Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
Farmboy Jeff's picture
Farmboy Jeff
Offline
Joined: 10/10/12

 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.  

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

 Sportsman,

I'll do better than provide a link or list.  If you can find 5 people on this site who are willing to attend a face-to-face meeting, I will make arrangements with the attorney(s).  I believe there are only 12 people involved with this thread, but if there are at least 5 who are sincere and interested, i have no problem trying to set it up.  Just hit reply to this post to let me know if you any of you would be willing to meet up.

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

Plainsman,

I'm thinking you haven't read the language of this measure, so here it is:

"The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."

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.


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

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.

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

I'm totally on fence on this measure.  It's one of those measures that on the surface seems like a no brainer.  But if you think about it a bit more you realize there could be some unseen negative impacts.  Most of them have been pointed out.  Another concern is who the hell is going to determine what is "modern farming practices".  That's extremely vague if you ask me.  The other irony of all this is that most of the supporters of this measure were against abolishing property taxes.  And the arguments against this measure three are nearly identical to the arguments the supporters of measure three used against property tax measure.  Given that the red flags really flies for me.  And when you add into the equation the fact that the two major farm organizations disagree sends up another red flag.  Farmboy Jeff points out that we should pass it to "test" it.  Well why in the hell didn't that happen with the property tax measure.  We certainly could have passed that measure to test it.  Or does that sound too "Nancy Pelosi" for you. 

 

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

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

 Thank you eyexer.

Actually, I didn't say we need to pass it to test it.  I was making a point that given the fact a few people on this site were continuing to demand endless information in order to convince them to potentially vote for the measure, I was simply saying "the only way you REALLY know the impact from any given piece of legislation and/or ballot measure is...to have it passed.  There are so many factors that create uncertainty and doubt.  It is so much easier to try to disprove something.  I am NOT a Nancy Pelosi fan AT ALL...furthest thing from it!  :)

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

Thanks Plainsman.  

That is why the word "modern" was utilized...to make it relevant to the time period...whether it is today, or 100 years from now.  DDT was not a practice.  It was a product that was used, but banned (at the Federal level actually) because the USDA, EPA and FDA (regulatory agencies) were doing their job.  Measure 3 is an amendment to the STATE Constitution, so if passed, the measure offers NO protection from Federal actions like what happened with DDT.  Furthermore, if Measure 3 passes...it will do NOTHING to limit state or local level control OTHER THAN PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO USE MODERN TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICES, just like the measure reads.  It is specific to these 2 things, in sentence number 2.

The word modern could mean anything from hot-iron branding (even though this technology is centuries old-it continues to be a modern practice, as it is so widely utilized and is considered a best management practice) to the use of GPS in guiding farm equipment.  As far as a meeting location...I don't care at all.  Makes me no difference.  Wherever folks would feel comfortable I guess.

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

Farmboy Jeff Said:
 Thank you eyexer.

Actually, I didn't say we need to pass it to test it.  I was making a point that given the fact a few people on this site were continuing to demand endless information in order to convince them to potentially vote for the measure, I was simply saying "the only way you REALLY know the impact from any given piece of legislation and/or ballot measure is...to have it passed.  There are so many factors that create uncertainty and doubt.  It is so much easier to try to disprove something.  I am NOT a Nancy Pelosi fan AT ALL...furthest thing from it!  :)

who is going to determine what "modern" is?  that's a pretty vague statement in itself.  There are alot of things going on in this country that I highly dislike that could be considered "modern" in this day and age. 

 

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

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.

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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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
GREENHORN
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.

Pages