Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

eyexer Said:
#5 has zero chance at passing

That is good news.  I thought one of the pro measure #3 guys said the poll was 60%+ for measure #5.  Was that just more bull droppings to convince us to vote for #3?

You simply can not help yourself plainsman.

Jeffs information is factual. The latest poll has shown significant gains once the campaign to vote no has started to inform people of a better option and the true agedas behind tis measure is made public, but the yes side is STILL AHEAD by a few points. So this is NOT a sure thing as eyeexer claims. I hope ultimately he is right, but it is not a done deal by any means. We need to engage people and inform them there is a better legislative option that despite what the Meaure 5 supporters claim HAS legislators that have committed to sponsoring, (2 from our district). Once people know about this measure and who is behind it a wide majority of them agree it is NOT best for ND.

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 Plainsman,

No bull droppings.  Just more facts.  The Mason Dixon poll released on October 8 (can be viewed at Valley News Live's website) showed a yes vote total of 66 percent, a no vote total of 27 percent, and 7 percent undecided.  The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, so it was statistically valid and reliable.  Having said that, a lot of work has been done since October 8 so I believe it is going to be much closer than that poll shows.  I pray Measure 5 is defeated.  I have written a letter to the editor, hung a "No on 5" sign on a semi trailer a few weeks ago, and did a t.v. interview as well trying to defeat 5.  You'll be happy to know that I received a letter from the pro-5 group as a result of my t.v. comments.  They are threatening to press charges against me.  Please vote YES on Measure 3 and NO on Measure 5!  Both measures serve to prevent the same groups from coming into our state and harming hunting/agriculture/meat consumption.

The Measure 5 sponsors have threatened a number of people with lawsuits, yet lie at every turn they get regarding this measure. Ms. Hayes their campain coordinator tallied up a number of lies on the Joel Hietkamp show. The most notable were her claim this measure addresses the most common froms of abuse andneglect here in ND. It does not, by far starvation and abandonment (not covered)  happen more than all the actions listed in their measure combined.

The second whopper was this group is not opposed to horse slaughter. Ms Thunshelle the lead sponsor of this measure is also the lead person from the org North Dakotans against horse slaughter. The language" insanguinate" is specifically included to block a horse slaughter plant from ever opening here in this state.

So plaisnman, step up to the plate and make sure all your urban friends and neighbors know about the "bull droppins" behind this measure.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
No bull droppings. Just more facts. The Mason Dixon poll released on October 8 (can be viewed at Valley News Live's website) showed a yes vote total of 66 percent, a no vote total of 27 percent, and 7 percent undecided.

Farmboy maybe gst and I should go on KFYR and admit to the world how much we debate, but both agree on this.  If gst and I agree then that doesn't leave much room for others to disagree. 
mauser, this isn't me against you on measure #5 so my advise is shut up before you change minds.  Some may vote for it just to spit people like you.  Don't make that happen.

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

Plainsman Said:

No bull droppings. Just more facts. The Mason Dixon poll released on October 8 (can be viewed at Valley News Live's website) showed a yes vote total of 66 percent, a no vote total of 27 percent, and 7 percent undecided.

Farmboy maybe gst and I should go on KFYR and admit to the world how much we debate, but both agree on this.  If gst and I agree then that doesn't leave much room for others to disagree. 
mauser, this isn't me against you on measure #5 so my advise is shut up before you change minds.  Some may vote for it just to spit people like you.  Don't make that happen.

I am sure gst would do a fine job, your creditablity isn't what you think it is at all.

 

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

Well if your so against measure #5 mauser maybe we should all reconsider.   You being for or against something is a good measure.  If I knew nothing about something and had to vote I would need just look at you and vote the opposite.

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

I think old shaug on Nodak nailed it.

Re: What's right with the NDFB intiated amendment?

Postby shaug » Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:53 pm

Plainsman wrote,
So shaug is your real name???

I was serious about as long as your fighting with them maybe you will leave us alone.

I just looked at that Tribune discussion page and it seems the HSUS people have encountered a snag. They never have the facts on their side and instead pound the table with emotion. How do you beat an activist? Become more active than they are active. Just stick with the truth and the law. Gabe does a very good job at that.

Plainsman, at first glance, I thought you wouldn't miss an opportunity to debate HSUS members. I have since changed my mind. You have lost every debate, legislative bill, arguement and initiated measure that you become involved with.
 

 

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

You know I have never seen you fellows concerned about hunting before.  That's odd isn't it since normally you spit in sportsmen's face.  For example look at the 5% from oil revenue to be used on conservation.  You dumped on hunters o that one.  Hmmm so how does measure #5 endanger farming and ranching?  I seriously need to rethink this.

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

Plainsman Said:
You know I have never seen you fellows concerned about hunting before.  That's odd isn't it since normally you spit in sportsmen's face.  For example look at the 5% from oil revenue to be used on conservation.  You dumped on hunters o that one.  Hmmm so how does measure #5 endanger farming and ranching?  I seriously need to rethink this.

Bruce,

No one is spitting in anyones face. Try as you might, everyone knows you belong to a small click who claim to represent sportsmen but "do not." Your devisive mojo isn't working anymore. You really do need to quit.

As far as the 5% oil revenue rip off gang is concerned, it was mainly the ND Chamber of Commerce that opposed your small gang. However, there has been a couple of meetings lately between the Chamber and the "gang" and rumor control says they may come together and propose something to the legislature. If the Chamber gets money "too" they will probably do a total about face.

It isn't about conservation, it isn't about habitat, it isn't about hunting as much as it is about money. I don't think the legislature should compromise because no amount of taxpayers monies will satisfy your appetite for more and more.

I am a sportsmen and you and your ilk do not represent me.

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

I don't see you as a sportsman Fritz.  Sportsmen want more habitat.  More habitat means more wildlife which means more outdoor recreation.

So here is where I stand.  I don't know the truth about measure #5.  Any help either way would be much appreciated.  That information has to come from real sportsmen though not those who's only interest is agriculture and pose as sportsmen.  Like I said either way.  All I want is something truthful. 

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

Plainsman Said:
I don't see you as a sportsman Fritz. 

You must be calling Fritz a lair now right!!       Another Plainsman classic!!!

You must have got into the wine at church this morning.

You even speak like Obama.

 

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

I don't think Fritz is a liar. I think he thinks he is a sportsman. However, he does't think habitat is conservation. CRP is habitat right. C standing for what? Oh, ya conservation. C -conservation R-reserve- P - program.
Evidently your not a sporstsman either mauser.

What it is starting to look like is this. As if people are using #5 to get #3. That leaves me not understanding #5. All I am asking for is opinions from others that are interested in something besides agriculture. I want to hear from fellow hunters.

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

Plainsman Said:

eyexer Said:
#5 has zero chance at passing

That is good news.  I thought one of the pro measure #3 guys said the poll was 60%+ for measure #5.  Was that just more bull droppings to convince us to vote for #3?

The campaign against it has been very strong.  when you have veterinarians running ads against it that's pretty compelling. 

 

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

Plainsman Said:
.
Evidently your not a sporstsman either mauser.

Are you really on HSUS's payroll??  You speak so well for there believes l http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/anti_hunter_quotes.shtml

Evidently once again one of your wild azz comments.  Here is a perfuct example of the type of sporstman you are a big time spokesman and sponsore

http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2008/04/07/north-dakota-fair-chase-what-have-you-done/        You want true here is your real colors!!!

You wil say just about anything to prove the following statement true.

"You have lost every debate, legislative bill, arguement and initiated measure that you become involved with".

 

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 Plainsman,

No bull droppings.  Just more facts.  The Mason Dixon poll released on October 8 (can be viewed at Valley News Live's website) showed a yes vote total of 66 percent, a no vote total of 27 percent, and 7 percent undecided.  The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, so it was statistically valid and reliable.  Having said that, a lot of work has been done since October 8 so I believe it is going to be much closer than that poll shows.  I pray Measure 5 is defeated.  I have written a letter to the editor, hung a "No on 5" sign on a semi trailer a few weeks ago, and did a t.v. interview as well trying to defeat 5.  You'll be happy to know that I received a letter from the pro-5 group as a result of my t.v. comments.  They are threatening to press charges against me.  Please vote YES on Measure 3 and NO on Measure 5!  Both measures serve to prevent the same groups from coming into our state and harming hunting/agriculture/meat consumption.

where the polling was conducted at will make all the difference in the world.  I'd bet you won't get 30% yes votes west of the river.  And there is a ton of new voters in that part of the state

 

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

The legislature has no business taking tax payers money and using it for habitat development.  If people feel oil money should be used for that then an organization needs to be formed and then solicit oil companies for money to fund the program.  Oil companies donate a ton of money every year to local programs.  I don't think raising nice amounts of money by a legit organization would be much trouble.

 

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

Plainsman wrote,

So here is where I stand.  I don't know the truth about measure #5.  Any help either way would be much appreciated.  That information has to come from real sportsmen though not those who's only interest is agriculture and pose as sportsmen.  Like I said either way.  All I want is something truthful.

If you are truly looking for truth might I suggest reading or following the news. I don't think you are looking for information on this blog site (where people use psuedo names) as much as you are here to pass along a little disinformation.

btw, if you are looking for information coming from a "real sportsman" (wink wink) look no farther than on that dying web forum you moderate.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100899

KFYR RADIO, MEASURE No. 5 (animal cruelty) Interview

Postby Dick Monson » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:16 am

While I was chisel plowing the other day I had the radio on tuned to KFYR (Bismarck), where the announcer was doing a so called "panel discussion" on ND initiated measure 5 (animal cruelty). It was a snow job if I ever heard one. The announcer had only invited the Vote No folks, no one from the Vote Yes was allowed. Strike one.

These were the head honchos for "Vote No" on the radio. The top tier. One said the language was too narrow in scope. The other said the language was too general. The radio announcer agreed. WTF. :eyeroll: Strike two.

The one speaker said money for the measure is coming in from out of state. Like every political tv commercial isn't funded from out of state. Are they against that too..... no, just for this measure. Hummmm... Strike three.

Both speakers said that for years the ND farm orgs have been working on a comprehensive animal cruelty bill that would be far better than measure 5. They just haven't been able to agree on wording, so no bill passed yet. Think about that. Do some critical thinking here....... These farm orgs have been in existence well over 50 years. Animal cruelty laws have been passed by 48 other states over the last 100 years. And ND farm orgs can't come up with wording? How incompetent are they? Strike four.

And of course the farm orgs that have been punching sportsmen in the nose legislatively for ten years, are now, you guessed it, PROTECTING HUNTING!!!!!! by demanding a VOTE NO. Never mind that there is not a word about hunting or anything that would affect hunting in the measure. Talk about desperate. Strike five.

The panelists said that if passed the measure would prevent better legislation in the future. Not true. There can be any number of statutes on a subject. Strike six.

The panelists said that not enough animals are included in the language (only dogs cats and horses are) and thus more could never be added. Not true. We expand and modify statute language all the time. Look at our hunting laws, dozens come into the legislature every session. Strike seven.

Another lie told on the radio that day was that an owner couldn't put his own animal down without a veterinarian. Not true. Strike eight.

Both the panelists and the announcer somehow forgot to mention that recent polling by KVLY and WDAY show the "Vote Yes" vote in large majority over the "Vote No" position. I suppose when you're beating the drum it's hard to hear the real music.

You get the idea.

If nothing else, before you vote on #5, read the whole measure language below and make up your own mind.

Plainsman, what is obvious is that Dick Monson doesn't like legislators, Agricultural Orgs or just about anybody.

His message is loud and clear.................. the enemy of my enemy is my friend........... Bruce, you guys do not represent sportsmen. Time to face the music. 
 

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

Good points eyexer, and thank you.  It's good to hear those things from someone who can see both agricultur and hunting.

As for the money I forget, but it was a form of tax on the oil companies.  Part of the reason some should go for habitat is because oil extraction and it's related activities are a strain on the habitat and it's wildlife.  I was one of those who kept saying drill baby drill, but I have nothing against an offset for some of the damages that do occur while drilling. 
I see roads affected, local people and local government, local wildlife and habitat, stress on law enforcement too.  That oil money should go to alleviate the problems it causes.  Keep drilling, but take care of the things affected. 

I hope that makes sense to you eyexer.  Let me know what you think.

Oh, Fritz I just seen your post.  Doesn't dick farm?  Just a second I have to look at his response to my post. 

OK:  I'm not telling folks how to vote on this measure. I would hope people vote with their conscience. The thing that PO'd me was the blatant disregard for the intelligence of the radio audience by KFYR (Bismarck) radio station. KFYR allowed no call-ins. It was just a bare bones Vote No propaganda advertisement disguised as a talk show. I had higher expectations from KFYR.
 

So I guess he isn't telling anyone how to vote, just expressing his disappointment in the way in which KFYR conducted the program.  Sort of what the liberal media does to Romney.  I think I seen your comment too, or are you still not Shaug?

Why do you fellows object to a request to hear from fellow sportsmen?  Is there some reason I can only hear from you?  What's wrong with wanting other opinions?  You want to hear from those you trust so isn't it understandable that I want to hear from those I trust?  Why do you think that is unreasonable?

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

Bruce,

No one reads nodakouthouse anymore because they can smell what you guys are standing in.

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

Plainsman Said:
Good points eyexer, and thank you.  It's good to hear those things from someone who can see both agricultur and hunting.

As for the money I forget, but it was a form of tax on the oil companies.  Part of the reason some should go for habitat is because oil extraction and it's related activities are a strain on the habitat and it's wildlife.  I was one of those who kept saying drill baby drill, but I have nothing against an offset for some of the damages that do occur while drilling. 
I see roads affected, local people and local government, local wildlife and habitat, stress on law enforcement too.  That oil money should go to alleviate the problems it causes.  Keep drilling, but take care of the things affected. 

I hope that makes sense to you eyexer.  Let me know what you think.

Oh, Fritz I just seen your post.  Doesn't dick farm?  Just a second I have to look at his response to my post. 

OK:  I'm not telling folks how to vote on this measure. I would hope people vote with their conscience. The thing that PO'd me was the blatant disregard for the intelligence of the radio audience by KFYR (Bismarck) radio station. KFYR allowed no call-ins. It was just a bare bones Vote No propaganda advertisement disguised as a talk show. I had higher expectations from KFYR.
 

So I guess he isn't telling anyone how to vote, just expressing his disappointment in the way in which KFYR conducted the program.  Sort of what the liberal media does to Romney.  I think I seen your comment too, or are you still not Shaug?

Why do you fellows object to a request to hear from fellow sportsmen?  Is there some reason I can only hear from you?  What's wrong with wanting other opinions?  You want to hear from those you trust so isn't it understandable that I want to hear from those I trust?  Why do you think that is unreasonable?

I believe the measure was written to take a percentage of the money collected by the state in the form of taxes or royalties.  It was way too much money to fund a program like that.  And it shouldn't be coming from those types of funds.  Another way to do something like this is through legislation.  The legislature can assess a fee of like $500 per well for habitat construction.  Have the money be given to the game and fish to be used only for habitat.  Or something to that affect.  That would give them close to a million dollars a year.  That would go a long ways towards habitat

 

ggenthusiast's picture
ggenthusiast
Offline
Joined: 9/11/02

I voted NO on measure 3, simply because it makes absolutely no sense.  Who would get to decide what is "modern" practice.  hell, slavery was once modern farmin' practice.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

ggenthusiast Said:
I voted NO on measure 3, simply because it makes absolutely no sense.  Who would get to decide what is "modern" practice.  hell, slavery was once modern farmin' practice.

exactly.  that's one of the reasons I won't be voting for it either.  The other is because these very farmers, the ones that want us to give them free reign, wouldn't support abolishing property taxes. 

 

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

Fritz the Cat Said:
Bruce,

No one reads nodakouthouse anymore because they can smell what you guys are standing in.

That is your response to me asking why I can not get my answers from fellow sportsmen rather than you?   What have you got against sportsmen?

So what do you think about habitat now that I explained it to you?  Do you still think improving habitat isn't conservation?

It's time to drag yourself into the 20th century Fritz.  No I didn't mistype 20th. 

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

Plainsman Said:

Fritz the Cat Said:
Bruce,

No one reads nodakouthouse anymore because they can smell what you guys are standing in.

That is your response to me asking why I can not get my answers from fellow sportsmen rather than you?   What have you got against sportsmen?

So what do you think about habitat now that I explained it to you?  Do you still think improving habitat isn't conservation?

It's time to drag yourself into the 20th century Fritz.  No I didn't mistype 20th. 

Bruce didn't take you long to spin thread off topic.  Trying to keep your HSUS agenda in tact?  

 

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

eyexer Said:

ggenthusiast Said:
I voted NO on measure 3, simply because it makes absolutely no sense.  Who would get to decide what is "modern" practice.  hell, slavery was once modern farmin' practice.

exactly.  that's one of the reasons I won't be voting for it either.  The other is because these very farmers, the ones that want us to give them free reign, wouldn't support abolishing property taxes. 

The legisalture itself defines modern farming practices. So out of spite you are not voting for it eye?

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

Fritz the Cat Said:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100899

KFYR RADIO, MEASURE No. 5 (animal cruelty) Interview

Postby Dick Monson » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:16 am

While I was chisel plowing the other day I had the radio on tuned to KFYR (Bismarck), where the announcer was doing a so called "panel discussion" on ND initiated measure 5 (animal cruelty). It was a snow job if I ever heard one. The announcer had only invited the Vote No folks, no one from the Vote Yes was allowed. Strike one.

These were the head honchos for "Vote No" on the radio. The top tier. One said the language was too narrow in scope. The other said the language was too general. The radio announcer agreed. WTF. :eyeroll: Strike two.

The one speaker said money for the measure is coming in from out of state. Like every political tv commercial isn't funded from out of state. Are they against that too..... no, just for this measure. Hummmm... Strike three.

Both speakers said that for years the ND farm orgs have been working on a comprehensive animal cruelty bill that would be far better than measure 5. They just haven't been able to agree on wording, so no bill passed yet. Think about that. Do some critical thinking here....... These farm orgs have been in existence well over 50 years. Animal cruelty laws have been passed by 48 other states over the last 100 years. And ND farm orgs can't come up with wording? How incompetent are they? Strike four.

And of course the farm orgs that have been punching sportsmen in the nose legislatively for ten years, are now, you guessed it, PROTECTING HUNTING!!!!!! by demanding a VOTE NO. Never mind that there is not a word about hunting or anything that would affect hunting in the measure. Talk about desperate. Strike five.

The panelists said that if passed the measure would prevent better legislation in the future. Not true. There can be any number of statutes on a subject. Strike six.

The panelists said that not enough animals are included in the language (only dogs cats and horses are) and thus more could never be added. Not true. We expand and modify statute language all the time. Look at our hunting laws, dozens come into the legislature every session. Strike seven.

Another lie told on the radio that day was that an owner couldn't put his own animal down without a veterinarian. Not true. Strike eight.

Both the panelists and the announcer somehow forgot to mention that recent polling by KVLY and WDAY show the "Vote Yes" vote in large majority over the "Vote No" position. I suppose when you're beating the drum it's hard to hear the real music.

You get the idea.

If nothing else, before you vote on #5, read the whole measure language below and make up your own mind.

 

Dick once again seemsmore than willing to take liberty with the facts to support a HSUS partnered ballot inititive.  Lets examine his "strikes"

Strike one.  a number of radio talk show have had BOTH representtives on at the same time to debate this issue INCLUDING KFYR.

Strike two: The too narrow portion of the language is that it only provides care standards for 3 species not all animals, The too general is that

Srtike 3: The groups opposing this measure beleive it is best if NDans determine ND law not outside monies, a novel idea Dick that flies in the face of hiring outside ND companies to collect signatures.

Strike 4:ND farm orgs alomng with other animal care professionals did in fact "come up with the wording" last legisaltive session but the sponsors of easure 5 did not testify in support of it and it failed. There is once again a broad based coalition of orgs , agriculture and others that have again written bette language that does have legislator tosponsor it this session. http://ndanimalcare.com/Proposed_Language.html

Strike 5 Apoparently Dick does not beleive that the autoring organization and the one funding this measures passage HSUS is a threat to hunting in ND, Given the fact he accepted their involveemnt in a previous measure he sponsored perhaps he is willing to defend HSUS who is the nations largest anti hunting org.

Strike 6 There are rules in place regarding the addition of statues to the NDCC that this measure will make it more difficultu to accomplsih other laws pertaining to this statute. Anuyone that has been involved in the legislative process understands this.

Strike 7 When a law is passed thru an initiatied measure it requires a 2/3 majority to add more wording to this particular statute. You simply can not just "ad" more animals.

Strike 8. The specific wordin in the measure requires that euthanasia be preformed under the supervision of a licensed vet. So yes you can put down your own animal, but you must wait however long it takes for a vet to come out to "supervise". If you were to "intentionally" shoot a horse that broke it's leg without a vet "supervision" you would be in violation of the felony aspect of this measure.

What it appears here is that Dick as a "sportsman" is willing to support a measure which HSUS is a partner on.   That in itself is enough for me to question the credibility of ANYTHING he says.

I wonder if Dick was "chisel plowing" any sloughs??   With todays advancements in no till farming, the only reason to "chisel plow"  is to dry out the soil so you can help get rid of excess moisture that makes wetlands next spring. These wetspots are the very "habitat" Dick show pictures of others "destroying".

plainsamn if you are going to critisize others for destroying habitat, perhaps you should look within your own "sportsman" community!

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

From the same link above from Nodak.

Re: KFYR RADIO, MEASURE No. 5 (animal cruelty) Interview

Postby Dick Monson » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:18 am

dakotashooter2 wrote:While ND could use an animal cruelty law ,this is not it. One of the biggest issues it does not address is neglect. This is an issue that is seen far more than physical abuse..... As a city employee I see this a lot. Animals left out day after day with no shelter, tired up on a short lease in an area so covered in crap that they can't move without stepping or laying in it, animals tied in a manner that they entangle themselves day after day, animals suffering from lack of food, and etc. These are things I see weekly but we have no enforcement action available. I don't see where this adresses any of those issues...... Untill they address neglect I will vote NO........... Under this law you can prosecute someone who beats his horses but can't do anything if he starves them.......... What does this law really accomplish ???????????

If #5 gets voted down as a no, the legislature will say the public has spoken on the issue. End of story.

If #5 passes with a yes, certain cases of torture are outlawed with a felony penalty. Is that not an accomplishment?

Ask yourselves why this coalition of animal stewards (there is a euphemism) has not gotten proper legislation for neglect into law? They do not want it, will not support it, and have no intention of presenting it. They are sandbagging the public by saying they have a better idea that can be brought forward later.
 

Perhaps Dick should get his facts straight before spouting of. There was a bill introduced last legislativesession to address many of thes concerns and create comprehensive animal care satndards. The peopl who "dropped the ball" are the now sponsors of this measure as they did not appear at all to testify in support of the measure.

In prepartation for THIS session a broad based coalitionof animal steewards (and Dick these are people that actually do spend hours of their time and have committed their carrers to caring for literally thousands of animals no "euphemism here at all) ) http://www.humanesocietyfargomoorhead.org/north-dakotans-for-responsible-animal-care/have been working since the last legislative session to write conprehensive standards that will not have other consequences or agendas. And Dick there are legislators including the Senate majority leade and several others that have committed to sponsoring and supporting the passage of this legislation.

So Dick, before you spout of defending another org that invited HSUS into our state educate yourself a little otherwise you look the fool you are for having been a part of the first group that invited this antihunting/anti animal ag group into our state.

Althouogh I did just possibly think of an explanation for Dicks comments, perhaps he beleives if this measure passes people will forget about his measure that involved this org as well.

Indeed plainsman your fellow "sportsmen" have done so much.

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

Plainsman Said:
I don't see you as a sportsman Fritz.  Sportsmen want more habitat.  More habitat means more wildlife which means more outdoor recreation.

So here is where I stand.  I don't know the truth about measure #5.  Any help either way would be much appreciated.  That information has to come from real sportsmen though not those who's only interest is agriculture and pose as sportsmen.  Like I said either way.  All I want is something truthful. 

In his very next post.

Plainsman Said:
I don't think Fritz is a liar. I think he thinks he is a sportsman. However, he does't think habitat is conservation. CRP is habitat right. C standing for what? Oh, ya conservation. C -conservation R-reserve- P - program.
Evidently your not a sporstsman either mauser.

What it is starting to look like is this. As if people are using #5 to get #3. That leaves me not understanding #5. All I am asking for is opinions from others that are interested in something besides agriculture. I want to hear from fellow hunters.

plainsamn, please tell us exactly how much "habitat" you personally have created in the past 10 years. Tell us exactly what you personally have contributed. Youo continueally wish to make claims about people you have never met, lets hear exactly what you have done as an individual.

Any numbe of hunters weighed in on the Measure 5 thread, go back and take a look. The only one so far to have a slant towards supporting this HSUS partnered measure is Dick and yourself.


Re: KFYR RADIO, MEASURE No. 5 (animal cruelty) Interview

Postby Plainsman » Sun Oct 28, 2012 2:15 pm

I have debated this some on fishingbuddy. I was going to vote no. However, there is one fellow over there constantly making a fool of himself that is voting no. That in itself is giving me pause to reconsider.

But then considering the following tidbit you posted there as well........

Re: KFYR RADIO, MEASURE No. 5 (animal cruelty) Interview

Postby Plainsman » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:39 am

dakotashooter2 that is an excellent point. I think I will vote against measure #5 myself, but the guys on another site I post to are so narrow minded they could nearly push me the other way. Not out of spite, but out of worry they wield to much power through organizations like North Dakota Farm Bureau. An example is measure #3 which would make it against the state constitution to form any new laws against modern agriculture. Or some such wording. I would not put it past a couple of them to help fund measure #5 in the hopes of enough backlash to get #3.

plainsman you are simply put, a fool.

You do realize there is a requirement to report all funding of these measures to the ND SoS office correct??? So why don;t you go there and get some proof to back up your dumb ass claims.

espringers does plainsmans dumbass conspiracy claims against NDFB add up to "inherent bias"???

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

gst a lot of money comes from out of state for many different kinds of measures. 

Anti Farm Bureau, really?  Who attempts to block every public land purchase for conservation?  Would that be considered anti conservation?   I think so. 

I'll vote no on measure  #5, but who did you say dropped the ball in the legislature?  I would say the legislature dropped the ball.  They will do nothing until pushed into it.

To get back on subject:  vote no on measure #3.  It's anti conservation.  

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

gst Said:
From the same link above from Nodak.

Re: KFYR RADIO, MEASURE No. 5 (animal cruelty) Interview

Postby Dick Monson » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:18 am

dakotashooter2 wrote:While ND could use an animal cruelty law ,this is not it. One of the biggest issues it does not address is neglect. This is an issue that is seen far more than physical abuse..... As a city employee I see this a lot. Animals left out day after day with no shelter, tired up on a short lease in an area so covered in crap that they can't move without stepping or laying in it, animals tied in a manner that they entangle themselves day after day, animals suffering from lack of food, and etc. These are things I see weekly but we have no enforcement action available. I don't see where this adresses any of those issues...... Untill they address neglect I will vote NO........... Under this law you can prosecute someone who beats his horses but can't do anything if he starves them.......... What does this law really accomplish ???????????

If #5 gets voted down as a no, the legislature will say the public has spoken on the issue. End of story.

If #5 passes with a yes, certain cases of torture are outlawed with a felony penalty. Is that not an accomplishment?

Ask yourselves why this coalition of animal stewards (there is a euphemism) has not gotten proper legislation for neglect into law? They do not want it, will not support it, and have no intention of presenting it. They are sandbagging the public by saying they have a better idea that can be brought forward later.
 

Perhaps Dick should get his facts straight before spouting of. There was a bill introduced last legislativesession to address many of thes concerns and create comprehensive animal care satndards. The peopl who "dropped the ball" are the now sponsors of this measure as they did not appear at all to testify in support of the measure.

In prepartation for THIS session a broad based coalitionof animal steewards (and Dick these are people that actually do spend hours of their time and have committed their carrers to caring for literally thousands of animals no "euphemism here at all) ) http://www.humanesocietyfargomoorhead.org/north-dakotans-for-responsible-animal-care/have been working since the last legislative session to write conprehensive standards that will not have other consequences or agendas. And Dick there are legislators including the Senate majority leade and several others that have committed to sponsoring and supporting the passage of this legislation.

So Dick, before you spout of defending another org that invited HSUS into our state educate yourself a little otherwise you look the fool you are for having been a part of the first group that invited this antihunting/anti animal ag group into our state.

Althouogh I did just possibly think of an explanation for Dicks comments, perhaps he beleives if this measure passes people will forget about his measure that involved this org as well.

Indeed plainsman your fellow "sportsmen" have done so much.

Gabe, is your dumb ass lumping all sportsman into one group again?  You know what?  I am getting tired of your "sportsman bashing" here on a sportsmans website.haha  You are something else there jr.

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

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

Plainsman you better check behind the dumpster your hyena got loose.  You have a lot of hours in it to lose it.  If he is going to be another field-rep for HSUS you need to get him to finish training, Dick Monson#1, Plainsman(Bruce Hansen)#2,and your hyena in training yet. 

 

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
Plainsman you better check behind the dumpster your hyena got loose.  You have a lot of hours in it to lose it.  If he is going to be another field-rep for HSUS you need to get him to finish training, Dick Monson#1, Plainsman(Bruce Hansen)#2,and your hyena in training yet. 

Haha, the village idiot back in action.  I'd listen to you a little more serious mauser if you didn't sound so dumb in your posts.  Learn how to spell and use grammar and you MIGHT get someone to bite on one of your posts.  Better yet mr. MO.  Why don't you go on another quest for cherries.  Wait!!!...even better.  How bout you go to france and try to find a "french" fry!!!

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

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

He is still lose Bruce. 

wstnodak Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
Plainsman you better check behind the dumpster your hyena got loose.  You have a lot of hours in it to lose it.  If he is going to be another field-rep for HSUS you need to get him to finish training, Dick Monson#1, Plainsman(Bruce Hansen)#2,and your hyena in training yet. 

Haha, the village idiot back in action.  I'd listen to you a little more serious mauser if you didn't sound so dumb in your posts.  Learn how to spell and use grammar and you MIGHT get someone to bite on one of your posts.  Better yet mr. MO.  Why don't you go on another quest for cherries.  Wait!!!...even better.  How bout you go to france and try to find a "french" fry!!!

 

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
He is still lose Bruce. 

wstnodak Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
Plainsman you better check behind the dumpster your hyena got loose.  You have a lot of hours in it to lose it.  If he is going to be another field-rep for HSUS you need to get him to finish training, Dick Monson#1, Plainsman(Bruce Hansen)#2,and your hyena in training yet. 

Haha, the village idiot back in action.  I'd listen to you a little more serious mauser if you didn't sound so dumb in your posts.  Learn how to spell and use grammar and you MIGHT get someone to bite on one of your posts.  Better yet mr. MO.  Why don't you go on another quest for cherries.  Wait!!!...even better.  How bout you go to france and try to find a "french" fry!!!

You mean loose right genius?lol

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

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

Take it easy now,when Bruce gets you back on your leash and you jump up on his sofa,don't start licking yourself as you could fall off and really hurt yourself.

 

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
Take it easy now,when Bruce gets you back on your leash and you jump up on his sofa,don't start licking yourself as you could fall off and really hurt yourself.

hahaha...good one mauser.hahahah  Wow.

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

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
Take it easy now,when Bruce gets you back on your leash and you jump up on his sofa,don't start licking yourself as you could fall off and really hurt yourself.

So is this what represents your side gst?   That sure is a convincing argument for measure #3.  Lot of dignity in that post.

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

I don't seak for gst or anyone else.   Is this what you call dignity?  Good to see what sother peoples lives mean to you Mr. Church Man

Undecided presidential Voters

by on 10/28/2012 6:20 PM | Reply #6 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
 
johnr Said:
the east and west coast seem to vote liberal every election, so it might be a good thing.

I agree if they are to lazy to earn a living on their own they will be to lazy to make it to the polls with  rain and wind to deal with.  Conservatives would tunnel their way through roof deep snow to get Obama out of the oval

on 10/29/2012 4:19 PM | Reply #37 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 12/16/2001
Location: ND

Mauser, for a change I agree with you about P's post!  Absolutely disgusting!  
Usually when disasters strike, eveyone is on the same page!  But not some of em on FBO! -

 

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

mauser so are you telling me I'm to tough on those liberals?  If there is a bad storm I do think they will fail to get to the polls before conservatives do.  That 30% that live off the other 70% don't have much initiative.  Are you saying I am wrong?  I will have to say sdXman ???? was right it's the electricity that will be the big problem.

How about this, instead of you complaining about me give us something about measure #3 that is convincing.  If you can't do that it's not my fault.  Maybe it's Bush's fault.

Vote no on meaure #3 and #5. 

mauser since you can't contain yourself when I post lets let gst and others hash it out.  I know you can't help yourself, but I can.

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

Over a million people out of power now some with babies and children and your a enough of a slimball to call them lazy?   You are a real church man,will you call the almost certainty of someone dieing in one of the largest storms in our history lazy?

like bobkat stated

 

on 10/29/2012 4:19 PM | Reply #37 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Joined: 12/16/2001
Location: ND

Mauser, for a change I agree with you about P's post!  Absolutely disgusting!  
Usually when disasters strike, eveyone is on the same page!  But not some of em on FBO! -

No wonder many don't believe in chrches with a post like you made being a big church man.

by on 10/28/2012 6:20 PM | Reply #6 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
 
johnr Said:
the east and west coast seem to vote liberal every election, so it might be a good thing.

I agree if they are to lazy to earn a living on their own they will be to lazy to make it to the polls with  rain and wind to deal with.  Conservatives would tunnel their way through roof deep snow to get Obama out of the oval office

You have been a leech on the tax payers all over this country for 30 some years and you have the guts to say they are lazy in one of the worst times of thier lives.

 

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

Plainsman Said:

mauser since you can't contain yourself when I post lets let gst and others hash it out.  I know you can't help yourself, but I can.

Did you pass this imfor along to your hyena??   

 

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said:

ggenthusiast Said:
I voted NO on measure 3, simply because it makes absolutely no sense.  Who would get to decide what is "modern" practice.  hell, slavery was once modern farmin' practice.

exactly.  that's one of the reasons I won't be voting for it either.  The other is because these very farmers, the ones that want us to give them free reign, wouldn't support abolishing property taxes. 

The legisalture itself defines modern farming practices. So out of spite you are not voting for it eye?

that's one of two reasons.  I also heard the farm bureau and farmers union reps on joel's show today.  the farmers union rep made a very strong case. 

 

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

wstnodak Said:

gst Said:
From the same link above from Nodak.

Re: KFYR RADIO, MEASURE No. 5 (animal cruelty) Interview

Postby Dick Monson » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:18 am

dakotashooter2 wrote:While ND could use an animal cruelty law ,this is not it. One of the biggest issues it does not address is neglect. This is an issue that is seen far more than physical abuse..... As a city employee I see this a lot. Animals left out day after day with no shelter, tired up on a short lease in an area so covered in crap that they can't move without stepping or laying in it, animals tied in a manner that they entangle themselves day after day, animals suffering from lack of food, and etc. These are things I see weekly but we have no enforcement action available. I don't see where this adresses any of those issues...... Untill they address neglect I will vote NO........... Under this law you can prosecute someone who beats his horses but can't do anything if he starves them.......... What does this law really accomplish ???????????

If #5 gets voted down as a no, the legislature will say the public has spoken on the issue. End of story.

If #5 passes with a yes, certain cases of torture are outlawed with a felony penalty. Is that not an accomplishment?

Ask yourselves why this coalition of animal stewards (there is a euphemism) has not gotten proper legislation for neglect into law? They do not want it, will not support it, and have no intention of presenting it. They are sandbagging the public by saying they have a better idea that can be brought forward later.
 

Perhaps Dick should get his facts straight before spouting of. There was a bill introduced last legislativesession to address many of thes concerns and create comprehensive animal care satndards. The peopl who "dropped the ball" are the now sponsors of this measure as they did not appear at all to testify in support of the measure.

In prepartation for THIS session a broad based coalitionof animal steewards (and Dick these are people that actually do spend hours of their time and have committed their carrers to caring for literally thousands of animals no "euphemism here at all) ) http://www.humanesocietyfargomoorhead.org/north-dakotans-for-responsible-animal-care/have been working since the last legislative session to write conprehensive standards that will not have other consequences or agendas. And Dick there are legislators including the Senate majority leade and several others that have committed to sponsoring and supporting the passage of this legislation.

So Dick, before you spout of defending another org that invited HSUS into our state educate yourself a little otherwise you look the fool you are for having been a part of the first group that invited this antihunting/anti animal ag group into our state.

Althouogh I did just possibly think of an explanation for Dicks comments, perhaps he beleives if this measure passes people will forget about his measure that involved this org as well.

Indeed plainsman your fellow "sportsmen" have done so much.

Gabe, is your dumb ass lumping all sportsman into one group again?  You know what?  I am getting tired of your "sportsman bashing" here on a sportsmans website.haha  You are something else there jr.

west, your "dumbass" is to blindly ignorant to understand Dick and his fellow "sportsmen" sponsors did "sportsmen" more harm by inviting HSUS into our state than ANY of your so called "sportsman bashing" on this site.

HSUS has spent over $675,000.00 on this one measure alone. Including two years ago they have spent almost $1,000,000.00 in our state trying to passed initiated measures.

WHY?

 And west, as an individual, how many dollars have you personally spent in the last 10 years creating habitat and helping wildlife?

RIF's picture
RIF
Offline
Joined: 5/24/11

For all of you headed to the polls today, I thought this should be brought forward. And please keep in mind GST's thoughtfullness, engaging personality, and I am right you are wrong attitude when voting for this awful measure.

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

RIF Said:
For all of you headed to the polls today, I thought this should be brought forward. And please keep in mind GST's thoughtfullness, engaging personality, and I am right you are wrong attitude when voting for this awful measure.

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

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

I'll vote no understanding that 99% of the farmers I would trust, but 1% can do a lot of damage and an amendment to the constitution that would leave them unhindered is frightening.

I will add that some of your comments show that some people do more damage to their cause than help. 

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

anyone care to guess how i cast my first vote?  lol.  first correct answer gets a cookie.

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

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

 I voted yesterday so I guess I cancelled out gst's vote already. espringers, I'm assuming you cancelled out Jeff's...

At least I can watch the polls tonight knowing we started at a level field... whew 

(winky's in honor of gabe) 

J

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

Plainsman Said:
I'll vote no understanding that 99% of the farmers I would trust, but 1% can do a lot of damage and an amendment to the constitution that would leave them unhindered is frightening.

I will add that some of your comments show that some people do more damage to their cause than help. 

Much like retired Fed employees most you can trust,But then you have those who have idenical  signature on a measure.  Then duck and dive.  I guess if you go to church every Sunday you are above election laws right??

 

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

mauserG33-40 Said:

Plainsman Said:
I'll vote no understanding that 99% of the farmers I would trust, but 1% can do a lot of damage and an amendment to the constitution that would leave them unhindered is frightening.

I will add that some of your comments show that some people do more damage to their cause than help. 

Much like retired Fed employees most you can trust,But then you have those who have idenical  signature on a measure.  Then duck and dive.  I guess if you go to church every Sunday you are above election laws right??

Say what!?  English please Mr. MO.

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

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

wstnodak Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:

Plainsman Said:
I'll vote no understanding that 99% of the farmers I would trust, but 1% can do a lot of damage and an amendment to the constitution that would leave them unhindered is frightening.

I will add that some of your comments show that some people do more damage to their cause than help. 

Much like retired Fed employees most you can trust,But then you have those who have idenical  signature on a measure.  Then duck and dive.  I guess if you go to church every Sunday you are above election laws right??

Say what!?  English please Mr. MO.

Bruce, I find your statement bothersome.

as to signatures I have signed my wifes name in the past with her presence. I have picked up family fishing license and signed her name. Sometimes I have had to sign her name and the person tells me to initial beside her name. Do you really think I remember back that far?

 

Bruce, you shouldn't be so casual or try to pass off your actions as reasonable. Yes you can sign for your wife if your are entering a give away for a bottle of soda. Yes you can purchase a family fishing license. No you cannot forge her signature on an amendment or measure because the person collecting must notarize under oath that they did indeed take that persons signature. I have copies of fair chase one. A public relations firm flagged in a yellow hue all the signatures with the same handwriting. There was yellow high lighter on every other page. The sponsors were some of the worst violators. Signing for others and filling in addresses. 

Bruce, what we have now is an honor system. The Secretary of States Office can only operate within the parameters set forth by the people. As you have just pointed out, laws are not being followed and most people are just too casual.  They just can't get fired up. Maybe this next legislative session people will. The last couple of years worth of extremes examples of incompetence and wrong doing in the signature gathering process should wake some folks up.

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/user_fritz_the_cat?app_task=ViewComments

 

Pages