Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07
Measure #3

i had no idea it was on the ballot for November 6, 2012.  here is the text again...

"The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."

i know it was beat to death this spring.  but, i think it deserves some discussion again.  so... discuss away... will be back later to check on you guys. 

 

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

 This is interesting. Is there any other industry that has the testicular fortitude to say that we should never be regulated ever?

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. 

WormWiggler's picture
WormWiggler
Offline
Joined: 8/29/09

seems like there needs to be some background on this,  wonder if this means hog farms next to all the pumpjacks

                                                                                                                         

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

and who the hell determines what constitutes "modern" farming practices.  This is no different than measure2 when people felt it was too vague. 

 

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

Meelosh Said:
 This is interesting. Is there any other industry that has the testicular fortitude to say that we should never be regulated ever?

Meelosh, I know more people in the "farming industry" who think this measure is a joke than those who want it to pass. There may be a group out there who wants this measure to pass but most farmers recognize that this is not in the best interest of the state or the "industry."

I heard a commercial on the radio the other day in support saying how we better vote for it if we want to protect our food.... all I could say was "wow." 

Federal politics are a joke to debate on here but I have no problem voicing my support for a NO vote on M3


J

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 This is a copy and paste from the NDFU website, do with it as you please:

Measure 3: Right to Farm WHAT THE AMENDMENT DOES
Adds a new section to the state constitution that guarantees the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices. It prohibits any law that “abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.”

NDFU’s POSITION: OPPOSE

The amendment is contrary to many NDFU policy positions, including those regarding stewardship, responsibility, a balance between conservation and agriculture interests, and others.
Unlike the state’s current right-to-farm statute, the amendment doesn’t require that a farmer/rancher use sound agricultural practices or operate without negligence, as the measure guarantees an unlimited right to use any “modern” practice.
It would prohibit any law —local zoning, state statute, agency regulation from animal cruelty prevention to water/health regulations to GMO regulation or segregation rules — that would regulate agricultural practices. As a result, we will lose local control and the authority to find solutions at the local and state level.
Further, while this constitutional “right” would trump local and state laws, federal law will preempt it and will remain in place. Any authority the state or local government might currently have to provide reasonable regulation will be gone, and the federal law would be all that’s left, even if it isn’t a good fit.

http://www.ndfu.org/story/193/voting-guide-distributed-to-ndfu-members

J

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

I havent looked over this measure much, but am I the only one that gets pissed off when reading this crap on the ballot with all of its legal mumbo jumbo wording. Why can't this stuff be wrote out in a clear manor where you don't have to decipher what a yes means vs. a no...

PS My thoughts come out about as clear as a ballot measure!

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

Candiru's picture
Candiru
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/2/06

 I suppose that killing any wildlife that is perceived as harming the bottom line of your farm can be considered a "modern agricultural practice"

This is a real bad measure.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

hmm... glad to see the north dakota farmer's union has wised up.  anyone know where the farm bureau stands?  quick search of their website....

http://www.ndfb.org/image/cache/Measure3Focusinsertweb.pdf

isn't that all warm and fuzzy... a kid eating a cob of corn with a big smile on her face and a good ole farmer/rancher with a big smile and a nice hat on... and some references to how voting "no" would endanger our food supply.  lol.

if this measure is everything supporters say it is, why are the Union and Bureau on opposite sides of the issue.  if you can't even get the Union on board, i think it deserves a big old "no" from me.  but, i had my mind made up months ago.  so, as i see it, this only helps solidify the "no" argument.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

espringers, NDFB are the ones who petitioned for the measure. ..

http://www.ndfb.org/?id=192

J

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

If passed Will this trump the industrial Hemp laws ?   no doubt it will be challenged by someone.   From the seeds You get 10 times as much petro per acre as corn  and you can actually make cars and many other items out of the by product.   The by product if used for pressed particle board produces more material on one acre in one year than many acres of trees that take 30 years to grow. This is just to simple to not understand once you look into it. I have been waiting for years for just one good reason why ag producers should not be allowed to grow industrial hemp.   Am I crazy ?? Or is it the feds that are crazy .   

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Geothermal Said:
...Am I crazy ?? Or is it the feds that are crazy...   

probably both.  lol.  but, i am with you on the industrial hemp issue.  either way, i don't think this measure is a way around the federal regs cause i think they would trump our state constitution on this issue.  but, i may be mistaken cause there might be a difference between your run of the mill initiative and one that is constitutional in nature.  and without being sure, i would rather not comment on it i guess.  and even if i am right, it would still come down to enforcement... think medical marijuana... even tho those state laws certainly don't trump the federal laws, they get by with it cause the feds have backed off enforcing their laws in the face of the state's position. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

just watched the video... "some of you may think i'm full of shit..." lol. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me.  Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's.  Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed.  To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess.  All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

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

Wether this is needed in our state constitution or not can indeed be debated. Or wether it was worded the best it could have been ect... .  In other states outside organizations such as the HSUS which is currently right here in ND in another measure HAVE accomplished ending what are "modern livestock production practices" in banning poultry operations and farrow to finish hog operations and veal calf operations. So please do not assume this can not happen.

As I said wether you beleive it could here in ND..................... well ND is indeed different than California, but can you slaughter a horse here in ND? Not if Measure 5 were to pass. And who is behind this measure 5?? HSUS. So they are indeed attempting to influence animal agriculture law and operations even here in ND.

So discuss this all you wish, but please understand this will NOT prevent agriculture from being regulated despite what some people have claimed. Laws will still be able to be passed regarding for example hog farms as to where they may be built, rules they must follow ect.........  as long as the "right" to engage in hog farming in say a farrow to finish operation (the practice itself) is not banned.

As to who determines what is a "modern farming and ranching practice. That will continue to fall upon the legislature just as it now does. The legislature has the right to determine who and what is regulated under the laws they pass. 
 
Even if this measure did what opponanents are saying (and I am not sugesting it may) if the impact on ND was negative, the legislature can and I imagine would vote to overturn it.

As to the "vagueness", indeed it is frustrating but in regards to a constitutional amendment, there are consequences to becoming overly specific as well.

It is great that these measures are discussed. It is the obligation of every voter to inform themselves regarding what they are being asked to vote on. There needs to be questions asked and answered. So please lets try and keep the rhetoric to a minimum if possible and leave the personal accusations of greed and such out of the discussion. 

As a rancher who is somewhat informed and aware of the efforts of various groups to end how I provide for my family, I will vote for this measure. I wish it had been better written to have been less of a concern to voters, but I beleive it will provide far more benefit than it will harm to our state.

At least the sponsors and supporters themselves gathered real signatures to get this on the ballot !!
 

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

espringers Said:
hmm... glad to see the north dakota farmer's union has wised up.  anyone know where the farm bureau stands?  quick search of their website....

http://www.ndfb.org/image/cache/Measure3Focusinsertweb.pdf

isn't that all warm and fuzzy... a kid eating a cob of corn with a big smile on her face and a good ole farmer/rancher with a big smile and a nice hat on... and some references to how voting "no" would endanger our food supply.  lol.

if this measure is everything supporters say it is, why are the Union and Bureau on opposite sides of the issue.
  if you can't even get the Union on board, i think it deserves a big old "no" from me.  but, i had my mind made up months ago.  so, as i see it, this only helps solidify the "no" argument.

espringers, if you had a better understandig of the history between these two orgs, you would realize that it is standard OP for the FU to oppose ANYTHING FB brings forth and vice versa.

Conservative/liberal    Republican/Democrat   ect.....

Why is it you suppose a Democrat opposes a Republican's tax plan?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

gst and tim,

did you guys read the FU's position?  they seem to take the exact opposite position that gst and the FB are taking... quote from the FU webpage and above:

It would prohibit any law —local zoning, state statute, agency regulation from animal cruelty prevention to water/health regulations to GMO regulation or segregation rules — that would regulate agricultural practices. As a result, we will lose local control and the authority to find solutions at the local and state level.

please explain why they would think it will do just what we have always said it would.  if anything, they should be siding with the FB.  the fact that they are not speaks volumes doesn't it?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me.  Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's.  Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed.  To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess.  All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

Tim, this is a bullet from my above posting:

It would prohibit any law —local zoning, state statute, agency regulation from animal cruelty prevention to water/health regulations to GMO regulation or segregation rules — that would regulate agricultural practices.

The way I read the measure, if this passes I can buy some land right on the west edge of Citytownville and put up a big pig barn as long as I'm using modern farming practices. I don't have to get the land zoned agricultural and make sure it fits in with the city planning as long as I'm using up to date practices on my pig barn. 

Slippery slope in my eyes...


J

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

so, gst, you are saying that the farmer's union has a history of stepping on the toes of farmers and ranchers?  strange... since they supported the right to farm statute no? 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me.  Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's.  Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed.  To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess.  All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

My question then is why isn't it worded as so?  The way it is currently worded, which is very vague in my opinion, gives me and many others the impression that there will be no further regulation against the industry from this point on.  I've visited a few individuals deeply rooted in the industry and they agree.

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

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

So please lets try and keep the rhetoric to a minimum if possible and leave the personal accusations of greed and such out of the discussion. 

At least the sponsors and supporters themselves gathered real signatures to get this on the ballot !!
 

How many members does NDFB have? Weren't they able to garner enough signatures from their own members or did they have to go elsewhere to get them? 

J

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

gst Said:

espringers Said:
hmm... glad to see the north dakota farmer's union has wised up.  anyone know where the farm bureau stands?  quick search of their website....

http://www.ndfb.org/image/cache/Measure3Focusinsertweb.pdf

isn't that all warm and fuzzy... a kid eating a cob of corn with a big smile on her face and a good ole farmer/rancher with a big smile and a nice hat on... and some references to how voting "no" would endanger our food supply.  lol.

if this measure is everything supporters say it is, why are the Union and Bureau on opposite sides of the issue.
  if you can't even get the Union on board, i think it deserves a big old "no" from me.  but, i had my mind made up months ago.  so, as i see it, this only helps solidify the "no" argument.

espringers, if you had a better understandig of the history between these two orgs, you would realize that it is standard OP for the FU to oppose ANYTHING FB brings forth and vice versa.

Conservative/liberal    Republican/Democrat   ect.....

Why is it you suppose a Democrat opposes a Republican's tax plan?

Baisically what gabe is saying here is that you are dumb espringers.  In a round about way of course.haha

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

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

gst Said:

At least the sponsors and supporters themselves gathered real signatures to get this on the ballot !!
 

Oh always have to make sure everyone knows about that proverbial "burr in the saddle" don't we there gabe

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

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

wstnodak Said:

Baisically what gabe is saying here is that you are dumb espringers.  In a round about way of course.haha

lmfao... well i didn't take it that way... but, thanks for clarifying.  no need to respond gabe, tis all good. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

espringers Said:
so, gst, you are saying that the farmer's union has a history of stepping on the toes of farmers and ranchers?  strange... since they supported the right to farm statute no? 

No espringers that is NOT what I am saying. What was stated fairly clearly I thought was that regardless of what it is, FU will oppose FB and FB will oppse FU. 

Hatfields and McCoys, Packer fans/Vikings fans, longbow shooters/crossbow shooters

ANYONE that is familiar with these two orgs. knows this.

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me.  Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's.  Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed.  To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess.  All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

Tim, this is a bullet from my above posting:

It would prohibit any law —local zoning, state statute, agency regulation from animal cruelty prevention to water/health regulations to GMO regulation or segregation rules — that would regulate agricultural practices.

The way I read the measure, if this passes I can buy some land right on the west edge of Citytownville and put up a big pig barn as long as I'm using modern farming practices. I don't have to get the land zoned agricultural and make sure it fits in with the city planning as long as I'm using up to date practices on my pig barn. 

Slippery slope in my eyes...


The legislature retains the ability to say WHERE your hog barn can be built as long as they do not pass a law stating it can NOT be built anywhere in ND. This measure will NOT trump current laws that would prohibit you from doing this including set back and odor control laws. 
 
It will not prevent the leislature from passing other laws that regiulate but not prohibit the practice from occuring.

Indeed check out what this measure will do, but to place an overly influencing emphasis on FU response to a FB policy is like asking Obama wether you should support Romney.

These two organizations will literally cut off their own nose to spite each other.

And please consider the die hard members of each will take a similar position regardless.

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

wstnodak Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me.  Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's.  Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed.  To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess.  All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

My question then is why isn't it worded as so?  The way it is currently worded, which is very vague in my opinion, gives me and many others the impression that there will be no further regulation against the industry from this point on.  I've visited a few individuals deeply rooted in the industry and they agree.

I am with gst on this just like the rest of you, the vagueness is rather puzzling but as mentioned again by gst you do not see the Constitution go great into detail either.  Its one of those catch 22's I guess.  I suppose why we have supreme justices to complain about.

But I will say this, if this has the power to just make a free for all I cannot believe with my right mind anyone would even consider it.  I'm guessing there are stipulations to that we are not fully researching.  Just because the US Constitution says I have freedom of speech doesn't mean I am 100% free to be an idiot or I won't get in trouble.

We have the right to bear arms but we all know there are rules galore on that.

The list goes on and on.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

So please lets try and keep the rhetoric to a minimum if possible and leave the personal accusations of greed and such out of the discussion. 

At least the sponsors and supporters themselves gathered real signatures to get this on the ballot !!
 

How many members does NDFB have? Weren't they able to garner enough signatures from their own members or did they have to go elsewhere to get them? 

You would have to ask a supporter that gathered signatues, The ones I know that did collected from both outside the org as well as from members.  
 
I even know a few FU members that signed!!!

And I do apologize for the zing, at least I put a  and a  behind it!

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

gst Said:

espringers Said:
so, gst, you are saying that the farmer's union has a history of stepping on the toes of farmers and ranchers?  strange... since they supported the right to farm statute no? 

No espringers that is NOT what I am saying. What was stated fairly clearly I thought was that regardless of what it is, FU will oppose FB and FB will oppse FU. 

Hatfields and McCoys, Packer fans/Vikings fans, longbow shooters/crossbow shooters

ANYONE that is familiar with these two orgs. knows this.

Not gonna lie, this is true.

Really hits home when you talk farm subsidies.  You'd think everyone on here would be all for the NDFB because of their stance on subsidies.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
Lane's picture
Lane
Offline
Joined: 4/20/02

I am not a farmer and maybe I am wrong but,seems to me they do whatever they like now.

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

Lane Said:
I am not a farmer and maybe I am wrong but,seems to me they do whatever they like now.

Going to need a lot of explanations on this one.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:

wstnodak Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I honestly don't know what this will do other than make it more difficult for those like the HSUS to want to even try to play shenanigans.

The word abridge is sort of the key to me.  Basically keeps things in perspective of farming and ranching practices.

Sure, conspiracy theorist but even North Dakota can have a slow erosion causing wiggle room for the anti's.  Measure 5 is being said to be voted down yet really the same reason you are wanting Measure 5 shot down is why Measure 3 is being asked to be passed.  To stop the anti's from gaining ground...

I don't know, will have to think this through I guess.  All I can say is you'd be pretty foolish if you think this Measure is going to somehow make agriculture 100% unregulated or even make it less regulated than it is now.

I'll make some phone calls to those I lean on for info before I make a hasty decision.

My question then is why isn't it worded as so?  The way it is currently worded, which is very vague in my opinion, gives me and many others the impression that there will be no further regulation against the industry from this point on.  I've visited a few individuals deeply rooted in the industry and they agree.

I am with gst on this just like the rest of you, the vagueness is rather puzzling but as mentioned again by gst you do not see the Constitution go great into detail either.  Its one of those catch 22's I guess.  I suppose why we have supreme justices to complain about.

But I will say this, if this has the power to just make a free for all I cannot believe with my right mind anyone would even consider it.  I'm guessing there are stipulations to that we are not fully researching.  Just because the US Constitution says I have freedom of speech doesn't mean I am 100% free to be an idiot or I won't get in trouble.

We have the right to bear arms but we all know there are rules galore on that.

The list goes on and on.

What needs to be considered is that as a farmer and rancher I do not want my neighbors to be able to operate unregulated or uncontroled any more than they wish me to be able to do so as some suggest this measure will do.
 
I do not wish to have tordon sprayed by my wells or hog barns built directly across the road from my house ect.....

If this measure would allow these things to happen unregulated, there is no way I would support it.

Those of us in agriculture for the most part SUPPORT the ability of the legislature to impose common sense regulations as the alternative is not in our best interests either. If the STATE govt. does not retain the ability to regulate, the FEDERAL govt will step in to do so. It has happened in other states.
 
Therein we lose ALL voice in what regulations we must abide by. We NEED common sense regulation at the state level where EVERY ND voter has a say and chance to testify and impact these state decisions.  This measure supports that.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

but, gst, everything you just said seems to fly in the face of the plain language of the measure.  that is exactly what we have all been saying all along.... that each regulation/issue along with the regulated activity should be able to be debated on its own merits.  this measure seems to fly in the face of the way that process works.  if this measure doesn't do anything to affect the normal legislative and/or regulatory process, then what the fuc& is the point of it? 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

gst Said:

What needs to be considered is that as a farmer and rancher I do not want my neighbors to be able to operate unregulated or uncontroled any more than they wish me to be able to do so as some suggest this measure will do.
 
I do not wish to have tordon sprayed by my wells or hog barns built directly across the road from my house ect.....

If this measure would allow these things to happen unregulated, there is no way I would support it.

Those of us in agriculture for the most part SUPPORT the ability of the legislature to impose common sense regulations as the alternative is not in our best interests either. If the STATE govt. does not retain the ability to regulate, the FEDERAL govt will step in to do so. It has happened in other states.
 
Therein we lose ALL voice in what regulations we must abide by. We NEED common sense regulation at the state level where EVERY ND voter has a say and chance to testify and impact these state decisions.  This measure supports that.

Yup, how I see it.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

espringers Said:
but, gst, everything you just said seems to fly in the face of the plain language of the measure.  that is exactly what we have all been saying all along.... that each regulation/issue along with the regulated activity should be able to be debated on its own merits.  this measure seems to fly in the face of the way that process works.  if this measure doesn't do anything to affect the normal legislative and/or regulatory process, then what the fuc& is the point of it? 

Exactly... why even support it then if it isn't going to change anything from the way it is now?

J

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

I think gst's latest post kind of answered that.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Tim Sandstrom Said:
I think gst's latest post kind of answered that.

what?  where?  holy sh7t am i confused!

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

espringers Said:
but, gst, everything you just said seems to fly in the face of the plain language of the measure.  that is exactly what we have all been saying all along.... that each regulation/issue along with the regulated activity should be able to be debated on its own merits.  this measure seems to fly in the face of the way that process works.  if this measure doesn't do anything to affect the normal legislative and/or regulatory process, then what the fuc& is the point of it? 

espringer, the POINT of the measure is NOT to prevent the citizens of ND from having input into how farming and ranching are regulated, but to prevent them or outside influences from saying farming and ranching practices can not be engaged in.

Of course here in ND the practices of farming and ranching themselves as a whole will not be targeted, but individual "practices" will and can be banned as they have in other states. As I have asked espringers if Measure 5 passes because of it's wording, could you engage in establishing a horse slaughter plant here in ND?

The answer is no. It is the back door purpose behind this measure 5. Death of a horse by insanguination would be a felony. Therefore if this measure 5 were to pass without measure 3 on the books, an accepted ranching practice of selling horses for slaughter would be effectively banned.

So legal scholars argue there is open for interpretation that even if the horse is not slaughtered here in ND, but was sold knowing it's death would occur by insanguination that one could be held responsible. MAybe there is mayge not, who knows what an activist judge will rule. There were proposed Federal statutes to enforce that very situation that were attempted to be included in the Federal Horse Protection Act that would make it illegal to sell a horse knowing it would go to slaughter back a couple of years ago.

Espringers did you even know there was a Federal Horse Protection Act as part of a bigger Animal Welfare Act? The lawyers for HSUS indeed do and know how to entertwine Federal and state laws.   

If a measure was written to regulate how horses are cared for prior to slaughter here in ND, it would be allowed under this Measure 3, but a measure such as 5 effectively banning the practice of slaughter itself would not be constitutional.

Indeed it may be a precedence setting amendment guaranteeing the "right" to engage in an occupation, but given we have guaranteed the "right" to hunt, trap and fish not be taken away is this such a big step?

So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?

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

Maybe I'm missing something because right now anyone can say what they "think" this measure is intended to do but NO ONE can give a definitive answer as to what it potentially could do.

The way it reads to me is that it will end all further regulation in the farming and ranching industry.  Sure, there are laws in place right now that regulate and they will still be there.  But one has to consider how much farming/ranching has evolved in the last 20 yrs to understand what we might be dealing with 20 yrs from today.  Now what happens if there is a modern farming/ranching practice that shows up 10 yrs down the road that you think needs to be regulated gabe?  What are you going to do then?

It really is a non issue as the way it is worded it sounds like a warm fuzzy pro farmer/rancher measure and in ND it will pass with flying colors.  The true color I see in it is gray, and that is my only issue.  If it was worded to put the hammer down on the anti's I would rent a billboard to support it.  The potential harm it could cause the way it is worded now makes me very hesitant. 

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

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

gst Said:
...So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?...

you guys like how i get rid of most of the quote for you?  to answer the question:  no.  but, the language of the 2 measures is completely different.  maybe you best go back to the thread from this spring and read how i explained the difference in great detail in that thread. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

west, unfortunatelyas you say,  the interpretation of what this measure will do has been left out there for people to make claims. As someone who makes my living in agriculture indeed I do not wish to have excessive or agenda driven regulations imposed, but as said, state regulatory abilities are a MUCH better option than the other choice.

So all I can say is I have asked a couple people whom are not in the ag industry whom I respect and are the most knowledgable people I know in gaining some insight legally what this measure will do and both have said as it is worded they beleive the legislature will still retain the ability to regulate agriculture.
 
As Tim has said, to not do so would be fool hardy and ultimately not last anyways as the legislature AND the people can move to overide such an amendment if the negative consequences some claim came to pass. So common sense says why bother to create something that would not be allowed to continue to exist anyway.

Does a claim this measure will allow feedlots or hog barns to be built on rivers or by towns ect.... pass the standard of common sense in that this would be allowed to stand even here in ND????

I encourage everyone to ask questions of someone they beleive will have the proper insight into what this measure will do.

But please realize unfortunately not everyone or every org will give an unbiased fact based answer.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
so, gst, you are saying that the farmer's union has a history of stepping on the toes of farmers and ranchers?  strange... since they supported the right to farm statute no? 

No espringers that is NOT what I am saying. What was stated fairly clearly I thought was that regardless of what it is, FU will oppose FB and FB will oppse FU. 

Hatfields and McCoys, Packer fans/Vikings fans, longbow shooters/crossbow shooters

ANYONE that is familiar with these two orgs. knows this.

This is untrue. They are both members of North Dakotans for Responsible Animal Care (and oppose Measure 5)

They are both opposed to perpetual easements as well.

I can probably grab a lot more but these two were a few I knew off the top of my head. 

J

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

ok... i will bite again for god's sake... and i will take an existing farming and ranching practice... like field tiling for example... lets say some new info comes up that says it has some unintended consequences on surface water quality standards that is severely detrimental to fish, amphibians, whatever... hypothetically... and the state legislature decides they want to ban tiling... if this measure passes, will they be able to ban field tiling?  yes or no?  or would they have to repeal this measure with a 2/3 majority to do so? 

i will answer for you... no, they would not be able to ban field tiling without repealing the measure first. 

why on god's green earth do you think farming and ranching deserves such special treatment?  shouldn't we (the citizens in the case of initiated measures and the legislature in the case of introduced bills, and regulatory agencies) be able to decide each and every issue of initiated measures, legislation, regulations based upon the merits of each without having to repeal a damn constitutional measure to do so or rely on the feds to regulate it for us? 

the only people i've heard defend this measure is farmers and ranchers.  and even then its not all of them.  for god's sake, the farmer's union doesn't even defend it. 

here is another example for you... again... just hypothetical... if we gave the oil industry the same protection and it turned out that fracking put something in our beloved aquifer that made us all grow a third nipple, should we really have to repeal a constitutional measure to get it banned? 

this whole measure is so assinine i am surprised it has made it this far and even though i know its your livelihood and you've defended anything that protects your livelihood continuously on this site, i, for one, can't believe even you would defend a measure like this gabe.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

espringers Said:

gst Said:
...So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?...

you guys like how i get rid of most of the quote for you?  to answer the question:  no.  but, the language of the 2 measures is completely different.  maybe you best go back to the thread from this spring and read how i explained the difference in great detail in that thread. 

espringers "maybe you best" read the ENTIRE text of the measure and not just the last sentence you seem focased on as the first is just as important in the wording within our constitution and interpretation of the measure as a whole .

Espringers what I remember from the thread this spring was after much discussion, you finally admitting this measure as written would NOT prevent the regulation of agriculture as claimed. Perhaps my memory too is failing, but we can revisit it if you wish.

Do you beleive a judge if ruling on the interpretation of this amendment will not consider the very first sentence as to intent? THAT key point is what the two people I asked about this measure pointed out as something many choose to overlook in only focasing on the last sentence.

In regards to constitutional amendments even though they may be vague, all the words do have meaning. So indeed "abridged" has a meaning in context with "engage". And so the first statement "The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state."
sets the basis for the second to be interpreted by.
"No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."

This is not the resulting interpretation after staying a nite in a Holiday Inn Express, but was the explanation given to me by people far smarter in legal rulings and constitutional interpretations than I.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:
west, unfortunatelyas you say,  the interpretation of what this measure will do has been left out there for people to make claims. As someone who makes my living in agriculture indeed I do not wish to have excessive or agenda driven regulations imposed, but as said, state regulatory abilities are a MUCH better option than the other choice.

So all I can say is I have asked a couple people whom are not in the ag industry whom I respect and are the most knowledgable people I know in gaining some insight legally what this measure will do and both have said as it is worded they beleive the legislature will still retain the ability to regulate agriculture.
 
As Tim has said, to not do so would be fool hardy and ultimately not last anyways as the legislature AND the people can move to overide such an amendment if the negative consequences some claim came to pass. So common sense says why bother to create something that would not be allowed to continue to exist anyway.

Does a claim this measure will allow feedlots or hog barns to be built on rivers or by towns ect.... pass the standard of common sense in that this would be allowed to stand even here in ND????

I encourage everyone to ask questions of someone they beleive will have the proper insight into what this measure will do.

But please realize unfortunately not everyone or every org will give an unbiased fact based answer.

Are you familiar at all with right to farm laws in ND or any other state for the matter? I'll keep it simple with just one question. 

J

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
so, gst, you are saying that the farmer's union has a history of stepping on the toes of farmers and ranchers?  strange... since they supported the right to farm statute no? 

No espringers that is NOT what I am saying. What was stated fairly clearly I thought was that regardless of what it is, FU will oppose FB and FB will oppse FU. 

Hatfields and McCoys, Packer fans/Vikings fans, longbow shooters/crossbow shooters

ANYONE that is familiar with these two orgs. knows this.

This is untrue. They are both members of North Dakotans for Responsible Animal Care (and oppose Measure 5)

They are both opposed to perpetual easements as well.

I can probably grab a lot more but these two were a few I knew off the top of my head. 

iluvswand, can you "grab" a measure or bill that NDFB has written or intoroduced that NDFU has endorsed?

Possibly there are but I can not recall any of the top of my head.

Yes there are policies that both beleive are  mutually beneficial to agriculture as they are BOTH agricultural orgs and I should not have used the word "regardless", but one would be hard pressed to suggest these two orgs "support" what the other one comes up with. There is a long history of one saying tit the other saying tat.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

 So it's unanimous, "No on #3" ???

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

Indeed it may be a precedence setting amendment guaranteeing the "right" to engage in an occupation, but given we have guaranteed the "right" to hunt, trap and fish not be taken away is this such a big step?

So espringers does the fact we have a constitutional amendment to guarantee the "right" to hunt mean laws can not be passed regulating the act of hunting?

I'm so glad you brought this up! That is ND Constitution, Article XI, Section 27 and it has a saving clause in it that reads:

"Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good."

That last little blip is the key. Measure 3 has no savings clause in the language so it would appear to be directed against state regulation. 

Hell, one of the drafters, Eric Aasmundstad was quoted saying "two key words are 'modern' and 'abridge' because they allow the industry to continually develop and use updated technology and practices, and no laws could deny producers that right."




J

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

frankly i don't care if it prevents regulation or the outright banning of a practice.  your industry deserves no special protection from either.  take a look at my examples above.  you already have your warm and fuzzy right to farm statute.  you certainly don't need protection from legislation or regulation of any potentially harmful "modern farming or ranching practice" anymore than the coal industry does, the oil industry does, the natural gas industry does, the medical industry does.... get the point... defend the possibility of interpreting the wording of this measure all you want with your interpretation or the interpretation of your friends.  but, the simple fact of the matter is that you are asking for special treatment.  if your interpretation is right, then the measure is pointless.  if our interpretation is right, then we've opened a can of worms and dumped them down a slippery slope... you get my point. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

espringers Said:
ok... i will bite again for god's sake... and i will take an existing farming and ranching practice... like field tiling for example... lets say some new info comes up that says it has some unintended consequences on surface water quality standards that is severely detrimental to fish, amphibians, whatever... hypothetically... and the state legislature decides they want to ban tiling... if this measure passes, will they be able to ban field tiling?  yes or no?  or would they have to repeal this measure with a 2/3 majority to do so? 

i will answer for you... no, they would not be able to ban field tiling without repealing the measure first. 

why on god's green earth do you think farming and ranching deserves such special treatment?  shouldn't we (the citizens in the case of initiated measures and the legislature in the case of introduced bills, and regulatory agencies) be able to decide each and every issue of initiated measures, legislation, regulations based upon the merits of each without having to repeal a damn constitutional measure to do so or rely on the feds to regulate it for us? 

the only people i've heard defend this measure is farmers and ranchers.  and even then its not all of them.  for god's sake, the farmer's union doesn't even defend it. 

here is another example for you... again... just hypothetical... if we gave the oil industry the same protection and it turned out that fracking put something in our beloved aquifer that made us all grow a third nipple, should we really have to repeal a constitutional measure to get it banned? 

this whole measure is so assinine i am surprised it has made it this far and even though i know its your livelihood and you've defended anything that protects your livelihood continuously on this site, i, for one, can't believe even you would defend a measure like this gabe.

espringers  no they would not be able to pass a law banning field tiling.

However would the legislature be able to enact a law stating that field tiling can not occur where by water from said tile enters surface water whereby negative consequences to reptiles amphibians ect...yadayadayada  legal ease....  occur?

Yes they would. And so while no the legislature would not be able to enact laws banning practices they would be able to pass laws regulating them for causing the negatives to happen.

So espringers will this measure prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture as some claim?

If I recall correctly espringers this was the direction the previous discussion took even including the third nipple example.

So bottom line espringers will this measure prevent the state legislature from regulating agriculture?

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:
west, unfortunatelyas you say,  the interpretation of what this measure will do has been left out there for people to make claims. As someone who makes my living in agriculture indeed I do not wish to have excessive or agenda driven regulations imposed, but as said, state regulatory abilities are a MUCH better option than the other choice.

So all I can say is I have asked a couple people whom are not in the ag industry whom I respect and are the most knowledgable people I know in gaining some insight legally what this measure will do and both have said as it is worded they beleive the legislature will still retain the ability to regulate agriculture.
 
As Tim has said, to not do so would be fool hardy and ultimately not last anyways as the legislature AND the people can move to overide such an amendment if the negative consequences some claim came to pass. So common sense says why bother to create something that would not be allowed to continue to exist anyway.

Does a claim this measure will allow feedlots or hog barns to be built on rivers or by towns ect.... pass the standard of common sense in that this would be allowed to stand even here in ND????

I encourage everyone to ask questions of someone they beleive will have the proper insight into what this measure will do.

But please realize unfortunately not everyone or every org will give an unbiased fact based answer.

Are you familiar at all with right to farm laws in ND or any other state for the matter? I'll keep it simple with just one question. 

Yes

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/28895/ND_42-04-01.htm

Pages