measure 5 phone call

just got a call from steve adair and now im on a live conference with a measure five meeting?  whats the deal?

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

gst Said:

Hardwaterman Said:

Fritz I think I heard today that a former Pres of FU came out in support of the measure? Having been the head of this group now fighting against it, what does that indicate?

That he was and is a fool when it comes to policy. He also supported the ponzie scheme called carbon credits too ron.

Or that he wants to move to Arizona and is hoping another big dollar CRP program will fund it.

I know both of these guys gst.  Watne makes Carlson look like Ronald Reagan.  I sat in the same church pew with him for years.  The church was so overrun with liberal Farmers Union that it really isn't a church anymore so I left.  Farmers Union and Farm Bureau together is unimaginable.  Farmers Union I compare to full fledged socialists, while Farm Bureau are beyond conservative.   Both sort of lunatic fringe, one left the other beyond right.

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

odocoileus Said:
 Because the opponents of this measure would never support this kind of money to go towards conservation. Period. No matter how the measure was written. I have heard excuses such as if some land gets put back into some sort of CRP program that all the small towns will dwindle because no one will be farming anymore. Anyone who beleieves that needs to come back down to reality.  It's quite obvious why organizations such as API are against this measure. They as well as others do not want to see conservation as a priority for this state, and certainly don't want it in the constitution.

NO ONE has claimed :"no one will be farming anymore".  period. If anyone on here has please show us where.

Odie I don't know where you live but perhaps people in Fargo didn't see the impacts CRP had on communities. But I live near the Bottineau/Renville county line. These two counties had some of the highest percentage of CRP enrollments in the state. Those of us that lived in the areas and call the small communites in them home, did in fact see a decline in business, schools and prosperity as these ag lands were taken out of production and businesses closed their doors. 
 
You simply can not deny  the math of dollars taken out of these communities in lost  input sales, machinery sales and service, and all the other supporting businesses ect.... impacted them greatly in a negative way.
 
There were negative consequences of the CRP program. Then add in the agendas of orgs like the National Wildlife Federation, one of the orgs behind this measure, that they accomplished thru lawsuits that prevented the managed haying and grazing of these lands under the same parameters as what they originally allowed, and once again you simply can not deny their actions had a negative impact on those that actually live here and make our living on these lands and in these communities.

I would like very much to see conservation more fully funded. Why would I not like a program that would pay 100% of the cost of planting trees instead of having to write a check for a few thousand dollars myself???

Why would I not like a program that would pay me enough to seed land back to grass and hay and graze it on a managed basis so I would not have to farm it to make a living from it?

Your rhetoric and accusations ring hollow.

What many of the opponents do not support is orgs like those that are behind this measure gaining influence and control over billions of dollars.

I have provided you links that factually show the agendas and actions of these orgs and how they impact individuals and rural communities and you choose to ignore them and spout the tired old anti ag/anti big oil rhetoric we hear too often.

The voters of ND deserve to hear the truth and as in the past on measures like the HFH one many of these same sponsors pushed, I hope they will see thru what is behind this measure.

The law allowing the governor to regulate land purchases by nonprofits being overturned in the courts thru the Cook lawsuit, an amendment placed into our constitution to allow billions of dollars to be used to buy lands thru mandated spending requirements, and the out of state orgs that are investing hundreds of thousands of their "nonprofit profits" to gain a piece of that pie to buy these lands.

THAT in a nut shell is what this measure is about.


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

odocoileus Said:
I hear what you are saying and thank you for bringing up a good point. How many Americans think the U.S. Constitution is poorly written, open for interpretation,  and should be changed? I bet the people who support the constitution are damn happy it's written the way it is. I know I am.

freiday31 Said:
 It is not that there are opponents that is concerning, it is the number of them and the amount of confusion and misunderstanding on the measure.  If it was written well, there should be some squeaky wheels.  A truly well written amendment would have overwhelming support.

So do you think the Federal Constitution should become the bankroll, direct deposit, dumping ground for amendments from every group with enough monies to convince 50.5% of the people to change it to provide them mandated spending sources?

I would really like to hear your answer to this qeustion odie?

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

Plainsman Said:

gst Said:

Hardwaterman Said:

Fritz I think I heard today that a former Pres of FU came out in support of the measure? Having been the head of this group now fighting against it, what does that indicate?

That he was and is a fool when it comes to policy. He also supported the ponzie scheme called carbon credits too ron.

Or that he wants to move to Arizona and is hoping another big dollar CRP program will fund it.

I know both of these guys gst.  Watne makes Carlson look like Ronald Reagan.  I sat in the same church pew with him for years.  The church was so overrun with liberal Farmers Union that it really isn't a church anymore so I left.  Farmers Union and Farm Bureau together is unimaginable.  Farmers Union I compare to full fledged socialists, while Farm Bureau are beyond conservative.   Both sort of lunatic fringe, one left the other beyond right.

plainsman here is a news flash, I don't think much of either one of them or their policies. 

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

plainsman here is a news flash, I don't think much of either one of them or their policies. 

      I was looking for that big hug icon, but this site doesn't have it.  Thumbs up will have to do.   You made my day. 

Or maybe you meant Watne and Carlson and not Farm Bureau and Farmers Union.  Darn. 

feather_duster's picture
feather_duster
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/10/06

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

gst Said:
okay eye straight up question do 75% of these funds have to be spent/allocated towards something each year or not under the language of this measure?

doesn't appear to be to me.  and obviously it doesn't to quite a few people.  maybe you should ask the attorney general for an opinion on it.

 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
okay eye straight up question do 75% of these funds have to be spent/allocated towards something each year or not under the language of this measure?

doesn't appear to be to me.  and obviously it doesn't to quite a few people.  maybe you should ask the attorney general for an opinion on it.

They have the means to do so but the response would not fit their verbal attacks. Don't think for a minute they would not have done so if they felt they would have gotten that answer! And my respond to you gst is when you are flat out lying which is what I pointed out!!

Fritz how did he get where he was if people did not like him or his agenda? Farmers where lining up for those carbon credits with wetlands until it never came to be! They sure where willing to dip into the Ponzi scheme money! Maybe the supporters of this should have included an additional mailbox for farmer then we would have the support! LOL!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

I couldn't let gst's comment on the National Wildlife Service lawsuit on haying and grazing CRP land go without some factual clarification.

When the CRP program was put into action as part of the 1985 Farm Bill there were no provisions for landowners in the program to graze or hay the land in their contracts.  Then the drought and flooding years occurred and allowances were made for landowners in severely impacted areas to either hay or graze these contact acres as part of the disaster recovery.  Once this gate was opened it resulted in requests on almost a yearly basis for farmers to access the land for haying or grazing whenever the rainfall experienced was above or below average.  What was disaster relief became the backup plan for most cattle producers.  They no longer had to put up hay to last them through this year and possibly next year.  If it rained too much and their hay source was flooded out they just go to the CRP land they have under contract and get it there.  If it didn't rain enough and they had no crop on their hay land they just got their winter feed from the CRP acres as well.  Pretty sweet deal for those farmers!

You can see why the wildlife community was upset.  They went along grudgingly when the haying/grazing provisions were implemented by USDA in the severe disaster years because they knew once this special circumstance was allowed it would become normal operating procedure..  And it did!  Now, almost on a yearly basis there is request for CRP acres to be opened for either haying or grazing.  It happens anytime the weather deviates from average.  The only recourse sadly, was legal action.

Farm Bill programs have continued to have increased scrutiny from taxpayers in the country.  They can't understand why their taxes pay subsidies to farmers to grow surplus crops.  They question why tax dollars are used to subsidize payments for crop insurance because those same subsidies don't cover their business losses.  It gets even harder to explain to those taxpayers that their tax dollars go to provide cost-share for the implementation of animal waste systems on feedlots that are required by state law to have them. 

Farm Bill legislation gets passed because promises are made to other parties that there will be efforts made to improve the environment, provide wildlife habitat, protect water resources.  Those other parties get upset when those promises are broken.  The majority of taxpayers could care less if a farmer who has overextended his credit by buying a new tractor, combine,, tillage equipment, etc. goes bankrupt because the weather did not cooperate.  The way they see it, that land will just be put into productive use by another famer who buys the land. 

Unfortunately, the majority of the voting public does not come from a farm background as most of us do.  They don't place farmers on a pedestal to be revered anymore and have a hard time understanding why that way of life costs them so many tax dollars to maintain.  Perhaps, if gst stepped down from his pedestal and looked around he would appreciate what he has and that he can't go back to way things were. 

Weedy

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

I don't see the harm in removing some land from production anyway.  it's a win win for both parties.  habitat is created and less crop in production means higher prices for commodities. 

 

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

Where the money came from and where it's going as of Oct. 2nd is finally on the SOS website:

https://vip.sos.nd.gov/cf/Search/ShowCommittee.aspx?cid=349&did=626

North Dakotans for Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks

Ballot Measure Committee

Committee Type Ballot Measure Committee      
         
         
The committee Supports      
         
         
Ballot Measure/Petition Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Trust and Fund - Constitutional      
         
         
     
 
 
   
 
         
         
         
Committee Information   Agent Information
North Dakotans for Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks   Jeff Weispfenning
    Treasurer
(701) 222-2548   (701) 222-2548
jweispfenning@hotmail.com   jweispfenning@hotmail.com
Committee Address PO Box 1603
Bismarck, ND 58502
  Agent Address PO Box 1603
Bismarck, ND 58502
 
Has this committee or organization incorporated solely for the purpose of liability protection? No

Election and Year-End Statements

  Date Filed Starting Balance Ending Balance Total of all contributions received of $100 or less Total of all expenditures made of $100 or less Total of all contributions received greater than $100 Total of all expenditures made greater than $100
Pre-General 10/2/2014 $109,148.77 $263,356.74 $2,610.00 $1,003.01 $798,375.00 $645,774.02

48-Hour Statements

  Date Filed Total of all contributions received greater than $500
48-hour 10/2/2014 $92,177.34

Selected Statement Details

  Date Filed Starting Balance Ending Balance Total of all contributions received of $100 or less Total of all expenditures made of $100 or less Total of all contributions received greater than $100 Total of all expenditures made greater than $100
Pre-General 10/2/2014 $109,148.77 $263,356.74 $2,610.00 $1,003.01 $798,375.00 $645,774.02

Contributions

Indicates an amended transaction. Click to view the original transaction.

  Name   Address Date Amount In-Kind Amended Date
  David Lambeth   417 Terrace Drive
Grand Forks, ND 58201
01/07/14 $250.00  
  The Conservation Fund   1655 N. Fort Meyer Drive Ste 1300
Arlington, VA 22209
02/08/14 $15,000.00  
  Margaret Ladner   1980 Goodrich Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55105
02/08/14 $1,000.00  
  David Grohne   25907 Murphy Rd
Wilmington, IL 60481
02/17/14 $50,000.00  
  John Childs   165 Sago Palm Rd
Vero Beach, FL 32963
02/14/14 $50,000.00  
  Gregory Hoskin   411 Rio Vista
Grand Junction, CO 81507
02/28/14 $500.00  
  Paul Egland   8633 Harrison Circle
Bloomington, MN 55437
04/04/14 $5,000.00  
  Frank and Mary Jo Andrea Larson   11686 North River Road
Valley City, ND 58072
04/29/14 $5,000.00  
  Joseph and Katherine Satrom   216 West Ave. B
Bismarck, ND 58501
06/16/14 $2,000.00  
  Pheasants Forever, James Valley Chapter   502 21st Ave. NE
Jamestown, ND 58401-3983
06/16/14 $1,000.00  
  Susan Wefald   312 West Ave. B
Bismarck, ND 58501
07/09/14 $500.00  
  South Dakota Wildlife Federation   P.O. Box 7075
Pierre, SD 57501
07/09/14 $500.00  
  Jane Howard   2132 Iglehart Ave
St. Paul, MN 55104
06/08/14 $500.00  
  Steve Adair   1009 Cottage Dr
Bismarck, ND 58501
08/02/14 $2,000.00  
  Rebecca Mahlum   831 Stagecoach Cir
Bismarck, ND 58503
08/08/14 $125.00  
  Mary Jean Huston   5776 Auburn Dr
Madison, WI 53711
08/28/14 $1,500.00  
  Pheasants Forever   1783 Buerkle Circle
St. Paul, MN 55110
08/28/14 $50,000.00  
  Delta Waterfowl   1312 Basin Ave
Bismarck, ND 58504
09/12/14 $7,500.00  
  National Wildlife Federation   11100 Wildlife Center Drive
Reston, VA 20190
06/12/14 $6,000.00  
  The Nature Conservancy   1101 West River Parkway Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55415
09/25/14 $600,000.00  

Expenditures

Indicates an amended transaction. Click to view the original transaction.

  Name Address Date Amount Amended Date
  Traynor Law Firm, PC PO Box 838
Devils Lake, ND 58301
02/28/14 $548.50  
  Cable One 1024 Page Dr. S
Fargo, ND 58103
03/27/14 $1,788.72  
  US Postmaster 220 E Rosser Ave
Bismarck, ND 58501
03/26/14 $180.36  
  McCommon, Betty 3213 Kristen Ln
Bismarck, ND 58503
01/07/14 $116.88  
  KX Sports Show PO Box 1686
Minot, ND 58702
01/13/14 $350.00  
  Petty Cash 118 Broadway Suite 716
Fargo, ND 58102
01/23/14 $145.57  
  Sarah Michaels 3139 23rd Ave. South Unit B
Fargo, ND , ND 58103
08/25/14 $6,167.27  
  DTL Properties 118 Broadway Suite 515
Fargo , ND 58102
03/25/14 $3,300.00  
  Hub Intl' Mountain States Ltd. PO Box 1237
Bismarck, ND 58502
01/23/14 $591.00  
  Sir Speedy 123 University Drive N
Fargo , ND 58102
01/23/14 $1,617.88  
  M&R Strategic Services 405 South 1st Street West
Missoula, MT 59806
03/14/14 $85,877.09  
  ND Conservation Fund 1605 E Capitol Ave Suite 101
Bismarck, ND 58501
09/11/14 $35,500.00  
  Blue Utopia PO Box 4486
Seattle, WA 98194
08/04/14 $1,568.75  
  Clear Channel 505 University Ave
Grand Forks, ND 58203
01/27/14 $323.00  
  Liberty Leasing 3431 4th Avenue South
Fargo , ND 58103
03/18/14 $650.91  
  FP Mailing Solutions 140 N. Mitchell Ct
Addison, IL 60101
07/25/14 $570.93  
  Hamburger Company 5614 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20015
07/31/14 $39,063.71  
  Grand Forks Men's Show PO Box 13638
Grand Forks, ND 58208
02/11/14 $350.00  
  Cass County Dem-NPL 3651 Polk Street South
Fargo , ND 58104
02/24/14 $200.00  
  Townsquare Media 1830 N 11th St
Bismarck, ND 58501
03/04/14 $300.00  
  Leap Publications 14590 Bowers Dr. NW
Ramsey, MN 55303
03/07/14 $399.00  
  GFK Rentals 2917 Shadow Road
Grand Forks, ND 58201
03/25/14 $1,192.00  
  Fargo Moorhead CVB 2001 44th St.S
Fargo , ND 58103
03/27/14 $500.00  
  Screen Strategies Media 11150 Fairfax Blvd Suite 505
Firfax, VA 22030
09/09/14 $463,086.00  
  Country House Deli 1045 E Interstate Ave
Bismarck, ND 58503
07/15/14 $237.54  
  Carmen Miller 1243 E Highland Acres Rd
Bismarck, ND 58501
07/15/14 $698.91  
  Homebuilders Association Fargo-Moorhead 1802 32nd Ave. S
Fargo , ND 58103
09/25/14 $450.00
weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

So, the measure supporters are conservation minded individuals and organizations.  I would expect that to be the case.

Now if someone would post who is providing the funds for the opposing side that would be interesting.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the opposing organizations have conservation, water quality, wildlife, or any other environmental cause as their mission.  Their mission is to protect the income of their members and their particular interests.  They may make paltry contributions to wildlife causes for public relations purposes but they make huge contributions to political parties and candidates to ensure they can keep on trucking full speed ahead with their industry interests.

I guess "Common Sense Conservation" means "Don't get in our way or threaten how we make our money"

Weedy

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06

NO ONE has claimed :"no one will be farming anymore".  period. If anyone on here has please show us where.
There has been a lot of talk, not necessarily on this site (believe it or not, Fishingbuddy is not the first place people go to talk about politics), that insinuated that farming will take a direct hit because this amendment will allow copious amounts of farmland to be purchased, which is undoubtedly wrong.

Odie I don't know where you live but perhaps people in Fargo didn't see the impacts CRP had on communities. But I live near the Bottineau/Renville county line. These two counties had some of the highest percentage of CRP enrollments in the state. Those of us that lived in the areas and call the small communites in them home, did in fact see a decline in business, schools and prosperity as these ag lands were taken out of production and businesses closed their doors. 

Live near Bismarck gst. The folks that enroll in CRP make that choice themselves. They were not forced to enroll. Should landowners not be able to enroll in conservation programs because a Case dealership might close? Especially if they are retired? I bet many people were happy CRP was around to receive income on land that wasn’t the most productive farmland to begin with. A person could also argue that CRP kept farmers in the business during rough times.  I would  also venture that in most cases the ratio of  CRP enrolloment was small relative to the local resource base to have a huge effect on local communities. There are other reasons why small towns have not thrived. A big reason is kids do not stick around. Tough to keep a small community going when there is not opportunities (besides ag) to keep the younger generations around.

You simply can not deny  the math of dollars taken out of these communities in lost  input sales, machinery sales and service, and all the other supporting businesses ect.... impacted them greatly in a negative way.

Not denying that CRP did not have a play in some money taken out of communities, but hey this is a free country right gst. If your neighbors all decided to put 1,000s of  acres into CRP then tough luck. Their decision not yours.

There were negative consequences of the CRP program. Then add in the agendas of orgs like the National Wildlife Federation, one of the orgs behind this measure, that they accomplished thru lawsuits that prevented the managed haying and grazing of these lands under the same parameters as what they originally allowed, and once again you simply can not deny their actions had a negative impact on those that actually live here and make our living on these lands and in these communities.

There were also huge positives from the CRP program., and we have already discussed the orgs that are opposed to measure 5 and their conservation friendly agendas.


I would like very much to see conservation more fully funded. Why would I not like a program that would pay 100% of the cost of planting trees instead of having to write a check for a few thousand dollars myself???

Because that would take away from the community according to you.

Why would I not like a program that would pay me enough to seed land back to grass and hay and graze it on a managed basis so I would not have to farm it to make a living from it?

Because that would take away from the community according to you.

Your rhetoric and accusations ring hollow.

You’re the king of hollow rhetoric and accusations. Null point.

What many of the opponents do not support is orgs like those that are behind this measure gaining influence and control over billions of dollars.
Not a single one of these orgs would have “control” over any of that money. You know it and I know it. They would have to apply for grants and be approved/voted twice, just as any other party would have to. The arguments on this have been beat to death. Please find something else to bring to the table, because your statement is simply not true, yet you hang onto it.


I have provided you links that factually show the agendas and actions of these orgs and how they impact individuals and rural communities and you choose to ignore them and spout the tired old anti ag/anti big oil rhetoric we hear too often.

You haven’t showed me shit. You provide information that you think supports your skewed view of this measure. I have a job and a life, so I  didn’t bother to dig up all the stuff that the organizations against this measure have done in the past. I have not said one thing anti ag or anti oil on this thread. In fact, if I had the opportunity to farm or ranch, I would love to be able to live of the land. Unfortunately it never worked out, and would be extremely hard for me to start now. FYI, both sides of my family have farmed and/or ranched. Some still of my family still does. Mostly small operations though. I have never said I am anti-oil either. I will say I don’t agree with how the state has handled this boom and I think that is fair. What I have said is that we can balance Ag/Energy with a little care for the environment thrown in the mix. Not that difficult to understand. But according to Scottsdale, (what happened to him anyways?) I am in no doubt a liberal so I must be anti-ag and anti oil.

The voters of ND deserve to hear the truth and as in the past on measures like the HFH one many of these same sponsors pushed, I hope they will see thru what is behind this measure.

Your right gst, the voters of ND do deserve the truth. I hope they can see past all the BS that is incorrectly being spewed about this measure.

The law allowing the governor to regulate land purchases by nonprofits being overturned in the courts thru the Cook lawsuit, an amendment placed into our constitution to allow billions of dollars to be used to buy lands thru mandated spending requirements, and the out of state orgs that are investing hundreds of thousands of their "nonprofit profits" to gain a piece of that pie to buy these lands.

THAT in a nut shell is what this measure is about.

That in a nutshell is what you want people to think about this measure. Once again not a single nonprofit group will have control of this money, and you seem to only approve of out of state non profit groups when they fit your agenda and spend millions to push it. The fact American Petroleum Institute forked over a million big ones should be a red flag to every single person in the state. The scare tactic of outside interests buying up 80 acres every day until all private land is gone is getting really really old. Its obvious that you don’t give a crap about the average citizen of this state. Just come out and say it. Still haven’t answered how the average person has benefited from this boom. That’s because we already all know the answer.

Regarding your other question, I was trying to make a point; no amendment can be written perfectly, as there will always be people who will pick it apart.

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

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06


weedy1 Said:
So, the measure supporters are conservation minded individuals and organizations.  I would expect that to be the case.

Now if someone would post who is providing the funds for the opposing side that would be interesting.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, none of the opposing organizations have conservation, water quality, wildlife, or any other environmental cause as their mission.  Their mission is to protect the income of their members and their particular interests.  They may make paltry contributions to wildlife causes for public relations purposes but they make huge contributions to political parties and candidates to ensure they can keep on trucking full speed ahead with their industry interests.

I guess "Common Sense Conservation" means "Don't get in our way or threaten how we make our money"

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

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

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

I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that those out of state individuals that donated are natives of ND.  Or are individuals that come here to recreate/hunt on an annual basis.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  I donate to out of state politicians so it's about the same thing

 

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

weedy said,

Now if someone would post who is providing the funds for the opposing side that would be interesting.

I have to do everything around here!

https://vip.sos.nd.gov/cf/Search/ShowCommittee.aspx?cid=331&did=711

Ballot Measure Committee

Committee Type Ballot Measure Committee      
         
         
The committee Opposes      
         
         
Ballot Measure/Petition Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Trust and Fund - Constitutional      
         
         
     
 
 
   
 
         
         
         
Committee Information   Agent Information
North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation   Jon Godfread
    Chairman
(701) 222-0929   (701) 222-0929
jon@ndchamber.com   jon@ndchamber.com
Committee Address PO Box 2639
Bismarck, ND 58502
  Agent Address PO Box 2639
Bismarck, ND 58502
 
Has this committee or organization incorporated solely for the purpose of liability protection? No

Election and Year-End Statements

  Date Filed Starting Balance Ending Balance Total of all contributions received of $100 or less Total of all expenditures made of $100 or less Total of all contributions received greater than $100 Total of all expenditures made greater than $100
Pre-General 10/3/2014 $0.00 $105,453.98 $100.00 $55.00 $577,950.00 $472,541.02

48-Hour Statements

  Date Filed Total of all contributions received greater than $500
48-hour 9/29/2014 $20,000.00
48-hour 10/2/2014 $354,200.00

Selected Statement Details

  Date Filed Starting Balance Ending Balance Total of all contributions received of $100 or less Total of all expenditures made of $100 or less Total of all contributions received greater than $100 Total of all expenditures made greater than $100
Pre-General 10/3/2014 $0.00 $105,453.98 $100.00 $55.00 $577,950.00 $472,541.02

Contributions

Indicates an amended transaction. Click to view the original transaction.

  Name   Address Date Amount In-Kind Amended Date
  Greater North Dakota Chamber   PO Box 2639
Bismarck, ND 58502
09/18/14 $443,450.00  
  North Dakota Farmers Union   1415 12th Ave SE
Jamestown, ND 58401
05/28/14 $50,000.00  
  North Dakota Petroleum Council   120 N 3rd Street Suite 200
Bismarck, ND 58501
06/03/14 $50,000.00  
  Associated General Contractors of North Dakota   422 North 2nd Street
Bismarck, ND 58501
09/18/14 $12,500.00  
  North Dakota Stockmen's Association   407 S 2nd St
Bismarck, ND 58504
04/16/14 $5,000.00  
  North Dakota Farm Credit Council   P.O. Box 2599
Bismarck, ND 58502
09/18/14 $10,000.00  
  North Dakota Motor Carriers Association   PO Box 874
Bismarck, ND 58501
09/04/14 $1,000.00  
  Credit Union Political Action Committee   2005 N Kavaney Drive
Bismarck, ND 58501
09/17/14 $1,000.00  
  United States Durum Growers Association   PO Box 1091
Bismarck, ND 58502
07/24/14 $5,000.00  

Expenditures

Indicates an amended transaction. Click to view the original transaction.

  Name Address Date Amount Amended Date
  Odney Advertising 1400 West Century Ave
Bismarck, ND 58503
09/19/14 $472,541.02
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
Not talking to you gst, so go bloviate in your barn!

Hardwaterman Said:
 And my respond to you gst is when you are flat out lying which is what I pointed out!!

just sayin, it seems there IS a liar in the room.


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

Hardwaterman Said:

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
okay eye straight up question do 75% of these funds have to be spent/allocated towards something each year or not under the language of this measure?

doesn't appear to be to me.  and obviously it doesn't to quite a few people.  maybe you should ask the attorney general for an opinion on it.

They have the means to do so but the response would not fit their verbal attacks. Don't think for a minute they would not have done so if they felt they would have gotten that answer! And my respond to you gst is when you are flat out lying which is what I pointed out!!

We went thru this on another measure if I recall right, the old back and forth ag=bout the AG and it seems if I remember right that an opinion from the AG was found and shared and it still was not good enough for you ron, At this point, it appears the supporters of this measure beleive the blackand white language that there is a mandated sending requirement and people will believe what the measure states in black and white.............well most people I guess.

Fritz how did he get where he was if people did not like him or his agenda? Farmers where lining up for those carbon credits with wetlands until it never came to be! They sure where willing to dip into the Ponzi scheme money! Maybe the supporters of this should have included an additional mailbox for farmer then we would have the support! LOL!!!And there you go it always gets back there with you and plainsman ron.

 
 

Ron why woun;t you address the claims you have made about the Cook lawsuit in the past?

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

weedy1 Said:
I couldn't let gst's comment on the National Wildlife Service lawsuit on haying and grazing CRP land go without some factual clarification.

When the CRP program was put into action as part of the 1985 Farm Bill there were no provisions for landowners in the program to graze or hay the land in their contracts.  Then the drought and flooding years occurred and allowances were made for landowners in severely impacted areas to either hay or graze these contact acres as part of the disaster recovery.  Once this gate was opened it resulted in requests on almost a yearly basis for farmers to access the land for haying or grazing whenever the rainfall experienced was above or below average.  What was disaster relief became the backup plan for most cattle producers.  They no longer had to put up hay to last them through this year and possibly next year.  If it rained too much and their hay source was flooded out they just go to the CRP land they have under contract and get it there.  If it didn't rain enough and they had no crop on their hay land they just got their winter feed from the CRP acres as well.  Pretty sweet deal for those farmers!

You can see why the wildlife community was upset.  They went along grudgingly when the haying/grazing provisions were implemented by USDA in the severe disaster years because they knew once this special circumstance was allowed it would become normal operating procedure..  And it did!  Now, almost on a yearly basis there is request for CRP acres to be opened for either haying or grazing.  It happens anytime the weather deviates from average.  The only recourse sadly, was legal action.

Farm Bill programs have continued to have increased scrutiny from taxpayers in the country.  They can't understand why their taxes pay subsidies to farmers to grow surplus crops.  They question why tax dollars are used to subsidize payments for crop insurance because those same subsidies don't cover their business losses.  It gets even harder to explain to those taxpayers that their tax dollars go to provide cost-share for the implementation of animal waste systems on feedlots that are required by state law to have them. 

Farm Bill legislation gets passed because promises are made to other parties that there will be efforts made to improve the environment, provide wildlife habitat, protect water resources.  Those other parties get upset when those promises are broken.  The majority of taxpayers could care less if a farmer who has overextended his credit by buying a new tractor, combine,, tillage equipment, etc. goes bankrupt because the weather did not cooperate.  The way they see it, that land will just be put into productive use by another famer who buys the land. 

Unfortunately, the majority of the voting public does not come from a farm background as most of us do.  They don't place farmers on a pedestal to be revered anymore and have a hard time understanding why that way of life costs them so many tax dollars to maintain.  Perhaps, if gst stepped down from his pedestal and looked around he would appreciate what he has and that he can't go back to way things were. 

Nice little story weedy but you left out a few "facts".

It was NOT disaster related haying the NWF sued to change, it was the MANAGED haying and grazing portion of the contracts. from once every 3 years to in some cased once every 10 years.

DU actually did studies to show that a managed haying and grazing program like existed before the lawsuit  was beneficial to wildlife in these CRP contracts.

There was quite a process to go thru to open CRP up to disaster haying and it simply did not become and annual deal as you claim.

Even under disaster declarations there were thousands of acres of CRP here in ND that did not get touched because of their CP 23 designations that prevented any haying and grazing.

There were several different CRP designations some of which like CP  23 prevented any haying ever.

Even under disaster declarations only 50% of any contract could be hayed  and at no time was there ever more than 1/3 of the total CRP acres in this state hayed and grazed in one year.

And yet that was not good enough for some of the people supporting this lawsuit like yourself.

And as a result many producers cited these lawsuits as a result and chose not to re enroll.

But hey when the NWF comes in and supports and funds this measure, we should just "trust" them again right??

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

odocoileus Said:

NO ONE has claimed :"no one will be farming anymore".  period. If anyone on here has please show us where.
There has been a lot of talk, not necessarily on this site (believe it or not, Fishingbuddy is not the first place people go to talk about politics), that insinuated that farming will take a direct hit because this amendment will allow copious amounts of farmland to be purchased, which is undoubtedly wrong.


Odie I don't know where you live but perhaps people in Fargo didn't see the impacts CRP had on communities. But I live near the Bottineau/Renville county line. These two counties had some of the highest percentage of CRP enrollments in the state. Those of us that lived in the areas and call the small communites in them home, did in fact see a decline in business, schools and prosperity as these ag lands were taken out of production and businesses closed their doors. 

Live near Bismarck gst. The folks that enroll in CRP make that choice themselves. They were not forced to enroll. Should landowners not be able to enroll in conservation programs because a Case dealership might close? Especially if they are retired? I bet many people were happy CRP was around to receive income on land that wasn’t the most productive farmland to begin with. A person could also argue that CRP kept farmers in the business during rough times.  I would  also venture that in most cases the ratio of  CRP enrolloment was small relative to the local resource base to have a huge effect on local communities. There are other reasons why small towns have not thrived. A big reason is kids do not stick around. Tough to keep a small community going when there is not opportunities (besides ag) to keep the younger generations around.

You simply can not deny  the math of dollars taken out of these communities in lost  input sales, machinery sales and service, and all the other supporting businesses ect.... impacted them greatly in a negative way.

Not denying that CRP did not have a play in some money taken out of communities, but hey this is a free country right gst. If your neighbors all decided to put 1,000s of  acres into CRP then tough luck. Their decision not yours.

There were negative consequences of the CRP program. Then add in the agendas of orgs like the National Wildlife Federation, one of the orgs behind this measure, that they accomplished thru lawsuits that prevented the managed haying and grazing of these lands under the same parameters as what they originally allowed, and once again you simply can not deny their actions had a negative impact on those that actually live here and make our living on these lands and in these communities.

There were also huge positives from the CRP program., and we have already discussed the orgs that are opposed to measure 5 and their conservation friendly agendas.


I would like very much to see conservation more fully funded. Why would I not like a program that would pay 100% of the cost of planting trees instead of having to write a check for a few thousand dollars myself???

Because that would take away from the community according to you.

Why would I not like a program that would pay me enough to seed land back to grass and hay and graze it on a managed basis so I would not have to farm it to make a living from it?

Because that would take away from the community according to you.

Your rhetoric and accusations ring hollow.

You’re the king of hollow rhetoric and accusations. Null point.

What many of the opponents do not support is orgs like those that are behind this measure gaining influence and control over billions of dollars.
Not a single one of these orgs would have “control” over any of that money. You know it and I know it. They would have to apply for grants and be approved/voted twice, just as any other party would have to. The arguments on this have been beat to death. Please find something else to bring to the table, because your statement is simply not true, yet you hang onto it.


I have provided you links that factually show the agendas and actions of these orgs and how they impact individuals and rural communities and you choose to ignore them and spout the tired old anti ag/anti big oil rhetoric we hear too often.

You haven’t showed me shit. You provide information that you think supports your skewed view of this measure. I have a job and a life, so I  didn’t bother to dig up all the stuff that the organizations against this measure have done in the past. I have not said one thing anti ag or anti oil on this thread. In fact, if I had the opportunity to farm or ranch, I would love to be able to live of the land. Unfortunately it never worked out, and would be extremely hard for me to start now. FYI, both sides of my family have farmed and/or ranched. Some still of my family still does. Mostly small operations though. I have never said I am anti-oil either. I will say I don’t agree with how the state has handled this boom and I think that is fair. What I have said is that we can balance Ag/Energy with a little care for the environment thrown in the mix. Not that difficult to understand. But according to Scottsdale, (what happened to him anyways?) I am in no doubt a liberal so I must be anti-ag and anti oil.

The voters of ND deserve to hear the truth and as in the past on measures like the HFH one many of these same sponsors pushed, I hope they will see thru what is behind this measure.

Your right gst, the voters of ND do deserve the truth. I hope they can see past all the BS that is incorrectly being spewed about this measure.

The law allowing the governor to regulate land purchases by nonprofits being overturned in the courts thru the Cook lawsuit, an amendment placed into our constitution to allow billions of dollars to be used to buy lands thru mandated spending requirements, and the out of state orgs that are investing hundreds of thousands of their "nonprofit profits" to gain a piece of that pie to buy these lands.

THAT in a nut shell is what this measure is about.

That in a nutshell is what you want people to think about this measure. Once again not a single nonprofit group will have control of this money, and you seem to only approve of out of state non profit groups when they fit your agenda and spend millions to push it. The fact American Petroleum Institute forked over a million big ones should be a red flag to every single person in the state. The scare tactic of outside interests buying up 80 acres every day until all private land is gone is getting really really old. Its obvious that you don’t give a crap about the average citizen of this state. Just come out and say it. Still haven’t answered how the average person has benefited from this boom. That’s because we already all know the answer.

Regarding your other question, I was trying to make a point; no amendment can be written perfectly, as there will always be people who will pick it apart.

odie, have the sponsors and supporters of this measure such as your self and ron  claimed the IC will have "control" over these dollars regarding land purchases as they have under existing state law?

Yes

Have they claimed this existing state law is what will block the land purchasing portion of concern the opponents?

Yes.

What happens if the state law that they reference is overturned by the courts and goes away as ron previously decreed inevitable yet now is uncharacteristicly silent about?

What will prevent these land purchases then?

Nothing.

This is not even considering the 75% portion of the funding that "must be allocated on an annual basis" that will tie the hands of the IC.

Blck and white English fellas.

Words mean things.

And that is why the nations largest land owner short of the Federal govt, the Nature Conservancy who owns land in all 50 states is putting as much monies into this as they are.

Think the Nature Conservancy may have a lawyer or two that have figured out this constitutional amendment and likely helped write it?

After all, who do you think told the North Dakotans who are supposedly behind this to hire a liberal environmental activist Washington DC based company that is doing other measures and campaigns for TNC ? 

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

odie, there are many "average citizens" tht have taken it upon themsleves togo outside of what they had been doing and in many cases their comfrot zone and start up business ventures relating to the oil boom that have seen many benefits.

The people they have hired have seen benefits ect......

Are there costs to go along with these benefits, of course, but don't deny many "average citizens" have not seen benefits from it.

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

I just gotta say, it is funny as hell watching ron avoid answering the issue of the Cook lawsuit taking way what the sponsors of this measure will keep these funds from buying up land.

The only thing he is actually "not talking to" me about is that.

Lets not forget what the sponsor of this measure that is meant to put billions of dollars into the kitty said:

Postby Dick Monson » Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:57 pm

Heard today that LANDS is going to spearhead the ballot measure for the eminent domain question. Meanwhile Jim Cook is going to be sued by the state for his private land purchase. :eyeroll:

1 So, if Cook wins, will the state law prohibiting nonprofits from owning land go out the window?

2 Would eminent domain play a role if it passes?

3 Would the LANDS boys go nuts if they were the ones that let the cat loose? (nonprofits buying land?) Oh there would be some major conservation purchases if it happens. Hmmmm. Might turn out he did a favor.

Words mean something.

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

1 So, if Cook wins, will the state law prohibiting nonprofits from owning land go out the window?

Cook could only win if the law is found unconstitutional.  Your boys say it isn't so why worry about if.   Oh, shiver that's right it's scary.

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

Plainsman Said:

1 So, if Cook wins, will the state law prohibiting nonprofits from owning land go out the window?

Cook could only win if the law is found unconstitutional.  Your boys say it isn't so why worry about if.   Oh, shiver that's right it's scary.

plainsman, the relevant discussion here is not about what "your boys" claim , it is about what happens if the case is upheld.
 
I have stated in those discussion with ron in the past that it may very well indeed be overturned.

So if it is, are the claims by the sponsors that the governor has the say to prevent these billions form being used ot buy land, true or not?

THAT is the point of the question.

I would bet a very large sum of monies the lawyers for DU and TNC have looked at this and think their chances at the Federal level are good with this court case.

Dick Monson has spoken about what would happen if Cook wins.

These guys KNOW what they are claiming and telling voters will not be true if that happens.

It is what they are banking on.

Add to that the requirement written into this measure 75% of these funds must be allocated for expenditure on an annual basis and most people understand what is allowed by this measures language.

Why not just be honest and say, yes this measure WILL result in land purchases, it is written into it and that is our goal it has been for years and if people support that it will pass and if they don;t it will fail?

 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Come on Fritz are you trying to claim that API is not putting $1 million into the fund from DC? Good grief you guys are a piece of work when it comes to trying to run a shell game!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

 Booby 

Neat

weedy1's picture
weedy1
Offline
Joined: 9/26/12

I do find it ironic that gst spouts off all of the time about supporting the constitution and then about the negative impacts that could take place if the Cook lawsuit is successful.  The lawsuit will determine whether the state can control who buys my land if I want to sell.  If the Cook lawsuit prevails in the courts it will just affirm the constitutional rights of individuals to sell their property to whomever they choose.  That would mean that such free choice is constitutional and restricting such sales is unconstitutional.  You can't cherry pick constitutional rights to suit your personal agenda.

To the fear factor of nonprofits buying up land and taking it out of production lets go back to the CRP program for some comparison.  CRP contracts exceeded 3.5 million acres just a few years back and the state did just fine with production and commodity prices were stable.  Don't see where the paranoid fear develops that allowing a few nonprofits to buy up some acres to pursue their agendas will put ND in the tank.

I do have to thank Fritz the Cat for posting the info on the group opposing Measure 5.  Did anyone but me find it a bit strange that no individuals have contributed sums large enough to be reported.  It would appear that the opposition is not based on the strong personal convictions of individuals but merely on the agendas of special interest groups.

To the issue of the number of current legislators being opposed to Measure 5 you just need to consider the source.  These are the same individuals who did nothing in the last legislative session to make any real difference on the issues the measure addresses.  They don't like power being taken from their hands as it points out their incompetence.  Initiated measures that pass also just show how unconnected they are with their constituents and how controlled they are by the special interests that contribute to their campaign coffers.

Weedy

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

Absolutely correct.  To many are bought and paid for by lobbyists.  Some for just a couple of shots of Black Label.   Whatever that is.  

Our legislature does an ok job of saving our money, but they are in the dark ages in many ways.  I admire their resistance to the primitive act of abortion and other morally corrupt things happening in the nation, but when it comes to representing their people on other things they have no clue.  All they can think is ag and oil.  There is big money in those two special interest groups and much of it is coming from out of state to fight the wishes of our citizens. 
I'm really saddened to see fellow conservatives play the same game as the liberals.  I thought we were above those tactics, but lying these days I guess is just ok.  Really really sad.  I fear our society is going to break down from a United country, United state, to tribal rule.  I certainly can't hold my head up as a republican, but I'm still conservative.  This sucks.

To the issue of the number of current legislators being opposed to Measure 5 you just need to consider the source.  These are the same individuals who did nothing in the last legislative session to make any real difference on the issues the measure addresses.  They don't like power being taken from their hands as it points out their incompetence.  Initiated measures that pass also just show how unconnected they are with their constituents and how controlled they are by the special interests that contribute to their campaign coffers.
Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Hardwaterman Said:
Come on Fritz are you trying to claim that API is not putting $1 million into the fund from DC? Good grief you guys are a piece of work when it comes to trying to run a shell game!!

I'm not trying to claim anything. That is a report from the Secreatary of States Office to include money that was deposited before the end of September. If API put a million in on/after that reporting date then it will come out in the next report.

If you couldn't figure that much out, well.....................

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

johnr Said:
 Booby 

you can;t just say it.

Pages