Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:

 If you can find 5 or more people who will attend a face to face sit down, I'll line up a meeting with you and the attorney(s).

I am impressed Farmboy, that's very kind of you.

If you read the last 5 words of the measure, they say "livestock production and ranching practices." You were asking for the measure to include "animal practices." The word "livestock" means animals, and "ranching" means raising animals.

 
Thank you for a real dialogue on this.  I can tell you really want to inform.  It makes me want to accept this measure, but this nagging feeling in the back of my head tells me it could be real problems.  Where would you have this meeting at?

So Bruce you are saying the following statement is untrue?

Re: NDFB opposes using oil tax revenue for conservation

Postby Plainsman » Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:56 am

Bad Dog, I picked this up on the Drudge Report yesterday. I thought of the NDFB first thing. I am not bashing, I am dead serious. These folks have a problem, and they are going right down the path of the Freemen, Posse Comitatus, and sovereign citizens. Look at their stand on most things and compare it to sovereign citizens. Same playbook.

 

 

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

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

 If you can find 5 or more people who will attend a face to face sit down, I'll line up a meeting with you and the attorney(s).

I am impressed Farmboy, that's very kind of you.

If you read the last 5 words of the measure, they say "livestock production and ranching practices." You were asking for the measure to include "animal practices." The word "livestock" means animals, and "ranching" means raising animals.

Actually I was wondering why it needed anything other than animals.  Here is my thinking.  What we consider farm practices today could be so different in 50 years that we will not recognize it.  For example in 1900 who would have ever dreamed of something like DDT?  Lets say  ten years from now they come up with DDX.  It's wonderful and everyone is using it.  Then ten years down the road they find it causes birth defects in people.  How would we go about eliminating the use of that chemical? 

My problem is once you take a step forward this large how do you go back if you need to?  Also, if these are your attorneys are they not simply going to tell us what benefits you?  I'm not trying to start a fight with you, but these are my real concerns.  I think you for the offer you made, but I am left wondering if that would help.  Just  trying to be open and honest.  Its a fear of the unknown I guess, but often it's the unknown that is truly dangerous.
 
Thank you for a real dialogue on this.  I can tell you really want to inform.  It makes me want to accept this measure, but this nagging feeling in the back of my head tells me it could be real problems.  Where would you have this meeting at?

plainsamn, as was pointed out DDT is not a "practice", the spraying of DDT was. BIG difference.

Do you begin to see that indeed DDX as a chemical not a practice could still be regulated 10 years from now, as long as the "practice" of applying other chemicals is still allowed?

Eye exer, as was posted earlier, under the current statutes, the legislature does and will continue to determine what is a farming or ranching practice even if this measue passes.

so you think a legislative body that has a majority of non-farmers can determine what are modern farming practices?  One of the problems I'm having with this measure is that the majority of farmers wouldn't support the elimination of property taxes yet they want us to back them on this measure. 

 

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

After a long weekend, I am surprised this topic is still around. I've looked at this every possible way I can think of... Until I see this ruled on by the supreme court, I won't believe it won't have the effect we are concerned it will. To say this is a cut and dried issue is simply being disingenuous.

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

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

whats the polling on this measure indicating

 

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

eye, the legislature has donea pretty good job so far in determining what are farming or ranching practices and entities.  

Espringers, why don;t you take Jeff up on his offer and be a part of a group of 5 or 6 people that meet regarding this measure?  From what I gather you can hear it as they say "straight from the horses mouth" or a fellow lawyer.

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 Sportsman,

I'll do even better than provide a link or list.  If you can find 5 or more people who will attend a face to face sit down, I'll line up a meeting with you and the attorney(s).

Please just hit reply on this site if you are interested in attending.  I think there are only 12 involved in this thread, but if we can get at least 5 I will gladly put the effort in.  

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

 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 Sportsman,

I'll do even better than provide a link or list.  If you can find 5 or more people who will attend a face to face sit down, I'll line up a meeting with you and the attorney(s).

Please just hit reply on this site if you are interested in attending.  I think there are only 12 involved in this thread, but if we can get at least 5 I will gladly put the effort in.  

Count me in.

Sorry for the late reply, had a nice "cast & blast" weekend.  Thanks for the opportunity. 

J

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

unless they happen to be really close by, i've got no interest in using vacation time and my own money to go to a meeting like this.  because, i will have to agree with plainsman on this one... i ain't so sure it will sway my personal opinion anyway.  i mentioned that in one of my first posts... they will just tell us what their clients want us to hear.  pretty common in the legal world.  that certainly doesn't mean they will be right.  but, i would still like to know how they formed the opinion they supposedly did.  i am not quite sure why we just can't get their written analysis of how they formed their opinions with their names attached.  in the end, the final say will be up to a court or two.  because i am certain there will be an attorney or 50 that will disagree with them and try and challenge it the first time a law or regulation gets "enacted" that they claim "abridges" their "right" to "engage" in a modern farming or ranching practice.... don't ya agree?  and if you, like me, are certain this issue isn't so clear that the courts won't get involved, then why should we chance it? 

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

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

 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
Here is a list of Ag groups supporting a YES vote on Measure 3 (with more to be added yet):

ND Stockmen's Association
ND Grain Growers
ND Pork Producers
ND Soybean Growers Association
ND Ag Coalition (compilation of over 50 Ag associations in North Dakota -when a vote was taken on supporting the passage of Measure 3, there were only two (2) votes of no.)
NFIB also supports, even though it isn't just an agriculture entity.

So for those of you asking WHY NDFU isn't supporting this, that is a valid question...as it is literally the only Ag group I can find that isn't.  Support for a YES vote has been overwhelmingly positive.  One more fact...F. Bureau is more than 25 times larger than Farmers Union nationally.  6.2 million members, versus 250,000 for FU.

IF you look at the mission statements of the above organizations such as the grain growers, soybean growers, pork producers they clearly state that their goal is to improve the profitability of their members/industries. So clearly not a surprise that they are supporting this measure. 

Stockmens association promotes less government intervention, and "Protects the inherent property rights of landowners, so decisions regarding property are made by those who own it and pay taxes on it." Also, not surprised by their support. 

I couldn't find any public support from the ND Ag coalition or the NFIB so you might have to help me out with those 2. 

NDFU mission is as follows:

North Dakota Farmers Union, guided by the principles of cooperation, legislation and education, is an organization committed to the prosperity of family farms, ranches and rural communities.

Apparently they don't think that M3 falls in line with developing prosperity for FAMILY farms/ranches, and rural communities. 

I didn't know we were voting on this nationally Jeff, but here in ND the Farmers Union has over 40,000 members to the Farm Bureaus 27,000. 

J

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

My whole life I've usually went for just about anything that appeared to be in farmers best interest.  But I've gotten to the point where I think enough is enough.  They are afforded so many things to their benefit that it's starting to boarder on the ridiculous.  They're excluded from numerous laws that other business's have to abide by.  The ND income tax form is line after line of tax breaks for farmers.  We can really get into a big discussion on property taxes.  They are given major reductions in sales tax on farm equipment.  I could go on and on.  So I think it may be time to neuter the gravy train.

 

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 Sportsman,

I'll do even better than provide a link or list.  If you can find 5 or more people who will attend a face to face sit down, I'll line up a meeting with you and the attorney(s).

Please just hit reply on this site if you are interested in attending.  I think there are only 12 involved in this thread, but if we can get at least 5 I will gladly put the effort in.  

Sure, if you can get it set up for some evening near Bismarck, that would be best. I would bet we could get several others to attend also.

I would like to see the written opinion of them and the all inclusive list ahead of time though so I can prepare questions. I hate leaving a meeting like this and thinking "doh, I wish I would have asked..."

It's not that bad.

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

espringers Said:
unless they happen to be really close by, i've got no interest in using vacation time and my own money to go to a meeting like this.  because, i will have to agree with plainsman on this one... i ain't so sure it will sway my personal opinion anyway.  i mentioned that in one of my first posts... they will just tell us what their clients want us to hear.  pretty common in the legal world.  that certainly doesn't mean they will be right.  but, i would still like to know how they formed the opinion they supposedly did.  i am not quite sure why we just can't get their written analysis of how they formed their opinions with their names attached.  in the end, the final say will be up to a court or two.  because i am certain there will be an attorney or 50 that will disagree with them and try and challenge it the first time a law or regulation gets "enacted" that they claim "abridges" their "right" to "engage" in a modern farming or ranching practice.... don't ya agree?  and if you, like me, are certain this issue isn't so clear that the courts won't get involved, then why should we chance it? 

How much clearer does one have to be than a marriage is between a man and a woman?

Even something written as specific and clear as that is being challenged in court in many states that have added this to their constitution. So the fact something may be challenged does not necessarily mean it is not clear and specific. 
 
I wonder how many other lawyers have such a high opinion of thier profession as do you espringers!

As a lawyer yourself, how do we know you are not just saying what you beleive some on here want to hear?

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

U obviously don't understand the basis for the challenges on the marriage deal. Stick to subjects u know. And I don't have the highest impression on my profession cause we havent earned any better impression... Which is actually more of a reflection on society than the profession in my opinion. And please explain who u have in mind with ur comment. I don't know but a handful of guys on this site. I speak my mind on issues and give my honest opinion with no ulterior motives or goal of pleasing anyone. U on the other hand have a plain history of twisting things and supporting anything that benefits u and your industry regardless of how ridiculous u sound doing it. Keep calling me out on a personal basis... It pisses me off... And ur stupid smiley faces don't change a damn thing.

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

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

espringers Said:
U obviously don't understand the basis for the challenges on the marriage deal. Stick to subjects u know. And I don't have the highest impression on my profession cause we havent earned any better impression... Which is actually more of a reflection on society than the profession in my opinion. And please explain who u have in mind with ur comment. I don't know but a handful of guys on this site. I speak my mind on issues and give my honest opinion with no ulterior motives or goal of pleasing anyone. U on the other hand have a plain history of twisting things and supporting anything that benefits u and your industry regardless of how ridiculous u sound doing it. Keep calling me out on a personal basis... It pisses me off... And ur stupid smiley faces don't change a damn thing.

Espringers you obviously do not understand that all that was being pointed out was that no matter how plain and simple the language of a constitutional amendment is there will most likely be challenges.

The marriage amendment is simply one of the most direct and specifically written amendments to use as an example.

You are letting your personal animousity and being "pissed off" affect your judgement. If you ar that thin skinned espringers perhaps an internet site is not the place to be condemning others with your fingers in your ears shouting "I'm right, I'm right and I don;t care what anyone else says."

Perhaps if "your" industry" wasn't as untrustworthy as you appear to beleive it is, you wouldn;t beleive every other idustry is as well.

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

I'm right I'm right, etc... Lol... U realize u just described every post u have ever made on this site right? Do u have any idea how ur blind allegiance to everything that benefits u appears to those u don't share those same allegiances?

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

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

 Iluvs,

Farm Bureau is over 25 times larger than Farmers Union.  Also, Farm Bureau is organized in all 50 states, plus Puerto Rico.  Farmers Union is only organized in 30 some states, and loosely organized at that.  Farm Bureau is...THEE VOICE of agriculture in this country, while Farmers Union has a national membership base that continues to decline.

Farmers Union in North Dakota CLAIMS to have 40,000 members, and their website says 42,000 on it.  However, I just got their publication in the mail indicating the circulation of their paper only goes to 36,000.  So it is hard to know which numbers to believe anymore. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the Farm Bureau membership is a FAMILY membership, while the FU membership is an INDIVIDUAL membership.  As a result, FU has multiple memberships within the same family.

I just want to make sure we compare apples to apples here, instead of apples to oranges.

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

 Jeff, you're mistaken on your NDFU numbers. Over 40,000 member families belong to the NDFU. Apples to apples...

My point on using the ND member numbers is that this isn't a national issue, it's certainly not a national vote. This is going to affect North Dakotans and no matter how you try to spin it the NDFU opposes the measure on its own merit and not for any other reason. 


Farmboy Jeff Said:

 Iluvs,

Farm Bureau is over 25 times larger than Farmers Union.  Also, Farm Bureau is organized in all 50 states, plus Puerto Rico.  Farmers Union is only organized in 30 some states, and loosely organized at that.  Farm Bureau is...THEE VOICE of agriculture in this country, while Farmers Union has a national membership base that continues to decline.

Farmers Union in North Dakota CLAIMS to have 40,000 members, and their website says 42,000 on it.  However, I just got their publication in the mail indicating the circulation of their paper only goes to 36,000.  So it is hard to know which numbers to believe anymore. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the Farm Bureau membership is a FAMILY membership, while the FU membership is an INDIVIDUAL membership.  As a result, FU has multiple memberships within the same family.

I just want to make sure we compare apples to apples here, instead of apples to oranges.

J

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

Iluvs,

WHY am I supposed to believe your contention FU has 40,000 members when THEIR OWN PUBLICATION only gets sent to 36,000 people?  They, by law, had to reveal this in their publication due to the use of a bulk rate permit.  When organizations send out their publication...it goes to ALL members.  And that is why I DO NOT believe the 40,000 number AT ALL.  I'm tired of the lies.  If you are lying about your membership numbers, what else are you lying about?  

It doesn't really matter though anyway, as Farm Bureau is FAR more relevant, effective, and in-tune with agriculture.  Must be why NDFB is growing, and FU is in decline.  

I know it sounds good to say "40,000" members, but I guarantee you FU has been under that amount for several years straight.  It's a marketing thing.

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

   Ok....  If you say so.

I'll be happy to debate the measure further if you would like, however, I'm not going down this road with you. 

Farmboy Jeff Said:
Iluvs,

WHY am I supposed to believe your contention FU has 40,000 members when THEIR OWN PUBLICATION only gets sent to 36,000 people?  They, by law, had to reveal this in their publication due to the use of a bulk rate permit.  When organizations send out their publication...it goes to ALL members.  And that is why I DO NOT believe the 40,000 number AT ALL.  I'm tired of the lies.  If you are lying about your membership numbers, what else are you lying about?  

It doesn't really matter though anyway, as Farm Bureau is FAR more relevant, effective, and in-tune with agriculture.  Must be why NDFB is growing, and FU is in decline.  

I know it sounds good to say "40,000" members, but I guarantee you FU has been under that amount for several years straight.  It's a marketing thing.

J

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

Thanks Iluvs.

I know the NDFB/NDFU membership discussion is an aside to the ballot measure discussion.  However, it has always bothered me when FU tries to use inaccurate membership numbers.  I think they should be who they are, instead of just lying from the start.  Even THEIR OWN members know better.

I'm much less interested in membership numbers, as compared to effectiveness and what you stand for.  And I continue to be shocked that FU is THEE ONLY ag group opposing Measure 3.  Every other ag group is standing in support of a YES vote on Measure 3. 

Other good news...The Bismarck Tribune and Williston Herald publications are encouraging a YES vote on Measure 3.  Thank you to their respective editorial boards.

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

 

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

iluvswnd Said:
 Jeff, you're mistaken on your NDFU numbers. Over 40,000 member families belong to the NDFU. Apples to apples...

My point on using the ND member numbers is that this isn't a national issue, it's certainly not a national vote. This is going to affect North Dakotans and no matter how you try to spin it the NDFU opposes the measure on its own merit and not for any other reason. 

Sometime maybe you will understand this decades old fued between these ag orgs here in the state.

Have you been able to find any legislative bills NDFB sponsored from the past that NDFU has supported?

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

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 Jeff, you're mistaken on your NDFU numbers. Over 40,000 member families belong to the NDFU. Apples to apples...

My point on using the ND member numbers is that this isn't a national issue, it's certainly not a national vote. This is going to affect North Dakotans and no matter how you try to spin it the NDFU opposes the measure on its own merit and not for any other reason. 

Sometime maybe you will understand this decades old fued between these ag orgs here in the state.

gst, what I understand is a differentiation in policy between the 2 organizations. I don't know what "feud" you are referring to. Have you ever heard the saying that if you aren't part of the solution then you're part of the problem? Your attitude regarding the differences between the two is the same attitude that perpetuates partisan politics here in this country. Why does it have to be black and white? I believe that people are capable of doing what is fundamentally right and it doesn't have to be about personal gain in every situation. 



Have you been able to find any legislative bills NDFB sponsored from the past that NDFU has supported?

No. It doesn't matter, and I don't care to waste my time looking. Please see my above remarks and the answer is pretty much the same. Every measure/bill/policy/candidate/person deserves to be looked at objectively, not subjectively. 

J

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

Olson said the language of the measure is intentionally vague to encompass any possible abridgement of farmers and ranchers’ rights in the wake of attacks on them in other states. “Modern” technology would include any contemporary techniques down the road, he said.

Eyexer the statement from the article you posted is exactly what I have been thinking.  That statement is all I need to know.  I don't need more.  Thanks.

Opie11's picture
Opie11
Offline
Joined: 11/7/05

NDFU also has members like me, whose membership is paid for by a coop that they do business with.  I don't agree with most of their political leanings, but haven't taken the time to figure out how to get off of their membership list.  A lot of years I get a refund because more than one coop has paid my annual membership with them.  I also don't belong to the FB but do agree with their positions more often and have been considering it.

Opie

 

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

Plainsman Said:

Olson said the language of the measure is intentionally vague to encompass any possible abridgement of farmers and ranchers’ rights in the wake of attacks on them in other states. “Modern” technology would include any contemporary techniques down the road, he said.

Eyexer the statement from the article you posted is exactly what I have been thinking.  That statement is all I need to know.  I don't need more.  Thanks.

So Bruce how many times are you going to vote on this measure and who else will you be voting for?  I know how much you respect the voting laws   You have the same ethics you had during the HFH measure?. 

 

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

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 Jeff, you're mistaken on your NDFU numbers. Over 40,000 member families belong to the NDFU. Apples to apples...

My point on using the ND member numbers is that this isn't a national issue, it's certainly not a national vote. This is going to affect North Dakotans and no matter how you try to spin it the NDFU opposes the measure on its own merit and not for any other reason. 

Sometime maybe you will understand this decades old fued between these ag orgs here in the state.

gst, what I understand is a differentiation in policy between the 2 organizations. I don't know what "feud" you are referring to. Have you ever heard the saying that if you aren't part of the solution then you're part of the problem? Your attitude regarding the differences between the two is the same attitude that perpetuates partisan politics here in this country. Why does it have to be black and white? I believe that people are capable of doing what is fundamentally right and it doesn't have to be about personal gain in every situation. 



Have you been able to find any legislative bills NDFB sponsored from the past that NDFU has supported?

No. It doesn't matter, and I don't care to waste my time looking. Please see my above remarks and the answer is pretty much the same. Every measure/bill/policy/candidate/person deserves to be looked at objectively, not subjectively. 

iluvswnd, I really don;t disagree with what you said I emboldened. But it still does not change the fact that just as in politics (which by the ay is the primary difference between FU and FB) this "feud" between the a orgs here in the state is decades old.   And indeed it does "matter" when one is misinformedly placing why they are voting for or against an issue on wether one of these orgs supports the other.

If you do not understand this, you have not been involved in agriculture here in ND very long.

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Beyond a lot of reading.  No fun at all.  I believe it's impossible to mandate common sense and outlaw retardation therefore "No" for me.  There be plenty 'o rules.

 Nuke the Whales

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

 Misinformedly? 

If this measure passes we won't notice any effect right away but here is what the FU, myself, and a few others see happening:

farmer Jim decides he is going to build a hog barn/ use a practice that is causing harm to his neighbor, etc.   After this happens a governing body will say "Jim, you can't do that" and Jim will reply " yes I can, it's a modern farming/ranching practice and its protected by the state constitution" 

lawsuit will ensue and the courts will decide the true meaning and reach of this measure. 

Currently there is no question on what would happen given said situation and we have a right to farm doctrine. My question: what are we really gaining?

gst Said:

   And indeed it does "matter" when one is misinformedly placing why they are voting for or against an issue on wether one of these orgs supports the other. 

If you do not understand this, you have not been involved in agriculture here in ND very long.

J

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

iluvswnd Said:
 Misinformedly? 

If this measure passes we won't notice any effect right away but here is what the FU, myself, and a few others see happening:

farmer Jim decides he is going to build a hog barn/ use a practice that is causing harm to his neighbor, etc.   After this happens a governing body will say "Jim, you can't do that" and Jim will reply " yes I can, it's a modern farming/ranching practice and its protected by the state constitution" 

lawsuit will ensue and the courts will decide the true meaning and reach of this measure. 

Currently there is no question on what would happen given said situation and we have a right to farm doctrine. My question: what are we really gaining?

gst Said:

   And indeed it does "matter" when one is misinformedly placing why they are voting for or against an issue on wether one of these orgs supports the other. 

If you do not understand this, you have not been involved in agriculture here in ND very long.

every once in a while you have to take liberty with words in the English language!

As long as the state does not say to farmer Jim you can not raise hogs, they can still as they now do tell farmer Jim where or how he can raise hogs.

iluvswnd, do you beleive we should not have put the marriage amendment in our constitution simply becasue at some point it may be challenged in court?

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

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote...  

gst Said:

As long as the state does not say to farmer Jim you can not raise hogs, they can still as they now do tell farmer Jim where or how he can raise hogs.

J

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

Iluvs,

So using your "Farmer Jim" analogy, give me an example of Jim using a practice in his hog barn that will harm his neighbor.  Remember Iluvs...this measure focuses on PRACTICES and NOT zoning issues, etc.  So if Farmer Jim uses farrowing crates for 2-week periods during the sow's birthing process (so she doesn't smash her little pigs or eat them, or choke as she instinctively eats her afterbirth) does that practice harm Jim's neighbor?  Or how about the PRACTICE of castrating baby pigs so they don't breed their fellow pen mates upon reaching puberty?  Does that PRACTICE harm Jim's neighbor?

Secondly, you are referencing a right to farm doctrine (the word doctrine comes directly from the NDFU talking points...btw).  The only "Right to Farm" laws North Dakota has on the books specifically focus on two items: nuisances and defining agriculture.  The current "Right to Farm" language in our Century Code is inadequate and offers no protection from groups like PETA and HSUS.  And that is why a YES vote on 3 is so appropriate and necessary for the industry that comprises 45 percent of our state's economy.

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

 Iluvs,

Here is a link to a PDF of North Dakota's current "Right to Farm" law.  As i said above, the main focus of the existing language simply defines what farming is, and addresses the issue of nuisances, but it fails to go beyond that.  Other states have gone much further in offering safeguards for an industry as important as the one that feeds us.  Here is the link:

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/righttofarm/northdakota.pdf



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

Jeff, a link has been provided early on in this discussion directly to the right to farm laws in our Century Code. 

Direct factul information matters little to some people.

Iluvswnd, exactly what did I not read. You are talking about the inability to regulate agriculture in the case of farmer Jim if this measure passes. No matter what example you wish to use, it comes back to the same thing as long as the practice is not disallowed completely it can be regulated by the state. 

 

 

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

Abridge does not at all mean "disallow completely".

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

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

I think its laughable I guys are arguing the ndfu would piss in their constituents faces just to spite the bureau and expect us to believe they have always done so. Carry on.

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

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

espringers Said:
I think its laughable I guys are arguing the ndfu would piss in their constituents faces just to spite the bureau and expect us to believe they have always done so. Carry on.

espringers, he NDFB has introduced legisaltion in the past that was beneficial to all farmers. Show me anexample where FU did not oppose it or even more, supported it?

Even plainsman references the decades old feud between these ag orgs.

Simply because you do not understand something does not mean it does not exist. 
 
What is laughable is that you as someone outside agriculture suggests that people that have been engaged in agriculture their whole lives do not have a handle on this separation between these two agriculture orgs.

Lets look at an example a little closer to home for you to possibly begin to understand.

Espringers do you suppose the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)  lawyers will support constitutional amendments American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyers bring forth????? 

They are both legal defense organizations just as FU and FB are both agricultural organizations. Under your assumption, they should support one anothers policies right?  

According to your theory, these two legal defense organizations should then have the same opinion on the right to marriage amendment correct??

Why will you not take Jeff up on his offer?

I mean you asked me to provide the names of the two legal professionals that I asked for their opinions but yet now you will not take the time to meet with the actual lawyers involved in creating this measure to ask questions of them directly???

I would submit, the evidence suggests you are simply more inclined to argue than to beome informed.

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

U are asking me to take a day off work, spend 6 hours in a car, $150 in gas and an hour in a mtg to have someone else's attorney tell me what their client wants me to hear. How's bout Jeff just gives me a name, I shoot him/her/them an email or a phone call w a question or two and we call it good? Would take 15 minutes and save a bunch of money and time.

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

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

There is no doubt attorneys will argue this out. What happens if the judges side w the ones who see it like I do?

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

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

espringers Said:
There is no doubt attorneys will argue this out. What happens if the judges side w the ones who see it like I do?

espringers, you did not answer the question regarding the two legal orgs.

Why do you assume this will be argued in court?

The last amendment to our constitution is as contorversial as any on this site for a few people as well and it is not being arued in court.

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

espringers Said:
U are asking me to take a day off work, spend 6 hours in a car, $150 in gas and an hour in a mtg to have someone else's attorney tell me what their client wants me to hear. How's bout Jeff just gives me a name, I shoot him/her/them an email or a phone call w a question or two and we call it good? Would take 15 minutes and save a bunch of money and time.

Would you beleive them anyway?

I beleive Jeff indicated he can work around peoples schedules maybe. Maybe set up a conference call?? , lots of options if one wishes to inform themselves.

Espringers there is something about looking a man in the eye and shaking their hand that still rings true here in ND, even with some lawyers.

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

i don't know why i bother... but, here goes... one last time....

those two organizations could not be more different.  although its made up of lawyers, the ADF is more of a service ministry than a legal organization.  its true mission is related to spreading of the gospel and they use the legal system to try keep doors from closing to reach that goal.  the ACLU... well i don't have to explain what they do.  the comparison between those two and the NDFB and theNDFU is so laughable i don't even think its funny you tried to compare them.

y will it end up in court?  well that's already been explained with a couple of examples on this thread as well as the FU spokesman in the dickinson article.  but, here is my take... on this particular thread, we have a pretty diverse group of people on this site who currently read the measure and see it the way I do... about as diverse as one can find on a particular topic on this site... when you got guys like allen, eye, iluvswnd, me, btr, plainsman, the ndfu, etc... all on the same side of the argument, you know there are some legitimate concerns.  additionally, the only people who have spoken up in favor of it have some SERIOUS skin in the game and have a history of defending anything that benefits them or their industry.  given the fact that such a diverse group is able to reach the same conclusion by reading the same language as you and i are,  you can bet that more than a few attorneys will read it the same way we do and take a case or two to court when and if a regulation gets passed like the ones in the few examples that have already been cited for you. 

in regards to the meeting... depending on what they say, it might change my mind.  but, i doubt it.  you see... they are really no different than me and you both in a lot of ways... and definitely no different than me when it comes to an opinion about what this measure will and won't do.  and i would argue they will have an inherent bias and a motive to defend the measure the way their clients ask them to in order to convince some it should be passed.  funny part is... when farmer john is faced with a regulation he doesn't like, i bet some of the same attorneys could and would be some of the first ones to challenge it in court arguing just the exact same way i am now... that the regulation or law flies in the face of the clear language of the measure.

i don't need to waste a whole day of my time and money to get the opinion from them that their clients want me to hear.  i already know what it will be.  i just want to see the wording behind it and how they justify in opining that it won't do what we are scared it will do.  that doesn't take a meeting.  it takes an email.  you do realize what an attorneys time is worth don't you?  doesn't it seem like a ridiculous waste of their clients money and my time (and technically money) to take hours of time for numerous individuals when the same can be accomplished from the phone or an email in a matter of minutes?  especially when the whole meeting will just be regurgitating whatever their clients want spit out?  how bout just a name of one of them and i will shoot them an email or a phone call? 

now... a conference call... i would probably be in on that just so i can find out who the attorneys are.

i am done arguing with you.  there is nothing you can say or do for me or any of the others who read this forum and measure and feel the way we do.  its clear to us why you are taking the side you are in this argument and i certainly know changing your mind or getting you to say you might be wrong is not going to happen.

and, btw... you never did respond to the fact that abridge does not mean anything near what you keep claiming it does in the examples you give... it does not mean "disallow completely". 

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

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

espringers Said:
i don't know why i bother... but, here goes... one last time....

those two organizations could not be more different.  although its made up of lawyers, the ADF is more of a service ministry than a legal organization.  its true mission is related to spreading of the gospel and they use the legal system to try keep doors from closing to reach that goal.  the ACLU... well i don't have to explain what they do.  the comparison between those two and the NDFB and theNDFU is so laughable i don't even think its funny you tried to compare them.

y will it end up in court?  well that's already been explained with a couple of examples on this thread as well as the FU spokesman in the dickinson article.  but, here is my take... on this particular thread, we have a pretty diverse group of people on this site who currently read the measure and see it the way I do... about as diverse as one can find on a particular topic on this site... when you got guys like allen, eye, iluvswnd, me, btr, plainsman, the ndfu, etc... all on the same side of the argument, you know there are some legitimate concerns.  additionally, the only people who have spoken up in favor of it have some SERIOUS skin in the game and have a history of defending anything that benefits them or their industry.  given the fact that such a diverse group is able to reach the same conclusion by reading the same language as you and i are,  you can bet that more than a few attorneys will read it the same way we do and take a case or two to court when and if a regulation gets passed like the ones in the few examples that have already been cited for you. 

in regards to the meeting... depending on what they say, it might change my mind.  but, i doubt it.  you see... they are really no different than me and you both in a lot of ways... and definitely no different than me when it comes to an opinion about what this measure will and won't do.  and i would argue they will have an inherent bias and a motive to defend the measure the way their clients ask them to in order to convince some it should be passed.  funny part is... when farmer john is faced with a regulation he doesn't like, i bet some of the same attorneys could and would be some of the first ones to challenge it in court arguing just the exact same way i am now... that the regulation or law flies in the face of the clear language of the measure.

i don't need to waste a whole day of my time and money to get the opinion from them that their clients want me to hear.  i already know what it will be.  i just want to see the wording behind it and how they justify in opining that it won't do what we are scared it will do.  that doesn't take a meeting.  it takes an email.  you do realize what an attorneys time is worth don't you?  doesn't it seem like a ridiculous waste of their clients money and my time (and technically money) to take hours of time for numerous individuals when the same can be accomplished from the phone or an email in a matter of minutes?  especially when the whole meeting will just be regurgitating whatever their clients want spit out?  how bout just a name of one of them and i will shoot them an email or a phone call? 

now... a conference call... i would probably be in on that just so i can find out who the attorneys are.

i am done arguing with you.  there is nothing you can say or do for me or any of the others who read this forum and measure and feel the way we do.  its clear to us why you are taking the side you are in this argument and i certainly know changing your mind or getting you to say you might be wrong is not going to happen.

and, btw... you never did respond to the fact that abridge does not mean anything near what you keep claiming it does in the examples you give... it does not mean "disallow completely". 

espringer, they are both organiations made up of lawyers, just as NDFB and NDFU are two organizations made of of ag producers. So why is the comparison lauhable?

Perhaps becasue it blows a hole right thru your theory that two ag groups will not have polar oppositie positions based on ideologies?????????

espringers I have never once claimed I did not have "skin in the game" regarding this measure. I have stated that the legal professionals no different than yourself that I gained an "opinion" from do not.
 
It is clear that nothing anyone says will change your mind espringers so the comments made on this site are not for yourself, but somone that perhaps does have the ability to look at something and decide on their own the merits of the claims made.

So that is why it is important for someone to look at your basis of opposing this measure on FU opposition and have it pointed out just as two organizations made up of lawyers can have polar oppositie ideals and oppose what the other supports, so can two ag organizations here in ND.
.

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

 Espringers,

Why does it matter who the attorney(s) are who assisted with this ballot measure?  Your story just keeps changing.  You should be a politician!  :)  You start out saying you want to learn more about the measure so you can be a more informed voter.  But now, it has transformed into you only wanting to know who the attorney is?  Very disingenuous.  But hey, at least we have made progress in getting you closer to being an honest man...you are finally admitting your numerous biases and closed-minded ness.

I knew there weren't even 5 of you who were genuinely interested in meeting up.  In fact, in the end, I believe there was only one.

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

I think u are confused Jeff.

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

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

espringers Said:
.and, btw... you never did respond to the fact that abridge does not mean anything near what you keep claiming it does in the examples you give... it does not mean "disallow completely". 

espriners, please show where have I ever suggested what you claim above that I have emboldened out of your statement???

Do you agree with the 2nd amendment to our countries Constitution?

Lets take a look at the wording.
 
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now espringers, the wriers of this amendment could have simply wrote:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But they didn;t, they felt it necessary to include the "intent" of the amendment in the wording as well.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
 
The intent of the amendment is not soley to allow the right to keep and bear arms, but to do so with the intent of ensuring the security of a free state.Words mean things in these amendments.

It claims right here that the "right" to keep and bear arms shall not be "infringed/ abridged"  but yet there are any numbers of laws that have stood the test regulating the usage of the arms we have been guaranteed the right to keep and bear.

So why does this not then transfer over to the wording of Measure 3??? We are being gauranteed the "right to engage" yet just as in the 2nd amendment where we are guaranteed the "right to keep and bear", the ability to  pass laws to regulate will still exist 

You simply can not discount the first sentence included in Measure 3's wording as you wish to in determining what the "intent" of this measure is.

And when you consider this first sentence, in correlation to what "abridgements" that are being referenced, it becomes clear to those that wish to actually see it in an objective light that the only "abridgements" that will not be allowed are those that prevent the intent of the measure, the "right to engage in modern farming and ranching practices" not the ones that regulate HOW those practices are engaged in just as the 2nd amendment still allows for laws regulating the usage of th arms we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear. .  

Big difference if you for even a moment take the time to consider what is written.

So if you wish to continue to discuss this measure espringers, at the very least acknowledge the first sentence does in fact mean something.

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 Espringers,

Why does it matter who the attorney(s) are who assisted with this ballot measure?  Your story just keeps changing.  You should be a politician!  :)  You start out saying you want to learn more about the measure so you can be a more informed voter.  But now, it has transformed into you only wanting to know who the attorney is?  Very disingenuous.  But hey, at least we have made progress in getting you closer to being an honest man...you are finally admitting your numerous biases and closed-minded ness.

I knew there weren't even 5 of you who were genuinely interested in meeting up.  In fact, in the end, I believe there was only one.

espringers Said:
I think u are confused Jeff.

I think it was spelled out quite clearly espringers.

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

How am I "confused" Espringers?  Enlighten me.

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

Farmboy Jeff, where and when is the meeting?

Still waiting for the list of attorneys involved.

Thanks.

It's not that bad.

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
How am I "confused" Espringers?  Enlighten me.

post #294 makes absolutely no sense when put in the context of ANYTHING i have ever written... that's how.  and most of your posts have made absolutely no sense in the context of anything any of us have written regarding our take on this measure.  so, suffice it to say, i believe enlightenment is not possible regarding this particular subject.  you have let your inherent bias for a measure that will no doubtedly benefit you personally cloud your judgment to a degree that goes way beyond anything i am capable of addressing.

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

Pages