epa (uncle) in charge in wyoming...

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

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

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

gst one more time, answer why you are against permanent conservation outside of easements! THAT QUESTION YOU HAVE AVOIDED! I know a lot of people get tired of these back and forth threads, but like it or not you are going to be dogged on this until you step up and answer!

Your claims of having are not accurate and intentionally untrure!

So stop being the chickenshit and step up and answer! Are you that afraid of what others are going to think of you? Or have you been told to not speak again and instead spin???

These last questions are more to illuminate the fact that you refuse to answer but demand it of others and when faced with someone dogging you to answer you attempt to spin to another topic or ask them questions hoping they will forget! Then you claim to answer when you have not!

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

gst Said:
ron if we throw open the doors wide to nonprofit buying land here in ND without going thru the process the state has, it would also allow nonprofits like this to purchase lands here as well.

http://hswlt.org/

So ron, do you support HSUS being able to buy lands here in ND?

As a sportsman do you think this is a good idea?  I wonder how many sportsmen would agree with you?

Ron one question, why do we regulate the "right" to use the land however someone may wish?

To avoid negative consequences to others. The state says I can not come onto a property across the road from your home and build a feedlot. I understand this.

Building a feedlot there would not negatively affect me (other than the everyday bitching that would occur) but it would negatively affect you, so the state says even if I own that land, I can not build a feedlot effectively restricting my right to "do what ever I wish with my owned lands"

Ron, even if I have owned that land for decades and you buy the quarter next to it and move onto it, unless this land has been previously zoned agricultural, I likely can not build my feedlot on land I own because of state set back laws.

It is my opinion, just as there are benefits to regulating the "right" of usage of lands, there is benefits to regulating the "right" of ownership of lands to avoid negative consequences as well.

While you may not think the sale of lands to a nonprofit org like HSUS may negatively affect you, it may negatively affect someone else so the state regulates this "right" just as they regulate the "right" of land usage.

Whether you like or accept it ron, the state agrees. And I would guess if most sportsmen are honest, while they may want DU to buy land here in ND they would not want HSUS buying land here either.

ron people that know me will tell you I am not 100% opposed to nonprofits buying land here in this state despite your false claims. People within orgs I am members of will tell you that. If you would take your childish hatred out of the picture for a minute and consider this, you were invited to a meeting of one of the orgs I was on the board at the time were you not?

The meeting had discussion on a land aquisition being proposed. You might have learned something if you had taken advantage of the offer but you choose to avoid it and not have the balls to come and make your accusations directly to the org itself. (hiding behind a made up name on a computor is much less accountable)

The answer to your question you repeatedly claim I have not answered is in the quote above.  While not opposed to every sale as you falsely claim, I do support the process the state has of reveiwal to determine the impacts.

Just because YOU by royal decree deem there are no negative impacts to DU buying land, does not mean many others do not have a different opinion .

What makes their opinion any less valid than yours? Because you say it is??

How many people on this site do you believe would think it wise for the state to let HSUS begin to buy up land here?

So now ron, after your question has clearly been answered, again, why do you wish to prevent ADM and Cargill from buying land here while demanding DU have that right?

I continue to ask you about selling lands to an alien non citizen for a reason ron. This is from a link I shared in another thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security

Land deals

Cross-border land deals are increasing. The South Korean firm Daewoo Logistics has secured a large piece of farmland in Madagascar to grow maize and crops for biofuels. Libya has secured 250,000 hectares of Ukrainian farmland, and China has begun to explore land deals in Southeast Asia.[66]Oil-richArab investors, including the sovereign wealth funds, are looking into Sudan, Ethiopia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Cambodia and Thailand.[67]

Some countries are using the acquisition of land for agriculture in return for other gains. Egypt is seeking land acquisition in Ukraine in exchange for access to its natural gas. Qatar has plans to lease 40,000 hectares of agricultural land along Kenya's coast to grow fruit and vegetables, in return for building a £2.4 billion port close to the Indian Ocean tourist island of Lamu.[68

So ron should we have Libya here in ND  buying lands? How about some Arab nations?

I would guess most North Dakotans would not support that because of the potential negative consequences.

You see there is a value to maintaining control who has the "right" to purchase lands here in this state despite your claims you should be able to "sell my land to whom ever I want to".

So once again ron why do you wish to prevent ADM from buying land here in ND even though you demand your brothers RMEF nonprofit be allowed to? .

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Fritz I am not in favor of tearing apart the Corp farming law, have said that repeatedly, what I would like to see is a return to the original law as it was passed, not what the ag org morfed it into!

The problem is that since your group is not willing to go back to reasoned rules, Cook is going to force the issue in court and that sums up the situation not being ME but your own greed that is going to rewrite the law.

I do not want Cargill or ADM or Cloverdale to be in the actual business of raising products in our state. I do however recognize that there is likely not anything we can do legally if they pushed it to avoid that.

Now how about this suggest they go back to the old law, remove the board, and move forward. But my guess you and gst want it all and are to blind to other states that had almost identical laws getting booted to think a bit out of the box.

You can stand on your soap box  and cry but it is not going to come out well for the states law in courts outside of ND and that is where this is at now!

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

So here it is ron, your admission you would like the state to continue to block Cargill or ADM or Cloverdale from buying land in ND.

Please explain to us why you deem that restriction appropriate while demanding DU be able to buy land?

After all ron it was you that claimed anyone should have the right to be able to sell their land to whom ever they wished.

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

The law originally passed was to allow the return of land to small farmers. Insurance companies and banks held huge portions of ND land after the depression. One banker made the true statement that his land holdings if put end to end would have went from Bismarck to San Francisco.  

We where headed to be a share cropper state and that was not a good thing for ND then or now. 

Why do I oppose Cargill and such from land ownership is selfish, I can and have admitted that. I have always been concerned that and it has proven to be true based on what has happened in other states that smaller operations get shut out of markets, take a long hard look at the pork industry in IA alone. There involvement from start to finish can and has caused a rise in food pricing by limiting production.

Non profits preserving native prairie as an example  are not positioned nor do they have the intent to do what these large for profit operations intend. Hence they have little to any affect on pricing and supply overall even if they reduce slightly the amount of land in production. Many of these groups are in favor of multi use of the lands including raising of crops and or grazing. Some are not and I get that.

Having served on township board and other capacity I have never held that taxes should be removed from all lands owned by a non profit. They after all still need the services such as road maintnece and fire protection.

So as I have stated before I am in favor of a return to the orginal law and  change in the status of taxation for non profit land purchase. That alone will limit the so called run on land buying you and others have whined about. Lots of marginal lands for crop production or outright high erosion lands where put into production during the 70's with the Fed gov paying producers to break up land. Wetlands as well where drained via our tax dollars.

Putting some of this land back into permanent conservation with multi use ag options makes sense. It has huge benefits from water and air quality to wildlife both non game and game benefits as well.

This type of change in our law would preserve the orginal intent of the law when passed and likely would have gone unchallenged in courts outside of the ND level. But the steadfast push to keep any and all non profit land acquisition has put all of this in jeopardy and that falls directly at the feet of the Ag industry and their lobby efforts. So when Cargill and other companies get free reign on land purchases as well as non profits including HSUS you can look in the mirror and tell yourself I supported the position that these groups have taken and realize it was not people like me that wanted what is coming. It was pure greed and ignorance by the farm lobby that caused it.

The Cook property is a prime example, I have driven around and looked at that land. Low production levels for crop land, decent for hay and grazing, excellent for wildlife though. The smart thing to do with the land was to leave it in CRP and then some use for ag after but never to return it to crop land. Having land like this be allowed for purchase but still have a tax liability would also encourage those buying it to maintain a multi use of the land to generate some income to cover taxes and other related expenses. Haying and grazing on a rotation level would benefit the land and wildlife as well as farm and ranch. Win, win for all sides.

But the steadfast NO from the three ag groups who have a seat at the table and the lobby influence pushed this to a level that is going to be detrimental to the entire state and ag as well!!!!

Ag as a whole is no longer mom and pop operations like when I was growing up, operations are larger and larger all the time, equipment and efficiency have taken away the 3-4 quarter farms. Now it is 3-4 sections and the laws of the state are antiquated as a result.

So as it sits unless the Ag lobby steps back and allows for non profits to own land without going through the hoops they have to now, and change the tax laws and settle with Cook, the doors in a few years are going to be thrown wide open to not only non profits but large corp both ag and non ag and the fault of that lies directly at the feet of the current Ag industry groups and their lobby efforts!

It is not going to be because of the Nature Conservancy or DU or RMEF!! It will be soley at the feet of the Ag industry themselves as a result of lack of vision and understanding that current law is not going to stand the court tests.

Just think about this for a second with the idea that the state is going to lose to Cook and what that loss means. Would it not be wiser to find a solution that preserves at least the original intent of the law?

You asked who I have talked with in the Leg well gst to protect them from the Ag lobby I will not answer that. They do not deserve to be put through the meat grinder that the Ag lobby has. I do know that most of them when you talk about this issue feel a compromise and change in the law as it sits makes sense. However they know that it has no chance as long as the Ag groups oppose any changes!

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

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

Hardwater, how do we get this information to the average farmer?  I know they would agree with us,  but groups like Farmers Union and Farm Bureau have them convinced they are working for the average farmer.  I don't think so.  As a matter of fact the things they do make me suspect their officers get under table money from groups like Cargill.  They will encourage fighting Cook and pave the way for the corporations.  It's like the poor have voted democrat for 50 years, but they are still poor and more like enslaved to our welfare system.

 gst is making a super argument for the corporations.  Is that by accident or intent?     

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

Hardwaterman Said:

Why do I oppose Cargill and such from land ownership is selfish, I can and have admitted that.

Well ron perhaps it is "selfish" to be concerned about the impacts on rural business and small communities we people like myself live and raise our families if nonprofits are able to purchase lands uncontrolled. (I say uncontrolled because contrary to what you and others like to infer that is what the law does is control, not prevent)

Lets take a look at any number of small communities and businesses around the state (perhaps not so much in Fargo where your business is cleaning blinds) when large acres of CRP went in around them.

I saw firsthand as well as many others in agriculture, small business close their doors as a result of the changes in demand for inputs. This led to people moving away and schools closing or co-oping. Kids now having to ride the bus for an hour to get to school one way, parents having to drive 40 miles or more for school events, ect...

There are consequences to taking large tracts of land out of production. Many STATE  legislators knew this years ago based on the experiences they saw back in the soil bank water bank days in some areas. And when the FEDERAL program of CRP came in once again, it supported their concerns yet again.

Ron, bruce, not everyone can work in govt or make a living cleaning blinds in Fargo. Some people need to live in these rural communities to help keep the economy of this state healthy.

The STATE realizes the value of this and weighs impacts to that carefully. And as such the elected officials of ALL the citizens of the STATE of North Dakota have passed laws that allow that.

I support those "selfish" ideals.

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

Hardwaterman Said:

The law originally passed was to allow the return of land to small farmers. Insurance companies and banks held huge portions of ND land after the depression. One banker made the true statement that his land holdings if put end to end would have went from Bismarck to San Francisco.  

We where headed to be a share cropper state and that was not a good thing for ND then or now. 

Why do I oppose Cargill and such from land ownership is selfish, I can and have admitted that. I have always been concerned that and it has proven to be true based on what has happened in other states that smaller operations get shut out of markets, take a long hard look at the pork industry in IA alone. There involvement from start to finish can and has caused a rise in food pricing by limiting production.

Non profits preserving native prairie as an example  are not positioned nor do they have the intent to do what these large for profit operations intend. Hence they have little to any affect on pricing and supply overall even if they reduce slightly the amount of land in production. Many of these groups are in favor of multi use of the lands including raising of crops and or grazing. Some are not and I get that.

Ron how many acres does DU own in Canada where they can purchase land uncontrolled?

http://prairie.ducks.org/index.cfm?&page=/cld/listings.html

The Grasslands for Tomorrow initiative has targeted the acquisition, restoration and sale of about 72,000 acres over the next 15 years, and is part of a larger plan to permanently protect more than two million acres in the U.S. prairies of the 'best of the best' remaining breeding habitat for waterfowl on the continent

Having served on township board and other capacity I have never held that taxes should be removed from all lands owned by a non profit. They after all still need the services such as road maintnece and fire protection.

So as I have stated before I am in favor of a return to the orginal law and  change in the status of taxation for non profit land purchase. That alone will limit the so called run on land buying you and others have whined about. Lots of marginal lands for crop production or outright high erosion lands where put into production during the 70's with the Fed gov paying producers to break up land. Wetlands as well where drained via our tax dollars.

Ron have farming practices change from the 70 making these lands productive now and meet protective standards of erosion?

Putting some of this land back into permanent conservation with multi use ag options makes sense. It has huge benefits from water and air quality to wildlife both non game and game benefits as well.

Where are these nonprofits forced to return these acres to "producktion" ron? How will they place them into "permanent conservation" in a states who's laws do not allow it?

Will they then sell them to the USF&WS who does have the legal ability to impose perpetual easements ron?

Will the USF&WS put these acres back into production?

Once again ron how many acres does DU own in two prairie provinces in Canada?

You see you are "selfishly" concerned with only the nonprofits that may benefit your hunting opportunities. What you refuse to acknowledge is if the door is thrown open to them, the state can no longer control other "nonprofits" that may wish to purchase lands here in ND as well.  Any and ALL nonprofits will HAVE to be allowed to purchase land uncontrolled.

Do you want HSUS buying lands here in ND ron? The fact is the process we have allows some nonprofits to purchase land if they show a good benefit and can keep others out.

You see ron, the people charged with looking out for the entire states bests interests other than just yours have to realize all the consequences and weigh them accordingly.

And ron, what is stopping DU from engaging in conservation programs to accomplish the very things you say would be a benefit without owning the lands here in ND?

If they are as beneficial to EVERYONE as you claim they will get support and participation.

As a matter of fact ron DU (just one nonprofit) does just that.

http://www.ducks.org/resources/media/Conservation/Reports/Habitat%20Maps...

Ron take a look at the number of little red ducks on this map and consider what the consequences might be if these were owned lands instead of voluntary programs.

They changes you wish would allow that. The 5% oil and gas measure would fund that.

And this is just ONE nonprofit ron, imagine the consequences if the door is thrown open wide to ALL nonprofits to purchase lands uncontrolled in ND.

You see ron, once again the people responsible for the well being of the state has to consider this. You have preached the courts overthrowing the Cook suit for decades. You have held it up as a "boogie man" that corp farming would return to ND.  If the court does rule on Cook, the state will deal with it then and the corporate farming laws may or may not be impacted as you like to banter about. It is nothing more than speculation on your part ron.

But if so, ND will have been protected from unfettered access by nonprofits whose dollars are in the billions out there that would seek to buy lands here in ND.

You see ron what it boils down to is the STATE is responsible to look out for more than just you or I's whats and wishes and as such have written a law that has been widely supported by the elected officials responsible for just that over the many years.

Perhaps that will change as these nonprofits bring their billions into this state if the measure that will allow them access to MORE billions in oil and gas tax dollars to buy lands here in ND passes.

And ron, one important little tidbit you ALWAYS forget to mention is the process whereby members of a panel that have representatives from conservation and wildlife and as well as agriculture and business that make there independent recommendations, comes down to the decision of one person. This one person, the Governor who has the power to allow these sales, despite your accusations of being in ags "pocket" has and always will be elected and accountable to ALL the people of North Dakota theu the electoral process, not just ag producers or DU members.

Ron what percentage of the voting population in ND are ag producers?

And yet magically they "control" elected officials.

Ron what percentage of people in ND make a living tied to agriculture somehow?

(I would guess the odds are good you clean the blinds of some that do)

Perhaps there is a little clue as to what the elected representatives consider.

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

gst one summer I worked a few months on wetlands in Iowa.  In Iowa there were 62 families in one township that I worked.  Even small towns had a lot of business.  What is the average township population in North Dakota?  I think the reason small towns like the one I grew up in are disappearing is due to the size of farms.  When I was young a farmer with three sections was a large farmer.  Now it's a small farm.  So gst next time you buy another section understand that your the reason the small towns are disappearing.  It's directly linked to the population on the land requiring support. 

gst I know that often it looks like we just argue with you.  However, I would like you to seriously consider what has been presented in the last few posts.  Fighting and loosing to Cook will open the state to corporations.  Neither you or I want that.  Also, consider what is shrinking local communities.  Corporation as I am sure you know will kill them.  Now ask yourself the impact of conservation organizations owning land.  The local benefit will be more seasonal, but it will be there.   Of course the local benefit is seasonal now and linked to harvest.  I present these ideas to you not to argue as we often do, but to think together.

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

plainsman there are a number of reasons population dynamics have and are changing here in ND and farm size does impact that but if we acknowledge that, you also have to acknowledge the impact these Federal programs such as CRP have had as well.

CRP had a direct impact on "farm size".

Also understand you can not compare Iowa to ND not 1960' agriculture  to todays agriculture. 

If you truly wish to "think together" start by being honest enough to admit that.

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

Oh, absolutely CRP had some impact.  I was listening to KFYR one day and this lady was angry about the impacts your talking about.  She was really angry that farmers put land in CRP then went to Arizona for the winter to spend their money.  The KFYR asked what she did.  She said she was a farm wife.  He asked if they had CRP.  She said yes.  He asked how much.  She said 1000 acres.  He asked if she went to Arizona.  She said yes.  He asked for how long.  She said six months. 
CRP is a federal program, but it's for farmers who would otherwise farm land that should be grazed.  You as a rancher I'm sure are aware that often grain farmers don't want to be tied down with cattle, but they have land that should be grazed and not farmed.
gst I was not comparing 1960, I worked in Iowa in 1997. 
So gst can you drop the antagonistic attitude and actually think together?  Your post didn't look like it, but perhaps I am wrong.  Am I?

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

Neat

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

ron, you and a couple of others ALWAYS bitch about the process the state holds of land sales approval for nonprofits.

This bitching and whining ALWAYS is aimed at ags "control" over the panel and the biased results because of it.

Ron do you actually know how many sales between the years of 1997 and 2009 were approved and how many were denied?

If you actually do and continue to claim ag always "wins" a denial you are being disingenuous with the people reading your claims.

From a 2009 article:

"While Ducks Unlimited hasn’t fared very well in its dealings with the acquisition committee — only one of three proposals have been approved — a review of proposed nonprofit purchases since 1997 shows the panel has recommended approval 13 of 19 times. The governor ultimately approved 14 requests and denied five.

Only once did the governor choose to deny a purchase the panel had recommended to approve. That was in January 1998, when Gov. Ed Schafer denied The Nature Conservancy’s request to buy land in Ransom County."

Almost a 3 to 1 APPROVAL of these land sales despite your insinuations ron.

http://www.calt.iastate.edu/article/corporation%E2%80%99s-acquisition-fa...

So as I have REPEATEDLY said ron I support the process the state has whereby careful consideration is given rather than throwing the door open wide to allow orgs like HSUS and their nonprofit land aquisitions org into our state to buy land uncontrolled.

Do you support HSUS's non profit group buying land in ND uncontrolled ron?

How about you Bruce?

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

Plainsman Said:
Oh, absolutely CRP had some impact.  I was listening to KFYR one day and this lady was angry about the impacts your talking about.  She was really angry that farmers put land in CRP then went to Arizona for the winter to spend their money.  The KFYR asked what she did.  She said she was a farm wife.  He asked if they had CRP.  She said yes.  He asked how much.  She said 1000 acres.  He asked if she went to Arizona.  She said yes.  He asked for how long.  She said six months. 
CRP is a federal program, but it's for farmers who would otherwise farm land that should be grazed.  You as a rancher I'm sure are aware that often grain farmers don't want to be tied down with cattle, but they have land that should be grazed and not farmed.
gst I was not comparing 1960, I worked in Iowa in 1997. 
So gst can you drop the antagonistic attitude and actually think together?  Your post didn't look like it, but perhaps I am wrong.  Am I?

always with the stories intended to jab agriculture plainsman. And yet you expect someone for agriculture to "drop the antagonistic attitude and actually think together?" with you.

Plainsman you have a clear history of comparing 1960's farming to current technologies so please do not insult people by suggesting otherwise.

As to "thinking together" , I will reserve that for conservation and wildlife people that do not believe they have to lie to accomplish their goals.

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

I was begining to wonder what happened to storytime?

Plainsman wrote,

Oh, absolutely CRP had some impact.  I was listening to KFYR one day and this lady was angry about the impacts your talking about.  She was really angry that farmers put land in CRP then went to Arizona for the winter to spend their money.  The KFYR asked what she did.  She said she was a farm wife.  He asked if they had CRP.  She said yes.  He asked how much.  She said 1000 acres.  He asked if she went to Arizona.  She said yes.  He asked for how long.  She said six months. 

btw, Cooks land is all posted......no hunting.

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

You continue to want to split hais and argue the merit of blocking the non profits, my point remains the same and that is looking past what you want and instead looking at what is very likely to take place.

I am well aware that for now the law is the law!

What I and others keep asking you is about the real likelihood of a loss by the state vs Cook? Then what? 

Why cant this be discussed and looked at with reasoned thought. Like I have said before I am looking for a compromise on this to retain some of the Corp farming laws and not lose them all.

What contigent plans do your orgs have if and when they lose? See that really is the issue that needs to be talked about. 

You just want to beat DU or whatever group over the head thinking that is all that you need to do. I am opposed to that approach and instead suggest looking at a fix prior! 

Now here is a better way of looking at it! You have a  $1,000,000,000.00 on the table and are letting it ride thinking you cannot lose. One roll of the dice away from having nothing!

The issue of Cook has been talked a good deal with farmer friends of mine. Most oppose his buying the land, and I get it, but most also oppose the idea of losing the current law blocking Corps like ADM as an example of buying and controlling farm land or for that matter some investment group as well not even connected to AG! 

Can you get past the DU issue and address the future without the law? Have you even thought about it? 

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

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

It looks like trying to think together angers people.  I guess that means they have an all or nothing attitude.  Don't say I didn't try.  Carry on.  Say hello Cargill. 

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

johnr Said:

Cheers to you as well john r.

is that a pic of the younger years?
If so is that a man purse in your lap?
Is that root beer or real beer?
Did you attend Brigham Young U?
Why hold a bottle with your little finger sticking out?
What are you trying to tell us ?

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

Plainsman Said:
It looks like trying to think together angers people.  I guess that means they have an all or nothing attitude.  Don't say I didn't try.  Carry on.  Say hello Cargill. 

Bruce you seem to think you are the only conservation/wildlife game i town to "think together" with.

As I said there are many that do not feel the need to lie to accomplish their goals that myself and others in ag work with.

You went down this path over on Nodak Bruce, it didn;t stop you from making bullshit accusations that were not true then why would it now? 

If you are actually sincere about "trying", go back and address every bullshit claim you have made where you have been asked to "please show where" the claim is not bullshit.

That ought to keep you busy a while.

Credibility. It matters.

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

Hardwaterman Said:

You continue to want to split hais and argue the merit of blocking the non profits, my point remains the same and that is looking past what you want and instead looking at what is very likely to take place.

I am well aware that for now the law is the law!

What I and others keep asking you is about the real likelihood of a loss by the state vs Cook? Then what? 

Why cant this be discussed and looked at with reasoned thought. Like I have said before I am looking for a compromise on this to retain some of the Corp farming laws and not lose them all.

What contigent plans do your orgs have if and when they lose? See that really is the issue that needs to be talked about. 

You just want to beat DU or whatever group over the head thinking that is all that you need to do. I am opposed to that approach and instead suggest looking at a fix prior! 

Now here is a better way of looking at it! You have a  $1,000,000,000.00 on the table and are letting it ride thinking you cannot lose. One roll of the dice away from having nothing!

The issue of Cook has been talked a good deal with farmer friends of mine. Most oppose his buying the land, and I get it, but most also oppose the idea of losing the current law blocking Corps like ADM as an example of buying and controlling farm land or for that matter some investment group as well not even connected to AG! 

Can you get past the DU issue and address the future without the law? Have you even thought about it? 

ron this would appear to be less of a lie if you hadn;t spent the last how many pages ranting as you have.

ron if you were as informed regarding this as you believe you are you would understand these conversations have already taken place. Not only within ag groups, but the state itself.

ron do you acknowledge almost 3 to 1 these land sales have been approved thru the process the state requires?

Do you think allowing HSUS uncontrolled access to purchase lands here in ND thru their nonprofit that receives govt taxpayer dollars is a good idea
?

http://www.hswlt.org/wildlife-abuse/

Indeed having orgs with  agendas against "leathal predator control" seeking to end hunting of all types buying land uncontrolled here in ND would be good right ron?

I'm sure most sportsmen would appreciate your position of lack of control over orgs such as this when this nonprofit buys their favorite hunting spot.

The rancher adjacent to these "sanctuaries" would appreciate it as well I'm sure.

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

The Cook case won't procede until/unless the Clean Water Wildlife Parks petition were to pass in November. 

Don't want to get the cash cart before the horse you know.  

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

gst again the issue is what are you and your org willing to do to avoid a devastating loss in the courts?

I know what has been said, what many think should be done and I also am aware of the bull headed stubbornness that many of them are clinging to on this issue.

HSUS, or PETA or Granny Bunnies, it will not matter one bit when the courts rule against the law!!

I get the desire to keep them out, I agree with it, but some approvals vs some not is more of a hinderance than a help because in most cases the bias shows through and that bias is what is going to undermine the law and it is exactly what undermined it in other states!!

I know you do not like to have to discuss the possible loss and I will harken back to the Sioux nickname issue. Reacting after the cat was out of the bag did not get it done. That is why I have stated what I have. You assume what you want, but reality is that right now nothing to head off the court battle and loss is going forward legislatively from the last I have been told. If you know more share! But it seems they are leaving all on the table and letting it ride!!

Family friend is an investment specialist in the Twin Cities, they have a bit over 500 million in investment capital pledged for land purchases in ND once this suit is settled. The reason is current land values and rate of return with asset growth possible and likely!

I am sure that others are much the same. They could invest in MN or other areas and have but ND in their analysis has the biggest potential for fast purchases with best return rates via tax liability etc.... 

So why not simply settle with Cook to have the lawsuit end and then change the law to avoid this fight down the road? 

Investment groups are not going to wade into the battle, but are more than willing to be waiting to pounce once the law is done!

This issue is a no brainer to fix if you simply look at it without clouded judgment! 

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

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

HSUS, PETA, HSUS, PETA, HSUS ------ when reason fails pull out the bogyman.  Just like the liberals when we disagree with Obama they pull out the race card. 

gst you always call people liars when they will not agree with you.  Just because our opinion is different than yours don't make it wrong or a lie.  You ask why you were booted from nodak.   Personal attacks and calling people a liar to often would be my guess. 

Evidently Hardwater is right about the all or nothing greed attitude.  The corporations have no better advocate than you and Fritz.  They should be paying you. 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02
Do you think allowing HSUS uncontrolled access to purchase lands here in ND thru their nonprofit that receives govt taxpayer dollars is a good idea?

Good or bad idea is not the issue gst, I have said that repeatedly, what matters is how the courts view the law and based on passed case laws from other states with similar laws the outcome for keeping them out is not good!!

So move past this! Get it through your head that we as a state face two options one retreating back to previous law and hoping it does not get challenged or having everything be a free for all!

Fritz I know that the deadline was pushed, and a lot of that has to do with the petition wording trumping the Leg. It does not change the fact that this issue with Cook should never have had to get where it was. Had he been allowed this suit would never have occurred and it falls on the Ag for not supporting it! It also reflects on our Gov for not having the foresight to realize that Cook was not going to roll over!

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

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

I will be a bit more direct on this in regards to a solution. Putting a limit on total acres a non profit can control at any one time is a reasonable solution. It takes away your concern about hsus gst but I do know the real reason you oppose any non profit ownership.

 

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

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

Plainsman Said:
HSUS, PETA, HSUS, PETA, HSUS ------ when reason fails pull out the bogyman.  Just like the liberals when we disagree with Obama they pull out the race card. 

gst you always call people liars when they will not agree with you.  Just because our opinion is different than yours don't make it wrong or a lie.  You ask why you were booted from nodak.   Personal attacks and calling people a liar to often would be my guess.  Then why are you still there?

Evidently Hardwater is right about the all or nothing greed attitude.  The corporations have no better advocate than you and Fritz.  They should be paying you. 

Plainsman I call people liars that lie. Period.  Many people have disagreed with me on this site and have not been called a liar for doing so.

If you want to claim otherwise go back and prove me wrong the times I have called you a liar.

All that is being pointed out is that there are many other nonprofits out there besides DU.

If you allow DU uncontrolled access , the others HAVE to be allowed as well.

The fact is most other sportsmen understand this or the state law would be different as there are FAR more sportsmen in this state than active ag producers. Unless you believe politicians are not concerned about votes.

Do you want nonprofits such as the HSUS nonprofit I mentioned buying land in ND?


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
Hardwaterman Said:
gst again the issue is what are you and your org willing to do to avoid a devastating loss in the courts?

I know what has been said, what many think should be done and I also am aware of the bull headed stubbornness that many of them are clinging to on this issue.

Ron I guarantee you do not "know what has been said" by many of these orgs as well as the state itself. Your claims show it to be so.

you were invited to a NDSA meeting to speak directly to this org. and be a part of the discussion and you refused to actually come out from behind your computer and make the bullshit accusations publically you do here.

You were given the chance to "put up or shut up" in a public setting where you could be held accountable for your claims and accusations and you refused to do so.

HSUS, or PETA or Granny Bunnies, it will not matter one bit when the courts rule against the law!!

I get the desire to keep them out, I agree with it, but some approvals vs some not is more of a hinderance than a help because in most cases the bias shows through and that bias is what is going to undermine the law and it is exactly what undermined it in other states!!

Ron 14 out of 19 cases of land purchases were approved! and yet you claim "bias"?? Perhpas the ones that were denied were denied for valid reasons according to state law? Conservation groups other than DU appeared to not have an issue meeting the requirements. Hard to credibly argue facts ron?

I know you do not like to have to discuss the possible loss and I will harken back to the Sioux nickname issue. Reacting after the cat was out of the bag did not get it done. That is why I have stated what I have. You assume what you want, but reality is that right now nothing to head off the court battle and loss is going forward legislatively from the last I have been told. If you know more share! But it seems they are leaving all on the table and letting it ride!

Family friend is an investment specialist in the Twin Cities, they have a bit over 500 million in investment capital pledged for land purchases in ND once this suit is settled. The reason is current land values and rate of return with asset growth possible and likely!

I am sure that others are much the same. They could invest in MN or other areas and have but ND in their analysis has the biggest potential for fast purchases with best return rates via tax liability etc.... 

So why not simply settle with Cook to have the lawsuit end and then change the law to avoid this fight down the road? 

Investment groups are not going to wade into the battle, but are more than willing to be waiting to pounce once the law is done!

This issue is a no brainer to fix if you simply look at it without clouded judgment! 

Ron do you want to see a nonprofit org like the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust buying land out from under sportsmen here in North Dakota?

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

Hardwaterman Said:

Do you think allowing HSUS uncontrolled access to purchase lands here in ND thru their nonprofit that receives govt taxpayer dollars is a good idea?

Good or bad idea is not the issue gst, I have said that repeatedly, what matters is how the courts view the law and based on passed case laws from other states with similar laws the outcome for keeping them out is not good!!

So move past this! Get it through your head that we as a state face two options one retreating back to previous law and hoping it does not get challenged or having everything be a free for all!

Fritz I know that the deadline was pushed, and a lot of that has to do with the petition wording trumping the Leg. It does not change the fact that this issue with Cook should never have had to get where it was. Had he been allowed this suit would never have occurred and it falls on the Ag for not supporting it! It also reflects on our Gov for not having the foresight to realize that Cook was not going to roll over!

Ron you are mister the "law is the law" right? (think back to the "piling ducks" thread and party hunting conversations.) (Even accusing possible animal neglect under the law in the ranching 101 thread if I recall)

Do you acknowledge Cook broke the law here in ND?

Could it be had Cook actually followed the law his purchases would have been one of the 3 to 1 approvals allowed under the very laws he chose to break?

And yet instead of siding with the law on this as you have party hunting and MANY other discussions of law you choose to ignore state law and claim the law is wrong.

Instead of placing plame on the person who actually broke the law, you deflect responsiblity to others.

Credibility ron, is the law the law or not?

Now who is not answering the question ron?

Ron do you want to see a nonprofit org like the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust buying land out from under sportsmen here in North Dakota?
 

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

Hardwaterman Said:
I will be a bit more direct on this in regards to a solution. Putting a limit on total acres a non profit can control at any one time is a reasonable solution. It takes away your concern about hsus gst but I do know the real reason you oppose any non profit ownership.

 

wait a minute ron, you made an absolute decree that anyone should be able to sell their land to whomever they wish. Is that right or wrong?

It does not "take away" the concerns of the HSUS nonprofit buying land here in the state. Just as DU places perpetual easements on these lands for conservation and then turns them over to the USF&WS, HSUS can place a perpetual easement on these lands to prevent hunting forever and turn them over as well.

Consequences ron, it is more complicated when you have to consider all of them as the state does instead of just what benefits you.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
t does not "take away" the concerns of the HSUS nonprofit buying land here in the state. Just as DU places perpetual easements on these lands for conservation and then turns them over to the USF&WS, HSUS can place a perpetual easement on these lands to prevent hunting forever and turn them over as well.

I dislike HSUS, but isn't this just the bogyman again? 

How would this be any different than land owned by a farmer being posted all the time?

Would this act much like a wildlife refuge?  If surrounding farmland acts as a wildlife population sink, would this area not act as a population contributor stabilizing populations in the surrounding area for hunting?  Are you debating for or against HSUS.  Your not a closet animal rights activist are you gst?

gst if you really want to see a liar watch the lady in the ad for high fructose corn syrup.  She says sugar is sugar your body can't tell the difference. 

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

The state has a process in place that allows nonprofits to buy and own land here in ND after careful consideration.

Despite inferences by some, these sales have gone through at a surprising high  allowance rate contrary to the claims some have made. ( I would be willing to bet ron did not even know how many had been allowed)

This process allows the state and it's residents to avoid dealing with the negative consequences some of these nonprofits would bring to our state it the door was thrown wide. (remember there is no requirement of a nonprofit to allow public access if they are allowed unrestricted purchasing abilities)

People like ron wish to deflect from their repsonsibilities in throwing this door open as he claims will happen just because every sale they wish has not been allowed even though the one he references was denied because the organization Crosslands broke the law. Had they done so they may very well have been approved, but we can not know as they did not follow the law.

Remember from 1997 to 2009 14 out of 19 of these sales were approved. That is a pretty high approval rating. Including a case where the Gov over ruled the panel and allowed the sale. These nonprofits followed state law.

So ron what is the state to do when groups choose not to follow the law that perhaps would have allowed them to legally own this land?

Ron I think the process the state has that ALLOWS for nonprofits to own land by meeting standards set forth (not so different form you wanting stipulations as a solution) has been and will be good for the state. If the courts rule it unconstitutional (which is not as slam dunk as you may have been lead to believe or it would have been challenged immediately) the state will deal with it.

Really do not know what else to say ron so I will simply await your direct answer to the question you and plainsman were posed.

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

Plainsman Said:

t does not "take away" the concerns of the HSUS nonprofit buying land here in the state. Just as DU places perpetual easements on these lands for conservation and then turns them over to the USF&WS, HSUS can place a perpetual easement on these lands to prevent hunting forever and turn them over as well.

I dislike HSUS, but isn't this just the bogyman again? 

How would this be any different than land owned by a farmer being posted all the time?

Would this act much like a wildlife refuge?  If surrounding farmland acts as a wildlife population sink, would this area not act as a population contributor stabilizing populations in the surrounding area for hunting?  Are you debating for or against HSUS.  Your not a closet animal rights activist are you gst?

gst if you really want to see a liar watch the lady in the ad for high fructose corn syrup.  She says sugar is sugar your body can't tell the difference. 

So is this an admission you would have no issues with HSUS buying land here in ND bruce?

. Bruce, why "the farmer" and not the city guy that owns land that posted all the time?

Tell me you are not so foolish to not understand the difference.

Plainsman is the farmer actively using hundreds of millions of dollars to further his agenda to end all forms of hunting? .

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

Remember from 1997 to 2009 14 out of 19 of these sales were approved. That is a pretty high approval rating. Including a case where the Gov over ruled the panel and allowed the sale. These nonprofits followed state law.

Your right I am not familiar with that.  I would like to know who was granted approval and who was turned down.  I think there is a picture here we are not seeing. 

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

Remember from 1997 to 2009 14 out of 19 of these sales were approved. That is a pretty high approval rating. Including a case where the Gov over ruled the panel and allowed the sale. These nonprofits followed state law.

Your right I am not familiar with that.  I would like to know who was granted approval and who was turned down.  I think there is a picture here we are not seeing. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

gst one more time, I have repeatedly said that I would prefer not to have them in the state period. However like it or not the law as it stands has not and will not be applied fairly across the board and the denial and approval process has shown that!

Because like it or not you have allowed the purchase by DU but if you deny HSUS that discriminates, you cannot do this and have a court rubber stamp approval of it. Just like denying a Lutheran from buying a home in a neighborhood dominated by Jewish people or visa versa.

Hence doing what other states who have dealt with this have done is allow the purchase but limit what can be owned, so if that acre level is reached then DU or HSUS or Granny's bunnies is restricted by volume but not discriminated against based on political views.

I do not deny that Cook broke the law per say as it was written, but it is not an uncommon practice to intentionally break a law that is deemed in violation of constitutional rights to get it to the court level. Cant say I agree but if the law is found not to be constitutional he then has broken no laws? Works both ways.

The issue with our law really revolves around the board and approval and denial process. You know this as well as anyone does. Take the case back in 09 with DU! DU had purchased land, improved the habitat and sold it back to a rancher, yet other property of the same type was denied based on the county saying they saw no redeeming value to the community. That same land was later purchased by one of the county commissioners at a lower price than DU was willing to pay.

I know you think the board is fair, and approval or not of 14 of 19 is not the issue, it is all about the discrimination that the board process allows to happen. Heck stated policy by the very board member org is enough to cause anyone to pause and go huh? How is this not a discrimination type practice?

If the state said that these lands can be purchased and this criteria for doing so is met then you would likely be fine. But not having a set standard for approval is the biggest issue. Again I would like to be able to keep out HSUS, but I am not so naïve to think that it would likely be legal to do so under the current system in place.

One thing you may want to do is look at some of the state district court ruling regarding cities who have denied use permits. Cities if they deny a permit cannot do it simply because they do not like an individual or corp. They have to deny it based on use criteria, and this principal also will apply to the process regarding non profits.

Denial would have to be that the actions the non profit would be taking would be detrimental to those surrounding the land. Since CRP is allowed putting a section of now farmed land into grass is not going to fly. Putting an easement on it as well does not harm any neighbor or community, etc....

So if you can get past the boogey man tactics of HSUS or PETA which is what you run out when you are faced with reality. Give us a list of criteria that a non profit has to meet that is published listed and known for all to see! Where can a non profit go to get that list to see if land they might want to buy and improve fits? Are there prohibited uses of land in our state law like cities have regarding zoning and use plans? Hey Walmart can buy every house in my neighborhood that is for sale but zoning and use would prevent them from building a store on that property same as I cannot open a garage/repair shop at my house as an advertised business.

These are deemed reasoned limitations of use because of impact to adjacent landowners.

That is the stumbling block in reality on this issue. Denying HSUS because they are anti farming or hunting is political and not allowed, even though I agree with you on them.

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

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

Even though that was a 2009 article it was still interesting.  Still I wonder if they treat all of these groups the same or are they bias?

I noticed in the first story that the lady in the retirement home didn't get any sympathy from the North Dakota Farm Bureau.  I suppose when they turn down the DU people a farmer gets it cheaper at the old ladies expense.  That's not the way our society should treat our senior citizens, or any landowner for that matter. Sad story. 

Kramer sure is ignorant about native prairie.

ND Wary of Non-Profit Land Use Groups

Liberty News Service

Posted 3/3/09

Clois Hetletved had his mother’s farm on the market for over a year before he received an offer to his liking – from Ducks Unlimited (DU). 

Proceeds from the sale were to be used to pay for his 87 year-old mother’s care in a Bismark retirement home. 

But before the sale could be finalized, it had to be approved by the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee, an eight-member panel of agriculture and conservation representatives.  North Dakota has fiercely protected private property in the state for over a century, beginning with anti-corporate farming laws enacted in the 1930s. 

Non-profits were originally labeled corporate entities and were not allowed to own land until the mid-1980s, when the state legislature voted to allow some of those groups to buy land.  But first, the sale must be approved by the Advisory Committee. 

The Hetletved/DU deal didn’t make the cut.  The Advisory Board voted 6-2 against the deal, citing a lack of public benefit. 

The Kidder County Commissioners voted 2-1 against it.  Governor Hoeven followed the Committee’s recommendation and denied DU’s application to purchase on February 12.  Brian Kramer, North Dakota Farm Bureau director explained,“Most of the time these folks [non-profits] come in and try to say there’s something new or unique or whatever about this land purchase…In our minds, they’re just looking to buy up more land and take it out of production.”  

Jim Ringleman, DU’s director of conservation for the Dakotas and Montana, was disappointed by the decision.  However, he recognizes that DU’s stated intention to establish a permanent easement on the land through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was a big factor in the denial.  

North Dakota is the only state in the U.S. that prohibits selling perpetual easements.  State law limits easement agreements to no longer than 99 years.  The ND state Senate voted overwhelmingly last week to uphold that ban.

RELATED STORY:

N.D. law complicates nonprofit land purchases
Brad Dokken , Grand Forks Herald
Published: 02/22/2009

When Clois Hetletved set out to help his aging mother sell 598 acres of land in Kidder County in central North Dakota, he did what any landowner would do:

He tried to get the best price he could.

Judith Hetletved turns 87 in March and lives in a Bismarck retirement home. According to Clois, 61, who lives in Grand Forks, his mother is a proud woman who doesn’t want to take social assistance.

Selling the land would allow her to keep paying for her care.

Clois listed his mother’s property through a Realtor, and it was on the market for more than a year before he received an offer to his liking.

This past fall, Hetletved finally got the offer he wanted.

The land is located in the heart of the Prairie Pothole Region, an area of rolling hills and sloughs and grasslands that has earned it the nickname of North America’s “duck factory.”

In an effort to preserve a chunk of that habitat, conservation group Ducks Unlimited offered to pay the Hetletved family $335,000 or $560 an acre — more than twice what anyone else offered for land that includes a mix of pastureland, wetlands and acreage enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.

Much of the land is unsuitable for farming, Hetletved said, but ideal for wildlife.

“They looked at the land, and they wanted it,” Hetletved said of DU. “They told us 80 pairs of ducks nested on that land last year, so they were watching it.”

Selling the land to DU wasn’t that simple, though. DU is classified as a nonprofit group, and under North Dakota law, an eight-member panel of ag and conservation interests must recommend whether nonprofits can buy land.

The committee then forwards that recommendation to the governor, who makes the final decision.

In January, the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee — which meets only when land sales to nonprofits are pending — voted 6-2 against allowing DU to buy the Hetletved land, citing a lack of public benefit and concerns about taking farmland out of production to preserve the natural resource base. The Kidder County Commission also voted 2-1 to oppose the sale to DU.

Gov. John Hoeven sided with the committee’s recommendation and denied DU’s purchase Feb. 12.

The decision has left Hetletved and DU officials scratching their heads.

“This was just a major offense to my mother as far as I’m concerned,” Hetletved said. “Does my mother have to live off social service? Probably not; my sisters and I could probably take care of her, but she would never allow it.”

Deep roots

Hetletved’s dilemma — he’s now trying to decide what to do with the land — has its roots in North Dakota anti-corporate farming laws that date to the early 1900s.

Nonprofits historically were classified as corporate entities and banned from owning land in North Dakota until the mid-1980s, when the Legislature passed a bill that provided for an exception to anti-corporate farming laws.

Nonprofits can buy land, but there’s a caveat: They have to get past the acquisition committee and the governor first.

Critics say the makeup of the committee — which is mandated by law — stacks the deck against nonprofits. The state ag commissioner chairs the committee, which also includes representatives from the North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Farm Bureau and North Dakota Stockmen’s Association, along with the directors of the state Game and Fish Department, Parks and Recreation Department and North Dakota Forest Service.

The chairman of the county board in which the land is located rounds out the committee.

“We think the way the Legislature has designed this advisory committee, it’s pretty much preordained to vote against us,” said Jim Ringelman, DU’s director of conservation programs for the Dakotas and Montana. “What we operate under is an exception to corporate farming law, which sounds like it’s gracious. But the point of fact is, if you never approve their applications, what’s the point?”

Historically, Ringelman said, farm groups, the county boards and the ag commissioner vote against allowing nonprofit purchases to proceed. He said North Dakota has the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to buying land.

North Dakota also is the only state in the U.S. to ban landowners from selling perpetual easements, in which the property owner keeps the land but grants someone else the right to use or restrict the property. The state Senate just this week overwhelmingly voted down a bill to repeal that ban.

Easements in North Dakota can be no longer than 99 years.

“I don’t know what happens when you cross the Red River and go west, but the attitude changes quickly,” Ringelman said. “The irony is, we have such a rich hunting and fishing culture in this state. But unfortunately, the public policies don’t seem to reflect the need for the very features to sustain that culture.”

Different view

Brian Kramer, public policy director for the North Dakota Farm Bureau, said the organization he represents prefers to see land maintained in private ownership and supporting local economies rather than sold to nonprofits. And in that context, he said, the acquisition committee provides balance.

“Most of the time, these folks come in and try to say there’s something new or unique or whatever about this land purchase, and a lot of times, there isn’t,” Kramer said. “In our minds, they’re just looking to buy up more land and take it out of production.”

Ringelman disputes the “lack of uniqueness” argument that sank DU’s Kidder County proposal. Clois Hetletved says the property has 380 acres that have never seen a plow, native prairie that supports more than 300 native grasses and flowers.

“That’s pretty rare stuff,” he said.

Adds Ringelman: “From both a national and international perspective, this is increasingly unique and important habitat. We have members from all over the country focusing fundraising efforts on this part of the world” because of its native prairie and wetland habitat.

That didn’t sway Kramer.

“In a lot of cases, the land that’s native prairie now is native prairie for a reason,” Kramer said. “It’s either too hilly or too rocky or too something to be productively farmed and cultivated. And it’s probably best left in grass that’s used for grazing.”

Otherwise, he said, it would have been broken up a long time ago.

Kramer said he also has qualms with the argument that native prairie is gone once it’s plowed, calling the logic “just plain false.”

Native prairie is one of the most endangered ecosystems on the planet, and less than 1 percent remains unplowed on the northern Plains, biologists say.

“It got to be native prairie somehow in the past, and if you leave it alone, in a finite amount of time it will return to native prairie,” Kramer said.

‘Cumbersome’ law

While Ducks Unlimited hasn’t fared very well in its dealings with the acquisition committee — only one of three proposals have been approved — a review of proposed nonprofit purchases since 1997 shows the panel has recommended approval 13 of 19 times. The governor ultimately approved 14 requests and denied five.

Only once did the governor choose to deny a purchase the panel had recommended to approve. That was in January 1998, when Gov. Ed Schafer denied The Nature Conservancy’s request to buy land in Ransom County.

Despite those numbers, Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said he doesn’t dispute that the process works against nonprofits.

“I think that’s true. And I’m not even sure that this statute serves much of a public purpose,” Johnson said. “I don’t think these nonprofits are really corporate farmers, but they’re prohibited by corporate farming statute, but for this exception.”

Johnson said he wouldn’t oppose an exception to the law that would give nonprofits greater flexibility in owning land, perhaps by capping the acreage a particular group could acquire. But he’s bound by law to follow the process the way the statute is written.

“I think the statute is cumbersome, and I don’t think it adds a whole lot of value to the process,” the ag commissioner said.

But, he added, “I don’t see any indication from the Legislature that they’re going to change it.”

Making sense

According to Ringelman, DU had proposed upfront to establish a permanent easement on the Kidder County land through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Despite North Dakota’s ban, the service can hold perpetual easements because federal law supersedes state law.

That intent, Ringelman said, was a factor in the county board’s opposition of the purchase.

Still, Ringelman said he’s baffled by the committee’s decision to deny the purchase when it voted in 2002 to allow DU to buy 939 acres of similar land in Kidder County just miles from the Hetletved tract.

DU later sold that property by Internet auction to a rancher who wanted additional grazing land for his cattle.

“We’re struggling to figure out what it is that creates the opportunity to approve or reject” a proposal, Ringelman said. “It appears that no matter what we do, there’s reluctance to give us approval.”

He said it appears that a small group of landowners with “axes to grind” convinced the county board to oppose the sale this time around. He said DU routinely is lumped with state and federal agencies under the generic umbrella of “wildlife.” And when any agency does something that’s unpopular, DU feels the impact even though it’s a private group.

“It spills over,” Ringelman said. “We work with hundreds of landowners, but a few don’t like ‘the wildlife,’ so they oppose us with letters to county commissioners and respective farm organizations.”

Kidder County Board chairman Marlin Kapp, who voted against the sale, didn’t return a phone call seeking comment.

Ringelman said DU also fights the misperception that it doesn’t pay taxes on land it owns. He said DU years ago supported North Dakota legislation that requires nonprofits to pay taxes.

“We control weeds and lease to local landowners,” Ringelman said. “We’re basically good neighbors. Those in opposition seem to not want to understand facts. That’s become real frustrating to us.”

Call for change

With a land sale in limbo, Hetletved says he doesn’t blame the governor for denying the deal. But his experience, he says, underscores the need for North Dakota to change what he calls “antiquated” laws toward nonprofit land purchases.

“Right now, I’m saying get to our congress people, our legislators of North Dakota, to get this changed,” Hetletved said. “If they want to keep corporate farming out, fine, limit nonprofits to how much they can own at any one time.

“It is what it is now, so we’ve got to live with it,” he added. “Now, rather than get mad at the world, as I told mother, let’s see what we can do about it.”

As for DU, Ringelman said the group will continue working to build alliances with ranchers and other landowners with an interest in preserving grasslands.

“What we’re trying to do fundamentally is keep the native prairie that exists now from being plowed up,” he said. “We don’t desire more waterfowl habitat than what’s out there.”

Ringelman said he’s learned to be a realist since coming to North Dakota 13 years ago from Colorado, where he helped launch a major land acquisition program.

“I was optimistic we could do some progressive things here in North Dakota, but I’ve learned to temper my expectations,” he said.

Dokken reports on outdoors. Reach him at (701) 780-1148; (800) 477-6572, ext. 148; or send e-mail to bdokken@gfherald.com.

 

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

Plainsman Said:
Even though that was a 2009 article it was still interesting.  Still I wonder if they treat all of these groups the same or are they bias?

I noticed in the first story that the lady in the retirement home didn't get any sympathy from the North Dakota Farm Bureau.  I suppose when they turn down the DU people a farmer gets it cheaper at the old ladies expense.  That's not the way our society should treat our senior citizens, or any landowner for that matter. Sad story. 

ND Wary of Non-Profit Land Use Groups

.

In January, the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee — which meets only when land sales to nonprofits are pending — voted 6-2 against allowing DU to buy the Hetletved land, citing a lack of public benefit and concerns about taking farmland out of production to preserve the natural resource base. The Kidder County Commission also voted 2-1 to oppose the sale to DU.

Gov. John Hoeven sided with the committee’s recommendation and denied DU’s purchase Feb. 12.

 The state ag commissioner chairs the committee, which also includes representatives from the North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Farm Bureau and North Dakota Stockmen’s Association, along with the directors of the state Game and Fish Department, Parks and Recreation Department and North Dakota Forest Service.

The chairman of the county board in which the land is located rounds out the committee.

 

Bruce, note the make up of the committee.

Note the vote. 6-2

Which one of the "wildlife/conservation" votes did not vote to approve this sale?

Apparently "the lady in the retirement home didn't get any sympathy " from them either.

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

Hardwaterman Said:

I do not deny that Cook broke the law per say as it was written, but it is not an uncommon practice to intentionally break a law that is deemed in violation of constitutional rights to get it to the court level. Cant say I agree but if the law is found not to be constitutional he then has broken no laws? Works both ways.

so on the flip side of this ron if a law has stood for 30 years is it unconstitutional until it is declared so? If not Crosslands broke the law.

And the fact remains you will never know if the sale would have been approved as so many others have if they had just followed the law.

I would have expected you to hold them as accountable for breaking the law as you did when you slammed me for suggesting shooting my 70 some year old diabetic Uncles deer for him should not be illegal in the piling ducks thread.

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

The issue remains the constitutional status of the law. A reminder to you gst is that slavery was upheld by the SCOTUS at one time as well. Did not make it right either!!

It remains to be seen about the status of Cook, state wins he is in violation, he wins state is got a mess!

I have stated why I think the law will fail to pass the smell test, and that is the discrimatory manner that approval is given. One non profit cannot be denied simply based on political views. Not having a hard fast criteria that all can follow adds to that as well.
 
Your view if I am correct that a non profit should be denied based on political views? Would RMEF stand a better chance than DU or Delta or for that matter HSUS? Are they all treated equally and how can anyone know?

So how about that criteria for a non profit to follow to get approval? Where can that be found? ?

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!

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

 20 deep starting to hit the epic status 

 Adn

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

Plainsman said:

I dislike HSUS, but isn't this just the bogyman again? 

How would this be any different than land owned by a farmer being posted all the time?

GST responded:

So is this an admission you would have no issues with HSUS buying land here in ND bruce?
 

GST when you try to deceive people isn't that the same as fabricating.  Read the first sentence, then go to the second sentence.  I tell you I don't like HSUS so that means I would have a problem with them owning a teaspoon of dirt from North Dakota.  The second sentence points out that if land is posted does it make a difference who posts it?

Which one of the "wildlife/conservation" votes did not vote to approve this sale?

Ahhhhh, the fox in charge of the chicken coup?  I don't know who was on the committee.  Maybe the guy who went from Game and Fish to Garrison Diversion?  That would make sense.  You can give a person a wildlife title and it still doesn't make him a person concerned about wildlife or natural resources of any kind.  Whoever the guy was he wasn't concerned about native prairie. 

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

Plainsman said:

I dislike HSUS, but isn't this just the bogyman again? 

How would this be any different than land owned by a farmer being posted all the time?

GST responded:

So is this an admission you would have no issues with HSUS buying land here in ND bruce?
 

GST when you try to deceive people isn't that the same as fabricating? Pot, kettle, black.  Read the first sentence, then go to the second sentence.  I tell you I don't like HSUS so that means I would have a problem with them owning a teaspoon of dirt from North Dakota.  The second sentence points out that if land is posted does it make a difference who posts it?

Which one of the "wildlife/conservation" votes did not vote to approve this sale?

Ahhhhh, the fox in charge of the chicken coup?  I don't know who was on the committee.  Maybe the guy who went from Game and Fish to Garrison Diversion?  That would make sense.  You can give a person a wildlife title and it still doesn't make him a person concerned about wildlife or natural resources of any kind.  Whoever the guy was he wasn't concerned about native prairie. 

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

Plainsman Said:

Plainsman said:

I dislike HSUS, but isn't this just the bogyman again? 

How would this be any different than land owned by a farmer being posted all the time?

GST responded:

So is this an admission you would have no issues with HSUS buying land here in ND bruce?
 

GST when you try to deceive people isn't that the same as fabricating.  Read the first sentence, then go to the second sentence.  I tell you I don't like HSUS so that means I would have a problem with them owning a teaspoon of dirt from North Dakota.  The second sentence points out that if land is posted does it make a difference who posts it?

Which one of the "wildlife/conservation" votes did not vote to approve this sale?

Ahhhhh, the fox in charge of the chicken coup?  I don't know who was on the committee.  Maybe the guy who went from Game and Fish to Garrison Diversion?  That would make sense.  You can give a person a wildlife title and it still doesn't make him a person concerned about wildlife or natural resources of any kind.  Whoever the guy was he wasn't concerned about native prairie.  Why do you try and make people assume it was Dekrey? Why not actually find out who it was instead of throwing crap hoping people will buy it?

Bruce when you try to "deceive people" you cherry pick what you wish instead of providing the entire quote. Read the emboldened enlarged portion of what you said below.

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

t does not "take away" the concerns of the HSUS nonprofit buying land here in the state. Just as DU places perpetual easements on these lands for conservation and then turns them over to the USF&WS, HSUS can place a perpetual easement on these lands to prevent hunting forever and turn them over as well.

I dislike HSUS, but isn't this just the bogyman again? 

How would this be any different than land owned by a farmer being posted all the time?

Would this act much like a wildlife refuge?  If surrounding farmland acts as a wildlife population sink, would this area not act as a population contributor stabilizing populations in the surrounding area for hunting?  Are you debating for or against HSUS.  Your not a closet animal rights activist are you gst?

gst if you really want to see a liar watch the lady in the ad for high fructose corn syrup.  She says sugar is sugar your body can't tell the difference. 

So is this an admission you would have no issues with HSUS buying land here in ND bruce?

. Bruce, why "the farmer" and not the city guy that owns land that posted all the time?

Tell me you are not so foolish to not understand the difference.

Plainsman is the farmer actively using hundreds of millions of dollars to further his agenda to end all forms of hunting? .

Bruce note the emboldened part of your response you conviniently left out while cherry picking. It would certainly appear from that you might not have an issue with HSUS owning land here in ND. But then again you supported a measure they funded awhile back as well.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
I will be a bit more direct on this in regards to a solution. Putting a limit on total acres a non profit can control at any one time is a reasonable solution. It takes away your concern about hsus gst but I do know the real reason you oppose any non profit ownership.

 

How about adding this to the mix ron?

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/north-dakota-6/

How about making them abide by state law prohibiting perpetual easements? Because otherwise ron they will "control" these acres as well as the ones they own.

You are a big "abide by the law" guy right ron?

So how many acres would this be in the state ron?

But ron, this still flies directly in the face of your adamant demand made over and over and over that anyone should be able to sell their land to anyone they  choose does it not?

Are you now saying that demand was not right?

I mean you want to now keep ADM from buying land, and you wish to put limits on nonprofits, it is getting harder to tell just what you want ron.

So how many acres per nonprofit ron?

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

KurtR Said:
 20 deep starting to hit the epic status 

Naw it would take swift coming out of the weeds to hit epic!

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

gst to be clear then you nor any farmer getting subsidy insurance or payments should be granted the privilege of buying property either! Good grief you are dumb sometimes and forget the amount of subsidy that farms get. I do not care about that but you and others get tax dollars and compete against non profits with those same dollars as described in the article.

Cake and eat it too is your moto!!!!

My position has remained the same in that you and yours feel that you have the right to dictate whom I can sell to because it is politically driven and greed driven not wanting additional competition. That said my reasons for not wanting Corp like ADM are because of the potential monopoly that they can create. Monopoly dominated markets are not healthy for anyone, non profits are not going to, nor capable of creating that!

 
Take DU as an example, the real issue that you have is the easements they sell, DU is not interested in being land barons, dollars tied up in land is dollars not available to do restoration etc....  They normally own the land until restoration of wetlands and other habitat is complete and then sell the land or in some cases where it makes sense donate it to a state wildlife agency.

Sometimes profits from the sale of land are realized but most time they have a net loss when total expenditures are in place. Dollars used from the Gov are normally dollars in the form of matching funds. So if DU spends $5.00 the grant may kick in $3.00 or even less or sometimes they are matching. 
 
But again this has nothing to do with the validity of our current state law? The basis of this law to begin with was to get land owned by Ins companies and banks back into farmers hands so that the state was not a share cropper state. Looking south in this country we can see that the wisdom when they past the law in the 30's had wisdom. Today the large farms and farm Corp are doing exactly what the Leg was trying to stop back then.

If you could visit with one of them and tell them the average size of a farm today and how many farmers and farm Corp own multiple township size parcels they most likely would not have believed it possible.

So we are again back to the same issue, and that is the states hand in defending a law that has been manipulated and driven by political views and not based on a set of criteria that does not discriminate.

There may be a case for Corp because of monopoly issues but there is not really a case for non profits.

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

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

Hardwaterman Said:
gst to be clear then you nor any farmer getting subsidy insurance or payments should be granted the privilege of buying property either! Good grief you are dumb sometimes and forget the amount of subsidy that farms get. I do not care about that but you and others get tax dollars and compete against non profits with those same dollars as described in the article.

Actually ron those "dollars" are a contractual payment the govt makes to gain control over what can be done with the lands the farmer owns. Without these payments the govt would not be able to "take" these controls.

What do you know about "takings" ron?

So what control does the govt gain from the dollars DU receives?

Cake and eat it too is your moto!!!!

My position has remained the same in that you and yours feel that you have the right to dictate whom I can sell to because it is politically driven and greed driven not wanting additional competition. That said my reasons for not wanting Corp like ADM are because of the potential monopoly that they can create. Monopoly dominated markets are not healthy for anyone, non profits are not going to, nor capable of creating that!

so you are now backpedaling from your previous claims that you should be able to sell your land to anyone and acknowledging the ideal that property rights of sale are not absolute and can be infringed if the consequences warrant???

For some reason that position sounds familiar.

 
Take DU as an example, the real issue that you have is the easements they sell, DU is not interested in being land barons, dollars tied up in land is dollars not available to do restoration etc....  They normally own the land until restoration of wetlands and other habitat is complete and then sell the land or in some cases where it makes sense donate it to a state wildlife agency.
   So DU is not interested in being land barons. Before you can make that claim ron tell us how many acres they own in the two Canadian provinces of Sask and Man.
Sometimes profits from the sale of land are realized but most time they have a net loss when total expenditures are in place. Dollars used from the Gov are normally dollars in the form of matching funds. So if DU spends $5.00 the grant may kick in $3.00 or even less or sometimes they are matching. 
 
But again this has nothing to do with the validity of our current state law? The basis of this law to begin with was to get land owned by Ins companies and banks back into farmers hands so that the state was not a share cropper state. Looking south in this country we can see that the wisdom when they past the law in the 30's had wisdom. Today the large farms and farm Corp are doing exactly what the Leg was trying to stop back then.

If you could visit with one of them and tell them the average size of a farm today and how many farmers and farm Corp own multiple township size parcels they most likely would not have believed it possible.

So we are again back to the same issue, and that is the states hand in defending a law that has been manipulated and driven by political views and not based on a set of criteria that does not discriminate.

There may be a case for Corp because of monopoly issues but there is not really a case for non profits.

Ron as I have said repeatedly before, if the law is overturned the state will deal with it. In reality ADM and Cargill as well as other corps. have been farming in ND all along without owning lands under contractual agreements. Given the risk on return of producing a profit on land ownership, especially at the price levels land has gotten to be here, they will likely not be in a hurry to take on that risk when their needs are met through the production contracts they have.  It is a bit different scenario now than when the law was enacted.

So ron do a little digging and tell us how much land DU owns in our two neighbors to the north. I have been told by someone that lives up there someone from DU told him they are the 3rd largest land holder behind the crown and the provinces. Unfortunately I have not been able to get the facts of how many acres they own to confirm this.

The gl from DU Canada who was so willing to provide me the information I was seeking changed her tune when she found out I was seeking it in response to the measure being proposed down here.

I really do not know why they would wish to hide this information if indeed they are not the "land barons" as you claim.

So ron, how many acres should a nonprofit be able to own under your "plan"?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
DUCKS UNLIMITED CANADA
Statement of Financial Position
(In thousands of dollars)
As at March 31
2013 2012
(Restated –
Note 21)
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $ 13,213 $ 17,815
Accounts receivable (notes 3 and 16) 17,881 14,942
Contributions receivable, due within one year (note 4) 3,016 1,478
Receivable from Ducks Unlimit
ed, Inc. (note 5) - 634
Inventories (note 6) 5,134 4,581
Project materials and prepaid expenses 1,207 852
40,451 40,302
Note receivable (note 3) 985 1,514
Contributions receivable (note 4) 8,849 5,973
Land held for resale (note 2 (f)) 2,707 2,974
Investments (note 7) 98,532 86,171
Property, plant and equipment, net of accumu
lated amortization (note 8) 9,728 9,989
Conservation lands (note 11) 151,287 132,264

http://www.ducks.ca/wp-content/uploads/ar-2013/2013-AR-Full-Financial-St...


Ron, $151,287,000.00 of land holdings seems a bit "baronish". So how many acres do they own in Canada ron? It seems they are holding on to far more than they are reselling.
Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

So gst what is the acre value of that land? I know of more than one farmer that holds more than that and are seeking more! With a single quarter selling in the heart of duck production being anywhere from $300,000.00 to over $450,000 it does not take long to add up in value and since the land is not sold until projects are completed the asset value figure can and does vary, but again that does not change the issue regarding the current state law and the board.

I noticed you are quick to post the info on DU but have been rather scant in posting what the criteria that a non profit has for guidelines to buy in ND and are there excluded non profits? 

You said that it is not a slam dunk but a understanding of the issue of exclusion or political bias are the Achilles heel of this law and always have been. 

To put it bluntly and I am not a HSUS supporter but this goes to the issue of the law.
 
If HSUS wanted to buy a quarter of land in ND right now are they allowed under state law? What criteria would they need to meet? Is this criteria published? Are land types required?

Think about that a bit and give a straight answer!   

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

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

Hardwaterman Said:
So gst what is the acre value of that land? I know of more than one farmer that holds more than that and are seeking more! With a single quarter selling in the heart of duck production being anywhere from $300,000.00 to over $450,000 it does not take long to add up in value and since the land is not sold until projects are completed the asset value figure can and does vary, but again that does not change the issue regarding the current state law and the board.

Ron, these are not RRV acres but "acres that are not suitable for farming" in Canada. Right? isn;t that the reasoning DU uses why they should be allowed to buy land? Why not find out the acres right from DU? I have tried but they will not provide that information. Why? How many acres does DU own?

I noticed you are quick to post the info on DU but have been rather scant in posting what the criteria that a non profit has for guidelines to buy in ND and are there excluded non profits? 

Ron I do not know off the top of my head. So why not do the research yourself and find out? It would be nice if you would actually post a link now and then to some factual information rather than just bullshit claims such as you incorrect Enviromental Stewardship program claims.

You said that it is not a slam dunk but a understanding of the issue of exclusion or political bias are the Achilles heel of this law and always have been. 

To put it bluntly and I am not a HSUS supporter but this goes to the issue of the law.
 
If HSUS wanted to buy a quarter of land in ND right now are they allowed under state law? What criteria would they need to meet? Is this criteria published? Are land types required?

Once again ron, do the research and post the link to your info.

Think about that a bit and give a straight answer!   

Oh and ron, how many acres should each nonprofit be able to "control" under your "plan"?

Come on ron, this was your "solution" so lets round it out abit.

Pages