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

fullrut Said:
Seems like the opposition wasn't the only one to make phone calls.

In the 2012 election cycle the proponents of a constitutional ballot measure to create a conservation fund saw their signature collection effort fail when petitioners they hired – mostly NDSU football players – were caught forging tens of thousands of signatures.

In the current election cycle the conservationists, backing another measure, claimed that they’d be using only volunteers to collect signatures, something that was clearly untrue.

Now, adding to a laundry list of unsavory political practices, the conservationists who are backing what is now Measure 5 on the November ballot have been caught using less-than-legal polling practices.

BISMARCK, N.D. — A Democratic polling firm representing backers of a state conservation fund will pay $2,000 to resolve a complaint alleging violations of North Dakota’s do not call law, court records show.

The North Dakota attorney general’s office and Las Vegas-based Campaign Communication Solutions Inc. reached the agreement Wednesday. The company, which has offices in Washington, D.C., and California and also does business as Stones’ Phones, did not admit wrongdoing or liability, court records said.

The company allegedly made illegal prerecorded calls on behalf of North Dakotans for Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks, a group pushing a ballot measure that would funnel some of the state’s oil extraction taxes into a conservation fund. Backers of the measure want 5 percent of the state’s oil extraction taxes over the next 25 years, a sum opponents said would set aside almost $5 billion during that time for conservation projects at the expense of other state needs. …

“We clearly believe they violated the law,” Grossman told The Associated Press. “But the primary goal is to ensure that the calls are discontinued and we achieved that.”

Just another facepalm moment for the conservationists.

Given this pattern of behavior, maybe it’s time to start holding the conservationists accountable for the tactics they deploy. We all have our opinions about the proper way to implement conservation policy, but do we really want to make a massive fiscal commitment to a plan hatched by a bunch of people who are clearly ethically challenged?

Here is what a former co sponsor of the HFH measure with many of the same people whom one would think would know a little bit about them wrote.

The Bismarck Tribune

March 21, 2014

Initiative Would Be A Travesty

Dear Editor:

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Trust initiative will be a travesty if voters pass the measure.

I am not opposed to spending on conservation; we already have a system in place for that, a system with checks and balances. The only check and balance on this new fourth branch of government will be the checks they write and hundreds of millions of dollars in their bank balance to cover the checks.

I hear $130 million per biennium taxed and spent. Tally in the growth of oil production and the subsequent increase in tax revenue and the figure will be closer to $230 million — and that is still a conservative estimate.

Whatever the amount, that much cash places too much power in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable government agency. There isn’t a thing the legislative assembly, the governor, the court or the citizens could do about the board’s actions because its spending will be shielded by the North Dakota Constitution.

The first attempt to bring this measure to a vote ended with criminal charges for corruption. The amount of cash under the control of the proposed board will not just invite the corruption, it will foster corruption.

Using the low estimate of $130 million per biennium, cash mandated to the board pencils out to approximately $178,000 of spending every day, seven days a week, for the 730 days of the biennium. That amount of money will corrupt the unaccountable board and the people who do business with that board.

The voters of this state ought to vehemently oppose any constitutional amendment that mandates inflexible spending. It is bad government to take options from elected legislators — individuals who are subject to public pressure — and place those options in the hands of a board that is beyond the control of anybody.

Roger Kaseman
Bismarck, ND
 
This letter was originally posted at the Bismarck Tribune. It also appeared in the Grand Forks Herald, Jamestown Sun, Fargo Forum and Dickinson Press.

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

eyexer Said:

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
I can see this measure/money being used for reclamation of oil sites/land that was damaged during exploration.  doesn't appear to be anything that prevents money from the 75% allocation to be put in the trust if not spent.  the 10% put into the trust is a percentage of annual allocation.  Doesn't appear to be anything to prevent other money to be put in trust.  Just states at least 10% has to be.  So when the oil money dries up if it does, there will still be trust money accumulated over many years that can still be used for many years.  makes sense if you think about it. 

Read the measure eye. This is exactly the kind of crap the sponsors and supporters of this measure are doing.

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.
 
14. The state treasurer shall reserve five percent of the state’s share of total revenue derived from oil extraction taxes for the purposes described in this section. Ten percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter. Ninety percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter.


It does NOT say "at least" 10% or up to 10% or no less than 10%............... it says 10% two separate places.

period.

Perhaps Ms. Miller should "read the measure" as she suggested to Dan in their debate.

words mean something.

you don't get what I'm saying.  The measure states the commissioner has to deposit 10% of this money into the trust.  that is fully understood by everybody as far as I can tell.  The measure doesn't appear to prevent some of the remaining 75% to be put into the trust of they so desire if those funds aren't allocated to a specific project for the year. 

eye two separate places it states that 10 % is to be deposited into the trust. 10% period.

What do you think would happen if the IC decides not to fund projects and deposit the funds instead in the trust above this 10%.

They will be taken to court for violating the states constitution as it is spelled out.

You see there are consequences to putting this in the constitution where words mean something.

.

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

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure.  In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. 

 

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

So now that you have been proven wrong on your "they can put whatever they want in the trust" claim this is what you come with??

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure. There were MANY on here that opposed it. In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  Not as it was written. You don;t seem to get it, it was a flawed measure just as this one is. Most people are for elimination of taxes of any kind as they are clean water and air. But the method being brought forth to accomplish it is flawed. And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  Maybe the most vocal, but hardly the only one against it. He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  Are you really this stupid??? I will ;bet you right here and now $100 that the elimination of property taxes would have put far more dollars back into our farming operation's pocket than it would yours And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. Are YOU going to lead the collection of signatures to "change this" eye or just sit on FBO bitching.

golfer's picture
golfer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/15/02

gst Said:
So now that you have been proven wrong on your "they can put whatever they want in the trust" claim this is what you come with??

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure. There were MANY on here that opposed it. In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  Not as it was written. You don;t seem to get it, it was a flawed measure just as this one is. Most people are for elimination of taxes of any kind as they are clean water and air. But the method being brought forth to accomplish it is flawed. And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  Maybe the most vocal, but hardly the only one against it. He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  Are you really this stupid??? I will ;bet you right here and now $100 that the elimination of property taxes would have put far more dollars back into our farming operation's pocket than it would yours And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. Are YOU going to lead the collection of signatures to "change this" eye or just sit on FBO bitching.

gst, why even ask, he is the FBO "bitch queen".

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

Most of the comments on this thread have concentrated on the "massive" amount of funding that Measure 5 would generate and how this would allow less than worthy projects to be forcibly funded because the funds would outpace the demands.

Let's just take a moment to look at this "problem".  Since 2007 approximately 2 million acres have been taken out of the federal CRP program as contracts have elapsed.  Crop prices and associated land rental values have increased and most farmers in the program had to make a good business decision and not re-enroll in the program.  Some farmers even took their land out of contract early and paid penalties to accomplish this.

So let's say we put a state program in place to return these acres to a similar conservation easement.  Using a very conservative $50/acre rental rate those 2 million acres would tie up $100 million per year for such an easement program.  When you add in the salary and overhead costs of managing such a program you use a great chunk of the $150 million proposed to be generated each year.  Oh, I forgot that 10% of the measure funds need to placed in a trust, so we are really only talking about $135 million per year available for projects or programs of any type.  I am not advocating that all of the acres pulled out of CRP should go back in, but a good portion of them should not be farmed due to the negative environmental impacts.   Raising crops on these acres is only made profitable by the other farm support programs we fund.

I am certain there is a very long list of worthy projects that have been developed and will be developed that can be assisted by Measure 5 funding.  PLOTS acreage has dropped by about 300,000 acres along with the decrease in CRP acres,  trees are disappearing from the landscape at an alarming pace.  These are just a couple of issues that could be addressed by increased funding levels.  A steady and reliable source of funding would generate a support system to develop qualified projects to properly use these funds.  If you check the projects that have been funded by the Heritage Fund they are mostly ongoing projects that have lost other funding sources.  Many may be worthy of funding but are not going to have any major impact on the issues facing the state.  Check them out via internet and judge for yourselves.

I also got the phone call from the Petroleum people asking me how I would vote on Measure 5.  When I told the polite lady that I planned to vote and also to support Measure 5 she began to explain the negative ramifications of the measure passing.  I politely told her the claims were not supported by fact.  That ended our pleasant conversation. 

With all of the misinformation being put out, the measure has a very limited potential to pass.  At least the effort got the Governor to promise more funding for the Heritage fund which is a small positive step forward.  I am positive the legislatures actions this next session will not produce anything additional to support the environment in our state and a similar (and perhaps better written) measure will be on the ballot in 2016.

Weedy

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

gst Said:
So now that you have been proven wrong on your "they can put whatever they want in the trust" claim this is what you come with??

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure. There were MANY on here that opposed it. In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  Not as it was written. You don;t seem to get it, it was a flawed measure just as this one is. Most people are for elimination of taxes of any kind as they are clean water and air. But the method being brought forth to accomplish it is flawed. And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  Maybe the most vocal, but hardly the only one against it. He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  Are you really this stupid??? I will ;bet you right here and now $100 that the elimination of property taxes would have put far more dollars back into our farming operation's pocket than it would yours And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. Are YOU going to lead the collection of signatures to "change this" eye or just sit on FBO bitching.

you didn't prove anything.  only in your mind you did.

 

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

golfer Said:

gst Said:
So now that you have been proven wrong on your "they can put whatever they want in the trust" claim this is what you come with??

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure. There were MANY on here that opposed it. In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  Not as it was written. You don;t seem to get it, it was a flawed measure just as this one is. Most people are for elimination of taxes of any kind as they are clean water and air. But the method being brought forth to accomplish it is flawed. And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  Maybe the most vocal, but hardly the only one against it. He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  Are you really this stupid??? I will ;bet you right here and now $100 that the elimination of property taxes would have put far more dollars back into our farming operation's pocket than it would yours And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. Are YOU going to lead the collection of signatures to "change this" eye or just sit on FBO bitching.

gst, why even ask, he is the FBO "bitch queen".

lol, once again you bring nothing of substance to a debate.  your pitiful and I feel sorry for ya

 

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

weedy1 Said:
Most of the comments on this thread have concentrated on the "massive" amount of funding that Measure 5 would generate and how this would allow less than worthy projects to be forcibly funded because the funds would outpace the demands.

Let's just take a moment to look at this "problem".  Since 2007 approximately 2 million acres have been taken out of the federal CRP program as contracts have elapsed.  Crop prices and associated land rental values have increased and most farmers in the program had to make a good business decision and not re-enroll in the program.  Some farmers even took their land out of contract early and paid penalties to accomplish this.

So let's say we put a state program in place to return these acres to a similar conservation easement.  Using a very conservative $50/acre rental rate those 2 million acres would tie up $100 million per year for such an easement program.  When you add in the salary and overhead costs of managing such a program you use a great chunk of the $150 million proposed to be generated each year.  Oh, I forgot that 10% of the measure funds need to placed in a trust, so we are really only talking about $135 million per year available for projects or programs of any type.  I am not advocating that all of the acres pulled out of CRP should go back in, but a good portion of them should not be farmed due to the negative environmental impacts.   Raising crops on these acres is only made profitable by the other farm support programs we fund.

I am certain there is a very long list of worthy projects that have been developed and will be developed that can be assisted by Measure 5 funding.  PLOTS acreage has dropped by about 300,000 acres along with the decrease in CRP acres,  trees are disappearing from the landscape at an alarming pace.  These are just a couple of issues that could be addressed by increased funding levels.  A steady and reliable source of funding would generate a support system to develop qualified projects to properly use these funds.  If you check the projects that have been funded by the Heritage Fund they are mostly ongoing projects that have lost other funding sources.  Many may be worthy of funding but are not going to have any major impact on the issues facing the state.  Check them out via internet and judge for yourselves.

I also got the phone call from the Petroleum people asking me how I would vote on Measure 5.  When I told the polite lady that I planned to vote and also to support Measure 5 she began to explain the negative ramifications of the measure passing.  I politely told her the claims were not supported by fact.  That ended our pleasant conversation. 

With all of the misinformation being put out, the measure has a very limited potential to pass.  At least the effort got the Governor to promise more funding for the Heritage fund which is a small positive step forward.  I am positive the legislatures actions this next session will not produce anything additional to support the environment in our state and a similar (and perhaps better written) measure will be on the ballot in 2016.

you are right.  doolittle dalrymple made a proposal to increase the heritage fund but it'll be temporary just like property tax relief.  and it's just a proposal to stymie the efforts of measure 5.  it still has to be approved by the legislature that meets after the election.  if the measure is defeated I'm sure the legislature will not approve it.  so it's a smoke and mirrors show. 

 

golfer's picture
golfer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/15/02

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

gst Said:
So now that you have been proven wrong on your "they can put whatever they want in the trust" claim this is what you come with??

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure. There were MANY on here that opposed it. In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  Not as it was written. You don;t seem to get it, it was a flawed measure just as this one is. Most people are for elimination of taxes of any kind as they are clean water and air. But the method being brought forth to accomplish it is flawed. And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  Maybe the most vocal, but hardly the only one against it. He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  Are you really this stupid??? I will ;bet you right here and now $100 that the elimination of property taxes would have put far more dollars back into our farming operation's pocket than it would yours And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. Are YOU going to lead the collection of signatures to "change this" eye or just sit on FBO bitching.

gst, why even ask, he is the FBO "bitch queen".

lol, once again you bring nothing of substance to a debate.  your pitiful and I feel sorry for ya

You don't bring substance, all you are is a hate filled confused little man.  Feel sorry for yourself.  Why don't you move if it is so terrible here? 

scottsdale's picture
scottsdale
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/2/08

odocoileus Said:

I am voting yes. There has to be more of a balance between development and conservation. I am born and raised in North Dakota and have been around along enough to realize that this state has gone through tremendous change in the last 5-10 years. I never in my almost 30 years of life imagined North Dakota could ever change so much. The decisions that are made in these times of huge economic development will have long lasting effects on the future, heritage, and of the quality of life in North Dakota. Development is not going to slow down for years and years to come. This measure is a great chance to provide funding for a wide variety of conservation/recreation projects, and will not destroy agriculture or oil and gas development. This measure wont be headed by out of state interests, and the money will not leave the state. The governor, ag commissioner and attorney general will make up the commission and will approve every single penny that is spent.

One of the biggest things this measure could fund is voluntary conservation programs, which will put money into the pockets of landowners, while enhancing habitat and promoting soil health, protecting wetlands, etc. These types of conservation programs could be designed by the state, rather than rely on the federal government. The state has lost over 2 million acres of CRP, and in ten years the decline will be even more substantial. Many landowners are rejected when applying for CRP these days, and obviously will farm that land because they don’t get incentives for keeping it out of production.  There needs to be a way to incentivize landowners to keep land out of production and still maintain productive farmland and ranchland. Measure 5 can do this, and landowners will benefit. These programs will be approved by the commission (governor, ag commissioner, attorney general). You can guarantee they will consider the opinions of agriculture and energy interests when approving any program or approving funding.

I don’t want a personal check every year from O+G development, I want to be able to see the state enhance and protect what is important to so many of us. I feel it is only right for money from the oil boom to go directly back into the state in the form of conservation. There have been huge impacts to the quality of life across the state, mostly in the western side, but in general all over. A lot of them good, and a lot of them bad. Fact is we are all impacted by this boom in one way or another. It is only right to provide this type of funding for the people of North Dakota. We can balance development and conservation and this measure can benefit everyone including the agriculture industry.

 Fishingbuddy members, If you are concerned with future outdoor opportunities within this great state, I recommend for you to do your own research on this measure. As hunters, if you think wildlife populations are going to be able to sustain the huge loss in habitat in the next 20 years, think again. We need to be able to replace a program like CRP, and this fund can do it. Yes, there is the OHF, but simply put, it isnt enough. There  is a lot of false information being spoken about this measure. Everyone has an opinion, and more important everyone has a vote. Decide for yourself. Your kids will appreciate it.

Link to amendment:

http://www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/amendment-text

            your willing to entrust a nameless, faceless bunch of out of state liberal tree-huggers with that kind of money ? you cant be serious !!!! they are here for 1 reason only, WE have the $ and they want to get their hands on it.
 
their spokesmen/women have been very elusive and vague in their very few media appearances, that alone is a huge red flag.

you are no doubt a liberal that believes in govt or govt type agencies "taking care" of you/the land. the earthquake coming in nov and in 2016 should be a wake-up call for liberalism/socialism. pay close attention. this measure will fail badly in nov. 

it is my understanding that DU has an office in bis w/about 50 employees. how bout this idea ? another initiated measure for the 2016 ballot. this measure would demand that DU and any other proponents/funders of measure 5 pack their bags and get their fat, lazy, money grabbing asses out of ND 

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

golfer Said:

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

gst Said:
So now that you have been proven wrong on your "they can put whatever they want in the trust" claim this is what you come with??

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure. There were MANY on here that opposed it. In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  Not as it was written. You don;t seem to get it, it was a flawed measure just as this one is. Most people are for elimination of taxes of any kind as they are clean water and air. But the method being brought forth to accomplish it is flawed. And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  Maybe the most vocal, but hardly the only one against it. He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  Are you really this stupid??? I will ;bet you right here and now $100 that the elimination of property taxes would have put far more dollars back into our farming operation's pocket than it would yours And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. Are YOU going to lead the collection of signatures to "change this" eye or just sit on FBO bitching.

gst, why even ask, he is the FBO "bitch queen".

lol, once again you bring nothing of substance to a debate.  your pitiful and I feel sorry for ya

You don't bring substance, all you are is a hate filled confused little man.  Feel sorry for yourself.  Why don't you move if it is so terrible here? 

you have to get over this mancrush you have of me.  I'm not sure what it stems from.  but it would appear your the hate filled confused little man. 

 

golfer's picture
golfer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/15/02

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

gst Said:
So now that you have been proven wrong on your "they can put whatever they want in the trust" claim this is what you come with??

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure. There were MANY on here that opposed it. In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  Not as it was written. You don;t seem to get it, it was a flawed measure just as this one is. Most people are for elimination of taxes of any kind as they are clean water and air. But the method being brought forth to accomplish it is flawed. And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  Maybe the most vocal, but hardly the only one against it. He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  Are you really this stupid??? I will ;bet you right here and now $100 that the elimination of property taxes would have put far more dollars back into our farming operation's pocket than it would yours And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. Are YOU going to lead the collection of signatures to "change this" eye or just sit on FBO bitching.

gst, why even ask, he is the FBO "bitch queen".

lol, once again you bring nothing of substance to a debate.  your pitiful and I feel sorry for ya

You don't bring substance, all you are is a hate filled confused little man.  Feel sorry for yourself.  Why don't you move if it is so terrible here? 

you have to get over this mancrush you have of me.  I'm not sure what it stems from.  but it would appear your the hate filled confused little man. 

Just trying to keep you honest, since you can't seem to control yourself.  Mancrush, good one.  You're not my type, too effeminate.  Threaten to terminate anyone today?  LMFAO

westwolfone's picture
westwolfone
Offline
Joined: 7/2/08

LMFAO.
 
You guys are still beating this dead horse?

This is why I don't do politics.

Start a thread on religion next.

 

freiday31's picture
freiday31
Offline
Joined: 6/29/02

I am all for conservation, but make sure you do it right.  This is the North Dakota State Constitution that we are working with.  You don't just take the best current offer and throw it in the constitution.  That is absolutely irresponsible.  If the measure is good in concept and flawed in language and implementation, then fix it and bring it back with it is perfect, not just adequate.  Don't pass something half-ass because it is better than what we have now.  Hey, I am really tired of the hamburger and really want a porterhouse, but what the hell, I guess I will take sirloin because that is what is being offered.  Brilliant.

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure.  In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. 


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

freiday31 Said:
I am all for conservation, but make sure you do it right.  This is the North Dakota State Constitution that we are working with.  You don't just take the best current offer and throw it in the constitution.  That is absolutely irresponsible.  If the measure is good in concept and flawed in language and implementation, then fix it and bring it back with it is perfect, not just adequate.  Don't pass something half-ass because it is better than what we have now.  Hey, I am really tired of the hamburger and really want a porterhouse, but what the hell, I guess I will take sirloin because that is what is being offered.  Brilliant.

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure.  In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. 

I love sirloin

 

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

golfer Said:

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

eyexer Said:

golfer Said:

gst Said:
So now that you have been proven wrong on your "they can put whatever they want in the trust" claim this is what you come with??

eyexer Said:

I think the measure is pretty bloated in regards to the amount of money.  but it's what we are being offered and it's sure as hell better than what we currently have.  And we can afford it that's for sure.  I remember the heated debate on here when the measure to eliminate property taxes was being debated.  GST was by and large the biggest opponent to that measure. There were MANY on here that opposed it. In hindsight, I think a vast majority of the people that voted against that bill have some serious regrets and would certainly vote for it again.  Not as it was written. You don;t seem to get it, it was a flawed measure just as this one is. Most people are for elimination of taxes of any kind as they are clean water and air. But the method being brought forth to accomplish it is flawed. And now with this measure, GST is by and large the biggest opponent against it.  so that ought to tell us all something.  Maybe the most vocal, but hardly the only one against it. He was opposed to the the elimination of property taxes because he feared it would get in his wallet.  Are you really this stupid??? I will ;bet you right here and now $100 that the elimination of property taxes would have put far more dollars back into our farming operation's pocket than it would yours And the same is true for this measure.  Farmers are afraid it'll zap their wallets.  So we all need to take that into consideration when we are considering this bill.  And remember, if this thing isn't going as planned we can certainly eliminate it just as easy as it was voted in. Are YOU going to lead the collection of signatures to "change this" eye or just sit on FBO bitching.

gst, why even ask, he is the FBO "bitch queen".

lol, once again you bring nothing of substance to a debate.  your pitiful and I feel sorry for ya

You don't bring substance, all you are is a hate filled confused little man.  Feel sorry for yourself.  Why don't you move if it is so terrible here? 

you have to get over this mancrush you have of me.  I'm not sure what it stems from.  but it would appear your the hate filled confused little man. 

Just trying to keep you honest, since you can't seem to control yourself.  Mancrush, good one.  You're not my type, too effeminate.  Threaten to terminate anyone today?  LMFAO

I don't buy it.  I think your obsessed.  there are dozens you could stalk on here but your completely mesmerized by me.  I'm flattered actually

 

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

            your willing to entrust a nameless, faceless bunch of out of state liberal tree-huggers with that kind of money ? you cant be serious !!!! they are here for 1 reason only, WE have the $ and they want to get their hands on it.
 
their spokesmen/women have been very elusive and vague in their very few media appearances, that alone is a huge red flag.

you are no doubt a liberal that believes in govt or govt type agencies "taking care" of you/the land. the earthquake coming in nov and in 2016 should be a wake-up call for liberalism/socialism. pay close attention. this measure will fail badly in nov. 

it is my understanding that DU has an office in bis w/about 50 employees. how bout this idea ? another initiated measure for the 2016 ballot. this measure would demand that DU and any other proponents/funders of measure 5 pack their bags and get their fat, lazy, money grabbing asses out of ND 

All I can do is laugh at comments like yours. You are really helping spread the clear message of the opponents. Thank you.  You have no viable argument to bring to the table and obviously have not done any meaningful research into this measure, so like your other cohorts you attack attack attack. So for the sake of your health, I would suggest calming down before you have an aneurism. I absolutely hate politics, I am not a democrat, republican, liberal or conservative. I am fed up with the two party system of America because of die hard party supporters such as yourself. New elections, new candidates, but same two parties and same BS. But lets save that conversation for another time.
 
I am interested in this measure not because of my political views, but for my passion for the outdoors and for the quality of life in this state.  Call me what you want, but this states future is in dire need of attention regarding conservation/recreation. Anyone who denies that is obviously oblivious to what is going on.
 
Lets look who has really benefited as a result of this boom. Oil companies (rightfully so), land owners (rightfully so), business owners (rightfully so) and obviously people who are employed as a direct result (also rightfully so).
 
What this leaves out is the average Joe/Joan who makes up a majority of this state. How has the average person benefited from this boom in the state? Yes the economy is good and we have lots of jobs, which is great. The state has seen higher taxes, higher costs of housing/living, food, etc., higher crime, higher traffic, loose oil regulations and unprecedented environmental contamination, politicians who have been swayed by big oil, the list goes on and on and on.
 
My point is that this boom has undeniably been great for this state, but it does come with severe negative impacts on the quality of life for most citizens. This measure is something that can help keep the quality of life in this state great while the boom continues for likely decades to come.  Good day Scottsdale.

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-
 

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

Measure 5 is front page headlines in The Minot Daily News today where local (Minot area) leaders met and pledged their support to Decision Makers for Common Sense Conservation in opposition to the CWWP measure.  The new coalition included 101 legislators and 26 mayors. 

Steve.

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

Neat

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

Neat

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

RSL Said:
Measure 5 is front page headlines in The Minot Daily News today where local (Minot area) leaders met and pledged their support to Decision Makers for Common Sense Conservation in opposition to the CWWP measure.  The new coalition included 101 legislators and 26 mayors. 

does this surprise you? I hope not

 

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

odocoileus Said:

scottsdale Said:

            your willing to entrust a nameless, faceless bunch of out of state liberal tree-huggers with that kind of money ? you cant be serious !!!! they are here for 1 reason only, WE have the $ and they want to get their hands on it.
 
their spokesmen/women have been very elusive and vague in their very few media appearances, that alone is a huge red flag.

you are no doubt a liberal that believes in govt or govt type agencies "taking care" of you/the land. the earthquake coming in nov and in 2016 should be a wake-up call for liberalism/socialism. pay close attention. this measure will fail badly in nov. 

it is my understanding that DU has an office in bis w/about 50 employees. how bout this idea ? another initiated measure for the 2016 ballot. this measure would demand that DU and any other proponents/funders of measure 5 pack their bags and get their fat, lazy, money grabbing asses out of ND 

All I can do is laugh at comments like yours. You are really helping spread the clear message of the opponents. Thank you.  You have no viable argument to bring to the table and obviously have not done any meaningful research into this measure, so like your other cohorts you attack attack attack. So for the sake of your health, I would suggest calming down before you have an aneurism. I absolutely hate politics, I am not a democrat, republican, liberal or conservative. I am fed up with the two party system of America because of die hard party supporters such as yourself. New elections, new candidates, but same two parties and same BS. But lets save that conversation for another time.
 
I am interested in this measure not because of my political views, but for my passion for the outdoors and for the quality of life in this state.  Call me what you want, but this states future is in dire need of attention regarding conservation/recreation. Anyone who denies that is obviously oblivious to what is going on.
 
Lets look who has really benefited as a result of this boom. Oil companies (rightfully so), land owners (rightfully so), business owners (rightfully so) and obviously people who are employed as a direct result (also rightfully so).
 
What this leaves out is the average Joe/Joan who makes up a majority of this state. How has the average person benefited from this boom in the state? Yes the economy is good and we have lots of jobs, which is great. The state has seen higher taxes, higher costs of housing/living, food, etc., higher crime, higher traffic, loose oil regulations and unprecedented environmental contamination, politicians who have been swayed by big oil, the list goes on and on and on.
 
My point is that this boom has undeniably been great for this state, but it does come with severe negative impacts on the quality of life for most citizens. This measure is something that can help keep the quality of life in this state great while the boom continues for likely decades to come.  Good day Scottsdale.

Your a thinking man that I appreciate.  I'm a retired guy, and without the salary there are things I just don't do these days.  I think the oil boom was great for 25% of North Dakotans, but hurts many of the others on low income or retired.   For example an older couple from Williston could no longer afford to live where the were born and lived all of their life.  They sold their house and moved to Valley City.  We have people coming in to Jamestown also. 

Over the years many of us have voted for things to help agriculture.  I remember when I voted to take the sales tax off farm expenditures like implements etc.  Now it's time for them to step up to the plate and support those who have supported them in the past.  I am disappointed that's not happening. 

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

Plainsman Said:

odocoileus Said:

scottsdale Said:

            your willing to entrust a nameless, faceless bunch of out of state liberal tree-huggers with that kind of money ? you cant be serious !!!! they are here for 1 reason only, WE have the $ and they want to get their hands on it.
 
their spokesmen/women have been very elusive and vague in their very few media appearances, that alone is a huge red flag.

you are no doubt a liberal that believes in govt or govt type agencies "taking care" of you/the land. the earthquake coming in nov and in 2016 should be a wake-up call for liberalism/socialism. pay close attention. this measure will fail badly in nov. 

it is my understanding that DU has an office in bis w/about 50 employees. how bout this idea ? another initiated measure for the 2016 ballot. this measure would demand that DU and any other proponents/funders of measure 5 pack their bags and get their fat, lazy, money grabbing asses out of ND 

All I can do is laugh at comments like yours. You are really helping spread the clear message of the opponents. Thank you.  You have no viable argument to bring to the table and obviously have not done any meaningful research into this measure, so like your other cohorts you attack attack attack. So for the sake of your health, I would suggest calming down before you have an aneurism. I absolutely hate politics, I am not a democrat, republican, liberal or conservative. I am fed up with the two party system of America because of die hard party supporters such as yourself. New elections, new candidates, but same two parties and same BS. But lets save that conversation for another time.
 
I am interested in this measure not because of my political views, but for my passion for the outdoors and for the quality of life in this state.  Call me what you want, but this states future is in dire need of attention regarding conservation/recreation. Anyone who denies that is obviously oblivious to what is going on.
 
Lets look who has really benefited as a result of this boom. Oil companies (rightfully so), land owners (rightfully so), business owners (rightfully so) and obviously people who are employed as a direct result (also rightfully so).
 
What this leaves out is the average Joe/Joan who makes up a majority of this state. How has the average person benefited from this boom in the state? Yes the economy is good and we have lots of jobs, which is great. The state has seen higher taxes, higher costs of housing/living, food, etc., higher crime, higher traffic, loose oil regulations and unprecedented environmental contamination, politicians who have been swayed by big oil, the list goes on and on and on.
 
My point is that this boom has undeniably been great for this state, but it does come with severe negative impacts on the quality of life for most citizens. This measure is something that can help keep the quality of life in this state great while the boom continues for likely decades to come.  Good day Scottsdale.

Your a thinking man that I appreciate.  I'm a retired guy, and without the salary there are things I just don't do these days.  I think the oil boom was great for 25% of North Dakotans, but hurts many of the others on low income or retired.   For example an older couple from Williston could no longer afford to live where the were born and lived all of their life.  They sold their house and moved to Valley City.  We have people coming in to Jamestown also. 

Over the years many of us have voted for things to help agriculture.  I remember when I voted to take the sales tax off farm expenditures like implements etc.  Now it's time for them to step up to the plate and support those who have supported them in the past.  I am disappointed that's not happening. 

not to change the subject but that's one of the things we need to do to offset elimination of property taxes.  go to more use type taxes.  which would mean higher sales  and income taxes.  which means bring sales tax on machinery up to where everything else is. 

 

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

not to change the subject but that's one of the things we need to do to offset elimination of property taxes.  go to more use type taxes.  which would mean higher sales  and income taxes.  which means bring sales tax on machinery up to where everything else is. 

Geez eye, you go right for the jugular.

north14's picture
north14
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/05

 Hardwaterman.......how many legs has eyeexr knocked off your stool? lmfao

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

Well Fritz oil is #1 in the state now not Ag so maybe they need the same type of sales tax break and to offset the loss Ag can pick up the slack! This is tongue in cheek comment but underscores the point that sportsman and voters of ND have stepped up for Ag. Those same voters deserve the truth and not the BS lies being spread on this measure. That should not be to much to ask!

You have always been fairly level headed in discussing issues, maybe not in agreement, but how about a straight up no BS debate. You up for that?

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:
 but how about a straight up no BS debate. You up for that?

The only way any "debate" with you regarding this measure can be "straight up no BS" is when you address your adamant, capital letters, the anti corporate farming law will fall to Cook lawsuit  decree that wipes out the claims by the sponsors that the IC/Governor will be able to block any land sales with these billions of dollars.

You simply can not have it both ways ron. Either Cook will fail and the law will stand or Cook will suceed like you have repeatedly claimed calling anyone that disagreed a "DUMB ASS"., and yours and the sponsors claims about this measure are not true. 

So which is it ron, are you wrong about Cook or are you wrong about this measure.

 


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

johnr Said:

Always refreshing Mr. r

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

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

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, thought you might like this.

"Farmers and ranchers are the original conservationists,”
said Monson. “Measure 5 will provide income to ag producers who are the stewards of North Dakota’s world-class outdoors"


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

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

Okay, I gotta ask, who is the "petulant child" here ron?

At this point ron you have painted yourself into a corner contradicting yourself so it really doesn;t matter if you do or not.

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

Fritz the Cat Said:

not to change the subject but that's one of the things we need to do to offset elimination of property taxes.  go to more use type taxes.  which would mean higher sales  and income taxes.  which means bring sales tax on machinery up to where everything else is. 

Geez eye, you go right for the jugular.

I got to keep you guys on your toes

 

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

gst Said:
Plainsman, thought you might like this.

"Farmers and ranchers are the original conservationists,”
said Monson. “Measure 5 will provide income to ag producers who are the stewards of North Dakota’s world-class outdoors"

I think Monson misspoke.  he should have said "were the original conservationists"

 

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

 Hardwaterman Said:

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

By posting on the forum actually you are talking to gst and to everyone else that can access the forum.  If you want to just talk to Fritz, then you must use a PM.

Couldn't help myself.

Steve.

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

Ron Gilmore wrote,

You have always been fairly level headed in discussing issues, maybe not in agreement, but how about a straight up no BS debate. You up for that?

Not really. Exchanges with you get too long. We have been at it for some time.

I helped Farm Bureau get measure 3 on the ballot to let farmers farm and ranchers ranch. You thought that was cluttering up the States Constitution. This one isn't?

I was the President of the ND Elk Growers during the fair chase folly. You claimed there was absolutely no connection with HSUS. Your were wrong but not humbled.

I helped the Landowners Association get on the ballot to reform the eminent domain law. The Supreme Court got the City of New London vs Kelo wrong and we righted it here in ND. Some people just cannot respect property rights.

Ron, too many Senate Bills and House Bills to mention. It seems Ron you are always on the wrong side of the fence. (pun intended) Myself, I have not lost a vote that I have gotten involved with. Now lean your head in here so I can knock on some wood.

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

RSL Said:
 Hardwaterman Said:

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

By posting on the forum actually you are talking to gst and to everyone else that can access the forum.  If you want to just talk to Fritz, then you must use a PM.

Couldn't help myself.

Thanks let me correct it! I am not responding to gst!! Hope that helps!!

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!

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

 Farmers and ranchers were the first conservationists.  Now most are so large that the tie to the land is driven by dollars, not sweat.  So it does make sense that they along with legislators would be against a conservation measure they view as a threat to their ability to put money in the bank.

Legislators more for the power and ability to play politics.

So throw the fear (out of state folks) that those funds will go out of state is kind of weak.  That the funds will even be controlled by out of state interests is weak.  Having Dalrymple try and counter with adding to the weak Heritage fund is a sign they must be concerned.  

Until those that oppose this measure can come up with something better I will support it.  Instead of working so hard to defeat it, they should be putting forward projects those funds could be used for.

Hunt_Fish31

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

Fritz before they jumped in and bought ads which was not asked for or wanted by the way. That was the only connection, we have hashed that out before. The Ranch bill I still think is going to haunt us and it is happening now with tiling.

Fritz, my views are not financed like yours are, I am simply a single individual with a view and opinion.

However that being said, this is the first time that your group has faced opposition with financing to buy radio and TV ads, so your messasge is not the only one being heard.

Case in point is Measure 4 which really has no organized or financed opposition. Yet your groups are well financed to push this!

So it is and has been about the money not really the policy.

Measure 5 may or may not pass, but for the first time you and yours are being challenged and that is good. It should make people actually research something and make and informed choice which is all I want. With facts not fiction.

So if you do not want to debate on merits fine with me.

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:

RSL Said:
 Hardwaterman Said:

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

By posting on the forum actually you are talking to gst and to everyone else that can access the forum.  If you want to just talk to Fritz, then you must use a PM.

Couldn't help myself.

Thanks let me correct it! I am not responding to gst!! Hope that helps!!

Still kinda "petulant" there ron.

But hey your silence on the Cook lawsuit preventing the safe guards the sponsors of this measure claim will keep it from buying land actually speak quite loudly.

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

Hunt_Fish31 Said:
 Farmers and ranchers were the first conservationists.  Now most are so large that the tie to the land is driven by dollars, not sweat.  So it does make sense that they along with legislators would be against a conservation measure they view as a threat to their ability to put money in the bank.

Legislators more for the power and ability to play politics.

So throw the fear (out of state folks) that those funds will go out of state is kind of weak.  That the funds will even be controlled by out of state interests is weak.  Having Dalrymple try and counter with adding to the weak Heritage fund is a sign they must be concerned.  

Until those that oppose this measure can come up with something better I will support it.  Instead of working so hard to defeat it, they should be putting forward projects those funds could be used for.

That is happening thru the Outdoor Heritage Fund. You know the one that actually was created by real North Dakotans.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Fritz before they jumped in and bought ads which was not asked for or wanted by the way. That was the only connection, we have hashed that out before. So the admission there was indeed discussion was false?The Ranch bill I still think is going to haunt us and it is happening now with tiling. Not one single "scare tactic" you and plainsman used during that debate has came true.

Fritz, my views are not financed like yours are, I am simply a single individual with a view and opinion.

However that being said, this is the first time that your group has faced opposition with financing to buy radio and TV ads, so your messasge is not the only one being heard. So HSUS didn;t have monies to buy radio and TV ads during the HFH measure the had many of the same sponsors as this measure? I think I recall seing them ron. As well as in the animal cruelty M5 2 years ago.

Case in point is Measure 4 which really has no organized or financed opposition. Yet your groups are well financed to push this!

So it is and has been about the money not really the policy.

Measure 5 may or may not pass, but for the first time you and yours are being challenged and that is good. It should make people actually research something and make and informed choice which is all I want. With facts not fiction.

So if you do not want to debate on merits fine with me.

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

Hunt_Fish31 Said:
 Farmers and ranchers were the first conservationists.  Now most are so large that the tie to the land is driven by dollars, not sweat.  So it does make sense that they along with legislators would be against a conservation measure they view as a threat to their ability to put money in the bank.

Legislators more for the power and ability to play politics.

So throw the fear (out of state folks) that those funds will go out of state is kind of weak.  That the funds will even be controlled by out of state interests is weak.  Having Dalrymple try and counter with adding to the weak Heritage fund is a sign they must be concerned.  

Until those that oppose this measure can come up with something better I will support it.  Instead of working so hard to defeat it, they should be putting forward projects those funds could be used for.

Just put that out there because of a past conversation with plainsman over this same quote.

He took great exception to it at that time, I merely wonder if he will call bullshit on it when Dick Monson is making that claim.

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

If this money is routed to crp and plots the habitat will return, but that
wont happen.  Buildings and equipment and bureaucracy will waste the money.

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

Ron said,

Fritz before they jumped in and bought ads which was not asked for or wanted by the way.

There was collaboration between certain pretend hunting non-profits and HSUS from the get go.

Fritz, my views are not financed like yours are, I am simply a single individual with a view and opinion.
 

Ranching is my livelyhood. Why don't you take your opinions and attack somebody else's.

However that being said, this is the first time that your group has faced opposition with financing to buy radio and TV ads, so your messasge is not the only one being heard.
 

The deer and elk growers spent $400 thousand dollars fighting a handfull of idoits. Now this very same handful has money. Like Mike McEnroe said after the fair chase folly, "In losing we found the recipe for winning. Whoever spends the most on a ballot measure usually wins." 

So if you do not want to debate on merits fine with me.

I'll pass.

I'm watching the news right now and there was some protesters floating the Missouri River today in this wind by the Heskett Plant. They are funded by the Dakota Resource Council. The DRC is funded from out of state. Ron, have you heard of the DRC? They are looking for a few more activists. 

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

From a supporter of this measure over on their Facebook page.

Michael Van Beek If people are saying there is no required spending they are clearly misinformed

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

gst Said:
From a supporter of this measure over on their Facebook page.

Michael Van Beek If people are saying there is no required spending they are clearly misinformed

I would hope they would spend the money.  why else would one want the money other than to spend it.  however, one exception would be the state of ND.  they seem to want to build a mountain of cash for some reason. 

 

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

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
From a supporter of this measure over on their Facebook page.

Michael Van Beek If people are saying there is no required spending they are clearly misinformed

I would hope they would spend the money.  why else would one want the money other than to spend it.  however, one exception would be the state of ND.  they seem to want to build a mountain of cash for some reason. 

When balancing the checkbook, my wife and I have this same arguement all the time.

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

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
From a supporter of this measure over on their Facebook page.

Michael Van Beek If people are saying there is no required spending they are clearly misinformed

I would hope they would spend the money.  why else would one want the money other than to spend it.  however, one exception would be the state of ND.  they seem to want to build a mountain of cash for some reason. 

Eye you seem to be missing the point of it. With the mandated spending requirement this measure has that people like ladd and ron refuse to acknowledge, the IC does not have "control" over these funds. And as such they would be used to purchase lands contrary to what the sponsors are claiming.

But your emboldened statement is spot on.

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

gst you continue to twist and lie!!!! NOW PAY CLOSE ATTENTION!!!!! IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE MEASURE IT LISTS LAND PURCHASE AS ONE OF THE ACCEPTED ITEMS THAT THE DOLLARS CAN BE USED FOR!!

HOWEVER CURRENT STATE LAWS REGARDING PURCHASE BY NP OR STATE AGENCIES WOULD NEED TO BE FOLLOWED?

So do not try and pretend or claim otherwise!!!!!!!

This is not an issue you can twist and spin!!!

I am not going back and forth with you but simply pointing out again an outright lie on your part.

So as it sits now the Gov has the power to approve or not approve the sale of lands to the state or any non profit. This means as a primary member of the final approval board, along with the Ag com and the AG so he would have to approve it and would have two chances to vote against any purchase. Nothing more or less!!!
So when anyone who supports this points out that their is not going to be the land grab you claim we are pointing to the facts not the hyperbole and bloviated BS that you are spewing!!

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

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!

Pages