Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

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

Excellent. Have you gotten any insight from your "legal minds" as to what effect the proposed measure will have on our current right to farm laws? 

Do you disagree with our current farm laws that you think we need this additional measure? 

J

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

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."




No law could deny that right of engaging in the practice, but could that "right" be regulated if it is causation of  "public or private nusiance" to end said "public or private nusiance" ?

I'm "so glad you brought up "the right to farm language within the NDCC as it shows the legislatures ability to define what is a farming practice and what will fall under it's regulatory scope as written in the state century code.

You guys do not seem to be willing to consider that this measure as well has a "savings clause" to be used in a judicial interpretation of intent of it's scope in the very first sentence in the usage of the word "engage".

I would bet any lawyer worth their salt would be able to argue the "intent" of this constitutional amendment was to prevent banning of the "engaging" in the practice not banning regulation of said practice in supporting the legislatures right to regulate ag after this measures passsage.

Like I said from the start, I wish this measure would have been worded better, but simply because it is not does not man there is some great conspiracy factor by the states most hated ag org by some to end regulation of agriculture.

Gotta go cook fish at a community fish fry. Fresh Canadian walleye!! We will "engage" later.

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

gst Said:

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

yes... if the regulation has the effect of "abridging" any modern farming or ranching practice.  and abridge does not equate to ban.  in case you haven't looked it up lately.

Abridge
verb
1.
to reduce the length of (a written work) by condensing or rewriting
2. to curtail; diminish
3. (Law) Archaic to deprive of (privileges, rights, etc.)

Abridge:  Verb: 

1. reduce in scope while retaining essential elements
2.  lessen, diminish, or curtail;  example:  "the new regulation might abridge our ability to engage in the practice of field tiling.

so... given the definition of abridge... we wouldn't be able to pass any regulation at all that would even lessen the scope of your ability to lay field tile under the example you gave above

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

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

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

Excellent. Have you gotten any insight from your "legal minds" as to what effect the proposed measure will have on our current right to farm laws? 

Do you disagree with our current farm laws that you think we need this additional measure? 

Not much of any effect. 

More that it would fit nicely with them.

Where in our "right to farm laws" does there exist the language to prevent a Measure 5 that will effectively ban horse slaughter?

Or had the wording been slightly different ban say a veal operation?

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

The bottom line is this is a terribly written measure and for the life of me I don't know how in sam hell it got on the ballot.  However, the way it is written and because it made it to the ballot, it will most likey be inserted into the ND state constitution.  After it is adopted, in the farming/ranching industry,  ...."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 a dangerous ammendment folks.  We're not talking about a little mom and pop industry here.  This is the largest industy in ND and now as long as they can prove any "activity" as modern farming and ranching there is no way that there can be a law devised against it.  Unless it comes from the feds right?  Well, we all know how well that would work if something needed to be regulated in short order.lol

I would think most farmers/ranchers would see this as potentially dangerous to their operation!!!?

Hell, maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way but in comprehending the writing of it at this point I don't think so.

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:

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

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

Excellent. Have you gotten any insight from your "legal minds" as to what effect the proposed measure will have on our current right to farm laws? 

Do you disagree with our current farm laws that you think we need this additional measure? 

Not much of any effect. 

More that it would fit nicely with them.

Where in our "right to farm laws" does there exist the language to prevent a Measure 5 that will effectively ban horse slaughter?

Or had the wording been slightly different ban say a veal operation?

When you say horse slaughter do you mean you can't slaughter your own horse right?  Isn't horse slaughter already banned?  That is a whole other issue that I guarantee we agree on.

We also agree that measure 5 is bullshit.

Where we disagree is the fact that measure 3 has the potential to be BAD NEWS for everyone in ND.....including you 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... you are not reading this wrong.  and if there are legal beagles giving gabe advice to the contrary they are dead WRONG.  and i will argue it till i am blue in the face with them via private email if gabe wants to give me their names in a PM.  attorneys have been known to tell their clients what they want to hear.... and in this case... what gabe wants the public to hear.  but, his interpretation that just so happens to be extremely favorable to getting a measure passed that he is extremely in favor of is WRONG... and i will go to my grave arguing otherwise. 

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

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

espringers Said:

gst Said:

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

yes... if the regulation has the effect of "abridging" any modern farming or ranching practice.  and abridge does not equate to ban.  in case you haven't looked it up lately.

Abridge
verb
1.
to reduce the length of (a written work) by condensing or rewriting
2. to curtail; diminish
3. (Law) Archaic to deprive of (privileges, rights, etc.)

Abridge:  Verb: 

1. reduce in scope while retaining essential elements
2.  lessen, diminish, or curtail;  example:  "the new regulation might abridge our ability to engage in the practice of field tiling.

so... given the definition of abridge... we wouldn't be able to pass any regulation at all that would even lessen the scope of your ability to lay field tile under the example you gave above

espringers yet once agin you seem to be dismissing the very first prepatroy sentence as to what the intentof this measure is under which the second sentence can be interpreted as to teh scope of this measure.

Lets at least be fair and consider the measure in it;s entire context okay?

2. lessen, diminish, or curtail; example: "the new regulation might abridge our ability to engage in the practice of field tiling.

But will it prevent the "right" to "engage"?

The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state."

Yes or no?

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

the first sentence is the feel good introduction sentence... there is no wording in that sentence related to prevention or abridgment.  the second sentence lays out those parameters.  the first sentence of your measure is no different than the beginning of the hunting and fishing measure... "Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage..."  it just lays out why we are doing what we want to do.  the real teeth of the measure is in the 2nd part of measure 3 that lays out the actual parameters... "No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices". 

how bout this... you go cook some fish, talk to your attorneys again, hand them the measure along with the definition of abridge (cause i admit i hadn't looked it up in years) and then ask them to give you an honest opinion.  come back here and tell us what they have to say... pallleasse!

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

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

espringers Said:
wstnodak... you are not reading this wrong.  and if there are legal beagles giving gabe advice to the contrary they are dead WRONG.  and i will argue it till i am blue in the face with them via private email if gabe wants to give me their names in a PM.  attorneys have been known to tell their clients what they want to hear.... and in this case... what gabe wants the public to hear.  but, his interpretation that just so happens to be extremely favorable to getting a measure passed that he is extremely in favor of is WRONG... and i will go to my grave arguing otherwise. 

West,  horse slaughter is NOT already banned, in fact Obama reinstated the inspection of the plants which is how it was stopped previously.

Measure 5 will ban a "modern ranching practice" of slaughtering a horse thru the process of insanguination  that is used during slaughter.

espringers not only is west incorrect about the horse slaughter statement he makes, but  you are as well  about me being a "client" of these legal professionals.

If you have legal verbage  that proves what these professionals have shared as friends with me is incorrect, please share PUBLICALLY what it is.

Unless you choose to share what disproves what has been suggested what choice do we have but to beleive it is as inaccurate as wests claim horse slaughter is already illegal.
 
Perhaps if I knew you personally as well as I do the friends I have talked with, I could place more faith in your claims, but as I do not please forgive me for asking for actual documentation to prove what you are willing to "take to your grave".

And espringers, I do not make a habit of giving the names of my friends out to people I have never met to "argue with till they are blue in the face". Hopefully you can understand.

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

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

Excellent. Have you gotten any insight from your "legal minds" as to what effect the proposed measure will have on our current right to farm laws? 

Do you disagree with our current farm laws that you think we need this additional measure? 

Not much of any effect. 

More that it would fit nicely with them.

Where in our "right to farm laws" does there exist the language to prevent a Measure 5 that will effectively ban horse slaughter?

Or had the wording been slightly different ban say a veal operation?

When you say horse slaughter do you mean you can't slaughter your own horse right?  Isn't horse slaughter already banned?  That is a whole other issue that I guarantee we agree on.

We also agree that measure 5 is bullshit.

Where we disagree is the fact that measure 3 has the potential to be BAD NEWS for everyone in ND.....including you gabe.

west, I have stated that if you or anyone else can actually prove this measure will end regulation of ag beyond an opinion, I would not support it.

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

espringers Said:
the first sentence is the feel good introduction sentence... there is no wording in that sentence related to prevention or abridgment.  the second sentence lays out those parameters.  the first sentence of your measure is no different than the beginning of the hunting and fishing measure... "Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage..."  it just lays out why we are doing what we want to do.  the real teeth of the measure is in the 2nd part of measure 3 that lays out the actual parameters... "No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices". 

how bout this... you go cook some fish, talk to your attorneys again, hand them the measure along with the definition of abridge (cause i admit i hadn't looked it up in years) and then ask them to give you an honest opinion.  come back here and tell us what they have to say... pallleasse!

espringers if I actually thought you were open minded enough to look at this unbiased, it might be worth the effort, but it is pretty clear you will not. As a lawyer, you should have the ability to actually provide everyone on here written documentation beyond your opinion of what you claim to be true if this is that important to you. Will you do this?  

Also your statements in this thread regarding this measure sheds a little insight into wether you ever actually could look at this from a different perspective.

espringers I understand that to you, my opinion means nothing more than yours does to me as we have never met to establish a trust in ones opinion.

I have said espringers if you can provide actual factual proof of what you say as someone I have never met is true beyond an "opinion" I would not support this measure, is there ANY way you ever would support it if it is proven it will not prevent the regulation of agriculture????? 

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

Do what I asked and get back to me. I didn't really expect their names. Given the plain language of the measure and the definition of abridge, I find it nearly impossible to formulate a legal argument to the contrary. U could have them put their response in an email and just cut and paste it here. Or u could have them come on this site and explain it themselves if they choose.

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

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

espringers Said:
 attorneys have been known to tell their clients what they want to hear.... and in this case... what gabe wants the public to hear. 

one last thing to consider while I am off cooking fish.

Espringers if what you claim above is true about lawyers, as a lawyer yourself, how can we know you are not telling people on FBO what you beleive they want to hear regarding this measure or what you wish the public to hear for your own reasons?

Apparrently according to you, the importance of honesty is not a very high priority in your profession.

So why would anyone expect you to beleive what was said given what you wrote here. Indeed someone you acuse of lying should come on here and put themselves thru the abuse in person???

Espringers people can take wha tis written here for what it is worth. I have stated I am not a legal professional, only what as been shared with me. If you as a legal professional have the ability to provide fatual proof this measure will prevent the regulation of agriculture please do so beyond your "opinion".
 
Asit stands one person's opinion  who people have never met is as valued as another.

At the very least go back and answer the questions asked.

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

Cause I've got no dog in this fight and no reason to twist my interpretation to make anyone happy or to take home a paycheck. My family and close friends are farmers and ranchers. The contribution u guys make to this state and country is immeasurable. but that doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade even if it might offend them.

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

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

espringers Said:
Cause I've got no dog in this fight and no reason to twist my interpretation to make anyone happy or to take home a paycheck. My family and close friends are farmers and ranchers. The contribution u guys make to this state and country is immeasurable. but that doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade even if it might offend them.

If you notice in what I wrote, neither do  the people I know that have shared thier opinion.

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

Sorry for the doubt.... But, eye am starting to question who the leyewyers are who are giving u their eyepinion. Lol. Sereyesly...

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

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

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
 attorneys have been known to tell their clients what they want to hear.... and in this case... what gabe wants the public to hear. 

one last thing to consider while I am off cooking fish.

Espringers if what you claim above is true about lawyers, as a lawyer yourself, how can we know you are not telling people on FBO what you beleive they want to hear regarding this measure or what you wish the public to hear for your own reasons?

Apparrently according to you, the importance of honesty is not a very high priority in your profession.

So why would anyone expect you to beleive what was said given what you wrote here. Indeed someone you acuse of lying should come on here and put themselves thru the abuse in person???

Espringers people can take wha tis written here for what it is worth. I have stated I am not a legal professional, only what as been shared with me. If you as a legal professional have the ability to provide fatual proof this measure will prevent the regulation of agriculture please do so beyond your "opinion".
 
Asit stands one person's opinion  who people have never met is as valued as another.

At the very least go back and answer the questions asked.

OMG, gst if you know as much as you claim about this then you probably well aware of all the logical fallacies you've used in this discussion! Holy smokes man! You would make an excellent politician, you can twist any information into what you want it to sound like and then spew it out into a forum. 

J

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

 

espringers Said:
Sorry for the doubt.... But, eye am starting to question who the leyewyers are who are giving u their eyepinion. Lol. Sereyesly...

eye agree with you, but we need to maybe give his claim a little more credit... he claimed that the people who told him these things know a lot more about the legal aspects than he did, that doesn't necessarily tell us what level of knowledge was required for their legal opinions. 

J

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

guys, it is easy, provide some proof of what you claim that this will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture outside of an "opinion" .

Can you? espringers you are a legal profesional can you provide anyhting, contact the State AG for an official opinion? Anything?

Can anyone provide an oppostion statement from a legislator that claims this will prevent them from passing laws regulating agriculture?

How about an urban legislator looking to gain urban votes have they took an opposing stance against this measure because of what you guys claim it will do? What dog would they have in this fight? How about the ND AG's office, have they suggested it will prevent the passage of any laws regulating agriculture? Anything?

I'm asking here guys.

Otherwise opinions are all that exists from BOTH sides and people can choose to beleive what they wish.

As I have said, I will choose to put my trust in people I actually know and have met outside of an internet site.

I suggest others do the same.

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

gst Said:

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.

I have no idea how I'll vote on this measure.  But I have to tell ya, your stance on this measure sounds exactly like the stance supports of abolishing property taxes took. 

 

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

U ate overcomplicating this subject if u can't read the measure and the definition of abridge and formulate ur own opinion on this. It doesn't take a lawyer to decipher language that is this clear.

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

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

But, only a lawyer and/or gst could find something to argue about iwhen it seems clear to 99% of the rest of the world.

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

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

wstnodak said,

The bottom line is this is a terribly written measure and for the life of me I don't know how in sam hell it got on the ballot. 

Over 26 thousand signatures were needed. I helped collect about 500. People know the score. They signed without hesitation.

The very last amendment added to the States Constitution defines marriage as that between a man and a woman.

It's all a very sad sign of the times.

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

espringers will this measure prevent the state legislature from passing laws regulating agriculture as claimed. Yes or no.

sportsman  |'s picture
sportsman |
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09

 Ironic an initiated measure by a special interest group is being used to try and amend our constitution as a preventative measure against other special interest groups that might try and use the initiated measure process. 

If the Legislature is the best way to pass laws, why isn't this going that route?

It's not that bad.

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

espringers Said:

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

probably both. 

Trust me on this one,   Anyone that thinks growing Industrial hemp should still be against the law in the United States is either Ignorant on the subject or crazy as a pet coon. 

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

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

sportsman | Said:
 Ironic an initiated measure by a special interest group is being used to try and amend our constitution as a preventative measure against other special interest groups that might try and use the initiated measure process. 

If the Legislature is the best way to pass laws, why isn't this going that route?

I was thinking the same thing.  There is a great double standard at work here.  I remember past initiatives some of the same people here complained about how broad they were worded.  The truth is none were worded as nebulous as this measure.  In the past it was a bad thing, now we are told measures should not be worded to specific.

We are also told to rely on our legislature to keep things under control if this passes.  Are you kidding me rely on our legislature?  That's putting the fox in charge of the hen house.  I wish there was a form of government somewhere between Obama's communism and our legislatures ag-money worship.

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

Fritz the Cat Said:
wstnodak said,

The bottom line is this is a terribly written measure and for the life of me I don't know how in sam hell it got on the ballot. 

Over 26 thousand signatures were needed. I helped collect about 500. People know the score. They signed without hesitation.

The very last amendment added to the States Constitution defines marriage as that between a man and a woman.

It's all a very sad sign of the times.

Ya.  I was at a meeting last fall that was not even remotely related to anything in the ag industry or to the sportsman.  The speaker  was collecting signatures like you.  He said something along the liines of, "when you are done here I have something you should all sign that is good for ND and the ND farmer."  Very vague just like the measure.  Most there didn't even read the first paragraph of the measure and signed it right after they signed the attendance sheet for the meeting.

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

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

Plainsman Said:

sportsman | Said:
 Ironic an initiated measure by a special interest group is being used to try and amend our constitution as a preventative measure against other special interest groups that might try and use the initiated measure process. 

If the Legislature is the best way to pass laws, why isn't this going that route?

I was thinking the same thing.  There is a great double standard at work here.  I remember past initiatives some of the same people here complained about how broad they were worded.  The truth is none were worded as nebulous as this measure.  In the past it was a bad thing, now we are told measures should not be worded to specific.

We are also told to rely on our legislature to keep things under control if this passes.  Are you kidding me rely on our legislature?  That's putting the fox in charge of the hen house.  I wish there was a form of government somewhere between Obama's communism and our legislatures ag-money worship.


Bruce you may call it "ag money worship" others call it consideration of the impact agriculture has on communities and people here in ND. I guess it is the difference in perspectives between those people that step up and work for what is best for the entire state, or those that complain about it on internet sites.

Plainsman you do realize there are differing types of measures correct? One type ends up as statutes in the NDCC and the other type ends up as amendments to our constitution. Century Code measures need to be fairly specific as they are state law and should not be left to judicial interpretation. Amendment measures probably should not be TOO specific as it opens up the probablity of judicial challenges.

The point is there are differeces in how the two differing types of measures should be worded. .

This measure states no laws maybe passed that prevent farming or ranching from engaging in modern practices.   As we have seen in the "right to farm" section of the century code that has been referenced, the legislature has the ability to determine what is a "modern farming and ranching practice. They also despite some people claims will continue to be able to regulate agriculture practices thru the passage of laws controling these practices.

So in essense, this measure is not as "vague" as some might beleive.

Can someone list a farming or ranching practice so henious it has had to be stopped?

If people beleive an industry such as agriculture should not be given a special priveldege over any other here in ND and so oppose this measure that is one thing. But to oppose it because of claims some with a ax to grind agaist the org that brought it forth make they can not prove as true is another.

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

sportsman | Said:
 Ironic an initiated measure by a special interest group is being used to try and amend our constitution as a preventative measure against other special interest groups that might try and use the initiated measure process. 

If the Legislature is the best way to pass laws, why isn't this going that route?

It's not that uncommon.

Do you belevie some people would be any less opposed had this amendment been passed thru the leislature given their veiw of the legislature?

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

It's getting my NO.  I don't see it as broken so bad that we need something like this. And there's always some unscrupulous operators who need to be put in check every now and then.

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

I think agriculture is like any other business gst.  No better, no worse.  In all businesses you will find a few mavericks that need to be reined in.  That's what regulations are for.  With the chemicals and heavy machinery it makes agriculture one to watch more than some others.  Not because of the people who farm and ranch, but because of the impact they can have. 

Fritz mentioned the definition of marriage that we have in North Dakota and how society has gone down hill.  I agree with him completely, and think that is the very reason we need regulations.  It's not that farmers are not as good as anyone else, but society as a whole don't consider their neighbor as they should, and that includes farmers. 

I don't think I am any better so please don't go back to the old ag bashing bull droppings again.

Farmboy Jeff's picture
Farmboy Jeff
Offline
Joined: 10/10/12

There is so much misinformation posted below in regard to Measure 3 that I'm not sure if it is even worth my time to offer the facts.  In looking through the threads on different topics, it appears there are very few people who participate in posting comments on this site, and the viewpoints expressed seem extremely closed-minded.

However, I will give it a whirl anyway.  I helped gather over 3,700 signatures for the Measure 3 initiative, because I know the language was specifically drafted to prevent PETA and HSUS from coming into our state to ban certain PRACTICES.  This measure has NOTHING to do with zoning authority, avoiding laws, or nearly all of the other false accusations that are made below.  The last word of the last sentence of the measure is PRACTICES.  Having the right to employ PRACTICES and TECHNOLOGY in farming and ranching...SHOULD YOU SO CHOOSE TO USE THESE PRACTICES OR TECHNOLOGY.  And if you don't, this measure doesn't hurt you.  If you want to grow organic crops, that is wonderful.  If you want to sell hormone-free beef, have at it!  This measure doesn't require ANYONE to use these practices and technologies.  It protects THE RIGHT TO USE THEM, so PETA and HSUS cannot attempt to ban the use of practices like branding (for animal identification), use of farrowing crates (so baby pigs don't get smashed and the sow doesn't eat her afterbirth and piglets), and castration (so animals don't breed their penmates).

Too many of you are reading things into the 2 sentences in the measure.  The sentences are VERY CLEAR, and are focused on PRACTICES and the use of TECHNOLOGY.  Please do not read more into this than it is.  I cannot believe sportsmen would attack a ballot measure that is trying to keep PETA and HSUS out of our state!  What are you thinking?!?!?

Vote YES on Measure 3.  Join me in telling PETA and HSUS to take their pro-vegan and vegetarian movement somewhere other than North Dakota!

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

Has PETA or HSUS been successful in blocking or outlawing animal husbandry in other states?

 

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

Vote YES on Measure 3. Join me in telling PETA and HSUS to take their pro-vegan and vegetarian movement somewhere other than North Dakota!

I'm all for that, but it goes beyond PETA and HSUS.  It would not allow fellow citizens or even scientists that find problems to outlaw practices or technology that harms others.  If this law was in place 40 years ago we would still have DDT killing more than it's target species.  
NDSportsman.'s picture
NDSportsman.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/13/03

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

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

guywhofishes Said:
Has PETA or HSUS been successful in blocking or outlawing animal husbandry in other states?

Yes 
http://www.independent.com/news/2010/jul/19/cage-free-california/
From this link

I asked Heller what the ideal world for chicken farms would look like: “I would like to see much more stringent standards,” she said. “Chickens freely grazing, able to take baths, able to roost, able to nest — all the natural behaviors chickens behave in.”

Heller knows, as does Shapiro, that the Prop 2/A.B. 1437 legislation is a step, not a finish line. Furthermore, with enforcement scheduled for 2015, it would be imprudent to count one’s chickens before they hatch

The wording used to pass this ballot initiative was to ban caged operations that do not allow animals to stand or turn around. 

Hey who wouldn;t support that right? 

Guess what California already had state laws in place to enforce that. The pictures used to pass this were not taken in Ca but rather other states such as Maine. Even then the pictures used to portray the confinement of caged laying hens was not even that of caged laying hens, but rather broilers caged for shipping to butcher. 

Honesty, and facts????

Hardly

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/07/chickens-eggs-proposition-2-ab-1437.html

Note the comment at the end of this article. 
By the way, the photo above is not of California chickens but of their counterparts in Maine, and accompanied a story about the Humane Society's campaign against cruelty to the birds in that state -- just in case there was any question about the society keeping up the fight after its California victory.

There are pushes in several other states targeting the poultry and hog operations as well that have gained consecessions as one step to the admitted end goal, the abolishion of what is termed "factory farming"  Please note that right here in ND the feedlot that finishes the beef we all like are classified as "factory farms" by the HSUS and PETA.

And now right here in ND we have a measure written by the very same org in the very same manner,  who would not support holding those that commit cruelties upon animals to serious standards. 

There is ALWAYS the Paul Harvey rest of the story when this org is involved.  

I can understand why people not directly connected to making their living in animal agriculture operations will not have as detailed understanding and knowledge about what these orgs are accomplishing, HOW they are accomplishing it and what their agendas are
to accomplish more. 

What is being asked is do not dismiss the concerns of those of us that make our livihoods in animal agriculture who DO know firsthand what threats animal ag, most commonly refered to as "factory farming" is facing as "greed" as some seem to always do.
 
Sometimes as stated by farmboy jeff, these measures are what they seem.
 

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

Plainsman Said:

Vote YES on Measure 3. Join me in telling PETA and HSUS to take their pro-vegan and vegetarian movement somewhere other than North Dakota!

I'm all for that, but it goes beyond PETA and HSUS.  It would not allow fellow citizens or even scientists that find problems to outlaw practices or technology that harms others.  If this law was in place 40 years ago we would still have DDT killing more than it's target species.  

Your emboldened statement is simply nothing more than bullshit.
1. the ban on DDT was a Federal ruling which this STATE measure will not affect
2. There is NOTHING in the wording of this measure that states usage of a certain chemical can not be restricted or even discontinued as long as the practice of using  chemicals is not banned.

These bullshit  "claims" are really no different than HSUS using pictures of Maine broilers caged for shipment to slaughter in fooling people into beleiveing something that is not true regarding laying hens in California.

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

HUNTNFISHND Said:

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

As long as the state legislature is still able to create and impose reasonable regulations as they will if this measure passes, yes.

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
There is so much misinformation posted below in regard to Measure 3 that I'm not sure if it is even worth my time to offer the facts.  In looking through the threads on different topics, it appears there are very few people who participate in posting comments on this site, and the viewpoints expressed seem extremely closed-minded.

However, I will give it a whirl anyway.  I helped gather over 3,700 signatures for the Measure 3 initiative, because I know the language was specifically drafted to prevent PETA and HSUS from coming into our state to ban certain PRACTICES.  This measure has NOTHING to do with zoning authority, avoiding laws, or nearly all of the other false accusations that are made below.  The last word of the last sentence of the measure is PRACTICES.  Having the right to employ PRACTICES and TECHNOLOGY in farming and ranching...SHOULD YOU SO CHOOSE TO USE THESE PRACTICES OR TECHNOLOGY.  And if you don't, this measure doesn't hurt you.  If you want to grow organic crops, that is wonderful.  If you want to sell hormone-free beef, have at it!  This measure doesn't require ANYONE to use these practices and technologies.  It protects THE RIGHT TO USE THEM, so PETA and HSUS cannot attempt to ban the use of practices like branding (for animal identification), use of farrowing crates (so baby pigs don't get smashed and the sow doesn't eat her afterbirth and piglets), and castration (so animals don't breed their penmates).

Too many of you are reading things into the 2 sentences in the measure.  The sentences are VERY CLEAR, and are focused on PRACTICES and the use of TECHNOLOGY.  Please do not read more into this than it is.  I cannot believe sportsmen would attack a ballot measure that is trying to keep PETA and HSUS out of our state!  What are you thinking?!?!?

Vote YES on Measure 3.  Join me in telling PETA and HSUS to take their pro-vegan and vegetarian movement somewhere other than North Dakota!

So we are just supposed to trust you on this one?  If that is what this measure is "specifically" inteded to do then why aren't those two acronyms in the wording of the measure.  I've said it many times before and I will say it again.  IF this measure was worded the right way to keep these idiotic groups out of ND then I would be all for it.  But that is NOT the way it reads and it opens the door for so much more than the supporters will disclose. 

Gabe, you tell us to prove to you how this measure will do the things we say it potentially could.  Well, why don't you PROVE to us that this measure will not potentially do any of the things we claim?

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:

Plainsman Said:

Vote YES on Measure 3. Join me in telling PETA and HSUS to take their pro-vegan and vegetarian movement somewhere other than North Dakota!

I'm all for that, but it goes beyond PETA and HSUS.  It would not allow fellow citizens or even scientists that find problems to outlaw practices or technology that harms others.  If this law was in place 40 years ago we would still have DDT killing more than it's target species.  

Your emboldened statement is simply nothing more than bullshit.
1. the ban on DDT was a Federal ruling which this STATE measure will not affect
2. There is NOTHING in the wording of this measure that states usage of a certain chemical can not be restricted or even discontinued as long as the practice of using  chemicals is not banned.

These bullshit  "claims" are really no different than HSUS using pictures of Maine broilers caged for shipment to slaughter in fooling people into beleiveing something that is not true regarding laying hens in California.

I agree with you gabe on this one.  However, with this measure in place there sure could be a hell of an argument to keep it don't you think?  It very easily could be considered a "modern" farming/ranching practice I'd say.  Sure, it would eventually reach the fed. level and be banned but not after many years of debate I would imagine.

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

NDSportsman.'s picture
NDSportsman.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/13/03

Farmboy Jeff Said:
I cannot believe sportsmen would attack a ballot measure that is trying to keep PETA and HSUS out of our state!  What are you thinking?!?!?

If we vote for this will the "Posted" signs be coming down???

Just joking, as it seems whenever sportsman oppose something that farmers want, we get the threats that everything will be posted, but seldom do we here the opposite.

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

west, so the acronyms HSUS and PETA are specifically included in a constitutional amendment. What happens when these orgs form a subsidarary org titled North Dakotans to Stop Animal Cruelty that is not specifically listed in the amendment language to implement their agendas against animal agriculture?

Please try to understand why constitutional amedments sometimes can not be as specific as we would like .

West if the claims of this measure preventing the state legislature from regulating agriculture are true, can you provide me one state legislator that hsa come out in opposition to this measure for that reason?

Perhaps there has been some I do not know.

One would think that a measure that would actually honestly take away the power of the elected representatives to pass laws regulating an idustry would get a strong opposition form them.

West have you talked with your representatives to see if they beleive the claims made on here such as if this amendment had been in place 40 years ago DDT would still be in use killing things like Bald Eagles and that agriculture will no longer be able to be regulated?

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

gst Said:
west, so the acronyms HSUS and PETA are specifically included in a constitutional amendment. What happens when these orgs form a subsidarary org titled North Dakotans to Stop Animal Cruelty that is not specifically listed in the amendment language to implement their agendas against animal agriculture?

Please try to understand why constitutional amedments sometimes can not be as specific as we would like .

West if the claims of this measure preventing the state legislature from regulating agriculture are true, can you provide me one state legislator that hsa come out in opposition to this measure for that reason?

Perhaps there has been some I do not know.

One would think that a measure that would actually honestly take away the power of the elected representatives to pass laws regulating an idustry would get a strong opposition form them.

West have you talked with your representatives to see if they beleive the claims made on here such as if this amendment had been in place 40 years ago DDT would still be in use killing things like Bald Eagles and that agriculture will no longer be able to be regulated?

I told you already I know that wouldn't be the case gabe.  Something as blatently destructive as that would most definitely be taken care of.

That is a terrible scenerio to use. 

If anyone would have told me 15 years ago that farmers would be using a drain system to drain a quater of land without disrupting the landscape of said land or that tractors would be driving themselves, you and I would have probably laughed.  Now what could come down the pipeline in the next 15-100 years?  Do you think it is possible that there would be a "practice" in the farming/ranching industry that would be considered modern yet need to be regulated?  With this measure in the constitution you will not be able to regulate it.

How about if there is a modern farming/ranching practice that proves to be harmful to the sportsman of ND?  Then what happens?

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

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

Vote YES on Measure 3. Join me in telling PETA and HSUS to take their pro-vegan and vegetarian movement somewhere other than North Dakota!

I'm all for that, but it goes beyond PETA and HSUS.  It would not allow fellow citizens or even scientists that find problems to outlaw practices or technology that harms others.  If this law was in place 40 years ago we would still have DDT killing more than it's target species.  

Your emboldened statement is simply nothing more than bullshit.
1. the ban on DDT was a Federal ruling which this STATE measure will not affect
2. There is NOTHING in the wording of this measure that states usage of a certain chemical can not be restricted or even discontinued as long as the practice of using  chemicals is not banned.

These bullshit  "claims" are really no different than HSUS using pictures of Maine broilers caged for shipment to slaughter in fooling people into beleiveing something that is not true regarding laying hens in California.

I agree with you gabe on this one.  However, with this measure in place there sure could be a hell of an argument to keep it don't you think?  It very easily could be considered a "modern" farming/ranching practice I'd say.  Sure, it would eventually reach the fed. level and be banned but not after many years of debate I would imagine.

Please remember the state legislature under the already existing "right to farm laws" I posted a link to have the ability to define what is a farming or ranching practice. So if the legislature determines the usage of a specific chemical is NOT a modern farming and ranching practice or technology, why would it not be able to be regulated as always?

Think of Round Up and GMO's is the technology or practice the usage of roundup or the genetic modification thaqt allows rundup to be used.

If for some reason it is found that Round Up usage causes cancer, the state legislature, as well as the Feds can move to ban the usage of a specific chemical as long as the practice of using chemicals is not banned completely.

Please consider that in Europe, not only the practices of castration, branding and dehorning that were previously mentioned banned, but so is the usage of GMO's.

The concerns this measure is meant to address are not fantasy boogy men. They are real and being introduced in this country by world wide organizations that are as we speak involved right here in ND creating law.

As to this measure preventing the legislature from regulating agriculture as some are claiming, please stop and consider even if this measure were to pass and for some reason a judge were to rule that was the case (AND I AM NOT SAYING IT IS) The legislature itself has the ability to over ride this initiated measure and remove it from our constitution. So in reality this measure will NOT prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF ALLOWS IT.

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:
west, so the acronyms HSUS and PETA are specifically included in a constitutional amendment. What happens when these orgs form a subsidarary org titled North Dakotans to Stop Animal Cruelty that is not specifically listed in the amendment language to implement their agendas against animal agriculture?

Please try to understand why constitutional amedments sometimes can not be as specific as we would like .

West if the claims of this measure preventing the state legislature from regulating agriculture are true, can you provide me one state legislator that hsa come out in opposition to this measure for that reason?

Perhaps there has been some I do not know.

One would think that a measure that would actually honestly take away the power of the elected representatives to pass laws regulating an idustry would get a strong opposition form them.

West have you talked with your representatives to see if they beleive the claims made on here such as if this amendment had been in place 40 years ago DDT would still be in use killing things like Bald Eagles and that agriculture will no longer be able to be regulated?

I told you already I know that wouldn't be the case gabe.  Something as blatently destructive as that would most definitely be taken care of.

That is a terrible scenerio to use. 

If anyone would have told me 15 years ago that farmers would be using a drain system to drain a quater of land without disrupting the landscape of said land or that tractors would be driving themselves, you and I would have probably laughed.  Now what could come down the pipeline in the next 15-100 years?  Do you think it is possible that there would be a "practice" in the farming/ranching industry that would be considered modern yet need to be regulated?  With this measure in the constitution you will not be able to regulate it.

How about if there is a modern farming/ranching practice that proves to be harmful to the sportsman of ND?  Then what happens?

Indeed the DDT scenario is bogus so drop the DDT calim plainsamn makes and simply answer wether your legislators beleive this will prevent them from regulating agriculture.

As to your emboldened and underlined statement, if something like that could be :"taken care of" as you state, why not other things that are determined to be destructive? You can;t claim one would be able to be "taken care of" and yet say the inability to "take care" of these things is why this measure should be opposed.

west, indeed there may be practices that need to be regulated. How many times have I said this is necessary? Even if this measure passes it would still be able to be "regulated" , this measure would prevent it from being banned from engaging in.

To answer your last question, the legislature determines wether it needs to be regulated and does so accordigly if they beleive the people that elected them wish this and it is best for the state.

Just out of curiousity, west what happens if a "practice" that is engaged in for the benefit of ND sportsmen and hunters is harmful to ag producers?

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

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:
west, so the acronyms HSUS and PETA are specifically included in a constitutional amendment. What happens when these orgs form a subsidarary org titled North Dakotans to Stop Animal Cruelty that is not specifically listed in the amendment language to implement their agendas against animal agriculture?

Please try to understand why constitutional amedments sometimes can not be as specific as we would like .

West if the claims of this measure preventing the state legislature from regulating agriculture are true, can you provide me one state legislator that hsa come out in opposition to this measure for that reason?

Perhaps there has been some I do not know.

One would think that a measure that would actually honestly take away the power of the elected representatives to pass laws regulating an idustry would get a strong opposition form them.

West have you talked with your representatives to see if they beleive the claims made on here such as if this amendment had been in place 40 years ago DDT would still be in use killing things like Bald Eagles and that agriculture will no longer be able to be regulated?

I told you already I know that wouldn't be the case gabe.  Something as blatently destructive as that would most definitely be taken care of.

That is a terrible scenerio to use. 

If anyone would have told me 15 years ago that farmers would be using a drain system to drain a quater of land without disrupting the landscape of said land or that tractors would be driving themselves, you and I would have probably laughed.  Now what could come down the pipeline in the next 15-100 years?  Do you think it is possible that there would be a "practice" in the farming/ranching industry that would be considered modern yet need to be regulated?  With this measure in the constitution you will not be able to regulate it.

How about if there is a modern farming/ranching practice that proves to be harmful to the sportsman of ND?  Then what happens?

Indeed the DDT scenario is bogus so drop the DDT calim plainsamn makes and simply answer wether your legislators beleive this will prevent them from regulating agriculture.

As to your emboldened and underlined statement, if something like that could be :"taken care of" as you state, why not other things that are determined to be destructive? You can;t claim one would be able to be "taken care of" and yet say the inability to "take care" of these things is why this measure should be opposed.

west, indeed there may be practices that need to be regulated. How many times have I said this is necessary? Even if this measure passes it would still be able to be "regulated" , this measure would prevent it from being banned from engaging in.

To answer your last question, the legislature determines wether it needs to be regulated and does so accordigly if they beleive the people that elected them wish this and it is best for the state.

Just out of curiousity, west what happens if a "practice" that is engaged in for the benefit of ND sportsmen and hunters is harmful to ag producers?

You and your cronies throw a holy shit fit, thats what happens!  You have WAAAAYYYY more time on your hands to go lobby and whine to state representatives than 99% of any sportsman in ND.  Your fellow ag producers probably don't as the ones I know and respect are working most of the day instead of sitting on a computer.

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

i don't get it... isn't a regulation an abridgement if it reduces in scope, lessens, curtails, diminishes, etc... your ability to engage in a particular practice to any degree much like you outlined in your field tiling example a few pages back?  you still haven't rectified that scenario with the definition of abridge and the language of the measure.  and isn't that why the farm bureau has taken the stance it has?  or is the farm bureau just blowing smoke up our ass too?  and i completely agree... we shouldn't have to prove shit to you.  you are the one asking us to sign off on a measure that gives your industry treatment that no other one gets... in my opinion the onus is on you to prove it won't do what the clear language tells all of us it will do.  and we won't just take your word for it.  you can start by contacting the farm bureau and explaining your interpretation to them and see what their response is.  as long as one of the biggest farm organizations in this state disagrees with the other, i will continue to err on the side of caution and be voting a big fat NO and explaining my position to anyone who will listen.

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

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:
west, so the acronyms HSUS and PETA are specifically included in a constitutional amendment. What happens when these orgs form a subsidarary org titled North Dakotans to Stop Animal Cruelty that is not specifically listed in the amendment language to implement their agendas against animal agriculture?

Please try to understand why constitutional amedments sometimes can not be as specific as we would like .

West if the claims of this measure preventing the state legislature from regulating agriculture are true, can you provide me one state legislator that hsa come out in opposition to this measure for that reason?

Perhaps there has been some I do not know.

One would think that a measure that would actually honestly take away the power of the elected representatives to pass laws regulating an idustry would get a strong opposition form them.

West have you talked with your representatives to see if they beleive the claims made on here such as if this amendment had been in place 40 years ago DDT would still be in use killing things like Bald Eagles and that agriculture will no longer be able to be regulated?

I told you already I know that wouldn't be the case gabe.  Something as blatently destructive as that would most definitely be taken care of.

That is a terrible scenerio to use. 

If anyone would have told me 15 years ago that farmers would be using a drain system to drain a quater of land without disrupting the landscape of said land or that tractors would be driving themselves, you and I would have probably laughed.  Now what could come down the pipeline in the next 15-100 years?  Do you think it is possible that there would be a "practice" in the farming/ranching industry that would be considered modern yet need to be regulated?  With this measure in the constitution you will not be able to regulate it.

How about if there is a modern farming/ranching practice that proves to be harmful to the sportsman of ND?  Then what happens?

Indeed the DDT scenario is bogus so drop the DDT calim plainsamn makes and simply answer wether your legislators beleive this will prevent them from regulating agriculture.

As to your emboldened and underlined statement, if something like that could be :"taken care of" as you state, why not other things that are determined to be destructive? You can;t claim one would be able to be "taken care of" and yet say the inability to "take care" of these things is why this measure should be opposed.

west, indeed there may be practices that need to be regulated. How many times have I said this is necessary? Even if this measure passes it would still be able to be "regulated" , this measure would prevent it from being banned from engaging in.

To answer your last question, the legislature determines wether it needs to be regulated and does so accordigly if they beleive the people that elected them wish this and it is best for the state.

Just out of curiousity, west what happens if a "practice" that is engaged in for the benefit of ND sportsmen and hunters is harmful to ag producers?

You and your cronies throw a holy shit fit, thats what happens!  You have WAAAAYYYY more time on your hands to go lobby and whine to state representatives than 99% of any sportsman in ND.  Your fellow ag producers probably don't as the ones I know and respect are working most of the day instead of sitting on a computer.

west, how many threads are there on Nodak dedicated to deer or goose depredation as compared to feild tiling farm organizations or farm programs???

how many have you participated in?

Anyway back to the topic of measure 3, please explain how this measure will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture when the legislature itself has the power to prevent that from happening?

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

espringers Said:
i don't get it... isn't a regulation an abridgement if it reduces in scope, lessens, curtails, diminishes, etc... your ability to engage in a particular practice to any degree much like you outlined in your field tiling example a few pages back?  you still haven't rectified that scenario with the definition of abridge and the language of the measure.  and isn't that why the farm bureau has taken the stance it has?  or is the farm bureau just blowing smoke up our ass too?  and i completely agree... we shouldn't have to prove shit to you.  you are the one asking us to sign off on a measure that gives your industry treatment that no other one gets... in my opinion the onus is on you to prove it won't do what the clear language tells all of us it will do.  and we won't just take your word for it.  you can start by contacting the farm bureau and explaining your interpretation to them and see what their response is.  as long as one of the biggest farm organizations in this state disagrees with the other, i will continue to err on the side of caution and be voting a big fat NO and explaining my position to anyone who will listen.

espringers the farm bureau kind of agrees with my "interpretation"

quit completely disregarding the first sentence of the measure, it is there or a reason. What is the "abridgement" meant to do,  regulate how a practice in engaged in or prevent the "right" from it being engaged in .

Espringers perhaps you can answer this question. 

please explain how this measure will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture as is being claimed by some when the legislature itself has the power to prevent that from happening?

Pages