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...

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

 

gst Said:

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.

if you don't realize these people are just political pawns your dumber than I originally thought.  

 

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

Lets all be honest.  How many of us have sent money that affects things out of state?  I have sent money defending gun rights.  Was that wrong?  How many of you landowners sent money to Montana to defend against the high fence initiative that won there?  I see a lot of complaining about out of state money from people who have taken out of state money, and I'll bet sent money out of state.
That $200K that Fritz said the people had to put up to fight the high fence initiative as I understand was mostly out of state money.    Am I wrong about that?  I don't think so.

EPA??? Yes, the often get carried away.  In most cases I would agree with them.  In the Wyoming case I think we need an unbiased report to say the EPA was out of line or not.  I see a lot of criticism with only an opinion article as evidence. 

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

Perhaps someone can answer this question I thought about while feeding cows today.

I know quite a few nonresidents that come here every year to hunt birds. Nice guys. (And plainsman I have never once received any "georges" from them or Franklins or any other monetary compensation so please don;t make that accusation)

But considering they come from states that do not have the language in state law ND does in things such as perpetual easements, nonprofits owning lands (all things ron claims will "help" sportsmen), I have asked them why they come here to hunt.

To a person they say the opportunities here are unbelievable. Even if the land is posted they say they get access a majority of the time and the people here they meet are great.

Guys like this (remember, they do not pay me or anyone else for access, but they are pretty nice guys and not bitching jackasses) get access when apparently others that bitch on this site all the time can not.

Is it really about landowners not allowing access or just not wanting jackasses that support orgs that negatively impact their living hunting on their lands. I travel outside our area hunting a bit and have never had problems gaining access where it negatively impacted my hunt. ( and no they are not always people I know)

But I also don;t show up with 5 other guys in my DU hunting vest with a DU sticker in my window with my PF Benelli shotgun either and let my dog out of a kennel with a NWF sticker on it asking for permission. Most times it is me and a friend and our kids and our kids do most if not all the shooting.

And I honestly believe that most sportsmen in ND do not have the access issues many on here bitch about. Talking with G&F folks they acknowledge in some limited areas access is an issue but overall it is still way better here than in other states when they talk with their peers from other states.

So my question here is why does someone like ron believe that by allowing the laws that other states have here in ND, it will suddenly change hunting opportunities for sportsmen here in ND to the better from what it is now when in other states it has clearly not been the case?

Why does someone believe ignoring a cooperative effort and engaging in one that clearly has drawn lines in the sand will improve things over the states that others leave to come here and hunt because of the opportunities that still exist here that do not where they came from??

Will this divisive measure really benefit ND sportsmen or just the nonprofit orgs that are betting hundreds of thousands to access billions?

 

 

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

Plainsman Said:
Lets all be honest.  That would be nice Bruce, how about you go back and acknowledgethe lies you and ron have already told in this thread to start. How many of us have sent money that affects things out of state?  I have sent money defending gun rights.  Where those gun rights being attacked here in ND? Was this to protect gun rights here in ND because of something happening here in our state or at the Federal level Bruce?  BIG difference. Was that wrong?  How many of you landowners sent money to Montana to defend against the high fence initiative that won there?  I see a lot of complaining about out of state money from people who have taken out of state money, and I'll bet sent money out of state.
That $200K that Fritz said the people had to put up to fight the high fence initiative as I understand was mostly out of state money.    Am I wrong about that?  I don't think so.

I have never sent money to another state to help that state fight something affecting their state from within. It is that states business, not mine.

North Dakotas future should be decided by North Dakota voters without the millions spent by out of state orgs to influence their vote.

Bruce will you join me in trying to get legislators to sponsor a bill saying NO ONE can accept out of state moneys for these measures?

EPA??? Yes, the often get carried away.  In most cases I would agree with them.  In the Wyoming case I think we need an unbiased report to say the EPA was out of line or not.  I see a lot of criticism with only an opinion article as evidence. 

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

eyexer Said:
 

gst Said:

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.

if you don't realize these people are just political pawns your dumber than I originally thought.  

That is a convenient excuse eye, it seems to be one you fall back to quite often.

The fact is most people that bitch and whine on sites like this don;t take the time to show up and make a difference. And then they come back on here bitching cause nothing happens.

Talk to most any legislator and ask them how many people actually show up to testify on behalf of a piece oflegislation. (And before you whine about having a job and no time, if you can take time off from work and call in sick to go to a vikings game but not go testify at the legislature, it must not be that important to you. )

You have not even taken the time to converse with anyone on this panel and yet you are an expert on what their goals are?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Bruce will you join me in trying to get legislators to sponsor a bill saying NO ONE can accept out of state moneys for these measures?

How many times are you going to ask me that question after I have answered it?  Do you actually think I will forget what I think and agree with you.  Look back in this thread and that question has been answered. 
I'm not going back and look, but  this is close.  I said no I would not support that because it would leave the common man at the mercy of the giant.  Each state has different giants and ours in North Dakota is agriculture.  They would walk on everyone.  Even in the United States agriculture has a very strong lobby.  Stronger than their numbers would indicate.  That's why the disproportionate socialist support by the taxpayer. 
Nope we often need out of state support to get the truth out.  Without it the public would not hear anything but ag is king. 

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

Plainsman Said:

Bruce will you join me in trying to get legislators to sponsor a bill saying NO ONE can accept out of state moneys for these measures?

How many times are you going to ask me that question after I have answered it?  Do you actually think I will forget what I think and agree with you.  Look back in this thread and that question has been answered. 
I'm not going back and look, but  this is close.  I said no I would not support that because it would leave the common man at the mercy of the giant.  Each state has different giants and ours in North Dakota is agriculture.  They would walk on everyone.  Even in the United States agriculture has a very strong lobby.  Stronger than their numbers would indicate.  That's why the disproportionate socialist support by the taxpayer. 
Nope we often need out of state support to get the truth out.
Without it the public would not hear anything but ag is king.

So you admit you like out of state interest telling North Dakotans what is best for them Bruce?

If not explain why the sponsors of this measure hired Hamburger Stratagies out of Washington DC to manage their measures campaign for them ?

I have a pretty good idea Bruce, you see Hammburger Srtagies is also running other measures and campaigns for the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation.

Coincedentally  these orgs are also paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to push this measure.

So Bruce why don;t you ask some of the sponsors why they could not hire a North Dakota firm ot manage their campaign.

Perhaps the out of state orgs controling the purse strings would not let them.

Plainsman Said:
"Nope we often need out of state support to get the truth out"

So Bruce maybe you supported inviting the out of state org HSUS into our state to "get the truth out" in the last measure you were involved in more than you let on eh!

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

Initiative Would Be A Travesty

Dear Editor:

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Trust initiative will be a travesty if voters pass the measure.

I am not opposed to spending on conservation; we already have a system in place for that, a system with checks and balances. The only check and balance on this new fourth branch of government will be the checks they write and hundreds of millions of dollars in their bank balance to cover the checks.

I hear $130 million per biennium taxed and spent. Tally in the growth of oil production and the subsequent increase in tax revenue and the figure will be closer to $230 million — and that is still a conservative estimate.

Whatever the amount, that much cash places too much power in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable government agency. There isn’t a thing the legislative assembly, the governor, the court or the citizens could do about the board’s actions because its spending will be shielded by the North Dakota Constitution.

The first attempt to bring this measure to a vote ended with criminal charges for corruption. The amount of cash under the control of the proposed board will not just invite the corruption, it will foster corruption.

Using the low estimate of $130 million per biennium, cash mandated to the board pencils out to approximately $178,000 of spending every day, seven days a week, for the 730 days of the biennium. That amount of money will corrupt the unaccountable board and the people who do business with that board.

The voters of this state ought to vehemently oppose any constitutional amendment that mandates inflexible spending. It is bad government to take options from elected legislators — individuals who are subject to public pressure — and place those options in the hands of a board that is beyond the control of anybody.

Roger Kaseman
Bismarck, ND

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

Bruce I wonder if other North Dakotans if they knew the truth about who is funding this measure and to what tune would feel the same as you do about having these out of state orgs dictating what is best for North Dakota?

Why are the sponsors not echoing what you are saying here Bruce and telling the voters where their money is coming from?

I have asked the sponsors directly on the Facebook page they have to promote their measure if they will disclose to the voters where their monies are coming from and how much each org. is being paid and they will not answer.

Shouldn't the voters of North Dakota know things like this?

Why would the sponsors not be upfront and honest about this?

Plainsman Said:
Nope we often need out of state support to get the truth out.

Who exactly is not "getting the truth out" here Bruce?

Bruce weren;t you going to ask some sponsors about this?

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

Plainsman Said:
 Each state has different giants and ours in North Dakota is agriculture.  They would walk on everyone.  Even in the United States agriculture has a very strong lobby.  Stronger than their numbers would indicate.That's why the disproportionate socialist support by the taxpayer. 

Bruce, you do know there is more funding for conservation practices in the new farm bill than for production practices right?

So is this funding for conservation still "socialist support by the tax payer"???

I really am curious to here your answer here Bruce.

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

 gst,
you always try to throw the "u don't attend meetings/legislature crap out there all the time.  I've explained to you numerous times I attend county meetings all the time.  Talk with my legislators all the time also.  It does no good whatsoever.  So I'm not wasting my breath.  I intend to rape and pillage this state for all I can get and move out of here.  So I honestly don't care whether measures like this pass or not.  won't concern me much longer.  

 

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

eyexer Said:
 gst,
you always try to throw the "u don't attend meetings/legislature crap out there all the time.  I've explained to you numerous times I attend county meetings all the time.  Talk with my legislators all the time also.  It does no good whatsoever.  So I'm not wasting my breath.  I intend to rape and pillage this state for all I can get and move out of here.  So I honestly don't care whether measures like this pass or not.  won't concern me much longer.  

Scorched Earth.

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

 

Fritz the Cat Said:

eyexer Said:
 gst,
you always try to throw the "u don't attend meetings/legislature crap out there all the time.  I've explained to you numerous times I attend county meetings all the time.  Talk with my legislators all the time also.  It does no good whatsoever.  So I'm not wasting my breath.  I intend to rape and pillage this state for all I can get and move out of here.  So I honestly don't care whether measures like this pass or not.  won't concern me much longer.  

Scorched Earth.

you got it.  just like my scorched pocket book from over taxation 

 

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

eyexer Said:
 gst,
you always try to throw the "u don't attend meetings/legislature crap out there all the time.  I've explained to you numerous times I attend county meetings all the time.  Talk with my legislators all the time also.  It does no good whatsoever.  So I'm not wasting my breath.  I intend to rape and pillage this state for all I can get and move out of here.  So I honestly don't care whether measures like this pass or not.  won't concern me much longer.  

Well I guess I admire your honesty.

So apparently you likely know this measure will not be good for ND, just good for you perhaps and that is all you care about.

I think you are not alone in those regards eye.

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

 I intend to rape and pillage this state for all I can get and move out of here.

Your debating with a couple of professionals in that field.  They just don't want you raping and pillaging what they want to rape and pillage. 

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

 

Plainsman Said:

 I intend to rape and pillage this state for all I can get and move out of here.

Your debating with a couple of professionals in that field.  They just don't want you raping and pillaging what they want to rape and pillage. 

that's the way it appears

 

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

Plainsman Said:

 I intend to rape and pillage this state for all I can get and move out of here.

Your debating with a couple of professionals in that field.  They just don't want you raping and pillaging what they want to rape and pillage. 

Bruce can you ever debate something on it;s merits without dragging stupid shit like this into it?

Between that and your willingness to lie bruce your credibility ...................well not much one can say there.

I mean even your buddy Roger Kaseman thinks it is a bad fiscal idea to open up our constitution to begin funding things.

Apparently you are willing to over look those potential consequences.

Straight up question bruce, do you think it is wise to mandate funding in our constitution?

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

Bruce you like to make stupid accusations like the one above to try and get people to believe Fritz and myself are anti conservation/wildlife/sportsmen when we oppose something like this ill conceived measure.

But what attack can you make on your fellow sponsor and sportsman Roger Kaseman when he opposes this measure for the very same reasons we have?

Didn't the ND Wildlife Federation (who now supports this measure) give him the Sportsman of the Year award back in 2008?

If I remember right back in the HFH debate you held Roger up as someone that was the voice of the ND sportsman and the people of ND.

How do you justify your bullshit claims Fritz and I oppose this to only to  "rape and pillage" this state when a former Sportsman of the Year and fellow sponsor opposes it for the same reasons we do?

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

I guess I should have mentioned that this letter to the editor appeared in the Bismarck Tribune March 21st.

Initiative Would Be A Travesty

Dear Editor:

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Trust initiative will be a travesty if voters pass the measure.

I am not opposed to spending on conservation; we already have a system in place for that, a system with checks and balances. The only check and balance on this new fourth branch of government will be the checks they write and hundreds of millions of dollars in their bank balance to cover the checks.

I hear $130 million per biennium taxed and spent. Tally in the growth of oil production and the subsequent increase in tax revenue and the figure will be closer to $230 million — and that is still a conservative estimate.

Whatever the amount, that much cash places too much power in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable government agency. There isn’t a thing the legislative assembly, the governor, the court or the citizens could do about the board’s actions because its spending will be shielded by the North Dakota Constitution.

The first attempt to bring this measure to a vote ended with criminal charges for corruption. The amount of cash under the control of the proposed board will not just invite the corruption, it will foster corruption.

Using the low estimate of $130 million per biennium, cash mandated to the board pencils out to approximately $178,000 of spending every day, seven days a week, for the 730 days of the biennium. That amount of money will corrupt the unaccountable board and the people who do business with that board.

The voters of this state ought to vehemently oppose any constitutional amendment that mandates inflexible spending. It is bad government to take options from elected legislators — individuals who are subject to public pressure — and place those options in the hands of a board that is beyond the control of anybody.

Roger Kaseman
Bismarck, ND

Throughout the fair chase folly, I would surmise Roger Kaseman had met all the individuals immersed in this Petition affair. 

Dick Monson Lloyd Jones, Thomas Sklebar, Mike McEnroe, Keith Trego, Karen Kreil, David Brandt, Erik Fritzell  etc. etc.

If Roger says that much cash will corrupt them, I am inclined to believe he already knows them well.  

This Consitutional Amendment would create an unelected panel stacked with "highly intelligent wildlife professionals". (wink wink)  

Get your hands in the air.........this is a stick up.  

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

 Now you love Roger.  That's really funny.  

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

Plainsman Said:
 Now you love Roger.  That's really funny.  

Maybe he is finally done with the Kool-aid. But you Bruce will never be.

The conflict................ the struggle.......... written by the wildlife society:

ABSTRACT: Currently, one of the greatest challenges facing state fish and wildlife agencies is the shift from a science-based management approach to one more driven by public opinion and political pressures. State game and wildlife agencies are becoming increasingly politicized, with Directors being replaced at an unprecedented rate, state legislatures increasing their scrutiny in wildlife agency decision-making, and increasing involvement and input by outside entities (state agriculture departments, federal agencies, production-oriented industries, insurance companies, etc.). This has resulted in decreased stability of agencies and a subsequent decrease in their ability to make informed decisions based on science. One of the seven tenets of the North American Model for Wildlife Management is the use of “best science” in the management of our resources, and that tenet is under a direct attack by these influences. The motivating factors behind this push presents mid and upper-level managers with increasing levels of risk and uncertainty. State agencies must adapt to these rapid shifts in pressure to successfully blend science, policy, and common sense in order to reduce this threat to the North American Model to an acceptable level.

I see Dick Monson is pulling for Randy Kreil to fill in Duane DeKray's vacancy at Game and Fish.

Right in the middle of the picture:

http://joomla.wildlife.org/NorthDakota/images/ND_TWS_Newsletters/2007-march.pdf

To the right of Randy is his wife Karen. She is a sponsor of this not so clean petition. So how does this work? She is a public employee, he is a public employee and they are campaigning for a hellava bunch of the publics  money to bloat and benefit the wildlife profession.

Why,........... because they claim they are the victims in that abstract above.

We the people make the laws and then employ Game and Fish to enforce those laws.
Who in the hell is really encroaching upon whom?

All the wildlife agency personel in North Dakota should be surveyed.

No.1 Have you read the North American Wildlife Conservation Model written by Valerius Geist, an immigrant to Canada from communist East Germany?

No.2 If the answer is yes move on to question 3.

No.3 Are you a true believer?

No.4 If the answer is yes..........you are fired.

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

Plainsman Said:
 Now you love Roger.  That's really funny.  

No Bruce we are simply asking you and your other former sponsors if you still "love" Roger, the North Dakota Wildlife Federations Sportsmen of the Year and your fellow sponsor when he opposes this measure for the same reasons we do.

So Bruce are you going to answer a simple question about why Mr. Kaseman thinks this is a bad idea for the same reasons many others including Fritz and I do?

Why is it not a bad idea to set precedent with this measure to begin funding things thru our constitution?

I tend to agree with Fritz, after Mr Kaseman's extensive involvement thru two previous measure attempts with many of the same people sponsoring this one, why would he not be as knowlegeable  a source regarding the potential for fraud from these people as anyone.

And given the FACT these same sponsors had this measure thrown out once already as a result of fraudulent actions there is a bit of credibility to his statement.

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

I don't trust anyone, but I will have to take a chance that they will slow down the degradation of our natural resources by the anything for a dollar crowd. Unlike you and Fritz I measure the quality of life with many things, not only money.

Did you see the emoticon in the post that upset you?  Remember in the past when you scolded me for not paying attention to them?  Winky winky.  Sorry emoticons don't work with my phone.

Hunt_Fish31's picture
Hunt_Fish31
Offline
Joined: 2/5/12

 It is too bad that most professional wildlife biologists are not open minded enough to recognize and work with the farmers and ranchers in this state.  Instead of realizing that the greatest good comes from private operators, they have to push for a boatload of dollars for a minimal effect.  If I had a nickel for every time a farmer did something for wildlife, then have a professional biologist tell him it just wasn't good enough, I would have enough to campaign against this measure.

My dad was not a professional, but he managed his farmland and grassland at a very high level, and was told he didn't understand what he was doing, so he was not doing it right.  I would submit that he knew a hell of a lot more than some college educated government employee.

Hunt_Fish31

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

Hunt_Fish31 Said:
 It is too bad that most professional wildlife biologists are not open minded enough to recognize and work with the farmers and ranchers in this state.  Instead of realizing that the greatest good comes from private operators, they have to push for a boatload of dollars for a minimal effect.  If I had a nickel for every time a farmer did something for wildlife, then have a professional biologist tell him it just wasn't good enough, I would have enough to campaign against this measure.

My dad was not a professional, but he managed his farmland and grassland at a very high level, and was told he didn't understand what he was doing, so he was not doing it right.  I would submit that he knew a hell of a lot more than some college educated government employee.

Actually we have a lot of good State and Federal Employees. I can remember when Terry Steinwand was appointed Director of Game and Fish. Everybody likes him now. He was the right choice.  But how many have forgotten the rumblings printed in Dakota Country Magazine coming from the wildlife society. They wanted Randy Kreil. And then again when Roger Rosveit  retired and was replaced by Duane DeKray the rumblings began. They wanted Randy Kreil. And now that DeKray has quit and went to Garrison Diversion the Deputy Director is open again.  

There is a struggle right within the Game and Fish. One camp beleives they work for the people and maintain open lines of communication. And then there is that other camp of true believers. Their manifesto:

 

ABSTRACT: Currently, one of the greatest challenges facing state fish and wildlife agencies is the shift from a science-based management approach to one more driven by public opinion and political pressures. State game and wildlife agencies are becoming increasingly politicized, with Directors being replaced at an unprecedented rate, state legislatures increasing their scrutiny in wildlife agency decision-making, and increasing involvement and input by outside entities (state agriculture departments, federal agencies, production-oriented industries, insurance companies, etc.). This has resulted in decreased stability of agencies and a subsequent decrease in their ability to make informed decisions based on science. One of the seven tenets of the North American Model for Wildlife Management is the use of “best science” in the management of our resources, and that tenet is under a direct attack by these influences. The motivating factors behind this push presents mid and upper-level managers with increasing levels of risk and uncertainty. State agencies must adapt to these rapid shifts in pressure to successfully blend science, policy, and common sense in order to reduce this threat to the North American Model to an acceptable level.
Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02
Been busy but again I see gst is up to his same dodge and duck of a direct question and is continuing to make claims others are lying!
Fritz you advocate that owners should decide on production, well as an owner I get to sell to whomever I want and that owner gets to decide about production right?

Kind of obvious as to what you really are avoiding saying to the public here is it not, that you do not want any land taken out of production because you may be able to get a piece of it. How is that any different than those that see setting aside land via an easement or sale?

You guys really do not see the lack of logic in your positions and how they conflict solely because you will not admit to the greed factor on your part!

Again I will ask one of you to have the big boy underwear to step up and explain why you oppose permanent conservation!?

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

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

Hardwaterman Said:

Been busy but again I see gst is up to his same dodge and duck of a direct question and is continuing to make claims others are lying!
At least those claims are the truth ron!
Fritz you advocate that owners should decide on production, well as an owner I get to sell to whomever I want and that owner gets to decide about production right?

Kind of obvious as to what you really are avoiding saying to the public here is it not, that you do not want any land taken out of production because you may be able to get a piece of it. How is that any different than those that see setting aside land via an easement or sale?

You guys really do not see the lack of logic in your positions and how they conflict solely because you will not admit to the greed factor on your part!

Again I will ask one of you to have the big boy underwear to step up and explain why you oppose permanent conservation!?

Ron I have shared why I oppose the "permanent" /perpetual easement to the point where I would guess everyone on here other than you understands.  I think the next generation should have the same choices we do. Just because you choose not to accept that answer does not mean I have not answered your question. .

It has nothing to do with opposing conservation despite your lies.  If you choose not to accept that reason as valid so be it I am not dancing that dance any more.

Now ron do you think it is wise to start mandating funding for things in our state constitution?
Lets see if you have out grown the Spidey undies.

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

Hunt_Fish31 Said:
 It is too bad that most professional wildlife biologists are not open minded enough to recognize and work with the farmers and ranchers in this state.  Instead of realizing that the greatest good comes from private operators, they have to push for a boatload of dollars for a minimal effect.  If I had a nickel for every time a farmer did something for wildlife, then have a professional biologist tell him it just wasn't good enough, I would have enough to campaign against this measure.

My dad was not a professional, but he managed his farmland and grassland at a very high level, and was told he didn't understand what he was doing, so he was not doing it right.  I would submit that he knew a hell of a lot more than some college educated government employee.

And there in lies the problem.

We have seen it many times right here on this site.

And unfortunately it is not just "professionally trained wildlife biologists".

There is a small vocal group of "sportsmen" that do as well.

Just look at rons insulting the commitment to conservation producers here in the sate make as "pitiful" and yet when asked, avoids sharing anything he himself has done.

While this group is a small percentage of sportsmen, they are the loudest and unfortunately their accusations and rhetoric of "greed" ect... is what people hear.

Combine that with these out of state nonprofits and lines are drawn in the sand that will benefit no one.

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

Ron Gilmore said,

Kind of obvious as to what you really are avoiding saying to the public here is it not, that you do not want any land taken out of production because you may be able to get a piece of it. How is that any different than those that see setting aside land via an easement or sale?

 

You are saying that I do not want any land taken out of production because I may want a piece of it.  Ron, why do you assume? I'm getting up there in years and I've got enough land to keep me quite busy. I don't want anymore.

However, you just stated, "taken out of production." You just made my case.

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

Then Dwight what is wrong with a conservation group owning land? If you do not want part of it or want it for someone else, why should that group be denied the same right of ownership you or others have? Simple question!

They would in your words get to deside on the production level of the property and is that not what you and others want right!
Step up and answer the question because other than greed based on your own statements of owner deciding on productivity and use I do not see them being any different than you or gabe! So like it or not I will again say it is about greed from your perspective unless you can dispel that fact with a reasoned statement that deals with ownership of land and property rights based on the views of use and productivity!!!!

gst same to you, your argument about future owners is bullshit from day one, then previous owners should be penalized for allowing erosion and over grazing that damaged pasture land and for every friggng weed you do not deal with that affects another property owner in the future!!! That is how stupid and I do mean stupid the claim of denying a future owner something is. You should be forced to treat every weed so that the owner thirty years from now of your property does not deal with any residual seeds left in the ground from your time of use!

Now based on what I asked Dwight tell us again why you oppose permanent conservation of lands one more time!!!!!!!!

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!

Pages