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?

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

Well at least there will be a few acres to purchase. I was afraid we would pass the measure and there would be no land available.  

RSL Said:
 eyexer Said:

but you have to have a seller.  farmers don't sell land.  so it's kind of a mute point

In this weeks Bottineau Courant there are 6 ads for bids on farm/pasture land for sale in Bottineau County that total 2,136 acres.  Bids for 5 open in October and in November for the 6th.

Knock yourself out - buy some land to hunt on and lease it to the farmer next door to farm for you!

 

zoops's picture
zoops
Offline
Joined: 12/30/09

 As has been alluded to, if this measure doesn't pass, which it probably won't (remember these measures need 60% to pass, not just majority), it will probably resurface again in 2 or 4 years.  Too much habitat destruction and population growth to not have it continue to come up.  I think that if it was worded in a way that said the money wouldn't be used to buy land, would dedicate X amount of dollars to CRP-type programs, and would dedicate X amount of dollars to the PLOTS program, it would pass easily.  Could it ever be that easy?

Hunt_Fish31's picture
Hunt_Fish31
Offline
Joined: 2/5/12

 Bottom Line.  For those against this measure where is the alternative?  What is offered to counter the level and speed of conversion of habitat or the changing landscape on a daily basis.  Not just in the west but with the tiling in the east.  It is easy to put down efforts, must be harder to offer alternatives except vote NO.

Most farmers get subsidies.  Until this last farm bill crop insurance was not linked.  Now that it is there will be some accountability in destroying and degrading natural resources.  But even that accountability is coming into question.  The Grain Growers want USDA to end their partnership with DU.  Those DU employees help promote and get farmers into CRP and other programs.  Why attack that partnership.  It also brings into question where NRCS is in wetland conservation.  Does the Grain Growers think NRCS will allow them to tile and keep their subsidies?  Just seems a little odd.

Last comment, measures like this can't be linked to existing programs (PLOTS, CRP), if those programs are dropped or not funded the measure would not be effective.  

Hunt_Fish31

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

Hardwaterman Said:
gst again you make the it an issue that non domiciled entities are supporting this. But refuse to acknowledge that non domiciled ND entities are opposing it as well.

So common sense claims that all the money will be used to buy land, could be or it could be that none of it goes that way. Again scarce tactics is all. In regards to worrying about someone competing if I want to buy land I compete with a farmer getting Fed subsidy is that fair? See the reality is as I said before, the measure is going to pass or fail based on the merits that people see it has.

The scare tactics are not affecting people like the PETA scare did before, more and more people are seeing the two competing ads running and feed back from my contact with people has been positive towards the measure and negative towards the scare ad!!

The most telling thing so far that I have heard from those I have talked with, is that the FU,FB,Chamber ad is actually pushing people towards support!! They do not trust Ag interests on conservation efforts, hmmmmm wonder why?

Bullshit, Don't start off lying like that ron.

I have NEVER said there is not out of state dollars coming in to oppose it, I have repeatedly said I don;t know. I have ASKED you to show some evidence of what you claim.

YOU are the one making that claim, yet offer no proof to back it up.

Try to discuss the measure itself without the lies ron.

Like I have said before when you have made this same allegation and provided no proof then when asked, perhaps it is happening, I don;t know and would be curious to find out.

So show us something to back up your claims ron.

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

Hardwaterman Said:

So common sense claims that all the money will be used to buy land, could be or it could be that none of it goes that way. Again scarce tactics is all. In regards to worrying about someone competing if I want to buy land I compete with a farmer getting Fed subsidy is that fair? See the reality is as I said before, the measure is going to pass or fail based on the merits that people see it has.

Once again bullshit the one main difference of two between this and the OHF is the ability ot buy land.

The language of this measure was purposely worded so that the Industrial Commission will HAVE to approve whatever 75% of what is proposed.

Only a fool would think the people behind this measure and the out of state  groups are not eyeballing buying every acre they can.

Scare tactics? Not if they are real ron.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
The most telling thing so far that I have heard from those I have talked with, is that the FU,FB,Chamber ad is actually pushing people towards support!! They do not trust Ag interests on conservation efforts, hmmmmm wonder why?

For some reason ron I really don't buy your claims here. Perhaps your never fail atagonistic view of most all ag groups.

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

You do not know? That is BULL SHIT at the highest level from you! Plausible deniability is what you are claiming now?? Get real!!!!

But lets assume that you do not know,( hard not to with the oil industry supporting your position and they are not ND domiciled entities!) when you find out by pulling your head out of your anal cavity it changes nothing other than to show your hypocricy as well as the groups that support you!! 

Again your mouth piece from the chamber admitted to out of state funds from them on the radio, so there is your proof. He said it when on Jay Thomas on 970!! His spin is was they employee people so that made it OK!!! BULL SHIT TO THAT AS WELL!!!!  

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!

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

Plainsman Said:
I sure hope sportsmen don't sucker for the scare tactics.

Hardwaterman Said:

The scare tactics are not affecting people

Lots of talk about "scare tactics"

You mean like this portion of a letter sponsor Dick Monson wrote?

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/amendment-serves-the-peo...

"The alternative is to sacrifice our world-class natural resources and the water we drink. Even amendment opponents never order a glass of dirty drinking water."

Or the lte that Steve Adair and Karen Kriel penned.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/letter-nds-quality-life-challeng...

"Our clean water is threatened. We’re losing grasslands and wildlife habitat at a rate not seen since the Dust Bowl. Chronic flooding plagues our communities. "

Apparently this meaasure will stop record rainfall and snows. Damn who would have thought building in a flood plain in a huge flat river valley that flows north during the spring melts would result in "chronic flooding"

Or how about this one. Accuse others of using "scare tactics and then follow up with "scare tactics". priceless.

Plainsman Said:
I sure hope sportsmen don't sucker for the scare tactics.  I would hate to have my grandchildren never experience the part of North Dakota we all enjoy ------- enjoyed yesterday.  It's going down the tubes.  We hunters are happy in the field with a gun or bow in our hand, but those against it will be just as happy feeling the thickness of the wallets they sit on.  You better do something for yourself right now, because tomorrow will be to late.  Some will say that is a scare tactic, but think about it.  If this fails and everything is plowed where are you hunting?  Who is going to pay the flooding damage?  Who is going to clean up our water?  We know what's going to ruin it.  They wreck it we pay for it, and subsidize the destruction. 

Do you really think people are that "dimwitted"?

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

Plainsman Said:
I sure hope sportsmen don't sucker for the scare tactics.

Hardwaterman Said:

The scare tactics are not affecting people

Lots of talk about "scare tactics"

You mean like this portion of a letter sponsor Dick Monson wrote?

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/amendment-serves-the-peo...

"The alternative is to sacrifice our world-class natural resources and the water we drink. Even amendment opponents never order a glass of dirty drinking water."

Or the lte that Steve Adair and Karen Kriel penned.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/letter-nds-quality-life-challeng...

"Our clean water is threatened. We’re losing grasslands and wildlife habitat at a rate not seen since the Dust Bowl. Chronic flooding plagues our communities. "

Apparently this meaasure will stop record rainfall and snows. Damn who would have thought building in a flood plain in a huge flat river valley that flows north during the spring melts would result in "chronic flooding"

Or how about this one. Accuse others of using "scare tactics and then follow up with "scare tactics". priceless.

Plainsman Said:
I sure hope sportsmen don't sucker for the scare tactics.  I would hate to have my grandchildren never experience the part of North Dakota we all enjoy ------- enjoyed yesterday.  It's going down the tubes.  We hunters are happy in the field with a gun or bow in our hand, but those against it will be just as happy feeling the thickness of the wallets they sit on.  You better do something for yourself right now, because tomorrow will be to late.  Some will say that is a scare tactic, but think about it.  If this fails and everything is plowed where are you hunting?  Who is going to pay the flooding damage?  Who is going to clean up our water?  We know what's going to ruin it.  They wreck it we pay for it, and subsidize the destruction. 

Do you really think people are that "dimwitted"?

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

Plainsman Said:
I sure hope sportsmen don't sucker for the scare tactics.

Hardwaterman Said:

The scare tactics are not affecting people

Lots of talk about "scare tactics"

You mean like this portion of a letter sponsor Dick Monson wrote?

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/amendment-serves-the-peo...

"The alternative is to sacrifice our world-class natural resources and the water we drink. Even amendment opponents never order a glass of dirty drinking water."

Or the lte that Steve Adair and Karen Kriel penned.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/letter-nds-quality-life-challeng...

"Our clean water is threatened. We’re losing grasslands and wildlife habitat at a rate not seen since the Dust Bowl. Chronic flooding plagues our communities. "

Apparently this meaasure will stop record rainfall and snows. Damn who would have thought building in a flood plain in a huge flat river valley that flows north during the spring melts would result in "chronic flooding"

Or how about this one. Accuse others of using "scare tactics and then follow up with "scare tactics". priceless.

Plainsman Said:
I sure hope sportsmen don't sucker for the scare tactics.  I would hate to have my grandchildren never experience the part of North Dakota we all enjoy ------- enjoyed yesterday.  It's going down the tubes.  We hunters are happy in the field with a gun or bow in our hand, but those against it will be just as happy feeling the thickness of the wallets they sit on.  You better do something for yourself right now, because tomorrow will be to late.  Some will say that is a scare tactic, but think about it.  If this fails and everything is plowed where are you hunting?  Who is going to pay the flooding damage?  Who is going to clean up our water?  We know what's going to ruin it.  They wreck it we pay for it, and subsidize the destruction. 

Do you really think people are that "dimwitted"?

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

Hardwaterman Said:
You do not know? That is BULL SHIT at the highest level from you! Plausible deniability is what you are claiming now?? Get real!!!!

But lets assume that you do not know,( hard not to with the oil industry supporting your position and they are not ND domiciled entities!) when you find out by pulling your head out of your anal cavity it changes nothing other than to show your hypocricy as well as the groups that support you!! 

Again your mouth piece from the chamber admitted to out of state funds from them on the radio, so there is your proof. He said it when on Jay Thomas on 970!! His spin is was they employee people so that made it OK!!! BULL SHIT TO THAT AS WELL!!!!  

Ron since the very first time you made this accusation I have stated I don;t know.

And I have asked you to provide actual proof, not you interpretation of what someone said that fits your claim.

you do know that every entity that funds one of these measure has to report thru the SOS office right?

I can provide you a link from the SOS office  that has shown for the last two years hundreds of thousands of out of state dollars from groups like The Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation have flowed into this state to pass this measure. It is likely far more now. It will be interesting to see the latest SOS report.

Can you do the same?

I am curious ron, if you were heading the campaign against this measure and faced with millions in out of state dollars, (remember here who started down this path) what would you do?
 
I do get the impression as I have said earlier, you strike me as a fella that would like to go into a fight with the other fella having one hand tied behind his back.

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

ron, earlier I asked you to show where what I have stated about this measure is not the truth as you suggested.

Can you do that?

I believe quite strongly the people of this state should know all the facts about these measures don;t you?

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


Plainsman Said:
I sure hope sportsmen don't sucker for the scare tactics.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=132529

Kiss public hunting lands good-bye

Postby Plainsman » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:31 am
"

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=135474

Deer Farms

 

Postby Plainsman » Fri Jun 27, 2014 4:15 pm

If any of you get Peterson's Hunting check out August page 13. The headline is Deer Farms: Hunting's Ticking Time Bombs be afraid, be very afraid.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=133834

A North Dakota power grab

Postby Plainsman » Wed May 14, 2014 12:34 pm

". I think they would try circumvent the multiple use policy and I worry about access if they get to much power"

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=132089

Beware the land grab

 

Postby Plainsman » Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:38 am

"The problem with a lease is they could post the land and we could kiss public hunting and multiple use good-by"

 

 

 

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=131017

Dust Bowl Again???????

Postby Plainsman » Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:32 am
"I know we have debated whether no till solves all these problems with wind erosion or not, and I still say not. As a matter of fact I think world conditions are set to repeat the dust bowl and world conflict."

 


outofrange's picture
outofrange
Offline
Joined: 12/17/01

It continues to be quite curious to me how the "stewards of conservation" can be so infuriated by conservation-driven organizations. Are these orgs "over-conserving"? 

Wetlands are disappearing, waterways are becoming more polluted, private and public lands in western ND are being scarred for life... and some people here claim that conservation organizations are the real evil? 

I don't know why people are even wasting their time arguing about measure 5. I have a better shot at waking up next to Kate Upton this weekend than measure 5 has of passing. The only thing that the anti-5 folks are doing now is galvanizing the populous and alienating urbanites to agriculture.




Signed
Verlander

soneed2fish's picture
soneed2fish
Offline
Joined: 3/27/13

All I know is for those of you who are all for #5, if it passes I don't ever want to read another post about you bitching and complaining about how high your property taxes are. 

Genuine conservatism promotes cautious and prudent change, respect for tradition, stewardship, humility, responsibility and fact-based decision making. It is concerned with both individual and societal well-being. With regard to government, conservatism favors a government that is lean, efficient and effective -- not impotent.

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

soneed2fish Said:

All I know is for those of you who are all for #5, if it passes I don't ever want to read another post about you bitching and complaining about how high your property taxes are. 

measure five has asolutely nothing to do with property taxes lol. 

 

Yote02's picture
Yote02
Offline
Joined: 3/4/11

eyexer Said:

soneed2fish Said:

All I know is for those of you who are all for #5, if it passes I don't ever want to read another post about you bitching and complaining about how high your property taxes are. 

measure five has asolutely nothing to do with property taxes lol. 

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but he might mean that this is money that could be used for peoperty tax relief instead.  Again I have no idea if that is what he means.

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

Yote02 Said:

eyexer Said:

soneed2fish Said:

All I know is for those of you who are all for #5, if it passes I don't ever want to read another post about you bitching and complaining about how high your property taxes are. 

measure five has asolutely nothing to do with property taxes lol. 

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but he might mean that this is money that could be used for peoperty tax relief instead.  Again I have no idea if that is what he means.

that'll be the next baseless argument the legislators will start to make I'm sure.  they have no intention of providing real property tax relief.  they've displayed that forever.  we have a multi billion dollar surplus that is growing by leaps and bounds on an annual basis.  we blow the projections out of the water every year.  So how many dollars should the state be allowed to hoard away?

 

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

Yote02 Said:

eyexer Said:

soneed2fish Said:

All I know is for those of you who are all for #5, if it passes I don't ever want to read another post about you bitching and complaining about how high your property taxes are. 

measure five has asolutely nothing to do with property taxes lol. 

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but he might mean that this is money that could be used for peoperty tax relief instead.  Again I have no idea if that is what he means.

They state will have 95% of the oil extraction tax for property tax relief.  Like Washington they keep bringing it in.  Unlike Washington they save a lot.  I keep wondering what they save it for.  Maybe a Devils Lake outlet.  I know one thing for sure.  Not much will be spent on conservation.

I keep hearing how much some guys spend on conservation.  I wonder if they think were so stupid we don't know most of that is paid for by NRCS.  Were going to pay either way so we may as well get a tiny piece of the extraction tax that benefits hunters.  I'll bet a lot more will go to benefit agriculture.  Most should go for infrastructure and law enforcement. 

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

eyexer Said

that'll be the next baseless argument the legislators will start to make I'm sure.  they have no intention of providing real property tax relief.  they've displayed that forever.  we have a multi billion dollar surplus that is growing by leaps and bounds on an annual basis.  we blow the projections out of the water every year.  So how many dollars should the state be allowed to hoard away?

For Christ sake eye get your name on the ballot and go do something about it.

outofrange Said:
It continues to be quite curious to me how the "stewards of conservation" can be so infuriated by conservation-driven organizations. Are these orgs "over-conserving"? 

Wetlands are disappearing, waterways are becoming more polluted, private and public lands in western ND are being scarred for life... and some people here claim that conservation organizations are the real evil? 

I don't know why people are even wasting their time arguing about measure 5. I have a better shot at waking up next to Kate Upton this weekend than measure 5 has of passing. The only thing that the anti-5 folks are doing now is galvanizing the populous and alienating urbanites to agriculture.

Exactly how are agriculutralists "alienating urbanites to agriculture"?

By speaking the truth about what this measure will do and allowing them to make their own minds up????

If you have to ask what orgs like TNC and the NWF are doing to "alienate" agriculture you have not taken the time to inform yourself.

Check into the Nature Conservancies "officail collaboration " with the EPA. Don;t just read the front page feel good portion about "clean water" find out a little about how they are going about it with Federal dollars and influence.

To many of these orgs when they have conversations in the back room, their type of "conservation" is removing agriculture from much of the landscape.

A few years back DU actually had an article in their magazine about how to take advantage of a poor ag economy to do this very thing.

Oh and watch out, you will be chastized for using "scare tactics" on here by hwm and plainsman.

But hey I guess maybe you are right,  people like eye and plainsman and a few others are easily "alienated" by ag.

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

Plainsman Said:

Yote02 Said:

eyexer Said:

soneed2fish Said:

All I know is for those of you who are all for #5, if it passes I don't ever want to read another post about you bitching and complaining about how high your property taxes are. 

measure five has asolutely nothing to do with property taxes lol. 

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but he might mean that this is money that could be used for peoperty tax relief instead.  Again I have no idea if that is what he means.

They state will have 95% of the oil extraction tax for property tax relief.  Like Washington they keep bringing it in.  Unlike Washington they save a lot.  I keep wondering what they save it for.  Maybe a Devils Lake outlet.  I know one thing for sure.  Not much will be spent on conservation.

I keep hearing how much some guys spend on conservation.  I wonder if they think were so stupid we don't know most of that is paid for by NRCS.  Were going to pay either way so we may as well get a tiny piece of the extraction tax that benefits hunters.  I'll bet a lot more will go to benefit agriculture.  Most should go for infrastructure and law enforcement. 

Some indeed is plainsman. The last programs we did was a 50% cost share. Do you know how much it costs to plant 5  3/4 mile long tree rows?

Likely not, because you have never done so.

So keep bitching about people opposing conservation that invest thousands of their own dollars partnering with groups like NRCS while you do nothing to invest your own dollars.

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

Plainsman Said:
.  I'll bet a lot more will go to benefit agriculture.  Most should go for infrastructure and law enforcement. 

Scare tactic, scare tactic...................... where the hells that hall monitor when you need him.

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

Imagine people that think like this ending up in control of billions of dollars thru our states constitution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/24/u-s-forest-ser...

The U.S. Forest Service is finalizing plans to fine photographers who shoot on federal wild lands without a permit.

Under the measure, still photography and commercial filming in Congress-designated wilderness areas would require a permit, and shoots would also have to be approved and meet certain criteria like not advertising any product or service and being educational.

Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers said in a statement the directive has been in place for more than four years and “is a good faith effort to ensure the fullest protection of America’s wild places.”

Permits would cost up to $1,500, even if someone was taking photos or video with their phone, and fines for shooting without a permit could be as high as $1,000, according to the Oregonian.

Critics have characterized the rules as too vague and say it infringes on the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

“I am very concerned about the implications this has for Americans’ First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press,” U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) wrote in a letter to Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell. “It is also very troubling that journalists could be held to different standards at the discretion of the issuing officer depending on the content of their stories and its relevance to wilderness activity.”

Walden said he worried access might be granted “based on political calculations” and noted a majority of Oregon land is controlled by the federal government.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) also voiced concern for the policy.

“The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone,” he told the Oregonian. “Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.

Out of range, is this the kind of "conservation" you can;t understand people being upset with?

Sadly this kind of thinking runs rampant among those that will be vetted to sit on this panel by the out of state orgs funding it.

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said

that'll be the next baseless argument the legislators will start to make I'm sure.  they have no intention of providing real property tax relief.  they've displayed that forever.  we have a multi billion dollar surplus that is growing by leaps and bounds on an annual basis.  we blow the projections out of the water every year.  So how many dollars should the state be allowed to hoard away?

For Christ sake eye get your name on the ballot and go do something about it.

outofrange Said:
It continues to be quite curious to me how the "stewards of conservation" can be so infuriated by conservation-driven organizations. Are these orgs "over-conserving"? 

Wetlands are disappearing, waterways are becoming more polluted, private and public lands in western ND are being scarred for life... and some people here claim that conservation organizations are the real evil? 

I don't know why people are even wasting their time arguing about measure 5. I have a better shot at waking up next to Kate Upton this weekend than measure 5 has of passing. The only thing that the anti-5 folks are doing now is galvanizing the populous and alienating urbanites to agriculture.

Exactly how are agriculutralists "alienating urbanites to agriculture"?

By speaking the truth about what this measure will do and allowing them to make their own minds up????

If you have to ask what orgs like TNC and the NWF are doing to "alienate" agriculture you have not taken the time to inform yourself.

Check into the Nature Conservancies "officail collaboration " with the EPA. Don;t just read the front page feel good portion about "clean water" find out a little about how they are going about it with Federal dollars and influence.

To many of these orgs when they have conversations in the back room, their type of "conservation" is removing agriculture from much of the landscape.

A few years back DU actually had an article in their magazine about how to take advantage of a poor ag economy to do this very thing.

Oh and watch out, you will be chastized for using "scare tactics" on here by hwm and plainsman.

But hey I guess maybe you are right,  people like eye and plainsman and a few others are easily "alienated" by ag.

Like i've said before if I was a farmer I could certainly serve in the legislature. but i doubt my employer is going to give me a hall pass to go do that

 

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

Wow!  Now gst is comparing some interpretation by a newspaper in Oregon to Measure 5 in ND.  The whole problem with the info surrounding the measure is the stretching of the truth.  The current television add against the measure uses some pretty little girl carrying a bag of money intended to show how "outside" interests are going to steal money from ND coffers.  There is nothing detailed in the add to show what is wrong with the measure except this scare tactic.

Some of the other scare tactics:

It will raise land prices - farmers are the special interest group concerned about this, therefore the support from the Farm Bureau and other farm groups.  Farm prices are driven by crop prices.  The CRP program was instituted to get highly erodible land out of production to improve air and water quality.  It also reduced surpluses so crop prices would raise.  WRP was instituted to protect wetlands.  This program also took frequently flooded lands out of production and lowered crop insurance claims paid out to farmers.  Both programs provided benefits for wildlife production and nobody can dispute that.

It will take hunting and fishing properties away from the general public -  What evidence is there to support this bullshit position?  If anything it has the POTENTIAL to provide more hunting and fishing opportunities for the general public.  Will it also benefit out-of-state individuals?  Sure it will!  Everyone from outside ND who enjoys our hunting and fishing adds money our local economy.  How many North Dakotas hunt and fish outside the state and pay a pretty price to do it.

Anyone who has traveled the state can see the loss of habitat that has occurred in the past few years.  Shelterbelts have disappeared in the valley counties.  Wetlands are disappearing across the state.  Hunting opportunities have been lost due to posting of land and nobody can dispute this.

Do I think the measure will pass!  No, I don't because people have been confused by the all of the misinformation spread by the fear mongers.

I did think it was sad that the list of supporters was maligned as having special interests.  The lists of organizations listed on the "opposing" side definitely are have their own special interests to get as much of our tax monies possible to support their causes.  To say any of them have wildlife or clean water as one of their primary concerns would certainly be stretching the truth.

Once again, I will sit back and wait for gst to spew some more of his slanted information that has no ties to the issue.

Did anyone hear that some of the money will be spent on an abortion clinic?  I am still waiting for that claim to be made! 
 

Weedy

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

gst and Fritz just don't want anyone else's face in their trough. 

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

My caller is coming to the house for some blogging and beer.  Turns out he's handy and nuts.

 Nuke the Whales

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

weedy1 Said:
Wow!  Now gst is comparing some interpretation by a newspaper in Oregon to Measure 5 in ND. 

There was no "comparison" just stating the kinds of people that are behind this measure. Some of the very same sponsors of this measure wanted to ban a legal agricultural practice of raising farmed cervids here in ND. The whole problem with the info surrounding the measure is the stretching of the truth.  "stretching the truth"????
Tell me one thing I have stated about this measure that is not true weedy.
The current television add against the measure uses some pretty little girl carrying a bag of money intended to show how "outside" interests are going to steal money from ND coffers.  There is nothing detailed in the add to show what is wrong with the measure except this scare tactic."Scare tactics"??? I find it odd that people like your self are so quick to whine to the hall monitor that the opposition is using scare tactics yet will not acknowledge the "end of hunting" "tainted water" "dirty air" floods that will bring another ark but their will no longer be two of any game animal left" kinds of "scare tactics"

Some of the other scare tactics:

It will raise land prices - farmers are the special interest group concerned about this, therefore the support from the Farm Bureau and other farm groups.  Farm prices are driven by crop prices. Farm land prices are driven by what people can afford to pay for them. This bottomless checkbook will NOT depend on crop prices but rather a mandated requirement to spend 75% of at least $150,000,000.00 EVERY YEAR. So short of not having any common sense, why would you think this will NOT drive up land prices?? The CRP program was instituted to get highly erodible land out of production to improve air and water quality.  It also reduced surpluses so crop prices would raise.  CRP was never intended to have entire farms enrolled and people moving out of state and taking these dollars and inputs from rural communities resulting in closed doors and loss of jobs and business. THAT is the legacy of CRP people like yourself do not wish to acknowledge. The impact on real people and communities.  WRP was instituted to protect wetlands.  This program also took frequently flooded lands out of production and lowered crop insurance claims paid out to farmers. Funny insurance claims due to wet conditions are at all time highs.  Both programs provided benefits for wildlife production and nobody can dispute that.

It will take hunting and fishing properties away from the general public -  What evidence is there to support this bullshit position? Bullshit position?? See what happens after farmers or ranchers that are looking to expand are out bid by DU or TNC or the NWF on a bordering piece of land wiuth these bottomless dollars. Do you honestly think these people will continue to welcome those that supported this measure opportunities to hunt on their private lands? And before you whine about no access, provide an answer to the question no one has where just 3 or 4 years ago were most of the 160,000 deer tags filled?  If anything it has the POTENTIAL to provide more hunting and fishing opportunities for the general public.  Bullshit. Will it also benefit out-of-state individuals?  Sure it will!  Everyone from outside ND who enjoys our hunting and fishing adds money our local economy.  How many North Dakotas hunt and fish outside the state and pay a pretty price to do it. Funny how one sponsor of thei measure does everything he can every legislative session to make sure these nonresidents do not have opportunities to comne to our state to hunt. Check out Dick Monson's rants and actions over on Nodak some time in the legislative section.

Anyone who has traveled the state can see the loss of habitat that has occurred in the past few years.  Shelterbelts have disappeared in the valley counties.  Wetlands are disappearing across the state.  Hunting opportunities have been lost due to posting of land and nobody can dispute this. Posting of land does NOT equate to lost hunting opportunities unless perhaps you are one of the asshole types that usually are behind land being posted. Once again weedy where were 160,000 deer tags filled?

Do I think the measure will pass!  No, I don't because people have been confused by the all of the misinformation spread by the fear mongers.Plenty of that right here in this post being "spread" by you weedy.

I did think it was sad that the list of supporters was maligned as having special interests.  Weedy have you taken the time to check out the "special interests" of The Hamburger Company the Washington DC liberal environmental org The Nature Conservancy hired to run this campaign? Their clients are the who's who of environmental activism. The lists of organizations listed on the "opposing" side definitely are have their own special interests to get as much of our tax monies possible to support their causes.  Exactly what oil and gas tax dollars go to teh agriculture groups opposing this measure weedy? To say any of them have wildlife or clean water as one of their primary concerns would certainly be stretching the truth.

Once again, I will sit back and wait for gst to spew some more of his slanted information that has no ties to the issue.Once agin post what I have stated regarding this measure that is not the truth weedy. If you can not well credibility starts with speaking the truth.

Did anyone hear that some of the money will be spent on an abortion clinic?  I am still waiting for that claim to be made! 
  Try not to be so stupid.

weedy1 Said:
.  The whole problem with the info surrounding the measure is the stretching of the truth. 
Indeed it is weedy indeed it is.

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

Plainsman Said:
gst and Fritz just don't want anyone else's face in their trough. 

This is the stupidist claim you can make plainsman.

All the sponsors are claiming many if not most of these dollars will go to agriculture thru the various programs they are spouting off about. 

You can not dispute that they are saying it all over the place.

Currently what oil and gas tax revenues does agriculture get??

So this measure would open up a billion dollar "trough" for Fritz and I and yet we still oppose it.

Drop the stupid rhetoric plainsman you look like an idiot.

Dedeye1's picture
Dedeye1
Offline
Joined: 3/12/11

I'm voting NO on #5. I love the idea of using some of our millions in oil and gas money for the public, but this is NOT the way to do it!!
My idea would be this...
Less of a percentage to start with...what they are talking now is a LOT of money! Some of that money could go to better things.
Rent/lease/program the land...NOT buy it! Buying land up with a huge checkbook would drive land prices up much, much too high for the average man to buy anything!
Set it up like a PLOTS program. Landowners enrolling a stuble field get (these are just numbers off the top of my head) $1.00/acre, wetlands $3.00/acre, crp type land $10.00/acre and so on.
And deffinetly have an elected official(s) in charge of it. That way we can vote them out if they are screwing up.
We don't want a private group in charge of all the money...all of a sudden the head guy is making 600K a year...NOT!! Or they come up with all these "administrative fees". NOT! I'm not apposed to the people that work for this program to make a decent living, but it should be reasonable! And have a budget! No new pickup EVERY year type of thing or "use it or lose it" like the Feds.
Let's face it...Landowners would be much more open to the idea of opening their land up to public use (hunting, fishing, hiking, picnicking, etc) if they are able to make some decent money doing so and still being able to do what THEY want to do with it (farm it, graze it, etc.).
And if a landowner wants to let Delta Waterfowl or Ducks Unlimited or whoever come on their land and do their thing, well, that's their business.

Dedeye

Pages