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...

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

Jimmy said,

Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way. 

Sell it Jimmy, sell it. I see you are still trying to convince the sportsmen that you Plains and plainsman's minions from nodakouthouse wear camo. Psh!!!!!

It is very easy to build a dam in ND, as long as it is less then 10 feet high and/or doesn't back up a large pool of water. Don't need engineers, surveyors and a bunch of techs. All you need is a 627 Cat Scraper. Watch closely for cost share at your local NRCS. The first thing Ducks Unlimited will want in on the project and then the cost plus begins. You're better off without their money or their experts.

Anyway, that is how we used to roll up our sleeves and get things done. I believe the guy in Wyoming is being made an example of. Ask for our blessing first, or else.

Below is a piece of our ND Century Code pertaining to this issue. Plainsman, how come you and some of your minions cannot spend a little more of your time posting what the law actually says instead of...........well you know?

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t61c16-1.pdf?20140320190248

61-16.1-38. Permit to construct or modify dam, dike, or other device required - Penalty

- Emergency.

No dikes, dams, or other devices for water conservation, flood control regulation, watershed

improvement, or storage of water which are capable of retaining, obstructing, or diverting more

than fifty acre-feet [61674.08 cubic meters] of water or twenty-five acre-feet [30837.04 cubic

meters] of water for a medium-hazard or high-hazard dam, may be constructed within any

district except in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. An application for the

construction of any dike, dam, or other device, along with complete plans and specifications,

must be presented first to the state engineer. Except for low-hazard dams less than ten feet

[3.05 meters] in height, the plans and specifications must be completed by a professional

engineer registered in this state. After receipt, the state engineer shall consider the application

in such detail as the state engineer deems necessary and proper. The state engineer shall

refuse to allow the construction of any unsafe or improper dike, dam, or other device which

would interfere with the orderly control of the water resources of the district, or may order such

changes, conditions, or modifications as in the judgment of the state engineer may be

necessary for safety or the protection of property. Within forty-five days after receipt of the

application, except in unique or complex situations, the state engineer shall complete the state

engineer's initial review of the application and forward the application, along with any changes,

conditions, or modifications, to the water resource board of the district within which the

contemplated project is located. The board thereupon shall consider, within forty-five days, the

application, and suggest any changes, conditions, or modifications to the state engineer. If the

application meets with the board's approval, the board shall forward the approved application to

the state engineer. If the board fails to respond within forty-five days, it shall be determined the

board has no changes, conditions, or modifications. The state engineer shall make the final

decision on the application and forward that decision to the applicant and the local water

resource board. The state engineer may issue temporary permits for dikes, dams, or other

devices in cases of an emergency. Any person constructing a dam, dike, or other device, which

is capable of retaining, obstructing, or diverting more than fifty acre-feet [61674.08 cubic meters]

of water or twenty-five acre-feet [30837.04 cubic meters] of water for a medium-hazard or

high-hazard dam, without first securing a permit to do so, as required by this section, is liable for

all damages proximately caused by the dam, dike, or other device, and is guilty of a class B

misdemeanor.

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

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

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?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

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

Dwight said
Sell it

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

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

Dwight said
Sell it

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

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

 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

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?

West, I have to break it to you, it really won;t "bother" me much if you don;t "bother" anymore!

Yet you STILL can't help responding!hahahaha  Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way.  Like I have said before, thank god the majority of the farmers/ranchers in this state don't think like you!

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

So flood control for Fargo is about hunting access? Cause that is what their selling this measure as. But then how else would you get a high percentage of Fargo citizens ot vote for their share of the oil and gas tax revenues!

that's what happens when you try to play mind games, people think your talking about something other than what your talking about.  

 

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

Sell it Jimmy, Sell it.

We are sportsmen, we are sportsmen. The handful of people pulling the levers know what it is you desire. It is right in front of us said by Eye:

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

Eyexer like most, think their children and grand children will be richer because they are being promised more public land to recreate on.

However, Eyexer, his children and grand children will also be poorer because that same private real estate will no longer be available to build a home a business or a place to raise a family. Off limits.

The trouble with public land is that it is owned by everybody and that includes those orgs who like to  refer to themselves as stakeholders. Not every stakeholder is a friend of hunting. Not every stakeholder thinks that wild game should be managed for the purpose of hunting.

The fall back position........go out and make friends with someone who has a good piece of land that holds wildlife. 

 

 

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

 the land is pretty much off limits now anyway so I don't see any change in the forseeable future.  Doesn't have anything to do with riches.  Not sure what drum your trying to beat with that but it doesn't make a tune.

 

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

Just wanted to provide some factual information as Fritz the Cat provided only a portion of the information in his recent post.  You can find his post by looking for the very bold print.  It appears as if he is shouting to affirm his position but it is just how he imported the info from another site.  As I am one of the "minions" he must be referencing I am required to provide "the rest of the story"

If you go to the ND State Water Commission website you will note that one of the topics listed is "permits and applications".  If you click on this topic it will lead you to a number of more detailed topics, one being water permits.  If you follow this topic you will come across a chart that helps you determine if you need a water permit to build your pond.  You will see that a volume of 12.5 acre feet will place you in the permit required category.

You will also see a construction permit topic.  If you click that, you will be led to an application form that must be submitted to the SWC if you plan to build any pond, dam, dike or diversion.  The information required may lead you to seek assistance from the SWC, or an engineer, as you will need to determine drainage area, verify the elevation of the dam doesn't back water on your neighbor, and a number of other data entries.  Based on the info provided the SWC will determine if the dam can be built and whether it will require a construction permit.  It is this application that might lead the SWC to refer you to the Corps of Engineers for a wetland review if they feel it is prudent.  The application will also help them determine whether you should be applying for a water permit as well

Fritz was right that a low hazard dam with an embankment of 10 feet or less can be built without a construction permit, but you still need to fill out the application form and submit it to the SWC to be in compliance with administrative rules.    A 10 foot high dam is really a pretty small structure if you are providing water for cattle.  A dam with an embankment height of 10 feet usually holds back less an 8 foot depth of water as you will need to provide a spillway to prevent flows from going over the dam.  Otherwise frequent flows over the dam will cause it to erode and fail.  Conventional building techniques would place the spillway 2 feet lower than the dam top.  8 feet of depth isn't going to support those trout the welder in Wyoming stocked.  The picture of the Wyoming dam showed it next to a road.  If the embankment for the dam was just upstream of a culvert through the road it probably would be bumped up into the medium hazard class by the SWC.  Then the application form must be completed by a professional engineer.  So things are getting tougher aren't they? 

My best advice to Fritz would be for him to park his scraper the next time he plans to build a dam and check with the ND SWC.  Otherwise he might end up in the same predicament as the welder in Wyoming.

As with most topics on this site, the discussion has drifted well off the original issue.  EPA has jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. through the 404 Provisions of the Clean Water Act.  Water permit issues and construction permit issues may vary from state to state but the 404 regulations are national.  EPA must have determined that the welder either built his dam over a wetland or the construction of the dam jeopardizes a downstream wetland  This can be caused  by cutting off the hydrology that makes the wetland exist or from erosion of the embankment depositing silt in a downstream wetland.

For the issue to get this far a team of biologists, engineers, and legal staff have been involved on the EPA side.  I know this from my past experience in engineering water projects.  EPA won't be swayed by negative coverage by FOX News, some letters from conservative congressmen, or the umbrage of some local politicians.  The welder would be better served by holstering his guns, looking to cooperate with the EPA and cutting his loses.  EPA like any enforcement agency must take action against violators or the regulations have no effect.  If the police did not stop and fine speeders what good would it be to have speed limits?

So that is the rest of the story.  For anyone who has an interest to follow up, just check into the SWC website.  A fully informed citizen is a better citizen.

I just watched NDSU advance in the NCAA tournament by beating Oklahoma State so I am a happy camper.  Or is that a happy minion? 

Weedy

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

Again gst simple terms why not allow land to go into conservation easements or be bought by org that will preserve the area or enhance habitat. Take out the tax issue because I do think that can be dealt with and should be after all those lands need fire protection and access via roads and maintence as well.
 
Why oppose any of that other than greed? Simple question now stay focused and answer that?

So now to conservation, who has done more DU or your ag org? What about some of the more recent orgs that have started like Pheasants Forever etc... with the dollars and time they have been around compared FU or FB! See the point and the light! None of what has been done is protected from the plow that is the issue!

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!

It's All Good's picture
It's All Good
Offline
Joined: 10/14/09

 Weedy- best posts I have seen on FBO in a long time, hands down.

On a side note, i have never met GST. However, why is it every time I read a post from GST, It seems akin to arguing with the "Vizzini" character from "The Princess Bride"?  Check out "Dialectics in The Princess Bride" on YouTube for a better understanding. 

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

weedy,

Nope, you are not one of Plains' usual helpers. But thanks for the clarification.

I saw a funny joke about too many technical service providers. There were six guys from the state wearing blue hardhats and white coats standing next to a hole in the ground. The anthropoligist, the archeologist, the engineer, the surveyor and etc ect.

Pedro was down in the hole shoveling dirt. The caption said, "due to government spending cuts, there is going to be layoffs." Pedro is going to have to go.

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

weedy wrote,

You can find his post by looking for the very bold print.  It appears as if he is shouting to affirm his position but it is just how he imported the info from another site.

Wasn't shouting. That is the way my computer copied it off the ND Century Code website.

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

weedy1 Said:

As with most topics on this site, the discussion has drifted well off the original issue.  EPA has jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. through the 404 Provisions of the Clean Water Act.  Weedy, is the  EPA looking to broaden these "jurisdictions far beyond what they currently are now? Should we just sit back and allow this to occur? Water permit issues and construction permit issues may vary from state to state but the 404 regulations are national.  EPA must have determined that the welder either built his dam over a wetland or the construction of the dam jeopardizes a downstream wetland  Because the EPA is NEVER wrong as a federal agency.  Wait a minute.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Interesting read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/supreme-court-epa-unanimous-dec...
oops.

http://www.lowndes-law.com/publications-presentations-blogs/873-state-fl...
even Florida thinks the EPA is overstepping their bounds.

But wait, look who else is suing the EPA.
http://gulfport.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/gulfport-coupl...

The Florida Wildlife Federation. Hey aren;t they a state affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation that is funding this measure here in ND? Seems the EPA just can;t win.

This can be caused  by cutting off the hydrology that makes the wetland exist or from erosion of the embankment depositing silt in a downstream wetland.

For the issue to get this far a team of biologists, engineers, and legal staff have been involved on the EPA side.  I know this from my past experience in engineering water projects.  EPA won't be swayed by negative coverage by FOX News, some letters from conservative congressmen, or the umbrage of some local politicians.  Indeed the are the mighty Federal govt and NO ONE will tell them they are oversteppingthier bounds. Wait a minute I guess there area few courts considering that very thing.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=EPA+over+reach+prohibited+by+lawsuit&form=M...
The welder would be better served by holstering his guns, looking to cooperate with the EPA and cutting his loses.  Indeed, cowtow to the overbearing govt agency and do not seek to protect your rights because they are the almighty EPA and they are never wrong or overreaching. Wait a minute it seems a court has granted Joe citizen the ability to hold the EPA accountable thru lawsuits.
http://ens-newswire.com/2012/03/22/supreme-court-property-owners-can-sue...
WASHINGTON, DC, March 21, 2012 (ENS) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that landowners can file a lawsuit to challenge a federal government compliance order under the Clean Water Act. The decision upholds the interests of corporations and limits the power of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion of the court, which was asked to decide whether Michael and Chantell Sackett may bring a civil lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an administrative compliance order issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act.

The court held that the Sacketts may immediately litigate their jurisdictional challenge in federal court.

“There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for judicial review – even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’s jurisdiction,” Justice Scalia wrote.

EPA like any enforcement agency must take action against violators or the regulations have no effect.  If the police did not stop and fine speeders what good would it be to have speed limits?

  Ah, what the hell does Scalia know. Who the hell is he to question the EPA?

Maybe Alitos thoughts are a little clearer.
"The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees. The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy."

Indeed as weedy says,
"The guy in Wyoming is one of those jerks who could care less about what happens to someone else, whether it is his downstream neighbor or the general public.  He is kind of like the people who shoot a gun in the air for gits and shiggles  with no regard to what may happen.  I shed no tears for this poor soul.  He is only thinking of himself!"

Bend over an let the EPA have it's way eh weedy?

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

Weedy, it's all good, plainsman, ron, why is it you guys think expanding Federal govt control and regulatory power over states and persons property rights is a good thing and the answer?

Just how far do you wish to expand this power and authority?

Growing the Federal govt bigger has rarely if ever been the answer but what are you guys here arguing for?  That very thing.

Indeed the IRS, the EPA, all acting within the ideals set forth by our founding fathers now a days aren;t they.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-takes-challenge-obama-epa-011829234....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/01/Higher-Ammo-Prices-An...

Maybe China will sell us more bullets.


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

It's all good, try reading this and let us know what you think.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036700_Tenth_Amendment_EPA_rainwater.html#

(NaturalNews) The Tenth Amendment has been described by some constitutional scholars and experts as the Bill of Rights' catch-all amendment, in that it was written into the nation's founding document as a way to remind future federal lawmakers and officials that unless the Constitution explicitly allows it or bans it, states - as sovereign entities - are free to do as they please.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, in 1798, "Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

In other words, the federal government's powers are few and defined; state, by comparison, was supposed to be numerous and plentiful.

But that was then. It certainly isn't that way these days, as states have increasingly fallen under the control over a growing federal Leviathan and its multitude of bloated bureaucracies.

Well, the time seems to have come when states - some of them at least - appear to have had enough. Take Virginia.

A group from the Commonwealth has filed suit in federal court alleging that one of the crown jewels of federal bureaucracy - the Environmental Protection Agency - has stepped way over the central government's constitutionally limited powers with new rules governing, of all things, rain water run-off.

According to the complaint filed by the Occoquan Watershed Coalition, the EPA violated the Tenth Amendment by imposing a "coercive ... unfunded mandate" on a watershed, "to implement a federal program - one not imposed by or under Virginia Law."

New standards equals hundreds of millions of dollars

The group says the EPA's rules unconstitutionally force Virginia to control the amount of rainwater allowed to flow into a stream in Fairfax County. The mandate seeks to protect benthic organisms - the benthic zone is the lowest area of a body of water, along the bottom - that the EPA says are killed off by the sediment-rich rainwater.

The suit was filed on behalf of the coalition by the Free-Market Environmental Law Clinic, which estimated the cost of the EPA's mandate at about $225 million.

"If the county is forced to spend that much money on a single watershed, it will mean not one of the other 29 watersheds in the county will receive funds for their restoration, including the eight watersheds in the OWC's territory," says the law clinic, on its Web site.

The suit says a small portion of Accotink Creek, with about 120 miles of shoreline, is "impaired," under the EPA rules, because soil along an 8.1-mile stretch has eroded and, when it rains, the soil runs off into the creek.

"To address this problem, Fairfax County would normally place rock against those parts of the stream bank that erode the most, and take other actions that fit within its budget," says an analysis of the case by the American Tradition Institute. "Virginia and Fairfax County have been working together to address Accotink Creek, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rejected those efforts and in their place adopted a new water quantity standard that limits the total amount of water that can be discharged into the stream each day."

That "standard" is what is being challenged by OWC.

Trampling the sovereignty of the state

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this kind of coercive federal mandate on a local government is simply not allowed," said Dr. David W. Schnare, Director of the FME Law Clinic.

"Because Fairfax County and the Commonwealth of Virginia refused to raise this constitutional challenge in their recent suit against EPA, the citizens directly harmed by EPA are the only ones left to protect the rights and privileges of the Commonwealth and FME Law is representing their interests," he said. "Without that assistance, the serious problems in 29 watersheds will go unaddressed while EPA asks Fairfax County to empty its coffers in a vain effort to fix a problem of minor significance."

In its suit, the OWC claims the Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to regulate sediments flowing into streams via pipes or point sources, but gives states and local governments the power to manage non-point sources.

"This is the kind of coercive commandeering the Constitution does not authorize - commandeering that tramples the sovereignty of the state and local governments," the complaint says.

 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cuccinelli-epa-lawsuit-virginia/2013/01...

Seems the courts think it was a pretty good piece.

But hey what did the founding fathers like Jefferson know about states rights and the importance of them and controlling the Federal authority. I mean it is not like they fought a war and created a nation under a declaration of independence to escape an overbearing over reaching govt. I mean really what is that piece of paper they wrote setting up the limits and checks and balances of govt and ensuring private citizens and states rights  unencumbered by excessive govt even worth nowadays. Really do you think a 200 year old document is really even relevant anymore?

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

eyexer Said:
 the land is pretty much off limits now anyway so I don't see any change in the forseeable future.  Doesn't have anything to do with riches.  Not sure what drum your trying to beat with that but it doesn't make a tune.

Eye, which is more important? A piece of private ground that you can buy sell trade derive some income raise a family etc. etc. Where you control the means of production forty weeks a year.

Or is it better to rush as much of that private ground into public ground so that you have a place to recreate 12 weeks a year?

Keep in mind that many stakeholders also have a say in what or how you recreate.

Public lands are much like public roads. The last bastion of socialism.

Socialism “is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.”

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Weedy, it's all good, plainsman, ron, why is it you guys think expanding Federal govt control and regulatory power over states and persons property rights is a good thing and the answer?

Why do you ignore everything I have ever written?  Like the multiple times I call the EPA a good idea gone bad.  You want to cut them completely.  Why?  I want to cut them by 75% because they do some good things.

Now answer one question for me.  Neither of us know this landowner right?  Why do you assume he is innocent?

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

 

Plainsman Said:
Weedy, it's all good, plainsman, ron, why is it you guys think expanding Federal govt control and regulatory power over states and persons property rights is a good thing and the answer?

Why do you ignore everything I have ever written?  Like the multiple times I call the EPA a good idea gone bad.  You want to cut them completely.  Why?  I want to cut them by 75% because they do some good things.

Now answer one question for me.  Neither of us know this landowner right?  Why do you assume he is innocent?

no dog in this fight either way but isnt innocence supposed to be assumed until proven guilty ?

 Adn

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

Plainsman Said:

Weedy, it's all good, plainsman, ron, why is it you guys think expanding Federal govt control and regulatory power over states and persons property rights is a good thing and the answer?

Why do you ignore everything I have ever written?  Like the multiple times I call the EPA a good idea gone bad.  You want to cut them completely.  Why?  I want to cut them by 75% because they do some good things.

Now answer one question for me.  Neither of us know this landowner right?  Why do you assume he is innocent?


please show me where I have ever said that. Bruce you know I have said many times on here(especially in the NDFB measure discussions) that we need some form of regulatory authority.

while your at it plainsman how about producing the ag orgs policy you claimed said they wished to get rid of all regulations.

2 very distinct claims you have made Bruce.

Are you going to offer up anything to substantiate them?

Because Bruce I don;t know about your bible study, but I know all the years I went to Sunday school, we were always taught that if you said something that was not true it was a lie.

So bruce here it is pretty plain, did you tell the truth when you made these two claims?


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

 You are ducking again.  Accusations are not an answer.

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

Fritz the Cat Said:

eyexer Said:
 the land is pretty much off limits now anyway so I don't see any change in the forseeable future.  Doesn't have anything to do with riches.  Not sure what drum your trying to beat with that but it doesn't make a tune.

Eye, which is more important? A piece of private ground that you can buy sell trade derive some income raise a family etc. etc. Where you control the means of production forty weeks a year.

Or is it better to rush as much of that private ground into public ground so that you have a place to recreate 12 weeks a year?

Keep in mind that many stakeholders also have a say in what or how you recreate.

Public lands are much like public roads. The last bastion of socialism.

Socialism “is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.”

Thanks fritz for admitting that at least from your view it is about greed and it is clear that you like gabe are clueless to conservation in general. Especially if you think it is all about having some place to hunt. I addressed this issue with the mouth piece of the FU a few weeks back. He was trying to use the scare tactic that the clean water amendment was going to take land away from hunters for access.

My point to him is that in conservation sometimes you need areas where they can be undisturbed from human predators.

I ask gst a straight up question and I will ask you the same.
 
Socialism implication you made actually applies to the farm bill with producer helps and protections along with the food stamps. So be careful using that term especially when looking at the past 10-15 years of the farm programs.

gst I see you have avoided the question that will show everyone that your position is greed driven and nothing more. When you strip away all the spin you try, greed is first and foremost in the spotlight.

Laws passed during the depression to get land back in the hands of individuals to avoid insurance companies and banks from owning ND farmlands and creating the situation that existed down south to avoid the state from being a share crop state made sense. The crap that the law has morfed into was never the intent of those people but is the intent of the farm orgs.

Now fritz gst tell us why you oppose land being put into conservation that benefits wildlife both game and non game species, that will help with soil and air quality, water quality and flood control in some cases? Again taking the tax issue out because I think that needs to be addressed and could and should be!

Do you have the guts to do this or are you going to try and keep playing the bogey man card?

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

To directly answer your question plains.

"Now answer one question for me.  Neither of us know this landowner right?  Why do you assume he is innocent?"

Bruce you seem to be missing the point. What I have said is pretty simple. Nothing relating to "guilt" or" innocence"

It certainly appears he followed state requirements, (the state itself says so)

The Federal EPA came in and trumped the states decision about what was okay for their state.

The elected representatives of that state that likely know more than you or I suggest this was done in an over reaching manner.

EPA IS seeking to greatly expand the regulatory authority  they have by rewriting regulatory acts that will greatly diminish states rights. (even though you claim to want to reduce them by 75% you seem to support this)

They have slammed their Federal authority down peoples and states throats before (why else would you want to "reduce them by 75%) .

They have had to be reigned in by the courts in many instances.

Under Obama they have moved to expand their regulatory power significantly.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/03/happy-new-year-feds-list-141-new-regul...

I beleive given these facts it is not in North Dakotas best interests to invite organizations that have formed official "collaborations" with the EPA  as the Nature Conservancy has into our state to help change our constitution and have acess to billions of our states dollars when the ND voter will be prevented form voting again on the process that would allow this for 25 years.

You seem to wish to not only ignore this concern, but dismiss the accountability of the sponsors of the measure that would allow it to have any responsibility to know anything about what they are asking the voter to support in this regard or to tell them the factual truth.

I beleive as well that not holding the sponsors of these measures to a basic responsibility to understand the measure they signed on to and tell the truth about it to the voters they are asking to support it is not in the best interests of our state as well.

There it is in a nutshell.

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

Plainsman Said:
 You are ducking again.  Accusations are not an answer.

Bruce, not "ducking" anything, it takes a little time to type an answer.

Now that it has been provided, please provide one to mine by producing the proof to back up your "accusation"  "an ag org is calling for the end of all regulations" and when I have done the same as you accused.

Or perhaps go back to your bible study basics and learn what constitutes breaking the 9th Commandment.

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

gst you are really going to claim constitutional protection and then deny others constitutional rights on disposing of their land? Thanks for another prime example of your hypocrisy.

Seldom does it get easier to show just how frigging far up your butt your head is!

What difference is what you claim the EPA was doing than your stance on restricting me or anyone else from selling our land to whomever we want?

The more you try the more bizarre and off base your position becomes and is less and less defendable!

And like I said before the EPA is not always right nor wrong and I will say the same on the farm orgs. But on the issue of landownership rights of sale of property they are dead wrong and courts across the nation have said so.

Farming practices from the past where one of the biggest contributors to watershed pollution. Carry over of those practices are still evident today in many lakes and streams. So have people living in cities in their desire to have lush green lawns and improper disposal of other contaminates like oils.

EPA made people aware of this and pushed to make illegal dumping of chemicals and petroleum products illegal and punishable for the betterment of all people.

Have they went a bit to far on some things I would agree but someone has to mind the hen house because there are way more weasels and skunks seeking out the chickens to leave them unprotected or to assume the weasels and skunks are going to behave.

Back to the WY issue like I said the courts will sort this out, and based on topo maps alone I will state again that the landowner is not in compliance with current established laws. Fritz and weedy have provided some insight to this issue but gst has just used the old standard of going right to the bogey man defense because he has nothing else!

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!

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

Fritz the cat

Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way. 

Sell it Jimmy, sell it. I see you are still trying to convince the sportsmen that you Plains and plainsman's minions from nodakouthouse wear camo. Psh!!!!!

Well hell yea I wear camo there Dwight!  You have to do that when you hunt outside of a fence ya know!  However, when I am going to slaughter a butcher animal I pretty much wear the same thing you wore in that video you are so proud of.

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

Hardwaterman Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:

eyexer Said:
 the land is pretty much off limits now anyway so I don't see any change in the forseeable future.  Doesn't have anything to do with riches.  Not sure what drum your trying to beat with that but it doesn't make a tune.

Eye, which is more important? A piece of private ground that you can buy sell trade derive some income raise a family etc. etc. Where you control the means of production forty weeks a year.

Or is it better to rush as much of that private ground into public ground so that you have a place to recreate 12 weeks a year?

Keep in mind that many stakeholders also have a say in what or how you recreate.

Public lands are much like public roads. The last bastion of socialism.

Socialism “is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.”

Thanks fritz for admitting that at least from your view it is about greed and it is clear that you like gabe are clueless to conservation in general. Ron if you are going to claim you know more about "conservation" thatn others, why have you avoided making public your own acts of conservation?

Our operations are public in what allowed both my father and I to be acknowledged by the local soil conservation district. We have done even more since that acknowledgement years back. 

So ron if you are going to calim others efforts in conservation are "pitiful" as you so arrogantly have, please provide YOUR conservation accomplishments so others can judge the credibility of your claims. Especially if you think it is all about having some place to hunt. I addressed this issue with the mouth piece of the FU a few weeks back. He was trying to use the scare tactic that the clean water amendment was going to take land away from hunters for access.

My point to him is that in conservation sometimes you need areas where they can be undisturbed from human predators.

I ask gst a straight up question and I will ask you the same.
 
Socialism implication you made actually applies to the farm bill with producer helps and protections along with the food stamps. So be careful using that term especially when looking at the past 10-15 years of the farm programs.

gst I see you have avoided the question that will show everyone that your position is greed driven and nothing more. When you strip away all the spin you try, greed is first and foremost in the spotlight.

Laws passed during the depression to get land back in the hands of individuals to avoid insurance companies and banks from owning ND farmlands and creating the situation that existed down south to avoid the state from being a share crop state made sense. The crap that the law has morfed into was never the intent of those people but is the intent of the farm orgs.

Now fritz gst tell us why you oppose land being put into conservation that benefits wildlife both game and non game species, that will help with soil and air quality, water quality and flood control in some cases?

Ron this is simply a bold face flat out lie and if you stand by it you sir are a liar. That is NOT what we oppose. If it is not why have we put land into conservation that does the very thing you have said? That is a fact ron and you can not deny it no matter how many lies you tell. Indeed ron soil conservation districts make a habit out of acknowledging people who oppose conservation.   Unless you also believe the conservation practices and programs put forth by the states soil conservation districts are "pitiful" as well. Again taking the tax issue out because I think that needs to be addressed and could and should be!

Do you have the guts to do this or are you going to try and keep playing the bogey man card?

Ron I don;t know how to explain it any better than this. If you believe wanting to allow future generations to have the same choices and opportunities I was given by the generations before me is "greed", then yes I am a "greedy" son of a gun.

Credibility ron, lying does not help.

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

Fritz the Cat Said:
Sell it Jimmy, Sell it.

We are sportsmen, we are sportsmen. The handful of people pulling the levers know what it is you desire. It is right in front of us said by Eye:

I've said this numerous times and I'll stick to it.  This measure is all about hunting access.  Farmers have tied up the land and this is the result.  And now they're screaming the loudest.  They only have themselves to blame if this measure passes.

Eyexer like most, think their children and grand children will be richer because they are being promised more public land to recreate on.

However, Eyexer, his children and grand children will also be poorer because that same private real estate will no longer be available to build a home a business or a place to raise a family. Off limits.

The trouble with public land is that it is owned by everybody and that includes those orgs who like to  refer to themselves as stakeholders. Not every stakeholder is a friend of hunting. Not every stakeholder thinks that wild game should be managed for the purpose of hunting.

The fall back position........go out and make friends with someone who has a good piece of land that holds wildlife. 

 

 

"the handful of people pulling the levers know what it is you desire"

Now what in the hell is that supposed to mean there Dwight?  I think you honestly have a problem with me wanting to preserve hunting and the outdoors of ND for future generations?  Is that true?  I mean I have all the private land I will ever need to hunt on in this state so I damn sure am not worried about myself.  I also have the ability to hunt out of state.  This is not for me.  This is for the kids growing up in this state you don't have means to PAY to hunt!!!!!!!!!!

But I guess if it was up to you every section would have a fence around it and people would pay massive amounts of money to essentially slaughter a pig.

Get over yourself and think about someone else for once you arrogant prick.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
gst you are really going to claim constitutional protection and then deny others constitutional rights on disposing of their land? Thanks for another prime example of your hypocrisy.

Ron when the law you reference is declared unconstitutional come back and have this discussion. until it is your claims are less than truthful as you have a tendency to do.

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

wstnodak Said:

Fritz the cat

Get over yourself there almighty and just one time realize that other people have interests that are not the same as yours and they just might want to protect those interests.  This really has become a case of you vs. the sportsman and I'm convinced that more and more are seeing it that way. 

Sell it Jimmy, sell it. I see you are still trying to convince the sportsmen that you Plains and plainsman's minions from nodakouthouse wear camo. Psh!!!!!

Well hell yea I wear camo there Dwight!  You have to do that when you hunt outside of a fence ya know!  However, when I am going to slaughter a butcher animal I pretty much wear the same thing you wore in that video you are so proud of.

still stinging I see.

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

My apologies west. "Lord please forgive me and may God bless the starving Pygmies in New Guinea"

Pages