measure 5 phone call

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

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
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?

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

RSL Said:
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!
 

 

the definition is exactly as you state.  the money will be divided out of the state money and given out to this fund. 

 

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

gst Said:

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 you simply can not pick one segment of this measure and claim you are right. You have to read the ENTIRE measure to understand it.

Read section 3 and tell us how these funds that are "allocated" which you say does not me spent can not be spent when the measure syas they must.

"Any money deposited in the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund is hereby appropriated to the commission on a continuing basis 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

Ron, this concern has been voiced since the beginning of the introduction of this measure and NONE of the sponsors will address it by providing any proof that the IC MUST spend these funds. They let people like yourself come on these sites and make the claims just like they did in the HFH measure.
 
When the same people as are sponsoring this were accused of opening their arms to HSUS in the HFH measure they sat back and let people like you and plainsman deny it until the undeniable proof came out.

So please forgive me if myself and others don;t just take your word for it ron.


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

yea so they can spend it.  you don't put money in there for the hell of it.  it doesn't say when it has to be spent.

 

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

odocoileus Said:

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.


Odie, I am quite familiar with this one as I served on the board for 8 years. Are you familiar with their Environmental Stewardship award that the NDG&F co sponsor with them?
 
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.

Okay they are an ag org. what are they suppose to "advocate" for?

 
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.

Really odie, what do you expect those orgs to "advocate" for when that is what they represent?

But odie, answer this, are there members and segments of these orgs that are committed to conservation?
 

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.

Once again here it is in black and white. No matter what is done, it is never enough. Just like the gun control groups claim to want only to register guns, everyone knows how disingenuous that claim is.


 
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.

DU wrote and article a few years back on how to take advantage of a poor ag economy and the producers misfortunes to buy up lands. Indeed they are strong agriculture advocates. They are a few in DU that understand the importance of working with ag, but the elitist idealists at the helm of the organization are more concerned with buying up lands for their own private hunting clubs.

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.  Doesn;t ND have the most acres of National wildlife refuges in the nation? I don;t know, thought I read that somewhere.
 
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. And they do this thru forming "official collaborations with the EPA. Not really any need to say more. Oh unless you google Nature Conservancy scandals.
http://search.sidecubes.com/?category=Web&st=nt&q=The+nature+conservancy...



 
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.
 
Don;t these guys support HFH?? Don;t a lot of their members have private fee hunting operations?But hey if Dick and company can take funds and support from HSUS in their HFH measure, Maybe they will accept the support of the QDMA now.
 
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.

You forgot the National Wildlife Federation odie. Remember they are the ones that filed lawsuits to stop the managed haying and grazing of CRP lands.

Indeed, those ag producers whould blindly trust them to implement a state CRP program.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
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.

nice story ron. I too had a conversation with a number of "farmers" at a football game that have read this measure as well. They seem to think the languages forces the IC to approve at least 75% of the funds for expenditure on the programs the 13 member panel brings forth.

So I see your farmer and raise you 10 farmers.

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

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???

if you include ALL the language contained in sections 3 4 and 5, you are not. ron and company like to pick and choose what suits them and ignore all the rest of the measure.

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

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???

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 Bullshit. 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.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!!

A continueing basis for expenditure then later it states that 75% MUST be allocated to the very expenditures that are listed in  section 3.

Ron, how many of the same tyopes of claims did you make in the HFH measure, the NDFB right to farm measure that did not prove to be right even though you demanded that they were?

At this point ron you are stomping your feet demanding that everyone listen toyou becasue you are right.

I am asking people to read the measure and decide for themselves if the language of the ENTIRE measure taken in full context requires the mandated spending of 75% of these funds ot stay in compliance with

ron couldn't  the sponsors of this measure go to the AG' and get his interpretation of how thie would be engrossed into the constitution and what it would require. But then that would have to  be made public.

You would think they would want to factually dispell this as it is one of the main concerns people have with this measure and they have known that for quite some time.

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

I would encourage you ALL to listen to this, including you gst. Great discussion between Dan Wogsland (ND Grain Growers) and Carmen Miller (Ducks Unlimited) on news and views this a.m. If gst actually listens to this, which I doubt, this may clear a few things up for him. Of course he could have found  out for himself had he actually called and talked to one of the sponsors. Instead the opponents twist and make false claims about this measure because they are obviously scared that the state might place conservation as more of a priority in a time of economic growth that many of us never ever thought we would see. Yes it is a lot of money, but compared to the overall revenue of this booming economy, it is small potatoes for something that is so important to our states heritage.

http://kfgo.com/podcasts/news-views-with-joel-heitkamp/939/measure-5/

And for the record, I am not calling out the opponents organizations because I think they are bad, and don't do good things for the state, or promote conservation in any form. My point is they all have a main focus/mission, and lets be completely honest here, conservation is not exactly at the top.

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:
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?

Indeed that is what they are asking people to believe.

Hardwaterman Said:
 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. 

Ron does the motion your county commissioners approved to allocate these funds have language such as this in it?
 
on a continuing basis for expenditure "

Do you really wish people to believe the authors of this measure wrote it so that the IC would NOT have to spend these dollars but could just keep rat holeing them away??

That is the very thing they and people like you and eye and odie are bitching about.

At some point ron common sense should be allowed into your thought process.



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

eyexer Said:
yea so they can spend it.  you don't put money in there for the hell of it.  it doesn't say when it has to be spent.

what don;t you understand about the words "continuing" and "annual basis"?

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

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
yea so they can spend it.  you don't put money in there for the hell of it.  it doesn't say when it has to be spent.

what don;t you understand about the words "continuing" and "annual basis"?

it's exactly that, continuing and on an annual basis.  guess you had no point

 

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

Listening to the pod cast odie shared a link to.

Carmen Miller brings up the NAAC process.

Ron would you care to share with odie your views on the court case Crosslands vs ND regarding our corporate farming lands?

You have argued quite adamantly that this law Ms. Miller claims will prevent DU from buying land is unconstitutional and will be overturned.

So what happens when it is sometime in the next 25 years?

Ms Miller at the 20 minute mark avoids answering the question regarding the forced spending of 75% of these funds

At the 23.26 mark she wrongfully claims that a portion of the 75% could be "allocated" to the trust. That is factually not true. Only 10% can be allocated to the trust, NOT any of the 75%.  The language of the measure is crystal clear on that. She either is badly informed of the measure or was being intentionally disingenuous.

She never answered the question regarding the forced expenditure language in this measure as the caller at the 26.30 mark states.

odie, ron, let me ask you this. If a program is brought forth to purchase land and the IC denies "allocating" the funds to do so would there be a lawsuit filed to challenge this?

Ron as adamant as you have been that the states anti corporate farming law is unconstitutional ( I think everyone here knows that from your capitalized posts on the subject) and that a willing seller should be able to sell to ANY willing buyer such as DU, why suddenly do you think this measure is NOT unconstitutional in that the IC can deny funding for these sales?

You positions here simply don;t add up ron.

Meadow larks?? And this measure will address the winter kill off off deer this state has seen and prevent flooding.

eye, did you hear her mention anything about access?

Indeed odie, people should listen to this. Thanks for posting the link.


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

eyexer Said:

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
yea so they can spend it.  you don't put money in there for the hell of it.  it doesn't say when it has to be spent.

what don;t you understand about the words "continuing" and "annual basis"?

it's exactly that, continuing and on an annual basis.  guess you had no point

soooooooooooooooooo wouldn;t requiring the allocated expenditure of the funds on a continueing annual basis mean they have to be expended every year? That seems to be an idicator of when these funds have to be spent.

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

I never knew the English language was that hard to understand.

Indeed having to raise the debt ceiling does not mean you have increased your debt.

and allocated expenditures on an annual basis does not mean funds are spent each year.

You either understand English or you don;t.

Marbleyes's picture
Marbleyes
Offline
Joined: 2/28/08

Gst, could you explain to me why a lot of oil company's are against this measure? I got an email forwarded to me asking for money to help defeat this measure and I admit I don't know the ins and outs of this measure. I also am not about to read 14 pages of back and forth on this topic that may have touched on that issue. Seemed the concerns were about DU and others buying up land and competing against farmers/ranchers and in no way helping the average hunter access. Not sure what the motives are behind this email and not about to ask the senders as I already know where they stand. Not looking for your opinion, just some facts as to why they would be so dead set against it. Thanks.

 

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

gst why not stop frothing at the mouth and actually pay attention. I never said the funds would not be spent, I said that the funds did not have to be spent in the fiscal year collected as you and others have claimed that would cause as your mouth piece said today on the radio corruption. If I was Gov or Ag Com etc.. I would be looking to kick him square in the mouth.

You got it now!!! So as to the rest of your tirade, tantrum I am not responding to any of it since it has been covered over and over before.

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

Marbleyes Said:
Gst, could you explain to me why a lot of oil company's are against this measure? I got an email forwarded to me asking for money to help defeat this measure and I admit I don't know the ins and outs of this measure. I also am not about to read 14 pages of back and forth on this topic that may have touched on that issue. Seemed the concerns were about DU and others buying up land and competing against farmers/ranchers and in no way helping the average hunter access. Not sure what the motives are behind this email and not about to ask the senders as I already know where they stand. Not looking for your opinion, just some facts as to why they would be so dead set against it. Thanks.

I guess I would recommend you check out Dick Monson's,  a sponsor of the measure, comments early on over on Nodak about using these funds to block oil and gas development in areas they do not want developed.

He has been a bit quieter about that lately.

The orgs behind this measure like TNC have a bit of history with that kind of thing. But then when they can make a buck...............
 

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

Hardwaterman Said:
gst why not stop frothing at the mouth and actually pay attention. I never said the funds would not be spent, I said that the funds did not have to be spent in the fiscal year collected as you and others have claimed that would cause as your mouth piece said today on the radio corruption. If I was Gov or Ag Com etc.. I would be looking to kick him square in the mouth.

You got it now!!! So as to the rest of your tirade, tantrum I am not responding to any of it since it has been covered over and over before.

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

Ahahaha! You obviously cannot listen or read. Allocate does not have to mean spend. Money can be spent, but if all 75% is not spent in a fiscal year, it can also be allocated into the trust for FUTURE  use. Either way, there are lots of grants that could be approved without purchasing up all that farmland (which would not happen regardless and we all know that). I have said before, it is going to cost an enormous amount of money to restore what is happening to this state. Think ten years from now if nothing more happens to address what the state is going through. It is honestly hard to fathom for me.

Ducks Unlimited for example was denied the purchase of 46 worthless acres to restore some wetlands this past year, yet opponents main claim is that all these interest groups will buy up all the farmland. Simply by law and the fact our industrial commission is made up of people that are elected by the folks of North Dakota, they will  keep ag and energy industry (two biggest industries) in mind in every single dollar that is spent out of this measure if it were to pass. Otherwise their political career would be a short one.

What about Dans comments?  Hunting  has never been better before, were (the state) doing the things that need to be done blah blah blah. Trouble is there will come a time when a drought will hit and duck numbers will crash after wetlands dry up. Weather is key, but the other key element is habitat. Have to have both, and need those "pesky" prairie potholes to breed ducks. So just like the deer, pronghorn, prairie chickens, sage grouse, and various other game and non-game species (but we dont care about those non game species right Gabe?), duck numbers will be the next to follow. Yea Dan sounds real sincere and I can tell he is a  genuine conservation supporter. I won't even start on the rest of his rambling because its not worth the time.

The opponents think that the industrial commision (one vote) and governer (another vote) will approve land grabs including productive farmland to be sold, or prohibit mineral development. Sounds like opponents do not trust the industrial commision and their representation of the people of the state. Care to share that news of the opposition  falsely listing state representatives as opponents of the measurewith the fbo crowd Gst?  Or provide the  false claims made by Mark Watne?

I am also done arguing with you on this, we all know your stance and your vote. Thankfully for the people of the state you only have one.

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

 Hardwaterman Said:

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??

al·lo·cate

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

What don't you understand about "divide and give out."  I'm sure that the proponents understand and will go to court the first time the monies are not "given out."  The proponents are too smart to write language into the measure that "mandate" spending.  They'll get the mandated spending thru the court system.  I guess you just can't see that.

Examples of ALLOCATE

  1. Money from the sale of the house was allocated to each of the children.

The monies were not put into a fund for the children - it was allocated (given out) to them.  Again I'm sure a lawsuit will be brought if the monies are not spent each year.

Steve.

Pages