Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
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?

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

Pages