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

Fritz the Cat Said:
And now many of those same persons of poor demeanor are again sponsors of this petition. 

It seems like these people are constantly trying to push their agendas.

And now one of their own has given the people of this state a little advice after being submersed in their backroom dealings and privy to their unscrupulous behavior that access to the billions they are seeking will result in fraudluent action.

Combine this with the history of the out of state groups funding this measure and the control they have been given as a result of these hundreds of thousands of dollars and the formula for fraud increases.

And the people of ND can do nothing about it for 25 years because the measure that will allow the fraud also limits them from voting it out.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
And yet here you are defending the EPA's over reach against someone you believed was a "rancher".

Oh ya, welder with a sprawling ranch.  When they said sprawling ranch they had to have mixed that up with an eight acre pond or something.

Anyway, nope I am not defending the EPA.  How many times have you read the posts where I said they were a good idea gone bad and should be cut by 75%?  Ya you remember, but it doesn't fir your agenda so you just happen to forget.  I only defend to this point: neither of us know, so I respond to your bias. 

Fritz you talk about story time:

Some time ago

Once upon a time in a land far far away there was a beautiful princess named Fritz ------------------yada yada yada.  

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

Actually Fritz the Cat is an animated cartoon spoofing the 1960's. 

What the hippies didn't know was that their revolution was controlled from the top down.

Much like your North American Wildlife Conservation Model today. Bruce, try not to inhale so deep when you're hitting the water bong.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Much like your North American Wildlife Conservation Model today. Bruce, try not to inhale so deep when you're hitting the water bong.

You evidently know a lot more about it than I do. 

I didn't switch gender on my post above to be a smart a$$.  I have been thinking about  what would make a person get as nasty about things as you do, then challenge people for not using their real name all the while never divulging yours.   Then I remembered the old cliché "no temper like a woman scorned".  I always thought I was talking to a man, and was raised to treat women with respect so if I have every been nasty with you please forgive me.  Seriously I'm not trying to be clever. 

Here is a thought for the day for us all:

The happiest people don't necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have.
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09


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

Plains wrote,

Once upon a time in a land far far away there was a beautiful princess named Fritz ------------------yada yada yada. 

OK, that was dumb.

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

Perhaps you missed this question Bruce.

gst Said:

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:

Anyway, nope I am not defending the EPA.  How many times have you read the posts where I said they were a good idea gone bad and should be cut by 75%?  Ya you remember, but it doesn't fir your agenda so you just happen to forget. 

I certainly remember bruce, the problem is your claims ring hollow.

You "claim" to want to "cut the EPA by 75%".

So I provide you factual links that show a formal collaboration with with the EPA by the Nature Conservancy to work to change the language of the Clean Water Act which if accomplished would EXPAND the control of the EPA by 100% and what do you do?

Defend the Nature Conservancy buying changes to our constitution and tell us you believe the state would be better served having them owning uncontrolled amounts of land here in ND.

Like I said bruce your claims ring hollow.


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

would EXPAND the control of the EPA by 100%

That sounds like more black helicopter theories.  I wish I could know if any of this was true.  I know you don't want anyone telling your anything about what you can or can't do on your land gst.  That makes you hate anyone that would do that.  So you would like the EPA gone forever.   I would guess without some regulations many North Dakota towns would have been washed off the  map by now because guys like you are so concerned about their fellow man.  Common sense should tell people that the EPA is to powerful, but that same commons sense should also tell people that guys just like you gst can't get to much power either.  Neither can be trusted.  Most of us are caught between two radicals.  We just have to keep shifting back and fourth so neither gets the upper hand.  Democrats and Republicans are both untrustworthy just like EPA and some farm groups. 
Look at the 5% oil revenue for conservation.  As well of as our state is right now 95% isn't enough some have to have it all.  What is being impacted by oil?  Roads, schools, habitat, wildlife, law enforcement and many other things.  As long as the trough is full the greedy will be first in line.  That wouldn't be so bad if they didn't want it all. 
I seen people in line at the home and garden show today.  They were signing the petition to put it on the ballot. 
I think some of these farm groups fight for farmers just like Jesse Jackson fights for blacks. 

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

Plainsman wrote,
 

I seen people in line at the home and garden show today.  They were signing the petition to put it on the ballot.


And most couldn't get a pen in their hand fast enough. Sell it Bruce sell it.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=400250

Postby Plainsman » Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:20 pm

Dick, I worked the sport show in Jamestown this past Friday afternoon. It was slow on a work day, still I had 95 percent of the people who passed our booth sign the petition. Most couldn’t get a pen in their hand fast enough.

 

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


Plainsman Said:

would EXPAND the control of the EPA by 100%

That sounds like more black helicopter theories.  I wish I could know if any of this was true. 
Christ almighty bruce I provided you the link that shows exactly what the official collaboration between the Nature Conservancy and the EPA was designed to do and if you do any reading at all there are numerous articles saying the very same thing that rewriting the Clean Water Act will expand the control EOPA has by double. You are so stupidly bias against agriculture you will deny fact
. I know you don't want anyone telling your anything about what you can or can't do on your land gst.  That makes you hate anyone that would do that.  So you would like the EPA gone forever.  Once again "The Big Lie" I have repeatedly said we need some form of regulatory measures you know that but choose to lie instead.    I would guess without some regulations many North Dakota towns would have been washed off the  map by now because guys like you are so concerned about their fellow man.  Common sense should tell people that the EPA is to powerful, but that same commons sense should also tell people that guys just like you gst can't get to much power either.  Neither can be trusted.  Most of us are caught between two radicals.  We just have to keep shifting back and fourth so neither gets the upper hand.  Democrats and Republicans are both untrustworthy just like EPA and some farm groups. 
Look at the 5% oil revenue for conservation.  As well of as our state is right now 95% isn't enough some have to have it all.  What is being impacted by oil?  Roads, schools, habitat, wildlife, law enforcement and many other things.  As long as the trough is full the greedy will be first in line.  That wouldn't be so bad if they didn't want it all. 
I seen people in line at the home and garden show today.  They were signing the petition to put it on the ballot. 
I think some of these farm groups fight for farmers just like Jesse Jackson fights for blacks. 

Exactly what do you do at your Bible studies Bruce because you are one lying sob.

Must not have gotten to that part yet?

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

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. 

Bruce, if you want to see an absolutely perfect example of the type of divisive rhetoric that is identical to the hatred spewed by the likes of the good Reverend you mention, take a look at your own words above. And try answering the question plainsman.

Both you and he could use a new teacher when it comes to the Bible bruce.

Plainsman Said:

I think some of these farm groups fight for farmers just like Jesse Jackson fights for blacks. 

Bruce do you think it is a good idea to place funding mandates for programs in our constitution?

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

Plainsman Said:

Look at the 5% oil revenue for conservation.  As well of as our state is right now 95% isn't enough some have to have it all.  What is being impacted by oil?  Roads, schools, habitat, wildlife, law enforcement and many other things.  As long as the trough is full the greedy will be first in line. 

Indeed so Bruce, who is "first in line" to get billions from this revenue source?

The Nature Conservancy.

Even though this is being billed by Dick Monson as a way to funnel these dollars into agriculture's pockets, ag is opposing it.

So who are the "greedy" ones looking to get their hands on these dollars?

Your accusations don;t add up Bruce.

 ND sponsors like Dick Monson  are no longer calling the shots. The group with the check book is.

I wonder if TNC has told them not to come on here and talk about their measure?

Weren't you going to check that out and get back to us bruce?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Exactly what do you do at your Bible studies Bruce because you are one lying sob.
 

I see you like to mock my belief, but I'm going to pass on the temptation to give it back to you,  and instead tell you what this morning has really been like.  So this morning I said a short prayer for all three of us (you, Fritz, and myself).  Then at lunch friends and I talked about the EPA.  Like you I think they have gone beyond the power that the public had in mind for them when they first begin.  Giving it more thought I could go along with you and Fritz to dump them completely, but only if there are other controls over agriculture that will not let them drain with no respect for their neighbor or flush their pesticides downstream.  Who other than the EPA does that?  There would have to be some control because I don't think they have self control.

As far as the statement about:

EXPAND the control of the EPA by 100%

  I think if we are going to oppose the EPA we have to maintain some resemblance to sanity.  Wild Gordon Kahl type accusations will only destroy our credibility.  We have to keep things realistic and understand that reality is bad enough to convince people.  If we fail at that the liberals will simply paint us like Gordon Kahl, the Unibomber etc.  The truth is good enough.  Always has been, and always will be.  Lets not play right into the hands of the opposition.

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

Plainsman,

I see you like to mock my belief

No one does that. The trouble is you have no self control and make a mockery out of the Ten Commandments.

It seems others question your Bible Studies.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=400250

cwoparsons wrote,
I've heard you say you often go to bible study. What is your hidden motive for doing that?
Yes Plainsman I can take a joke and just so you know I never had any intentions of meeting you after you are dead. But if it is any comfort to you I'll look down every once in awhile to see how you are doing.
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

Exactly what do you do at your Bible studies Bruce because you are one lying sob.
 

I see you like to mock my belief, but I'm going to pass on the temptation to give it back to you,  and instead tell you what this morning has really been like.  So this morning I said a short prayer for all three of us (you, Fritz, and myself). 
Thanks for the prayer as God listens to everyone even the lowliest sinner (liars) I am sure it was heard.
I don;t "mock your belief", I "mock" your lack of commitment to it while holding it up through your references to your Bible studies. I am serious bruce most anyone on here would admit you tell whopper after whopper on here that are proven to be false time and again and yet you keep on doing it. So when I ask what your Bible study calls something that a person says that is not the truth I seriously wonder if you know any more. What does your Bible study say about hating someone enough that you constantly make accusations about them that are not true? Then at lunch friends and I talked about the EPA.  Like you I think they have gone beyond the power that the public had in mind for them when they first begin.  Giving it more thought I could go along with you and Fritz to dump them completely, Once again "The Big Lie". Please show where I have EVER said I want to"dump" the EPA completely". I have ALWAYS said there is a need for common sense regulation. but only if there are other controls over agriculture that will not let them drain with no respect for their neighbor or flush their pesticides downstream.  Who other than the EPA does that?  There would have to be some control because I don't think they have self control.

As far as the statement about:

EXPAND the control of the EPA by 100%

  I think if we are going to oppose the EPA we have to maintain some resemblance to sanity.  Wild Gordon Kahl type accusations will only destroy our credibility.
Bruce I have provided you the link to the official collaboration of TNC and the EPA. This "collaboration is meant to help the EPA make the changes to the Clean Water Act they are pursueing that will over double the amount of lands that fall under their regulatory authority.  I have provided you links to these facts as well. This is NOT "Gordan Kahl type accusations" do a little research on your own and learn a bit before you come on here spouting off like you do, your credibility sucks bad enough already bruce. We have to keep things realistic and understand that reality is bad enough to convince people.  If we fail at that the liberals will simply paint us like Gordon Kahl, the Unibomber etc.  The truth is good enough.  Always has been, and always will be.  Lets not play right into the hands of the opposition.

Then open your eyes and do a little research on the very same internet that you type your bullshit on for once bruce.


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

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/913013/posts

Landmark Calls for Probe into EPA Grants to Nature Conservancy

For Immediate Release
May 15, 2003
CONTACT: Eric Christensen
703-689-2370
703-689-2373 (fax)
info@landmarklegal.org

 

(HERNDON, VA)...Landmark Legal Foundation has asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate whether millions of dollars in agency grants to the Nature Conservancy and its state affiliates – the nation’s largest environmental organization with assets of more than $3 billion – were misused. The Foundation has also asked the agency to suspend current and future grant payments to the group pending the outcome of the investigation.

 

Landmark asked EPA to ensure that none of the more than $10 million in EPA grants received by the Conservancy between 1993 and 2002 were used for purposes other than those for which they were originally intended. According to a recent series of articles in the Washington Post, the Nature Conservancy spent millions to purchase parcels of undeveloped land and then resold the land to Conservancy backers and officials at greatly discounted prices, in exchange for limitations on future development of the land. The Conservancy also spent tens of millions of dollars on commercial and residential land development projects, oil and gas drilling and other ventures.

 

“It’s becoming increasingly apparent that one of the resources the Nature Conservancy actually conserves is questionable behavior,” explained Landmark President Mark R. Levin. “And as one of the EPA’s most frequent grant recipients, we want the agency to ensure that taxpayer funds aren’t finding their way into sweetheart deals for Conservancy directors or other losing business ventures.”

 

Landmark maintains the most comprehensive, searchable database of information on federal environmental grants to nonprofit organizations on the Internet. Since 2001, the Foundation has gathered information from the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service on grants made by those agencies to 501(c) nonprofit groups since 1993. Landmark’s database can be accessed at http://www.landmarklegal.org.

 

“In compiling our database we’ve learned a number of startling things about the EPA’s grants to nonprofits,” Levin explained. “First, the EPA did not competitively bid these grants. Second, there were no outside review panels to determine the merit of grant applications; and Third, there was no effective system to oversee the proper management of these grants. The EPA needs to determine whether taxpayer funds were used properly by the Nature Conservancy.”

 

Founded in 1976, Landmark Legal Foundation is one of the nation’s top conservative public interest law firms. The Foundation has won precedent-setting legal victories in the areas of environmental accountability, education reform and holding public officials accountable for their actions. Landmark has offices in Kansas City, MO and Herndon, VA.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
Bruce here is the link tothe "collaborative partnership".

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/hwi-mou.pdf

Purpose The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to formalize a mutual collaboration between The Nature Conservancy's (the Conservancy) North America Conservation Region, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water/Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), as all three parties strive to develop and Implement Healthy Watersheds Initiative (HWI) programs throughout states and regional aquatic ecosystems.

 

The EPA HWI Is a voluntary initiative whose key elements are to

,

1) Work with our state and other partners to identify healthy watersheds state-wide and to develop and Implement healthy watershed protection plans that set priorities and leverage programs and resources across state agencies and their partners,

2) Integrate protection of healthy watersheds Into EPA programs, and

3) Increase awareness and understanding of the importance of protecting our remaining healthy watersheds including the ecological services, economic benefits, and cost savings they provide, as well as the range of management actions needed to protect and avoid adverse impacts to those healthy watersheds. Given the aforementioned shared Interest of EPA, the Conservancy, and ACWA, the collaboration and participation from each party in the implementation of the HWI and watershed protection strategies on a state and regional ecosystem scale can help sustain an integrated ecological network or Infrastructure of healthy watersheds.

Here are a few links that describe what the EPA is doing that goes directly to what is discussed in the "collaborative partnership" with TNC.

This was a case early on Bruce.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/21/editorial-ending-epas-la...

This case was overturned and some harsh reprimands were handed down by the SCOTUS to the EPA in this case. I included them in an earlier post.

Here is what others have to say about what is happening at the EPA with TNC help.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/proposed-giant-epa-land-grab-is-rigged-con...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/24/epa-power-grab-pols-states-cl...

Bruce this is a pretty thorough explanation of why this will double EPA's control.

http://ppjg.me/2009/11/04/clean-water-restoration-actanother-federal-lan...

—–An example is that the Corps, EPA and Wetlands Land Grab will give Federal bureaucracies control over all the watersheds in the United States.  That includes dry land inside or adjacent to watersheds with water underground.  That means everything.  Because all land is in a watershed.

–Nobody wants to see the Corps or EPA in their backyard.  The Corps, EPA and Wetlands Land Grab Bill is the biggest threat to private property since CARA and actually affects far more land and people.  It seeks to overturn the Rapanos (2006) and SWANCC (2001) Supreme Court Decisions that said the Corps of Engineers and EPA could only regulate navigable waters.  If the bill passes, the Corps and EPA will control all waters, all wetlands and all watersheds in the U.S.

The Supreme Court said that when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 and limited Corps and EPA jurisdiction to “navigable waters” they meant navigable waters.  But Oberstar is trying to either get rid of the word “navigable” or gut it to give the Corps and EPA jurisdiction over ALL waters in the U.S.  Right now the Corps and EPA are limited to jurisdiction over “navigable” waters.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/11/epa-power-grab-to-regulate-ditches...
 

The House measure carries 64 Republican and Democratic cosponsors and was passed in committee last week. A companion piece of legislation is already gathering steam in the Senate and is cosponsored by 26 Republicans.

“President Obama’s EPA continues to act as if it is above the law. It is using this overreaching guidance to pre-empt state and local governments, farmers and ranchers, small business owners and homeowners from making local land and water use decisions,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said in announcing their measure in March. “Our bill will stop this unprecedented Washington power grab and restore Americans’ property rights.”

Bruce it seems at least 64 bipartisan legislators in DC feel this is not "Gordan Kahl type accusations".

http://pjmedia.com/blog/epa-stealthily-propels-toward-massive-power-grab...
 

The proposed rule, obtained by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee in advance of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s testimony at a Thursday oversight hearing, widely broadens the definition of waterways over which the federal government has jurisdiction to as little as a water ditch in a backyard.

The Clean Water Act redefinition of “waters of the United States” would include all ponds, lakes, wetlands and natural or manmade streams that have any effect on downstream navigable waters — whether on public lands or private property.

And, committee Republicans note, the administration is trying to move forward with the rule at a breakneck pace, relying on the findings of a scientific report that hadn’t undergone peer review at the time the rule was submitted to the White House for approval.

“The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said after seeing the proposal. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”

The EPA has made no secret of wanting to balloon its jurisdiction over all waters, even testing the limits by going after businesses that could potentially taint any type of water on its way to a body of water.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/25/epa-land-grab-agency-claims-a...

over more streams, wetlands

Feb. 28, 2014: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy speaks with coal industry leaders in Beulah, N.D.AP

In what critics are describing as a government land grab, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a change Tuesday to the Clean Water Act that would give it regulatory authority over temporary wetlands and waterways. 

The proposal immediately sparked concerns that the regulatory power could extend into seasonal ponds, streams and ditches, including those on private property. 

"The ... rule may be one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history," said Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

The EPA proposal would apply pollution regulations to the country's so-called "intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands" -- which are created during wet seasons, or simply after it rains, but are temporary. 

At issue is whether the smaller streams and wetlands are indeed part of the "waters of the United States." 

The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 2001 and 2006. The second ruling restricted the federal government's authority by stating such waters must be "relatively" permanent or continuously flowing and sizeable, like "oceans, rivers, streams and lakes." 

In defending the proposed change, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became "confusing and complex" following the high court decisions. 

"For nearly a decade, members of Congress, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public asked for a rulemaking to provide clarity," the agencies said in a joint statement. 

They also argued such waters "form the foundation of the nation's water resources" and the changes would not extend the federal government's reach. "To be clear, our proposal does not add to or expand the scope of the waters historically protected under the Clean Water Act," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a video accompanying the announcement. 

The EPA also said roughly 60 percent of "stream miles" in the country only flow seasonally or after rain but have a "considerable impact" on downstream waters -- and that about 117 million Americans, or one in three, get their drinking water from public systems that rely in part on such streams.

 Plainsman, it the EPA even admits they are targeting over 60% of what they do not control. But they then try to claim it is not an expansion over what they currently control.

It all sounds good right, who could be against "Clean Water" right? NO ONE. (Perhaps that is why the sponsors took a page from the play book of TNC in titling their measure)

But the devil is in the details. The "science" behind the EPA's expansion has not even been reviewed by their own scientists!!!!!

This isn;t just "ag" that is concerned about this new lofty goal of the EPA bruce, it is going to affect EVERYONE.

This expansion has came from the top down (Obama) as a response to the SCOTUS limitation and slap down of the EPA's over reach.

I have provided you a small portion of what information is out there. (and did you notice not even one of them is connected to ag)

You can spend days reading about this on this very internet if you would ever choose to inform yourself just a little.

And this is who you are supporting coming into our state buying changes to our constitution all because of your admitted "willey" for agriculture.

 

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

I guess I simply think your links are not worth anything.  You can find anything to support any position on the internet.  Although a 100% increase claim ---- well, I didn't think it was worth reading.  It's sort of like the mother ship being on the other side of a comet.  When you guys go wild eyed and nutty it isn't a debate anymore. 

I don't mind talking about Bible classes and such in just a general discussion.  However, I don't want to lead others astray in this area so I'm not going there with you guys in the context you want to.  I can't stop you, but I think if I try to use it as leverage in debate I serve Satan. 

Bruce do you think it is a good idea to place funding mandates for programs in our constitution?

If our legislature will not represent all the people then perhaps that is the only way.  After all who is the ultimate authority in this state?  It's the people right?

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08
–Nobody wants to see the Corps or EPA in their backyard.  The Corps, EPA and Wetlands Land Grab Bill is the biggest threat to private property since CARA and actually affects far more land and people. 

Ah yes, CARA. The Conservation and Reivestment Act of 1999-2000. The Atlantic Continental Shelf generates about $5 Billion in oil and gas leases every year. This money is deposited into the United States Treasury.

The conservation community at the federal level wanted a chunk of that money for a period of 15 years or about $40 Billion. They wanted an earmark.

Rep. Helen Chenoweth Hage from Idaho had public forums around the country to get the message out about it. Interestingly, CARA failed to pass. 

The Conservation and Reinvestment Act and The Clean Water Wildlife Parks Petition are almost identical. The template is the same. 

Is the Clean Water Wildlife Parks Petition a grass roots sportsmens effort? Hardly.  

http://www.epw.senate.gov/107th/che_0524.htm

Representstive Helen Chenoweth-Hage:
Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the support that has been amassed in support of CARA. But I strongly urge this Committee and the Senate in its deliberative nature to pull the reigns on this fast-moving wagon, and take a long and hard look at what we are doing. This bill establishes a 40 billion dollar mandatory fund over the next 15 years, billions of which will be given to the federal government, states, tribes and even non-profit organizations to purchase private property, forever taking lands out of production and off the tax rolls. Billions more will be at the control of the Secretary of Interior to fund everything under the sun, with little oversight by Congress. This bill also establishes a permanent revenue source for non-governmental organizations, to carry out their purposes.

The point is, Mr. Chairman, is that CARA will dramatically impact the lives of many of our constituents, it will dramatically expand the scope and power of the federal government, and it will dramatically reduce the Constitutional role of Congress to control the purse strings. And for that reason, we cannot, we must not let CARA be enacted into law. Whatever temporary benefits are derived, or pressure that is relieved from clamoring special interest groups, will be more than outweighed by the ultimate costs of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I only have a few minutes to speak on this issue -- so I will cut to what I believe are the central issues that Congress must consider on this legislation. First, while CARA is being established under the guise of "environment" and "conservation," its true premise has more to do with who will own and control property and its use in the United States of America.

When did we conclude that the government can manage the land more responsibly and efficiently than the private property owner?

When did we decide that it was the duty of the government to consume and govern the use of private property?

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

Plainsman wrote,

If our legislature will not represent all the people then perhaps that is the only way. 

I realize that it is hard for you Bruce. The legislature has not sided with you or your small group in quite a few years. Did you ever consider that maybe they are not the ones who always get it wrong?

After all who is the ultimate authority in this state?  It's the people right?
 

The fed/gov is paramont. If you don't believe me, then just ask some of its employees.

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

The fed/gov is paramont. If you don't believe me, then just ask some of its employees.

Only the ones that are fools would agree with you on that.  We have not fallen so far yet.  We better be acting fast though because if Obama had his way he would be dictator today.  That's why I have come to agree with you and gst about the EPA.  I hope because I agree it will cause others who now disagree with you to consider it.  Please don't make any stupid remarks that will change their mind.  I hope others agreeing is more important to you than your ego and winning a debate. 

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

Plainsman Said:

I guess I simply think your links are not worth anything.  You can find anything to support any position on the internet.  Although a 100% increase claim ---- well, I didn't think it was worth reading.  It's sort of like the mother ship being on the other side of a comet.  When you guys go wild eyed and nutty it isn't a debate anymore. 

What the hell Bruce, you would deny dozens of reports just to try and save face??? I suppose they are all controlled by farmers right?

Bruce if the new regulations doubles the amount of land they have control over, how much percentage would that be?

I don't mind talking about Bible classes and such in just a general discussion.  However, I don't want to lead others astray in this area so I'm not going there with you guys in the context you want to.  I can't stop you, but I think if I try to use it as leverage in debate I serve Satan. 

Bruce I don;t think you "serve satan, I just think you are so petty you would lie to try and save face.

Bruce do you think it is a good idea to place funding mandates for programs in our constitution?

If our legislature will not represent all the people then perhaps that is the only way.  After all who is the ultimate authority in this state?  It's the people right?

So Bruce, if ag would petition to set funding for land improvements thru tiling in the Constitution would you be so supportive?  

You know damn well you would be yelping like a little pup that just caught his tail in the door. So you remember you wanted to start this funding in our constitution down the road.

So you are saying unless 100 % of the people are happy with what the legislature is doing we should invite an org with the record that have been shared to keep the small percentage of people that are unhappy happy????

And yes indeed the people are and should be the ultimate authority. And so that they make the right choices, they deserve to hear BOTH sides of an issue and make their minds up based on FACT not bullshit. Some will choose to stick their heads in the sand and deny facts that are presented and others will weigh these facts and decide accordingly.

I think we have all seen which you are plains.

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

Plainsman Said:

The fed/gov is paramont. If you don't believe me, then just ask some of its employees.

Only the ones that are fools would agree with you on that.  We have not fallen so far yet.  We better be acting fast though because if Obama had his way he would be dictator today.  That's why I have come to agree with you and gst about the EPA.  I hope because I agree it will cause others who now disagree with you to consider it.  Please don't make any stupid remarks that will change their mind.  I hope others agreeing is more important to you than your ego and winning a debate. 

So which is it Bruce, do you accept the facts as they are presented now regarding the EPA and their collaboration with The Nature Conservancy who is buying changes to our constitution and the negative impact that would have on our state 

If you actually do, I give you credit for actually looking at them and making an informed decision.

And I would offer a sincere apology for remarks suggesting you would not.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
So which is it Bruce, do you accept the facts

From what I can find there is some contention as to what is fact.  From what I find it looks like those who disagree with you have as much as you to back up  their claims.  That said you have this habit of pushing me back to the fence when I agree.  I can't for the life of me understand why you do that.  Why do I feel like I'm on the fence again? 

1 The reluctance of the ag community to implement conservation of anything other than their land.  I want meaningful wildlife conservation.
2 I think the EPA is overstepping the original intent of their organization.  It would appear they respond to the people when we have a liberal administration, but ignore them when we have a conservative administration.  This leaves them working like a ratchet and only working one way.
3 Without the EPA who will have enough power to stop the draining of wetlands which we have lost most already.
4 One radical offsets another
5 Your cry liar when I have opinion which makes me distrust not only you, but everyone you think you represent.  Perhaps only Fritz had caused me more distrust than you gst.
6 Your contention that anyone can purchase a change in our constitution in my book is blatant dishonesty.  They can purchase advertisements, but our constitution is not a product for sale. 
7 These outside interests have no more affect than the outside interests you support. 

When I begin to agree with you about the EPA you should learn to leave well enough alone.  Don't you know by now that what you say turns many people the other way?  Do you want disagreement so you can simply keep ranting?  This should have stopped a couple of posts ago when we were close to agreeing.  At this point it's best we both stop.  It would require insanity to go further. 

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

Plainsman Said:

So which is it Bruce, do you accept the facts

From what I can find there is some contention as to what is fact.  From what I find it looks like those who disagree with you have as much as you to back up  their claims.  That said you have this habit of pushing me back to the fence when I agree.  I can't for the life of me understand why you do that.  Why do I feel like I'm on the fence again? 

1 The reluctance of the ag community to implement conservation of anything other than their land.  I want meaningful wildlife conservation.
2 I think the EPA is overstepping the original intent of their organization.  It would appear they respond to the people when we have a liberal administration, but ignore them when we have a conservative administration.  This leaves them working like a ratchet and only working one way.
3 Without the EPA who will have enough power to stop the draining of wetlands which we have lost most already.
4 One radical offsets another
5 Your cry liar when I have opinion which makes me distrust not only you, but everyone you think you represent.  Perhaps only Fritz had caused me more distrust than you gst.
6 Your contention that anyone can purchase a change in our constitution in my book is blatant dishonesty.  They can purchase advertisements, but our constitution is not a product for sale. 
7 These outside interests have no more affect than the outside interests you support. 

When I begin to agree with you about the EPA you should learn to leave well enough alone.  Don't you know by now that what you say turns many people the other way?  Do you want disagreement so you can simply keep ranting?  This should have stopped a couple of posts ago when we were close to agreeing.  At this point it's best we both stop.  It would require insanity to go further. 

Bruce, you didn't say anything. You need some new material.

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

Plainsman Said:

So which is it Bruce, do you accept the facts

From what I can find there is some contention as to what is fact.  From what I find it looks like those who disagree with you have as much as you to back up  their claims.  Perhaps you only read what you what to see bruce. How many articles from how many different sources dooyu need before it starts to ring true to you?  That said you have this habit of pushing me back to the fence when I agree.  I can't for the life of me understand why you do that.  Why do I feel like I'm on the fence again? 

1 The reluctance of the ag community to implement conservation of anything other than their land.  I want meaningful wildlife conservation.
2 I think the EPA is overstepping the original intent of their organization.  It would appear they respond to the people when we have a liberal administration, but ignore them when we have a conservative administration.  This leaves them working like a ratchet and only working one way.
3 Without the EPA who will have enough power to stop the draining of wetlands which we have lost most already.
4 One radical offsets another
5 Your cry liar when I have opinion which makes me distrust not only you, but everyone you think you represent.  Perhaps only Fritz had caused me more distrust than you gst. I state the fact you lie when you lie. If you can not face that Bruce perhaps you should do some soul searching before you go to your next bible study. If you wish to suggest you have not lied, go back and address everytime you made an accusation or claim and I asked you to "please show me.............."
6 Your contention that anyone can purchase a change in our constitution in my book is blatant dishonesty.  They can purchase advertisements, but our constitution is not a product for sale. 
7 These outside interests have no more affect than the outside interests you support. 

When I begin to agree with you about the EPA you should learn to leave well enough alone.  Don't you know by now that what you say turns many people the other way?  Do you want disagreement so you can simply keep ranting?  This should have stopped a couple of posts ago when we were close to agreeing.  At this point it's best we both stop.  It would require insanity to go further. 

Bruce, I will let you in on a little secret, I don;t post as many posts as I do to get you to agree with me on here, (as fritz said, most of the time if you do not agree with us we know we are headed down the right path) half of them are to offset the bullshit you spout and the other half are to share facts (with the links so people can make up their own mind and not just rely on some story I tell) to prove what you spout is bullshit.

Try actually coming to the discussion with some facts and discuss them politely  instead of lying and invariably turning to personal accusations of greed and maybe someone would take you seriously and your credibility could be repaired.

And these threads would be far shorter.

So if you don;t want to discuss the facts about what the EPA is trying to do and the collaboration of TNC with them and why the real reason behind why they would be throwing hundreds of thousands dollars (and likely millions before it is over) t this measure I am not going to waste my time here. 

Believe what you wish Bruce, just understand if you come on here spouting bullshit you will get called for it.

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

Hardwaterman Said:

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.

http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/23001/

Just read this article yesterday.

Ron what would you have TNC do with the 16,176 acres to meet your requirements of 4 sections of ownership?

If you read what has taken place with TNC across the rest of this nation over the past, as provided in a few examples i the links shared, would they not fall under your "land baron" definition?

http://www.nature.org/about-us/our-accountability/annual-report/2013-fin...

Assets of $6,183,317,000.00

liabilities of  $762,266,00.00

Net worth of $5,421,051.00

$5 1/2 billion dollars should provide a little "intimidation" eh ron!

While they may not be "your" choice of conservation groups, they are the "choice" of the sponsosrs of this measure who are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from them to help change our states constitution to provide access to billions.

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

I read this article in Ag Week. what a nice story about all the good they are doing.

The black footed ferrets in Conata Basin South Dakota. Hmm. They left out a couple of parts. Ferrets need lots of prairie dogs. The SD Wildlife Federation got involved to help get after those ranchers for trying to control the population with poison.

Maybe they thought they would have more pdods to shoot at? The fed/gov brought in the ferrets at about one million a piece. Administrative costs you know. No more poison or shooting. The pdog population exploded.

But then mother nature intervened with plague. Raptors picked up diseased pdogs and moved the disease to other towns far away. The pdogs totally disappeared. The fed/gov recaptured its ferrets but the story doesn't end there. In 2011 they had a very wet spting and Canada Thistle moved into the barren ground.

The nature conservancy and the fed/gov moved on from their failed experiment and left the ranchers in Conata Basin to their own devices. The ranchers will get rid of the thistle in time and maybe some pdogs will reinhabit. Through good stewardship I'm sure the ranchers will make the land productive again.

Pages