epa (uncle) in charge in wyoming...

where are the personal property rights... think you own your own land??? we are just all renters here... 

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/14/wyoming-welder-faces-fine-for...

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

So the epa is wrong in WY for taking others rights into account because of potential destruction the dam he built poses, but the state is right for taking away my right to sell to whomever I want ?

Put your hands on your ear lobes and pull until you hear a pop and daylight appears! It will help with your anal cranium issues!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst one more time, like a lot of things passed by the Leg some do not pass the Constitution test. We at one time had a law in the state that did not allow non residents to be guides and outfitters in the state. To do so you had to be a resident.

The Leg faced with the challenge of constitutional issues realized they where on the wrong side. The case regarding the states law is set for a final pretrial hearing later this year regarding Cook. Unless a settlement is reached and I am betting that is the route the state will take knowing like the G/O issue they are on the wrong side.

So again gst, the law passed was a prime example of the ag org being in the tent and not wanting to share the tent! We have been over this many times but IMHO when push comes to shove this law will be dealt a death blow by any court outside of ND!

The ag I believe knows this about our current law, but is bound to defend it anyway, and it like Iowa and other states should not be a surprise to anyone with common sense. The single most important right is that of being allowed to sell it for the price you desire and to whom. Even in cities where use restrictions apply that right is not abridged. Use of the property may limit the buyer but does not prevent a buyer from owning it. Farm land is not special in that way. The only issue that may stand is the issue of tax exempt status and my meaning on that is that not every parcel purchased by a non profit may meet or be eligible for tax exempt status, but I do believe that will take some Leg tinkering.

So gst, the courts are going to kick your camel to the curb.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
So the epa is wrong in WY for taking others rights into account because of potential destruction the dam he built poses, but the state is right for taking away my right to sell to whomever I want ?

Put your hands on your ear lobes and pull until you hear a pop and daylight appears! It will help with your anal cranium issues!

You seem to be missing the point here as usual ron.

I can not say if the EPA is wrong or right here as I don;t have any more information about this particular situation than you or weedy.

Perhaps he is in the wrong, maybe not.

But hey lets not stop not knowing the facts  from jumping to conclusions once again proving my point that the involvement of the types of people the govt seems to gravitate and their attitudes and ideals often is the source of most problems.

I would guess most on here would agree, someone with your way of thinking ron or weedys would not be their first pick for a govt employee to deal with.


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

ron, if the courts decide as you suggest, so be it. It has stood for how many decades.

Until they do, despite your claim that agriculture controls what happens in this state, the representatives of ALL the people of ND have weighed the consequences and established law.

Period.

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

ron you have never answered this one question in all our discussions about this.

Would you support Mr. Cobb buying the home next to yours?

Oh yeah ron, one more should I have the "right" to sell my land to my Canadian friend?


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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/18/lawsuit-challenges-feds-over-...

Oklahoma's attorney general and an oil and gas industry trade group have filed a lawsuit against the federal government over its decision to settle a lawsuit with an environmental group over the listing status of several animal species.

Scott Pruitt claims in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Tulsa on Monday that federal agencies are colluding with like-minded special interest groups and using "sue and settle" tactics that violate the federal Endangered Species Act and have a "crippling effect" on the U.S. economy.

“Increasingly, federal agencies are colluding with like-minded special interest groups by using ‘sue and settle’ tactics to reach ‘friendly settlements’ of lawsuits filed by the interest groups," Pruitt said in a statement.

One of the animals whose listing status is in question is the lesser prairie chicken. It has been under evaluation to be listed as endangered for years. 

Pruitt said that has led Oklahoma as well as other states and the private industry to spend $26 million to develop a conservation plan to protect it. 

“Oklahoma has indicated its willingness to protect the lesser prairie chicken but it seems increasingly clear this issue isn’t about sound science or saving endangered species," he said. "Using the courts to impose regulations undermines the rule of law."  

Conservation groups like New-Mexico based WildEarth Guardians say the lesser prairie chicken has suffered population declines in part due to oil, gas and wind energy development.

According to the lawsuit, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Endangered Species Act by agreeing to a settlement with WildEarth Guardians that led to a consent decree requiring the agency to determine the listing status of the lesser prairie chicken by March 31.

The lawsuit also claims the agency violated the law by agreeing to a truncated timeline to the decision-making process on the listing status of the 250 other species, essentially sidestepping the rule making process, the attorney general's office said.

"Because these settlements are taking place without public input, attorneys general are unable to represent the respective interests of their states, businesses, and citizens,” Pruitt said.

The Oklahoma-based Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, which represents independent oil and natural gas producers, is party to the lawsuit. They argue the federal government is using the Endangered Species Act to halt oil and natural gas development and devalue private property rights.

“DEPA joins the state of Oklahoma in this litigation, not only on behalf of our members, but all citizens of this great country, whose rights are threatened when our government precludes participation in the political, administrative and judicial process,” DEPA President Mike McDonald said in a statement.

Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, told Businessweek he couldn’t immediately comment on the allegations.

 
 
Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst, I have no say if Cobb wants to buy the house next to me, just as I have no say on what religious following or race the buyers are. IT IS NOT MY HOUSE TO DECIDE! Nor should I have a say in whom they sell to. I would not want Cobb next to me just as I would not want you either! But on who buys it I have no control as it should be. I find it really funny that you try and bring up something like Cobb when you have nothing to support your position. It shows how shallow and weak your argument is.

I will even go one step further, in that while I disagree with Cobb and others like him, I fully support their right to hold and speak the views they do. It is why our nation is built on the first and second amendments. Not the twisted view of entitled privilege that the farm groups of ND push!
To be clear on that, the view that only what benefits Ag is justified, nothing else matters.

What I like vs what is constitutional are two different issues. Just as is your last posting regarding the EPA. It has been long established that navigable waters and tributaries to them are under EPA controls regarding the thread topic. I am one of the first to agree that the EPA and other Gov agencies do try to over extend the authority they have to new areas. Nothing new here.

But the point of the matter is simply this, the aerial photos of the property in question show a dam on a waterway. The unknown is if the EPA has authority on it because of where the water ends up. If they do, then this guy is screwed and his rights end where they can affect others rights.

So again reach up grab your ears and pull until you see light. The EPA is not always right nor always wrong but the courts will likely give us the answers to this issue.

None of what is going on in WY has any relevance to the petition being circulated at all. Nor does the posting you made. What is relevant though is your continued BS and continued spewing of it.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

Ron, for some reason I can picture you front and center with your sign telling Mr. Cobb to get the hell out of your neighborhood let alone the rants at the city council meeting.

That is if it didn't interfere with your demands over how ranchers should be raising their cattle.

Ron should I be able to sell land here in the US that I own to my Canadian friend and neighbor?

Ron should out of state interests have a say in changing our states constitution?

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

So your Cobb thing blew up in your face, you have nothing of substance to back your BS as usual, keep tugging those ears, there is hope for you to see light some day and at least temporarily fix your cranial/anal insertion syndrome! 

weedy blows your epa rant out of the water, Cook is not rolling over on the land purchase issue, you where unsuccessful in deflecting away the fact that the farm orgs do not want to share the tent, because they have their camel already in it. My you have had a bad couple days and no effective jabs at conservation organizations!

Best toss out the Folgers and get some hi test coffee, your going to need it!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Ron should out of state interests have a say in changing our states constitution?

gst stop and look hard at that question and if you think the answer is NO then also stop and take a look at who is against the petition and regardless of if they have an office or are doing business here, many of the companies are domiciled outside of ND!

Also that means no support from the national level of any farm group either, because I am sure  you are not implying that the outside support is going to be bus loads of people from MN,SD and MT even Manitoba trying to vote illegally?

So get this straight one more time dumbass, either stand up and tell the org that you support to make the pledge of no out of state money or help if this gets to the ballot or shut up about this issue one last time. You are really starting to look like a 3 rd grader arguing with the teacher that the world is flat!
  What is the funniest thing about all of this is that you are really clueless on the real facts and continue to try and make up false demons to attack it. So again either make sure the groups opposed meet the standards you are demanding or shut up dumbass !

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

I guess I took that wrong.  I thought it meant don't tell gst what you do for a living.  He's trying to get his nose under your tent.

guywhofishes Said:
http://www.christart.com/IMAGES-art9ab/books/richard_gunther/b/beware_the_camels_nose/Camel-01.gif

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

Hardwaterman Said:
So your Cobb thing blew up in your face, you have nothing of substance to back your BS as usual, keep tugging those ears, there is hope for you to see light some day and at least temporarily fix your cranial/anal insertion syndrome! 

weedy blows your epa rant out of the water, Cook is not rolling over on the land purchase issue, you where unsuccessful in deflecting away the fact that the farm orgs do not want to share the tent, because they have their camel already in it. My you have had a bad couple days and no effective jabs at conservation organizations!

Best toss out the Folgers and get some hi test coffee, your going to need it!

Ron, the "Cobb thing" is hardly "blown out of the water".

I think most people on here, would guess on the side that you would be the loudest fella at the city council meeting demanding they do something about Cobb to prevent your property values from declining because you have a white supremacist as your neighbor.

All weedy did was make assumptions like yourself. Albeit he admitted his rant against this welder was based on no real facts or knowledge regarding the case.

We did have a bad day yesterday though, lost a calf to a hefier that was stupid and laid on it in the pen in our calving barn. Wish she would have been out on the prairie in the open.

Come on ron, should I be able to sell my land to my Canadian friend?

Should out of state nonprofit orgs have a say in changing our states constituion?

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

plainsman, I will ask you the same questions I asked ron and see if you have the backbone to answer.

Should I be able to sell my land to my Canadian friend?

Should out of state nonprofits have a say in changing our states constitution?

Guys they are pretty simple straight forward questions.

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

"Hi, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."


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

I don't see a problem with me selling my land to a canadian.  In fact I did sell some land to canadians a few years ago but there wasn't enough rural water available yet so the deal fell through day before closing.  Americans own resorts in canada.  Don't see an issue with it.  And if a non profit can get enough citizens of ND to vote for a change in our constitution then it's really not the non profit getting it changed, it was the voters of the state.  It's just the way it is.

 

cpete2's picture
cpete2
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/8/02

gst, I am still waiting for your reply on the ruby thread. You seem to be an expert on everything.

 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Your original question was answered about out of state interests, and here is an answer to your latest! If you do not want any out of state non profit involved then no out of state for profit companies or national organizations should as well. Your standard that you keep implying is vital. Well then your side needs to follow the same path or as I said before dumbass shut up about it.

In regards to Cobb, and me being at a city council meeting demanding they do something my question to you is exactly what could they do? Certainly they cannot pass a law that says his views are not allowed. Constitution prohibits that?

See your so stupid having been involved with farm and ranch orgs that you are really clueless as to how the rest of the world works. The only thing I could complain about and seek relief for would be violations of codes and ordnances if he was not following them. There would not be anything I could ask them to do nor would I since I do not think I am special unlike you.

Your question regarding Canadian friend has been answered before gst! It is a losing argument and the courts are going to show you and the farm org of the state this come fall unless the state concedes and agrees to settle. So you want to keep the current law I would suggest bending the ear of lobbyist to talk to the Gov and get that settlement done sooner rather than later, but my gut is telling me Cook will not settle so maybe it is a moot point!

So back to the WY issue, weeds made no assumptions he stated the process of getting a use permit to do what the person in Wy did. The water way in question seems to fit the bill of what the EPA and Feds have legal control over established by laws passed by elected officals of all the people of the US! ( Had to use one of your tired lines, only my use has court rulings underscoring that authority beyond a state court.)

Sorry to hear of the loss of the calf, and believe it or not, I understand.

So continue gst to spew because the more you do the more people see that your positions are not property right friendly in any way shape or form, nor do they believe your false claims  

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

 And if a non profit can get enough citizens of ND to vote for a change in our constitution then it's really not the non profit getting it changed, it was the voters of the state. 

Excellent point eyexer.   Some would have us believe that it's those out of state people who are changing the constitution.  I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people.

  "Hi, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Are you making fun of the NRCS, or the government guy that cuts your fat check?

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

cpete2 Said:
gst, I am still waiting for your reply on the ruby thread. You seem to be an expert on everything.

My apologies CPete, I have no clue what you are talking about, please refresh my memory with a link to the conversation and I will try my best.

Actually it is more like the old saying "jack of all trades, expert at none".

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

Plainsman Said:

 And if a non profit can get enough citizens of ND to vote for a change in our constitution then it's really not the non profit getting it changed, it was the voters of the state. 

Excellent point eyexer.   Some would have us believe that it's those out of state people who are changing the constitution.  I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people.

  "Hi, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Are you making fun of the NRCS, or the government guy that cuts your fat check?

Eye, you have struck upon the chicken or the egg and which came first.

Would the voters of ND voted on a measure had the nonprofit not spent millions of dollars selling it?

Andfor a little extra twist, would the voters of ND have voted for the measure if the nonprofits had not been disingenuous with the voters regarding their measure?

Plainsamn so you support states rights right up until it affects something you wish and then you seem to have no problem with out of state interests buying their agendas here in our states constitution?

Why did you type page after page against the "people" deciding just a couple years ago is, " I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people."

So Bruce you then have no problem with out of state interests spending millions to change our states constitution?

Yes or no.


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

Ron, Bruce,

Should I be able to sell my land to my Canadian friend?

Should out of state nonprofits (or for profits) have a say in changing our states constitution?

Yes?

No?

Ron I have been steadfast that NO outside influences  nonprofit or for profit should be involved in NORTH DAKOTA politics. PERIOD.

So please answer two simple questions.

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

 

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

 And if a non profit can get enough citizens of ND to vote for a change in our constitution then it's really not the non profit getting it changed, it was the voters of the state. 

Excellent point eyexer.   Some would have us believe that it's those out of state people who are changing the constitution.  I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people.

  "Hi, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Are you making fun of the NRCS, or the government guy that cuts your fat check?

Eye, you have struck upon the chicken or the egg and which came first.

Would the voters of ND voted on a measure had the nonprofit not spent millions of dollars selling it?

Andfor a little extra twist, would the voters of ND have voted for the measure if the nonprofits had not been disingenuous with the voters regarding their measure?

Plainsamn so you support states rights right up until it affects something you wish and then you seem to have no problem with out of state interests buying their agendas here in our states constitution?

Why did you type page after page against the "people" deciding just a couple years ago is, " I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people."

So Bruce you then have no problem with out of state interests spending millions to change our states constitution?

Yes or no.


you'll have to ask the voters.  I'm assuming you think they are too stupid to make up their own minds without pressure from out of state interests.  Bottom line is the voters are the ones that decide things in this regard and they are the ones that have to make that decision.  If the reality is that out of state organizations spend more money to persuade our citizens to vote a certain way, well then the other side better get their damn check book out if you truly believe that.  We're really just a microcosm of what goes on at the federal level.  States lobby for certain things that affect other states.  sometimes for the good sometimes for the bad.  and most of the time at the expense money wise of the other states.  I guess what it boils down to is you simply think that the majority of the people of this state are too stupid to be able to make the right decision regarding initiated measures.  That they don't have the superior intellect that you posses.  Which is actually rather comical. 

 

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

 

gst Said:
Ron, Bruce,

Should I be able to sell my land to my Canadian friend?

Should out of state nonprofits (or for profits) have a say in changing our states constitution?

Yes?

No?

Ron I have been steadfast that NO outside influences  nonprofit or for profit should be involved in NORTH DAKOTA politics. PERIOD.

So please answer two simple questions.

I"m not sure why your compelled to beat this "sell my land to a canadian friend" thing to death.  We already can sell our land to Canadians.  Not sure what the point is your trying to make.

 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst the questions you pose have been answered. My point remains the same don't bitch about out of state money if the organizations that you support are willing and in the past have taken it as well. MOVE ON DUMBASS!

Funny you think it is fine for FB and others to push a voter required amendment but not for others to do so. Thus another example of your BS hypocrisy that shines so bright that sunglasses at night are needed!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

 And if a non profit can get enough citizens of ND to vote for a change in our constitution then it's really not the non profit getting it changed, it was the voters of the state. 

Excellent point eyexer.   Some would have us believe that it's those out of state people who are changing the constitution.  I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people.

  "Hi, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Are you making fun of the NRCS, or the government guy that cuts your fat check?

Eye, you have struck upon the chicken or the egg and which came first.

Would the voters of ND voted on a measure had the nonprofit not spent millions of dollars selling it?

Andfor a little extra twist, would the voters of ND have voted for the measure if the nonprofits had not been disingenuous with the voters regarding their measure?

Plainsamn so you support states rights right up until it affects something you wish and then you seem to have no problem with out of state interests buying their agendas here in our states constitution?

Why did you type page after page against the "people" deciding just a couple years ago is, " I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people."

So Bruce you then have no problem with out of state interests spending millions to change our states constitution?

Yes or no.

you'll have to ask the voters.  I'm assuming you think they are too stupid to make up their own minds without pressure from out of state interests.  Bottom line is the voters are the ones that decide things in this regard and they are the ones that have to make that decision.  If the reality is that out of state organizations spend more money to persuade our citizens to vote a certain way, well then the other side better get their damn check book out if you truly believe that.  We're really just a microcosm of what goes on at the federal level.  States lobby for certain things that affect other states.  sometimes for the good sometimes for the bad.  and most of the time at the expense money wise of the other states.  I guess what it boils down to is you simply think that the majority of the people of this state are too stupid to be able to make the right decision regarding initiated measures.  That they don't have the superior intellect that you posses.  Which is actually rather comical. 

eye, if one campaign spends 2 million dollars painting a picture that ommits certain consequences and makes promises that everyone would want despite being truthful about the consequences, and one campaign spends $100,000 and tries to get the truth out only to be over ran with advertising everytime 10 to one, which one has the better odds of winning?

Tell the same lie often enough over and over and eventually some people will believe it.

How else do you explain Obama getting elected to a second term.

Eye to not acknowledge money can buy votes whether here in ND or at the Federal level is pretty blind.

It appears you guys have no problem with out of state interests buying changes to our constitution as long as it get you what you want.

And eye, please show where I have EVER said the voters of ND are "to stupid" to make up their own minds if they are provided the truth behind what they are being asked to vote on.

I despise people that will lie to further an agenda.

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

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:
Ron, Bruce,

Should I be able to sell my land to my Canadian friend?

Should out of state nonprofits (or for profits) have a say in changing our states constitution?

Yes?

No?

Ron I have been steadfast that NO outside influences  nonprofit or for profit should be involved in NORTH DAKOTA politics. PERIOD.

So please answer two simple questions.

I"m not sure why your compelled to beat this "sell my land to a canadian friend" thing to death.  We already can sell our land to Canadians.  Not sure what the point is your trying to make.

You might want to check state law as to who one can sell their land to. If ron demands I can sell my lands to a Canadian, why should I not be able to sell my land to a Chinese national if they are the highest bidder?

Ron claims anyone should be able to sell their lands to anyone they wish. The state believes otherwise in a number of areas for various reasons.

So if we can sell to a Canadian, shouldn't we be able to sell to a Chinese national?

How about an Iranian national with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?

What about a Mexican national with ties to the cartels?

As I have said repeatedly infringements on private properties should only be done so after very thourough consideration of the conequences. One can reasonably argue having large amounts of land owned by foriegn nationals may not be in the bestinterests of the state.

So the question is asked to determine if there is ANYONE that ron thinks should not be able to purchase land. He knows where I am going with this and will not answer because if he is going to be honest, he knows it is not in the best interests of the state to allow that.

Ron, plainsman, eye, should out of state interests be allowed to buy influences to make changes to our constitution with millions of dollars?

yes, no?

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

Hardwaterman Said:
gst the questions you pose have been answered. My point remains the same don't bitch about out of state money if the organizations that you support are willing and in the past have taken it as well. MOVE ON DUMBASS!

Funny you think it is fine for FB and others to push a voter required amendment but not for others to do so. Thus another example of your BS hypocrisy that shines so bright that sunglasses at night are needed!

Where have you given a simple yes or no answer?

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst you are a piece of work, answered, and answered again and again! Figure it out dumbass!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
gst you are a piece of work, answered, and answered again and again! Figure it out dumbass!

Okay, just for this "dumbass" ron can you please show where you have answered it in a simple yes or no absolute such as your claim "anyone should be able to sell their land to anyone they wish" (or to that effect) was an absolute?

(a copy and paste will work with the link it came from)

Should an Iranian national with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood be able to buy land here in ND. Yes? No?

Should out of state interests be able to use their millions of $ to influence changes to our states constitution? Yes? No?

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

"The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.  

The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.

“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.

But the EPA isn’t backing down and argues they have final say over the issue. They also say Johnson needs to restore the land or face the fines."

So to get back on track here because no one is going to answer those two questions with a yes or no answer, this above from the article is really the crux of the issue.

Apparently the guy went to the state and even got a real letter from a real engineer (weedy should like that) from the state of WY and did what the state says he is supposed to.

But the Federal Govt comes in and says that is not relevant because the Federal Govt knows what is best for Wy.

So the question is should we invite organizations that have these same high handed ideals into our state to change our constitution with their millions of dollars?

.

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

 And if a non profit can get enough citizens of ND to vote for a change in our constitution then it's really not the non profit getting it changed, it was the voters of the state. 

Excellent point eyexer.   Some would have us believe that it's those out of state people who are changing the constitution.  I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people.

  "Hi, I'm from the govt and I'm here to help."

Are you making fun of the NRCS, or the government guy that cuts your fat check?

Eye, you have struck upon the chicken or the egg and which came first.

Would the voters of ND voted on a measure had the nonprofit not spent millions of dollars selling it?

Andfor a little extra twist, would the voters of ND have voted for the measure if the nonprofits had not been disingenuous with the voters regarding their measure?

Plainsamn so you support states rights right up until it affects something you wish and then you seem to have no problem with out of state interests buying their agendas here in our states constitution?

Why did you type page after page against the "people" deciding just a couple years ago is, " I think anyone who believes in the ideals of a republic and respects this nation will allow the decisions to be made by the ultimate judge which is the people."

So Bruce you then have no problem with out of state interests spending millions to change our states constitution?

Yes or no.

you'll have to ask the voters.  I'm assuming you think they are too stupid to make up their own minds without pressure from out of state interests.  Bottom line is the voters are the ones that decide things in this regard and they are the ones that have to make that decision.  If the reality is that out of state organizations spend more money to persuade our citizens to vote a certain way, well then the other side better get their damn check book out if you truly believe that.  We're really just a microcosm of what goes on at the federal level.  States lobby for certain things that affect other states.  sometimes for the good sometimes for the bad.  and most of the time at the expense money wise of the other states.  I guess what it boils down to is you simply think that the majority of the people of this state are too stupid to be able to make the right decision regarding initiated measures.  That they don't have the superior intellect that you posses.  Which is actually rather comical. 

eye, if one campaign spends 2 million dollars painting a picture that ommits certain consequences and makes promises that everyone would want despite being truthful about the consequences, and one campaign spends $100,000 and tries to get the truth out only to be over ran with advertising everytime 10 to one, which one has the better odds of winning?

Tell the same lie often enough over and over and eventually some people will believe it.

How else do you explain Obama getting elected to a second term.

Eye to not acknowledge money can buy votes whether here in ND or at the Federal level is pretty blind.

It appears you guys have no problem with out of state interests buying changes to our constitution as long as it get you what you want.

And eye, please show where I have EVER said the voters of ND are "to stupid" to make up their own minds if they are provided the truth behind what they are being asked to vote on.

I despise people that will lie to further an agenda.

I never said money doesn't buy votes.  especially on the national level.  I don't think it's near as bad at our state level.  But if y our concerned about that then you guys better open your wallets if that is the issue.  The ag community has very deep pockets.  They just don't want to spend the money.  They'd rather whine about it. 

 

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:
Ron, Bruce,

Should I be able to sell my land to my Canadian friend?

Should out of state nonprofits (or for profits) have a say in changing our states constitution?

Yes?

No?

Ron I have been steadfast that NO outside influences  nonprofit or for profit should be involved in NORTH DAKOTA politics. PERIOD.

So please answer two simple questions.

I"m not sure why your compelled to beat this "sell my land to a canadian friend" thing to death.  We already can sell our land to Canadians.  Not sure what the point is your trying to make.

You might want to check state law as to who one can sell their land to. If ron demands I can sell my lands to a Canadian, why should I not be able to sell my land to a Chinese national if they are the highest bidder?

Ron claims anyone should be able to sell their lands to anyone they wish. The state believes otherwise in a number of areas for various reasons.

So if we can sell to a Canadian, shouldn't we be able to sell to a Chinese national?

How about an Iranian national with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?

What about a Mexican national with ties to the cartels?

As I have said repeatedly infringements on private properties should only be done so after very thourough consideration of the conequences. One can reasonably argue having large amounts of land owned by foriegn nationals may not be in the bestinterests of the state.

So the question is asked to determine if there is ANYONE that ron thinks should not be able to purchase land. He knows where I am going with this and will not answer because if he is going to be honest, he knows it is not in the best interests of the state to allow that.

Ron, plainsman, eye, should out of state interests be allowed to buy influences to make changes to our constitution with millions of dollars?

yes, no?

If the state doesn't want foreign interests buying land here then they better get their check book out.  Maybe you should enlighten us on who one can sell their land to.

 

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

gst Said:
"The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.  

The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.

“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.

But the EPA isn’t backing down and argues they have final say over the issue. They also say Johnson needs to restore the land or face the fines."

So to get back on track here because no one is going to answer those two questions with a yes or no answer, this above from the article is really the crux of the issue.

Apparently the guy went to the state and even got a real letter from a real engineer (weedy should like that) from the state of WY and did what the state says he is supposed to.

But the Federal Govt comes in and says that is not relevant because the Federal Govt knows what is best for Wy.

So the question is should we invite organizations that have these same high handed ideals into our state to change our constitution with their millions of dollars?

.

I think it's a states rights issue.  The burden of proof should be on the epa to prove this guys damn is a serious threat.  I don't know the details of this case but I'd guess the epa hasn't done that, they're just flexing their muscle.

 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst you have asked these questions in multiple threads got it! NOW since you want a simple yes or no answer give us one to this

WILL YOU PUBLICLY TELL THE AG GROUPS AND OTHERS OPPOSED TO THE PETITION TO ONLY ACCEPT AND USE MONEY THAT COMES FROM RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OR FROM COMPANIES DOMICILED IN ND?
 
THERE IS YOUR YES OR NO QUESTION!!!!!!!!! NOW ANSWER THAT OR SIMPLY SHUT UP!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

gst you twist things trying to get the answer you want.  You can be answered a half dozen times, but keep asking claiming no one has answered you.  If you don't get the right answer you fabricate a scenario that makes your debate opponent look bad.  Oh, yes I know show you where you have done that right?  Sure thing. 

I'll do something shocking for you gst, I'll be totally honest.  Everyone here feels much the same including you, and if you deny it we will all know your full of bs.

Do we want out of state money coming in, can you sell to a Canadian, etc.

You talk landowner rights out of the left side of your mouth and landowner restrictions out of the right side of your mouth gst.  Here is how I feel:

I think any citizen, group of citizens, or government agency should be able to purchase any farm land they want if they have a willing buyer.  In North Dakota the ag interests have restricted the Fish and Wildlife from buying land.  I think it's unconstitutional to restrict an American citizen or agency that way.  Would I restrict terrorist groups?  Sure I would.  Here is the shocker gst:  I would like to restrict groups that threaten my future and your already doing it through our one track mind legislature, and you like it. 

Out of state money:
You don't want it, because the largest industry in the state (agriculture) can walk all over the rest of the citizens without out of state money.   I like it because it gives us a fighting chance against the giant.  This isn't buying votes, it's just giving a voice through advertising so the people of North Dakota can make an educated vote rather than a ignorant vote.  I want the educated vote, and you want the ignorant vote.  Simple as that. 

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

Come on ron, please show this "dumbass" where you have answered those questions.

You haven't.

Ron you have asked the question you are yelling before and I compared it to an analogy of going into a boxing match with your hands tied behind your back. (you seem to like that idea in regards to this measure ron)

SO YES RON I DO NOT WANT ANYONE ACCEPTING OUT OF STATE DOLLARS TO IMPACT ND DECISIONS. I HAVE SAID THIS MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE, I HAVE NEVER ONCE VARIED FROM THIS POSITION.

Now back to non internet yelling for the rest of our conversation.

But unfortunately one side already has taken in hundreds of thousands of dollars from out of state groups to do so haven;t they ron. This was done years before any formal opposition group was formed. They are continuing to take in hundreds of thousands more and will likely take in millions before it is done.

So would you like to see the opposition handicapped by not doing so? Like I said earlier ron, you impress me as someone who would get a smug satisfaction of stepping into a ring with your opponents hands tied behind his back. 

Hardwaterman Said:
gst you have asked these questions in multiple threads got it! NOW since you want a simple yes or no answer give us one to this
WILL YOU PUBLICLY TELL THE AG GROUPS AND OTHERS OPPOSED TO THE PETITION TO ONLY ACCEPT AND USE MONEY THAT COMES FROM RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OR FROM COMPANIES DOMICILED IN ND?
 
THERE IS YOUR YES OR NO QUESTION!!!!!!!!! NOW ANSWER THAT OR SIMPLY SHUT UP!

Remember ron it is NOT the opposition that opened this door. It is the proponents of this measure that used these dollars from these out of state orgs to fraudulently collect signatures last time.

Remember ron it is the proponents of this measure that are using these funds to hire a Washington DC firm to run their campaign for them instead of using a ND company.

The same Washjington DC based company that is running other measures for the very out of state groups that are signing the checks. So who is calling the shots here ron, the ND sponsors or the out of state checkbooks?

People like you and eye and plainsman seem to have no problem with people from outside our state buying control over ND when it suits your purpose.

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

eyexer Said
I never said money doesn't buy votes.  especially on the national level.  I don't think it's near as bad at our state level.  But if y our concerned about that then you guys better open your wallets if that is the issue.  The ag community has very deep pockets.  They just don't want to spend the money.  They'd rather whine about it. 

eye, just last election we had a measure on the ballot regarding animal cruelty funded by the HSUS and other out of state animal rights groups. They had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising early on. The polls were running 60% in favor, 40% against.

Livestock producers ponied up thousands but could not match dollar for dollar these out of state orgs. Only when another outside org funded by Lucas Oil, Protect the Harvest donated significant dollars late in the game were the lies being told able to be countered with the truth dollar for dollar.

The final result ended up reversing and it was defeated roughly 60% against 40% for.

Dollars DO play a large role her in state issues such as this. These orgs know this and that is why they are willing to invest millions to access billions.

Once one side starts down that road as the sponsors of this measure have done twice now, the other side has two choices follow or be SIGNIFICANTLY handicapped.

A friend of mine had his booth right beside this measures booth at the KX sport show.

Not once did the gals collecting signatures tell ND voters of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they accepted from out of state orgs.

Not once did they tell the people they were asking to sign that 75% of millions of dollars HAD to be spent no matter what.

Not once did they tell ND voters that they would not be able to vote on this again for 25 years.

None of the materials they were handing out mentioned any of this either. Why not tell the people of ND what the measure actually will do and who is funding it's passage?

Why not tell the voters these orgs funding this measure are the same ones suing states over wolf management and other things and "collaborating" with the EPA?

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02
SO YES RON I DO NOT WANT ANYONE ACCEPTING OUT OF STATE DOLLARS TO IMPACT ND DECISIONS. I HAVE SAID THIS MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE, I HAVE NEVER ONCE VARIED FROM THIS POSITION.

Not the question asked of you gst!

yes I should be able to sell to anyone that I want to period. If the Fed Gov deems ownership of land by someone or a country hostile to the US so be it. Bigger scheme of things, but you are again clouding the issue. ND law is not going to withstand the court review. So until such time that the ruling comes down you can ask about Iran, Iraq, Venezuela or Canada citizens and the answer does not change. YOU NOR STOCKMENS SHOULD HAVE ANY INPUT INTO WHOM I SELL TO!

 Clear enough for you? Again this has been answered. In regards to out of state money I said before that I prefer things in state, but that is not the way things work anymore. Out of state money is a direct result of the actions taken by you and others like you in preventing conservation efforts and like it or not conservation in ND affects and impacts wildlife especially migrating wild in other states and countries. SO they have a vested interest in it as well.

In regards to WY issue again powers granted to the Fed body cannot be trumped by the state. Control of waterways and drainage to them is a federal issue and like I pointed out our contractor knew this even though our local Gov said no permit was needed. So that argument holds no water pun intended.

So you got anymore stupid claims to make? Answer the question posed to you not your bs response. Put up or shut up again! IF you are not willing to publicly tell your groups and supporters to take no out of state money or from companies and organizations not domiciled in ND then get off it!

I will again state this, I do not know if I would vote for the amendment if it is successful in getting on the ballot, I do however feel that they have a right to pursue it and the people then get to decide. I am well aware of the costs of this venture and if not for the stupidity of others last time it would likely have made it.

Also if the your organizations contrary to what you claim would have supported a better funded and less ag controlled program I doubt this measure would have come back up. So when you wank about this look in the mirror and realize that much of what is bothering you is of your own making. I highly doubt you have the ablity to look within and see what and why your views are so out of touch but so be it.

Proper conservation efforts are hampered and stonewalled by your org and others like it and this like the lawsuit challenging the law are a direct result of that behavior and short sighted shallow wants.

When was the last time any of the organizations supported the purchase of land for conservation? All we hear is the state and Fed and other org already own to much land.

Not one acre not one penny or something close to it that one of the farm org stated. Good grief what arrogance and flaming stupidity that shows!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

Plainsman Said:

gst you twist things trying to get the answer you want.  You can be answered a half dozen times, but keep asking claiming no one has answered you.  If you don't get the right answer you fabricate a scenario that makes your debate opponent look bad.  Oh, yes I know show you where you have done that right?  Sure thing. 

I'll do something shocking for you gst, I'll be totally honest.  Everyone here feels much the same including you, and if you deny it we will all know your full of bs.

Do we want out of state money coming in, can you sell to a Canadian, etc.

You talk landowner rights out of the left side of your mouth and landowner restrictions out of the right side of your mouth gst.  Here is how I feel:

I think any citizen, group of citizens, or government agency should be able to purchase any farm land they want if they have a willing buyer.  In North Dakota the ag interests have restricted the Fish and Wildlife from buying land.  I think it's unconstitutional to restrict an American citizen or agency that way.  Would I restrict terrorist groups?  Sure I would.  Here is the shocker gst:  I would like to restrict groups that threaten my future and your already doing it through our one track mind legislature, and you like it. 

So you want to place YOUR "restrictions" on who can buy land, but complain when the state does this when it does not suit your ideals.

Okay.

The elected representative of ALL the people of ND disagree with you and ron. You seem to take exception with the legislative process when it does not suit your wants Bruce. (oh yeah I know agriculture controls the legislature because that is all they have to do in the winter months right plains) (but what percentage of the states legislators are tied directly to ag Bruce? Remember I provided you that information once)

Out of state money:
You don't want it, because the largest industry in the state (agriculture) can walk all over the rest of the citizens without out of state money.   I like it because it gives us a fighting chance against the giant.  This isn't buying votes, it's just giving a voice through advertising so the people of North Dakota can make an educated vote rather than a ignorant vote.  I want the educated vote, and you want the ignorant vote.  Simple as that. 

You want the "educated vote" as long as they are not required to tell the truth about their measure and who is behind it to actually "educate" the voter.
Just as you denied the truth about other out of state organizations (HSUS) and their involvement and funding in a previous measure right Bruce?

You want to pit agriculture against everyone else Bruce by dividing and segmenting voters in our state against one another.

I simply want ALL ND voters to vote without ANY out of state interests "buying" (and yes it is "buying") votes.

I simply want ALL ND voters to be told the truth about what they are being asked to vote on.



So Bruce would you be so supportive of out of state dollars "buying" ND votes if it was coming from a company making their fortune selling tiling and drainage equipment?

For some reason I doubt you would be so understanding.

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said
I never said money doesn't buy votes.  especially on the national level.  I don't think it's near as bad at our state level.  But if y our concerned about that then you guys better open your wallets if that is the issue.  The ag community has very deep pockets.  They just don't want to spend the money.  They'd rather whine about it. 

eye, just last election we had a measure on the ballot regarding animal cruelty funded by the HSUS and other out of state animal rights groups. They had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising early on. The polls were running 60% in favor, 40% against.

Livestock producers ponied up thousands but could not match dollar for dollar these out of state orgs. Only when another outside org funded by Lucas Oil, Protect the Harvest donated significant dollars late in the game were the lies being told able to be countered with the truth dollar for dollar.

The final result ended up reversing and it was defeated roughly 60% against 40% for.

Dollars DO play a large role her in state issues such as this. These orgs know this and that is why they are willing to invest millions to access billions.

Once one side starts down that road as the sponsors of this measure have done twice now, the other side has two choices follow or be SIGNIFICANTLY handicapped.

A friend of mine had his booth right beside this measures booth at the KX sport show.

Not once did the gals collecting signatures tell ND voters of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they accepted from out of state orgs.

Not once did they tell the people they were asking to sign that 75% of millions of dollars HAD to be spent no matter what.

Not once did they tell ND voters that they would not be able to vote on this again for 25 years.

None of the materials they were handing out mentioned any of this either. Why not tell the people of ND what the measure actually will do and who is funding it's passage?

Why not tell the voters these orgs funding this measure are the same ones suing states over wolf management and other things and "collaborating" with the EPA?

Maybe its because ND doesn't have a wolf problem?  Or maybe it doesn't really matter to the people who are interested in conserving some part of this state for future generations that the EPA is even mentioned?
Gabe you are just simply thinking about your self again.  No surprise though.

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

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
A friend of mine had his booth right beside this measures booth at the KX sport show.
 
Good for you.  So your saying you have some second hand information?

 

Not once did the gals collecting signatures tell ND voters of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they accepted from out of state orgs.
 
Hardwaterman can I join you in the dumba$$ assessment?  That's what the advertisements are for.  Many of those people collecting signatures don't know everything about a measure.  Before you say they should the people you have doing the same thing don't all know the entire thing either.  What are they supposed to do get on a soapbox and give them a rundown of every penny and every signature over the past two years.  Get real and stop the little boy whine.

 

Not once did they tell the people they were asking to sign that 75% of millions of dollars HAD to be spent no matter what.
Your the only one who would expect such nonsense at the booth.  Information like that should come from the people who are spearheading the effort, not the volunteer at a booth.  Again, the money coming in pays for the advertisements.  I would guess the ag money coming in refuted the claims you wanted refuted in the measure you were speaking of.  Keep in mind that although you complain about us 90% of us on this site supported ag on that measure.  Stop spitting in the face of your allies simply because they will not give you the world and crown you king.

 

Not once did they tell ND voters that they would not be able to vote on this again for 25 years.
I'll bet many find these things out before they vote.  If they don't then use your money to tell the public.  Like I said before I want informed voters.  You want them informed in some instances, and ignorant if it benefits agriculture.  Lets face it your on an outdoor site not for the outdoor aspect, but just in the interests of agriculture. 

 

None of the materials they were handing out mentioned any of this either. Why not tell the people of ND what the measure actually will do and who is funding it's passage?

So what were they handing out gst.  Did they hand out information to support their side?  Did you expect them to hand out information to support your side? 

Why not tell the voters these orgs funding this measure are the same ones suing states over wolf management and other things and "collaborating" with the EPA?
 

I don't like groups like HSUS or PETA, but I oppose you on this thread, because your just the other side of a poison sandwich.  Either way we bite it were screwed.   As a matter of fact I voted against the animal cruelty.  I had to keep you out of mind as I voted because there was no better advocate for the measure than your mouth.  

Oh, guess what?  I am for wolf management too.  I especially would like to manage them with my 6.5 Creedmoor.  Actually I would like to mange them with any weapon I can get my hands on at the moment.  I would love to get into a pack with an AR15 with a suppressor and clipped together 30 round clips.  I would like to call that pack out lf the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone across the border and legally be able to wipe them out.  So I would think most on here would agree with you gst.  I also think it would be best to just be quiet before you change minds. 

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

Hardwaterman Said:

SO YES RON I DO NOT WANT ANYONE ACCEPTING OUT OF STATE DOLLARS TO IMPACT ND DECISIONS. I HAVE SAID THIS MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE, I HAVE NEVER ONCE VARIED FROM THIS POSITION.

Not the question asked of you gst!

No.  I will not ask or expect the opposition to this measure to tie their hands behind their back. Nor do I expect them to bring a knife to a gun fight. No matter what you claim ron they did not start down this path.

It is time for a law preventing out of state interests from buying ND law.

yes I should be able to sell to anyone that I want to period. If the Fed Gov deems ownership of land by someone or a country hostile to the US so be it. Bigger scheme of things, but you are again clouding the issue. So now to be clear, YOU support the Federal govt telling the states who shouldbe able to buy land, I thought previously you had an absolute "anyone should be able to sell to anyone" policy??? ND law is not going to withstand the court review. So until such time that the ruling comes down you can ask about Iran, Iraq, Venezuela or Canada citizens and the answer does not change. YOU NOR STOCKMENS SHOULD HAVE ANY INPUT INTO WHOM I SELL TO!It  Clear enough for you?   Yes it is ro. IT IS NICE TO SEE HOW LITTLE YOU SUPPORT STATES RIGHTS WHEN THEY DO NOT SUIT YOUR PURPOSE RON.

  Again this has been answered. In regards to out of state money I said before that I prefer things in state, but that is not the way things work anymore. Out of state money is a direct result of the actions taken by you and others like you in preventing conservation efforts and like it or not conservation in ND affects and impacts wildlife especially migrating wild in other states and countries. SO they have a vested interest in it as well.

In regards to WY issue again powers granted to the Fed body cannot be trumped by the state. Control of waterways and drainage to them is a federal issue and like I pointed out our contractor knew this even though our local Gov said no permit was needed. So that argument holds no water pun intended. Ron this "power" is only allowed within the language granted the Feds, not to what ever they wish. BIG difference. Do a little research as to what was stated in the article regarding what the Clean Water act has juristiction over. Why do you think EPA is pushing for changes to the Clean Water Act?

So you got anymore stupid claims to make? Answer the question posed to you not your bs response. Put up or shut up again! IF you are not willing to publicly tell your groups and supporters to take no out of state money or from companies and organizations not domiciled in ND then get off it!
Once again you seem to reenforce your willingness to pummel your opponent while is hands are tied behind his back ron.

I will again state this, I do not know if I would vote for the amendment if it is successful in getting on the ballot, I do however feel that they have a right to pursue it and the people then get to decide. I am well aware of the costs of this venture and if not for the stupidity of others last time it would likely have made it.

Also if the your organizations contrary to what you claim would have supported a better funded and less ag controlled program I doubt this measure would have come back up. Bullshit, without the ability to use these dollars to buy land the sponsors said they would move forward. So when you wank about this look in the mirror and realize that much of what is bothering you is of your own making. I highly doubt you have the ablity to look within and see what and why your views are so out of touch but so be it.

Proper conservation efforts are hampered and stonewalled by your org and others like it and this like the lawsuit challenging the law are a direct result of that behavior and short sighted shallow wants.

Ron you are aware of the enviromental stewardship programs one "ag org" has in conjunction with the NDG&F right? How about the conservation ideals the ND Grazing Lands Coalitions support? You seem to be dismissing the affects of the NWF lawsuits and other actions and policies of these "wildlfie/sportsmens orgs ron.

When was the last time any of the organizations supported the purchase of land for conservation? All we hear is the state and Fed and other org already own to much land. What position did some ag orgs take in the last  Natural Areas Aquisitions Committee meetings over land sales?

Not one acre not one penny or something close to it that one of the farm org stated. Good grief what arrogance and flaming stupidity that shows

Thanks though for not calling me a "dumbass" this time ron.

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

eyexer Said
I never said money doesn't buy votes.  especially on the national level.  I don't think it's near as bad at our state level.  But if y our concerned about that then you guys better open your wallets if that is the issue.  The ag community has very deep pockets.  They just don't want to spend the money.  They'd rather whine about it. 

eye, just last election we had a measure on the ballot regarding animal cruelty funded by the HSUS and other out of state animal rights groups. They had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising early on. The polls were running 60% in favor, 40% against.

Livestock producers ponied up thousands but could not match dollar for dollar these out of state orgs. Only when another outside org funded by Lucas Oil, Protect the Harvest donated significant dollars late in the game were the lies being told able to be countered with the truth dollar for dollar.

The final result ended up reversing and it was defeated roughly 60% against 40% for.

Dollars DO play a large role her in state issues such as this. These orgs know this and that is why they are willing to invest millions to access billions.

Once one side starts down that road as the sponsors of this measure have done twice now, the other side has two choices follow or be SIGNIFICANTLY handicapped.

A friend of mine had his booth right beside this measures booth at the KX sport show.

Not once did the gals collecting signatures tell ND voters of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they accepted from out of state orgs.

Not once did they tell the people they were asking to sign that 75% of millions of dollars HAD to be spent no matter what.

Not once did they tell ND voters that they would not be able to vote on this again for 25 years.

None of the materials they were handing out mentioned any of this either. Why not tell the people of ND what the measure actually will do and who is funding it's passage?

Why not tell the voters these orgs funding this measure are the same ones suing states over wolf management and other things and "collaborating" with the EPA?

Maybe its because ND doesn't have a wolf problem?  Or maybe it doesn't really matter to the people who are interested in conserving some part of this state for future generations that the EPA is even mentioned?
Gabe you are just simply thinking about your self again.  No surprise though.

Try thinking a little bigger picture west than just the personal crap you always bring, do you like lawsuits from out side orgs telling a state how they have to manage what impacts their state west?

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

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

eyexer Said
I never said money doesn't buy votes.  especially on the national level.  I don't think it's near as bad at our state level.  But if y our concerned about that then you guys better open your wallets if that is the issue.  The ag community has very deep pockets.  They just don't want to spend the money.  They'd rather whine about it. 

eye, just last election we had a measure on the ballot regarding animal cruelty funded by the HSUS and other out of state animal rights groups. They had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising early on. The polls were running 60% in favor, 40% against.

Livestock producers ponied up thousands but could not match dollar for dollar these out of state orgs. Only when another outside org funded by Lucas Oil, Protect the Harvest donated significant dollars late in the game were the lies being told able to be countered with the truth dollar for dollar.

The final result ended up reversing and it was defeated roughly 60% against 40% for.

Dollars DO play a large role her in state issues such as this. These orgs know this and that is why they are willing to invest millions to access billions.

Once one side starts down that road as the sponsors of this measure have done twice now, the other side has two choices follow or be SIGNIFICANTLY handicapped.

A friend of mine had his booth right beside this measures booth at the KX sport show.

Not once did the gals collecting signatures tell ND voters of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they accepted from out of state orgs.

Not once did they tell the people they were asking to sign that 75% of millions of dollars HAD to be spent no matter what.

Not once did they tell ND voters that they would not be able to vote on this again for 25 years.

None of the materials they were handing out mentioned any of this either. Why not tell the people of ND what the measure actually will do and who is funding it's passage?

Why not tell the voters these orgs funding this measure are the same ones suing states over wolf management and other things and "collaborating" with the EPA?

Maybe its because ND doesn't have a wolf problem?  Or maybe it doesn't really matter to the people who are interested in conserving some part of this state for future generations that the EPA is even mentioned?
Gabe you are just simply thinking about your self again.  No surprise though.

Try thinking a little bigger picture west than just the personal crap you always bring, do you like lawsuits from out side orgs telling a state how they have to manage what impacts their state west?

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

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

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

Plainsman Said:

A friend of mine had his booth right beside this measures booth at the KX sport show.
 
Good for you.  So your saying you have some second hand information?

  Are you calling my friend a liar without any proof? Ask the people taking signatures yourself Bruce what they told the public.

Not once did the gals collecting signatures tell ND voters of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they accepted from out of state orgs.
 
Hardwaterman can I join you in the dumba$$ assessment?  That's what the advertisements are for.  Many of those people collecting signatures don't know everything about a measure.  Before you say they should the people you have doing the same thing don't all know the entire thing either.  What are they supposed to do get on a soapbox and give them a rundown of every penny and every signature over the past two years.  Get real and stop the little boy whine.
Plainsman the opposition to this are not the ones asking people to change our constituion. So you are saying those asking people for their votes should NOT understand the true language of the measure they are asking to be supported???
 
Not once did they tell the people they were asking to sign that 75% of millions of dollars HAD to be spent no matter what.
Your the only one who would expect such nonsense at the booth.  Information like that should come from the people who are spearheading the effort, not the volunteer at a booth.  Again, the money coming in pays for the advertisements.  I would guess the ag money coming in refuted the claims you wanted refuted in the measure you were speaking of.  Keep in mind that although you complain about us 90% of us on this site supported ag on that measure.  Stop spitting in the face of your allies simply because they will not give you the world and crown you king.
Once again Bruce you do not expect people asking the voter to sign to know the actual language of the measure and share that with the voters???  What "other" measure are you talking about Bruce?

 

Not once did they tell ND voters that they would not be able to vote on this again for 25 years.
I'll bet many find these things out before they vote.  If they don't then use your money to tell the public.  Like I said before I want informed voters. Bullshit. That must be why you REPEATEDLY denied HSUS involvement i previous measure right Bruce?  You want them informed in some instances, and ignorant if it benefits agriculture.  Lets face it your on an outdoor site not for the outdoor aspect, but just in the interests of agriculture. 

 

None of the materials they were handing out mentioned any of this either. Why not tell the people of ND what the measure actually will do and who is funding it's passage?

So what were they handing out gst.  Did they hand out information to support their side?  Did you expect them to hand out information to support your side?  I expect them to hand out information that factually explains completely what the measure they are asking voters to support does. Not just pick and choose what sounds good.

Why not tell the voters these orgs funding this measure are the same ones suing states over wolf management and other things and "collaborating" with the EPA?
 

I don't like groups like HSUS or PETA, but I oppose you on this thread, because your just the other side of a poison sandwich.  Either way we bite it were screwed.   As a matter of fact I voted against the animal cruelty.  I had to keep you out of mind as I voted because there was no better advocate for the measure than your mouth.  

Oh, guess what?  I am for wolf management too.  I especially would like to manage them with my 6.5 Creedmoor.  Actually I would like to mange them with any weapon I can get my hands on at the moment.  I would love to get into a pack with an AR15 with a suppressor and clipped together 30 round clips.  I would like to call that pack out lf the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone across the border and legally be able to wipe them out.  So I would think most on here would agree with you gst.  I also think it would be best to just be quiet before you change minds.  So then you agree out of state groups should not buy changes to our states constitution and you will be opposing this measure because it mandates spending in the constitution rather than statute thus preventing the ND voter from having a say for 25 years?

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

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

gst Said:
"The government says he violated the Clean Water Act by building a dam on a creek without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the EPA claims that material from his pond is being discharged into other waterways. Johnson says he built a stock pond -- a man-made pond meant to attract wildlife -- which is exempt from Clean Water Act regulations.  

The property owner says he followed the state rules for a stock pond when he built it in 2012 and has an April 4-dated letter from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office to prove it.

“Said permit is in good standing and is entitled to be exercised exactly as permitted,” the state agency letter to Johnson said.

But the EPA isn’t backing down and argues they have final say over the issue. They also say Johnson needs to restore the land or face the fines."

So to get back on track here because no one is going to answer those two questions with a yes or no answer, this above from the article is really the crux of the issue.

Apparently the guy went to the state and even got a real letter from a real engineer (weedy should like that) from the state of WY and did what the state says he is supposed to.

But the Federal Govt comes in and says that is not relevant because the Federal Govt knows what is best for Wy.

So the question is should we invite organizations that have these same high handed ideals into our state to change our constitution with their millions of dollars?

.

gst, please don't twist the information I provided to fit your agenda.  The state laws that govern the construction of dams vary from state to state.  The Corps of Engineers regulations under the Clean Water Act regulate impacts to wetlands on a national basis.  The problem the guy in Wyoming is facing is either that he constructed his "pond" in a wetland that falls under COE jurisdiction or his "pond" has reduced the hydrologic yield to downstream wetlands jeopardizing their function and existence.

As I said in an earlier post, the ND State Water Commission would normally warn a person they issue a construction permit that they should consult with the COE before proceeding with construction to avoid a problem just like this one.  So the state of Wyoming missed an opportunity to assist on of their constituents.  That does not mean that the guy in Wyoming should not have to comply with the federal regulations because his state agency forgot to tell him to. 

Someone earlier mentioned the "discharge" issue.  The COE calls fill placed in a wetland or waterway a "discharge".  If the fill built by the welder is eroding and the silt is filling downstream wetlands or entering a stream this would also be called a discharge.  Considering the watercourse has the volume of flow to fill the pond area shown in the picture, and that embankment was built by the welder and his wife,either one of these scenarios is possible.  The tract of land owned by the welder is 8 acres so it is quite possible any silt from the erosion process would impact a downstream landowner.  You notice the correspondence from the state agency stated the pond was built in compliance with state regulations.  They said absolutely nothing about complying with federal regulations.  The state agency is not going to admit any wrong doing, otherwise the state might be then on the hook for the cost of restoration.

In western states the feds and state agencies never seem to agree on water issues.  Sort of like democrats and republicans.  John Q. Public is not best served by this infighting but that is the way it goes.

I would like to address your quip about me being happy an engineer was involved in the state permit process.  If you have a medical issue, you consult a physician.  If you have a legal issue, you consult a lawyer.  The guidance you get from these individuals may not always be right but your are better off than consulting a farmer on either of these issues. Just saying!

Weedy

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gabe your side had no problem altering our constitution to benefit you and yours, RIGHT? So now others are seeking to do the same thing! You just cannot grasp that if you and yours can others should be allowed to as well.

I will clarify one thing for you again, I defer to the Fed gov deciding if a non us entity has the ablity to purchase property in the US because it is going to be based on national security interests not some petty crap about farmer competition.Hense why I would defer to them and not the Stockmans Assn, or FU or FB!

Does FU,Stockmans disclose they are opposed to this petition in their advertising state that the reason is they do not want competition on purchases or that they want to continue to limit the rights of actually property owners from realizing gains and profits on there labors or prevent landowners who have land inundated with water making it unfit for use of cattle or crop from selling that property to someone who has an interest in improving that land for wildlife?

You talk out of both sides of your mouth without even realizing it. You have listened to yourself and others like you so much that you fail to see the hypocrisy of your claims.

That land I mentioned inundated is worthless now to any farmer or rancher, it has or holds no value for production but you want some farmer to be able to buy it at less than what others are willing to sell on the future value it has giving him a huge windfall but  depriving the existing landowner his right to salvage what he can. Good grief your organization is twisted in that view!

And do not parade out the so called conservation efforts of these orgs they are pitiful in reality because they oppose real efforts that are trying to be made. 3 acres here or there help but pale in comparision to 300-600 in a tract. Those little spots are much like gun free zones for predators, easy to identify and attack with little or no escape options for animals force to use them!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

Lets face it gst is here in the interest of agriculture and could give a rats behind about conservation.  He wants to come off a super-rancher and everyone just take his word for everything.  If out of state provides money for his benefit great, but if he wants to dump on the average North Dakotan and some out of state interest helps support our agenda then oooooooh my gosh the world is coming to an end.  When all else fails it's HSUS and PETA plots.  When logic fails scare them with the boogyman.  Don't get me wrong I dislike HSUS and PETA, but lets face it they are not involved with everything.  If they happen to be accidently on the right side, well lets face it even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn. 

gst you want people collecting petitions to give a complete background to everyone coming to their table.  Get real.  It takes 30 people as sponsors for an initiative.  Do you think all 30 sponsors know what's going on?  I have had one experience and about three people were actually in charge and found people to sign on.  If anyone asked me what was going on I could not have told them.  I wasn't happy about that, but I didn't have the time to spend to find out either.  That's the real world.

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

gst Said:

wstnodak Said

What does that have to do with conserving some of ND gabe?  So because some group talked to another group, that means we are responsible for spanking them?  I think that's what you are saying.  Are you saying this just for your personal gain gabe?

You seem to have NO problem telling our state how to manage itself so what is your deal with others having their opinion? 

If you really can not see the possible negative consequences of inviting orgs like the ones filing these lawsuits and collaborating with th EPA on how our state should manage our state  into our state west I am not going to invest further time into explaining it to you.

And west I support BOTH yours and my ability to have a say in telling our state to manage itself, I simply do not think out of state orgs should. Pretty simple really.

Try dropping the personal crap EVERY post west and actually discuss an issue for once.

You will not allow it gabe with your self serving, arrogant, and condescending nature.  Many have tried.  I don't know why you even bother to ask people to "discuss" with you anymore?

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

Pages