Measure #3

Pages

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

of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... they are doing what their constituents want them to do.  the fact that another farm organization is willing to stand up and say otherwise in the face of consequences from the same constituency speaks more than volumes to me.  and your reasoning that they can still regulate farming by repealing the measure is silly... they shouldn't have to repeal a constitutional measure for crying out loud in order to regulate a harmful modern farming or ranching practice. 

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

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

and i am not disregarding the first sentence.  it is practically pointless in the face of the second sentence.  in my opinion, the first sentence is akin to the legislative intent wording that goes into a regular bill and then is followed up by the actual wording with the teeth.  why i even argue is beyond me.  you will never admit that we have legitimate concerns and will play this game far longer than any of us are willing to do it cause its your livelihood.  let me ask you a question.... lets say this passes and the legislature wants to pass some more regulations on field tiling akin to what you layed out in your earlier scenario in response to my hypothetical... and the regulation has the effect of diminishing or abridging joe farmer's right to engage in field tiling... and joe farmer takes it to court and argues that the legislature has no right to pass that legislation because it is an abridgement on his right to engage in field tiling... will he win in court?  if so, what is the legislative recourse other than to repeal a constitutional measure?  if they repeal the measure for something like that, don't you lose the protection from the real boogeyman (HSUS and PETA) you say this measure is supposed to be protecting you from?  if you don't think he will win in court, please explain why.  and how sure can you be of your answers?  and if you aren't 100% sure one way or the other, why should we be willing to take that chance? 

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

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

gst Said:

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?

HUH?  Are you trying to

gst Said:

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?

Not sure where you are trying to spin this one gabe?  Maybe you are saying we should get rid of the sportsman so we don't kill anymore deer or geese....is that it?

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

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

Howdy guy who fishes.

Yes, PETA and HSUS have had a HUGE (negative) impact on agriculture in California, Arizona, Missouri, Ohio and beyond.  They have either passed ballot measures, or have worked through the fringes to ban a variety of farming and ranching practices.  Proposition 2 in California is a perfect example.  HSUS attacked laying hen facilities.  In California, there are only like 20 major egg producers left.  Thanks to an HSUS ballot measure victory, starting in January of 2015, new cages are going to be required for laying hen facilities...even though University research suggests the hens were most productive and healthy in current-sized cages.  A guy I work with is married to a young lady who has a father with a chicken ranch in California.  He is 1 of the 20 major egg producers left in that state.  He shut down his ranch because it would have cost him approximately $60-100 million to retrofit his old barns with new cages.  At his age (he's 50 something) he decided it wasn't worth it to battle HSUS any longer.  So watch the price of eggs in California!  They banned cages in Switzerland years ago, and that country now has to import 50% of its eggs, and eggs sell for over $8 per dozen!

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

wstnodak,

The only way to prove to you this measure won't destroy your life is...to pass it.  We would literally have to get it passed and you would have to experience life with this language in the constitution to prove to you it is good language.  Having talked to thousands of people in gathering signatures, I believe this measure will pass easily.  So I believe you are going to have the opportunity to see this is effective (and non-harmful) language.

You have obviously made up your mind and you are opposing it.  I'm okay with that, because we don't need every vote.  We just need 50%, plus 1.  And I have more important things to do than try to explain two sentences to you over and over and over again.  I'm going out to put more "vote yes on Measure 3" signs in the ground.

It is easy to be a doubter.  It is easy to be negative.  It is easy to pick holes in things.  It takes guts to actually DO something.  I would like to see YOU draft constitutional language.  I would like to see YOU gather 3,700 signatures.  THEN it would be worth my time to address your endless, repetitive questions.  Gst has done a fine job of explaining this issue about 30 different ways.  If people still don't get it...they never will.  I know in my heart enough people DO get it, and I thank God this measure will keep HSUS and PETA from being able to negatively impact hunting, farming and ranching (and anything else that has to do with meat) in our state.

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

Thanks Huntnfishnd.

I have to tell you...I'm friends to thousands of farmers and ranchers, and have rarely had any of them post up their land...unless there is some specific reason behind it.  Like maybe they are saving it for a relative or friend, or perhaps they had a bad experience.  To this day, I hook up many sportsmen with landowners where I can...as long as they are responsible.  And about 99% of them are.  I'm proud to tell you I have rarely seen a bad experience between the landowners and sportsmen I know. 

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

Jeff why does the Farmers Union claim this measure will do exactly what were all scared it will do?

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

zogman's picture
zogman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/23/02

Farmboy Jeff Said:
wstnodak,

The only way to prove to you this measure won't destroy your life is...to pass it.  We would literally have to get it passed and you would have to experience life with this language in the constitution to prove to you it is good language. 

Wow, you sound just like Nancy Pelosi

I don't think most will buy that again.

"If God didn't want us to hunt, He wouldn't have given us plaid shirts; I only kill in self defense—what would you do if a rabbit pulled a knife on you?"

Floyd R. Turbo

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

Hi Zogman.  I made that statement of sarcasm to prove my point that there is no answer I could provide to him that he would accept, beyond having the measure pass.   

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

 Thanks espringers.  I believe gst most accurately explained it as being a situation where "if Farm Bureau is for it, they're against it."  Measure 5 involves a much more broad-based coalition.  And that is why FU and FB can peacefully coexist there.  However, Farm Bureau did all of the petition work and has funded Measure 3 by itself.  Quite an impressive feat. So I don't know if it is jealousy, or the fact that the two entities have been at odds philosophically for MANY decades straight.  But if it only involves FB, I think you will see a track record of FU opposing it.  The tactic of trying to scare people with an empty threat of "loss of local control" is not going to work here.  Measure 3 is specific to PRACTICES and use of TECHNOLOGY, but only if you so choose to use it.  There are no mandates here.  There is also NO reference to anything beyond practices and technology.  Definitely no reference to zoning.  But there is protection from groups like PETA and HSUS and that was the point of this measure.

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

So far I'm NO on 2, 4, and 5.

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

No offense. But, ur explanations make no sense and answer none of our concerns. Sorry, but they fail under any type of critical thinking or logical analysis.

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

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

Thanks Farmboy!

 

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

Just received my Farm Bureau Focus newsletter.  President Doyle Johannes said:

Johannes says the language is important to get in the Constitution because there are groups trying to fundamentally change agriculture, thereby radically altering food choices.

This measure is about farming practices, like raising chickens in cages, as well as castration, vaccinations, branding and many other modern practices, like biotechnolgy and use of crop protection chemicals, Johannes said. "Losing these practices would decrease our ability to produce food for all of us."

Johannes said the amendment will not limit zoning ordinances or rules and regulations by the state legislature, Congress or government agencies. " What it will do is provide a level of protection from a group coming in and using emotional appeals to get modern practices outlawed," Johannes said. "Our right to farm is everyone's right to food choices."

FBO, the Focus newsletter goes out to more than 26,000 subscribers. Well said, Doyle.

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

Yeah. And the fu newsletter goes out to 42000 people and says the exact opposite regarding what it will do.

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

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

espringers Said:
of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... they are doing what their constituents want them to do.  the fact that another farm organization is willing to stand up and say otherwise in the face of consequences from the same constituency speaks more than volumes to me.  and your reasoning that they can still regulate farming by repealing the measure is silly... they shouldn't have to repeal a constitutional measure for crying out loud in order to regulate a harmful modern farming or ranching practice. 

Joeseph, who determines what is a harmful modern farming practice? Would you rather it went through a formal setting at the Capitol (legislature) or a free for all in the media?

I believe in the initiated ballot process, the right of the people to petition. However, when extremists throw out some pictures of sad puppies and dead horses all reason goes out the window. Trial by media. The rule of law should be based on facts not emotion. 

The people love all the drama and fuss but let me tell you it is no fun being on the receiving end when wrongfull allegations and bashing are leveled at you. 

I have heard it all before, let the people decide. Haven't seen any ads by the Humane Society Legislative Fund yet this year. How much they are going to spend.......... helping people decide......... is still yet to be determined.

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

espringers Said:
of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... they are doing what their constituents want them to do.  the fact that another farm organization is willing to stand up and say otherwise in the face of consequences from the same constituency speaks more than volumes to me.  and your reasoning that they can still regulate farming by repealing the measure is silly... they shouldn't have to repeal a constitutional measure for crying out loud in order to regulate a harmful modern farming or ranching practice. 

espringers you asked me to ask the farm bureau and see what they say. What more do you want???

Here is something you may not realize the "constituents" of Farm Bureau are not the same "constitutents" of Farmers Union. Not unless they are such as my self by default where FU deducts their membership dues from your business you do with them.

Espringers is there any legislators claiming this measure will prevent them from passsing laws regulating agriculture???

I mean come on, wouldn;t you think an urban leislator  would have a concern over this if what you are trying to claim was true???

It is not "silly" as the primary claim against this measure is it will prevent the legislature from regulating agriculture and the simple fact is it will not unless the legislature itself allows it. That is a fact you simply can not honestly deny.

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

espringers Said:
Jeff why does the Farmers Union claim this measure will do exactly what were all scared it will do?

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight" and moderates this site that has alluded to this being fact earlier in this discussion.

espringers let me put it to you bluntly, if you are basing your decision on wether to support somethig on wether FU supports somethig FB created or even vice versa, you are a fool.

And wether you beleive it or not, I really do not think you are. But as someone that has been involved in agriculture for over 30 years, beleive me when I say  FU does not support FB ideas or vice versa when it comes to things such as this measure or switching the shoe on the other foot for example  Carbon credits that FU came up with that FB opposed.  the list can go on and on and on for decades past and those to come. ect.....

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

espringers Said:
No offense. But, ur explanations make no sense and answer none of our concerns. Sorry, but they fail under any type of critical thinking or logical analysis.

 espringers is this your "opinion" or fact??

"critical thinking  and logical analysis"?????

You forgot blind bias against the ag org bringing this measure forth.

Try this on for "logical analysis" Wouldn;t one analyze logically, that an urban legislator that has nothing to lose with no agriculture constitutents would be in an uproar over a measure that will take away their ability to pass laws regulating agriculture on things that may have a negative affect on his constituents???

espringers you have been asked if there are any such legislators opposing this measure or forming coalitions with other urban legisaltors to do so?

perhaps it is to much "critical thinking" to wonder why they are not? Perhaps because they know this measure will not do what you and a handful of others are claiming.

The simple fact here is that no explanation will aswer your concerns becasue if you felt they were indeed answered you would have to consider supporting this measure. And in some cases simply because of what ag org has sponsored it that woudl not be possible regardless of any explanations.

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

 

gst Said:

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.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


J

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

 

Fritz the Cat Said:

espringers Said:
of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... 

Joeseph, who determines what is a harmful modern farming practice? Would you rather it went through a formal setting at the Capitol (legislature) or a free for all in the media?

I believe in the initiated ballot process, the right of the people to petition. However, when extremists throw out some pictures of sad puppies and dead horses all reason goes out the window. Trial by media. The rule of law should be based on facts not emotion. 

....

What about when a group forms an ad campaign suggesting that if M3 isn't passed that ND familes, and grocery stores will not have access to affordable food choices? What emotion does that evoke? Fear possibly?

I don't support PETA or HSUS even slightly, all I'm saying is the tactic is the same no matter who is using it, and you're saying it's ok as long as it's supporting your agenda?

J

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway.  My parents belonged to NDFB when we were on the farm.  Later when the farm was sold my dad worked at Farmers Union in town.  So I got both perspectives.  My perspective is Farmers Union is to liberal.  They think they need to vote democrat for the subsidies.  Farm Bureau is a couple of centuries behind and don't think they should have any regulations.  To bad there isn't a group that was not off the wall one direction or the other.
I agree with the majority of Farm Bureau positions, but some are so wacked out that I am very disappointed.  I dislike Farmers Union politically because they tell their members Obama is great.  If I was farming I would be pulling my hair out with frustration.
All that said it's still a fact Farmers Union opposed measure three.  Their political position has no bearing.  Because they often disagree with Farm Bureau has no bearing.  What is important is their stand on this single non political measure.

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

Plainsman Said:

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway.  My parents belonged to NDFB when we were on the farm.  Later when the farm was sold my dad worked at Farmers Union in town.  So I got both perspectives.  My perspective is Farmers Union is to liberal.  They think they need to vote democrat for the subsidies.  Farm Bureau is a couple of centuries behind and don't think they should have any regulations.  To bad there isn't a group that was not off the wall one direction or the other.
I agree with the majority of Farm Bureau positions, but some are so wacked out that I am very disappointed.  I dislike Farmers Union politically because they tell their members Obama is great.  If I was farming I would be pulling my hair out with frustration.
All that said it's still a fact Farmers Union opposed measure three.  Their political position has no bearing.  Because they often disagree with Farm Bureau has no bearing.  What is important is their stand on this single non political measure.

It is only important this instance becasue it fits your agenda against the NDFB. And Bruce please do not suggets you are not biased against this ag org because all one has to do is go to the site you moderate Nodak and see the real "plainsman" and the veiws you have towards this ag org. Even on here youhave compared them to the Posse Comitatus and have suggested they are a "threat" to govt officials.

Bruce can you answer the question beings no one else will. Are there any legislators, particularily urban ones that have nothing to lose in opposing this this measure that have done so because they bleive the claims you and othes have made that this will prevent the legislature from passing laws regulaing agriculture?

If what you and othersclaim is true, shouldn;t there be?

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

Fritz the Cat Said:

espringers Said:
of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... 

Joeseph, who determines what is a harmful modern farming practice? Would you rather it went through a formal setting at the Capitol (legislature) or a free for all in the media?

I believe in the initiated ballot process, the right of the people to petition. However, when extremists throw out some pictures of sad puppies and dead horses all reason goes out the window. Trial by media. The rule of law should be based on facts not emotion. 

....

What about when a group forms an ad campaign suggesting that if M3 isn't passed that ND familes, and grocery stores will not have access to affordable food choices? What emotion does that evoke? Fear possibly?

I don't support PETA or HSUS even slightly, all I'm saying is the tactic is the same no matter who is using it, and you're saying it's ok as long as it's supporting your agenda?

In countries where these agendas banning certain ag "practices" have been successful and are implemented, food costs have risen substantially. So I would guess what it evokes is fact. 
 

For those of you that beleive no worthy ND would ever vote to suppport HSUS written, funded and agenda driven measures here in good old rural agricultural based ND, perhaps you can answer why Measure 5 is polling roughly 60% for and 30% against?

It is FACT HSUS wrote this measure. It is FACT HSUS is funding this measure, It is FACT HSUS owns the domain name of the website NDan;s are asked to go to for their information on Measure 5.

Wake up. Back in the HFH debate I said that measure and ivolving HSUS as was done would open the door for other ballot measures written by HSUS in a manner to slyly further their agenda. plainsman what was your response to that suggestion??????The very same response you started the discussion on Measure 5 with that they were simply being used as a "boggeyman"

Guess what here they are.

It is time to pull your head out of the sand.

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

Here are the facts... At least a good portion of the average joes on this site and the biggest farm organization in this state disagree with ur guys interpretation of what this measure could do. So, it certainly isn't cut and dried. And not a single person can guarantee us that u are right and that the courts, won't interpret it the way we and the fu do. Even if there is only a 25% chance we are right and u are wrong, why in the hell should we take that chance? I am not about to vote yes and roll the dice. No sense trying to convince us otherwise. And don't forget, not a darn one of is have a dog in this fight like u guys. And even one farm organization that does reads it like we do. Forgive me for thinking u guys have a skewed view on some pretty plain language because of what is at stake and what u have to gain.

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

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Bruce can you answer the question beings no one else will. Are there any legislators, particularily urban ones that have nothing to lose in opposing this this measure that have done so because they bleive the claims you and othes have made that this will prevent the legislature from passing laws regulaing agriculture?

No one has answered the question because only a fool would answer a question that he can not know the answer to.  Do you have any idea?  No, you don't, your just blowing smoke.  So lets throw that back to you.  I don't have time to call every legislator in urban areas and ask.  My guess is there are those who will vote against it for the very reason you outlined because they are Farmers Union members.  Remember, that's a guess.

You say I am biased NDFB.  Yes, I guess if you take it in the context I think they are radical.  I base that on their home page.  One of the fellows on nokdak posted the page on their site that called for abolishing agriculture regulations.  Your explanation at the time was, yes it's true, but that it was only a wish list.  It doesn't look like it now.  It looks like they are starting with blocking regulations.  The PETA and HSUS are simply handy boogie men to scare people into agreeing with you.  I'll agree they a problem, but not for agriculture in North Dakota.  They are the kiss of death to anything they touch in North Dakota.
Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway.  My parents belonged to NDFB when we were on the farm.  Later when the farm was sold my dad worked at Farmers Union in town.  So I got both perspectives.  My perspective is Farmers Union is to liberal.  They think they need to vote democrat for the subsidies.  Farm Bureau is a couple of centuries behind and don't think they should have any regulations.  To bad there isn't a group that was not off the wall one direction or the other.
I agree with the majority of Farm Bureau positions, but some are so wacked out that I am very disappointed.  I dislike Farmers Union politically because they tell their members Obama is great.  If I was farming I would be pulling my hair out with frustration.
All that said it's still a fact Farmers Union opposed measure three.  Their political position has no bearing.  Because they often disagree with Farm Bureau has no bearing.  What is important is their stand on this single non political measure.

Bruce, could you for once add something new to the discussion. FU is too liberal FB doesn't want any regulation blah blah blah

I helped a friend harvest an elk the other day. He had a once in a life time ND tag and to make sure everything was kosher he contacted the Game Warden. After the animal was quartered we had a lively conversation with the Game Warden. One thing lead to another and I brought up the oil revenue rip off scheme. He said the panel of nine thing was problematic for him. Way too much trust placed in the hands of nine. I asked him what he thought about the one pick to the panel to be made by the wildlife society. He said he didn't like it and that they should never pick someone from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown. "Those guys are a bunch of nuts." Bruce I'm not making this up.

Bruce you used to work at the federal Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. So there you have it. FU is too liberal, FB wants no regulations and the federal employees at NPWRC are a bunch of nuts. 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway.  Why to go Bruce get your retired Federal Purse out and start to swing it. The has been a very good thread on both sides but  it looks like time for God to get his swing purse.

Plainsman Said:

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway. 

Stay out just as you have said no dog in the fight.  Anyone that wants to know your opinion of landowners need only to read the HOT TOPICS on NODAK.

BTW you never would answer did you forge your wifes signature on the first HFH measure??  

Plainsman Said:
espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

 

If I was farming I would be pulling my hair out with frustration.

Well you are not just someone who has stood on the outside and through darts at farms if you or anyone doughts that check out HOT TOPICS on NODAK.  You are and always have been nothing but a recycler of the Federal tax system.

I have nodog in the Nd dog fight and neither do you that is why the tpoic has went well. Take a hint.

 

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

espringers Said:
Here are the facts... At least a good portion of the average joes on this site and the biggest farm organization in this state disagree with ur guys interpretation of what this measure could do. So, it certainly isn't cut and dried. And not a single person can guarantee us that u are right and that the courts, won't interpret it the way we and the fu do. Even if there is only a 25% chance we are right and u are wrong, why in the hell should we take that chance? I am not about to vote yes and roll the dice. No sense trying to convince us otherwise. And don't forget, not a darn one of is have a dog in this fight like u guys. And even one farm organization that does reads it like we do. Forgive me for thinking u guys have a skewed view on some pretty plain language because of what is at stake and what u have to gain.

espringers, I hope you ar not a professional poller. 7 or 8 "average joes on this site have spoken out against his measure and you claim it is a "good portion" of the several hundred or more?????

And you suggest others are "skewing" things????

espringers please answeer one question. Are there any leislators, even urban ones with nothing to lose, opposing this measure for the reason you and this "good portion" of people on here are suggesting that it will prevent th legislature from reulating agriculture.

If you wish to hace a common sense discussion based on logic as you have said, would it not be "logical" to beleive there would be a petty strong opposition from th very people you claim are having the ability to protect their constitutents taken away from them if this measure passes?

espriner, please answer the question posed. what legislators are in opposition of this measure that you claim will take away their ability to regulate agriculture.

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

A good portion of the people involved in this conversation. with 1 exception everyone who spoken up in favor of this measure has a dog in this fight. U know darn well what I meant.

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

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

my guess is no legislators have spoken out against this measure because to do so without knowing your constituents feelings first would be a kiss of death. now you answer my question ... since you can't guarantee your interpretation is correct why should we take a chance?

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

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

I may have to rethink that part about  no dog in the fight.  I think everyone who lives in North Dakota has a dog in the fight if they know it or not.

I find this measure three very troubling.  All the way from pesticide drift to wetland drainage, flooding, tile, etc with no recourse for damages.  It's like giving a three year old a book of matches for a toy.

Further, I don't think the people of North Dakota would leave our farmers at the mercy of HSUS.  It's simply a ploy like the little boy who cried wolf.  The whole thing reminds me of those who would say "trust me".   No thank you. 
espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

and quit pretending like the farmers union farmers Bureau are always on the opposite side of issues. they are not. think high fence hunting property tax and measure 5 on this ballot. they're saying what they're saying an opposing this measure because they honestly believe what they have on their website. not because they oppose everything that farmers Bureau does.if that were the case they wouldn't have any members.

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

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

Plainsman Said:

Bruce can you answer the question beings no one else will. Are there any legislators, particularily urban ones that have nothing to lose in opposing this this measure that have done so because they bleive the claims you and othes have made that this will prevent the legislature from passing laws regulaing agriculture?

No one has answered the question because only a fool would answer a question that he can not know the answer to.  Do you have any idea?  No, you don't, your just blowing smoke.  So lets throw that back to you.  I don't have time to call every legislator in urban areas and ask.  My guess is there are those who will vote against it for the very reason you outlined because they are Farmers Union members.  Remember, that's a guess.

You say I am biased NDFB.  Yes, I guess if you take it in the context I think they are radical.  I base that on their home page.  One of the fellows on nokdak posted the page on their site that called for abolishing agriculture regulations.  Your explanation at the time was, yes it's true, but that it was only a wish list.  It doesn't look like it now.  It looks like they are starting with blocking regulations.  The PETA and HSUS are simply handy boogie men to scare people into agreeing with you.  I'll agree they a problem, but not for agriculture in North Dakota.  They are the kiss of death to anything they touch in North Dakota.

plaisnamn do you agree they are behind Meaure 5? Do you agree that HSUS slyly pushes their agendas to end hunting and animal agriculture thru little victories?

If they are the kiss of death as you claim, why are the poll numbers on Measure 5 that they wrote and are funding what they are? Check out the Measure 5 thread.

Once again you reference HSUS and PETA as "boogie men" even though as you type this they have written and funded a measure right here in ND.

This measure is intended to end horse slaughter forever in ND and yet you claim they are no "problem" for agriculture in ND???????  Teir agenda is to end ALL CAFO's or what are simple feedlots here in ND and yet you claim they are "no problem for agriculture here in ND"?

  Pull your head out of your ass. I suppose you beleive they are a problem, "but not for sportsmen here in North Dakota" also??????

Plaisnamn answer this one question is HSUS a "problem" for sportsmen here in ND? Yes or no.

Remember now Bruce sportsmen in ND thought it important to place a constitutional amendment to protect the "right" to hunt.

Why???

plainsman there simply is NO credibility to anything you post.

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

if this measure really about the boogie men... Peta and hsus... you can bet your last dollar Farmers Union would be in favor of it. I had no idea the farmers Bureau had a wish list. but, now that I have that information, I have no doubt this measure is an attempt to fulfill that wish list.

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

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

there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

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

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

espringers Said:
my guess is no legislators have spoken out against this measure because to do so without knowing your constituents feelings first would be a kiss of death. now you answer my question ... since you can't guarantee your interpretation is correct why should we take a chance

So espringers, you are saying a legislator from the Fargo district would not beleive protecting his constitutents from the very example given on this thread of feild tiling and the claimed flooding effects by not being able to regulate this "practice" is not important enough to take a stand if what you guys claim is true????

Come on espringers, that simply is not "logical" or even comes close to passing a commons sense test. In fact it would likely garner them many votes if they were to come out in support of your claims and opposed this measure for the reason you claim  in the name of protecting Fargo from flooding.

So espringers could it possibly be that legislators simply know this measure will not do what a HANDFUL of people on an internet site many of whom are blindly biased against the org sponsoring the measure claim it will?

Where are the media stories about this measure taking away the ability to regulate agriculture, is there a grand conspiracy whereby the media would not have any concerns over an unregulated ag industry???

One media story supporting your claim?

Espringers, I am starting to wonder exactly what you do consider "logical thinking".

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

I have no idea. Maybe its because they know it will pass in nd regardless of what they say and they don't want to waste their time or money. Maybe they know its too late cause everyones already been affected by fear ads about starving children. U will have to ask them. I speak only for myself. But, I know its more than just a handful of people on fbo that feel like I do. For gods sake, the largest farm organization in the state does. And nobody has yet to give me a satisfactory explanation for that in the context I laid out above. And when I get in front of an actual computer, I will lay out in detail why jeffs explanation didn't explain a darn thing or address any of our concerns.

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

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

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Fritz the Cat Said:

espringers Said:
of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... 

Joeseph, who determines what is a harmful modern farming practice? Would you rather it went through a formal setting at the Capitol (legislature) or a free for all in the media?

I believe in the initiated ballot process, the right of the people to petition. However, when extremists throw out some pictures of sad puppies and dead horses all reason goes out the window. Trial by media. The rule of law should be based on facts not emotion. 

....

What about when a group forms an ad campaign suggesting that if M3 isn't passed that ND familes, and grocery stores will not have access to affordable food choices? What emotion does that evoke? Fear possibly?

I don't support PETA or HSUS even slightly, all I'm saying is the tactic is the same no matter who is using it, and you're saying it's ok as long as it's supporting your agenda?

In countries where these agendas banning certain ag "practices" have been successful and are implemented, food costs have risen substantially. So I would guess what it evokes is fact. 
 

For those of you that beleive no worthy ND would ever vote to suppport HSUS written, funded and agenda driven measures here in good old rural agricultural based ND, perhaps you can answer why Measure 5 is polling roughly 60% for and 30% against?

It is FACT HSUS wrote this measure. It is FACT HSUS is funding this measure, It is FACT HSUS owns the domain name of the website NDan;s are asked to go to for their information on Measure 5.

Wake up. Back in the HFH debate I said that measure and ivolving HSUS as was done would open the door for other ballot measures written by HSUS in a manner to slyly further their agenda. plainsman what was your response to that suggestion??????The very same response you started the discussion on Measure 5 with that they were simply being used as a "boggeyman"

Guess what here they are.

It is time to pull your head out of the sand.

Source for the highlighted portion? 

 
We're talking about a bill measure that is allegedly meant to defend our state from any measures that might be proposed that might ban certain ag practices??? You should name this measure after my wife because sometimes she gets mad at me for things that she THINKS I'm going to do before I even have an opportunity to do it, that's basically the same principal here for your argument.

Leave M5 in the measure 5 thread, talk about it all you want over there. I'm voting no on M5 and even have a damn sign in my yard, but you know what? It has absolutely nothing to do with M3. Let the measure stand for itself and quit using M5 as a scare tactic to help your argument. 

Also, care to respond to the inconsistency I pointed out between your stance on M3 and the hypothetical mining measure??

J

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

here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1.  it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else.  each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.  if it was worded in such a way that it was clear thats all this is about, you would probably have my support and there is no damn doubt you would have farmers union's support too.

2.  the fact that he had the guts to go out and "do something" is irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. 

3.  just because there is no mandate to use a particular practice or technology gives folks like me no comfort.  that argument makes no sense at all.  no farmer is ever mandated to do anything... especially use a particular practice or technology... never have been never will be... just because there isn't a mandate doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if it were beneficial to them even if it proves to be a harmful to someone else. 

4.  relying on the thought process that the only way we will know it won't do what we think it will do is to pass it, is crazy talk... "just trust us.  we are right... you are wrong"... yeah right! 

5.  the idea that the farmer's union opposes everything the farm bureau does is also illogical.  they have obviously worked side by side on many issues in the past and presently.  i already named a few.  and this obviously is about more than just the fact that they haven't worked side by side on this issue together.  the more likely reason they haven't worked side by side on this measure, like they did HFH, property taxes and measure 5 this time around, is because they have opposed it from the beginning.  if it was really just about HSUS and PETA, i have no doubt farmer's union would support it with them just like they are opposing measure 5.  to say otherwise, is bordering on a bald face lie that i simply don't buy into.

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

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

iluvswnd.
The source? google food costs in most any European nation. Goggle animal rights laws in Europe, ect.... Jeff shared the cost of a dozen eggs in sweden where these policies of these orgs have been adopted. Wen is that last time you paid $8 for a dozen eggs?

You can not "leave measure 5" out of the discussion of Measure 3 and have an honest dialogue rearding measure 3 as who is behind Measure 5 is the very intent and premise of Measure 3. Even espringers made that connection altough it seems not to have swayed him.

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

espringers Said:
there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

espringers in a state of sportsmen andhunters such as ND, why was THIS constitutional amendment needed?????

You can not claim these groups are not a "problem" for agriculture in opposing this constitutional amendment and turn around and claim the very same orgs are "problems" for sportsmen and so a constitutional amendment was needed.

So WHY was a hunting amendment placed in our constitution?

espringers wrote:here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1. it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else. each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.

espringers how did you vote on the amendment to the constitution protecting hunting, for or against? Please answer this.

Why?

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

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

espringers in a state of sportsmen andhunters such as ND, why was THIS constitutional amendment needed?????

You can not claim these groups are not a "problem" for agriculture in opposing this constitutional amendment and turn around and claim the very same orgs are "problems" for sportsmen and so a constitutional amendment was needed.

So WHY was a hunting amendment placed in our constitution?

espringers wrote:here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1. it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else. each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.

espringers how did you vote on the amendment to the constitution protecting hunting, for or against? Please answer this.

Why?

Pretty sure he is talking about the savings clause... No matter what you say M3 has no savings clause. Ask a lawyer and then remove  your foot from your mouth and come back and let us know what you found out.

J

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

 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

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.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

J

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

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.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

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

espringers Said:
here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1.  it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else.  each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.  if it was worded in such a way that it was clear thats all this is about, you would probably have my support and there is no damn doubt you would have farmers union's support too.

espringers I asked above how did you vote on the hunting amendmnet and why?

2.  the fact that he had the guts to go out and "do something" is irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. 

How about the fact 3700 people beleived him?  

3.  just because there is no mandate to use a particular practice or technology gives folks like me no comfort.  that argument makes no sense at all.  no farmer is ever mandated to do anything... especially use a particular practice or technology... never have been never will be... just because there isn't a mandate doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if it were beneficial to them even if it proves to be a harmful to someone else. 

there is no "madate" that will end the legislatures ability to regulate agriculture. You have not proven it, legislators are not opposing it and media is ot "breaking" a story on the effects of unregulated ag after this measures passage. Common sense and logic ask why if what you claim is true?  

4.  relying on the thought process that the only way we will know it won't do what we think it will do is to pass it, is crazy talk... "just trust us.  we are right... you are wrong"... yeah right!  

But yet we are yet just supposed to "trust" a small handful of people on a internet site some of whom have a pretty vocal history radically slamming this ag org spnsoring this measure?

5.  the idea that the farmer's union opposes everything the farm bureau does is also illogical.  they have obviously worked side by side on many issues in the past and presently.  i already named a few.  and this obviously is about more than just the fact that they haven't worked side by side on this issue together.  the more likely reason they haven't worked side by side on this measure, like they did HFH, property taxes and measure 5 this time around, is because they have opposed it from the beginning.  if it was really just about HSUS and PETA, i have no doubt farmer's union would support it with them just like they are opposing measure 5.  to say otherwise, is bordering on a bald face lie that i simply don't buy into.

Espringers how much experience do you have in agriculture. Those that do if honest will tell you FU and FB are polar opposites on most every thing, particularily something the OTHER creates. If you have not been directly involved in some of these things thru the past as I have you simply will not understand them. To argue they are ot only shows your lackof undersanding of foolishness.  Don;t take my word for it, look to what Tim and others writeespriners why would FU support Rcalf who has hopped in bed with HSUS in a law suit against the beef check off which FB supports if they are against what HSUS stands for??? You simply do not know enough about the history behind these two opposing ag orgs to make the claims you do.

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

espringers in a state of sportsmen andhunters such as ND, why was THIS constitutional amendment needed?????

You can not claim these groups are not a "problem" for agriculture in opposing this constitutional amendment and turn around and claim the very same orgs are "problems" for sportsmen and so a constitutional amendment was needed.

So WHY was a hunting amendment placed in our constitution?

espringers wrote:here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1. it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else. each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.

espringers how did you vote on the amendment to the constitution protecting hunting, for or against? Please answer this.

Why?

Pretty sure he is talking about the savings clause... No matter what you say M3 has no savings clause. Ask a lawyer and then remove  your foot from your mouth and come back and let us know what you found out.

Why is it needed?????

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

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.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I thought I had answered it in that yes I would support it as long as like this measure in it's wording it still allowed the legislature to create and impose reasonable regulations as dos this measure?

Read the answer I gave you in it's entirety including the emboldened underlied protion, there is no "caveat" but rather an explanation for those that need one. .

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

wstnodak Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

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.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

in between loading out trucks so have a bit of time west, thanks for your concern, but I guess I consider dispelling rhetoric and outright bullshit claims regarding an amendment to our constitution "productive" wether you do or not.

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

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Pretty sure he is talking about the savings clause... No matter what you say M3 has no savings clause. Ask a lawyer and then remove  your foot from your mouth and come back and let us know what you found out.

Why is it needed?????

The savings clause is needed because it specifically states that the right is there but can still be regulated in the hunting language. As I stated before there is no such savings clause in M3 only that nothing can abridge the right to use modern farming practices. If the hunting language said that nothing could abridge the right to hunt then we would likely have some serious judicial challenges because Tom, Dick, and Harry could go out and hunt whatever/whenever and claim it is their given right. 

J

Pages