epa (uncle) in charge in wyoming...

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

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

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

Let me provide a little info to dispell the accusation of "greed" ron has taken over from plainsman of making.

Perpetual easements:
The USF&WS has a Dakota Grasslands plan in the works. In this plan they have been offering between $300 and $500 per acre for the perpetual easement they seek to place on these lands. Even in our operation which is not a large one this would have totaled well over $100,000. (it would have been an opportunity for me to get monies to use to buy more land)

So would a "greedy" person turn this money away?

nonprofits buying land:
We do not have oil or other minerals to allow us to compete with those that do that are buying land up here. So the oil play has effectively taken us out of the land purchasing market. So the value I could potentially see at some point is if kids decide they do not want to farm and I wish to sell lands at some time in the future.

If DU is going to be the highest bidder, why would a "greedy" person want them out of the market?

Common sense and credibility based on fact in discussions goes a long way, if you don;t have that you can always fall back on inflammatory rhetoric to distract from the issue.

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

Depends on use, if the intent is to hold it only a short time while improvements to habitat are made, no limit since there can and will be tracts that would be  large similar to the area in north east SD!

If the intent is to hold it indefinitely well 4 sections would be a start maybe more.

I have no need to post a link, because there is no listed criteria for non profits to follow, The only thing relevant is this part that I have paraphrased

The law states a nonprofit may acquire farmland to conserve natural areas and habitats, but it must have been incorporated in North Dakota or issued a certificate to do business in the state before Jan. 1, 1985

If you remember at the start of all of this I mentioned the G/O law that was changed because it was in violation of the commerce clause. Even if Cook loses the issue is not dead because of the Audubon suit which has already filed in Fed court awaiting state ruling. 

So again gst the issue will revolve around discrimination issues and the Fed court has almost always sided with the right to do business across state lines not allowing for special treatment. If ND banned all out of state corp from owning land period both commercial and Ag I think they would stand a chance but they do not.

There is little justification for the discrimination that the courts are likely to acknowledge. That has been and remains the point gst that I have made. Not whether or not I like the politics of a group or organization nor if you do or if those views are contrary to even the major majority of the residents of the state.

What are allowed is as I have said conditions of ownership like limits on total acres or bonding requirements equal to a percentage of land values etc... but not outright denial based on when and where a corp is founded nor an arbitrary date that a new corp cannot meet. 

So again the issue remains the same, the law discriminates and that is the key issue. Not if you or I like HSUS, or DU or PF for that matter! 

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!

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

Neat

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

Always a refreshing interruption john.

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

Figured you 2 boobs could use 2 boobs...

Neat

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

johnr Said:

Figured you 2 boobs could use 2 boobs...

Zing!

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

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

Meelosh Said:

johnr Said:

Figured you 2 boobs could use 2 boobs...

Zing!

ha!

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

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Depends on use, if the intent is to hold it only a short time while improvements to habitat are made, no limit since there can and will be tracts that would be  large similar to the area in north east SD!

If the intent is to hold it indefinitely well 4 sections would be a start maybe more.

So you are now reserving the right to fudge your numbers. Take that times how many nonprofits ron?

How many sections are in a township ron?

If only 5 different nonprofits came into one township that was targeted as "critical habitat" and bought your "4 sections, maybe more) and there were 4 other producers living in what remained, who would control what happens in the rest of the township?

I have no need to post a link, because there is no listed criteria for non profits to follow, The only thing relevant is this part that I have paraphrased

Actually I believe there are criteria which impacts these purchases fate ron. Perhaps you should contact the Governors office.

The law states a nonprofit may acquire farmland to conserve natural areas and habitats, but it must have been incorporated in North Dakota or issued a certificate to do business in the state before Jan. 1, 1985

If you remember at the start of all of this I mentioned the G/O law that was changed because it was in violation of the commerce clause. Even if Cook loses the issue is not dead because of the Audubon suit which has already filed in Fed court awaiting state ruling. 

And there in lies why most ag producers are opposed to these nonprofits coming in here and buying lands. They will not quit until they get what they want which is to impact the ways producers earn their livelihoods. 

MANY of these nonprofits are no different than the gun control orgs. or animal rights orgs.  If you seek to "compromise" all that happens after the "compromise" is the goal posts are moved further away and it starts all over again.

People in ag HAVE sought to "compromise" and time and time again were told it is all or nothing by some of these orgs.. Don;t think so, this measure is a prefect example.

It is why ag has chosen to partner with the conservation orgs they have and oppose others.

Most ag producers have few if any issues if the corporate farming law were to be rewritten when it comes to ADM and Cargill as they know the likelihood of these corps coming in and buying land like was feared in the 70's and 80's is not such an issue today.

It is part of the reason the govt is phasing out the payments to ag as they are.

So again gst the issue will revolve around discrimination issues and the Fed court has almost always sided with the right to do business across state lines not allowing for special treatment. If ND banned all out of state corp from owning land period both commercial and Ag I think they would stand a chance but they do not.

There is little justification for the discrimination that the courts are likely to acknowledge. That has been and remains the point gst that I have made. Not whether or not I like the politics of a group or organization nor if you do or if those views are contrary to even the major majority of the residents of the state.

What are allowed is as I have said conditions of ownership like limits on total acres or bonding requirements equal to a percentage of land values etc... but not outright denial based on when and where a corp is founded nor an arbitrary date that a new corp cannot meet. 

And like I have said repeatedly ron, if the law is overturned the state will deal with it at that time. Meanwhile we have gotten the better part of 4 decades of protection from the agendas these groups have.

But ron would you like to bet that if the state limited DU to owning 4 sections there would be yet another lawsuit to challenge that at some point?

So again the issue remains the same, the law discriminates and that is the key issue. Not if you or I like HSUS, or DU or PF for that matter! 

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

johnr Said:

Figured you 2 boobs could use 2 boobs...

Good one!

Buck skin's picture
Buck skin
Offline
Joined: 11/3/12

I like to hunt on rented land.

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

ron considering your 4 section limit would you make the American Foundation for Wildlife divest from their land holdings over that here in ND?

How about the Nature Conservancy?

What would be a total number of acres owned by all nonprofits that would satisfy you ron?

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

You simply do not get it gst, the law as it sits is not going to get past the comeranc clause. As much as I do not like some of the things that have resulted in that portion, the fact remains that it trumps state law.

We live in a democratic republic which with the laws afford minority views protection. Now when one is in the majority we do not always like the change that comes from the courts but that is what the system intended.

I will again say this and it really is all that needs to be said on this subject the courts are going to decide on this issue. My opinion is that the state should have like they did with the G/O situation got out in front and not left it to the courts.

There is little doubt in my opinion that when the higher courts look at this they are going to rule against the state and maybe strip all the Corp farming laws from the books and leave a very narrow control to the state on this like what has happened in other states.

It does not matter that I or you or the majority of the people in this state may want to keep the likes of PETA and HSUS out of the land ownership roll, but their political views are not relavent to equal treatment or make them a target for discrimination efforts via laws.

In regards to how much a non profit can or should own, I will state again that I would look hard at what other states have done to comply with court rulings and use that. To you gst and fritz you want no ownership because then the non profits will put in place easements that you do not like but are within their rights as owners.

Again wants and likes are not really a matter of concern, it is what can be done legally!!

So you and others like you can stop the boogey man bs because that horse is out of the barn with the pending lawsuits. A non profit is a non profit regardless of politics and public opinion will not affect the judicial ruling as it should not. The ruling will be on merits and discrimination issues!

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

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

Plains wrote,

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. 

Good old filthy nodakouthouse

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=91110

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

 The typing stamina shown on this thread is amazing. 

On another note - what's the definition of insanity again?

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

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

Wags86 Said:
 The typing stamina shown on this thread is amazing. 

On another note - what's the definition of insanity again?

That is because Plainsman used to work at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown. (USGS) He got paid by you and me to enter data all day long.

Maybe it drove him insane?

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

Hardwaterman Said:
You simply do not get it gst, the law as it sits is not going to get past the comeranc clause. As much as I do not like some of the things that have resulted in that portion, the fact remains that it trumps state law.

ron, you donot "get it", if the law is overturned the state will deal with the consequences.

I really have never argued that the law will stand no matter what have I?

We live in a democratic republic which with the laws afford minority views protection. Now when one is in the majority we do not always like the change that comes from the courts but that is what the system intended.

I will again say this and it really is all that needs to be said on this subject the courts are going to decide on this issue. My opinion is that the state should have like they did with the G/O situation got out in front and not left it to the courts.

There is little doubt in my opinion that when the higher courts look at this they are going to rule against the state and maybe strip all the Corp farming laws from the books and leave a very narrow control to the state on this like what has happened in other states.

It does not matter that I or you or the majority of the people in this state may want to keep the likes of PETA and HSUS out of the land ownership roll, but their political views are not relavent to equal treatment or make them a target for discrimination efforts via laws.

In regards to how much a non profit can or should own, I will state again that I would look hard at what other states have done to comply with court rulings and use that. To you gst and fritz you want no ownership because then the non profits will put in place easements that you do not like but are within their rights as owners.

Once again with the "Big Lie". Please show where I have ever stated I want "no ownership"?

Comeon ron back up your claim or admit it is a lie.

Again wants and likes are not really a matter of concern, it is what can be done legally!!

So you and others like you can stop the boogey man bs because that horse is out of the barn with the pending lawsuits. A non profit is a non profit regardless of politics and public opinion will not affect the judicial ruling as it should not. The ruling will be on merits and discrimination issues!

What "boogeyman tactics" ron? The"boogeyman" is fake, not real, bullshit that is made up. Show me where I have "made up" anything.

If nonprofitsare allowed to purchase land unregulated than the nonprofit HSUS land trust and others like them will be allowed to buy land here just as DU will. No "boogeyman" ron "just the facts mam"

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

gst Said:
ron considering your 4 section limit would you make the American Foundation for Wildlife divest from their land holdings over that here in ND?

How about the Nature Conservancy?

What would be a total number of acres owned by all nonprofits that would satisfy you ron?

ron

How about answering the questions above.

While you are at it ron will all the lands represented by all these little red ducks be included in your acres?

http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation ... nts/ND.pdf

Itseems DU is impacting quite a number of acres already ron, how many is enough?

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

Wags86 Said:
 The typing stamina shown on this thread is amazing. 

On another note - what's the definition of insanity again?

Neat

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

Wags86 Said:
 The typing stamina shown on this thread is amazing. 

On another note - what's the definition of insanity again?

You can thank my mom, she made me take typing in high school. Said it would come in handy someday!

Mom's know best!

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

gst you asked for a figure, I gave it, what the proper acres would be I am sure would be debated, but again the current holdings would not have to be sold since you cannot create that type of law forcing sale.

Again gst you really do not get it! What you whine about is this!

If nonprofitsare allowed to purchase land unregulated than the nonprofit HSUS land trust and others like them will be allowed to buy land here just as DU will. No "boogeyman" ron "just the facts mam"


YES THEY WILL AND THE REASON WILL BE PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT CONTINUED TO PUSH THE CURRENT LAW INSTEAD OF AMENDING IT!!!!

Not me, not plainsman or anyone else that happens to have a different view point but you and the Ag org who have been unwilling to change the law.

Solutions for this where plenty!  You and others that are blind simply never thought Cook would push back! Audubon either for that matter !

So what is the solution you have in mind for a fix when the law gets tossed?

The state will deal with it as you said, but with handcuffs! If these groups are so bad, why would anyone who is a farmer/landowner sell to them?

I know that if our land was for sale I would have a right of refusal on sale in place prior. Not only to no sale to HSUS but to some farmers as well, simply put there money is no good to me.

So it seems that in all the talking you are doing what is clear is that you realize that the landowners of the state really do not hold the same views as you when it comes to selling otherwise what you are whining about would not happen!!!!!

Again reality is that you kicked the can down the road a bit to far and lost it. Now it is out of the control of the state! It is in the hands of the courts who have demonstrated that discrimination practices are not going to be allowed.

So there is the greed factor gst !!! Exactly what I wanted you to admit to a hundred posts ago. All the bs talk about HSUS and such is simply a smoke screen because you know that landowner sellers for the most part are not going to care who buys the land. With more and more absentee landowners not farming plus the increased size of the current farm operations, the ideals of protecting small towns etc... is gone and has been gone with the advent of the farm programs we have had for 30 years +!

There is nothing more to be said, the end result of HSUS and other anti hunting and farming groups getting a shot at land in our state sits at the very feet of the Ag orgs and their lobby!

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

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

ron here is a little bit of info about one of your non profits you want buying land here in ND that is so far the primary funding source of the $660,000 in out of state dollars behind this measure.

I know ron, just more "boogie man" stuff eh?

http://volokh.com/posts/1074339535.shtml

[Tyler Cowen, January 17, 2004 at 5:38am] Trackbacks
Further scandal at The Nature Conservancy:
The IRS is starting a large-scale audit of The Nature Conservancy, one of the largest non-profits in the nation. Today's Washington Post presents the gory details, note that the published version is much longer and more detailed than the on-line account. Here is an earlier article. The institution made major loans to employees and board members, bought and then resold land to trustees and supporters at reduced prices, and drills for oil on nature preserve land. The tax records of the institution are considered a complete mess. The institution has over $3 billion in assets, so this is hardly a small matter.

At least one of the lessons is simple: know something about the non-profits you support. :wink: This area is just ripe for institutional failure. Too many donors would rather look the other way and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. They do not want to hear bad news, which is one reason why news about bad non-profits often remains hidden for so long. Feeling good about oneself is a worthy endeavor, but it also can interfere with the smooth functioning of voluntary institutions.

http://tncscandals.blogspot.com/
http://www.theglobalreport.org/issues/2 ... nment.html
http://tncscandals.blogspot.com/2008/02 ... -next.html

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

http://tncscandals.blogspot.com/

ron, didn;t you say somethng about taxes?

 

Sunday, August 2, 2009

The real estate company that cares

 
The Native Forest Council founder Timothy G. Hermach criticized the Nature Conservancy for its practice to sell land in Texas to its own trustees, who then allowed drilling for oil in the formerly protected areas. After the press exposed these and other actions, the Nature Conservancy established a risk evaluation committee and explored ways to mitigate the damage. Hermach still calls the conservancy “the real estate company that cares.”

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

TNC sparks tax battle in Wisconsin

 
The Nature Conservancy notified Sauk County Wisconsin officials that the organization would no longer be paying taxes on 9,000 acres located in several parcels. TNC also announced that it was eliminating two local jobs due to financial difficulties. The change will be devastating to some local towns. An official for one of the towns affected said they would lose more than 50% of their tax revenue used to provide municipal services. The Nature Conservancy proposes making voluntary payments totaling about half of the former tax bill to help make up for the shortfall.
Other than the federal government, The Nature Conservancy is the only landowner with property in all 50 states that is exempt from income taxes and can also stipulate that it will not pay local property taxes. One of the Wisconsin municipal officials is quoted as saying "When they purchased that property, they said they were going to be good residents of the municipalities and they were going to pay property taxes," said supervisor Paul Endres of North Freedom. "If they aren't going to pay property taxes, they should sell the property."
According to the most recent financial filings, The Nature Conservancy had 1.4 billion in revenue and only $900 million in expenses. As a tax-exempt entity, the $500 million net revenue is also exempt from income tax.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

The Nature Conservancy blamed for decline in US fish population

 
The Nature Conservancy is notoriously recognized in the "Cold, Dead Fish Awards in 2008" for their actions contributing to the decline of U.S. fish populations. Indybay.org reports that this year's competition was fierce "as corrupt politicians, agribusiness leaders, corporate polluters and their allies launched a full-scale offensive on the imperiled fish populations of California and the West".

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/02/06/18568658.php

Friday, January 16, 2009

Paniced municipalities blame The Nature Conservancy

 
Only hours after The Nature Conservancy announced that it is reacting to property tax increases by refusing to pay them, local governments are responding by warning of the coming financial problems within their communities. Municipal governments pay for schools, roads and local services through property taxes. In some municipalities The Nature Conservancy is both the largest landowner and the largest taxpayer. If they don't pay their fair share, the community can be financially devastated.

The Nature Conservancy is the world's largest real estate broker with earned revenues and cash reserves that exceed the amounts of most of the nation's largest for-profit businesses. There is no doubt that The Nature Conservancy could afford to pay its tax bill. Municipal governments do not have the legal authority to force The Nature Conservancy to pay taxes on property it owns so some people are now calling for federal legislation to force The Nature Conservancy to pay.

When private citizens and for-profit companies do not pay their real estate tax bill, the property can be seized and sold at auction in a process known as a "tax sale". This procedure does not currently apply to non-profit corporations like The Nature Conservancy. We support proposed federal legislation that would extend the same procedures to land owned by The Nature Conservancy.

http://www.wiscnews.com/spe/news/432892

Thursday, January 15, 2009

The Nature Conservancy cuts local WI school revenues

 
The Nature Conservancy announced that it will stop paying taxes on the land it owns in some rural communities- taxes that local government use to fund schools, roads and other critical local services.

Rural communities that are locates in areas where The nature Conservancy is the largest landowner know that they cannot financially survive without TNCs support, so this could be the beginning of the end of these communities. We suppose that after some years of struggle these communities will deteriorate financially, people will move out, foreclosures will increase, and property values will fall.

But have no fear, once the communities start to look like ghost towns then The Nature Conservancy will be there to buy up the remaining properties from the former residents for at pennies on the former dollar value and then sell this land back to the state's taxpayers at a big profit.

http://www.wiscnews.com/bnr/news/432811

Monday, October 13, 2008

13% of earth now protected by environmentalists

 
The Nature Conservancy turned heads earlier this year by announcing an ambitious plan to protect 10% of the world's total land. This appeared to be a strikingly ambitious land acquisition endeavor; in fact the largest real estate acquisition proposal in history. But with declining land prices and a worldwide credit crunch, the cash-rich Nature Conservancy has often the only available buyer to farmers and landowners who need to sell. It is not surprising that conservation land deals are moving forward at a record pace this year. Still, no one expected to find such a dramatic change in land conservation totals so quickly.

Now Mark Spalding, senior marine scientist with The Nature Conservancy announces that 13% of the world's land surface is now protected open space in a new book "The World's Protected Areas, examines the relationship between people and protected areas". Mr. Spalding says that the amount of protected land is now equivalent in size to the total amount of the world's croplands. It is not clear whether TNC underestimates the amount of land previously under conservation prior to announcing its goal or whether the land acquisition project has progressed beyond its stated goals.

In the past The Nature Conservancy has relied primarily on a strategy of purchasing open land from private landowners and selling the land back to local governments at higher prices. This strategy vaulted TNC the world's wealthiest organizations. More recently, TNC began promoting a conservation easement program that allows farmers and rural landowners to continue to own and use the land, but prevented future development. Purchasing easements is less expensive than purchasing land and may be better for preserving the stability of rural and agricultural communities.

No comment has be issued by The Nature Conservancy about how this recent announcement of 13% will affect its plans for future land acquisitions. It seems reasonable possible given the current worldwide real estate market that environmental groups like TNC could continue to acquire land at a rapid pace and possible boost the total amount of protected land to 15% to 20% of the earth's surface. It seems unlikely that attainment of the 10% goal would deter TNC from future land acquisitions.

Mr. Spalding points out that our waterways and oceans are not equally protected, with only 1/2 of one percent of the world's oceans under conservation easement. Freshwater protection is even lower. This might represent the next major "growth market" for TNC acquisitions with potential consequences on water users and fishing industries. Noting that this major announcement is made by a marine scientist lends credibility to my suspicion that TNC is gearing for an increase in oceanic and waterway ventures. The fact that Mr. Spalding's announcement was strategically published overseas in The Daily Telegraph rather than in more critical U.S. news sources (due to the current political debate on use of offshore oil reserves) also makes me believe that this book announcement is part of a larger strategic maneuver by TNC.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

conservation at any cost

 

Coverage of The Nature Conservancy's brokerage of Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina mentions by Triangle Business Journal completely ommitted the financial details of the deal. Taxpayers would likely be shocked at the hefty price they are paying for the brokerage services of The Nature Conservancy. Yet if news reporters like this one at Triangle Busines Journal take their coverage facts solely from the press releases put out by The Nature Conservancy, we are certain to avoid focus on the cost to taxpayers or the huge brokerage payments paid for the deals. Clearly The Nature Conservancy relies on a "conservation at any cost" mentality of Americans today to continue to accrue hundreds of millions of profits (sorry, TNC is "non-profit" and non-taxable so we don't call the money "profits"). The ability to sell to taxpayers and governments makes TNC the world's largest and richest land broker.

We are not saying that this deal is not in the best interest of taxpayers or that the motives are suspect, but we are saying that full disclosure and reporting of the financial aspects of these huge transactions is absolutely essential.


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

"Other than the federal government, The Nature Conservancy is the only landowner with property in all 50 states that is exempt from income taxes and can also stipulate that it will not pay local property taxes."

Hardwaterman Said:
Take DU as an example, the real issue that you have is the easements they sell, DU is not interested in being land barons,

Ron would a nonprofit group that owns land in all 50 states meet your "land baron" qualification?

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

Ron take not of the final comment in this article about who you want buying lands in ND.

Nature Conservancy tarnished in
environmental scandal

By Oliver Burkeman

Washington, DC, May 29— The world’s wealthiest green group may be investigated by the US government in the light of allegations that it has engaged in practices more commonly associated with the enemies of the environment.

Nature Conservancy felled trees, allegedly drilled for gas beneath the last breeding-ground of an endangered bird, and sold unspoiled land at discounted prices to its trustees so they could build luxury homes in some of America’s most beautiful landscapes, according to the Washington Post, which spent two years investigating its activities.

The conservancy group has $3 billion in assets and a million members, and is ubiquitous in the US.

Its image as the preserver of the country’s wilderness (widely promoted on television and in print using the actor and environmentalist Paul Newman as its figurehead) has been severely tarnished by the investigation.

The paper says the oil company Mobil gave the charity a stretch of coastline in Texas which supports the almost extinct Attwater’s prairie chicken. But the Post claims that instead of shielding the land, Nature Conservancy sank a gas well, losing a $10 million lawsuit concerning another charity’s claim to the oil rights, and exposing the birds, in the words of one of Nature Conservancy’s scientists, to “a higher probability of death.”

Tax deductions

The revelations, confirmed by the Guardian, encompass a scheme in which the conservancy’s wealthy supporters, among them the chat show host David Letterman, were sold land by the charity at far less than cost, in return for accepting restrictions on how they could develop it.

Often, those buying the land would make up the difference with a roughly equivalent donation to the conservancy, claiming a large tax deduction for the gift, meaning that the US treasury sweetened the deal. The buyer was free to develop the land as long as the charity’s environmental restrictions were followed. But they were often not strict enough to prevent the owner installing swimming pools and tennis courts and clearing trees for a better view.

Letterman, a conservancy trustee, bought part of a 215-acre stretch on Martha’s Vineyard, though it was not clear whether he made a parallel donation.

The charity says it has suspended the “conservation buyer” scheme pending a review. But Democrat and Republican senators are seeking an investigation, bringing into the Washington spotlight a long-running debate on how close the green movement should get to big business.

And Nature Conservancy is certainly very close. Among those with seats on its council are some of America’s most notorious environmental offenders: Pacific Gas and Electric (the polluting villan of the movie Erin Brockovich) Exxon Mobil, and General Motors. It receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year from business, some for letting companies use its name and logo on products.

“Talking philosophically, there’s a spectrum, and, yes, the conservancy is very pragmatic,” Jordan Peavey, its spokeswoman, told the Guardian. The charity has admitted that it made mistakes, but, Peavey said, “We have our niche, and we’re very effective at what we do. That enables us to get work done that groups like Greenpeace couldn’t do — not to pick on them particularly, because they can do things that we couldn’t.”

A former head of land acquisition for Nature Conservancy, David Morine, told the Post: “It was the wrong decision to get so close to industry. Business got in under the tent, and we are the ones who invited them in. These corporate executives are carnivorous. You bring them in and they just take over. [That policy was] the biggest mistake in my life.”

It is the Texas gas-drilling which may do the most damage, because it seems so profoundly at odds with the charity’s stated mission of “saving the last great places on earth.”

The plan was to buy more land for the Attwater’s prairie chicken, which the US National Wildlife Federation calls the country’s most endangered bird, but little went right. Oil spills and a gas explosion blighted the operation.

Failed conservation

There is no evidence that the drilling directly harmed the birds, but the conservation efforts failed, too, and the number of birds has fallen from 36 birds in 1998 to an estimated 16.

Stanley Temple, a Wisconsin University biologist, wrote in a report for Nature Conservancy that he was “shocked to find that one of the release pens is subject to flooding in heavy rains, and that birds have drowned in the pen.”

Temple told the Guardian that his remarks had been blown out of proportion, and that his point was that the location was appropriate only for a short-term project. “The Texas City preserve was an absolutely hopeless site to try to conserve the Attwater’s prairie chicken in the long run,” he said.

Mark Hertsgaard, author of the book Earth Odyssey, said: “I don’t see how you could make up a worse scenario than that. I think it tells you something about the lack of accountability in the movement, and the lack of an atmosphere in which people are going to call each other on things.

“It really points to a much bigger problem, which is, how do you deal with corporate power and capitalism.”

As for the conservation buyer scheme, Peavey insisted that it did not entail selling land to conservancy trustees and donors at a loss, because the development restrictions decreased the value.

“You’re giving up substantial rights to develop, in perpetuity
owners hundreds of years from now will still have to abide by those restrictions,” she said. “So while it is true that the land was sold at a cheaper price, it was because it was worth less, by independent appraisals.

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

Indeed these are the kinds of nonprofits the sponsors are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from for their measure.

Just what do they expect in return?

You see ron, perhaps actions such as these listed above may not impact you in a large city such as Fargo, but in small rural communities it indeed makes a difference.

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

gst for the last time it is not about what I want or what you want dumbass it is about what the law allows in regards to the commerce clause. THAT IS WHAT IS SO FRIGGING STUPID ABOUT YOUR POSTS!!!

Every single person in ND could want Nature Conservancy or HSUS to be out of the state but the key is to do so within the confines of the Constitution!!!

So post all the stuff you want, public opinion on this does not matter any longer now that it is in the courts!!!! GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The blame is at your feet gst and others like you regardless of how noble or righteous you want to pretend you are on this issue. The law is flawed and as a result when the ruling comes down those boogey man groups can be your neighbor and there isn't a dang thing you are going to be able now to do about it!!!!!

So stop saying it is what I want!!! I wanted the board gone and criteria for them to buy land in place so that the playing field was not littered with bias and political agenda attached to land purchases or eliminate all non profits from owning property!
 
See I get the fact and issue that you either prevent all or have to allow all. Anything else creates discrimination and the courts will not abide by that! Think I am wrong, look at the ruling regarding campaigns!! SCOTUS cleared up any doubt as to Corp being treated as a person in their giving. Do you really think they are not going to look at land purchase in the same manner??????
 
YOU SEEM TO NOT GET THAT IN THE LEAST!! YOU CANNOT PICK AND CHOSE AS MUCH AS YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO!!!! IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!!

So continue to post drivel all you want!!! It might get your like minded members to back slap each other thinking you are kicking butt, however none of that is relevant to the court and in fact is actually a determent to ND being able to defend the law!!!

You really need to find that rock your momma dropped you on and give it a kick!!!  Maybe it will shake lose the common sense you lost!!! 

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

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

ron, you have to stop fixating about the corp farming law.

We have danced that dance far too long and as you continually point out it is out of the hands of either you or I. It always would have been because no matter the law, until the nonprofit got the right to buy land here there would have always been the possibility of a challenge in court. 

Andron what makes you thibnk limiting them to a set ownership will not be challenged? 

Technically you are "discriminating " against them on how many acres they can own in the same manner you did in saying they could not own any acres. 

Your law school 101 is about as good as your "ranching 101" school was ron.

Hardwaterman Said:

So stop saying it is what I want!!! I wanted the board gone and criteria for them to buy land in place so that the playing field was not littered with bias and political agenda attached to land purchases or eliminate all non profits from owning property!
  
ron, stop trying to change history like a democrat, it doesnl't help your credibility. ! YOU were the one DEMANDING to be able to seel your land to who ever YOU damn well wanted to so yes YOU did want these non profit orgs here in our state.

Or are you denying that now as well?

So continue to post drivel all you want!!! It might get your like minded members to back slap each other thinking you are kicking butt, however none of that is relevant to the court and in fact is actually a determent to ND being able to defend the law!!!

You really need to find that rock your momma dropped you on and give it a kick!!!  Maybe it will shake lose the common sense you lost!!! 

Come on ron bringing my Moms dexterity into play, that is kinda childish even for you.

What the people of this state can do is to prevent these orgs from getting their hands on billions more dollars of our oil and gas tax revenues thru the proposed measure right?

So given you have hinted you might not support this measure for fiscal reasons, I thought perhaps you would agree the people of North Dakota should know about the history of some of these non profits that may very well be buying land here in ND in the future that are ALSO  trying to buy changes to our constitution to be able to be better informed about this measure.

Guess not.

I mean if you want these nonprofits to be able to buy land here in ND as you have demanded and ranted for 20 pages about perhaps you want the state to fund these purchases as well?

Hell you seem more than willing to overlook the back ground of the out of state interests buying changes to our constitution and want people to "shut up" about it, maybe you have the bigger picture in mind ron.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02
gst show me and the rest of us where DU or NC or PF are listed as recipeants of the dollars from the petition!!!! I have read through it and I see no mention of any non profit group being gien a single dime of this money!!!!! 
 
HOWEVER OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE FUNDING THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN ND AND OTHER STATES ALREADY!! VIA THE FARM PROGRAM!!! SO GET OFF YOUR FRIGGING HIGH HORSE ABOUT TAX DOLLARS UNLESS YOU ARE NOT GETTING ANY FED SUBSIDY YOURSELF!!!

This is the hypocricy that you seem to have!! My business receives nothing from the Gov in regards to subsidy!!!! So if the issue is land acquisition with tax dollars then tell me why if I want to buy land how come I have to compete with someone getting federal tax subsidy!!!! Heck maybe that should go away if non profits are not suppose to receive grants or matching subsidy funds!!! ...

Keep crowing gst!!!! Because every a farmer be it a friend or not makes that comment I remind them of the subsidy they receive especially if they have purchased land in the last 10 to 20 years!!!!  Few could have bought without the subsidy!!!

You will try and justify it but like it or not subsidy or free money or someone else carrying the water frees up your funds for other purchases. The so called mixing that you whined about earlier.

I am not opposed the the subsidy unless those receiving them whine that others are getting them as well!!!  Oh by the way those dollars that DU or other groups get come with strings just like your farm program subsidy!!!

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

Come on ron, you can't be so naive to think the Nature Conservancy will spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to change our states constitution while eyeballing the very overturning of the law that prevents them from buying land here YOU claim is going to happen and not expect to get something in return are you?

Why else would the language of the measure itself allow for the purchasing of land with these dollars? Who do you think will be buying these lands this measure SPECIFICALLY allows???? Come on ron talk about blowing smoke up peoples ass.

Ron What were you mumbling about the tax issue with these nonprofits like The Nature Conservancy?

For someone that tries to convince people you are not supporting this measure ron you have a funny way of going about it.

Your claims to oppose it are likely as credible as other claims you have made.

Oh yeah ron, you seemed to avoid answering what constitutes "land baron" status with these nonprofits?

Does owning land in all 50 states get you there?

How about 1,177,000 acres ron does that meet your "land baron" status yet???

In 2007 the Nature Conservancy made a 161,000-acre (650 km2) purchase of New York forestland from Finch Paper Holdings LLC for $110 million, its largest purchase ever in that state.

In 2008 June The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land announced they reached an agreement to purchase approximately 320,000 acres (1,300 km2) of western Montana forestland from Plum Creek Timber Company (NYSE:PCL) for $510 million.

like I said ron maybe to you living in Fargo demanding all this happen away from where you live where not having taxes paid on 9000 acres may not affect YOUR community, those of us that live where you like to come out and play feel the impact a little more significantly.

But hey the people behind this measure are promising flood control out of these dollars to you guys out east so who knows how many reasons you have to support this measure.

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

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

Interesting read about the nonprofit spending hundreds of thousands to change our states constitution.

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

What was that that former Co sponsor with many of the same sponsors of this measure Roger Kaseman said about the likelihood of "corruption" with these groups, the panel this measure will form and these dollars?

http://www.kycbs.net/NatureConservancy.htm

January 4, 2010

DNR board member violated ethics code, state board rules

By Lee Bergquist of the Journal Sentinel

The State Government Accountability Board has concluded that Jonathan Ela, a member of the Natural Resources Board, violated the state ethics code when he voted on a major land transaction involving a conservation organization where his wife works.

The board decided last month that Ela shouldn't have participated in a vote in June when the Department of Natural Resources spent $3.4 million for an easement on land owned by the Nature Conservancy. The deal was part of a larger transaction in 2006 that involved 64,634 acres in northeastern Wisconsin.

Ela's wife, Patricia Stocking, is an employee of the Nature Conservancy and negotiates land transactions for the organization but was not involved in this project, Ela said Monday.

At the time of the vote, the board was meeting in New Richmond, in western Wisconsin, and Ela raised the issue of his wife's employment with the Nature Conservancy.

On Monday, he said he didn't think then that he needed to recuse himself.

"My wife didn't have anything to do with it and didn't benefit," Ela said.

But he said he accepted the board's decision, describing it as "reasonable."

The board decided the matter on Dec. 17 and sent a letter to Ela on Dec. 28. While Ela violated the ethics code for public officials, the board did not recommend a penalty because Ela's wife did not benefit from the vote. The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit, and the vote did not appear to be controversial.

The transaction was one of three that has come before the board in recent years that involved the 2006 purchase of 64,634 acres from International Paper Co. - described then by state officials as the largest land conservation purchase in state history.

Most of the land is owned by Conservation Forestry, a timber investment fund based in Woburn, Mass.

The total cost of the package was $83.7 million. The state's share was about $33 million, according to state officials. The state payment ensured that most of the land would be open for public access.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/80655242.html


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

Where are they listed as recipients in the petition?

Do you get Fed tax subsidy's?

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

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

I'm glad they caught those people in the Nature Conservancy.  They catch farmers some times too.   In a small town north east of Jamestown here a local scammed people out of millions, and the government out of millions.  I don't think the people would have caught him, but the government did. 
So gst if you look at this land baron thing who owns most of the land in the United States?  Who owns more than the government? It may be on an individual basis, but still farmers own most of this nation.  Your problem is you don't want anyone else to have any.  You also don't want anyone standing in the way of your little boy making a pile of "georges" when he takes over.   Isn't it the pits to be watching the old widow next door for years and when she is ready to sell her land for a pittance along comes some jerks like DU and offers her a fair price.  Dang those people anyway.

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

Come on ron, how can we have a meaningful debate when you won;t answer simple questions.

We aren;t going to have another 15 pages of you demanding answers and calling people names are we?

d. Conserve or acquire natural areas, parks, and other recreation areas or provide access for hunting and fishing;

Ron just using a bit of common sense, given The Nature Conservancy is referred to as the worlds largest realitor why do you think they are investing all these dollars in this measure.

Ron what was that you were saying about these orgs and property taxes?

How many acres does one of these nonprofits have to own to reach your "land baron" status?

Ron what would be the impact in one county if the Nature Conservancy just decided not to pay their property taxes?

Like I said ron, maybe you guys in Fargo might not fell it, but some of us in the rural areas you come out to play in might.

So ron, if you can't hav a decent debate by answering a couple questions and are just going to rant for another 15 pages about yours not being answered and insult peoples mothers,  it appears there is not much of value left here (if there ever was).

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

Plainsman Said:
I'm glad they caught those people in the Nature Conservancy.  They catch farmers some times too.   In a small town north east of Jamestown here a local scammed people out of millions, and the government out of millions.  I don't think the people would have caught him, but the government did. 
So gst if you look at this land baron thing who owns most of the land in the United States?  Who owns more than the government? It may be on an individual basis, but still farmers own most of this nation Your problem is you don't want anyone else to have any.  You also don't want anyone standing in the way of your little boy making a pile of "georges" when he takes over.   Isn't it the pits to be watching the old widow next door for years and when she is ready to sell her land for a pittance along comes some jerks like DU and offers her a fair price.  Dang those people anyway.

But Bruce, can you show me where you hve EVER commented on the "greed" that is in these nonprofits??

I mean even here you make a veiled inference to greed in agriculture when you bring "my little boy" up in the childish manner you do bruce.

But lets look at the real ideology behind the enlarged comment. Right here in black and white the socialist ideals Bruce wants that slip out occassionally as he hides behind his computer.

And Bruce please realize I understand that as a life long govt employee it would be hard for you not to succumb to the "govt knows best" ideology and believe we are better off with an expansion of govt control and mandated programs running our lives.

I mean yousigned on as a sponsor for the govt to ultimately take away the right of a producer to raise some kinds of animals on their property.

Perhaps if there were more equitable land distribution by the govt it would serve society better as well.

http://keeperofoddknowledge.blogspot.com/2009/11/who-owns-land-in-united...

Interesting read bruce.

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

Plainsman Said:

So gst if you look at this land baron thing who owns most of the land in the United States?  Who owns more than the government? It may be on an individual basis, but still farmers own most of this nation.

And are you so sure about your claim that I enlarged Bruce? Perhaps if you took a little more time on the very same internet you are making these claims on to do some research, (it took me less than one minute to find the link below) your credibiity would not suffer so much from all the lies you tell.

Realize Bruce that the 30% of the land the govt owns is listed within these figure breakdowns especially the grazing lands so are you so sure "farmers own most of this nation."

http://ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib14...

Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002

by Ruben N. Lubowski, Marlow Vesterby, Shawn Bucholtz , Alba Baez, and Michael Roberts

Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-14) 54 pp, May 2006

cover image for eib14 This publication presents the results of the latest (2002) inventory of U.S. major land uses, drawing on data from the Census, public land management and conservation agencies, and other sources. The data are synthesized by State to calculate the use of several broad classes and subclasses of agricultural and nonagricultural land over time. The United States has a total land area of nearly 2.3 billion acres. Major uses in 2002 were forest-use land, 651 million acres (28.8 percent); grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent); cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent); special uses (primarily parks and wildlife areas), 297 million acres (13.1 percent); miscellaneous other uses, 228 million acres (10.1 percent); and urban land, 60 million acres (2.6 percent). National and regional trends in land use are discussed in comparison with earlier major land-use estimates.

Oh and Bruce as many people have shared on this site, does the farmer ever actually own these lands?

I mean if I do not pay my property taxes these lands will be taken.

Too bad it seems the Nature Conservancy can just decide not to pay theirs.

As often as you bring this up, land ownership really is the core of your hatred of agriculture isn;t it Bruce.

So Bruce is your claim you made above that I emboldened the truth?

If it is not the truth Bruce, what is it?

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

You still do not get it gst! It really does not matter what I or you think it is going to be about the law as written and what the state after the fact can or cannot do.

NC has holdings of a large proportion across 50 states conserving property from wetlands to threatened areas of native species.

They are not my choice of a conservation group, so if you want to call them a land baron to stroke your ego go ahead!!

My idea of a land baron is someone that has large tracts and because of their size intimidate and encroach on those around them with no punitive actions taken against them because of their size and worth.

You know the one that blocks section lines and such trying to control everything around them including access to public lands. Putting up barriers instead of gates then pisses and moans when legal travelers cut through the barrier.

Size wise I do not have a magic acre size. More about behavior and how they treat their neighbors and the public.

So do you get tax dollars in the form of subsidy's?

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
But Bruce, can you show me where you hve EVER commented on the "greed" that is in these nonprofits??

Evidently there were greedy individuals  and I am happy they were caught.

I mean yousigned on as a sponsor for the govt to ultimately take away the right of a producer to raise some kinds of animals on their property.

I did the first year, but declined the second year.  I still don't like road hunters and high fence has even less sort and more danger of disease. 

And are you so sure about your claim that I enlarged Bruce? Perhaps if you took a little more time on the very same internet you are making these claims on to do some research, (it took me less than one minute to find the link below) your credibiity would not suffer so much from all the lies you tell.

You sound like the Ford advertisement that says they are the best selling pickup.  If you realize that Chevy and GMC are both GM products they sell more together than Ford.  Likewise gst you have to be smart enough to combine the 25.9 percent grasslands and range lands with the 19.5 percent cropland.  It's not over 50%, but together it is larger than any other landholding.  I did forget about state governments.  If you count some of the huge state parks and combine them with federal they are right up there with private. 

grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent); cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent);
And Bruce please realize I understand that as a life long govt employee it would be hard for you not to succumb to the "govt knows best" ideology

Actually I don't.  If you think government looks stupid from the outside you should see it from the inside.   My stupidity was getting to many years invested to get out and start something different.

As for greed gst you just can't admit that you are looking at this through the lens of greed.  I believe that every individual is greedy.  Yup, me too.  We all try to get what we can for what we consider a decent living for ourselves and our kids.  Some of us know when we get there and others can never have enough.  Some want comfort and some want to be kings.  Face reality gst you don't want competition to purchase land for yourself, and you don't want it for those who follow you.  Like I said isn't it a bi*&ch watching the old widow next door get a fair offer from DU.  D^%$M that DU anyway.  Makes you want to attack all those nasty conservation organizations don't it??  Dig into the old internet more gst there are always things there to cast shadow on any organizations you want to.  There are bad eggs in all people groups, including biologists and farmers.  Feel free to list another 100 groups and debate each if you want to go for 30 pages. 

Do you know why this is on page 22 gst?  It's because you can't admit that a farmer or rancher could possibly be in the wrong.  I'll admit I don't know enough to judge who is right or wrong in this Wyoming conflict.  I am sure that you don't know which party is wrong either.  However, your going to blindly defend the rancher because a rancher has to be right.   When you don't have enough evidence you change the subject and bring out the bogyman again and again.  Who would even know what the original subject was anymore?

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

Plainsman Said:

But Bruce, can you show me where you hve EVER commented on the "greed" that is in these nonprofits??

Evidently there were greedy individuals  and I am happy they were caught.
  But where are your threads on these sites pointing that out Bruce? You certainly have no problem posting threads about agriculture.

I mean yousigned on as a sponsor for the govt to ultimately take away the right of a producer to raise some kinds of animals on their property.

I did the first year, but declined the second year.  I still don't like road hunters and high fence has even less sort and more danger of disease. 

And are you so sure about your claim that I enlarged Bruce? Perhaps if you took a little more time on the very same internet you are making these claims on to do some research, (it took me less than one minute to find the link below) your credibiity would not suffer so much from all the lies you tell.

You sound like the Ford advertisement that says they are the best selling pickup.  If you realize that Chevy and GMC are both GM products they sell more together than Ford.  Likewise gst you have to be smart enough to combine the 25.9 percent grasslands and range lands with the 19.5 percent cropland.  It's not over 50%, but together it is larger than any other landholding.  I did forget about state governments.  If you count some of the huge state parks and combine them with federal they are right up there with private. 

Bruce "you have to be smart enough" to realize the number of Federally owned acres under the grazing lands usage!!!

grassland pasture and range land, 587 million acres (25.9 percent); cropland, 442 million acres (19.5 percent);
And Bruce please realize I understand that as a life long govt employee it would be hard for you not to succumb to the "govt knows best" ideology

Actually I don't.  If you think government looks stupid from the outside you should see it from the inside.   My stupidity was getting to many years invested to get out and start something different.

Riiiigggghhhhhttttt,.

As for greed gst you just can't admit that you are looking at this through the lens of greed.  I believe that every individual is greedy.  Yup, me too.  We all try to get what we can for what we consider a decent living for ourselves and our kids.  Some of us know when we get there and others can never have enough.  Some want comfort and some want to be kings. 

Bruce you are confusing "greed" with simple desire. Is it "greedy" that i want my kids to be healthy?

Is it "greedy" I want my kids ot have a better life than me?

But I really do not think you are confusing anything Bruce you simply want to use the accusation when it suits you and then when something is pointed out to you that shows your bias you make excuses once again.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
You still do not get it gst! It really does not matter what I or you think it is going to be about the law as written and what the state after the fact can or cannot do.

NC has holdings of a large proportion across 50 states conserving property from wetlands to threatened areas of native species.

They are not my choice of a conservation group, so if you want to call them a land baron to stroke your ego go ahead!!

My idea of a land baron is someone that has large tracts and because of their size intimidate and encroach on those around them with no punitive actions taken against them because of their size and worth.

So then please answer how many acres DU owns in Man. and Sask. before you claim they are NOT of the "Baron status" you do not support.

Post the acres ron.

You know the one that blocks section lines and such trying to control everything around them including access to public lands. Putting up barriers instead of gates then pisses and moans when legal travelers cut through the barrier.

Size wise I do not have a magic acre size. More about behavior and how they treat their neighbors and the public.

And you would claim this arbitrary limitation on land opwnership you clai as a "solution" is not about the very thing you claim allows for the challenge of the law as unconstitutional and that your "solution" would stand a court challenge?

It appears your "law 101" school is as well versed as your "Ranching 101" school was ron.
So do you get tax dollars in the form of subsidy's?

As a form of payment thru the contract I and the govt engage in I receive "subsidies" as the law requires the govt to provide when they encumber  land with a "takings" as has been done under the contract terms which limit my actions on my private lands to meet the criteria set forth in said contract by the govt.

So yes ron I receive Federal tax payer dollars in what you refer to as "subsidies".

Do you ron acknowledge that these "subsidies" are payment for something the govt "takes" from the private land owner?

Do you understand the "takings" requirements the govt has ron?

Do you support the requirement of the Federal govt to compensate a land holder for the value of what they may "take"?

Ron can you show what would be the govts "taking" on these non profits to offset the Federal dollars these nonprofits receive?

you see ron, you are trying to compare oranges to apples here to prove your point.

Be honest enough to admit there is a difference.

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

Ron do you think The Nature Conservancy would be a good nonprofit to be buying land here in North Dakota given the information of their past actions you have been provided with?

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

Plainsman Said:

Do you know why this is on page 22 gst?  It's because you can't admit that a farmer or rancher could possibly be in the wrong.  I'll admit I don't know enough to judge who is right or wrong in this Wyoming conflict.  I am sure that you don't know which party is wrong either.  However, your going to blindly defend the rancher because a rancher has to be right.   When you don't have enough evidence you change the subject and bring out the bogyman again and again.  Who would even know what the original subject was anymore?

Once again "The Big Lie". (and it was even done after enough thought as to edit the original post)

Lie 1:
It's because you can't admit that a farmer or rancher could possibly be in the wrong.
Bruce you know I have admitted many times in the past ag producers are just like every other segment of the population.

Lie 2:
However, your going to blindly defend the rancher
Once again, please show me where I have "blindly defended" other than to point out he followed state law and followed the guidelines set out by the state engineer.

Lie 3:
"defend the rancher because a rancher has to be right."
The person in Wyoming is NOT a "rancher" that you love to hate bruce he is a welder.

Lie 4:
When you don't have enough evidence you change the subject and bring out the bogyman
As pointed out earlier bruce the "boogieman" is false, fake, not real. Please show where what I have posted is false, fake or not real.
 
Bruce I have to ask, do you actually learn anything in your Bible studies?

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

gst the grazing you speak of comes under Forest Lands. 

Also, is it biased when I said everyone is greedy including myself?  I look at greed as one of those undesirable traits of human nature.  Also it's not greedy to want your kid to be healthy.  Having it better than you would depend on how much better.  I want my kids to have a better life too.  I don't want them to have such a good life that they sit on a throne and dictate to the peasants. 

As far as the Nature Conservancy every group of people has a few bad apples.  You name any group of large size that has existed for a number of years and there are some bad apples in the group.  Sometimes they have not been caught yet.

Would I like to see the Nature Conservancy purchase land in North Dakota.  Yes I sure would.  If landowners didn't act like you I would say no.  If landowners didn't act like the high fence group I would say no.  If landowners like those around Devils Lake didn't go to the legislature and say there are not enough North Dakota hunters to control the Canada goose population I would say no.  If I didn't have to debate a landowner on this site that thinks he is God's gift to humanity I would say no.  Your group makes the purchase of land by the Nature Conservancy desirable. 

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

Plainsman Said:
  Dig into the old internet more gst there are always things there to cast shadow on any organizations you want to.  There are bad eggs in all people groups, including biologists and farmers.  Feel free to list another 100 groups and debate each if you want to go for 30 pages. 

Bruce don't you think the voter should know a little bit about the orgs that are spending hundreds of thousands to change our states constitution?

I doubt the sponsors will tell the voters they are asking to support their measure these things. Hell they will not even tell the voters of ND who is funding their measure and calling the shots!

I mean when you were a sponsor bruce how long did you deny receiving funding from HSUS?

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

Plainsman Said:
gst the grazing you speak of comes under Forest Lands. 

So BLM lands are not grazed? And bruce remember now these are classifications by USE not by who controls them. So are the national grasslands "forrest use" lands?? Not too many trees out there bruce.

Also, is it biased when I said everyone is greedy including myself?  I look at greed as one of those undesirable traits of human nature.  Also it's not greedy to want your kid to be healthy.  Having it better than you would depend on how much better. 

So who decides this Bruce? You?

I want my kids to have a better life too.  I don't want them to have such a good life that they sit on a throne and dictate to the peasants. 

As far as the Nature Conservancy every group of people has a few bad apples.  You name any group of large size that has existed for a number of years and there are some bad apples in the group.  Sometimes they have not been caught yet.

Would I like to see the Nature Conservancy purchase land in North Dakota.  Yes I sure would.  If landowners didn't act like you I would say no.  If landowners didn't act like the high fence group I would say no.  If landowners like those around Devils Lake didn't go to the legislature and say there are not enough North Dakota hunters to control the Canada goose population I would say no.  If I didn't have to debate a landowner on this site that thinks he is God's gift to humanity I would say no.  Your group makes the purchase of land by the Nature Conservancy desirable. 
  So if landowners just did what YOU want, you would oppose the Nature Conservancy from buying land because of all the fraud and negatives that have been brought to light here ?

It appears you wish to "sit on a throne and dictate to the peasants. " Bruce.

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

Bruce a little more insight into the people behind this measure.

gst Said:
What was that that former Co sponsor with many of the same sponsors of this measure Roger Kaseman said about the likelihood of "corruption" with these groups, the panel this measure will form and these dollars?

http://www.kycbs.net/NatureConservancy.htm

January 4, 2010

DNR board member violated ethics code, state board rules

By Lee Bergquist of the Journal Sentinel

The State Government Accountability Board has concluded that Jonathan Ela, a member of the Natural Resources Board, violated the state ethics code when he voted on a major land transaction involving a conservation organization where his wife works.

The board decided last month that Ela shouldn't have participated in a vote in June when the Department of Natural Resources spent $3.4 million for an easement on land owned by the Nature Conservancy. The deal was part of a larger transaction in 2006 that involved 64,634 acres in northeastern Wisconsin.

Ela's wife, Patricia Stocking, is an employee of the Nature Conservancy and negotiates land transactions for the organization but was not involved in this project, Ela said Monday.

At the time of the vote, the board was meeting in New Richmond, in western Wisconsin, and Ela raised the issue of his wife's employment with the Nature Conservancy.

On Monday, he said he didn't think then that he needed to recuse himself.

"My wife didn't have anything to do with it and didn't benefit," Ela said.

But he said he accepted the board's decision, describing it as "reasonable."

The board decided the matter on Dec. 17 and sent a letter to Ela on Dec. 28. While Ela violated the ethics code for public officials, the board did not recommend a penalty because Ela's wife did not benefit from the vote. The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit, and the vote did not appear to be controversial.

The transaction was one of three that has come before the board in recent years that involved the 2006 purchase of 64,634 acres from International Paper Co. - described then by state officials as the largest land conservation purchase in state history.

Most of the land is owned by Conservation Forestry, a timber investment fund based in Woburn, Mass.

The total cost of the package was $83.7 million. The state's share was about $33 million, according to state officials. The state payment ensured that most of the land would be open for public access.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/80655242.html

Isn't a couple of the sponsors of the measure to open billions of dollars up to nonprofits in the employee of one of these nonprofits?

http://ndnrt.com/?id=67

Isn't one the wife of a NDG&F employee?

Whats the odds these people might be rewarded with a seat on the "citizens panel" this measure creates for their hard work?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
I mean when you were a sponsor bruce how long did you deny receiving funding from HSUS?

It was a long time before 28 of the 30 sponsors knew HSUS had spent money on adds.  Oh, I don't think they received funding, I think the adds were paid for directly.  I could be wrong since after signing my name all information ended.  As you know per our  private conversations I wasn't happy.

Bruce don't you think the voter should know a little bit about the orgs that are spending hundreds of thousands to change our states constitution?

Sure I do, but I also think the voters should understand when someone is on a self serving witch hunt.

So if landowners just did what YOU want, you would oppose the Nature Conservancy from buying land because of all the fraud and negatives that have been brought to light here ?

To  me it's sort of like voting for president and choosing the lesser of two evils.  One has to measure the actions of the past.  For example I see North Dakota Farm Bureau shafting sportsmen at every chance.  Both groups have a proven record and the farm groups have hurt us most.  For years it's been a once way street with sportsmen supporting farmers only to have them return that support by shafting us.  So now we have a chance at preserving some land for wildlife and if lucky more places to hunt. 

I think the difference between people is how we define quality of life.  Some people measure it only with money while others consider money but also other variables like the ability to enjoy our natural resources.  Some find their quality of life in their wallet, some in a bottle, some with a rifle in their hand and a badlands sunset or the sound of coyotes as they sit around a campfire. 

Edit: just seen this:

 the board did not recommend a penalty because Ela's wife did not benefit from the vote.
 

Evidently there was no huge conspiracy, but it makes good fodder for the haters of conservation.   It did violate some regulation that had no bearing on this except for the regulation itself.  Therein lies the proof that in government and regulations there is no room for common sense to prevail. 

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08
In 2008 June The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land announced they reached an agreement to purchase approximately 320,000 acres (1,300 km2) of western Montana forestland from Plum Creek Timber Company (NYSE:PCL) for $510 million.
 

Some time ago I read an article on this. Plum Creek or Plum Crazy.

Plum Creek is one of the largest timber companies in the world. They had a back country piece of ground where it would have cost them more to harvest the timber then what the lumber was worth.

The timber company made a deal with a non-profit to get a public relations campaign going to "save" this piece of ground. The people of Montana fell for the scheme. The non-profit acted as the facilitator  in the sale from Plum Creek to the non-profit and then finally to the government. The people paid about three times as much as the going rate. And they felt good about it.

Plainsman wrote,

 If landowners didn't act like the high fence group I would say no. 

Let me understand this statement. You and a small bunch of federal agents started a front organization and then attacked the elk growers. This small group then partnered with HSUS because the hunting community wouldn't support the measure or give any money. Everyone knows who behaved poorly. 

And now many of those same persons of poor demeanor are again sponsors of this petition. 

Here is what needs to be done. The real sportsmen of North Dakota need to attend wildlife federation and wildlife society meetings and vote the rascals out.  

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

Plainsman Said:
To  me it's sort of like voting for president and choosing the lesser of two evils.  One has to measure the actions of the past.  For example I see North Dakota Farm Bureau shafting sportsmen at every chance.  Both groups have a proven record and the farm groups have hurt us most.  For years it's been a once way street with sportsmen supporting farmers only to have them return that support by shafting us.  So now we have a chance at preserving some land for wildlife and if lucky more places to hunt.

Bruce, one question for you, what percentage of the local "sportsman/wildlife" groups around this state are farmers and ranchers?

You just can't seem to help yourself plainsman.

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

Plainsman Said:
 Therein lies the proof that in government and regulations there is no room for common sense to prevail. 

And yet here you are defending the EPA's over reach against someone you believed was a "rancher".

And yet you support a govt program that mandates the spending of 75% of billions of dollars thru our constitution rather than statute bought and paid for by out of state organizations that limits the people of this state from voting on again for 25 years.


Pages