

216 W Ave B

Bismarck ND 58501

Jeff Weispfenning

6708 Island Dr

Bismarck ND 58504

David A Brandt

8485 25

Buchanan ND 58420

David Lambeth

417 Terrace Drive

Grand Forks ND 58201

Thomas Hutchens

2424 Timberlane Place

Bismarck ND 58504

th Stnd Ave SWnd Stth St NEth Ave NEth Ave Wth Ave SEst Stth St SE

PETITION TITLE

This initiated measure would add a new section to article X of the North Dakota Constitution creating the Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Trust (the “Trust”) and

the Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Fund (the “Fund”) to be financed by five percent of the revenues from the State’s share of oil extraction taxes. Ten percent of that

amount of annual revenues would be deposited in the Trust with the principal invested by the State Investment Board; the earnings from the Trust would be transferred to

the Fund to be spent on programs after January 1, 2019. Ninety percent of the annual revenues would be deposited into the Fund to be used to make grants to public and

private groups to aid water quality, natural flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, parks and outdoor recreation areas, access for hunting and fishing, the acquisition of land

for parks, and outdoor education for children. The Fund would be governed by a Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Commission comprised of the governor, attorney

general, and agriculture commissioner. A thirteen-member Citizen Accountability Board would be appointed for three-year terms to review grant applications and make

recommendations to the Commission. Every twenty-five years, the people would vote on the question of whether to continue the financing from the oil extraction taxes.

FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE

IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED. IF MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING

DELETED. IF MATERIAL IS NOT UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MATERIAL IS EXISTING LAW THAT IS NOT BEING CHANGED.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:

CIRCULATED COPY – PAGE 2 OF 5

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

1. The people of North Dakota create the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust to protect our clean water, wildlife and parks for the benefit of people as provided

herein.

2. There is created a clean water, wildlife, and parks fund that shall be used for grants to state agencies, tribal governments, local governments, political subdivisions,

and nonprofit organizations for the following purposes:

a. Protect, improve, maintain, or restore water quality through the restoration and protection of rivers, streams, lakes or other surface waters, groundwater, wetlands,

grasslands, prairies, or forests;

b. Improve natural flood control through the restoration or protection of natural areas along rivers, streams, lakes or other surface waters, groundwater, wetlands,

grasslands, prairies, and forests;

c. Protect, restore, or create wildlife and fish habitat through voluntary programs on private lands, including working farms and ranches, and public lands through

grassland, prairie, wetland, stream, lake, and forest restoration, creation, and protection;

d. Conserve or acquire natural areas, parks, and other recreation areas or provide access for hunting and fishing; or

e. Create more opportunities and places for children to learn about and enjoy nature and the outdoors.

3. There is created a clean water, wildlife and parks commission that shall be comprised of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner. The

commission shall govern the fund in accord with this section. Any money deposited in the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund is hereby appropriated to the commission

on a continuing basis for expenditure upon those programs selected by the commission as provided in this section. The commission shall keep accurate records of all

financial transactions performed under this section.

4. The commission may employ staff and enter into public and private contracts as may be necessary to operate the fund. The salaries of employees and other

expenditures for the operation of the fund must be paid out of the fund. No more than three percent of the funds available in a given year may be paid out of the fund to

operate the fund.

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten

percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

6. The commission may not use the fund, in any manner, to finance:

a. Litigation;

b. Lobbying activities;

c. Activities that would unduly interfere, disrupt, or prevent the development of mineral rights;

d. Projects outside this state or projects that are beyond the scope of defined activities that fulfill the purposes of this section;

e. More than fifty percent of grant awards per biennium for any one stated purpose;

f. The acquisition of land through condemnation or the use of eminent domain; or

g. Compliance with legal mitigation requirements of any local, state, or federal permit or grant.

7. The principal and earnings of the trust may not be expended until after January 1, 2019, and an expenditure of principal after that date requires a vote of at least

two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislative assembly. The state investment board shall invest the principal of the trust. The state treasurer shall

transfer earnings of the trust accruing after January 1, 2019, to the fund established in this section at the end of each fiscal year.

8. Each regular legislative session, the commission must file a report to the citizens of the state at a public hearing before each house of the legislative assembly.

The report must include a state auditor's report on the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust and clean water, wildlife, and parks fund for the previous two fiscal years.

9. There is created a citizen accountability board consisting of thirteen members. The board shall provide grant recommendations to the commission in accord with

the purposes stated in this section. The board members must be qualified electors of the state and shall be appointed as follows:

a. Four citizen members appointed by the governor, upon the recommendation of the director of the game and fish department;

CIRCULATED COPY – PAGE 3 OF 5

b. Two citizen members appointed by the governor, upon the recommendation of the director of the parks and recreation department;

c. One citizen member appointed by the governor, upon the recommendation of the indian affairs commission;

d. Two members of the state senate, appointed by the president pro tempore, with equal representation from the two largest political parties in the senate;

e. Two members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker, with equal representation from the two largest political parties in the house;

f. One energy industry representative to be appointed by the public service commission; and

g. One farmer or rancher to be appointed by the agriculture commissioner.

10. The terms of members of the citizen accountability board will be three years, except the terms of the initial board will vary and be drawn by lot to ensure that no

more than five members be subsequently appointed each year. Board members may not serve more than three terms. The board shall select a chairman from among the

members. Nine voting members is a quorum at any meeting.

11. In making appointments to the citizen accountability board, consideration shall be given to the practical experience and demonstrated knowledge in one or more of

the following areas:

a. Science, policy, or practice of natural resources, conservation, or tribal lands;

b. Restoring, protecting, and enhancing groundwater or wetlands;

c. Conservation practices, including professional or volunteer work restoring and protecting working agricultural lands, wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish,

game, and wildlife; or

d. The maintenance and management of public parks and recreation areas.

12. This constitutional provision shall be self-executing and shall become effective without the necessity of legislative action.

13. The initial members of the citizen accountability board shall be appointed within ninety days after the effective date of this section. Grant applications shall be

considered within three hundred sixty-five days of the effective date of this section and grant applications shall be considered at least annually thereafter.

14. The state treasurer shall reserve five percent of the state’s share of total revenue derived from oil extraction taxes for the purposes described in this section. Ten

percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust within thirty days after the end of each calendar

quarter. Ninety percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund within thirty days after the end of

each calendar quarter.

15. Upon voter approval of this measure, the provisions of subsections 13 through 15 herein shall be authorized and continue until the next general election held after

twenty-five years from the effective date of this section. In that general election, the secretary of state shall place a question, for approval or rejection by the people, of

whether the funds reserved as provided in subsection 14 shall continue. The question presented shall include a report from state investment board indicating the thenexisting

balance of the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust and the annual estimated earnings to be provided to the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund. At the next

statewide general election held twenty-five years after a reauthorization under this section, the issue of whether the reservation of funds described in subsection 14 herein

shall be resubmitted to the voters for approval or rejection, accompanied by the report as directed herein. If a majority of the voters fail to approve the continued

reservation of funds, subsections 13, 14, and 15 herein shall terminate on the first day of the calendar quarter following the date it is rejected by the voters.

A new section to article X of the Constitution of North Dakota is created and enacted as follows:

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06

 Well that didn't take long for the name calling to happen. I guess it doesn't surprise me. I am not a politician and I am not a spokesperson for this measure. I care about this states future and the direction it's headed. I guess that makes me a bad person according to some.  I could care less what other people think. I was respectful with my comments, please try and be respectful with yours. Good day

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Plains, isn't it time we go through the sponsors again?

Simple scare tactics.  Just like I told gst I was hunting before you guys were loading your diapers, but you still try to paint me as a none hunter.  Your special interest groups simply hates other special interest groups.  Simple as that.  Your here to protect those special interests.  Not as a sportsman, but as a business man.  You could give a rats behind about free lance hunting.  Your here to talk the gullible into shafting themselves. 

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06

 

Plainsman Said:

Plains, isn't it time we go through the sponsors again?

Simple scare tactics.  Just like I told gst I was hunting before you guys were loading your diapers, but you still try to paint me as a none hunter.  Your special interest groups simply hates other special interest groups.  Simple as that.  Your here to protect those special interests.  Not as a sportsman, but as a business man.  You could give a rats behind about free lance hunting.  Your here to talk the gullible into shafting themselves. 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

Ryan H's picture
Ryan H
Offline
WEEKEND WARRIOR
Joined: 5/9/09


odocoileus Said:
 
Plainsman Said:

Plains, isn't it time we go through the sponsors again?

Simple scare tactics.  Just like I told gst I was hunting before you guys were loading your diapers, but you still try to paint me as a none hunter.  Your special interest groups simply hates other special interest groups.  Simple as that.  Your here to protect those special interests.  Not as a sportsman, but as a business man.  You could give a rats behind about free lance hunting.  Your here to talk the gullible into shafting themselves. 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

I think you could make a pretty good argument that farmers receive more money than any other special interest group in the nation.

 

tearbear's picture
tearbear
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/12/07

Vote no! This puts a lot of money in the hands of the wrong people! Many involve in supporting this measure are special interest groups not particularly supportive of hunting! Land will be bought taking it away from taxpaying people with little or no access for sportsman. Would love to see money put aside for hunting/fishing/outdoor use, but this one scares me! Looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing! Redo it and put control in a coalition of sportsman/farm groups/Game&Fish at the state level. Keep out of state interest out of it all!!!! Would love more money to be spent on conservation and sportsmen opportunities, but this one doesn't pass the smell test to me!

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

eyexer Said:
I think you could make a pretty good argument that farmers receive more money than any other special interest group in the nation.

Eye,

the North Dakota Deptment of Ag comes in ranked 40th at $9.5 million.

What is being created here is the sixth biggest spender at $198 million per biennium.

UND is 5th at $230 million and NDSU is 8th at $171 million.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

Fritz the Cat Said:

eyexer Said:
I think you could make a pretty good argument that farmers receive more money than any other special interest group in the nation.

Eye,

the North Dakota Deptment of Ag comes in ranked 40th at $9.5 million.

What is being created here is the sixth biggest spender at $198 million per biennium.

UND is 5th at $230 million and NDSU is 8th at $171 million.

how much do farmers get on the federal level?  my only point was that most of the people arguing about "special interests" are part of the biggest special interest group in the country and receive the most funds for their special interest.  so throwing the term "special interest" out there to scare people is complete BS

 

Pages