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...

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

Hardwaterman Said:


Hey gst no explanation on the question I gave you. No guts to answer it?

Ron you will have to forgive me, I admit to skipping over much of what you have to say anymore. I mean why should one waste ones time when all you do is belittle others commitments to conservation and post bullshit claims that are not even true?

Did you even bother to check into the Enviromental Stewardship Program to see how non "pitiful" some of these peoples commitment to conservation is and how this very good program came to be?

Have you even came close to this level of personal commitment to conservation yourself???

Didn;t think so ron, so if you are not willing to actually inform yourself abit when people provide the links and give you an opportunity to and you instead choose to make claims that simply are not true, why should anyone waste time reading what you have to say.

In this thread alone, you and plainsman have made several untrue statements and neither of you have had the backbone or credibility to admit they were either misinformed statements or outright lies.

I don't have much time to converse with people like that, so please forgive me for not doing so.
 

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

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=NCBA%20enviromental%20stewa...

http://www.ndstockmen.org/?id=80&page=Environmental+Stewardship+Award

http://www.ndstockmen.org/?id=55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX8d8L10FH0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX8d8L10FH0

http://www.ndglc.com/

These are but a few examples.

A common theme in these operations is conservation and putting more back into the land than what one takes out to improve the land andenviroment and leave it better for each following generation.

Stewardship.

It is a concept that when taught and passed down to future generations and  they accept the ideology it ensures each and every generation into the future continues the betterment of the land and the enviroment they pass on.

It ensures they continue to think progressively and continue to develop new and better stewardship practices.

You see ron it is NOT about "greed" for MANY producers as you and a small handful accuse, it is about leaving something better for future generations just as the generation before us did. Not just on the land, but in our society and govt as well.

Ron/hardwaterman, when you ignorantly claim these commitments to conservation, stewardship of the land and teaching future generations these values are nothing more than "pitiful" , it only shows how little you understand the concept.

"And do not parade out the so called conservation efforts of these orgs they are pitiful in reality"

Perhaps you would be better off sticking to cleaning blinds than insulting others who are actually walking the walk and telling them how to engage in conservation and stewardship of the land.

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

No more BS gst compared to DU it is pitiful!

Do you have the guts to tell us why you oppose conservation and easements short of tax issues that I have already addressed!

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!

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

Of course Ron, what our ranchers kick in is a pittance compared to Ducks Unlimited. But then DU gets about $75 million dollars a year in grants from Uncle Sam. They got their hands in your pockets.

But there is so much more. DU gets money from foundations. Check this one out.

http://www.undueinfluence.com/packard_foundation.htm

Sample Packard Foundation Grants, 2008
Packard has given 11,988 similar grants totaling $3,113,846,876

DUCKS UNLIMITED
Memphis Tennessee
$125,000 Marine birds
AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST
Washington DC
$600,000 Climate and agriculture

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the Clean Water Wildlife and Parks Petitioners report to the ND Secretary of States Office that they have over $600,000 in their account and that money came from.....................correct me if I'm wrong but didn't it come from American Farmland Trust? I can't remember exactly the name of the donor.

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

fritz this is a simple question that I posed to gst and to you why do you oppose permanent conservaton? Tax issue aside give us your reasons and stop the BS about where the money comes from it is your deflect fall back.

Simple as can be spell it out show us that your dislike for permanent conservation is not greed driven?

GST will wait for your answer to the question as well. No more BS either compare the two org side by side gst and tell me that it is not pitiful in comparison !!!!!!!!!

And that is just one org!!!! But do put up both sets of numbers if you want to crow about the body of work!!!! Put it up so everyone can see the difference and effort!

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!

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

ron said,

fritz this is a simple question that I posed to gst and to you why do you oppose permanent conservaton?

How many ways would you like me to say it. The means of production should be controlled by the owner. It should not be severed just like hunting rights should not be severed.

and stop the BS about where the money comes from it is your deflect fall back.

 

American Farmland Trust or was it American Wetlands Trust that donated $600,000 to the Clean Water Wildlife Parks Petition?

Either way, these orgs are prepared to spend a lot of money influencing North Dakota policy.

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

sounds like those opposed to this measure need to spend alot of money on this campaign then.

 

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

Hardwaterman Said:
No more BS gst compared to DU it is pitiful!

Do you have the guts to tell us why you oppose conservation and easements short of tax issues that I have already addressed!

Once again he "Big Lie"

Why do you guys have to lie to try and make a point?

Hardwaterman Said:
fritz this is a simple question that I posed to gst and to you why do you oppose permanent conservaton? Tax issue aside give us your reasons and stop the BS about where the money comes from it is your deflect fall back.

Simple as can be spell it out show us that your dislike for permanent conservation is not greed driven?

GST will wait for your answer to the question as well. No more BS either compare the two org side by side gst and tell me that it is not pitiful in comparison !!!!!!!!!

And that is just one org!!!! But do put up both sets of numbers if you want to crow about the body of work!!!! Put it up so everyone can see the difference and effort!

Now you at least quantify what was before a bold face lie.

We have danced this dance enough ron.

 I doubt you watched the links I provided or you would understand that virtually every one of those producers are just like myself in a common theme in that they wish the future to have as good and many opportunities if not more than what the previous generations had.

We believe in protecting future generations opportunities thru stewardship of not only their lands that will be passed on to them, but the protection of the property rights that were passed on to us by previous generations.

You don;t understand that because you nor the generation to follow do not make your living producing something from the land.

Instead you call that "greed" and continue to insult those that walk the walk.

Ron, what did DU build, grow, produce to generate the dollars they spend on conservation?

Nothing, they are other peoples dollars that are given to them. It is very easy to spend other people monies on conservation when you have nothing else that requires the investment of the dollars you take in.

You are comparing a massive global organization producing NOTHING with the monies they are GIVEN to an individual actually producing something to EARN income that not only sustains their commitment to conservation but provides for their families  and you have the arrogance to insult their commitment to conservation and stewardship of the land as "pitiful?????

This arrogant attitude is why many producers have issues with people like you and the orgs you represent. You demonstrate it here as well as your "ranching 101" thread where you tell EVERYONE how to ranch even though you have not made a living doing so yourself.

. So once again ron when you condemn these INDIVIDUALS commitment to conservation as "pitiful" what have YOU done as an individual that has created habitat and benefited the lands and wild life?

Show us the wetlands YOU restored, show us the trees YOU have planted, show us the native prairie YOU have restored. Show us the stewardship practices YOU engage in on your lands every day so we can have a basis to compare your "pitiful" accusations.

Instead when asked this ron what do you do? Instead of sharing YOUR commitment to conservation you deflect from it (or the lack of it) by holding up DU in comparison to individual ranchers and ag producers.

Why ron? Could it be that even though YOU insult those that do invest their time, efforts and dollars into actually creating habitat and engaging conservation practices you have not?

Ron provide us the percentages of their own salary the top people in DU and these other orgs actually put back into creating habitat and benefiting wildlife and show us video of them actually out planting trees and habitat for wildlife themselves beyond a 5 minute photo op.. 

Oh wait DU and PF does not like planting trees as they provide cover for raptors. But would';t trees plantings in larger groupings provide cover for other wildlife such as deer and many other species?

It seems DU is pretty focused on only helping wildlife that benefits their membership and returns more dollars into their pockets. Wouldn't that be considered "greed" ron?

So ron by your standards comparing how many trees DU has planted here in ND to the numbers ag producers have planted here in ND would not DU's commitment to conservation meet your own "pitiful" standard?


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

So ron by your standards comparing how many trees DU has planted here in ND to the numbers ag producers have planted here in ND would not DU's commitment to conservation meet your own "pitiful" standard?

Isn't that mostly taxpayer dollars too?  Also, do you plant them for erosion or for wildlife?  So are you comparing ag conservation to wildlife conservation?  I think your talking apples and oranges. 

You are comparing a massive global organization producing NOTHING with the monies they are GIVEN to an individual actually producing something to EARN income

That's confusing.  Earn income?  Are you saying growing corn is wildlife conservation?

I don't belong to DU, and never have so I may be wrong, but I don't think they are a global organization. 

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

And ron if we are truly going to compare apples to apples ron, why not post the total acres DU has impacted with conservation practices here in North Dakota and compare it to the total numbers of acres that ag producers have impacted with conservation practices on their own and in conjunction with orgs like the NRCS.

Come on ron lets post total acres impacted by conservation practices and see just who's commitment measures up.

Remember ron DU considers the fall planting of winter wheat over spring planting of spring wheat a conservation practice that benefits duck production so start with how many acresof spring wheat are seeded and then start adding in rotational grazing which DU also considers beneficial to duck production, then move on to the establishment of alternative water sources to improve stream bank restoration which DU considers a benefit to ducks, then add in no till plantings which are a conservation of the soil over plowing and planting and then add in ................ well ron perhaps you get the point that perhaps these producers commitment to conservation is not as "pitiful" as you accuse.

But some how I doubt it and instead you will like call me a "dumbass" and "greedy" instead of actually posting any numbers to compare or YOUR OWN  conservation practices YOU  engage in.

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

Plainsman Said:

So ron by your standards comparing how many trees DU has planted here in ND to the numbers ag producers have planted here in ND would not DU's commitment to conservation meet your own "pitiful" standard?

Isn't that mostly taxpayer dollars too?  Also, do you plant them for erosion or for wildlife?  So are you comparing ag conservation to wildlife conservation?  I think your talking apples and oranges. 

Plainsman not as high a percentage of tax payer dollars as what went to pay your wages.

So now it appears that you are only going to accept conservation practices that benefit YOUR wants as conservation practices?

Are you claiming "ag"conservation pracitces of planting trees does not benefit "wildlife" simply because it may have ag benefits Bruce??  How far will you go to make agriculture look bad Bruce? Cause this statement seems pretty foolish. Especially when the NDG&F heralds these "AG" conservation practices as being beneficial to wildlife.

You are comparing a massive global organization producing NOTHING with the monies they are GIVEN to an individual actually producing something to EARN income

That's confusing.  Earn income?  Are you saying growing corn is wildlife conservation?

No plainsman you once again miss the point in your eagerness to make accusations. What is being said is that while the producer  has to ALSO use this income they EARN to meet his obligations such as providing a living for their families out of the dollars they generate, they are STILL willing to invest a goodly portion to conservation. DU does not have that obligation of providing a living for their family with the monies they are GIVEN for the sole purpose of conservation.

So if one wants to be honest here for once bruce, could it not be considered that a producers commitment to conservation is not as "pitiful" as ron suggests?

Or do you as well believe ND ag producers commitments to conservation are "pitiful" as ron claims?

And just so you know Bruce, the approximately 400 deer we have up here this winter spent far more time in the corn stubble fields and standing corn we left for them this winter than they did the native prairie pasture beside it. Although they did move thru the tree plantings we did and gained a little browse in their diet as well. Would you care to come up this spring and help me replant the trees they have destroyed bruce? 

I noticed the pheasants seemed to appreciate the corn we spill feeding cattle as they fly out of the tree rows we planted to feed on it every morning as well.

I'm no "trained wildlife professional biologist" such as your self Bruce, but I would think these crop residues such as corn stubble and sunflower stubble have helped "conserve" a few more deer in hard ND winters than what those acres in native prairie may have. Just a wild guess Bruce, but perhaps you are right plainsman, agriculture such as growing corn has no value to wildlife.

I don't belong to DU, and never have so I may be wrong, but I don't think they are a global organization. 

Ever heard of DU Canada?

How about DU Mexico?

http://www.ducks.org/

plains, DU own words.

Ducks Unlimited - Official Site

Ducks Unlimited: World Leader in Wetlands & Waterfowl Conservation

Perhaps "multinational" would have more accurately fit. So ron is comparing a multinational organization given grants and donations to individual producers earning the monies they invest in conservation.

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

eyexer Said:
sounds like those opposed to this measure need to spend alot of money on this campaign then.

Eye you are always suggesting where these oil and gas tax dollars should be used where they are generated or to remove the states property taxes.

Do you think it is a good idea to mandate spending of them thru our constitution where this mandated funding can;t be looked at again for 25 years?

So wouldn;t these dollars be better spent working together in conservation rather than creating divisions?

For some reason I think in the long run, a cooperative program such as the Outdoor Heritage Fund that can be addressed every two years rather than forced to wait 25 years would ultimately benefit ND sportsmen much better than a adversarial one such as what this measure is and will be.

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

eyexer Said:
sounds like those opposed to this measure need to spend alot of money on this campaign then.

Yes, the producers of this state are going to have to put up the money ($ amount unknown) to oppose the non-profits $600,000 and growing.

During Measure 5 the animal felony cruelty initiative, the producers (Stockmens, Farm Bureau etc.)  put up $200,000 to oppose the non-profits (HSUS) $900,000.

During the fair chase initiative, the producers (Elk and Deer Growers) put up $280,000 to oppose the non-profits (wildlife society, wildlife federation and HSUS) $150,000.

btw, Karen Thunshell, leading activist in ND for the non-profit HSUS is now getting a paycheck. What does she produce? Nothing. She is active against horse slaughter. Making sure that a producer makes........... nothing.  

The real endangered species in this country is fast becoming the working man who produces something.

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

 

Fritz the Cat Said:

eyexer Said:
sounds like those opposed to this measure need to spend alot of money on this campaign then.

Yes, the producers of this state are going to have to put up the money ($ amount unknown) to oppose the non-profits $600,000 and growing.

During Measure 5 the animal felony cruelty initiative, the producers (Stockmens, Farm Bureau etc.)  put up $200,000 to oppose the non-profits (HSUS) $900,000.

During the fair chase initiative, the producers (Elk and Deer Growers) put up $280,000 to oppose the non-profits (wildlife society, wildlife federation and HSUS) $150,000.

btw, Karen Thunshell, leading activist in ND for the non-profit HSUS is now getting a paycheck. What does she produce? Nothing. She is active against horse slaughter. Making sure that a producer makes........... nothing.  

The real endangered species in this country is fast becoming the working man who produces something.

I opposed the fair chase initiative for one reason and that was property rights.  And that's the same reason I don't have a problem with any measure allowing people to sell their property to whomever they wish.  

 

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

 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
sounds like those opposed to this measure need to spend alot of money on this campaign then.

Eye you are always suggesting where these oil and gas tax dollars should be used where they are generated or to remove the states property taxes.

Do you think it is a good idea to mandate spending of them thru our constitution where this mandated funding can;t be looked at again for 25 years?

So wouldn;t these dollars be better spent working together in conservation rather than creating divisions?

For some reason I think in the long run, a cooperative program such as the Outdoor Heritage Fund that can be addressed every two years rather than forced to wait 25 years would ultimately benefit ND sportsmen much better than a adversarial one such as what this measure is and will be.

I actually haven't formed an opinion on that yet.  however, I'm for the people voting to decide these types of issues however they choose to vote.  In regards to working together, that is a novel idea.  However, the state threw together a token committee and gave them a token amount of money just to try and prevent the pitfalls of not doing anything.  So, since that happened the citizens in ND just may vote to usurp that committee.  It's in the peoples hands now.  Just like with any other legislation, if the legislature chokes the chicken they suffer the possible ramifications.  They chose to not make meaningful property tax reductions so they will more than likely pay the price this time around.  

 

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

GST - per your request, read your rant about the founding fathers etc. You asked what I think. I'm all for the EPA- it's a vital agency within Federal government. I don't think it's too big and "far reaching". I'd like to see it have more funding. One does not have to drive very far in North Dakota to see that our state's "keepers" or "protectors" of the environment have their priorities screwed up.  Bring on the EPA. 

On the related topic of the upcoming clean water/wildlife amendment to which you object, it's simply an issue of competition for financial resources. Fundamentally, that's how our government (and society) works. Competing interests wanting a piece of the pie. People, agencies and a variety of interests "lobby" those in power for a piece of the pie. Typically, those who can pay the most get the biggest piece. Those that value conservation, wild places and wild things have elected to play the game; albeit, a different strategy this time. A constitutional amendment, voted upon by the majority of people in this state  (hopefully !!), mandating those that "cut the pie" have no choice but to give a nice piece to conservation.  The farm interests, oil and gas power brokers can't out-bid and have the whole pie to themselves.  There's a chance this endeavor may not work out this time- maybe not enough people will vote this time around???  So be it.  That's how the game is played.  Competition for resources.  Period.  You win some, you lose some.  Hopefully conservation wins this time.  

Out-of-state interests, of which you are so concerned, always have, and always will, be players in the game.  Legislative/political/financial decisions in North Dakota have always been subjected to massive agricultural and energy influences from outside our borders. Oil, gas and farm lobbyists with plenty of out-of-state cash in their pockets roam the halls of legislature every session hoping to influence how the pie is sliced.  Our Federal representatives (Hoeven et. al) get so so many campaign donations from out of state entities it's frightening.  Do we really think they don't vote based upon that influence?  Hoeven is so pro-energy development it is sickening.  Again, that is how the game is played.  If the conservation community has to rally national allies that can provide needed support in order to compete in the game, bring it on.  In the spirit of March Madness - It's a "cinderalla story" - everybody likes a underdog, right??  Except those powerhouse programs that get upset !!! 

I am now prepared to be peppered by your questions and riddles !!!

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

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
sounds like those opposed to this measure need to spend alot of money on this campaign then.

Eye you are always suggesting where these oil and gas tax dollars should be used where they are generated or to remove the states property taxes.

Do you think it is a good idea to mandate spending of them thru our constitution where this mandated funding can;t be looked at again for 25 years?

So wouldn;t these dollars be better spent working together in conservation rather than creating divisions?

For some reason I think in the long run, a cooperative program such as the Outdoor Heritage Fund that can be addressed every two years rather than forced to wait 25 years would ultimately benefit ND sportsmen much better than a adversarial one such as what this measure is and will be.

I actually haven't formed an opinion on that yet.  however, I'm for the people voting to decide these types of issues however they choose to vote.  In regards to working together, that is a novel idea.  However, the state threw together a token committee and gave them a token amount of money just to try and prevent the pitfalls of not doing anything.  So, since that happened the citizens in ND just may vote to usurp that committee.  It's in the peoples hands now.  Just like with any other legislation, if the legislature chokes the chicken they suffer the possible ramifications.  They chose to not make meaningful property tax reductions so they will more than likely pay the price this time around.  

eye, you speak on this site as if you are a fiscal conservative that demands responsibility and accountability over the states expenditures of what they take in in revenues. Am I safe to make that assumption?

As a fiscal conservative if you start a govt program is it wiser to fund it with a mandated 75% spending amount in a constitutional amendment in which it can not be readdressed for 25 years by the people of this state regardless of effectiveness or consequences of the programs it is MANDATED to fund every years  ?

Or is it more fiscally responsible to fund it with enough monies to see what kinds of projects will be proposed and have it funded in a statutue where the elected representatives of the people of our state can vote to increase the funding if good effective programs are developed as this program grows legs and are held accountable to do what the funds are actually intended to do  every two years ?

To me, that is a pretty easy call to make.

Despite the lies some on here wish to make, I will be one of the first ones supporting an increase to the Outdoor Heritage Fund If they develope good, effective, accountable conservation programs.

You actually have an opportunity to hold govt spending accountable for once, and you seem to wish to squander that and replace it with not having a say for 25 years.

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

It's All Good Said:

GST - per your request, read your rant about the founding fathers etc. You asked what I think. I'm all for the EPA- it's a vital agency within Federal government. I don't think it's too big and "far reaching". I'd like to see it have more funding. One does not have to drive very far in North Dakota to see that our state's "keepers" or "protectors" of the environment have their priorities screwed up.  Bring on the EPA. 

On the related topic of the upcoming clean water/wildlife amendment to which you object, it's simply an issue of competition for financial resources. Fundamentally, that's how our government (and society) works. Competing interests wanting a piece of the pie. People, agencies and a variety of interests "lobby" those in power for a piece of the pie. Typically, those who can pay the most get the biggest piece. Those that value conservation, wild places and wild things have elected to play the game; albeit, a different strategy this time. A constitutional amendment, voted upon by the majority of people in this state  (hopefully !!), mandating those that "cut the pie" have no choice but to give a nice piece to conservation.  The farm interests, oil and gas power brokers can't out-bid and have the whole pie to themselves.  There's a chance this endeavor may not work out this time- maybe not enough people will vote this time around???  So be it.  That's how the game is played.  Competition for resources.  Period.  You win some, you lose some.  Hopefully conservation wins this time.  

Out-of-state interests, of which you are so concerned, always have, and always will, be players in the game.  Legislative/political/financial decisions in North Dakota have always been subjected to massive agricultural and energy influences from outside our borders. Oil, gas and farm lobbyists with plenty of out-of-state cash in their pockets roam the halls of legislature every session hoping to influence how the pie is sliced.  Our Federal representatives (Hoeven et. al) get so so many campaign donations from out of state entities it's frightening.  Do we really think they don't vote based upon that influence?  Hoeven is so pro-energy development it is sickening.  Again, that is how the game is played.  If the conservation community has to rally national allies that can provide needed support in order to compete in the game, bring it on.  In the spirit of March Madness - It's a "cinderalla story" - everybody likes a underdog, right??  Except those powerhouse programs that get upset !!! 

I am now prepared to be peppered by your questions and riddles !!!

It's,
no questions, no riddles, just three simple observations of what you wish to see happen here in our state based on your own words.

1. Advocating expansion of the Federal govt and its regulations and controls over states and individuals beyond long held and established constitutional limitations.

2. Advocating mandated govt spending with limited accountability for 25 years instead of results accountable govt spending.

3. Advocating for out of state interests telling the citizens of North Dakota what is best for them.

 

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

 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
sounds like those opposed to this measure need to spend alot of money on this campaign then.

Eye you are always suggesting where these oil and gas tax dollars should be used where they are generated or to remove the states property taxes.

Do you think it is a good idea to mandate spending of them thru our constitution where this mandated funding can;t be looked at again for 25 years?

So wouldn;t these dollars be better spent working together in conservation rather than creating divisions?

For some reason I think in the long run, a cooperative program such as the Outdoor Heritage Fund that can be addressed every two years rather than forced to wait 25 years would ultimately benefit ND sportsmen much better than a adversarial one such as what this measure is and will be.

I actually haven't formed an opinion on that yet.  however, I'm for the people voting to decide these types of issues however they choose to vote.  In regards to working together, that is a novel idea.  However, the state threw together a token committee and gave them a token amount of money just to try and prevent the pitfalls of not doing anything.  So, since that happened the citizens in ND just may vote to usurp that committee.  It's in the peoples hands now.  Just like with any other legislation, if the legislature chokes the chicken they suffer the possible ramifications.  They chose to not make meaningful property tax reductions so they will more than likely pay the price this time around.  

eye, you speak on this site as if you are a fiscal conservative that demands responsibility and accountability over the states expenditures of what they take in in revenues. Am I safe to make that assumption?

As a fiscal conservative if you start a govt program is it wiser to fund it with a mandated 75% spending amount in a constitutional amendment in which it can not be readdressed for 25 years by the people of this state regardless of effectiveness or consequences of the programs it is MANDATED to fund every years  ?

Or is it more fiscally responsible to fund it with enough monies to see what kinds of projects will be proposed and have it funded in a statutue where the elected representatives of the people of our state can vote to increase the funding if good effective programs are developed as this program grows legs and are held accountable to do what the funds are actually intended to do  every two years ?

To me, that is a pretty easy call to make.

Despite the lies some on here wish to make, I will be one of the first ones supporting an increase to the Outdoor Heritage Fund If they develope good, effective, accountable conservation programs.

You actually have an opportunity to hold govt spending accountable for once, and you seem to wish to squander that and replace it with not having a say for 25 years.

like I said I haven't formed an opinion on the measure other than what I stated several months ago that it seems like too much money.  That being said, as far as I'm concerned the measure is about hunting access.  The heritage fund does nothing to allow greater hunting access.  Until that happens I don't think you'll find any fans of the Heritage fund.  The state has become an overgrown wealth pit.  Our legislators won't fund things that really need to be addressed out west.  So, given that, I have come to the conclusion we might as well spend the money on something that may benefit the people in ND because it makes no sense leaving the money sit in Wall Street.  If your going to take the money in the form of taxes, use it or don't take it at all.  The state is not a "for profit" corporation.  It's really not a matter of fiscal conservancy anymore.  you worry about that when the money is tight and you have to ensure the survival of the state.  that clearly is no longer the issue.  we have fund that are untouchable that are set aside so when or if the oil money dries up (which will never happen in any of our lifetimes), we have the funds to use to wean ourselves off of the oil money.  

 

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

So for those that dismiss setting precedent of funding things in our constitution, what would be your response if out of state organizations were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to amend our constitution so that the ND Dept of Agriculture got a percentage of these oil and gas tax dollars to spend on agriculture programs here in the state?

Maybe say a company that sold tiling supplies and equipment "investing" in the states future?  After all, as It's said, that is the way the game is played right???

Would a mandated spending requirement in our constituion where the people of the state couldn't vote on it for 25 years (or maybe longer) be a good idea then?

I don't think so, and I highly doubt most of the people claiming there is not problem with this measure would think so then either.

If you guys want to open that door of funding things in our states constituion, don;t bitch and whine when it comes back to bite you in the ass down the road.

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

eyexer Said:
like I said I haven't formed an opinion on the measure other than what I stated several months ago that it seems like too much money.  That being said, as far as I'm concerned the measure is about hunting access.  The heritage fund does nothing to allow greater hunting access.  Until that happens I don't think you'll find any fans of the Heritage fund.  The state has become an overgrown wealth pit.  Our legislators won't fund things that really need to be addressed out west.  So, given that, I have come to the conclusion we might as well spend the money on something that may benefit the people in ND because it makes no sense leaving the money sit in Wall Street.  If your going to take the money in the form of taxes, use it or don't take it at all.  The state is not a "for profit" corporation.  It's really not a matter of fiscal conservancy anymore.  you worry about that when the money is tight and you have to ensure the survival of the state.  that clearly is no longer the issue.  we have fund that are untouchable that are set aside so when or if the oil money dries up (which will never happen in any of our lifetimes), we have the funds to use to wean ourselves off of the oil money.  

eye, have you actually spoken with anyone on the panel from the OHF?

I have, they know access is an issue and are willing to examine programs that are brought forth to them.

As to your second statement I emboldened, you sound more like an Obama supporter than a fiscal conservative.

Are you saying responsibility and accountability should not be a part of spending these funds?

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

And eye, you might want to discuss what you think this measure is about with the sponsors and the people gathering signatures.

In the RRV collecting signatures it is being sold as "flood protection" funding.


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

 

gst Said:
So for those that dismiss setting precedent of funding things in our constitution, what would be your response if out of state organizations were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to amend our constitution so that the ND Dept of Agriculture got a percentage of these oil and gas tax dollars to spend on agriculture programs here in the state?

Maybe say a company that sold tiling supplies and equipment "investing" in the states future?  After all, as It's said, that is the way the game is played right???

Would a mandated spending requirement in our constituion where the people of the state couldn't vote on it for 25 years (or maybe longer) be a good idea then?

I don't think so, and I highly doubt most of the people claiming there is not problem with this measure would think so then either.

If you guys want to open that door of funding things in our states constituion, don;t bitch and whine when it comes back to bite you in the ass down the road.

If you think ag needs more free rides by all means get it on the ballot.  like I said the people are capable of deciding yea or nay.  

 

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

 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
like I said I haven't formed an opinion on the measure other than what I stated several months ago that it seems like too much money.  That being said, as far as I'm concerned the measure is about hunting access.  The heritage fund does nothing to allow greater hunting access.  Until that happens I don't think you'll find any fans of the Heritage fund.  The state has become an overgrown wealth pit.  Our legislators won't fund things that really need to be addressed out west.  So, given that, I have come to the conclusion we might as well spend the money on something that may benefit the people in ND because it makes no sense leaving the money sit in Wall Street.  If your going to take the money in the form of taxes, use it or don't take it at all.  The state is not a "for profit" corporation.  It's really not a matter of fiscal conservancy anymore.  you worry about that when the money is tight and you have to ensure the survival of the state.  that clearly is no longer the issue.  we have fund that are untouchable that are set aside so when or if the oil money dries up (which will never happen in any of our lifetimes), we have the funds to use to wean ourselves off of the oil money.  

eye, have you actually spoken with anyone on the panel from the OHF?

I have, they know access is an issue and are willing to examine programs that are brought forth to them.

As to your second statement I emboldened, you sound more like an Obama supporter than a fiscal conservative.

Are you saying responsibility and accountability should not be a part of spending these funds?

and I would waste my time talking to these people why?  there isn't a politician in ND that listens to anybody other than special interests anymore.  it's a damn joke.  fiscal conservancy has been thrown out the window here,  I'm just joining in on the fun

 

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

 

gst Said:
And eye, you might want to discuss what you think this measure is about with the sponsors and the people gathering signatures.

In the RRV collecting signatures it is being sold as "flood protection" funding.


they're entitled to sell it however they think will work.  I look at it as an access issue as I'm sure a ton of hunters do.  if they want to package it up and try to sell it as "free sex for all" I could give a crap less.

 

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

 gotta run gst,
heading in to the camper show.  since I'm now raising horses I'm a farmer.  need a write off.  gonna buy a camper that I can write off as a tack room

 

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

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:
So for those that dismiss setting precedent of funding things in our constitution, what would be your response if out of state organizations were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to amend our constitution so that the ND Dept of Agriculture got a percentage of these oil and gas tax dollars to spend on agriculture programs here in the state?

Maybe say a company that sold tiling supplies and equipment "investing" in the states future?  After all, as It's said, that is the way the game is played right???

Would a mandated spending requirement in our constituion where the people of the state couldn't vote on it for 25 years (or maybe longer) be a good idea then?

I don't think so, and I highly doubt most of the people claiming there is not problem with this measure would think so then either.

If you guys want to open that door of funding things in our states constituion, don;t bitch and whine when it comes back to bite you in the ass down the road.

If you think ag needs more free rides by all means get it on the ballot.  like I said the people are capable of deciding yea or nay.  

You seem to be missing the point eye, it is not about the "free ride for ag" it is about accountable spending.

You may not like the legislature, but the fact remains it is a better opportunity for the people to impact irresponsible spending than in a constitutional measure.

And eye, you seemed to miss the statement I made. I emboldened it for you.

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

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:
And eye, you might want to discuss what you think this measure is about with the sponsors and the people gathering signatures.

In the RRV collecting signatures it is being sold as "flood protection" funding.

they're entitled to sell it however they think will work.  I look at it as an access issue as I'm sure a ton of hunters do.  if they want to package it up and try to sell it as "free sex for all" I could give a crap less.

So you really don;t care if changes to our states constitution are based on truth and fact?

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

eyexer Said:
 gotta run gst,
heading in to the camper show.  since I'm now raising horses I'm a farmer.  need a write off.  gonna buy a camper that I can write off as a tack room

Make sure enough of your income is indeed from your "farming" venture eye 

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

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
like I said I haven't formed an opinion on the measure other than what I stated several months ago that it seems like too much money.  That being said, as far as I'm concerned the measure is about hunting access.  The heritage fund does nothing to allow greater hunting access.  Until that happens I don't think you'll find any fans of the Heritage fund.  The state has become an overgrown wealth pit.  Our legislators won't fund things that really need to be addressed out west.  So, given that, I have come to the conclusion we might as well spend the money on something that may benefit the people in ND because it makes no sense leaving the money sit in Wall Street.  If your going to take the money in the form of taxes, use it or don't take it at all.  The state is not a "for profit" corporation.  It's really not a matter of fiscal conservancy anymore.  you worry about that when the money is tight and you have to ensure the survival of the state.  that clearly is no longer the issue.  we have fund that are untouchable that are set aside so when or if the oil money dries up (which will never happen in any of our lifetimes), we have the funds to use to wean ourselves off of the oil money.  

eye, have you actually spoken with anyone on the panel from the OHF?

I have, they know access is an issue and are willing to examine programs that are brought forth to them.

As to your second statement I emboldened, you sound more like an Obama supporter than a fiscal conservative.

Are you saying responsibility and accountability should not be a part of spending these funds?


and I would waste my time talking to these people why?
 there isn't a politician in ND that listens to anybody other than special interests anymore.  it's a damn joke.  fiscal conservancy has been thrown out the window here,  I'm just joining in on the fun

eye you apparently don;t know much about the OHF.

These "people" that you believe you would be wasting your time talking with are NOT politicians but regular people appointed for all walks of life. There is a balance between wildlife, conservation, business energy and ag.

It is funny though because despite all the bitching from the people that are behind this measure during the legislative session where the OHF was established. not one of them brought forth a program to address access to the first round of programs the OHF panel considered.

Nice excuses though, you are starting to sound more like the progressive liberals on here all the time.

Pretty soon lack of access will be all Bushes fault.

Pages