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?

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Best part about the article today in the Forum is the fact that $1,000,000.00 dollars of out of state money has been put into the opponents coffers from American Petroleum Institute. Their contact address is
API
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-4070
USA

Good old out of state interests wouldn't you say trying to influence ND policy. The hypocrisy of this is the ads being run with that out of state money decry out of state money!!! Got to love it!!
 
SO NOW YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GST THAT YOUR GROUP IS EXACTLY AS I HAVE SAID HYPOCRITES!!!!!

7mmMag Said:
Moral of the story is....Don't bring a knife to a bear fight.

From another thread.

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

Who did you vote for for Governor last time plains?

Dalrymple.   Why?  

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

Plainsman Said:

What this is, is proof that the OHF is working exactly as planned. Start out with a controlled situation and add the funds as necessary and tweak it as necessary. It has been understood from day one that additional funds can be added if necessary.

tshort that all sounds great, but is there actually anyone dumb enough to think it would happen?

Why? Apparently you choose to vote for someone that you don;t think will do what they say they will?

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

gst you are the one making an issue of out of state funding and special interests groups trying to affect things in ND. NOT ME!! Your ads make it an issue all the while doing the same thing. Got it! So do not try and make this something it is not! Rail against special interests all the while serving them and pretending to be holier than thou by implying you are not!

It is why I have pointed this out from day one! Now there is no hiding from the hypocrisy as it is now media wide and public record to boot!!!

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!

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

Oh and I see now that Ladd has pointed out that the spending is not mandated simply allocated for spending if qualified applications come forward you are shifting gears again. For a change reporting of facts by the media exposing the untruths is having a pretty positive affect. Otherwise Jack would not be out trying to head this off!!

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

I noticed you avoided answering a couple simple questions ron.

gst Said:

Hardwaterman Said:
Best part about the article today in the Forum is the fact that $1,000,000.00 dollars of out of state money has been put into the opponents coffers from American Petroleum Institute. Their contact address is
API
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-4070
USA

Good old out of state interests wouldn't you say trying to influence ND policy. The hypocrisy of this is the ads being run with that out of state money decry out of state money!!! Got to love it!!
 
SO NOW YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW WITHOUT ANY DOUBT GST THAT YOUR GROUP IS EXACTLY AS I HAVE SAID HYPOCRITES!!!!!

It seems you think addresses are important here ron.

A bit of information and one question for you.

here is the information:

Hamburger Company 5614 Connecticut Ave, N.W., #219 Washington, DC 20015. Street Address: Hamburger Company 4000 Albemarle St NW Suite 403

Here is a link to their liberal environmental activist clients:

http://hamburgercompany.com/clients

Ron this is the agency determining the ideologies behind running the supporters of M5's campaign and in charge of spending all those out of state dollars.

Now here is the question ron, who is in charge of running the oppositions campaign and where are they from and would you describe them as conservative or liberal? What is their address?

Many of these measure come down to a difference in ideologies. M5 is just that. I guarantee you the opposition to M5 wants clean air, clean water and parks and wildlife.

Despite plainsman's tired old lies and rhetoric, I love clean air, clean water,  parks and wildlife. What people like plainsman do not know is that I advocated long and hard in ag orgs for a program like the OHF before it existed and spoke often about working together thru the Natural Areas Aquisition Committee with orgs on parcels that we could find common ground on.

But this measure that places mandated funding into our constitution is simply a bad idea.

THEY threw the first punch in a fight THEY started when THEY walked away from a cooperative agreement involving ALL the stakeholders created thru the legislature last session.

Now people like ron are whining when they get punched back. I think the old school North Dakota voters will see thru the whining.

Dick McFiddleton's picture
Dick McFiddleton
Offline
Joined: 4/9/14

 There isnt one thing in this bill that i can see will truly help hunters.  It is another political power grab imo.  Maybe i am wrong but i doubt it.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Oh and I see now that Ladd has pointed out that the spending is not mandated simply allocated for spending if qualified applications come forward you are shifting gears again. For a change reporting of facts by the media exposing the untruths is having a pretty positive affect. Otherwise Jack would not be out trying to head this off!!

ladd has done nothing more than claim someone is wrong without providing any proof other than his say so.

The measures language seems to say something different than ladds claims ron.

Here is one more question you likely won;t answer but others might think about. If the IC under Dalrymple can stop any land purchases or things they do not approve of and only spend what monies they wish on things they wish like ladd claims, why would he have to "head this off"??

your claims don;t even meet basic common sense standards ron.

ron please show in the measure language where these dollars are not mandated to be "allocated" every year as spelled out under the language held within the measure itself.

Words mean something ron. Read the measure.

Now if you seem to think like Steve Adair from DU  that "allocating" these dollars is not "spending" 75% of these dollars as the measure states MUST be done each year,I bet you believed Obama when he said " if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor".

But hey didn;t he get awarded the "Lie of the Year" with that whopper?

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

3. There is created a clean water, wildlife and parks commission that shall be comprised of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner. The commission shall govern the fund in accord with this section. Any money deposited in the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund is hereby appropriated to the commission on a continuing basis for expenditure upon those programs selected by the commission as provided in this section. The commission shall keep accurate records of all financial transactions performed under this section.

4. The commission may employ staff and enter into public and private contracts as may be necessary to operate the fund. The salaries of employees and other expenditures for the operation of the fund must be paid out of the fund. No more than three percent of the funds available in a given year may be paid out of the fund to operate the fund.

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section

ron after the commission "transfers" the 10% to the trust as they are limited to, where will this other 75% that the measure requires them to allocate go to?

If they are required to "allocate" these funds or be in violation of the constitution this will be engrossed in, what do they really have control over?

Only 3% or $4.5 million can be spent on salaries (don;t feel too sorry for Randy Kriel on leaving the NDG&F, want to bet he will be receiving part of this if this measure passes?) 

Remember, these dollars just can;t be put into some mystery account, they have to be "allocated" every year as this constitutional amendment would direct .

"must allocate" seems like  "mandated spending " to me.

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

For expenditure does not mean that it has to be spent, just that it has to be made available!!  You twist and squirm and insinuate things to your view instead of how they actually are. Just as you tried to imply outside money was not behind the measure opponents.

There is no clause the requires FORCED EXPENDITURE, just sets the amount that has to be available from the collected receipts. Just as you have implied that the money would be used only to buy land etc.....

Ladd and I do not agree on things at times, but when giving his opinion of this and knowing his background. I will take his view and version as accurate much more than your jaded and twisted facts spewing!!

And gst I am ignoring your question on the basis that it brings nothing to the debate, I have shown as I have claimed your group are hypocrites and that has been my position and stance all along!!!

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!

Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Hardwaterman Said:
For expenditure does not mean that it has to be spent, and that has been my position and stance all along!!!

Wordsmithing

Johnny 7's picture
Johnny 7
Offline
WEEKEND WARRIOR
Joined: 2/11/02

 I just got a call too and told them that i am not interested in giving any information to them.

God, Family, Green Bay Packers!

Johnny 7

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

Hardwaterman Said:
For expenditure does not mean that it has to be spent, just that it has to be made available!!  Bullshit, read the damn measureYou twist and squirm and insinuate things to your view instead of how they actually are. Just as you tried to imply outside money was not behind the measure opponents.

Ron the measure is written in black and white English.

There is no clause the requires FORCED EXPENDITURE, just sets the amount that has to be available from the collected receipts. Bullshit yet again. read the damn measure ron, here it is once again, note the emboldened portions of both 3 and 5.It is even underlined. 

 

3. There is created a clean water, wildlife and parks commission that shall be comprised of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner. The commission shall govern the fund in accord with this section. Any money deposited in the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund is hereby appropriated to the commission on a continuing basis for expenditure upon those programs selected by the commission as provided in this section. The commission shall keep accurate records of all financial transactions performed under this section.

 

4. The commission may employ staff and enter into public and private contracts as may be necessary to operate the fund. The salaries of employees and other expenditures for the operation of the fund must be paid out of the fund. No more than three percent of the funds available in a given year may be paid out of the fund to operate the fund.

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section
Just as you have implied that the money would be used only to buy land etc.....Bullshit once again ron I have NEVER implied that these dollars would be used only to buy land.

Ladd and I do not agree on things at times, but when giving his opinion of this and knowing his background. I will take his view and version as accurate much more than your jaded and twisted facts spewing!! If I recall ron in both the HFH measure and the NDFB measure you made claims you emphatically stated were true only to be proven wrong. So show us where in this measure it allows for the IC to deny funding to a program falling under the 75% "allocation" requirement every year. Put your money where your mouth is ron and show us some facts that the IC can rat hole 75% of these funds away if they wish as ladd claimed written in this measure. It must be written in this measure as the measure itself states it must be carried out according to this section. .

And gst I am ignoring your question on the basis that it brings nothing to the debate, I have shown as I have claimed your group are hypocrites and that has been my position and stance all along!!!So you are too chicken to acknowledge the liberal washington DC based environmental activist organization that is running this measures campaign while local North Dakotans run the one opposed to it? Indeed you do seem like a fella that would demand to go into a fight with the other guys hand tied behind his back ron.

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

Must be a slow day on the ranch

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-
 

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

tshort Said:

Hardwaterman Said:
For expenditure does not mean that it has to be spent, and that has been my position and stance all along!!!

Wordsmithing

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/091913-671796-debt-ceiling-not-...

Budget: President Obama suggests raising the debt ceiling won't add a penny to a U.S. debt already spiraling out of control. What planet does he live on?

In a speech to the Business Roundtable this week covered by CNSnews.com, Obama added this gem to the budget debate: "Raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy."

What? This kind of gibberish is a big reason voters have so little faith in their public officials these days.

Suffice it to say that if the debt ceiling has been raised "over a hundred times" and each time the debt went higher, one would have to conclude there's a very high — indeed, perfect — correlation between a higher debt ceiling and higher debt.

Yet, Obama goes on to say how tough a vote it will be because "the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we're running up our debt."

I guess according to Obama,  Ron Gilmore, ladd and Steve Adair increasing the debt ceiling doesn;t increase the debt and required allocation of funds for expenditure on an annual basis" does not mean mandated spending of monies every year.

Right, "trust us" say the supporters of this measure.

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

odocoileus Said:
Must be a slow day on the ranch

Working on framing in a garage and it's raining pretty good right now.

Besides there is always time to point out ron's bullshit.

although at the rate he is spewing it I might have to hire someone to finish the garage for me.

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

odocoileus Said:
Must be a slow day on the ranch

Odocoileus is a genus of medium-sized deer (family Cervidae) containing two species native to the Americas.[1] The name is sometimes spelled odocoeleus; it is from a contraction of the roots odonto- and coelus meaning "hollow-tooth".

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

You got me there Fritz. Ouch.

Fritz the Cat Said:

odocoileus Said:
Must be a slow day on the ranch

Odocoileus is a genus of medium-sized deer (family Cervidae) containing two species native to the Americas.[1] The name is sometimes spelled odocoeleus; it is from a contraction of the roots odonto- and coelus meaning "hollow-tooth".

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

So Fritz, the committee would be quote “dominated” by biologist and ecologists huh? How about 4 people elected based on recommendations from the NDGF (the people who manage the states fish and wildlife), 2 people elected based on recommendations from ND Parks and Rec, 4 politicians with equal representation from senate and house (equal Republican and Democrat) appointed by the speaker of house and president pro tempore, one energy representative appointed by PSC and one farmer/rancher appointed by Ag commissioner. I would say that’s equal representation. Whats the big worry here, still lots of representation from ELECTED officials as well as representation from energy and ag. Are opponents worried about this measure because the great three (Jack, Wayne, Doug) wont always be the industrial commission? Afraid that someday the commission might be made up of more “conservation” friendly officials, whom might actually approve more funding for conservation projects? Afraid the dreaded "biologists" and "ecologists" might have some good ideas?

Bottom line is that even though we all know this fund is not going to buy up 40 acres a day until all private land is sold in ND, there is a chance that some land may be purchased for public use someday, whether it be a state park or whatever. This scares people like GST and Fritz, because that will put some land out of production, even if it isnt producible for lack fo better word. Key word here is some. There is no way the industrial commission (regardless of who is elected) is going to let productive farmland be purchased to facilitate public use. Nor are they going to approve any form of huge land grabs. The people of this state including supporters of this measure are not going to let that happen. More importantly the industrial commission will never let that happen. This money is meant to be allocated to a fund to be secured for FUTURE projects related to conservation. Funny part is that  GST and Fritz are all for letting a landowner sell his land to a private developer to make some coin, but scoff at the fact a landowner be able to sell his land to be used by the public of North Dakota or promote conservation even if the land is not agriculturally valuable. Is that what this is all about? Cant stand to see any more public land set aside? Or the dreaded easement?

Although I am glad more funding was provided for the OHF,  I find it laughable that Jack announced it when he did. As others have mentioned, if this measure did not make the ballot, I would bet money at this point in time, Jack would have never approved more funding for OHF. Have good projects been approved for OHF? Absolutely. But, looking through all the projects approved so far, there have been very few projects that actually provide more access for hunters or any statewide conservation program. That fund is a step in the right direction, but is more of a way to appease the masses than really address what is truly happening to our state. Take a drive out east or west and see for yourselves. CRP plowed up, tree rows removed, drain tiles installed, gas flares in every direction, roads, dust, traffic, etc.

Times have changed dramatically in the state within last few years. I don’t think anyone can deny that, and unless you own lots of land or are able to get onto private land for the foreseeable future, hunting opportunities in this state are not headed in the right direction. Many of us have great friends that are farmers and ranchers that allow access for hunting. But there are a lot of people who don’t have that luxury. Especially when it comes to big game. A lot of access has been shut down, whether it be for good or bad reasons. Fact is that’s a landowners choice, and its their choice to charge for hunting. The more the state gets developed, and the more people that live here, the more fee hunting is going to increase. Public land will see lots of additional pressure as a result. Just the way it is. This measure is all about the FUTURE of North Dakota, why not take advantage of this boom and create some incentive programs for private landowners. Lets face it not going to be a cheap process. OHF does not have the available funding to provide a statewide conservation program. Not even close. Lets take advantage of this cash train and put some of this  oil money to good use instead of hording it like a packrat for a rainy day.

Why would out of state interests be “interested” in this measure for North Dakota? Same reason out of state interests are against this measure. They all have vested interests in the state. Perhaps because North Dakota is located in the heart of the central flyway and is one of the biggest producers of ducks, geese, grassland birds, shorebirds,  raptor species, etc. and has a wide diversity of other local wildlife species (grouse, pheasants, turkeys, mule deer, whitetails, bighorns, etc. etc) is why conservation groups are vested in this state. Maybe the fact that a good majority of this state sits over a giant oil blob is why out of state interests are vested in this state. This measure is not about Ag/Energy vs conservation like Gabe and the opponents makes it out to be. Its about outside interests vs outside interests, and the fact a new state park may be designated in the future. OMG the sky is falling!! This measure is about enhancing and preserving what has made this a great state to live in for a long long time. Not just short term. We all are impacted by this boom, lets take advantage.

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-
 

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

gst Said:

Plainsman Said:

What this is, is proof that the OHF is working exactly as planned. Start out with a controlled situation and add the funds as necessary and tweak it as necessary. It has been understood from day one that additional funds can be added if necessary.

tshort that all sounds great, but is there actually anyone dumb enough to think it would happen?

Why? Apparently you choose to vote for someone that you don;t think will do what they say they will?

Yup, I did, and so did you.  That's the average politician.  For years I feel like I have voted for the lesser of two evils not someone who is actually going to do what they say.  You don't need to go to Washington to see that.  Sit down with any nine out of ten North Dakota legislators. 

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

 GST, we get it, you don't like what Plainsman has to say and you don't want this measure to pass.  Enough already.  

E.Springers's picture
E.Springers
Offline
Joined: 4/22/02

Odo... U might have just swayed me. I was a fence rider on this lately.

 

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

odocoileus Said:
You got me there Fritz. Ouch.

Fritz the Cat Said:

odocoileus Said:
Must be a slow day on the ranch

Odocoileus is a genus of medium-sized deer (family Cervidae) containing two species native to the Americas.[1] The name is sometimes spelled odocoeleus; it is from a contraction of the roots odonto- and coelus meaning "hollow-tooth".

Ya, I was laughing when I saw that. But the reason I looked it up in the first place is because we have seen this before on web-forums. Biologists like to choose a Latin word as a screen name, it's a dead give away.

So which Gubmnet agency or non-governmental org do you work for?

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

odocoileus Said:

So Fritz, the committee would be quote “dominated” by biologist and ecologists huh? How about 4 people elected based on recommendations from the NDGF (the people who manage the states fish and wildlife), 2 people elected based on recommendations from ND Parks and Rec, 4 politicians with equal representation from senate and house (equal Republican and Democrat) appointed by the speaker of house and president pro tempore, one energy representative appointed by PSC and one farmer/rancher appointed by Ag commissioner. I would say that’s equal representation. Whats the big worry here, still lots of representation from ELECTED officials as well as representation from energy and ag. What does the measure say about the backgrounds these people have to have? Are opponents worried about this measure because the great three (Jack, Wayne, Doug) wont always be the industrial commission? Afraid that someday the commission might be made up of more “conservation” friendly officials, whom might actually approve more funding for conservation projects? Afraid the dreaded "biologists" and "ecologists" might have some good ideas? No, just concerned that the same type of radical environmental activists that are clients of the Washington DC based company that was hired to run this measure campaign will end up in a position to influence how these dollars are spent. Have you actually taken the time to go thru the client list of the Hamburger company in the link I provided? Tell us why would "North Dakotans" choose a DC based company with ties and clients like this to run a measure to change our constitution odie?

Bottom line is that even though we all know this fund is not going to buy up 40 acres a day until all private land is sold in ND, there is a chance that some land may be purchased for public use someday, whether it be a state park or whatever. This scares people like GST and Fritz, because that will put some land out of production, even if it isnt producible for lack fo better word. You make assumptions that simply are not true. I have been an advocate for working thru the NAAC to allow some land purchases where they are indeed better suited for habitat than production. I do not expect you to know this as do the fellow members of the groups I am in do, but please try not to make incorrect assumptions, you start to sound like plainaman or hwm. Key word here is some. There is no way the industrial commission (regardless of who is elected) is going to let productive farmland be purchased to facilitate public use. Nor are they going to approve any form of huge land grabs. You simply can not make that claim becasue of the way this measure is worded. The IC only has a say over how a small portion of these funds are spent. 75% of the total amount deposited before the 10% for the trust and 3% for the salaries HAS to be "allocated" and despite ladds and hwm claims they can not back up, that means "expended" each year. The people of this state including supporters of this measure are not going to let that happen. The people?? Are you going to lead the charge to start another initiated measure to change this constitutional amendment when it does?? The supporters???They are the ones that want this measure to buy land.  More importantly the industrial commission will never let that happen. Okay here is the "claim" once again. Based on the measures own language please show us EXACTLY where it is written that the IC will not HAVE to fund the programs that fall under the 75% mandated expeditures of the funds deposited into this account. This money is meant to be allocated to a fund to be secured for FUTURE projects related to conservation. And it is also required that at least 75% be spent in an ongoing basis annually. Read the measure.  Funny part is that  GST and Fritz are all for letting a landowner sell his land to a private developer to make some coin, but scoff at the fact a landowner be able to sell his land to be used by the public of North Dakota or promote conservation even if the land is not agriculturally valuable. Once again you simply do not know as much as you think odie.  Is that what this is all about? Cant stand to see any more public land set aside? Or the dreaded easement?

Although I am glad more funding was provided for the OHF,  I find it laughable that Jack announced it when he did. As others have mentioned, if this measure did not make the ballot, I would bet money at this point in time, Jack would have never approved more funding for OHF. Have good projects been approved for OHF? Absolutely. But, looking through all the projects approved so far, there have been very few projects that actually provide more access for hunters or any statewide conservation program. What programs has this measure even shown will provde "access" Are you trtuly so foolish to think this measures passage will lead to "more access" when virtually every ag organization and the grass roots members that  form them watch as the lands that are beside them are sold to orgs with these dollars approved in a mandated spending requirement? That fund is a step in the right direction, but is more of a way to appease the masses than really address what is truly happening to our state. Take a drive out east or west and see for yourselves. CRP plowed up, tree rows removed, drain tiles installed, gas flares in every direction, roads, dust, traffic, etc.

Times have changed dramatically in the state within last few years. I don’t think anyone can deny that, and unless you own lots of land or are able to get onto private land for the foreseeable future, hunting opportunities in this state are not headed in the right direction. I would venture a large bet that if this measure passes this will only be compounded. Lines are being drawn in the sand after org;s like DU walked AWAY from what ag and energy STARTED as a cooperative program in the OHF. Everyone seems to overlook that FACT that it was ag and energy that started this whole process. Many of us have great friends that are farmers and ranchers that allow access for hunting. But there are a lot of people who don’t have that luxury. Especially when it comes to big game. And yet the NDG&F just what was it 3 years ago gave out 160,000 deer tags. I have asked the question and have yet to get an answer, perhaps YOU would like to odie. Where were all those deer shot?  A lot of access has been shut down, whether it be for good or bad reasons. Fact is that’s a landowners choice, and its their choice to charge for hunting. The more the state gets developed, and the more people that live here, the more fee hunting is going to increase. Public land will see lots of additional pressure as a result. Just the way it is. This measure is all about the FUTURE of North Dakota, why not take advantage of this boom and create some incentive programs for private landowners. Lets face it not going to be a cheap process. OHF does not have the available funding to provide a statewide conservation program. Not even close.Where exactly is the any gaurantee this measure will result in that? They have made so many promises to so many different people to get their signatures how can you be sure it will be used for that? And as we have seen with the latest increase in fudning proposal if a CRP program is actually good for all of ND and not just those seeking to bolster their recreational opportunities, the legislature can increase the OHF to accomadate it Lets take advantage of this cash train and put some of this  oil money to good use instead of hording it like a packrat for a rainy day.

Why would out of state interests be “interested” in this measure for North Dakota? Same reason out of state interests are against this measure. They all have vested interests in the state.Indeed they do odie and orgs like The Nature Conservancy are joining forces with the EPA to further their "interest" in our state. Orgs like the National Wildlife Federation went to Federal court to accomplish THERI "interests" here in our state when they sued to end haying and grazin of CRP and yet you want producers to embrace a "new" CRP program when they will be the iones influencing it's parameters??? Perhaps because North Dakota is located in the heart of the central flyway and is one of the biggest producers of ducks, geese, grassland birds, shorebirds,  raptor species, etc. and has a wide diversity of other local wildlife species (grouse, pheasants, turkeys, mule deer, whitetails, bighorns, etc. etc) is why conservation groups are vested in this state. Maybe the fact that a good majority of this state sits over a giant oil blob is why out of state interests are vested in this state. This measure is not about Ag/Energy vs conservation like Gabe and the opponents makes it out to be. IF it is not, why did the players take their ball and walk away from the table when they did not get EVERYTHING they wanted in the OHF?? Its about outside interests vs outside interests, and the fact a new state park may be designated in the future. OMG the sky is falling!! This measure is about enhancing and preserving what has made this a great state to live in for a long long time. Not just short term. We all are impacted by this boom, lets take advantage.

People like Odie want the voter to ignore the language of this measure and what that can do.
They want them to overlook the consequences of the mandated spending this measure requires.
They want them to overlook the fact the life cycle of this measure is 25 years before the sponsors would allow the people to have another say short of starting another initiated measure to deal with the unforeseen consequences.
They want you to overlook the past history and agendas of those outside orgs funding this.
They want you to believe this will magically "fix" access problems that are nowhere near as problematic as a handful of people want to portray.
They want you to overlook the radical liberal environmental activist ideals of the DC based company hired to run this measure.

Why? Because those are NOT the "North Dakota values" they want to claim this measure is all about.



For Christ sake the latest ad the supporters are running is of Dick Monson claiming he supports this measure because he supports the ability of farmers and ranchers to keep the farm in the family. Really? as long as they don;t try raising captive cervids to "keep the farm in the family".

 

THAT is what this measure is really about. A handful of elitists that would not work with agriculture and energy because they simply do not want  to compromise.  They have shown in the past it is an all or nothing position they take. The truth of the matter is this measure will not help access it will not be the savior of hunting as it is being implied. The people behind it are not looking out for the North Dakota sportsman but rather only their own agendas. It will only drive a wedge that a few elitists in the "sportsman" world keep hammering on even deeper.

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

Land grab claims blown out of the water, forced spending blown out of the water, boogey man claims of DU using the money to buy land blown out of the water. Claim of a stacked board blown out of the water! Not having a good day gst that you have to go back to an old measure that did not pass to try and slum up support. Radio show couple days ago destroyed a lot of your false claims as well to a pretty wide audience!

Now go spend that out of state money you decry the supporters where using!! HYPOCRITE!!!!!

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!

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

 Gst if not for guys like you and fritz influencing the legislators there would be no need for this measure.  Your simply control freaks.  You twist the truth and use the same techniques as the liberals you condemn.  When a conservative will not fall in lockstep you call them liberal, all the while sicking at the gov boob yourself.  Hypocrite is the only description that fits.

Credibility?  Zero!

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

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Land grab claims blown out of the water, forced spending blown out of the water, boogey man claims of DU using the money to buy land blown out of the water.

Really, becasue you say so?? Once again ron address the actual language of the measure, break it down and prove what you claim.

There are others that seem to be familiar with FBO over on this measure's face book site that are claiming other wise.

Jeff Weispfenning If a city or county or the state is going to build a park, you need to have land for the park and someone needs to be able to buy land. The measure prohibits eminent domain to do this.

Now ron please explain how this measure will provide all the parks the supporters are claiming it will without buying land?

Oh and then perhaps you can answer how a "nonprofit" such as the Nature Conservancy has enough "profits" to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars here in North Dakota to change our constitution. .

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

Plainsman Said:
 Gst if not for guys like you and fritz influencing the legislators there would be no need for this measure.  Your simply control freaks.  You twist the truth and use the same techniques as the liberals you condemn.  When a conservative will not fall in lockstep you call them liberal, all the while sicking at the gov boob yourself.  Hypocrite is the only description that fits.

Credibility?  Zero!

Please provide a bit of proof to back up your claim bruce.


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

gst once again nobody has said that some land would be purchased, but it is not the land grab you claim it to be. Parks, marginal lands that should not have a plow or crop raised on them. Water covered lands like up at DL possibly? Not miles upon miles of land in the RRV or other areas of good production! The Gov body will see to that and thus your claim is blown up like a cheap firecracker on the 4th of July!! Go hunt some grouse or catch a fish or fill up your barn with manure!  

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!

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

If you where as petulant as a child, like you are as an adult, my guess is your mom never took you out much. For fear of being embarrassed by your throwing yourself on the ground and having a temper tantrum! Face it gst your false claims have been shown to be just that and it is bugging the hell out of you!! But don't hold your breath until you are blue. You need all the brain cells you have left!!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
gst once again nobody has said that some land would be purchased, but it is not the land grab you claim it to be. Parks, marginal lands that should not have a plow or crop raised on them. Water covered lands like up at DL possibly? Not miles upon miles of land in the RRV or other areas of good production! The Gov body will see to that and thus your claim is blown up like a cheap firecracker on the 4th of July!! Go hunt some grouse or catch a fish or fill up your barn with manure!  

Come on ron for once provide some proof to back up what you say. This time it is the emboldened poriton. Where have I said it would be some massive "land grab"? 

What has been said is these dollars WILL be used to buy land despite the claims of some of the supporters.

Now onto your second claim that I have emboldened that it woud be interesting to see some proof of.

Please show within the language of the measure where in regards to the 75% of funds that are required ot be "allocated" annually that the "govt body" would have the ability to block what programs that are brought forth for the "allocation" of those funds as "expenditures".

Here is what I find interesting. Just like in the HFH measure the same people are letting their "supporters" make their claims for them. Why isn;t a sponsor like Dick Monson coming on FBO and presenting a letter from the AG or other state authority that claims these funds are NOT mandated to be spent and that they will NOT be used to buy land? 

Why are the sponsors of this measure themselves not addressing it?

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

Hardwaterman Said:

If you where as petulant as a child, like you are as an adult, my guess is your mom never took you out much. For fear of being embarrassed by your throwing yourself on the ground and having a temper tantrum! Face it gst your false claims have been shown to be just that and it is bugging the hell out of you!! But don't hold your breath until you are blue. You need all the brain cells you have left!!

Okay ron coming from you this actually made me laugh.

Now ron, I may be a bit slow and perhaps I missed it, but outside of your "petulant" decree of false claims, can you show any actual proof to lend any credibility to that claim.

Most people can read black and white language written in English that has been provided that seems to show that 75% of these fudns are required to be "allocated" to "expenditures" every year and can draw the conclusion that this caveat of the measure might have been written in purposefully to tie the hands of the very agency that has purportedly "blocked" these lands sales previously (even though the NAAC has approved a majority of the sales brought before them).

It is the black and white English language of the measure itself ron that I have offered for people to make their decision. An in response you "petulantly" demand others take what you claim as fact even though you provide no evidence to lend any credibility.

so please ron, stop the childish banter and bring some proof to the table. Or continue as you usually do yelling in capital letters that some one is wrong because you say so.

The voters of North Dakota deserve a bit more than your decree ron. Especially given your track record on past measures.


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

gst Said:

Hardwaterman Said:
HERE IS THE REALITY OF THIS THAT CRIES OF HYPCRICY! THOSE OPPOSED CRY ABOUT OUTSIDE SPECIAL INTERESTS ALL THE WHILE USING OUTSIDE THE STATE SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY IN ATTACKING THE MEASURE!!!! 

please provide something showing this. I am truly curious, I have seen the Sec. of States report on those supporting this measure that show 96% of the funding has came from out side interests, please provide your source of information.

proof is in the pudding and the $1million dollars from API a Washington DC based firm is out of state money!  You always cry about proof of claims well this is one!

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!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02
 So out of $130 million the commission only really has any say on about $18 million dollars worth of programs, the rest they MUST "allocate for expenditure".

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten

percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

ABOVE IS YOUR CLAIM, BELOW IS THE ACTUAL WORDING IT DOES NOT MANDATE THAT IT BE SPENT, IT MANDATES THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE MADE AVAILIBLE FOR PROJECTS.

For those that are confused the purpose of this was to stop the Leg from restricting the money being spent. Just as with the Legacy fund, they limited when and how much the Leg could spend it. In simple terms they are making sure that the Leg did not come in and restrict the dollars spent to 1 or 2% a year or restrict who could apply for the grants from it like the G&F for example. But gst makes the claim that the dollars have to be spent which is not correct!

You want more? So go back to the manure in the barn instead of on this thread!

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!

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

Hardwaterman Said:

 So out of $130 million the commission only really has any say on about $18 million dollars worth of programs, the rest they MUST "allocate for expenditure".

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten

percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

ABOVE IS YOUR CLAIM, BELOW IS THE ACTUAL WORDING IT DOES NOT MANDATE THAT IT BE SPENT, IT MANDATES THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE MADE AVAILIBLE FOR PROJECTS.

For those that are confused the purpose of this was to stop the Leg from restricting the money being spent. Just as with the Legacy fund, they limited when and how much the Leg could spend it. In simple terms they are making sure that the Leg did not come in and restrict the dollars spent to 1 or 2% a year or restrict who could apply for the grants from it like the G&F for example. But gst makes the claim that the dollars have to be spent which is not correct!

You want more? So go back to the manure in the barn instead of on this thread!

that's exactly how I understand it also.  the money has to be made available via being deposited in the fund.  which is also nice because if they made it available and didn't have to deposit it in the fund, the legislature could so called "borrow" that money.  can't touch it in a fund they can't have access too. 

 

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06
I could quote a set of quotes that have been quoted by GST, but it does no good. No matter what a person says, he will ignore anything and everything and rant on and on and on about how he is right and everyone else is wrong. In his last replies to me, I could literally see the veins popping out of his neck. So lets look at this Measure in a different perspective. Here are some of the mission statements of these “conservation friendly” organizations that are against Measure 5. It’s pretty obvious why the opponents of this measure do not want to see constitutionally mandated conservation spending.
 
To unite, protect, promote, educate and serve the cattle industry in North Dakota.
 
The mission of North Dakota Farm Bureau is to advocate for agriculture and enhance the economic opportunities of our membership while promoting individual freedoms and self reliance.
 
The North Dakota Ag Coalition is a nonpartisan federation of more than 35 organizations representing specific commodities and/or associations with a direct interest in agriculture, for the specific purpose of addressing issues that affect North Dakota agriculture.
 
The North Dakota Petroleum Council's mission is to promote and enhance the discovery, development, production, transportation, refining, conservation, and marketing of oil and gas in North Dakota, South Dakota, and the Rocky Mountain region; to promote opportunities for open discussion, lawful interchange of information, and education concerning the petroleum industry; to monitor and influence legislative and regulatory activities on the state and national level; and to accumulate and disseminate information concerning the petroleum industry to foster the best interests of the public and industry.
 
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry.
 
The mission of the North Dakota Association of Builders is to represent the professional building industry through legislation, information and education.
 
The Chamber will advance the business environment and economic base of the Bismarck-Mandan area.
The Greater North Dakota Chamber works to make North Dakota’s business climate the best in the nation. We amplify your voice in the legislature and advance positions that help your business succeed. We also provide personalized assistance when you are working to grow your business but reach a roadblock.
 
Funny, I do not see conservation anywhere near a priority for these groups. The goals of these organizations are not to promote conservation, so it’s not shocking that these groups oppose Measure 5. Who are we (as a state) going to trust to when it comes to future conservation activities in this state, the organizations against this measure? Do I need to add some more mission statements from these “conservation friendly” groups? I can tell you Jacks little plan that he “thinks” is going to work, is not going to solve the problems this state has encountered in the last ten years. His “offering” is nothing more than a small band aid on a gushing wound. It is going to take a lot of money to fix the issues that are currently threatening our states future quality of life.
 
Now humor me for a minute and take a look at some of the mission statements from some of the supporters of this measure (whom I might add are nationally recognized in the promotion of conservation). Like them or not, these groups have done FAR more to promote conservation within this great state and across the nation than the opponents of this measure ever have. Who are we trying to kid here?  As I have said the opponents of this measure have special interests in this state, and they’ll be damned if someone else has a special interest, especially related to conservation.

Ducks Unlimited conserves, restores, and manages wetlands and associated habitats for North America's waterfowl. These habitats also benefit other wildlife and people.

The Friends of the Migratory Bird/Duck Stamp is a tax-exempt, 501(c)3 organization (incorporated in the state of Maryland), dedicated to the promotion, preservation, sales, and better understanding of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (commonly called the Duck Stamp). The Friends fosters an appreciation of how the funds collected through the Stamp build the National Wildlife Refuge System and emphasizes the conservation of habitat and the many wildlife species that benefit through the Stamp.
 
Founded in 1911, WMI is a private, nonprofit, scientific and educational organization, dedicated to the conservation, enhancement and professional management of North America's wildlife and other natural resources.
Pheasants Forever is dedicated to the conservation of pheasants, quail and other wildlife through habitat improvements, public awareness, education and land management policies and programs.
 
The NWTF is dedicated to the conservation of the wild turkey and preservation of our hunting heritage."
 
The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.
 
The Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) is a non-profit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to ensuring the future of white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage.
 
The mission of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society is to provide a forum for discussion of ecological issues among natural resource professionals; to enable its membership to pursue conservation of natural resources; and to inform the public on ecologically wise uses of natural resources in support of a conservation ethic.

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-
 

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

odu you are correct but as I have stated before I am simply showing the fact that his claims have been blown up and proven to be false statements and his acts of hypocrisy or the groups he allied with on this!

For all who bother to read this I think it gives them a better understanding of what the measure actually is vs what the oil and ag industry are claiming. This weekend I pulled up the actual wording of the measure on my phone and showed it to a farmer friend back home. He received a mailer urging a NO vote and one of his concerns was the forced spending.

I had him read the measure and asked him to show me where the forced spending language was at. He spent a good deal of time doing so and then grinned and said, well I guess I should have known better than to trust the flier to be honest!!!!

Same goes for a lot of others on it raising and being a new tax and the list goes on and on, and all these untruths are bugled and promoted as fact from the likes of gst and others closely involved with the Ag groups. Like DU using the money to buy land for them was another lie started or insinuated as fact by the opponents.

I got asked how you could spend 100 million a year without buying land and I rattled off a state run CRP program, a tree and cover program, wetland restoration program to reduce flooding, invasive species eradication program that negatively affects wildlife and fish and the list goes on. The state Leg is reactive to things and handcuffed by only meeting every other year. This fund can put proactive programs in place that would be a huge benefit to not only conservation but the farm industry if they could just get past the land purchase issue which as I have said in my opinion is going to go away via court rulings soon anyhow.

For those that oppose this because it is not being used to lower taxes both income or property I want to remind them of the huge surplus that the Leg has not used to do so already. I think in large part they simply are unable to wrap their minds around the amount of surplus dollars that the state is going to have over the next 10-20 years and that such fixes are going to come only from them being a collective voice and pushing for it at the Leg. If your Rep or Sen does not do it then vote the sucker out the next time and forget about party. A few king pins going down would be enough of a wake up to get that action moved forward.

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!

Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01
 

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten

percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

 

It clearly says that 75-90% of the revenue deposited must be allocated annualy. Another word for allocate......assigned.  75-90% of the money must be assigned a project or a purpose. It is far beyond "just available".

How am I misinterpreting that wording???

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

I agree HWM

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
Joined: 2/28/07

tshort Said:

 

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten

percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

 

It clearly says that 75-90% of the revenue deposited must be allocated annualy. Another word for allocate......assigned.  75-90% of the money must be assigned a project or a purpose. It is far beyond "just available".

How am I misinterpreting that wording???

you can allocate and not spend.  but you can't spend and not spend

 

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

tshort Said:

 

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten

percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

 

It clearly says that 75-90% of the revenue deposited must be allocated annualy. Another word for allocate......assigned.  75-90% of the money must be assigned a project or a purpose. It is far beyond "just available".

How am I misinterpreting that wording???

You are? What the wording does is set the amount that has to be made available for use and limits the use of the entire amount. Now where does this say that the money has to be spent but makes it clear the amount that can be. In fact 90% of every dollar collect could be spent if proper applications for grants where offered. It is simply making the % available clear in the language so that the Leg cannot as others said borrow from it for other things.

MN is dealing with these issues because the wording of their measure was not as clear as this is.
But lets use your word assign, they have to assign to the pay out fund no less than 75 and no more than 90%! They cannot only assign 50% into payout portion and leave the rest sit in reserve. You want to imply the spending as a fear tactic and nothing more. If you doubt this, like other things the intent of the measure makes it clear but that does not fit into fear and boogey man tactics tshort.
 
TO accept the wordings intent to establish the amount available for spending and not leave it to the Leg to determine is the clear and right purpose of the language. Just as the Legacy fund is clear on its purpose of setting limits on the Leg ability to spend that money!!

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!

Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Hardwaterman Said:

tshort Said:

 

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten

percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.

 

It clearly says that 75-90% of the revenue deposited must be allocated annualy. Another word for allocate......assigned.  75-90% of the money must be assigned a project or a purpose. It is far beyond "just available".

How am I misinterpreting that wording???

But lets use your word assign, they have to assign to the pay out fund no less than 75 and no more than 90%! They cannot only assign 50% into payout portion and leave the rest sit in reserve. You want to imply the spending as a fear tactic and nothing more. If you doubt this, like other things the intent of the measure makes it clear but that does not fit into fear and boogey man tactics tshort.
 

So do you think that this 75-90% money will not be spent and will be available for other projects after being assigned?  Call it boogey man tactics, call it what you want, but the fact is the money must be assigned and will be spent. If that isn't mandated spending of 3,000,000 per week all I can say is WOW!

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

 Monday night our city commissioners allocated up to $100,000.00 dollars to be used for a review of our police department disciplinary action. They did not spend that amount they simply authorized up to that amount can be spent. Same thing with this measure and the wording. They used % instead of a set amount. 

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!

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

Hard to be wrong tshort? I am sure it will not stop you or others from continued spewing of a false claim. 

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!

Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Hardwaterman Said:
Hard to be wrong tshort? I am sure it will not stop you or others from continued spewing of a false claim. 

Wrong how?  If this passes, will all of 75-90% of the money allocated to projects not be spent? You seriously want to make that claim?

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

It will be spent but it does not have to be spent as you have said it would nor will the projects be corrupt as claimed today by the mouth piece of the opposition. See I highly doubt the first year that their will be proposals that will even come close to the totals. The learning curve on what is going to be accepted and rejected tell us that. Those funds will carry over to be used later. NOT THE WAY YOU AND OTHERS HAVE INSINUATED that not worth while projects will get passed through to meet the so called spending requirements. Thus your claim are wrong altogether.

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!

RSL's picture
RSL
Offline
Joined: 9/25/09

Allocate from the Webster's online dictionary:

al·lo·cate

 verb \ˈa-lə-ˌkāt\:  : to divide and give out (something) for a special reason or to particular people, companies, etc.

transitive verb
1
:  to apportion for a specific purpose or to particular persons or things :  distribute <allocatetasks among human and automated components>
2
:  to set apart or earmark :  designate <allocate a section of the building for special research purposes>

Examples of ALLOCATE

  1. Money from the sale of the house was allocated to each of the children.
  2. We need to determine the best way to allocate our resources.
  3. Have enough funds been allocated to finance the project?

Me thinks that they intend to spend the allocated money and they're just parsing their language enough to confuse people into thinking that they are not!

 

 

Steve.

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

rsl the money will be spent, not sure where you got the idea it would not. However it is not mandated that it be spent in the fiscal year, which means the so called boogey man projects that you and others have said would happen because it is mandated it be spent that year. Got it! See when you take away the boogey man BS then people can decide without the scare tactics and misinformation. If you have such a strong argument against it why do you need fabricated claims to defeat it??

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

Hardwaterman Said:

gst Said:

Hardwaterman Said:
HERE IS THE REALITY OF THIS THAT CRIES OF HYPCRICY! THOSE OPPOSED CRY ABOUT OUTSIDE SPECIAL INTERESTS ALL THE WHILE USING OUTSIDE THE STATE SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY IN ATTACKING THE MEASURE!!!! 

please provide something showing this. I am truly curious, I have seen the Sec. of States report on those supporting this measure that show 96% of the funding has came from out side interests, please provide your source of information.

proof is in the pudding and the $1million dollars from API a Washington DC based firm is out of state money!  You always cry about proof of claims well this is one!

ron, no one doubted that eventually interests that will be impacted such as oil companies would invest dollars to oppose it. It happens in every measure. But answer this one single question ron. Would API be spending 1 million dollars to change our states constitution if DU and the Nature Conservancy would not have started this fight?

Pages