Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
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.

Pages