# Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment



## Bad Dog

Several years ago when the proposal to add an amendment to the ND constitution about a 'right' to hunt I was against it as I was concerned that 1) Hunting is not a 'right' and 2) then the NDFB would have an amendment to have a 'right' to farm anyway they want. Well, here it is.

These are not rights that should be guaranteed by the constitution. Constitutional 'rights' are inalienable rights for 'all' citizens, not a select few. Heck, I think I should have a constitutional 'right' to forgoe any of my debts, a 'right' to own a section of land, a 'right' to shop at Walmart on Sunday mornings. WTH?

What is the NDFB so concerned about that we need to litter the constitution with things like this? Last time I checked, farming is not under any threat from ending.


----------



## dakotashooter2

I think the idea is to assure that farming/land use cannot be zoned out or otherwise regulated in a way that a property owner cannot use his land for farming. It is my understanding that the ND Century Code already recongnizes this agricultural culture and protects it. I remember seeing some laguage to that effect somewhere.


----------



## swift

Look at the NDFB's policy book you will be amazed at the crap they believe.

http://www.ndfb.org/image/cache/Final_book_11_web.pdf

I especially like how they want everyone to pay, pay and pay for them but don't want thier taxes to increase.


----------



## gst

National Farm Policy 229
We believe that all government agricultural program payments should be eliminated. We favor a private insurance program for risk management. --ID#: 1509/11

I know it is a hard concept to grasp that an agriculture org. would advocate for those involved in ag.


----------



## swift

Too bad advocating for agriculture means taking from non-ag to pay for your "career". Just how many times can a policy statement use the words Tax Exemption before they get across they want to be a ward of the state? Or is it they want to be the kings of the country and let the peasants pay their way?

I didn't see your policy regarding halting farm programs in the FB's communist manifest? Just like you to try to twist the topic in your first post.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Just how many times can a policy statement use the words Tax Exemption before they get across they want to be a ward of the state? Or is it they want to be the kings of the country and let the peasants pay their way?
> 
> I didn't see your policy regarding halting farm programs in the FB's communist manifest? Just like you to try to twist the topic in your first post


And so it begins! :-? maybe plainsman should just lock this thread right from the start!!!  :wink:


----------



## swift

I thought you would only respond to mistruths about your career. Fact is you will dispute any opinion that is not yours.

It is my humble opinion that those groups of citizens that advocate for their existence through entitlements paid for by taxes are advocating for a communistic government.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> It is my humble opinion that those groups of citizens that advocate for their existence through entitlements paid for by taxes are advocating for a communistic government.


???????????????????????????



gst said:


> National Farm Policy 229
> *We believe that all government agricultural program payments should be eliminated. We favor a private insurance program for risk management. --ID#: 1509/11*




!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gst

swift said:


> It is my humble opinion that those groups of citizens that advocate for their existence through entitlements paid for by taxes are advocating for a communistic government.


So if a physicians group advocates for medicaid payments to continue or be increased are they "advocating for a communist government"??? :wink:


----------



## Bad Dog

Ok, so I checked the ndfb website. Aasmundstad stated this proposal is to insure an individual has a 'right' to farm. Again, last time I checked, farming is an occupation and not a 'right'. A 'right' is more like, someone has a 'right' to education, freedom of speech, etc. Please do not litter the constitution with frivolous things like this or every group imaginable will have a constitutional amendment for any and everything.

If ndfb feels that farming is being threatened, then why doesn't ndfb meet with those that it feels are threatening farming and have civil discussions to solve the issue that there may be instead of pollutting 'our' constitution with items that should not be in there?


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> If ndfb feels that farming is being threatened, then why doesn't ndfb meet with those that it feels are threatening farming and have civil discussions to solve the issue that there may be instead of pollutting 'our' constitution with items that should not be in there


Kinda like hunters having a "civil" discussion with HSUS to prevent them from tryig to ban hunting ine step at a time????

Do you honestly beleive you can have a "civil" discussion with an org like HSUS?? That is if you are a group other than ND Hunters for Fair Chase. :wink:


----------



## Bad Dog

gst - this is not about hsus and hunters. This is about ndfb feeling that farming is being threatened and the littering of our constitution with trash. I don't know if you are a member of ndfb or know what the 'threats' they feel are, but I would like to know what the 'threats' are and who is 'threatening' farming.


----------



## 58504451

Bad Dog - Why is this any different that the amendment for hunting and fishing in North Dakota. Sportsman can have their way but farmers can't ?? Remember that the fair chase boys wanted to eliminate hunting inside a fence but always fell back to the constitutional amendment that said we were guaranted the "right" to hunt?? Just depends on their definition of hunting I guess.

Last I checked farming was far more vital to North Dakota's economy than hunting was??

As far as threats you can have your choice of the Human Society, NWF, PETA, EPA and a whole bunch more, some dressed as defending hunting??

And by the way I do not belong to NDFB, NDFU, and I am not involved in high fence hunting. I do recognize the importance of agriculture and the threats to it.


----------



## Bad Dog

> Bad Dog - Why is this any different that the amendment for hunting and fishing in North Dakota. Sportsman can have their way but farmers can't ?? Remember that the fair chase boys wanted to eliminate hunting inside a fence but always fell back to the constitutional amendment that said we were guaranted the "right" to hunt?? Just depends on their definition of hunting I guess.
> 
> Last I checked farming was far more vital to North Dakota's economy than hunting was??
> 
> As far as threats you can have your choice of the Human Society, NWF, PETA, EPA and a whole bunch more, some dressed as defending hunting??
> 
> And by the way I do not belong to NDFB, NDFU, and I am not involved in high fence hunting. I do recognize the importance of agriculture and the threats to it.


5 - As I stated in the very begining of this topic, I am was/still against the constitutional amendment for the 'right' to hunt. Hunting, like farming, are NOT 'rights'.

Farming more vital to ND's economy - You must be basing this on the fact that more money is generated in this state from farming then hunting. Where is the threat then? It would seem that if farming was being threatened by something then the economy from farming would not being doing so well. Like you said, farming is more vital to this state's economy.

The organizations you list, the last time I checked on some of them, are not trying to eliminate farming. There may be some practices that certain individuals employ that certain groups may wish to stop but that does not mean that farming will stop. Just those practices. I digress.

Back to the point. Why do we let any group litter up the constitution with trash claiming that it is a 'right' when in FACT they are not 'rights'. By doing such we are in actuality just weakening the overall significance of our constitution.


----------



## swift

It's just not worth it.


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> It's just not worth it.


My opinion:

It's worth it if you can expose what they want. They want everything, and you nothing. Wealth redistribution. They may be conservative, but they are to far one direction, and the FU the other direction. FB would like an ag Oligarchy, while FU would like socialism. The difference between communism and socialism is communism takes from everyone and gives to everyone while socialism takes from nearly everyone and gives more to a few. 
Be very careful when someone gets more rights than the constitution guarantees because everyone else is getting less. We could get automatic posting which the FB I think has supported. We could see pay hunt and no other forms of hunting. Look at the power grab they tried with grazing on federal land a few years ago. Watch them close guys. They are not to be trusted. They say one thing, but have many agendas, which are very unfriendly to us.


----------



## swift

I meant its not worth having a dialogue with the self appointed farmer policeman.


----------



## gst

Now , now swift, plainsman will lock a thread if you get "personal" on these sites sure as heck!! Besides all I am doing is sharing an "opinion" and it's not even that "strong"! :wink:



Plainsman said:


> They are not to be trusted. They say one thing, but have many agendas, which are very unfriendly to us.


Who exactly are you talking about here???? Perhaps it is hunters who claimed they never talked with HSUS about supporting their measure that you were once involved with and defended. 

Quote Mike McEnroe of North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase 
" The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) provided television advertising during the week prior to the election. Not known for its support of hunting, HSUS ads featured actors dressed as hunters urging a "yes" vote to protect the state's wildlife and hunting heritage.

McEnroe said HSUS asked if they could run the ads.

"We said it can't hurt&#8230;because were getting killed by all the "anti" (property rights) rhetoric," McEnroe said. People against the measure were going to be against it regardless of what HSUS did, he felt" end quote

Naw HSUS can be trusted, they don't have ANY agendas against "us" as hunters. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

I have given my opinion gst. You keep on crying HSUS just like the little boy who cried wolf. I know many an honorable farmer, and I also know that neither the FB nor the FU, nor you gst represent them. I would ask men like swift, bad dog, and others not to desert their farm neighbors, but never to believe the likes of FB or FU. 
I understand swift. It's not worth talking with the spin doctor, but it's worth exposing FB and FU. When the nations economy is in terrible trouble they are there to suck the last from the trough. Their buddy Obama may get the socialist nation they want, but it's not their trough he will fill.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I understand swift. It's not worth talking with the spin doctor,


plaisnman, come on now, that's getting a little personal, :wink: can't you simply debate the issue itself????

By the way what is the definition of a small group of people ( how many were in NDH for FC) tha wish to impose their will and ideologies on others? I have often found that those who readily accuse others of wanting an "oligarchy" form of govt, usually wish the very same thing to impose THEIR veiws onto others.



Plainsman said:


> FB would like an ag Oligarchy,


plainsman, you and swift support ag as long as ag does what YOU want it to. Otherwise people in ag are nothing short of "greedy oligarchists" Any way that is only my "strong opinion" and nothing personal! !


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You keep on crying HSUS just like the little boy who cried wolf.


It is only "crying wolf" if the wolf does not show up. In the case of HSUS and North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, the wolf did indeed show up and by their own admission (which their supporters adamantly denied early on) they have admitted inviting him in the door.

But indeed surely this small group of ND hunters know of HSUS's agenda against ALL hunters and hunting itself. And yet they invited them to "help" them impose their ideologies onto others.

So what from of govt do you suppose a small group of people like that would favor?????



Plainsman said:


> Oligarchy,


 ?????????


----------



## ShineRunner

Bad Dog I am with you and most in this thread that there are enough laws/rules/amendments on the books now. If the one's that are already there where enforced as written or removed because of being to vague everyone would be better off. More regulation, more cost, etc.!!!


----------



## Bad Dog

ShineRunner - Nice dog! We have two.

I'd like for more input on whether we should allow the continued littering of our constitution by any group that wishes to impose their will upon all. There is a difference, a big difference between saying 'all' should have the 'right' to a specific occupation, like farming, and 'all' should have the 'right' to speak freely.

If this is the way 'we' want to go as a state, then every citizen should propose their own constitution amendment. I for one will propose that every citizen will have the right to dispose of any dog that isn't a Chessie!


----------



## wurgs

My god,can't there be a political thread without high fence shooting being brought up?


----------



## dakotashooter2

Who is prohibiting who from farming? As I mentioned before ,you see some cases of zoning conflict that might prohibit some land from farming but that is not prohibiting those people from farming elsewhere. Farming is a career (and a lifestyle.) If we guarantee the right to farm do we also guarantee the right to work in a gas station or as an attorney or whatever. I think the FB is confusing the right to farm with the ability to farm........ Sounds to me they are asking to make sure the resources to farm are provided to all who want to whether they are capable of farming or not. What FB doesn't seem to get is that farming is no longer just a lifestyle. It has become a business and if it isn't treated like a business it will fail. Farmers can't just fly by the seat of their pants anymore. Making farming a right isn't going to fix that. oke:


----------



## Plainsman

I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.

Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan. 

A fellow who lives a mile north of me had all the trees on the west side of his lot killed when the farmer sprayed with a west wind and drift came into his yard. The applicator had insurance that took care of it. If the farmer did the spraying himself under a freedom to farm constitutional amendment would he be liable? As it is now they were not liable when canola plugged culverts and took out roads a couple of years ago. At least they can't blame hunters when it happens in the spring.

I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## Bad Dog

Plainsman I believe you may be correct.

Here's a qoute about the amendment from the NDFB president "Eric Aasmundstad says the farm group wants to put an initiative on the ballot in November 2012. It is a one-paragraph constitutional amendment that says state or local laws can't restrict modern ranching and agricultural technology".

What is modern ag technology? Tiling, GMOs, Tordon, sodbusting native prairie? Of course there needs to be restrictions, regulations prohibiting certain uses regarding farming. It can not just be a free-for-all.

Again why doesn't NDFB sit at the table with these groups they are concerned about and come up with solutions to their fears instead of avoiding dialog and littering our constitution with trash!


----------



## shaug

I have not seen the Ballot Title nor the exact language of the Initiated Measure so I'll reserve comment. As far as what the president of Farm Bureau has stated about it to date, let's print the whole statement.



> NDFB petitions for Constitutional Amendment
> 
> North Dakota Farm Bureau has submitted language to the North Dakota Secretary of State for an initiated measure to place a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot safeguarding farming and ranching in the state.
> 
> "This initiated measure is designed to insure North Dakota farmers and ranchers the right to farm, and safeguard North Dakota consumers' right to a variety of safe, wholesome food choices," said North Dakota Farm Bureau President Eric Aasmundstad.
> 
> "Life's necessities include food, shelter and clothing. North Dakota agriculture specializes in providing one of those three necessities - food. Yet, there are forces out there that want to control agriculture and legislate us out of business," Aasmundstad said. "Some want to severely limit what we produce, while others want to control how we farm and ranch."
> 
> Over the next year, volunteers will be carrying petitions to acquire the necessary signatures to get the measure on the ballot. Aasmundstad said it will require 26,904 qualified signatures to get on the ballot in November 2012. He hopes that people understand how important agriculture is to our economy and will be willing to sign the petition when asked.
> 
> "Agriculture is the backbone of North Dakota's economy. It means business, literally, representing 36 percent of the state's economy," Aasmundstad said. "It is a wealth generator. For every dollar a farmer receives from selling his products, the positive return to the state is multiplied 4.49 times for livestock and 3.68 times for crops. That is worth safeguarding."


One thing I have heard is there are groups out there that would like to ban pharmaceuticals from animal ag. In the past, I myself have used them to save an animals life. Just be sure to wait 60 days or something to let the medicine pass before slaughter.

On the other side of the coin are people opposed who argue medicine residue will always be there and its use should be banned totally. Of course more often than not when a person digs into their real agenda it is a group who wants to end the human exploitation of animals period. The end justifies the means.


----------



## Plainsman

As far as antibiotics some farm practices use it in their feed. It is fed every day as a preventative not to treat an infection. We often read in (American Medical Association for example) about the over use of antbiotics and how it creates super bugs. Well agriculture is the culprit here more so than people over using it on a personal basis, or doctors overprescribing. Our neighbor had 5000 turkeys and all of his feed had antibiotics already in it. That does concern me and should concern everyone.

Also, not to pick on anyone, but some farmers want to grow hemp. To date the government has not let them. I have no problem with a farmer growing hemp, but what's next poppies? Now I know that's a hyperbole, but I use it as an example. However, if they could get away with it I know farmers who would produce heroin if it was profitable. Now before anyone goes ballistic I'm not saying that's what farmers are all like. What I will say is that they are like everyone else and some will go beyond reason and most will not. How many is the question. Look at Devils Lake for example. There is a high percentage draining from the north with no concern for Devils Lake, Valley City, or Fargo. One person on here who I will not name because he edited it fast and I can't prove it said he didn't care about Fargo. He said anyone dumb enough to build on a flood plain deserves to be flooded.

I think the freedom to farm as a constitutional amendment would be an absolute disaster. There is no doubt in my mind there wold be rampant drain and tile. There would be rampant habitat destruction. There would be ag practices that took away my choice as a consumer. How about a constitutional amendment for consumers that would protect me from pesticide residues, medical residues, flooding, chemical overspray, silt damage to public waterways etc. An absolute disaster waiting to happen.

This isn't liberal vs conservative, it isn't farming vs the public, it isn't farming vs animal rights, it's simply a step back into 17th century Europe. It's an attitude of, we will do what we want, and you will eat what we give you. Your life is worth less than ours attitude.

Edit: I'm not sure what I think of geneticly modified foods. I see some countries have banned them. I do sympathise with farmers because of the way the ELCA church has attacked genetic modifications. To date I don't know of anything wrong with eating them. However, let the free market decide. I think I would eat it and guess I do, but if someone doesn't want to I see that as more their right than the right of a farmer to say you have no choice, eat it or starve.


----------



## Bad Dog

Here's the AP article when the NDFB is spreading the fear in order to get this trash added to our constitution.



> NDFB: Amendment Would Protect Farming
> 
> BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - The president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau says a state constitutional amendment is needed to stop potentially harmful restrictions on farming and ranching.
> 
> Eric Aasmundstad says the farm group wants to put an initiative on the ballot in November 2012. It is a one-paragraph constitutional amendment that says state or local laws can't restrict modern ranching and agricultural technology. Aasmundstad says other states have approved restrictions on the size of cages for calves, breeding sows and egg-laying hens. He believes North Dakota's livestock industry would be seriously harmed if similar laws were approved in the state.
> 
> Secretary of State Al Jaeger is reviewing the proposed constitutional initiative.
> 
> It will need almost 27,000 petition signatures within a year to qualify for the ballot.


Last time I checked, besides the weather, crop production revenues were pretty good in this state.


----------



## Plainsman

The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog wrote,



> Here's the AP article when the NDFB is spreading the fear in order to get this trash added to our constitution.


I fail to see any fearmongering but what is obvious is your hatred of NDFB and your desire to trash them.



> Last time I checked, besides the weather, crop production revenues were pretty good in this state.


NDFB is talking about preserving small farms and protecting agriculture while you took off talking about revenues are pretty good. What is the point?

Plainsman wrote,



> The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else.


Plainsman you have a misconception of "freedom to farm." It is the duty of government to regulate commerce but not to overregulate. Freedom to farm meant a person could raise crops for the market place instead of government programs.

As a former federal employee maybe you would like to see a return to the status quo.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... om-to-farm



> FEDERALLY MANAGED AGRICULTURE: 60 YEARS OF FAILURE
> For 60 years, a significant share of the U.S. agriculture sector was subject to the federal government's control. Washington tried to manage U.S. agriculture through a combination of subsidies, commodity supply and price controls, acreage allotments, production quotas, restrictions on imports, and export subsidies. The underlying assumption was always that this central planning would provide a "safety net" to prevent farm income from falling below what was considered to be an acceptable level.
> 
> This central planning locked U.S. farmers into producing specific commodities on specific acres or in prescribed amounts in order to remain eligible for government income support. In fact, each year, farmers had waited for instructions from Washington to learn what they would be permitted to plant.
> 
> Not only was the government's relentless attempt to juggle supply and demand a dismal failure, but its incessant attempt to control supply also priced the U.S. agricultural industry out of the export market and led to a significant loss in America's share of an expanding world market. As a result, foreign production increased to fill the void created by the U.S. policy of unilaterally idling huge areas of farmland. As residual suppliers to the world market, U.S. farmers saw prices for their crops permanently depressed.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug, if the freedom to farm was only looking at those things mentioned in the article I would support it. My relatives who farm stay as far away as they can from government programs. Perhaps it has cost them some years, but the government doesn't have their hooks as firmly embedded in them either.
As far as subsidies I sort of have mixed feelings about that. I either pay in taxes or at the grocery store. However, when I pay at the grocery store I fear that everyone but the farmer is getting that rise in price. Without subsidies how do I know I am getting my money to the farmer? 
Shaug I think every government program is bloated. My biggest grip is seeing perfectly good equipment destroyed. Some they could sell, but they fear getting sued if someone gets hurt with it. I see their point since everyone wants to sue the government rather than work for their money. It's the welfare crowd that does things like that. Just like the lazy slobs in England rioting right now.

Anyway, I just see an opportunity for abuse with this bill. I guess I need to read every word carefully and see where that leads my thinking. I guess my distrust of FB comes from that legislator SW of Bismarck somewhere that keeps coming up with these ideas that benefit farmers and outfitters, but really hurts hunters. He wants to step back into aristocrat Europe of 300 years ago.

So how much should I worry about those things? What's your thoughts?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Shaug, if the freedom to farm was only looking at those things mentioned in the article I would support it.


Do you actually know for certain (factually) what is to be included under this????? A simple yes or no??

It has been poorly released to the public so it would be easy to understand how some people will jump to conclusions, (some will undoubtedly have their own agendas for jumping to these conclusions regardless of their knowledge of this measure). I will prefer to wait until I know more to make a decsion wether to support this as it is written.

As to why this is being proposed, I will simply say there are indeed those out there with an agenda to end ALL animal agriculture. They have found out they can not do it in one fell swoop so they are doing it one segment/step at a time. They are very adept at convincing the public these steps are being done in their "best interest". Take the time to inform yourself before suggesting this is not happening.



Plainsman said:


> Anyway, I just see an opportunity for abuse with this bill. I guess I need to read every word carefully and see where that leads my thinking.


Perhaps you should indeed do this before sharing "opinions" correlating this measure to farmers raising addictive drugs such as heroin. :roll:



shaug said:


> I fail to see any fearmongering but [b]what is obvious is your hatred of NDFB [/b]and your desire to trash them.


That would be hard to deny by some on here. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Nice while it lasted Shaug, but reasonable just left the building.


----------



## gst

Now plainsman that's not nice!!!  As a self imposed moderator of "Hot Topics" you should perhaps lead by example and stay above snide little personal jabs.



Plainsman said:


> One person on here who I will not name because he edited it fast and I can't prove it said he didn't care about Fargo. He said anyone dumb enough to build on a flood plain deserves to be flooded.





Plainsman said:


> I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.





Plainsman said:


> I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen.





Plainsman said:


> I have no problem with a farmer growing hemp, but what's next poppies?





Plainsman said:


> They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal.


Clearly all "reasonable" statements made as a result of thouroughly, factually informing one self on this issue. Do you have any "factual" proof to back up these claims or once again are they merely "strong opinions"? :wink:



gst said:


> Do you actually know for certain (factually) what is to be included under this????? A simple yes or no??


Care to answer?


----------



## Plainsman

> Do you actually know for certain (factually) what is to be included under this????? A simple yes or no??


Considering what I wrote above that isn't an intelligent question. It's simply stirring the pot. I guess you didn't like me asking Shaug questions when I should have known your the man with all the answers. Gee golly gosh what was I thinking.

If it helps you any I will state something as fact when I think it's fact. As for this constitutional amendment is there any doubt it will be abused? I don't think so.


----------



## gst

plainsman, all that is being asked is do you know what will be included under the scope of this measure???? Yes or no???

It is MY opinion that making comments as you have before you do know (if indeed that is the case) is nothing more than "stirring the pot" against this ag org you do not like as you have made perfectly clear in the below comment as well as many others.



Plainsman said:


> I have given my opinion gst. You keep on crying HSUS just like the little boy who cried wolf. *I know many an honorable farmer, and I also know that neither the FB nor the FU, nor you gst represent them.* I would ask men like swift, bad dog, and others not to desert their farm neighbors, but never to believe the likes of FB or FU.


Also, before you make comments dismissing HSUS's agenda aimed at ending ALL animal agriculture, perhaps you might like to inform yourself a little better.



Plainsman said:


> I guess you didn't like me asking Shaug questions when *I should have known your the man with all the answers. Gee golly gosh what was I thinking*.


Apparently you have chosen not to lead by example as a moderator and refrain from making snide little personal comments such as those emboldened above and simply wish to "stir the pot" as you have admitted to doing before.

It is too bad, for something as serious as an amendment to our state Constitution deserves a FACTUAL discussion, not one full of supposition, insinuation and "strong opinions" based on heartburn towards an organization.


----------



## Plainsman

Sure you want a yes or no answer. It's like the old question "have you stopped beating your wife". A no would indicate your still beating your wife and a yes would indicate you were beating your wife. Nice try gst.


> North Dakota Farm Bureau has submitted language to the North Dakota Secretary of State


Until it clears the ND Secretary of State only those who drafted it and a few insiders know everything in it. From everything I could find it's a short one paragraph document. My point still remains it will leave huge opportunity for misuse. It would appear they are looking for protection of questionable practices. Why else would they need it? They have the freedom to farm now. I wonder who they will use for the boogeyman to scare the foolish into signing that petition.

I got on the NDFB site and much of what they had to say sounded reasonable. If I had no experience with you gst I may have fallen for some of it. Thanks for the education. My biggest distrust of NDFB had been pheasant gate, now it's your support of them. Don't think I am just trying to jab you I am absolutely serious. I'm going to start paying a lot more attention to those guys.

In the past I always though I agreed with NDFB and I didn't agree with Farmers Union. I consider Farmers Union to socialist for my political liking, and for a while thought a lot of Farm Bureau. My parents really liked NDFB. They sound more conservative like me and a few years ago I just about joined the organization simply to support them. Live and learn I guess.

I see that had Michele Bachmann as a speaker. I like her, but would rather see Perry for President and Bachmann for vise president. Please tell me you don't like her.


----------



## gst

plainsman, your reading to much into the question, I simply beleive if you are going to give an opinion about something you should at the very least know a little bit about it if your opinion is to be given any credibility. Maybe actually find a little something about the issue before jumping to conclusions that may not be true.

So simply answer "Yes I do know what is going to fall under the scope of this measure and am using that fact to base my "opinions" on", or "No I do not know what will fall under the scope of this measure and I am simply making things up".

Anyway, by your own admission it seems the question has been answered even if you will not do so directly.



Plainsman said:


> My biggest distrust of NDFB had been pheasant gate, now it's your support of them. Don't think I am just trying to jab you I am absolutely serious. I'm going to start paying a lot more attention to those guys.


Nothing personal right! :wink: :-? :roll:

All that is being asked is before "opinions"/accusations are made, (such as this would allow farmers to raise poppies for heroin :roll: ) inform ones self to the actual scope of what this will or will not cover. Not too "unreasonable" a thing to ask I wouldn't think.


----------



## Plainsman

> Nothing personal right


Actually it isn't. Like I said I wasn't trying to jab you I was serious. I tried to make that clear. You supported high fence shooting, you supported tile, and for the little time you have been on the site I think you have supported every bad ag practice we have debated. That makes you a very good litmus test. It has nothing to do with you as a person, but everything to do with you as to what you support and don't support. 
As far as personal I hope you have a great day. I hope your harvest is successful, I hope your family is happy. Especially happy since rich isn't the secret happiness is.
FB is not a person and like all organizations their is no conscience. Once they write this thing I can see court battle after court battle using this new constitutional protection to do absolutely anything they want.


----------



## swift

Gst is just a troll that hasn't contributed to much of anything in his time on this site. There, that is my personal conclusion based on reading his posts the last two years. I still conclude he is either a covert HSUS agent trying to destroy hunting by destroying hunter/landowner relations or too stupid to realize everytime he writes HSUS in a post that has nothing to do with the topic he is giving another web hit to his favorite nonprofit. Either way the web world would be better off if his computer took a dump.



> It has been poorly released to the public so it would be easy to understand how some people will jump to conclusions, (some will undoubtedly have their own agendas for jumping to these conclusions regardless of their knowledge of this measure). I will prefer to wait until I know more to make a decision whether to support this as it is written.


You admit there are NO facts and the writing is vague, well the more vague the more dangerous things can be.

NDFB is an enemy to all hunters in the state, That is a fact based on their policy desires, to limit public land access, to limit landowner rights and to take from hunters to fill their own coffers. There are some facts I'd love to hear you debate. On second thought I already know your arguement so do us all a favor and tell it to your cows.


----------



## Plainsman

> So how much should I worry about those things? What's your thoughts?


That is the question I asked Shaug. Since Shaug comes off as non-confrontational, and appears to be thinking about those things I would liked to have exchanged ideas with him. However, it appears gst wanted to destroy that dialogue. Why? I can only guess that gst doesn't want me changing my mind about NDFB. For some reason he wants me in conflict with them. He should rest easy, because your (swift) right about the NDFB coming off as the enemy of all hunters in the state. I'll leave that door open for a short while in the event someone can show me otherwise. What they have supported so far certainly points in that direction. As a matter of fact all the evidence points that way, but there may be members within the NDFB that don't feel that way. It would be great to talk to one of them. On this site there is only one possibility and we know who it isn't.  Some people burn all their bridges then expect to be convincing. :homer:

I'm happy you had some comments swift. People should hear something besides just gst and I arguing.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Gst is just a troll that hasn't contributed to much of anything in his time on this site. There, that is my personal conclusion based on reading his posts the last two years. I still conclude he is either a covert HSUS agent trying to destroy hunting by destroying hunter/landowner relations or too stupid to realize everytime he writes HSUS in a post that has nothing to do with the topic he is giving another web hit to his favorite nonprofit


Swift my identity has been made public on this site a number of times. Even you have commented on my involvement in the states leading cattle org. Also having been appointed by the Govenor to the ND Beef Commission I must be one hell of a talented deep cover operative to have fooled all my peers as well as the govt! It is my crowning acheivement as an operative for the HSUS! :roll:

And please realize it was plainsman who first referenced HSUS in this thread giving them another "web hit". It would be difficult not to mention HSUS in a debate about this measure as their agenda to end animal agriculture is a large part of the basis behind the measure itself.

All that has been asked in this thread (much like others) is to simply get the facts about something before one spouts off about it.

I have readily admitted I do not know enough about this measure to make an informed comment on what it will encompass (simply because it has been poorly presented, not that it is vague and there are no facts). I have simply asked people if they have any information regarding this measure to be able to make an informed, factual statement concerning what will fall under it's scope.

plainsman, swift, you can claim to take the nonpersonal high road all you wish, a "reasonable" person can clearly see otherwise. And as was stated one would wish something as significant as an ammendment to our constitution would deserve the childish personal bull**** being left aside and factual dialogue take it's place. But apparently moderators on this site are not concerned with that.

So swift, plainsman, do you have any factual basis as to what will fall under the scope of this measure to make the claims you have or not? People deserve to hear the factual truth regarding this measure, not unfounded claims made as a result of personal bias against a group or individual.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Bad Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ndfb feels that farming is being threatened, then why doesn't ndfb meet with those that it feels are threatening farming and have civil discussions to solve the issue that there may be instead of pollutting 'our' constitution with items that should not be in there
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like hunters having a "civil" discussion with HSUS to prevent them from tryig to ban hunting ine step at a time????
> 
> Do you honestly beleive you can have a "civil" discussion with an org like HSUS?? That is if you are a group other than ND Hunters for Fair Chase. :wink:
Click to expand...




> And please realize it was plainsman who first referenced HSUS in this thread


Enough of that. You see that's not true gst, you brought it up before I ever made my first comment. If I did that you know what you would call me don't you? As a matter of fact you would jump right on that to destroy my credibility. I however will not get into the name calling, but I want people to know this isn't true. Debate the value of the amendment please.


----------



## gst

plainsman, my mistake,I should have taken the time to go back and factually research what was said. I simply recollected your "cry wolf" comment and never took the time to go back and factually see. The claim I made was not correct. *You had your very own "please show me" moment*  . Now you see how easy it is when you make a claim that is not accurate and someone points it out or asks you to prove it, to simply admit to having made a mistake wether intentional or not! Perhaps if you unlocked some other threads you yourself could do this very thing and address those "please show me" requests!!! :wink:

But "enough of that"! It is simply my "opinion" that until someone has a factual handle on what scope this measure will include these claims/insinuations of it allowing farmers to raise heroin not be made. That is unless you have a personal "willie" over this ag org. then clearly by example of the claims of a moderator on this site you are free to make whatever statements/opinions you wish regardless of how outlandish or unfactual they are.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Debate the value of the amendment please.


Good advise!! Perhaps everyone should follow it! :wink:

So plainsman, as a moderator responsible for the credibility of this site, in doing this should we stick to actual facts or unfounded "opinions" as to what the scope of this ammendment will deal with?

How exactly can one "debate the value of the amendment" when by admission we do not yet know what that even is??? So if one engages in giving opinions aimed at the org presenting it or ones simply pulled out of thin air, is it responsibly "debating" something as significant as a Constitutional amendment, or merely furthering a "willie" one has against an org.?

I understand the original intent of the first post made by Bad dog, and largely agree that Constitutional amendments are not to be bantered about litely. So that is why it is even more so important to FACTUALLY debate this proposed ammendment rather than making unfounded claims and insinuations. And if not enough information is yet avalible to do so, perhaps the "debate" should wait until there is.


----------



## Plainsman

I'm with Bad Dog also. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks they need a special constitutional amendment for them. Every Time they do that they are saying everyone but them isn't as "special". The prime example is hate crimes. Is it any greater loss if a particular type of person is beaten or killed? Is a black, white, male, female, heterosexual, homosexual or whatever any more valuable than anyone else?

Oooops got to go.


----------



## swift

GST has contradicted himself so much in this topic that it is obvious he is here just to stir the pot. Here are some examples of his idiotic posts.



gst said:


> Bad Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ndfb feels that farming is being threatened, then why doesn't ndfb meet with those that it feels are threatening farming and have civil discussions to solve the issue that there may be instead of pollutting 'our' constitution with items that should not be in there
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like hunters having a "civil" discussion with* HSUS *to prevent them from tryig to ban hunting ine step at a time????
> 
> Do you honestly beleive you can have a "civil" discussion with an org like* HSUS*?? That is if you are a group other than ND Hunters for Fair Chase. :wink:
Click to expand...

 *nothing to do with the topic*



> Who exactly are you talking about here???? Perhaps it is hunters who claimed they never talked with* HSUS *about supporting their measure that you were once involved with and defended.


 *again nothing to do with the topic*



> It is only "crying wolf" if the wolf does not show up. In the case of *HSUS* and North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, the wolf did indeed show up and by their own admission (which their supporters adamantly denied early on) they have admitted inviting him in the door.
> 
> But indeed surely this small group of ND hunters know of *HSUS's* agenda against ALL hunters and hunting itself. And yet they invited them to "help" them impose their ideologies onto others.


 *Again nothing to do with the topic just more gratuitious posting of the HS.*



> Do you actually know for certain (factually) what is to be included under this????? A simple yes or no??
> 
> It has been poorly released to the public so it would be easy to understand how some people will jump to conclusions, (some will undoubtedly have their own agendas for jumping to these conclusions regardless of their knowledge of this measure). I will prefer to wait until I know more to make a decsion wether to support this as it is written.


 It's been poorly released so don't question it until you know the facts. Sounds like a backward arguement to me. How about convice the voters of ND whey it is necessary and understand just because the FB wants it isn't good enough.


----------



## swift

GST referenced HSUS 13 times in this topic alone. Sounds like an infatuation. I'm sure if you emailed them they would send you a membership card. Lets see GST and the NDFB want to reduce the numbers of hunters by legislatively controlling the numbers of public acres available to hunters in ND. The other group wants to reduce the numbers of hunters by legislative means Pretty much the same modus operendi. :rollin:

The first group wants to do it for profit and the other for their beliefs. Which one is the bad guy? :thumb:


----------



## gst

swift only an individual that is extremely uninformed or biased to the point of oblivion does not realize that HSUS and groups such as them are a large part of why these initiatives are taking place in several states across this country. So obviously they will be mentioned in this debate. They were referenced here to indicate you can not simply "sit down with them" and reach an understanding as their professed agenda is to END ALL animal agriculture. PERIOD. As well as hunting, dispite what a few uninformed rabidly biased "hunters" here in ND tried claiming in justification.

Do a little research into the issue before you spout off personal accusations such as you have.



Plainsman said:


> Debate the value of the amendment please.


plainsman perhaps swift could use a little reminder from you as a "moderator" :wink:

If it is "stirring the pot" on a sight like this to simpply ask people to refrain from making accusation as to what will be "allowed" under this measure before they factually know what will be "allowed" perhaps I have. But most "reasonable" people I know look at making these wild accusations such as farmers being allowed to raise poppies if this measure passes insinuating they will produce heroin to be more along the lines of "stirring the pot". :wink:

Not to mention the silly juvenile personal accusations of covert HSUS operandi! :wink: :roll:

I give up  , swift is on to me  , I am truly glad to be able to end this charade I have been living my whole life as a rancher and hunter advocating for both. :roll: I can not beleive I was able to fool my friends, family, neighbors and peers for decades only to be exposed by someone on the internet that has never once met me. Damn the bad luck.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> It's been poorly released so don't question it until you know the facts. Sounds like a backward arguement to me. How about convice the voters of ND whey it is necessary and understand just because the FB wants it isn't good enough


swift is there a difference between questioning what this will allow and making unfounded accusations claiming what it will allow when admittedly one does not even know ?

ie.: Does anyone know what will be allowed under this measure when it comes to CAFO's, pesticides, chemicals ect...? 
vs.
ie.: This measure will allow CAFO's to be built right in the middle of town. 
This measure will allow farmers to raise poppies. 
This measure will allow farmners to use banned chemicals

Do you begin to see the "reasonable" difference?????? Perhaps you should get a better understandiong of the meaning of "stirring the pot". :wink:


----------



## gst

Plain and simple, debate the need for a Constitutional amendment, ask questions regarding concens you may have, expect answers to be given those questions, but if you are going to come on here making claims as to what this will or will not allow, please be considerate enough to the rest of us to include the proof where you are getting your information from to make these claims. If you can not it will be given the credibility it deserves.


----------



## swift

> But "enough of that"! It is simply my "opinion" that until someone has a factual handle on what scope this measure will include these claims/insinuations of it allowing farmers to raise heroin not be made.


That is not an opinion it is a demand. Until the FB decides to say what they really intend to gain from this amendment it is the right of every red blooded American to form their own conclusions an speak them as they wish. unless of course I missed the day you repealed the right to free speech. Get a a clue and quite demanding everyone do things your way.


----------



## Plainsman

Can someone dig up Farm Bureau's stand on automatic posting, on early pheasant season, on pay hunting etc. I would like to know what they have supported in the past as related to sport hunting. It will shed light on what they intend with this so far vague and secretive amendment. 
All I can remember is being very disappointed with this group and their past stands. It's just that this old geezer can't remember specifically why he was disappointed. I know it has always been a one way street with them, and I don't think they have ever taken any stand friendly to us hunters. I think they have been more friendly to non resident high paying hunters. That's not knocking non resident either, it's just the way Farm Bureau has operated. 
From what I can remember Farm Bureau is very narrowly focused and very narrow minded. It's nearly assured that what will be good for them will not be good for us. 
It would do people well to not just think of how this hurts hunters either. Keep in mind the whole economy of North Dakota. They say that ag is a huge part, but will the ag economy hurt without this amendment? I doubt it. However, if hunting is damaged further and we start loosing hunters and number of hunters afield what does that mean. It means fewer 4 wheel pickups sold by dealers. It means fewer 4X4, snowmobiles, rifles, camo clothing, guns, ammo, motel rooms, local small town grocery stores, restaurants, and the list goes on and on. 
Speaking of small towns what is killing them? Bigger farms and bigger machinery? Bigger farms translates into fewer farmers. Bigger machinery translates into fewer farm laborers. Now ask yourself what's helping keep these small towns alive? Does an outfitter who provides rooms and meals provide much to anyone but himself? Who contributes more, ten rich hunters or 100 average joes? So what helps keep the small towns alive, big farms/small farm, closed land/open land, Outfitters/local businesses, a few rich hunters/many average hunters, Farm Bureau/Friendly farmers etc etc.


----------



## swift

A quick look at their policies from their website will remind you of why they left a bad taste in your mouth. They support everything detrimental to hunting as we know it. But that's not all. They want the support of non ag tax dollars but don't want to pay taxes themselves. NDFB is Obamas wet dream. They want entitlements that even our President didn't think of.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plain and simple, debate the need for a Constitutional amendment, ask questions regarding concens you may have, expect answers to be given those questions, but if you are going to come on here making claims as to what this will or will not allow, please be considerate enough to the rest of us to include the proof where you are getting your information from to make these claims. If you can not it will be given the credibility it deserves.


----------



## swift

> gst wrote:
> Plain and simple, debate the need for a Constitutional amendment, ask questions regarding concens you may have, expect answers to be given those questions, but if you are going to come on here making claims as to what this will or will not allow, please be considerate enough to the rest of us to include the proof where you are getting your information from to make these claims. If you can not it will be given the credibility it deserves.


Another demand? Maybe you should be demanding the NDFB clean up their release to answer these questions instead of demanding others not make conclusions based on a history of bad policy. Your anger is displaced it should be with YOUR organization for deceiving people through vague statements.

I see it plain and simple too. The burden is on you (or other members of the NDFB since you have no credibility anymore) as a member of the NDFB, to educate us on the positives of this amendment. You, making demands and dragging in other topics i.e. HF initiative appears to be a smoke screen put up by someong that has something to hide.

Plainsman you are right to be concerned of the ramifications of this proposed amendment. The NDFB policies that support draining, ending public land holdings, past support of hunter boycotts, should warrant close vigilance on anything they initiate.


----------



## Plainsman

Yes, that is my point. Every (I think it's about ten years) the Forest Service looks at it's management practices. A few years ago the Grazing Association made a huge grab for control of our National Grasslands in the Badlands of North Dakota and throughout the nation. I remember being harassed to sign their petition at Trappers Kettle in Belfield, and numerous times at our campsite west of the little Missouri. One time in our camp when I refused to sign the petition the rancher said enjoy yourself either way this goes your hunting is coming to an end. If I remember Farm Bureau supported the Grazing association in that effort.

They had public meetings for the Grazing Association and the closest one for me was the meeting for the Sheyenne Grasslands. They evidently twisted the arms of some NDSU people to testify for them. I also testified and afterwards this huge heavy rancher bellies up to me in the parking lot and tells me he is going to personally see I don't hunt anywhere east of the Missouri. Ya, fat chance of that. It isn't anti rancher to simply not let you dump on us. If you don't like what I say improve your public relations, and start with a tiny bit of respect for others.

Why don't you just call this constitutional amendment the freedom to dump on others, destroy the environment, drain on their neighbors, and expect the taxpayer to pay them. I think if the truth be told their intention is the elimination of reasonable restrictions.


----------



## spentwings

Having recently made an *** of myself on another thread, and although it may surprise some, reading this thread gives me little
comfort in realizing I'm not alone. :rollin:
Still as always,,, it's Plains that has the credibility.

Reminds of the last time I was told I couldn't hunt a section of national grasslands "cuz I got cattle in there."
Christ! "Not my problem!"
So I asked him, since he didn't want me on public domain, could I hunt his non crop land that didn't have cattle on it,,,
guess what he said. :wink:


----------



## gst

As I said on here as well as in a conversation I had with someone in FB, this was poorly released and it will be up to FB to explain it better. They were told people who know nothing would be making claims regarding this measure and as such they needed to present it in a manner which would address even wild accusations by people of farmers being allowed to raise heroin if this measure should pass!!! :wink: (certainly a "credible" claim)



spentwings said:


> Still as always,,, it's Plains that has the credibility


Heroin claim and all?????? 

It is simply amazing to me that an ag org made up of a few thousand farmers and ranchers does not understand that they should instead listen to a retired Federal biologist and a medical "professional" from SD in creating their policies regarding what is best for agriculture here in ND. Clearly they know so much more than those directly involved in the industry what is best for agriculture.

I am sure these two individuals would also beleive that a rancher would in turn be the best person to develope policy for say the American Medical Association or related physicians group. As well the Association of Retired Federal Biologists would be much better served allowing farmers to dictate what is best for their org and the people it represents. :roll:

r perhaps they merely think everything should happen as they see fit while accusing others of the very same thing. What exactly was the definition of an oligarchy that is so often mentioned on here????

Newsflash, NDFB is NOT an hunting org. It is an ag org that advocates for agriculture. It policies are that of the org, and it's members have the ability to deal with hunting issues ie access, relations ect... as they see fit. I know it is a hard concept to understand that an ag org will advocate for agriculture, but please try.

I know NDH for FC most certainly had the interests of agriculture at the fore front in pursueing their ideologies.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> So how much should I worry about those things? What's your thoughts?


Sorry I didn't get back to you, have been busy. Got a rain delay going here now. Your worrys over NDFB and NDFU are unfounded. I belong to both. Farmers Union is a co-op and owns Cenex. If you buy enough product there you get a dividend check. If you want they can withhold your membership dues from it. Farm Bureau owns Nodak Mutual Insurance. About 50 percent of the members from these two don't even farm. Each community has delegates, each region has directors in the state. This structure is not unique, even the North Dakota wildlife federation does it. The banquet is usually in Nov. and resolutions are voted on. The media is present so Plainsman, it isn't like wildlife society meetings where the media reports nothing.

I was invited to speak at the Farm Bureau get together in Fargo Nov. 2010. This iniatated measure that Farm Bureau is proposing isn't the direct fall out from Measure Two but let me tell you, it was a wake up call to many orgs in North Dakota.

Wurgs said,



> My god,can't there be a political thread without high fence shooting being brought up?


Well you see, it is very relevant to what is being proposed. I have been very active talking to farm groups and telling them how this works. You see, Activist Organizations that come into our state are not going to be wearing loud clotheing screaming into bull horns proclaiming how they are here to take our rights and freedoms. They will partner with utopian dreamers and idealists who already live here.

Here is a sample,

Did you know that The Humane Society of the United States contributed $150,000 to Measure Two? 
Did you know they hired a law firm out of Denver Colorado to handle the transaction?
Did you know that they never sent a member from HSUS or the Denver law firm to negociate with our TV networks to run the ads.

The ND Elk Growers had their eyes peeled, their ear to the ground, their thumb on the pulse watching and waiting for HSUS involvement durring the campaign for Measure Two. Finally about two weeks before the election a man walked into Clear Channel. He was pricing some heavy prime time spots. Keep in mind the Fair Chase Committee didn't have any money. It could only mean one thing. His name.....................Terry Fleck. What did he know and when did he know it?

Terry Fleck was a sponser of the HFI, a regional director of the ND wildlife federation and president of Freinds of Lake Sakakawea. Why not Terry Fleck? He used to work for Clear Channel. Now he is one of those inspirational speakers. Dr. A is for attitude. As president of Freinds of Lake Sakakawea Terry is everywhere talking to people of influence. See below.

http://www.lakesakakawea.com/?id=28

Look at that website carefully.

*What everyone of these 501(c)3 non-governmental non-profit organizations have in common is that they only continue to get funding by identifying problems. *

Plainsman, getting back to your question,



> So how much should I worry about those things? What's your thoughts?


Here is your answer. 501(c)3's need to be monitered. Freinds of Lake Sakawea is an affiliate of the NDWF which in turn is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation which in turn is a surrogate creation of the federal government. Cut the federal spending and watch all of these activist orgs dry up on the vine.

Freinds of Lake Sakakawea for some years have been promoting Lake Sak at full pool for recreation. I wonder how the flood victims now feel about that? Bill Mitzel, owner of Dakota Country rag mag, now thinks the Corp of Engineers should be held accountable. Like most he is uneducated to the activities and past involvement of Friends of Lake Sakakawea. The down stream victims cannot drag the members of Friends of Lake Sak out into the streets and tar and feather them but some would like to.

On Friday night I talked to a regional director for Farm Bureau. He asked me to carry the petition. He was supposed to email me the ballot title and exact language of it but hasn't yet. I think I will collect signatures. I probably won't get 8,355 by myself.(Ha)

Plainsman, Mike McEnroe (retired from USFWS and lobbyist for ndctws) said in Dakota Country that HSUS called them (fair chase committee) and asked if they could run the ad. He said yes because they were getting hammered on the property rights issue. Does anyone really believe someone is going to give Mike $150,000 dollars and they do it over the phone? They are going to run TV ads and Mike didn't even want to proof those ads? Red Flag Red Flag

I was at a G/F Advisory Board Meeting back in Nov. when Director Terry Steinwand brought up Measure Two. He said he was eating breakfast when the he saw the TV ad. He thought what a slick ad. And then he read the caption. Paid for by the Humane Society Legislative Fund. He said that did it for him. His mind was made up. I wonder if his friendship with Mike McEnroe has cooled? I wonder if he knows about Terry Fleck getting the prices for those TV spots?

Plainsman, going to the public with all this is information overload. But in my travels explaining it to the leadership of orgs they get it. Think about it. Farm Bureau runs this measure and the spotlight is on the FCC and the endorsers of it. You still have a chance to become infamous.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still as always,,, it's Plains that has the credibility
> 
> 
> 
> Heroin claim and all??????
Click to expand...

I didn't differentiate *****,,,but it's Ag against me gst. BL,,,even though I'm pro you (agriculture) in many regards, I realize 
I can't expect anything from you. Plains has his hunt connections and that's great. My connections are public domain...and 
you both can kiss it.


----------



## shaug

Spent wrote,



> I didn't differentiate a$$es,,,but it's Ag against me gst. BL,,,even though I'm pro you (agriculture) in many regards, I realize
> I can't expect anything from you. Plains has his hunt connections and that's great. My connections are public domain...and
> you both can kiss it.


Plainsman will suck your guts out.


----------



## Plainsman

The most important first:
As far as how they mange Lake Sakakawea the government responds to the people. I think the priority when they built it was electrical power and irrigation, but they promoted flood control. At the time it was built recreation was down the list on priorities. Today it brings in more money, but today people complain after a flood and don't pay attention before hand. Much like the way we got this disaster for a president. 
What you say about FB and FU sounds reasonable, but their record does indicate they have no regard for hunting, unless they make money from it. I have a problem with that since wildlife is the property of the state. gst made a good point that they work for farmers because they are a farm related organization. What he doesn't understand is that on a site like this which is made up of hunters, trappers, and fishing people we support those things, and oppose anything that damages it. We have opposing priorities so we debate.
As for the HSUS getting involved I think I understand both sides. I didn't like them involved either, and I would rather have lost without them involved. However, since the money coming from the cervid ranchers from out of state so dwarf anything the Fair Chase people could do letting someone else pay for adds couldn't hurt as the one man said. Couldn't hurt is debatable. It couldn't hurt as far as that one election, but it will hurt reputation. Notice how they keep using that mistake to debate other issues. FB will now use HSUS as the bogyman to deregulate agriculture practices. I would trust many farmers having no regulations, but you and I both know there are also many that would destroy the productivity of the land to make more profit for ten years.


> Did you know that The Humane Society of the United States contributed $150,000 to Measure Two?
> Did you know they hired a law firm out of Denver Colorado to handle the transaction?
> Did you know that they never sent a member from HSUS or the Denver law firm to negociate with our TV networks to run the ads.


No, I didn't know until after the fact. I think most of that is fact anyway.


> What everyone of these 501(c)3 non-governmental non-profit organizations have in common is that they only continue to get funding by identifying problems.


 Isn't FB and FU none-government and non-profit? I agree, and that's why I watch FB and FU. We all do well to watch all of these organizations, because no matter who they represent they all have agenda's that often damage those you and I are interested in.


> Freinds of Lake Sakawea is an affiliate of the NDWF which in turn is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation which in turn is a surrogate creation of the federal government. Cut the federal spending and watch all of these activist orgs dry up on the vine.


 You have mentioned the Wildlife Federation before and I think you have them mixed up with a like organization or something. I think the small local clubs in Jamestown, Valley City, and smaller towns around North Dakota are affiliated with the Wildlife Federation. I know someone on here mentioned the president of the one in Jamestown and he sent me a PM explaining that yes I was correct when I mentioned this before. It doesn't change much, but it takes the blame from people who are not getting federal money etc. 
Anyway, thanks for the polite answer. I hope we are both right on some things, and I hope we are both wrong on some things. There has to be a way for farming, ranching, wildlife, habitat, and hunting without so much conflict. As a matter of fact when I was on the farm I didn't think that anything I did to damage wildlife or habitat benefited farming in the long run. Sure for a year, maybe even five, but sometimes a man cuts off his nose to spite his face.

Edit: well I guess your not as polite as I give you credit for. :-? Why did you burn that bridge?


----------



## spentwings

shaug said:


> Spent wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't differentiate a$$es,,,but it's Ag against me gst. BL,,,even though I'm pro you (agriculture) in many regards, I realize
> I can't expect anything from you. Plains has his hunt connections and that's great. My connections are public domain...and
> you both can kiss it.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman will suck your guts out.
Click to expand...

Living or existing.,,,no one can suck a dead man's guts,,,not Plains or even gst.


----------



## Plainsman

Spentwings we may agree more than you think. Public domain is also what I am interested in as a hunter. You see public domain includes a lot more than dirt. Yes, it includes our public land, our section lines, and as described by our constitution our wildlife. It's pay to hunt that violates that constitutional intention and angers me. It should anger everyone who respects the constitution and not just hunters. I despise pay hunt on several levels. Mostly because it gets away from our constitution, and secondly because it's to much like the European aristocracy that our forefathers wished to eliminate in this new nation. You can not be truly conservative as some members of FB claim and support some of the things they want. It is eating your cake and having it too.


----------



## spentwings

My dear Plains
We agree on everything until you mess with property rights issues.
Talk about ethics? The majority either don't have a clue,,,or I suspect couldn't care less. Sad times. Nothing new.
Personally, I'm glad there's a voice to take on *gst!* :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

I'm concerned with reasonable property rights issues, but I am also concerned with unlimited rights. Unlimited rights may violate the rights of others. One property management scheme may endanger another property right. Or a property right may infringe upon a constitutional right. I'm close to your thinking, but place the constitution above most things. That's why I am against new poorly thought out constitutional amendments. I am against all the hate crime bills, not because I am prejudice against anyone, but because I see everyone as equal and not individuals as special. I hope that is slightly clearer than mud. 

Anyway, FB and FU have a bad record. The time for pressure to change an amendment to reduce it's prejudice is before it's drafted, not after it's enacted. gst essentially is asking us all to wait and let the poison work.

I hope I am not coming across as arguing with you spentwings, because we have common ground. I believe all men have common ground, but FB and FU want us to stand still while they take the remainder of what we have. It's been a one way street far to long, and I am not willing to give up the pittance I have left to them or gst.


----------



## ShineRunner

Plainsman said:


> gst essentially is asking us all to wait and let the poison work.


You mean kinda like nancy p. and obamiecare!!! oke:


----------



## spentwings

An excellent post Plains.
Maybe gst can do the same.
But then,,,I am bias. 
Unless it's property rights, I know what gst does for me,,,nothing!
I've often said,,,AG owes me nothing, and that's what they give to the sportsman of ND., Nothing!


----------



## spentwings

ShineRunner said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> gst essentially is asking us all to wait and let the poison work.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean kinda like nancy p. and obamiecare!!! oke:
Click to expand...

Heh,,more than a little politics there.
Land owners or the privileged that have private access,,,like gst and Plains, if ever again some dip tries to deny me access, instead of killing them, I'll refer them to both of you. It's the only PC thing to do.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The time for pressure to change an amendment to reduce it's prejudice is before it's drafted, not after it's enacted.* gst essentially is asking us all to wait and let the poison work*.


Bull****.

plainsman, if anyone should know about the initiated measure process it should be you!!! :wink: As this has already been submitted to the Sec of State, the wording can not be changed. Once the signatures are collected, if approved will be placed on the ballot, THOUROUGHLY DEBATED, and voted on by the people. Pleanty of time to FACTUALLY debate this measure. What I have suggested is not what you claim, period, so "enough of that" !!!! Re read the emboldened highlighted portion of what was written below.



gst said:


> Plain and simple, *debate the need for a Constitutional amendment, ask questions regarding concens you may have, expect answers to be given those questions*, but if you are going to come on here making claims as to what this will or will not allow, please be considerate enough to the rest of us to include the proof where you are getting your information from to make these claims. If you can not it will be given the credibility it deserves.


What is simply being asked is before making claims such as this measure will allow farmers to raise poppies insinuating it will be used for "illegal" uses, or feedlots will be alllowed to be built with disregards for current regulations, or illegal banned pesticides will be reintroduced, take the time to find out wether these "opinions" are actually true or just another bull**** claim based on a willie for an org. And PLEASE do not try to back pedal and now claim you have no "willie" over NDFB.


----------



## spentwings

Two dorks on the road to no where,
Reminds me of my life in Kansas in the early 70's.
gst ,,,what happened with "can't we all get along?" :rollin:
Since no way way they'll ban you ...I'll continue on to be the antagonist...and expect soon to be gone. :rock:


----------



## spentwings

In fact',,,,I've broken many rules here.
As a site, it seems like anarchy rules,,,wut happened Plainsman?


----------



## Plainsman

> ,,,wut happened Plainsman?


Well, I let one person by with so much I didn't want to be a hypocrite getting on your case. I let it go trying to show people I am not bias, but I should have accomplished that by now. I think I have been more tolerant than anyone can expect. I sort of felt as a moderator and actively debating I had to take a little more guff to prove I wasn't simply vengeful. You tell me if I have got to that point yet.


----------



## spentwings

Before you answer that...no question I'm in the wrong forum if I want to add something positive to this site.
So shall it be and so it will be.
Still, this site is volatile in my opinion because of Admin lack of interest or mods wants. Probably both! :beer:


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> ,,,wut happened Plainsman?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I let one person by with so much I didn't want to be a hypocrite getting on your case. I let it go trying to show people I am not bias, but I should have accomplished that by now. I think I have been more tolerant than anyone can expect. I sort of felt as a moderator and actively debating I had to take a little more guff to prove I wasn't simply vengeful. You tell me if I have got to that point yet.
Click to expand...

OK!
But mods should police, not be part of the problem. 
Believe me we're on the same track,,,but if you're a true mod,,,I shouldn't know that.
What the hell,,,,I should have been banned a long time ago ...but long after gst. :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

Well, that's constructive criticism that will give me something to think about.
Edit: 


> if you're a true mod,,,I shouldn't know that.


I don't think I could give up the right to free speech. Some things are just to important. I could do that in all of the forms but political and hot topics. I have some definite opinions about rifles, but nothing worth a big argument. Actually rifle is my favorite, I just can't pass up jabbing politicians.


----------



## wurgs

Shaug, 
I disagree, high fence shooting might be a similar issue but isn't what the OP was asking about. I actually enjoyed many threads about that issue and people like gst actually made me rethink my views a little bit but it seems like everytime a political discussion starts someone brings hfs up and the same arguements start all over again. The worst part is it turns personal every time. I would just like to see this thread stick to the original discussion


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> Well, that's constructive criticism that will give me something to think about.
> Edit:
> 
> 
> 
> if you're a true mod,,,I shouldn't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I could give up the right to free speech. Some things are just to important. I could do that in all of the forms but political and hot topics. I have some definite opinions about rifles, but nothing worth a big argument. Actually rifle is my favorite, I just can't pass up jabbing politicians.
Click to expand...

Kudos for at least thinking about it. :thumb:


----------



## gst

Wurgs, it would be indeed refreshing if the antagonism against an ag org was not the focas of the claims made on here to the point that a MODERATOR that should know better than make outlandish claims he can not back up factually states this measure will allow farmers to raise poppies as a part of "illegal" activities.

Who out there actually beleives that statement????

Yet here they are defending their "right" to make these claims as "debating" the issue. What are those of us that make our livihoods in agriculture supposed to do, sit back and let people like plainsman and swift make such un proven unfactually based claims as fact or truth?????

The simple fact this is a hunting site does not give someone that has a "willie" over an ag group the right to bash them, their policies created by ag producers and ag producers themselves *with claims they can not factually back up*. What would be the outcome if I came on here and made the claim all Federal biologists were paid off by wildlife groups to slant research to benefit said wildlife groups without providing the proof to back up my "opinion"????? Yet there are those on this site doing this very thing in regards to agriculture. ALL THAT IS BEING ASKED IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO COME ON HERE AND OFFER UP A STATEMENT REGARDING THIS MEASURE AS TO WHAT IT WILL ALLOW, PROVIDE THE FACTUAL BASIS FROM WHICH THIS CLAIM IS BEING MADE.


----------



## spentwings

They say craziness is next to godliness,
Like I tell my current wife,,,you can't make a dead weed into a corn stalk.
You're a fool gst to keep this going.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I don't think I could give up the right to free speech. Some things are just to important. I could do that in all of the forms but political and hot topics. .


How about the "right" to yell fire in a crowded theater?

How about the "right" to make the claim this measure will allow farmers to engage in the illegal drug trade???

plainsman, if this is truly the case, explain why you locked threads here in the "hot topics" forum?

If you have an "opinion" such as I beleive the sky is green, it can be as ludicrous and unfactual as you wish to make it, but when you start AIMING those "opinions" at an org. or an individual, perhaps they shoud be a bit more based on fact. I can picture some on here as very prolific witch burners in times gone by.

So please show me where your proof is that if this measure passes farmers will be allowed to grow poppies for "illegal" means as you claimed, or realize that comment as well as others are only so much bull**** aimed at disparaging an ag group you do not like.

Please show me your proof to back up that statement, because if it is indeed true, I need to get in line for poppy seed before it is all gone! :wink:

Oh by the way if this claim you made is not true, what then is it? I know, I know, merely a "strong opinion" :eyeroll: If I'd made a habit out of making these "strong opinions" I couldn't prove as true growing up I would have had my hide tanned repeatedly. Yet apparrently on this site, as the moderators do it regularily it is pretty much accepted behavior.


----------



## spentwings

Ho hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!


----------



## swift

GST when will you learn that you have NO RIGHT to demand people see things your way. Fact is there is nothing documented by your group that defys what Plainsman said. I see you ran with the poppies which was put out there for affect. I see you haven't mentioned the tiling that was brought up because this just might make it happen, How about some of the other crap that could happen. Telling us to stop because we don't know the facts then admitting the release is poorly done means you don't know the facts either. I will say it again, it is the FB's responsibility to communicate better than they have. With their past history of sticking it to anyone not an ag member why should we all of a sudden respect them? We have the right to be suspicious of this organization.

Answer this HOW WILL YOU AS AN AG PRODUCER BENEFIT IF THIS PASSES? AND WHAT WILL IT COST US NON-AG CITIZENS?

I have stuck to the facts of the policy book your group published. Your Group has a membership that is 50% non ag producers and you continue to push that they advocate for ag thereby turning their back on half of their members. Do they not have a responsibility to the non-ag members too?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> You're a fool gst to keep this going.
> Since we have Plain's verdict,,,I'll be the first to go. But you my friend,,,should be long gone.


Spent I realize the participants in this debate will continue down the path they have of making claims against ag groups and individuals they can not substantiate when asked to do so. So likely I am a fool to beleive they will cahnge or the administrators of this site will hold them accountable for doing so. But I simply will not let people make unfounded, unproven claims against the industry I make my livilhood from. Nor would I expect you would if people started pulling crap out of their *** they could not factually back up about what you do for a living.

If plainsman wants to show his hypocritical nature by kicking me off for what he claims is making things personal on "his" site, so be it, it would matter little to me and I beleive there is a bit of a list of others that would fall under those guidelines including the moderator himself.

The very same veiw I share on here are shared on FBO and for some reason people like swift are much more reserved in what they post on their in response. It is because the moderator on that site does not engae in the kinds of comments a very few on here do. Plainsman is not even listed as a "moderator" of the "hot topics" yet he has taken it upon himself to "infirnge" on the freedom of speach more than once.

All that was asked was to be a bit factual when debating this issue, and like always the same people chimed in and down the road we go. So if plainsman or others can provide proof to back up their claims (poppies as well as feedlots and illegal chemicals)as fact, I will be the first to apologize, but if they can not will they??? For some reason I doubt it. And to me that says all I need to know


----------



## gst

swift I have readily admitted I do not know enough about this measure to make ANY claims as to how it will benefit me as I have not seen the entrity of its writing and the interpretation of it's scope, for me to do so would be irresponsible and simply nonfactual. There in lies the difference. I will wait until I actually know a little more about it before I spout off regarding what this will or will not allow. All that is being ASKED, (not "demanded) is that others do the same. I know it is a hard concept to grasp that more credibility will be given to you if what you claim is factually correct and can be proven as such, but it is a novel approach some on here may wish to try. :wink:

I beleive all medical professionals are arrogant jackasses that beleive their time is much more valuable than yours when they make you wait in the waiting room for hours after your scheduled time. I beleive that most medical professionals are only in it for the money and care less about their patients well being. I beleive I as a rancher I know what is best for the medical profession far more than the percentage of medical professionals that make up the orgs that represent them.

Credible statements??? I think not.

You wish to address the policy NDFB adopted to pursue ending ALL govt subsidy programs in your claims regarding this group or do you conviniently over look that. You do not seem to understand the function of a grasroots org. MEMBERS, any and all of them can create and dictate policy. If you as a member are only in it for the cheap insurance rates and do not choose to show up and be a part of developing policy that is the way a grass roots org works. If you do not take advantage of the opportunity given you as a member, so be it. You seem to have a hard time grasping that swift.

With that I will let you and plainsman make what ever personal insinuations or unproven claims you may wish and will try my best to restrict myself to asking one simple question when they are made.

Can you prove this claim is true?

So can you prove that if this measure is passed feedlots will be allowed to build alongside a river and let the river carry away their manure for them??? Or that chemicals that are now illegal will be allowed to be used once again? Or perhaps these claims were simply "made for effect" as well. So are these claims true or not?


----------



## spentwings

You know I like you gst,,,and even agree with you to a certain degree.
Plainsman is sitting back,,,watching you make a fool out of yourself.


----------



## swift

Like pelosi and obama said no need to read this bill we know whats best for you. This is the same thing. You don't know and I don't know but what I do know is the FB lobbies for a select few at a cost to the vast majority. Argue if you would like but the group has not had a single policy to benefit non-ag people. And I will reiterate HALF the members of the FB are not agriculturists.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> what I do know is the FB lobbies for a select few at a cost to the vast majority.


Can you prove this claim is true?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> You know I like you gst,,,and even agree with you to a certain degree.
> Plainsman is sitting back,,,watching you make a fool out of yourself.
> BS breeds BS,,,if I wasn't drunk...I wouldn't even be here. There ain't no mods on this site,,,,it's a free for all I guess.


 Spent as agriculture is how I make my livihood, all that has ever been asked way back in other threads is that if someone is going to come on here and make claims regarding agriculture that they be able to prove the claims they are making as factual. I do not think that is out of line to expect.

If people INCLUDING a particular moderator would only do that one simple thing, I promise I would have little to be on this site for. Think of how enjoyable that would be!!!!! 

So it is really quite easy if you do not wish to have these type "discussions" going on, hold the people making these claims they can not factually back up accountable. Plain and simple.


----------



## swift

Agricultural Credit 101
Financial Policy
We believe that all agricultural land repossessed by government agencies should be put up for sale to private individuals and that no federal or state entity should be allowed to obtain it or be granted easements or acquire any existing mineral rights. --ID#: 1070/10
*The public suffers by excluding the public as a purchaser or allowing public easement Takes away from all the members and especially those that rely on public land.*

We support new legislation that would allow outside capital investment by unrelated individuals in the family farm corporation. --ID#: 1406/10
*This directly violates the anticorporate farming law.*

We oppose mandates on health insurance benefits, unemployment insurance and worker's compensation for employees of production agriculture and other small business employers. --ID#: 1299/09
*Why shouldn't ag be the only corporations to not have to support their employees?*

We support permanent property tax relief. --ID#: 1432/11
We favor valuation of agricultural land, for tax purposes, be based on a productivity formula. --ID#: 17/11
NDFB is in favor of property tax relief. --ID#: 1067/10
We oppose state legislation adversely impacting county property taxes. --ID#: 1066/10
*Again why should anyone feel they are above paying taxes? And who does pay? The nonag folks pick up the bill again. And half of the members fit into that group. Two differant policies favoring someone else foot their bill.*

Farmstead Exemptions
We believe that people who live on a farmstead and are not actually engaged in farming should not be eligible for the farmstead tax exemption, except for retired farmers as provided in current law. --ID#: 757/11
*Aren't those living on farmsteads helping to keep the rural area alive? This is blatent swipe at a taking.*

Start with those and if you need more examples I can furnish them tomorrow.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I like you gst,,,and even agree with you to a certain degree.
> Plainsman is sitting back,,,watching you make a fool out of yourself.
> BS breeds BS,,,if I wasn't drunk...I wouldn't even be here. There ain't no mods on this site,,,,it's a free for all I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Spent as agriculture is how I make my livihood, all that has ever been asked way back in other threads is that if someone is going to come on here and make claims regarding agriculture that they be able to prove the claims they are making as factual. I do not think that is out of line to expect.
> 
> If people INCLUDING a particular moderator would only do that one simple thing, I promise I would have little to be on this site for. Think of how enjoyable that would be!!!!!
> 
> So it is really quite easy if you do not wish to have these type "discussions" going on, hold the people making these claims they can not factually back up accountable. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way.
NoDak as a woman who wudn't let you kiss her no how. A tease that you finally realized deserves your scorn, but instead you continually try to persuade. A lost cause my friend.


----------



## spentwings

Actually, I'm going to voluntarily leave this site,
In retrospect,,,haven't contributed much here at all.
If you were wise gst, and suspect you aren't, you'd do the same.


----------



## gst

spent, I try to "leave" this site after everyone of these type discussions and it seems it is not nearly as long a time passes as it should be before another unfounded claim against agriculture is made by typically the same people. :roll:

I understand who and what on this particular site deserves the "scorn" you mention, and my comments on here are not ment to try and "persuade" the likes of pl;ainsman or swift. It is clear their "willie" over this ag group and individuals will never change. And perhaps I do indeed need to realize that given what this site is becoming under the direction of moderators such as what we have seen, there is likely few left reading "hot topics" that do not understand it has become an arena where any claims can be made without having ANY factual proof to back them up so indeed my opposing veiws may be of little value. There is likely a much smaller value to debating the people that seem to be the ones continuneally making these claims they have no factual proof to support.

Plainsman earlier mentioned the "little boy who cried wolf". Perhaps the value here is in pointing out the fact that if people on here continueally cry wolf when they can not back up the fact there is a "wolf" with proof simply because they do not like an ag org. , eventually people will stop listening and when a "wolf" finally does show up their credibility is lacking.

Contrary to plainsman and swifts claims, I do not agree with every thing ag does. As a rancher I indeed would like protection from the agendas groups like HSUS have against animal ag. ( It would be nice to still have a value based market to sell slaughter horses into for example) but to me there are venues thru our Century Code that this could be done rather than a Constitutional amendment. However given how times have changed these state laws that might be created to deal with this issue can also be "interpreted" by a Federal judge (exactly what happened in the case of horse slaughter here in the US) and over turned easier than what an ammendment to our state Constitution could be. (We will se what happens to our state anti corporate farming law) So the debate can most certainly be held regarding what is taking place with bringing forth this measure. As was simply stated earlier, something of this nature I beleive deserves to be debated with FACTUAL dialogue rather than personal rhetoric that can not be proven as true simply because someone has a willie over an ag org or individual.

So spent, perhaps as you have alluded to this site and forum is not the place to expect people to do this.

And by the way swift an "opinion" is not factual proof . It is my "opinion" that by following the policies you directly mentioned those involved in agriculture are better able to ensure and benefit the "vast majority" with the safest, most abundent, lowest cost food supply of any industrialized nation in the world.


----------



## Plainsman

> ( It would be nice to still have a value based market to sell slaughter horses into for example)


In some areas wild horses are terribly destructive to habitat on public land and private grazing lands. People are all emotional about them though, but I would give Alpo dog food company a permit and let them solve the problem.


----------



## swift

> And by the way swift an "opinion" is not factual proof . It is my "opinion" that by following the policies you directly mentioned those involved in agriculture are better able to ensure and benefit the "vast majority" with the safest, most abundent, lowest cost food supply of any industrialized nation in the world.


Then you have the opinion of an idiot. ND is a cog in the wheel of international agriculture. The other mega-producing states do not have the benefits the ND folks have. So save your song and dance for your own group so you feel justified in taking from the hard working taxpayers of the state all the while dodging your tax responsibilities.

It is proof that all of those policies benefit a small minority while costing the vast majority. That is a fact plain and simple no dancing around. Do you need more? When I have time I will get them to you. Here is just a little one to wet your appetite.



> We believe farmers should be allowed to take the necessary steps, including elimination, to keep wildlife from destroying tangible property. Steps should include allowing transferable depredation tags for antlerless deer be made available to landowners in addition to regular hunting season licenses. --ID#: 1267/09


 [*b]you support farmer control of licensing and season setting outside the NDGF's seasons. This will likely benefit less than 200 ranchers in the state but negatively affect 90,000 people through large kill offs of publicly owned animals.*


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Then you have the opinion of an idiot.


Plainsman, swift called me an idiot!!!!!!  :roll: :wink:

So swift let me get this straight, someone who has spent their entire life involved in agriculture and makes their livlihood from agriculture, their opinion regarding agriculture is not as valid as the opinion of someone who has never been directly involved in agriculture and makes their livilihood in the medical profession which is as largely subsidized by tax payer dollars as any ag program ever will be.

My it must be nice to have that self imposed absolute belief (some might call it arrogance) to beleive you know what is best for everyone.

Pull your skirt down swift, your "willie" over NDFB is showing! :wink: What you are claiming as "fact" is merely your "opinion" If I recall there was quite a discussion in another thread that these "opinions" are much less than "fact" and should not be construed as such. So if you have any actuall "facts" to back up your claims, such as hard data, links, stats, ect... please feel free to share this proof to back up your "opinions".


----------



## shaug

Friday I was listening to Scott Bachmeirer on KFYR. (What a refreshing change from Mike McFooly) Scotts guest that day was Ag Commissionor Doug Goehring. They were talking about how ranchers afflicted with prairie dogs are going to lose a useful tool called Rozol because environmental groups have filed a federal lawsuit. The product had been available for two years and is one of the more effective solutions for prairie dogs.

Defenders of Wildlife sued the EPA, saying it didn't properly consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in approving the chemical for black-tail prairie dogs.

Goehring fears the cancellation may be a precursor to a more extensive lawsuit against EPA involving 381 pesticides and 214 endangered species. That case is a Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America vs. EPA, filed Jan. 20th in San Francisco.

Defenders of Wildlife, the Center Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America are 501(c)3s. Here we go again Plainsman. The template is always the same. I was looking at the resumes' some time ago of the leadership of defenders. The president was x USFWS the vice-president was x national wildlife federation. What we have here is federal employees carrying information to these activist groups. How did defenders of wildlife know that the EPA hadn't properly consulted with the USFWS in approving Rozol unless????????????

Just a few years ago the South Dakota Wildlife Federation got themselves embroiled in the Conata Basin prairie dog issue. The fed/gov planted blackfooted ferrets there (at one million a piece) and then wouldn't let the ranchers control the dog population on their own land. The result, the ranchers posted north western SD and the sportsmen of eastern SD are no longer welcome.

I'm thinking sportsmen need to look both directions before they cross. Know whos is who out there and stay away from getting sucked into the red herring issues.

I think farming and ranching need some kind of protection from all the harrassment that is coming our way. Farm Bureaus measure may be a good start.

Plainsman, I know you are going to say the defendere of wildlife are nuts, members of the Center Biological Diversity are wackos, the Humane Society should partner with Alpo and the Pesticide Action Network North America are fruit loops but it doesn't change the fact these activists are coming to ND looking for partnerships with people who already live here.

Plainsman, The template is always the same. Did you know that two of the sponsers of "fair chase two" were humane society? 
Sue Tremont..........look her up, she wouldn't take too kindly to your Alpo joke.
Janine Jacob..........she drove to New Orleans to save some dogs. Dogs like Alpo. Just not with horse meat. We live in a mixed up world.

When Farm Bureau begins gathering signature I think the fair chase committee should be the poster child. A blown up picture of the three sportsmen impersonaters with the paid for by the Humane Society Legislative Fund caption in bold letters. It should never be forgotten who first opened the door in ND for the HSUS.

The template is always the same.


----------



## swift

I called you an idiot and I call a yellow rock a yellow rock too.

You have your head so far in your mailbox looking for the next govt check that you cannot see the world around you that is writing those checks.

I can fix healthcare in one fell swoop and say everyone without the ability to pay for services do not receive services. Many will die because of this policy but hey I'm only looking out for an industry that supplies the best healthcare in the world so if a huge number of people are negatively affected it's no big deal. I am only advocating for my "Profession" and my Career, and my industry.

This analogy is exactly the same as your idea that because we have cheap food you can crap all over us.


----------



## swift

> Just a few years ago the South Dakota Wildlife Federation got themselves embroiled in the Conata Basin prairie dog issue. The fed/gov planted blackfooted ferrets there (at one million a piece) and then wouldn't let the ranchers control the dog population on their own land. The result, the ranchers posted north western SD and the sportsmen of eastern SD are no longer welcome.


That simply is not true. The highly publicized Harding county hunter lockout never materialized. It was threatened but that happens all the time when a farmer doesn't get his way or doesn't want to follow the contracts they sign. Fact is Harding county, SD has the most public access to private land (walk in similar to Plots) in the state. The proposed lockout just a few years ago was about a couple things one being Game wardens entering private land to check licenses,


----------



## KurtR

the lockout involved game wardens and wanting more out of state deer license not pdogs. I guess that is just from the horses mouth not an article. And if they need another form of poison i am more than willing to administer 168 grns of amax for free. Now back to the subject i have no idea about. This is like a 59804085 round mma fight right here


----------



## wurgs

I hope the exact wording of the Amendment gets released soon, might not be as bad as everyone thinks. It might even put a end to this arguement.

Or might start a whole new one!


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I called you an idiot


plainsman, swift called me an idiot again!!!  :roll: 

Swift I tell you what lets take a poll of the American people, or even the people right here in ND and ask two questions what would more negatively affect you 
1. the duck population declining by 50%

2. your food prices doubling

Heck while we are at it lets ask two more.
What is more important to you

1. having access to private land for hunting?

2. Food safety and avalibility?

What answers do you beleive the "vast majority" would give?

These ag orgs you claim are "dumping all over all of us" because you do not have access to private lands is an issue that beleive it or not does not affect the "vast majority". The reality is the hunting issues you and plainsman have a willie for these ag groups over only affects a small minority of people. MOST hunters here in ND have no problem getting access to private lands and the hunting here in the state is argueably as good as it has ever been. So exactly how are these groups so negatively affecting your hunting??? Perhaps one should consider just maybe it is not these ag orgs fault if you do not have access to private ground to hunt. Maybe, just maybe, there is another reason! :wink:



swift said:


> You have your head so far in your mailbox looking for the next govt check that you cannot see the world around you that is writing those checks.


You don't tell that to the fella that your asking permission to hunt on his land do you???  swift you own some land right? Say, the land you own isn;t in CRP (govt check and all) is it??? Hmmmm. Hey do you have that posted or is it open to public hunting?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Fact is Harding county, SD has the most public access to private land (walk in similar to Plots) in the state


I wonder if these fellas with their land enrolled have their


swift said:


> head so far in your mailbox looking for the next govt check that you cannot see the world around you that is writing those checks.


Apparently when others dollars are spent for things swift approves of it is alright.



swift said:


> It was threatened but that happens all the time when a farmer doesn't get his way or doesn't want to follow the contracts they sign.


So do you start your conversations looking for access with statements like this, or do you save them for "hunting" websites where your anonimity allows you to spout of without people knowing who you are???? It just might explain alot!! :wink:


----------



## gst

wurgs said:


> I hope the exact wording of the Amendment gets released soon, might not be as bad as everyone thinks. It might even put a end to this arguement.
> 
> Or might start a whole new one!


I'd imagine regardless of the actual wording there will be "strong opinions" shared on this site simply because who is sponsoring it! :wink:

Hopefully from here on there will be at least some degree of factual nature to them!


----------



## swift

GST, the topic is about the FB's policies of taking from the taxpayer and advocating for not paying taxes. NOT what I do with my land. I do have CRP and I do get a check and I do pay 80 grand a year in taxes. I clearly stated that the FB lobbies for tax relief of farmers and requests tax dollars from the govt.

As usual you have no answer for this so you attack me for what I do. I am not preaching as a medical professional I am preaching as a taxpayer. Since I pay taxes I should be permitted to question where those tax dollars go! In your world the ag industry trumps all and we should all bow to their almighty rule.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> GST, the topic is about the FB's policies of taking from the taxpayer and advocating for not paying taxes. NOT what I do with my land. *I do have CRP and I do get a check*


 So swift how far in the mail box do you stick YOUR head??? 

Is your CRP open to public hunting or is it posted? Apparently from the tone of your post, you do not freel anyone should tell you what YOU do with YOUR land?

Please explain to me what "value" I or anyone else gets as a tax payer from the check YOU receive from the govt???

Then please explain to us from a taxpayers standpoint what the difference is between your CRP check and anyone elses check ( which by the way the NDFB s advocating ending)

And actually the "topic" is about a contitutional amendment.


----------



## swift

> Please explain to me what "value" I or anyone else gets as a tax payer from the check YOU receive from the govt???


None, but I am not advocating for any tax breaks on my property, I'm not advocating for not paying sales tax on equiptment I purchase. I'm not advocating for tax dollars to pay for depredation issues. Thats the difference in us you want all the money the govt will give you plus more and don't want to contribute to the coffers that money comes from.

And; if your a full time farmer there is little chance you are a Taxpayer. If you are you need a new accountant.


----------



## shaug

Hello KurtR,

How you been?



> the lockout involved game wardens and wanting more out of state deer license not pdogs. I guess that is just from the horses mouth not an article. And if they need another form of poison i am more than willing to administer 168 grns of amax for free. Now back to the subject i have no idea about. This is like a 59804085 round mma fight right here


Here is an interesting arcticle about NWF and dogs.

http://online.nwf.org/site/DocServer/PD ... docID=4641

The Template is always the same. The NWF got the SD wildlife federation invloved who got sportsmen involved. If the NWF wants the prairie dog on the endangered species list why would sportsmen want that?

Plainsman says NDFB and NDFU are anti hunter. Not hardly. So what in the heck is NWF? Clue, it is not a sportsmans org.


----------



## wurgs

gst said:


> wurgs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope the exact wording of the Amendment gets released soon, might not be as bad as everyone thinks. It might even put a end to this arguement.
> 
> Or might start a whole new one!
> 
> 
> 
> I'd imagine regardless of the actual wording there will be "strong opinions" shared on this site simply because who is sponsoring it! :wink:
> 
> Hopefully from here on there will be at least some degree of factual nature to them!
Click to expand...

I'm sure your right. I don't agree with alot of what the NDFB stands for but will hold judgement untill I see the exact wording of the Amendment. I think like most groups, their intentions were good when they started the FB. It never hurts to have someone looking out for your best interests whether others like it or not.


----------



## gst

wurgs said:


> I'm sure your right. I don't agree with alot of what the NDFB stands for but will hold judgement untill I see the exact wording of the Amendment. I think like most groups, their intentions were good when they started the FB. It never hurts to have someone looking out for your best interests whether others like it or not.


Wurgs I can most certainly respect that!!! Way back when, that was all that was asked of the people making claims they could not substantiate.

So swift let me get this straight, you critizie others for accepting taxpayer dollars thru ag programs , but justify YOUR accepting taxpayer dollars thru govt ag programs???  :-? :roll: You never did answer just how far you stick YOUR head in the mailbox!!  :wink:

What exactly does putting out there what you pay in taxes suppose to accomplish in this dialogue?? We already know in another thread that you have claimed to have paid more in taxes than someone on here you have never met makes for a living, so what exactly was the purpose in sharing what you pay in taxes?


----------



## swift

The point is I pay taxes. You dodged the question. When was the last time you paid taxes on your farm income? I don't have a problem with farm income from taxpayers as long as you are a taxpayer too. To demand not to pay taxes then demand tax dollars support you is what got our current president elected. Your mouth says your a conservative your actions are all LIBERAL. Try paying 40 percent of what you make to the IRS and continue to be told your the problem because you earn too much, and see if it gets a bit tiring. You preach about property rights...we'll the dollars I make are my private property and you don't seem to have an issue taking almost half of it without so much as a thank you. The DB is hypocritical in its poicies from the anticorporate farming law to the private property rights it claims to support but tries to control. If your in support of all their policies and don't question them once in a while your just a lemming with a big mouth.

So how much did you contribute to this great country that supports your career like a mother supports her baby.


----------



## shaug

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/nubs/nd ... 03286.html



> The amendment would add two sentences to the North Dakota Constitution: ``The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.''


----------



## gst

So here it is, hold on to your hats, it really can't be, swift and plainsman have told us otherwise, but as this measure is written, I do not know wether I would sign it or not. Even as a rancher that is directly involved in issues that have included anti animal ag orgs wanting to put me out of business and knowing firsthand the issues we face as an industry from these groups, I still understand the need to have REASONABLE regulations on agriculture as does any other industry. To me unless it is explained different, this measure is TOO vaguely worded and could be looked at in a manner that will generate to many questions for it too be supported so ultimately what good will it do? (with NDFB pursueing this and if it falls short of collecting the required signatures, any other future means brought forth to deal with the issues this is intended for will likely carry this measure as an albatross). The scope will Likely not be to the point where farmers would be legally allowed to grow poppies and produce heroin,  but the question does remain open as it is written and claims such as have been made on here will HAVE to be addressed for this to carry support. Wether these concerns will be covered by existing laws we have in place now needs to be explained as well. As I mentioned previously these anti orgs have learned how to use Federal district judges that may have sympathetic ideologies to theirs to over rule state law in their "interpretations" of said law. It has been an effect tool for them. So simply passing state laws any more are no sure way to deal with a serious issue. But as was ORIGINALLY posted in this thread a Constitution wether it Federal or state is not something to have poorly written amendments added to.

The ideology behind this measure is something I would likely support, but if I had an input in how it was written it would have been presented much differently.

I will be the first on here to readily admit I do not know how the court (ultimately this is likely where disputes stemming from this will be decided) would rule on issues that could likely arise from this, but in the long run I question wether agriculure would truly be benefited.

Oh and swift, for some reason I have never felt the need to make sure others know what I make for income by boasting about how much I may have had to pay in taxes. (you have laid out the math nicely for everyone, $80,000, 40%, lets see roughly $320, 000 in taxable income ) And yes I pay Federal taxes in one form or another every year, some times even including income tax :wink: But I learned long ago just because someone pays more than someone else in taxes it does not mean they are smarter, better, have more qualified opinions ect'... than anyone else as you seem to be suggesting by including HOW MUCH you pay in taxes in this discussion. And given your comments in an earlier thread about how you pay more in taxes than someone else made for a living without even knowing that person, the arrogance of that comment seems to fit with the arrogance that typically accompanies those that brag about how much they pay in taxes.



swift said:


> As usual you have no answer for this so you attack me for what I do.


The answer you simply do not seem to be able to comprehend is that an ag group will advocate for the benefit of agriculture and those involved just as a medical "professionals" group will advocate fror those that make their living thru the medical proffession. Please try to get your head wrapped around that concept, it will open up a bit of understanding if you cn.


----------



## Plainsman

> I still understand the need to have REASONABLE regulations on agriculture as does any other industry. To me unless it is explained different, this measure is TOO vaguely worded and could be looked at in a manner that will generate to many questions for it too be supported so ultimately what good will it do?


Take a heart pill before you read further gst.  I agree with you. When things are vague they leave unwanted doors open. Like my poppy comment.  If you think that comment was out of line check with the state prison and see how many farmers are in there for cooking meth. I doubt they keep those records, but they must be somewhere. Like I say they are just people, no better no worse. However, I don't think it would ever happen. The feds wouldn't let it happen. The statement was meant as hyperbole to drive a point home. 
Swift I agree with you on the tax thing. The formers of this nation debated who should vote. The two choices they debated was everyone, or only property owners. When they said property owners they didn't mean only land owners. However today I would say that anyone who has paid hmmmmmm maybe $2000 in income tax should be allowed to vote. That would end the problem of the type that live off welfare for five generations continuing to vote themselves wealth derived from robbery by politician. You know, the type that still likes Obama.
Swift, I read your remarks about the NDFB thinking there should be no public land. Then I went to their website to confirm it. That is scary as heck. No public land and it would be no time until you paid to hunt anything. Once they have you over the barrel the price would climb. Every sportsmen out there should take the time to think through the consequences that are possible with no public land. Much of that land was lost by people who didn't take proper care of it to begin with and lost it because they couldn't even pay the pittance of a tax on land. You mentioned income tax, and my mother worked with more than 50 farmers back home for years. The ones that kept records slipped by with no income tax nearly every year. If you check the state laws they will call you a hobby if you don't pay tax once every three years. Farmers are exempt from that law. Talk about prejudice. I have to thank gst. If it were not for him I would forget some of these things.


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, Shaug, I forgot to mention I have been looking into NWF as much as possible. If I was a member I would perhaps drop it since I don't buy the global warming bull droppings. I don't think I much care for them, but they are not paid for by government. If we are not going to like them lets do it for the right reasons. I think I throw NWF right in there with FB and FU. Many good organizations, even like the unions, started out with good intentions and have grown into mindless detriments to society.


----------



## LT

> The amendment would add two sentences to the North Dakota Constitution: ``The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.''


The measure is very narrow in scope and well defined. :wink:


----------



## wurgs

Wow. I can't believe they would word it that vaguely and expect anybody to actually vote for it.


----------



## Plainsman

Like I said they will leave it wide open for abuse. 
Something that interests me is during this debate we talked about things farmers wanted to protect. I often speak up about poor farming practices, but maybe it's time to talk about what we can all agree to protect.

Even though I was, and still am, against high fence hunting if ever HSUS threatens the farming of cattle, chickens, pigs etc I will support our farmers. One fellow thought I was making a joke when I said I would let Alpo take care of the wild horse problem. Sorry, I was not joking. They are not native, and they are destructive to wildlife habitat and ranch land.

If some of you guys want to influence me here is something I have not made my mind up on. That is genetically altered crops. Off hand I can't see that they would be a problem. I'm sure that someone will keep parent seed. They have to since many hybrid varieties are not fertile. So tell me why or why we should support genetic seed. Europe and Japan I think have banned it. Why? I would guess we are all eating it now. Has it caused problems? Shaug, I would put value into your input on this.

I think we have beaten the FB dead horse long enough. If anyone disagrees just ignore me, but as the conversation flowed genetic altered crops came to my mind.


----------



## gst

painsman, why are "farmers" in the pen for cooking meth??? Because it is illegal. Please note the wording of the measure in that it states "no law shall be enacted". That does not mean current laws regulating the "rasing of poppies " :roll: for example shall be overturned and null and void, nor will the laws regulating feedlots and where they can be built, nor law restricting what pesticides have been and are currently banned.

There have been any number of instances where animal rights groups have pushed for and gotten entire ag industries banned. The horse slaughter is a perfect example. And now even the GAO has came out and said horses here in the US have been negatively impacted by this ban. So there is indeed a need to have something in effect to address how and why something such as this example happened to prevent it from happening to other animal ag industries. Having said that, who knows what situations may arise in the future as well and we must realize that animal ag or ag in general simply does not get a "pass" REgardless of what you may try an claim, I beleive ag as any other industry needs to be accountable for our actions. Many of us involved in animal ag are working hard to hold our industry accountable to a high standard of animal husbandry and land stewardship. So please having never met me nor having any knowledge of our operation please do not make personal claioms regarding what I beleive and how we run our operation.

So I tell you what you tell me how we go about ensuring REASONABLE regulation of ag exists in the future and things such as the horse slaughter fiasco can not happen and I will rest much easier. That is until you begin making claims as to what you beleive is "reasonable". :wink: For some reason I get the feeling that is where this new found agreement will end. And of course since we have a legislature that is so obviously dominated by ag people and controled by them, well that has been a whole nother debate!  :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman you likely do not want to hear it from the comments you have made in a previous thread, or will likely even beleive it, but without GMO crops we will NOT be able to continue to feed a growing world population. There are only so many arable acres in the world and that number is declining. So methods to increase yeilds and productivity on less acres to feed more people are necessary. Please do not take my word for it the are far more knowledgable people than either you or I that hold this as truth.


----------



## Plainsman

I just got an email that made me think I need to add to my last post. You know you guys keep saying how dangerous HSUS is. I agree with you and also agree that all of us need to be vigil for them, PETA, and many other groups that are not as in the news but just as dangerous.
So I mentioned genetic seed. There is a group that will endanger that as much as HSUS endangers your animal agriculture. That group is the ELCA. Today they just passed their genetic resolution.

From ELCA.org


> Genetics
> Genetics, Faith and Responsibility, approved August 18 by the 2011 Churchwide Assembly, is one of the first statements by a U.S. church that develops a comprehensive ethical framework for addressing human power around issues relating to medical, agricultural and cultural concerns.


This is our new radical environmental group. They have left the reason reservation. If your ELCA and farm or live in a small town you better start paying attention to these pseudo Christians.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> plainsman you likely do not want to hear it from the comments you have made in a previous thread, or will likely even beleive it, but without GMO crops we will NOT be able to continue to feed a growing world population. There are only so many arable acres in the world and that number is declining. So methods to increase yeilds and productivity on less acres to feed more people are necessary. Please do not take my word for it the are far more knowledgable people than either you or I that hold this as truth.


Actually I think I agree with you on this. I know I should have asked you to sit down first.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> . I often speak up about poor farming practices,


And there in lies much of the problem. To be objective about this , it is not meant to be personal. Plainsman, you by your own admission were not even aware that no till planting of corn was being done, when it has been a common practice for several years. So given this admitted lack of knowledge of current ag practices which are vastly different than those of even 10 years ago, how much credibility should be given your claims of "poor farming practices"??? Just because you do not agree with it, does not make it a "poor farming practice".

It would be like me claiming I knew what was "poor medical practices" :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

If your not smart enough to take advantage of a new direction I guess there is little I can do. There is no talking with some people. If anyone is actually interested in dialogue so am I. I am not interested in listening to more whine. I didn't change direction gst, to listen to you whine about a subject beaten into the ground half a year ago. If you don't want it personal I suggest you look at your posts and ask why it gets that way. With friends like you farmers don't need enemies. I asked Shaug for some input because I have no hope of discussion with you.

Edit: Boy am I dumb. You don't want to talk do you? Your simply here to stir the pot, and don't want anyone getting along. Perhaps some of us can communicate by PM and avoid the constructed conflict.



> It would be like me claiming I knew what was "poor medical practices"


 Or claiming you know anything about public relations. :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman it is a legitimate question. Try and look at it objectively, I said it is nothing personal. You admitted in an earlier thread you did not realize notill planting of corn was taking place. It is a fairly common improved stewardship practice that has gone on for a number of years. So the question remains, is someone that does not even keep abreast of the changes that have taken place in farming practices to know what is going on in agriculture the best person to claim what are "poor farming practices".



Plainsman said:


> I often speak up about poor farming practices


 So to set the record straight, what creditials do you have to be the person determining what are "poor farming practices"?

As I said it is nothing personal unless you want to make it so. You simply are not involved in agriculture enough to know what the latest ag practices are so how can we expect you to be credible on what are "poor farming practices". Wether you wish to admit it, you are not what could be considered an "authority" on agricultural practices. It does not make you any less of a person, it is just simply the way it is. More and more people are becoming disconnected from ag to the point they are not aware of these things, it is a simple fact.

*So back to why perhaps some beleive this measure is necessary*. What happens if people like yourself suddenly beleive they should be the ones determining what are "poor farming practices" to be regulated or banned regardless of what those actually involved in production ag and others think??? Perhaps someone in the ELCA that has no direct involvement or connection to ag that beleive GMOs are "poor farming practices" beleive THEY should be the ones determining what is regulated or banned in agriculture, what makes them and their claims different than you? So what if they start an initiated measure to ban GMO''s or confinement hog or poultry operations and lay a bunch of mistruthes out there regarding agriculture? What if they join forces with a national org like HSUS or Physicians for Responsible Medicine to further their cause and they "inform" enough people with their "facts" to get their measure passsed? So please answer this, what do you suppose any of the 3 orgs just mentioned beleive are "poor farming practices" and why are they any less credible than you?

I am not suggesting ag simply be left to it's own devises. But if you are going to be the person on here making claims about "poor farming practices" perhaps if you should at least be up to speed on current farming practices. If I go to a doctor over a recurring migraine, I sure hope he doesn;t tell me a good blood letting will cure the evil inside me and expect me to believe he knows what is or is not "poor medical practices" ! And if I have to tell him they have invented a thing called asprin, I really might have to question his "credibility" regarding medical practices :wink: And he probably would not be the best fella to have "regulating" the medical profession.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman it is a legitimate question. Try and look at it objectively, I said it is nothing personal. You admitted in an earlier thread you did not realize notill planting of corn was taking place. It is a fairly common improved stewardship practice that has gone on for a number of years. So the question remains, is someone that does not even keep abreast of the changes that have taken place in farming practices to know what is going on in agriculture the best person to claim what are "poor farming practices".


OK if you want I will assume you really are that slow. Not knowing something is happening is not the same as not knowing if it's good or not. Perhaps you don't know the Carrington area has had nearly 30 inches of rain in the past month. Now that you know does that mean you have no opinion. Do you think that's good or bad. Is a person to stupid (not you, just in general) to understand it isn't good they are flooding simply because they didn't know they were flooding. Your argument is childish at best, but I would think disruptive in intent.



> So to set the record straight, what creditials do you have to be the person determining what are "poor farming practices"?


A person who has looked at the effect of agriculture on environment for 36 years. From a scientific basis not third grade prejudice. 


> So back to why perhaps some beleive this measure is necessary.


I think we have beaten that horse long after it was dead. So you don't want to find out what others support? You don't want to influence those on the fence with things like GMO's? You want to keep beating the dead horse? Why don't you ask how many others want to keep beating that dead horse. You said you didn't like it as written and couldn't support it. Why do you want to keep talking about it? Is it simply because you like confrontation rather than common ground? What is to be gained by another ten pages of bull droppings? So is this the way the average farmer behaves?


----------



## Plainsman

Sorry, I just realized were talking two different things. When you talk ag practices good or bad your talking about the farmers wallet. When I talk ag practices good or bad I am talking about environment and treatment of the land. You see I have not just driven past fields we have actually done studies that lend themselves to those bad ag practices. Like core samples of snow downwind of different ag practices.
When I talk about studying something like wetlands I'm not talking simply on a personal basis. No one could have expertise in all fields. A wetland study typically has a PhDs in wetland ecology, hydrology, ornithology, herpetology, soils, botany, invertebrate taxonomy, a chemist, a complete weather station set up, etc. I understand that many of today's farmers run the gamut from PhD. to third grad drop out. That's why swift said to you it's an occupation not a profession. So you see gst perhaps our disagreement is in the way we look at bad ag practices. I am concerned about the ability of the soil to feed the next generation, and what happens downstream and downwind of an ag practice. 
All row crops are worse for erosion than small grains. I would guess no till corn is better than traditional, but you tell me how they accomplish it and I can tell you if it's better for the field and neighbors than traditional. Knowing something exists and knowing if it's good or not are not the same thing. 
So gst if you want to keep talking about FB that's ok. Maybe I can start a thread on other subjects where farmers are really concerned may want to chime in. I think we may have much in common, and that we will see that you and FB are simply radicals that give the wrong impression of farming.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> A person who has looked at the effect of agriculture on environment for 36 years.


And yet you do not even know of advancements in agriculture such as notill planting. So how can your veiws be credible?



Plainsman said:


> you tell me how they accomplish it and I can tell you if it's better for the field and neighbors than traditional. Knowing something exists and knowing if it's good or not are not the same thing


but plainsman if you do not even know it exists, how can you make credible claims as to wether agricultural practices are good or not??? .

A "vast majority" of todays farmers understand the value of soil management and health far more than the farmer of 36 years ago did. And practices, equipment and the entire industry is changing towards those goals. Take a look at the technology in new equipment (particularily planting equip) and tell me what is driving it. By admission you only look at "enviromental" impacts. There is a great deal more to farming to be considered than that. By your own admission you have a willie over an ag org because of their policies and how you beleive they affect YOUR hunting. Guess what the "vast majority" of Americans could care less what impact agriculture has on your hunting. It is the people in agriculture themselves that are ultimately who has provided habitat, opportunities ect... for you and others to enjoy as a positive side line of PRODUCTION ag. And yet here you are on here spouting off about ag as if you are informed and credible when you do not even know what current practices are being implemented or how it has changed from 30 years ago.

Someone wants to know why this measure is necessary, take a look at the comments in posts in other threads by the likes of swift and plainsman. As long as agriculture conforms to what they beleive it should be they are fine and dandy with ag, but the second someone does something they do not approve of or questions their claims and opinions they are "greedy" elitist lords of the land reminiscient of the fuedal lords of Europe and the activity they are engaged in must be banned. It is not just groups like HSUS, ELCA and Physicians for Responsible Medicine that have anti ag ag ideologies.

So apparently the bottom line is as long as agriculture does exactly what plainsman and swift want it too there is no need for a measure such as this. :wink: I wonder if the folks at HSUS, ECLA, ect... feel the same?


----------



## Plainsman

> but plainsman if you do not even know it exists, how can you make credible claims as to wether agricultural practices are good or not??? .


That only requires some intelligence and a small amount of willingness to understand. You know nothing biological aspects (at least in depth) of cancer, but you know it's bad. You simply want to hang on to a thread of hope that you can destroy credability. What you bring up isn't important enough to have an impact with the intelligent people I want to convince.



> A "vast majority" of todays farmers understand the value of soil management and health far more than the farmer of 36 years ago did.


I agree, but I didn't retire 36 years ago. I really really hope you grasped that.



> It is the people in agriculture themselves that are ultimately who has provided habitat, opportunities ect... for you and others to enjoy as a positive side line of PRODUCTION ag.


You claim to be a conservationist, but you support drainage. If that is true wildlife exists not because of you, but in spite of you. Don't be proud of not killing everything.



> but the second someone does something they do not approve of or questions their claims and opinions they are "greedy" elitist lords of the land reminiscient of the fuedal lords of Europe


If Farm Bureau had their way we would be back in aristocrat Europe. You would build the type of nations our forefathers risked life and limb to escape. Remember they want all of the land and no public land for the peasants.



> By your own admission you have a willie over an ag org because of their policies and how you beleive they affect YOUR hunting.


You didn't watch Cool Hand Luck the other night did you? Remember the quote "we have a failure to communicate"? That's what we have. You see gst one of my concerns is that you don't destroy the land for profit today so the people of tomorrow starve. My concern is farming tomorrow, wildlife tomorrow, and to shorten this up my concern is tomorrow. Many land practices are only concerned with today's profit. You can make as many state constitutional amendments as you want as they will mean little when the people of this nation as a whole step on your rights. You not only impress farmers gst your impressing many others, but not in the way you would like.

So gst since I don't have an opinion on GMO why do you not care to influence that in the direction that will benefit agriculture? Don't you care? Here is a perfect opportunity and your whizzing it away. As a matter of fact here is a perfect opportunity and your trying to kill it. Why is that?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I agree, but I didn't retire 36 years ago. I really really hope you grasped that.


But you are basing your comments regarding agriculture on what you knew 36 years ago.


Plainsman said:


> You claim to be a conservationist, but you support drainage


Once again here is a please show me " where I claim I "support" drainage as you have claimed.



Plainsman said:


> If Farm Bureau had their way we would be back in aristocrat Europe. You would build the type of nations our forefathers risked life and limb to escape. Remember they want all of the land and no public land for the peasants.


So instead we should simply listen to what YOU demand agriculture to be???? Where exactly would that put us back to???



Plainsman said:


> So gst since I don't have an opinion on GMO why do you not care to influence that in the direction that will benefit agriculture? Don't you care? Here is a perfect opportunity and your whizzing it away


plainsman I thought I pretty clearly stated why GMO's are necessary. Even to the point where you agreed with me, remember!! :wink:

So answer this one simple question, what do you beleive agriculture should do in regards to the issues you do not agree with agriculture on?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> My concern is farming tomorrow, wildlife tomorrow, and to shorten this up my concern is tomorrow.


That is all fine and good, but you are not basing your concerns on the farming practices of today or tommorrow, but rather by your own statements on those of yesterday. If you do not know of the farming practices of today or even those of tommorrow, how can your concerns for tommorrow be credible?

If you are truly "concerned for tommorrow" at the very least inform yourself enough so you are familiar with farming practices of today before you make your claims.

So I really am curious, what do you beleive agriculture should do in regards to the issues you have with agriculture? Please answer this question directly.


----------



## Plainsman

Actually I have started a new thread because I am interested in people who want to talk about these things. You speak of willies all of the time. I think you have one for me. I started the new thread because I would like to be more constructive than confrontational at this point. Please respect that.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Please respect that.


I tell you what plainsman, I'll make a deal with you, do not make any claims you can not substantiate with fact regarding agriculture in your new thread and I won't even set foot in it. :wink:



gst said:


> So answer this one simple question, what do you beleive agriculture should do in regards to the issues you do not agree with agriculture on?


Please answer the question. This thread was about why a constitutional measure is needed to protect agriculture from people who wish to ban and over regulate ag practices and industries. Your answer to this question might give a little insight into why this measure was even proposed in the first place.



Plainsman said:


> You speak of willies all of the time. I think you have one for me


I simply do not appreciate people making claims about the industries I make my livihood from that they can not factually substantiate. Stop doing so and as I said I would have little reason to be on this site.


----------



## Plainsman

People are going to continue having opinions if you like it or not gst. You may not like having to live with anyone having an opinion, but you don't have much choice. 
Like usual I answer a question and you keep asking it. Go back and read gst. Enough times and you will comprehend it. :wink:


----------



## gst

okay since you will not directly answer one simple question I will share my "opinion" of what I beleive your answer is. As long as ag capitulates to your demands of what practices they can use you support ag. Otherwise you make wild accusations (opinions) you do not back up with fact in an attempt to sway peoples opinions so that practices are looked at unfavorably and regulated or banned from happening.

Contrary to your claims, I really have no "opinion" on tiling. But who on here doubts that if a measure was introduced to ban tiling that plainsman would not at the very least sign it and support it. How about if there were a measure that limited when hay could be cut on private lands so that nesting waterfowl would not be disturbed? How about a meaasure that made HE soils inelgible to be farmed?? How about an measure which bans a legally defined form of ranching here in ND whose beginning was supported and encouraged by the ND ag dept.? ?

Now answer the question if YOUR demands upon agriculture are "legitimate" why are not the ELCA's or HSUS's? And down the road we go to why this measure has even been introduced. You may not give a ****, but commercil egg laying is all but over in California because of an initiated measure that was put on their ballot by HSUS. It is how this majority of voters were "convinced" that is the reasoning behind this measure. *These groups who have no requirements to factuially tell the truth and factually substantiate their claims know they do not have to and take advantage of it.* When anyone calls them on their claims they shout greedy corporate eliteists that care less and simply want to kill everyting in the name of the dollar. Sound familiar??? Do a litle research into the campaigns these orgs use to accomplish their agendas of ending ALL animal ag one segment at a time and it might surprise you what claims are made.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=meatrix+vi ... x=110&y=13

This is an example of what is being introduced into our grade schools to as an "opinion" by these groups.

So plainsman defend your claims you can not substantiate that you make regarding ag as merely "opinions" , but realize others are doing the same.


----------



## Plainsman

It looks like there are many things we agree on, so why do you make up things you think I will say (I am sure you know better)? I think you are all for tile because you argue every way you can when I said I don't like it. That's support in the event you don't understand that. I say draining has caused problem, and there you are asking another 20 questions. So when I agree with you why is it you continue to try dump on me? If you have a need to jump on HSUS be my guest I'll help. 
If someone disagrees smack them back, but when you know someone will agree with you and you still smack them ----- somethings wrong in the upstairs.
Your not angry gst your in a rage and not hearing anything anyone says. Debate when disagreed with, but be thankful for support when you have it. Dumping on someone when you know they will agree is insane. Take a pill. For some insane reason you want me to disagree even when I do not. Get a grip on it. I don't want to be the reason for you being institutionalized. :wink:

Examples:
I think HSUS is nuts, you want people to think I like them.
I think the California chicken/egg thing is nuts, you want people to think I agree with it because I don't like the FB amendment.


> if a measure was introduced to ban tiling that plainsman would not at the very least sign it and support it.


If it was as vague as the FB amendment I would not sign or support it. It's not a simple ban or not ban.


> How about if there were a measure that limited when hay could be cut on private lands so that nesting waterfowl would not be disturbed?


I certainly would not support that. However, if it was land that I as a taxpayer was leasing I should have something to say about it. Would you lease land from a neighbor then let him seed and harvest it?


> How about a meaasure that made HE soils inelgible to be farmed??


It's your land do with it as you like. If you have a brain you will graze it or plant it to grass for hay. If your an idiot you will plant it to corn. If your an a hole you will expect the taxpayer to pay for your stupidity. 


> How about an measure which bans a legally defined form of ranching here in ND whose beginning was supported and encouraged by the ND ag dept.? ?


My preference would not be to ban them, but to restrict hunters from paying to hunt little pens.  I simply want to keep some form of sportsmanship in hunting, and keep it from becoming a rich man's sport or slob hunting.

You see gst you make many assumptions that don't even come close. I doubt you believe them yourself, but you want others to believe you. Your just ticked because you don't think anyone should be allowed to ask questions of anything you desire to do. I am simply against ag rip, rape, and run.


----------



## gst

It is my "opinion" that rather than having a constitutional amedment for this, a simple "truth in the creation of law" bill in our Century code would be a better attempt to deal with the issues driving this. If you come into ND and try to collect signatures to place a measure on the ballot, if you make claims you can not factually substantiate while advocating for your measure it would be disqualified from being on the ballot.

Simply require those wanting to create law to be held to a standard of truth in doing so. A novel idea I know given what takes place on this site and in past measure attempts, but one can dream. :wink:

But likely then a Federal judge would end up ruling on the state AG's ruling of what was "factual" and the "truth" and nothing would be gained. But it might get someone or soome group to stop and consider the consequences of making claims they can not factuall substantiate.

So here we are back to addressing our states constitution. All because some people beleive that imposing their ideologies on agriculture thru any means possible, factual or not, is their "right". So why then is it not agricultures "right" to protect itself thru any means possible as well and use the initiated measure process just as those who want to limit agriculture do?

Perhaps given what this country has become and the willingness of people to do "whatever it takes" or "say whatever it takes" to accomplish their agendas regardless of the lack of truth or fact to substantiate their claims , and justify it with their own reasoning, and use the legal system to further these agendas perhaps the only option left is to clutter up our constitution with this kind of thing.

I know, I know it is bringing up the HF deal again, but stop and look at who a group of ND hunters invited into our state (by their own admission in Dakota Country). They made a deal with the devil (HSUS is the nations leading anti hunting org.) to accomplish their agenda limiting what is legally defined as an agriculture endeavor. Say what you wish, but it was this initiated measure attempt and how it was done right here in ND as well as other ag directed measures happening around the country that is the driving force behind this measure.


----------



## Plainsman

> Simply require those wanting to create law to be held to a standard of truth in doing so. A novel idea I know given what takes place on this site and in past measure attempts, but one can dream


Don't loose any sleep gst we don't make laws on this site. Laws begin with people having opinions. Certain events drive the opinions of people sometimes in opposite directions because everyone "everyone" has an agenda. Then debates begin and fallacies are dealt with. More often than not the debates never become clear. Sometimes reason wins, and sometimes money wins. Money wins because of apathy. Look how many people don't want to talk about politics. I see that as an irresponsible citizen. So all they want is 30 second sound bites. That's how money wins over logic. In any event after all that is over we have law. Sometimes those laws are challenged.
The point is gst this is where we voice opinions. If you don't like those opinions prove them wrong. If someone doesn't accept your proof tough. I don't expect what I say to always be accepted, and I sure don't accept everything I hear. Your going to have to live with that since you have no choice. The wilder you get the more illogical you look. Have at it. :wink:

Hey, but that's just my opinion. :wink:

I do have one concern. I hope that my debating with you doesn't make people think all farmers are like you. In my opinion you give farmers a black eye and I truly don't want to hurt agriculture. Because I disagree with some ag practices doesn't mean I don't wish them the best. I only want to restrict the practices that hurt everyone some including them. Your angry with me gst because you don't have the training to understand the consequences of some of those things. I know little about agriculture and you know little about environment. I know the consequences of some ag practices after the effect. I know through accepted scientific procedures and reading publications. As a matter of fact for work I had to read over 200 publications on the Red River Watershed (including the Devils Lake Basin) . Some from a wildlife standpoint, many from an agriculture standpoint. Some pro drain, some anti drain. Some wetland, some hydrology, some recreation, some etc etc.


----------



## gst

Plaionsman if you want to share an "opinion" great, it is what makes this country the greatest in the world. But then identify it AS an opinion rather than insinuating more. 
A simple IMO in the front of your statement this measure would allow farmers to raise poppies, build feedlots where ever and begin using banned pesticides once again would let everyone know it is not fact and merely an "opinion". After all given your 36 years of research some on here might beleive you actually know what you are talking about when making these "opinions" and beleive them to be more than what they really are.



Plainsman said:


> It looks like there are many things we agree on, so why do you make up things you think I will say


Can't I have an "opinion" on here without being accused of "making things up"???  :wink: Heck I even identified my claim as an "opinion" right from the start!! 

Then simply directly answer the question so there is no confusion.

* What do you beleive agriculture should do in regards to the issues you do not agree with agriculture on*?

Why are YOUR ideologies regarding ag any more legitimate than HSUS's or the ELCA? I'm sure HSUS has spent 36 years "researching" animal agriculture!!! :wink:



Plainsman said:


> If you have a need to jump on HSUS be my guest I'll help.


Now you have me confused.  Earlier you claimed I was the "little boy crying wolf" in regards to bringing up HSUS in this thread about why this measure is needed. Now suddenly you wish to help??? :-?

Where was your "help" in the HF measure when I suggested HSUS would involve themselves when this door was opened?

Where was your "help" when the claims were made that someone from NDH for FC communicated with HSUS regarding their measure???

By the admission by Mike McEnroe in Dakota Country these things were proven true. So will you admit to what happened with the HF measure could happen with say veal production or confinement poultry production here in ND??? Perhaps the ELCA, a good Christian org. teams up with HSUS to give their agenda a degree of legitimacy in most peoples eyes and a campaign is run to ban veal production here in ND, There is a very small number of operations any more so why not target them and get this immoral "poor agricultural practice" banned?? Step by step one segment at a time.


----------



## Plainsman

> Perhaps the ELCA, a good Christian org.


Is that your opinion or are you stating fact? :wink: I think they are a liberal, environmental, social club.



> Can't I have an "opinion" on here without being accused of "making things up"???


You sure can, and do it all the time. Are you now suggesting it can be a two way street? Great, at last.



> After all given your 36 years of research some on here might beleive you actually know what you are talking about


I hope so, since I do think I know what I am talking about. For example without channel A Devils Lake would not be having the problems it has. Then we have our politicians putting off making any decisions until the problem gets even bigger. They will continue too, until we have a huge disaster. You think we have a lot of flooding now? I think this is just the beginning. Many will think drainage is the answer. I say doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity.

Now where did your last post go to that included these things????????

Now it's back, what's going on around here??????

Ahhh, more HSUS. Well, I don't like them or PETA, or ALF etc. I have not heard about ALF for years. Maybe they imploded. Anyway, lets say for example Obama came along and supported bow hunters controlling elk populations inside national parks rather than releasing wolves. Just because Obama is an idiot do you think I would turn down his help? If HSUS proposed $20 a bushel for wheat would you agree with them? We both dislike HSUS, but would we cut off our nose to spite our face?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Because I disagree with some ag practices doesn't mean I don't wish them the best. I only want to restrict the practices that hurt everyone some including them. Your angry with me gst because you don't have the training to understand the consequences of some of those things


]

And therein lies the thought process behind the need for this measure. Why is EVERY groups justification of their "training" which THEY claim gives them the insight to "restrict" ag practices any less legitimate than YOUR claims???? As I said I'm sure HSUS can claim to have "researched" and had "training" and quote their science in the field of animal agriculture for 36 years as well. Do you begin to see the point??? Why is YOUR science aimed at one narrow field of impact (wildlife and habitat) any more legitimate than ags science perhaps aimed at feeding a growing world population on declining arable lands or HSUS's science behind their agendas.

Take a step back and perhaps you can see why many in agriculture beleive something like this measure is necessary.



Plainsman said:


> Then debates begin and fallacies are dealt with


Wouldn't it be much easier in the case of initiated measures to hold people to a standard of truth when advocating for their measure in order to get it on the ballot???

painsman, think of all the time and "debating" that could have been saved over a measure on the last ballot!!!  :wink: Some of us tried to expose these "fallacies" and I beleive you were one of the loudest people trying to shut that up. So please excuse me if I do not buy into your sudden magnanimous ideologies.

Hell I simply try to point out a "fallacy" on here and threads get locked on this site!!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I hope so, since I do think I know what I am talking about.


So is that merely your "opinion" or are you stating fact ??????  :wink: Perhaps if you had actually known no till planting was being used as a farming practice, well you know.... :wink:



Plainsman said:


> ? If HSUS proposed $20 a bushel for wheat would you agree with them?


Actually NO I would not. Unlike some I will draw a line in the sand regarding somethings. HSUS has clearly demonstrated their agendas and I will not support ANYTHING they propose. For anything they propose there is a legitimate org that supports whatever simply for whatevers purpose, not as a means to further an agenda to end things such as animal ag and hunting.

I know given your involvement in NDH for FC and defending them against others claims they would involve the nations leading anti hunting org in their agendas (which by their own admission they did) you may not understand this, but so be it.


----------



## Plainsman

> Hell I simply try to point out a "fallacy" on here and threads get locked on this site!!


Now gst you know very well that's not why they are locked. Lets stick to the truth shall we?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman wrote:
> ? If HSUS proposed $20 a bushel for wheat would you agree with them?
> 
> Actually NO I would not.


Well since your a rancher lets put this another way. Lets say Obama proposes artificially holding beef below .50/lb so poor people can afford it, and HSUS proposes a price for ranchers of $3/lb to reduce red meat consumption. Who would you support?



> painsman, think of all the time and "debating" that could have been saved over a measure on the last ballot!!!


So your saying just do things your way and stop asking questions?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> That's not why threads get locked. I have explained that to you in PM's. This isn't the place to talk about that


plainsman I have learned about the things you tell me in PM's. Such as NDH for FC and communications with HSUS when you were involved with them, recall those PM's. I have learned better than to discuss much of anything with you in PM's.

This is "hot topics", even by Chris Hustads statement in the "hot topics" thread, if you can not take the heat, stay out of "hot topics". It seems as a moderator when ever the "heat" gets turned up on calling you out on claims you make regarding agriculture that you can not substantiate a thread gets locked. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Now gst, stick to the truth. You know why those threads got locked because I told you why before I did it. Still you insisted. I get the feeling your headed that way again. Don't try break the sandbox simply because you can not have your way. Debate all you want. Give the opinions you want. But if I don't agree don't get destructive.

Get back to the real subject gst. Hint: the subject is not me, the subject is not nodakoutdoors. I will not be led into a personal whiz match with you.

The subject gst is the FB constitutional amendment. You said it's to vague to support. I agree.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Well since your a rancher lets put this another way. Lets say Obama proposes artificially holding beef below .50/lb so poor people can afford it, and HSUS proposes a price for ranchers of $3/lb to reduce red meat consumption. Who would you support?


I would support the "right" of a beef producer to use the free market to establish what price a consumer is willing to pay for a safe wholesome product without govt intervention. Kind of like the resolution NDFB passed opposing govt subsidies in ag production. :wink:

$3 ??? Have you been to the grocery store lately??? HSUS better up their bid. And by the way, those "poor people" you speak of can get their beef for nothing thru the taxpayer funded food stamp program that is included in the ag budget that is, what did you claim, "second only to defense" in spending of taxpayer dollars???

You must not have "researched" that claim in any of your previous 36 years!  :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> $3 ??? Have you been to the grocery store lately???


I said:


> price for ranchers of $3/lb


Rancher gst, rancher, not grocery story, rancher. Now tell me if you would support $.50/lb or $3.00/lb, or would you tell them all to shove it and take what your getting now?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now gst, stick to the truth. You know why those threads got locked because I told you why before I did it.


So you are claiming I am trying to "wreck the sand box"????? If this "sand box is so fragile that it can not withstand a few simple questions about how it's moderators are allowed to operate it has much bigger problems than any comments I might make. Which by the way since they are only so much bull in your "opinion" these comment should really have no negative affect on the "sandbox" at all.

So follow your own advise and "stick to the truth" about why the threads really got locked. You were called out for making claims against ag you could not factually back up and instead of simply either just admitting you were wrong or that there was a motive for making them you continue to try and justrify your actions. (recall all the "please show me's" regarding claims you have made that you have still not answered???)



Plainsman said:


> Get back to the real subject gst. Hint: the subject is not me


Nor is it me.

It is why many in ag feel there is a need for some means to address what was attempted last fall right here in ND and how it was done, as well as many other examples around the country of people or organizations who simply do not agree with a "farming practice" based on their own ideologies and wish to ban or restrict it. You have admitted here that is EXACTLY what you wish to do based off your own ideologies and agenda.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Rancher gst, rancher, not grocery story, rancher. Now tell me if you would support $.50/lb or $3.00/lb, or would you tell them all to shove it and take what your getting now


So how many of those "poor people" buy their beef directly "from the rancher" rather than the grocery store??? :-?



Plainsman said:


> Well since your a rancher lets put this another way. Lets say Obama proposes artificially holding beef below .50/lb so poor people can afford it, and *HSUS proposes a price for ranchers of $3/lb to reduce red meat consumption*. Who would you support?


Well okay then, :roll: The govt already has a program to provide "poor people" with access to nutritious proteins such as beef, and the HSUS agenda by your own admission is to "reduce red meat consumption" so why would I "support" either policy???

As to what I will take, I will be an active advocate for the beef industry to tell our story factually and honestly dispite what others may claim in statements they can not substantiate to tell consumers all over the globe as well as here at home the beef industries story. I will strive to produce a wholesome, nutritious product in a manner in which consumers demand and are willing to pay their hard earned dollars for in a stewardship manner wich will ensure the opportunity for future generations. After my attempts to do these things, hopefully my costs (which are the largest part influenced any more by regulatory costs) do not overrun my revenues and I can continue to do this and provide an opportunity for the next generation financially to do so as well, free from excessive and unreasonable regulation and restriction or outright banning by groups or individuals who beleive their agenda is more important than mine and future generations livlihood in food production.

Perhaps if this measure provides an opportunity to do so in the face of ideologies of restrictions based on perceived knowledge by some that feel THEIR research and knowledge based on THEIR ideologies overides everyone elses, perhaps it is time to support a measure such as this after all.

plainsman you continueally make remarcks about how my comments influence others, consider your comments and actions and take a look in the mirror as to why this measure even exists.


----------



## Plainsman

So how about that $3/lb for ranchers?

Now you sound like you support the FB amendment. Before in a post you said it was vague and you didn't know if you would support it. Have you changed your mind? It would appear so. I say it's to vague, and you said it's to vague. Where is our grounds for debate?

No gst, no thread has ever been locked because you expressed your opinion on a thread subject.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So how about that $3/lb for ranchers?


Plainsman, I tell you what, if you want to pay me $3.00 a pound live weight for any beef animal I have on my place (hell I'll even take that dressed wt. ) I will certainly take it.  I will even turn it loose in a pasture and you can dress up in your coonskin hat and bucksins and shoot it with your muzzleloader if you like. :wink:



Plainsman said:


> No gst, no thread has ever been locked because you expressed your opinion on a thread subject


Right......

It looks as if it is done sprinkling so back outside I go. You keep telling yourself you didn't lock those threads because someone took you to task for making claims you could not substantiate. Meanwhile I will just continue waiting for your answers to the various "please show me's" I asked you to provide any form of factual proof to back up to the claims you made! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now you sound like you support the FB amendment


After listening to your beleif that your superior knowledge should allow you to restrict ag pratices and realizing the limited scope that knowledge actually has concerning modern day ag practices ( you know that not till deal) and considering the claims you have made regarding agriculture in the past that you did not ever substantiate, what I have said is perhaps it is time to support a measure such as this.

As you see, it is your own arrogance and that of others like you that beleive you know what is best for agriculture based on YOUR ieologies that has driven this whole deal. You critisize ECLA for doing the exact same thing you are doing, basing restrictions of agriculture on your own personal beleifs.


----------



## Plainsman

> basing restrictions of agriculture on your own personal beleifs.


What do you base your opinions on. Do you have any opinions about habitat? Do you have any opinions about environment? I would guess you do, and I would also guess you know little about each. Still you have opinion right? You may even think you know a lot about both right?



> After listening to your beleif


I understand that, because you do the same for me. You see that's how it works. If I tick of some people and they don't think I make sense they will support the amendment. On the other hand if they think I make more sense than you they will not support the amendment. I could have told you before we seen the amendment that you would support it. Now talk about insight. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> What do you base your opinions on.


Facts, you should try it! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base your opinions on.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts, you should try it! :wink:
Click to expand...

gst, you should know bs isn't facts. :wink: Look at your statement about why threads get locked. I know for certain why they were locked. Your not even guessing, you also know why they are locked but posted otherwise. Facts you say???? How about those facts why Devils Lake is having problems. How about those facts involving the fair chase committee? You may have got some right I don't know, but I also know you got some wrong. Don't give me that fact line gst when you don't follow it.

Now, have you got any facts why or why the FB amendment should not be accepted? Don't dance around a dozen other subjects try addressing the real subject.

Odd isn't how one persons facts is another's bs. See we think the same thing of each others posts. The difference is out of the hundreds of people read this your the only one that doesn't get it, but I'll bet I can keep you going for another ten pages and you stil want get it. :wink: I could keep you going another 20 pages if I asked you how many George's you make at pay hunt pheasants. :rollin: Page 4 and counting.


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, oh


----------



## gst

plainsman so there is no misunderstanding please explain to everyone why you locked those threads in the "hot topics" segment of this site where the administrator of the site has said if you can not take the heat stay out of this particular forum.


----------



## Plainsman

I explained it in PM's to you and on the site. I felt uneasy then because it was personal. If people are really that curious they can go back and read those locked threads. I don't like saying things that simply hurt peoples feelings and accomplish nothing. Why would you want to put yourself through this again? Sure I give you back as much as you put out, but I see nothing constructive about telling you these things in public ----again. I felt bad doing it the first time, but you wouldn't read the PM's at that time. If you have deleted those PM's I can send you another.

You get so bossy with your demands that it's humorous to a point, but enough is enough. I don't feel like chewing on you, so if you don't throw out anymore bs I will not follow up. I would ask you that even if you have no respect for my opinions please have respect for the opinions of others. I'm not asking you to pretend to agree, just pretend to be courteous.

This is from another thread, and I felt really bad saying it, so please lets not go in that direction again.



> If you don't want things personal gst don't make them personal. This is getting far to personal and I would have dropped it long ago, but every time I try you attack like this and I have to respond or people may believe it. I doubt you were ever kicked off this site your simply looking for sympathy. However, you could have been kicked off many times over. We bend over backwards for you simply as an example that we are not prejudice. You know it and have used us. No one has ever gotten away with breaking so many rules. One reader actually pointed that out to you some time ago.
> Now your starting another dogfight to try drag us in the mud. I will not crawl in the mud with you gst. Knock it off.
> 
> I apologize to the readers for speaking this way in public, but I can not get a response and some people refuse to PM. If I am ignored in PM's this is my only option.
> 
> Since there is no discussion left and only personal attack I will again lock it. For those who would liked to have further discussed the subject I apologize.


----------



## gst

As to why this amendment is even being presented. By your own admission that if agriculture does something YOU do not agree with you beleive it should be restricted fits perfectly with the ideologies the ELCA, HSUS and any number of others have.

The examples and consequences right here in ND of the ban on horse slaughter ( on a national level) and how it was acheived thru activist judges and the failed measure of which you were a part of to ban a legally defined agricultural enterprise and how that fiasco was done are two shining examples of the kinds of people and orgs that will say or do anything(even making a deal with the devil himself or in one case themselves, HSUS and NDH for FC) to further their agendas to restrict ag practices they do not agree with.

I wish this measure would have been worded in a manner that would not have given people reason to buy into the wild baseless claims people like you have and will continue to make regarding this measure. (recall your unsubstantiated claims this will allow farmers to used previously banned chemicals and build feedlots where ever they wish, and remember your claim farmers will start raisng poppies to produce heroin if this passes you back pedaled from when called on it :roll: ) But it is clear from the rhetoric and veiws you take claiming to be "supporting" ag as long as ag capitulates to YOUR demands or else you push to restrict it is a perfect example why the concept behind this measure is justified.

You repeatedly accuse me of wanting to destroy the sandbox (this site) :roll: . It appears by your own words you beleive agriculture is YOUR sandbox and unless everyone in it plays by YOUR rules you would "restrict" them. It seems you know more about what constitutes an oligarchy than you maybe letting on!! :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman, do not worry about hurting my feelings, you will not. So spell it out plainly why you chose to lock those threads.



Plainsman said:


> I doubt you were ever kicked off this site your simply looking for sympathy


Perhaps you should talk with the administrator of this site Mr. Hustad before you accuse me of lying about being kicked off this site and why it happened and why I was put back on.

If calling somone out for making statements that are not true that they can not substantiate as truth when they are asked is personal, than indeed I have gotten personal. But please do not be so blind as to not look in the mirror first when accusing others.

To borrow an analogy you have used previously.

If the pig is flinging mud all over, it usually takes getting a little muddy to put the pig in it's place and keep him from flinging mud. :wink:

plainsman have I ever jumped on you in regards to any hunting threads, shooting threads political threads??? So as I have stated all this can come to a simple end. It is in your court. Simply do not make claims regarding agriculture you can not substantiate and I would have little reason to be on this site taking you to task for the claims you make.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I could keep you going another 20 pages if I asked you how many George's you make at pay hunt pheasants


And for the "record" I could give two ****s about your claims regarding ME, after all you have accused me of running a HF operation, being a HSUS member, amoungst other things, all of which I have politely asked you to substantiate and you have not. IT IS WHEN YOU INSINUATE MY 15 YEAR OLD SON IS "MAKING GEORGES" OFF THE PHEASANTS HE RASIES as you did in another thread that I take exception to the snide, ignorant arrogance. Particularily when you are not considerate enough to even offer an apology.

So tell yourself as you look in the mirror that making insinuations towards a fine young man you have never met simply because he is my son that you do not get "personal" on this site. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> If the pig is flinging mud all over, it usually takes getting a little muddy to put the pig in it's place and keep him from flinging mud.


Are you saying I have said that? I have said I will not get in the mud, but please show me the above statement. I would actually feel bad if I talked that way to someone. Sure sometimes frustration makes people feel that way, but saying it???

Ya, I know asking you if you make "George's" growing pheasants is tripping your trigger and I should have known better.



> plainsman, do not worry about hurting my feelings, you will not. So spell it out plainly why you chose to lock those threads.


I already did that. It's like your questions. No matter how many times a person answers them you keep asking the same question.

plainsman have I ever jumped on you in regards to any hunting threads, shooting threads political threads??? So as I have stated all this can come to a simple end. It is in your court. Simply do not make claims regarding agriculture you can not substantiate and I would have little reason to be on this site taking you to task for the claims you make.plainsman, do not worry about hurting my feelings, you will not. So spell it out plainly why you chose to lock those threads.



Plainsman said:


> I doubt you were ever kicked off this site your simply looking for sympathy


Perhaps you should talk with the administrator of this site Mr. Hustad before you accuse me of lying about being kicked off this site and why it happened and why I was put back on.

If calling somone out for making statements that are not true that they can not substantiate as truth when they are asked is personal, than indeed I have gotten personal. But please do not be so blind as to not look in the mirror first when accusing others.

To borrow an analogy you have used previously.

If the pig is flinging mud all over, it usually takes getting a little muddy to put the pig in it's place and keep him from flinging mud. :wink:



> plainsman have I ever jumped on you in regards to any hunting threads, shooting threads political threads??? So as I have stated all this can come to a simple end. It is in your court. Simply do not make claims regarding agriculture you can not substantiate and I would have little reason to be on this site taking you to task for the claims you make.


You have never bothered me on any other thread. On the political thread I would guess we would more often agree than disagree. Actually if we brought up every farm practice I would guess we would agree on 90 percent of them. I'm baffled why you feel so strongly about shutting me up. However, since it's a free world I will continue to express my opinions in many places, not just here. I will call my representatives often. I do think this is a wonderful site where sportsmen can talk about many things. I enjoy the rifle form, archery form and others very much. I have a few thins I would like to pass on before they shovel dirt in my face. So I have a mother hen complex and one thing that bothers me is when someone bad mouths the site. I also don't like it when someone bad mouths those who have contributed to the site for many years, and I don't mean myself.

Respect will get respect. I have always looked at those who demand it and thought to myself, they demand it because they are incapable of earning it. I think you can earn it gst, but you make a lot of demands for a person not in position to make demands. Have you noticed how few demands I make. I know I should make more, but I guess I have something to prove. I always feel I have to prove I'm not just fair, but more than fair. You should know that more than anyone. I would appreciate not being led into anymore personal discussions.


----------



## Bad Dog

I find it highly unlikely that the reason the fb believes they need to trash our consitution is solely because of the hsus. I find it more believeable that the fb believes they need to trash our constitution because the fb does not want anyone to infringed on the elected process of draining wetlands, tiling, converting native prairie, converting CRP, planting GMOs, applying whichever chemical they want to the land, etc., etc..

The fb needs to be reeled in and stopped from trashing our constitution. Farming is not a right!


----------



## gst

Bad dog, there is a myriad of reasons why many in agriculture beleive there should be some means of protecting agriculture from excessive, unreasonable restriction and regulation and indeed the agendas of grops like HSUS to end animal agriculature by ANY means they can is a significant one.

Wether this needs to be done thru a constitutional amendment, I really do not know. The way the judicial system is used by these groups to further agendas by having sympathetic judges with the same ideologies overide state issues and regulations what is the answer?



Plainsman said:


> Are you saying I have said that? I have said I will not get in the mud, but please show me the above statement.


Plainsman, my mistake, I should have said I am using a "variant" of your analogy. But please explain to us what the difference between the entire quote you used and the above is. Both refer to an "individual" as a pig in the mud.



Plainsman said:


> I'm baffled why you feel so strongly about shutting me up





gst said:


> Simply do not make claims regarding agriculture you can not substantiate


plainsman, once again please show me where I have ever told you or suggested you should "shut up". Perhaps you are confusing swift and ron having told me! :wink:  Please read the above quote where you are being asked to simply stop making claims regarding agriculture you can not substantiate as fact. Much different thatn being told to shut up as you claim.

Did you make the claim you think this measure will allow feedlots to be built by rivers so the water can carry manure away. yes or no?
Can you substantiate this claim yes or no?

If you had merely ASKED will this measure allow feedlots to be built by a river so the water will carry away the manure so to calrify, it is one thing, but you are insinuating something in your claim. BIG difference.

I tell you what to understand why many in ag beleive something like this is needed, please answer these questions.
Plainsman do you beleive agriculture should be restricted based off YOUR ideologies? Yes or no.

Then answer this why are YOUR ideologies that YOU beleive should restrict ag any more legitimate than the ELCA's or HSUS's???

These questions are not personal, they are directly tied to the debate over this ammendment and will shed some light on the questions some have asked why this is beleived to be necessary. So if you truly are concerned with "debating" this issue please answer.


----------



## gst

From the ND State Constitution:

Section 7. Every citizen of this state shall be free to obtain employment wherever
possible, *and any person, corporation, or agent thereof, maliciously interfering or hindering in any
way, any citizen from obtaining or enjoying employment already obtained, from any other
corporation or person, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.*

Perhaps this amendment is considered by agriculture to be their "right to work" section of the constitution. As stated I do not know if it has been worded the best, but perhaps given what is in our constitution already, protection of this "right" is not entirely out of line.

Given how the measure to ban HFH (wether you wish to talk about it or not or agree with it, it is a legally defined agricultural enteprise) was worded to side step the constitution in banning a private agricultural enterprise without having to deal with the "takings" requirement (compensation for the removal of the ability of a private individual to use his property to create value) as guaranteed in the Constitution, perhaps it was a wakeup call for agriculture here in ND.


----------



## Plainsman

> simply stop making claims regarding agriculture


As long as we are reading constitutions try the American constitution. Specifically the first one.


----------



## gst

plainsman which Constitution is this measure dealing with? If you truly wish to debate the issue of this measure please answer directly the questions I asked of you.



gst said:


> Plainsman do you beleive agriculture should be restricted based off YOUR ideologies? Yes or no.
> 
> why are YOUR ideologies that YOU beleive should restrict ag any more legitimate than the ELCA's or HSUS's???


----------



## gst

plainsman does the 1st amendment of our US Constitution regarding freedom of speach give you the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire?

The Constitution while regarding freedom of speach as an unalienable right also understands the responsibilities and consequences of abuse of that right and holds those that do accountable. Freedom of speach does not give you the right to say whatever you wish without consequence.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman does the 1st amendment of our US Constitution regarding freedom of speach give you the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire?


No, but it means your demands are absolutely meaningless. The sooner you understand that the better off you will be.

You consider grey literature substantiating your claim, but they are closer to simple opinion themselves. They are not subject to review of their raw data, or their statistical analysis. You have little more than anyone else. Don't talk to us about our opinions then present nearly meaningless references as proof.

Your not understanding us gst. Everyone on this site has the right to their opinion no matter how much or how little they know. I'm sorry, but your not as special as your mother told you. You have no more rights than anyone else. You have no authority to stifle conversation. Get over yourself please.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I'm sorry, but your not as special as your mother told you.


That hurt!  you should try not to get so "personal" :wink:

plainsman you are abcolutely right, everyone on this site has the "right" to make claims they can not substantiate, you have most certainly proven that. And when this is done someone else has the "right" to call them on it and ask that they substantiate them with factual proof. And when the person making the claim does not, the people reading can decide for themselves wether what they say is actually factual or not. It would just be nice for EVERYONE if you would simply stop making claims you can not substantiate regarding agriculture so I could have a break from calling you on them!! 

So now that we have identified and accepted our roles on this site  why not get back to debating the topic of this thread. A good start would be answering these question if you would.



gst said:


> gst wrote:
> Plainsman do you beleive agriculture should be restricted based off YOUR ideologies? Yes or no.
> 
> why are YOUR ideologies that YOU beleive should restrict ag any more legitimate than the ELCA's or HSUS's???


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You have no authority to stifle conversation


No that apparently is reserved for others to do by locking threads in a forum they are not even a moderator in! :wink:

Since it appears you have taken control of this site, do I have the "authority" to ask for it to be factually accurate when directed at the industry that is my livihood? 

The questions are starting to pile up plainsman, perhaps you should try answering one or two!

It would be nice to get the answer to at least the two relating to the topic of this thread the NDFB measure that I have asked a number of times that you have ducked answering directly.



gst said:


> gst wrote:
> Plainsman do you beleive agriculture should be restricted based off YOUR ideologies? Yes or no.
> 
> why are YOUR ideologies that YOU beleive should restrict ag any more legitimate than the ELCA's or HSUS's???


----------



## Bad Dog

gst


> Section 7. Every citizen of this state shall be free to obtain employment wherever
> possible, and any person, corporation, or agent thereof, maliciously interfering or hindering in any
> way, any citizen from obtaining or enjoying employment already obtained, from any other
> corporation or person, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.


I would bet that this section of the ND Constitution is refering to individual's right "for" empolyment. Meaning that an individual can not be discriminated against when seeking employment. It does not "guarantee" an individual a "right" to work in whatever discipline they wish.


----------



## Plainsman

> Since it appears you have taken control of this site


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: 
No one is simple minded enough to let you drive that wedge gst, but good try.

gst, I have no intention of answering any of your questions anymore. If I do it will have been asked by someone else.

Bad Dog, your absolutely right about what FB intentions are. From what I can remember they have never done anything friendly for sportsmen, or towards the environment. To me they appear very short sighted thinking only of a buck today and to heck with tomorrow. As a matter of fact I often think some of the things they do simply are not farmer friendly. Perhaps they like to see setbacks for farmers so they can convince them they need them. I sort of felt that way last fall when the NRA endorsed Harry Reid in Nevada. Since he is anti gun perhaps they need a few of those idiot types proposing new laws so they can cry the sky is falling and get us to pump more money to them. It was a stupid move, and I think I see FB and FU doing those same kind of things.
If we think about swifts post, which I followed up on and found on their website, it would appear they don't want any public land. I think they want all current public land auctioned off. Can you begin to comprehend that nightmare? Once all the land is theirs what would be the price for hunting pheasants for a day (here's your chance gst)? Most want $100 dollars now, but I can see where they would start asking more. Deer would be out of my price range. Hunter numbers would decrease by 90% leaving us no political clout, and we wouldn't care because we couldn't afford to hunt anyway. I see ELCA as more dangerous to farming than HSUS and North Dakota Farm Bureau more dangerous to hunting than the anti gun people. 
Your right Bad Dog we need to reign in the NDFB. Many of these groups started out with good intentions but have gone astray. The unions are no good anymore, the NDFB is no good anymore, many of the churches are worse than worthless and it keeps getting worse. 
Unfortunately the greedy love all this. Take every penney you can get from anyone, and it's even better when you don't work for it. We see that at the voting booth now. A willingness to give up freedom if mother government will take care of us. A willingness to vote for those who will take from the productive and give to us. A willingness to support organizations that will take advantage of others for us.


----------



## gst

Bad dog, ND is a "right to work" state. This section of our constitution has less to do about discrimination based on gender or race ect... than it does on unions and the like "controling" who may work. I know it is not an apples to apples comparison, but hey it seems as if anything can be thrown out there so I thought I'd give it a shot! :wink:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Since it appears you have taken control of this site, do I have the "authority" to ask for it to be factually accurate when directed at the industry that is my livihood?


Plainsman you seem to have not noticed the smiley face icon indicating brevity at the end of the statement!  No "wedge intended, simply trying to determine what YOUR ground rules are since it seems it is YOU that is taking it upon yourself to lock threads and "stifle conversation" :wink:

As to those questions you have indeed admitted beleiveing agriculture should be restricted based on your beleifs. So we do know the answer to that one. And given your years of experience researching agriculture by building traps for tiger salamanders back in the 90's, I would guess HSUS's claims to be "legitimate" authorities on agricultural practices or those of the ELCA should carry as much weight!  Note the smiley icon indicating brevity!

It is interesting to listen to peoples veiw points on agricuture that have no real basis of involvement or understanding. Like it or not plainsman your 36 years of "research " at the Northern Prarie Science Center trapping salamanders, (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/herp ... /index.htm) would likely not give you the ag based inight into developement of new farming practices aimed at better stewardship of the land such as no till corn planting as you wish people to beleive. It is when individuals or orgs such as the ELCA HSUS or retired Federal biologists start claiming they know more about agriculture than anyone else so their "agendas" are furthered and agriculture "restricted" based on their ideologies that one should think about saying wait a minute, how does trapping salamanders, preaching or raising money that does not go to pet shelters but to fund an agenda to end animal ag lead to understanding new advances in farming or ranching practices that are designed to have a friendlier impact on the enviroment and land stewardship or animal husbandry that are happening as we speak . In this case 36 years of "research" clearly did not provide the background understanding of agriculture to make this possible. It is amazing the soil health and profile in these fields that have been notill planted :wink:

But hey what does agriculture know about the reality of feeding a growing population on fewer arable lands. Clearly we should let HSUS, ELCA and retired salamander trappers figure this out and "restrict" ag however they wish.  :wink:

Plainsman please do everyone on this site a favor and try not making claims regarding agriculture you can not substantiate. I've got hay to put up, I can;t be on here taking you to task for these "opinions" all the time!  Notice I asked nice, even saying please instead of "demanding"! :wink:


----------



## gst

As to the claims this amendment will allow rampant abuse and misuse by agriculture please weigh the following and consider how it would be applied. Particularily the emboldened underline portion.

From the ND COnstitution.

Section 21.* No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;* nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
citizens.

It has been an interesting debate and we have seen individuals personal ideologies regarding agriculture hright here in ND as to why agriculture feels the need for something like this, now perhaps if people would like to stop making wild accusations about what this will allow and perhaps ask how this amendment fits with the latter part of this Sec 21 it will likely need to be addressed. Hopefully by someone that understands Constitutional law and simply wishes to set the record straight rather than those that have a self pronounced "willie" over this particular ag group. The integrity of our state Constitution and the debate regarding this measure deserves no less. IMHO. :wink:


----------



## shaug

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add, 'with the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson

Plainsman, Thomas Jefferson had it figured out a long time ago. You keep reminding us of your 1st Amendment rights and others or your equal rights.

Plainsman wrote,



> I do have one concern. I hope that my debating with you doesn't make people think all farmers are like you. In my opinion you give farmers a black eye and I truly don't want to hurt agriculture. Because I disagree with some ag practices doesn't mean I don't wish them the best. I only want to restrict the practices that hurt everyone some including them.


YOU ONLY WANT TO RESTRICT THE PRACTICES THAT HURT EVERYONE SOME INCLUDING THEM?????????????

Well that does it for me. I am going to collect signatures. When FB gets the sigs and when the people pass it, the measure will have to go before the legislature who then will have to draw up some parameters. If restrictions are placed on activists like you then so be it. People employed in AG have more important things to do in a day then debate, campaign, fight and go to meetings all dang day. The elk and deer producers went through six years of that crap.

Plainsman, If you are so passionate about "your" equal rights and the equal rights of "others" then let Farm Bureau put it to a vote of the people. What are you afraid of????????

Let the people decide.


----------



## Bad Dog

shaug - please explain to me how littering our constitution with non-right dribble is going to benefit the ag community? Let's say there is a consitutional amendment saying the rights of farmers shall not be infringed upon. ok, so how is that going to benefit the ag community? What will the ag community do differently than what they are currently doing? I say nothing will change except the decrease in substance of our constitution.

If all you want is a show of wupport for ag, well we all support ag to some degree. yes, we understand where our food comes from, yes we need ag. we will not support all of ag but don't trivialize the constitution.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog,

Sometimes things have to be added. Here are the two "very last additions" to the State Constitution.

Are they non-right drivel (slobber)????????? Please answer.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/constitution/const.pdf

Section 27. Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued
part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and
regulation for the public good.

Section 28. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No
other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the
same or substantially equivalent legal effect.


----------



## Plainsman

shaug, here is one of the things that bothers me. Does a landowner north of Devils Lake have more rights than a property owner in Devils Lake, Valley City, Fargo, or Grand Forks? My point is was the constitution drawn to give more rights to 1000 acres if land than one acre. Do the rights belong with the property or the individual. If it is with the individual as I believe then why do people on large trackts of land have the ability to flood out what I see as neighbors downstream, some of them fellow farmers. Not everyone who lives in town has thick spectacles and sits behind a desk.

I don't see standing against the FB as anti farmers. In some cases farmers with less clout could be hurt. Those who live incities will pay heavy taxes to protect their homes from those who have a new constitutional right to flood them. This is only good for those who wish to run rampant.

Shaug, seriously was your mind to support FB not made up long ago? We had one fellow on here a few years ago that said if we didn't agree with him he was going to post all of his land. Then I got a PM from one of his neighbors who sighned up on the site. He said the guy has posted every acre for the last 20 years and will not even let neighbors on. My point is I think you supported FB all along, always have, and always will. I doubt we have lost anything because of our viewpoint.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> I don't see standing against the FB as anti farmers. In some cases farmers with less clout could be hurt. Those who live incities will pay heavy taxes to protect their homes from those who have a new constitutional right to flood them. *This is only good for those who wish to run rampant.*


Taking your scenario, let's apply it to the hunting right/preservation that was added to the constitution. Has it now allowed hunters to run rampant and ignore current laws? Do some hunters because they have more access and more money than others hurt other hunters? Do hunters in Devils Lake have more rights than hunters in Grand Forks or Fargo? Are hunters with less clout hurt?

Unless you mean running rampant allows farmers to do what is already legal and something you don't agree with, say for instance "farmed" elk.

You sure do get a lot of PMs!


----------



## Plainsman

> No "wedge intended, simply trying to determine what YOUR ground rules are


I guess that does require an answer or I can't gripe.

I know next to my avatar it says supporting member, but there is a group of us that are super mods that moderate all forms. I am one of them. If you want to know about rules simply read the ones on the site. I enjoy many of the forms on this site. They are informative, relaxing, and let me share some things I know before they shovel dirt in my face. We moderators make nothing doing this it's just our way of paying back a site we feel privileged to be on. Because of these things I have a bit of a mother hen complex. One thing that does anger me is people complaining about a site that provides much for them. You can complain about my belief, you can complain about my knowledge, you can complain about many things but I don't tolerate well complaining about the site or how it's moderated.


----------



## LT

Plainsman,

It angers you that people complain about a site that provides much for them, but what about the people that have come here because the harm this site may have done to them. Myself and a lot of other people (who are now banned, i.e. DG) would not have even been here if not for how this site was used for an agenda against the elk growers (farmers/ranchers with less clout as they are so few) to take away their businesses, an agenda nevertheless taken on by some MODERATORS of this site, yourself included. Let's not forget 11 of the original sponsors against the elk growers came from this site, some of them moderators. You told GST you were baffled why he would want you to shut up. Totally ironic in that approximately 4 years ago many who spoke for the elk growers were stifled, shut up and booted from this site by moderators , and you then accuse others of trying to ruin the sandbox. Look in the mirror.


----------



## Plainsman

LT you keep offering that story, and if someone was banned it was for breaking the rules, not their opinion. Any site that is dominated by hunters and fishermen is perhaps going to have the same attitudes that this site does. Many didn't see hunting captured animals as sport. You run a successful propaganda campaign with many thousands of dollars from outside of North Dakota. People bought into the sky is falling so you won. Some on the side I supported made mistakes also. They thought letting HSUS pay for adds wouldn't hurt. It couldn't hurt that specific election, but it continues to hurt reputations now. Big mistake. I didn't like it either. As a matter of fact I would liked to have seen a measure that limited hunters and not landowners. Only the future will tell each of us if we were right or wrong.


----------



## Bad Dog

Shaug-This is the problem with long threads such as this. I find myslef guilty of this at times as well. In response to your last post, please look at the very first post I had. Here's the quote [quoteSeveral years ago when the proposal to add an amendment to the ND constitution about a 'right' to hunt I was against it as I was concerned that 1) Hunting is not a 'right' and 2) then the NDFB would have an amendment to have a 'right' to farm anyway they want. Well, here it is.

These are not rights that should be guaranteed by the constitution. Constitutional 'rights' are inalienable rights for 'all' citizens, not a select few. Heck, I think I should have a constitutional 'right' to forgoe any of my debts, a 'right' to own a section of land, a 'right' to shop at Walmart on Sunday mornings. WTH?

What is the NDFB so concerned about that we need to litter the constitution with things like this? Last time I checked, farming is not under any threat from ending.][/quote]

Again I will state that I was, and still am against placing NON-RIGHT items, be it "the 'right' to hunt" or "the 'right' to farm" in our Constitution. The Constitution is designed to give EVERY human being very special, certain inalienable RIGHTS. RIGHTS such as freedom of speech without the fear of retrobution, the right to unjust searches of, the most basic of human rights. Hunting in America is a hobby, farming in America is an elected occupation, and marriage is America is an elected status.


----------



## gst

Bad dog, As I said earlier, I tend to agree messing with our constitutions wether state or Federal is not something to be taken lightly. But take a look at our state constitution, there already are a number of things included beyond what you listed in your last post.

And so I have to ak you a question. How familiar are you with HSUS and the campaigns they have run in numerous states aimed at and some times succesfully ending an animal ag industry? Take the time to do a little digging. Animal ag must also accept the responsibilities of realizing society is farther removed from the farm than what it ever was and the campaigns against what used to be widely accepted practices has shown that they no longer are "widely accepted" . The trouble lies in how these campaigns are waged. I could fill this site with unsubstantiated claims that are outright lies that HSUS and others have insinuated against animal ag. And becasue of the distance society has from the farm anymore what one would have been readily dismissed as "wild accusations" are being accepted by people who have lost that connection to where and how their food is produced. We in ag need to do a better job of proactively telling our story, but we also must address these false claims whenever and whereever they are made towards agriculture. It is more important now than ever as the people who are making them realize society has grown far enough away from ag thru generational removal to begin to beleive these mistruthes.

PLEASE do not think groups like HSUS and others are not targeting states that are not taking precautions to prevent their agendas of ENDING animal agriculture one species, one step at a time.

We have seen firsthand in this dialogue how some think ag should be restricted based on their ideologies regardless of the impact to ag as a result of their lack of knowledge or understanding of ag in their agendas. As the gap mentioned above widens as fewer and fewer people of each generation are involved in ag, the likelyhood of these groups and individuals with ideological based agendas will increase. So if you would please explain how we can keep what happened to the horse industry from happening to say the veal industry, and once the veal industry has been banned how about the poultry industry, and once the poultry industry has been restricted how about the dairy industry ect..... . Explain how once agendas are passed in enough other states that a ruling by a Federal judge might not impose these restrictions nation wide?? Explain to me why I can not get $100 dollars for a unwanted horse that a few short years ago would have brought $700. Then explain to me how what has happened in the horse industry has benefited ag, the horse industry or even horses themselves.

If you do not want to see this measure happen, please come up with an alternative to allow ag to protect itself from these agenda driven campaigns nd still remainn a viable industry that is tasked with feeding more and more people on fewer and fewer arable acres. Just as the section of our constitution protects you from from being restricted to having to belong to a union to work and protects you from an org preventing you from working, this measure will do somewhat the same in "protecting" the veal producer, the confinement hog operation ect... as long as they are following the rules set in place by our legislature who are the representatives of the people.


----------



## gst

LT said:


> It angers you that people complain about a site that provides much for them, but what about the people that have come here because the harm this site may have done to them.


And there in lies an interesting point. People on this site will not "tolerate" badmouthing and unsubstantiated claims/opinions ect... aimed towards damageing this site, but when someone questions badmouthing, and unsubstantiated claims/opinions aimed towards damaging say an ag org, a legally defined ag enterprise or an entire industry it is not only accepted but done by the very people "protecting" this site all the while claiming freedom of speach to back up their claims and damaging statements while "stiffleing conversation" of others by locking threads . :wink: Hmmm isn't there a word to describe that???

I guess we have the "freedom of speach" to say whatever we widsh on this site as long as it conforms to certain people guidelines!!!  Surely that was what was intended in the 1st Amendment. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Your still not getting it through your head are you gst? You do the very thing I have told you not to do. Were you simply interested so you could thumb your nose and do it anyway? The only reason I have not asked for you to be banned is because you are a farmer. I guess I am prejudice.



> LT wrote:
> It angers you that people complain about a site that provides much for them, but what about the people that have come here because the harm this site may have done to them.


That could apply to news papers, television, radio, magazines and every form of public communication. Are they all supposed to bend to every will of every landowner? Is everyone supposed to kiss up every moment of every day and never come up for air?

Actually I think I am pro ag. It's just that I don't like every single farmer/rancher in ag. Mostly the ones I don't like are the ones that expect to be kissed up to every time they turn around. How many other industries do we pray for in church? How many others do we exempt from the rules of our state? How many others pay little to no income tax every year and are still not called a hobby? How many others already have the protection they do? How many others have a guaranteed can not fail because of government support? Now many others rather than being thankful snub you like you have the plague? How many others would tell a young man you are not Sh*&^t if your not a landowner? No, I don't dislike farmers/ranchers I just dislike the attitude of the few.

As for the amendment I have been thinking about what Bad Dog had to say. You know as much as I like something protecting hunting all of these constitutional amendments at the state level mean very little. All this one will do is create problems until federal government steps on it. Everyone things they are special and all deserve their pet constitutional rights. There is nothing constitutional about giving one person rights that infringe on another's rights.

It's kind of funny really when you think about it. I think someone mentioned they worry about what will happen. They worry that 80% of the people may infringe upon their rights, but right now 10% of the people want a constitution that makes them more special than the other 90% of our people. Who should rule in a democracy the minority or the majority? Sounds kind of unconstitutional since it really isn't a right. That isn't anti ag as some would draw the picture for you it's just making them one of us, no better, no worse.


----------



## swift

Accepting GST as the voice of Agriculture is like accepting Hitler as the voice for all Germansl, or Bin Laden the voice for all Muslims. He is just as much an extremist as those other two. Lets move on to the next Landowners rule peasants beg topic. Even when GST admits this constitutional amendment is poorly worded and he is likely not going to support it he pushes everyones buttons to keep the rift on top.


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> Accepting GST as the voice of Agriculture is like accepting Hitler as the voice for all Germansl, or Bin Laden the voice for all Muslims. He is just as much an extremist as those other two. Lets move on to the next Landowners rule peasants beg topic. Even when GST admits this constitutional amendment is poorly worded and he is likely not going to support it he pushes everyones buttons to keep the rift on top.


I have often wondered if gst is a farmer or someone out to turn people against farmers. I seriously think I am pro ag. I don't know anyone who is. I just get upset with the personality type that thinks they are better than anyone else, and I have to kiss their behind. I have no problem with farmers/ranchers at all. Sure they have a few practices (very few) that I think are damaging, not just to people living in Fargo, but to themselves and other fellow farmers. That is why I fear the FB amendment to the constitution. Even if 95% of the farmers/ranchers are great people that leaves 5% to run rampant.

I went to the Farm Bureau site, and found some things I admire. I liked their stand against government health insurance etc. They appear conservative on many things, but go off the deep end on others. I look at big government not as how many employees they have, but on the basis of how much they intrude into our lives. That said there is a place for government and that is to protect us from each other. In recent years we have become less and less caring about our fellow man. Mostly driven by greed, but also by an increasing feeling that we are more important that others. That comes from all the parents who's biggest concern is giving their little darling strong self esteem. They have been to successful, and their little darlings don't respect anyone but themselves. That's apparent in some attitudes we encounter.

Even if FB gets all the government programs out of agriculture they are not going to get rid of the regulations. Society demands them, and in a republic the majority rules, and always will. All that FB will accomplish is bad public relations. I don't keep up with these debates because I am that stubborn, I keep up with them to let people expose themselves. That story about they have not decided yet was just debate tactics. Remember the guy that said he would post his land if we didn't agree with him? The guy that got so abusive a few years ago that he got banned? Well, his neighbor PMed me and said his land had been posted for 20 years and he let no one on. I head about one guy who's son took over the farm. Now he will not let his dad hunt on it. The world is going nuts. That's not a landowner thing that's a bad son thing.

Mostly I speak up because I am retired. If others speak up I have noticed they will try destroy your job. There is a lot of backdoor work going on. I know for a fact many others think as we do, but they fear for their job if they speak up, or other forms of retribution. That's why many like to make reference to where people work. It's a destructive tactic.


----------



## LT

Plainsman stated:


> The guy that got so abusive a few years ago that he got banned? Well, his neighbor PMed me and said his land had been posted for 20 years and he let no one on.


Again, you sure do get a lot of PMs. I thought the content of PMs were supposed to be private though.

Plainsman Stated:


> That could apply to news papers, television, radio, magazines and every form of public communication. Are they all supposed to bend to every will of every landowner? Is everyone supposed to kiss up every moment of every day and never come up for air?


And supposedly those same landowners are just supposed to lay down and not say anything when a site allows badmouthing to the point of outright lies, coming from the very people that are trying to take their business away. In fact I actually thought that was one of the rules of this site:


> You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, *slanderous, hateful*, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where "Nodak Outdoors" is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions.


Plainsman, How about every time you tell your story about the landowner telling the kid if your not a landowner you aren't ****, I tell mine that I actually heard with my own ears what your friend and fellow federal employee at USGS said to an elk grower at the Jamestown Public Forum after the elk grower handed him a paper on property rights, one of the reasons I became involved in this issue:


> You F'n landowners and your F'n property rights, that &$#* doesn't mean anything to me."


Plainsman stated:


> Mostly I speak up because I am retired. If others speak up I have noticed they will try destroy your job. There is a lot of backdoor work going on. I know for a fact many others think as we do, but they fear for their job if they speak up, or other forms of retribution. That's why many like to make reference to where people work. It's a destructive tactic.


Really, if they speak up someone will try to take their jobs? What is the backdoor work going on? Is this anything like the federal employee and sponsor of the fair chase initiative who used his office to send out an email/emails with a position statement regarding the fair chase initiative, used his position in papers to speak against the elk growers and try to take their businesses? Last I checked he still has his job!


----------



## gst

LT said:


> The guy that got so abusive a few years ago that he got banned? Well, his neighbor PMed me and said his land had been posted for 20 years and he let no one on.
> 
> Again, you sure do get a lot of PMs.* I thought the content of PMs were supposed to be private though*


Oops!!!  Lt, perhaps these rules do not apply to "super moderators"! :roll:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Accepting GST as the voice of Agriculture is like accepting Hitler as the voice for all Germansl, or Bin Laden the voice for all Muslims. He is just as much an extremist as those other two. Lets move on to the next Landowners rule peasants beg topic. Even when GST admits this constitutional amendment is poorly worded and he is likely not going to support it he pushes everyones buttons to keep the rift on top.


You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where "Nodak Outdoors" is hosted or International Law. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us. The IP address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions.

I wonder if swift's post is "hateful" or not???


----------



## Plainsman

You guys keep up with the personal things. To often I let you lead me there. I am not going to make any personal comments I am just going to say enough is enough, and subject is the Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment. Drop the personal and site complaints NOW.


----------



## swift

Not hateful at all. I see you as an extremist not willing to listen to anyone or even consider anyone outside your little group. Much like the examples I used. I do think your above mass genocide if that means anything.


----------



## Bad Dog

gst - we both agree that any article that gets proposed to be added to the either the state or federal Constitution should be heavily scrutinized and well thought out before anything is added. This is to keep the integrity of the document and it's meaning worth a hoot. Now there may already be dribble that has been added to this state's Constitution, but that does not mean that we should keep adding non-right articles. If we do what we will end up with will be something that isn't worth the paper it is written on.

hsus - There is a lot, an aweful lot, that I and the hsus disagree on. However, there are other things that I agree with them on. When I lived in MT, they came to that state and shut down a public hunt. I had planned for many years to do that hunt. Needless to say, I was upset. The hsus no longer was an organization to shelter stray animals. It was no an organization that was/still pretty bent on ending what they deem as cruelty to all animals. That includes hunting. That also includes Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The reason they were able to stop this hunt is that they sued the entity authorizing the hunt and the court found that the entity authorizing the hunt had messed up and had not followed the regulations to establish the hunt. A very valid arguement.

In my simple mind there is a big difference in a CAFO and an independent rancher that raises their animals on large tracts of prairie. I have worked for many years in CAFOs and I too find them dispicable. I don't find the individual that ranches several hundred head on several thousand acres dispicable. Just the ones that keep the animals in cages or small cement pens their whole lives.

I agree that false claims need to be addressed. However watering down our Constitutions are not the way to do it. As you stated, the American people are extremely removed from where their food comes from and that is the issue. You will never get the American people to change their minds by creating a 'law' or constitutional amendment. Their loss of connection will still be present. It is by dialog and demonstration that change can come about. Not through law.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I am not going to make any personal comments I am just going to say enough is enough, and subject is the Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment. Drop the personal and site complaints NOW


plainsman you mean like any of these personal comments???  :wink:



Plainsman said:


> I have often wondered if gst is a farmer or someone out to turn people against farmers





swift said:


> Accepting GST as the voice of Agriculture is like accepting Hitler as the voice for all Germansl, or Bin Laden the voice for all Muslims.





Plainsman said:


> Ya, I know asking you if you make "George's" growing pheasants is tripping your trigger and I should have known better





Plainsman said:


> I'm sorry, but your not as special as your mother told you


 (That one really hurt!  )
plainsman" I know many an honorable farmer, and I also know that neither the FB nor the FU, nor you gst represent them". 
I understand swift. It's not worth talking with the spin doctor,

by Plainsman » Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:18 pm Nice while it lasted Shaug, but reasonable just left the building.
by swift » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 am Gst is just a troll that hasn't contributed to much of anything in his time on this site
I still conclude he is either a covert HSUS agent trying to destroy hunting by destroying hunter/landowner relations or too stupid to realize
by swift » Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:23 pm GST has contradicted himself so much in this topic that it is obvious he is here just to stir the pot. Here are some examples of his idiotic posts
Swift: Then you have the opinion of an idiot.
plinsman: somethings wrong in the upstairs


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> and subject is the Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment.


Plainsman, I asked you two direct questions regarding the "Farm Bureau Amendment" and you refuse to answer them. How are we supposed to debate the "subject " if you will not answer questions directly relating to it?  :-? :roll:



Plainsman said:


> gst, I have no intention of answering any of your questions anymore. If I do it will have been asked by someone else.


----------



## Plainsman

Like I said I was drawn in also, but this is the end of it. So now I will take control of myself not to do that. I will also take control so no one else does it more than once.


----------



## gst

plainsman it would be nice to stick simply to debateing the topic. To do so requires people to ask questions regarding the topic. The two following will give some insight into why some in ag beleive this measure is necessary. So if you would please answer them directly.

Plainsman do you beleive agriculture should be restricted based off YOUR ideologies? Yes or no.

why are YOUR ideologies that YOU beleive should restrict ag any more legitimate than the ELCA's or HSUS's???


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> plainsman it would be nice to stick simply to debateing the topic. To do so requires people to ask questions regarding the topic. The two following will give some insight into why some in ag beleive this measure is necessary. So if you would please answer them directly.
> 
> Plainsman do you beleive agriculture should be restricted based off YOUR ideologies? Yes or no.
> 
> why are YOUR ideologies that YOU beleive should restrict ag any more legitimate than the ELCA's or HSUS's???


So gst, are you implying that ag should not be restricted at all? I would not be surprised in the least if that is the case. If you believe that ag should have some restrictions, whose ideologies do you believe should do so? And why are theirs more legitimate that anyone else's? For a person who says he doesn't care for this amendment, you sure are arguing for it.


----------



## swift

He is a troll that doesn't really stand for anything, He just loves to stand against everything. If everyone would add him to their ignore list the site would be better off.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> So gst, are you implying that ag should not be restricted at all?


longshot, I beleive a couple of times within this thread I have mentioned that ag like other industries should not be left to their own devises (ie I have suggested that REASONABLE regulations should be in place regarding agriculture as well as other industries) . Restrictions on industries that unreasonable to a point of ending the industry itself as an agenda should IMHO be questioned why? Personal ideologies such as veganism, ect... are likely not the best basis to regulate agriculture from. The intent of most all agriculture is to produce food for people in one form or another. When these restrictions move to making this impossible in an attempt to further an agenda of ending one form of agriculture, I beleive they have moved past being "reasonable"

Having answered your question, would you please answer this one.

Do you beleive what and how HSUS was able to accomplish COMPLETELY shutting down the horse slaughter industry here in the US should be of concern to those of us in agriculture? How about their successful initiative to effectively end the confined poultry industry in California?

Bad dog, There are legitimate concerns regarding CAFO's that those of us in animal ag HAVE to be proactive about ourselves for a variety of reasons. But there is also the reality of providing affordable food for not only the US consumer but globally as well. Free range chickens and pork and grass fed beef and organic vegitables and grains simply will not do it. It is a reality of todays global world wether we like it or not.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Like I said I was drawn in also, but this is the end of it. So now I will take control of myself not to do that. I will also take control so *no one** else* does it more than once.





swift said:


> He is a troll that doesn't really stand for anything, He just loves to stand against everything. If everyone would add him to their ignore list the site would be better off.


Hmmm?


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Having answered your question, would you please answer this one.


gst, as usual you only answered part of the question and dodged the rest (see below).



> If you believe that ag should have some restrictions, whose ideologies do you believe should do so? And why are theirs more legitimate that anyone else's?





gst said:


> Do you beleive what and how HSUS was able to accomplish COMPLETELY shutting down the horse slaughter industry here in the US should be of concern to those of us in agriculture? How about their successful initiative to effectively end the confined poultry industry in California?


To answer your question, I do believe there are extremes on both ends. HSUS and others on one end and you on the other. I do believe that there are some like the ones you mentioned that we all should be concerned with, not just agriculture. There is no doubt I would stand with agriculture against those issues, but some like you make it difficult. Having read many of these posts it is clear how bias you are. I see too many only paying attention to what happens on their own land and could care less what they are doing to their neighbor.

You once had called agriculture a profession. I say let's make it one with a required education, professional licensing (including proficiency testing), continuing education after licensure, and professional liability when you adversely impact the public. This way you could insure that all are using the great new practices you preach about
.


----------



## Plainsman

The Farm Bureau is a little more conservative than the Farmers Union. In my childhood home town which is strong Farmers Union they still fawn over Obama. They voted for the guy for the government programs which is evidently opposite of Farm Bureau. OK, so that's one thing good about the Farm Bureau. However, while their members worry about HSUS they should worry more about Washington. While the economy goes to pot what is Obama's administration working on? Well here is one thing:


> Team Obama Regulates Goat Herders' Workplaces


That should tick off the goar ropers out west. 



> The Obama administration is setting new workplace regulations to assist foreign workers who fill goat herding positions in the U.S. , including employee-paid cell phones and comfy beds.
> 
> These new special procedures issued by the Labor Department must be followed by employers who want to hire temporary agricultural foreign workers to perform sheep herding or goat herding activities. It describes strict rules for sleeping quarters, lighting, food storage, bathing, laundry, cooking and new rules for the counters where food is prepared.
> 
> "A separate sleeping unit shall be provided for each person, except in a family arrangement," says the rules signed by Jane Oates, assistant secretary for employment and training administration at the Labor Department.
> 
> "Such a unit shall include a comfortable bed, cot or bunk, with a clean mattress," the rules state.


You don't have to be nuts to work in the Obama administration, but it helps.  If you read Saul Alinsky , and Bill Ayers (Obama's buddies) you will find the don't believe in private land ownership. They think farmers should get a portion of the redistributed wealth as a farm salary. You have a lot bigger problems than a false right to farm, and I suggest doing something more meaningful. Like a public relations program that tells the farm story, and ge away from government programs which taxpayers don't like much at this time. Return politeness to those who are polite to you and don't assume all hunters are jerks. I hope people see that as reasonable, and not meant as a poke.

Do something positive that the North Dakota people can agree on instead of fight over.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Like I said I was drawn in also, but this is the end of it. So now I will take control of myself not to do that. I will also take control so *no one else* does it more than once.


So plainsman who falls under your definition of "no one else"???



swift said:


> He is a troll that doesn't really stand for anything, He just loves to stand against everything. If everyone would add him to their ignore list the site would be better off.


plainsman, does this fall under your definition of "personal" ?



Plainsman said:


> You guys keep up with the personal things. To often I let you lead me there. I am not going to make any personal comments I am just going to say enough is enough, and subject is the Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment. Drop the personal and site complaints NOW.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> To answer your question, I do believe there are extremes on both ends. HSUS and others on one end *and you on the other.* I do believe that there are some like the ones you mentioned that we all should be concerned with, not just agriculture. There is no doubt I would stand with agriculture against those issues, *but some like you make it difficult*. Having read many of these posts it is clear how bias you are.


plainsman, how about this does this fit your definition of "personal"??



LT said:


> Plainsman stated:
> The guy that got so abusive a few years ago that he got banned? Well, his neighbor PMed me and said his land had been posted for 20 years and he let no one on.
> 
> Again, you sure do get a lot of PMs. I thought the content of PMs were supposed to be private though


longshot, what do you think about plainsman sharing the content of a PM he received on the sight?  :wink:

Plainsman you know that claim about getting kicked off this site you think I am making up, ask longshot about it and why it happened! :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> The Farm Bureau is a little more conservative than the Farmers Union. In my childhood home town which is strong Farmers Union they still fawn over Obama.


Plainsman, now in your second childhood living in Jamestown did you know Farmers Unions headquarters is in Jamestown and they just did a big renovation. Woody Barth is the new president of FU and I visit with him often. Plainsman, I'll be sure to pass along your thoughts. I am sure he will find some of it interesting. Psh!!

Farm Bureaus measure isn't about allowing anyone to circumvent existing law but instead is designed to preserve what we now have. Like the NRA always says, "not one step backwards."

In other states Ag is under attack on many fronts. The theme is always the same. Presuming harm; or ranchers and farmer are under the spotlight by activists who claim a presumption of harm. When the finger pointing starts it puts the farmer/rancher on the defensive. Do we want our famer/ranchers producing food or do we want them producing piles of paper defending Ag?

I don't know why we fool around subsidizing Ag when it would be much more simple to subsidize the production of food stamps? Maybe it is because no one has yet figured out how to get some nutritional value out of the food stamps!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, now in your second childhood living in Jamestown did you know Farmers Unions headquarters is in Jamestown and they just did a big renovation


Yes, I know many of the people at the FU office. Some very well. I like most of them except they are extremely liberal.

I have an idea. Tell us about somoe of those attacks and lets see if we are as far apart on any of those as we are the FB amendment.

Food stamps???? What a joke. That program is so abused it isn't funny. My parents who farmed never had much money. Mom could pinch a penny until Lincoln had tears in his eyes. She made everything from scratch, but people on food stamps buy all the easy prep foods. They have no job, so all they have is time on their hands, but they buy the easy prep foods. Grocery carts piled high with pizzas etc. Not to mention they are not supposed to get cigarettes and things with them, so the government has to spend more money watching the grocery stores who would somehow violate that. I see they have a big stink about it in New York now because they were going to deny soda pop.


----------



## gst

Question:


Longshot said:


> If you believe that ag should have some restrictions, whose ideologies do you believe should do so? And why are theirs more legitimate that anyone else's?


Answer: 


gst said:


> Restrictions on industries that are unreasonable to a point of ending the industry itself as an agenda should IMHO be questioned why? Personal ideologies such as veganism, ect... are likely not the best basis to regulate agriculture from. The intent of most all agriculture is to produce food for people in one form or another. When these restrictions move to making this impossible in an attempt to further an agenda of ending one form of agriculture, I beleive they have moved past being "reasonable"


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said I was drawn in also, but this is the end of it. So now I will take control of myself not to do that. I will also take control so *no one else* does it more than once.
> 
> 
> 
> So plainsman who falls under your definition of "no one else"???
> 
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a troll that doesn't really stand for anything, He just loves to stand against everything. If everyone would add him to their ignore list the site would be better off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> plainsman, does this fall under your definition of "personal" ?
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys keep up with the personal things. To often I let you lead me there. I am not going to make any personal comments I am just going to say enough is enough, and subject is the Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment. Drop the personal and site complaints NOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

plainsman could you answer this question NOW so we can understand if this site is "fair and balanced"? :wink: I am confused, here directly after you telling everyone to drop the personal complaints and debate the issue, a post was made with no mention of the "issue" and soley purely personal. So is that individual subject to your demand as a "super moderator" on this site?  :-?


----------



## gst

plainsman, as it seems the discussion can not remain on the topic of the NDFB measure ( your conversation about food stamps) please allow me to ask this question so we can understand a little more about this site, do you and the other "super moderators" you mentioned earlier have the ability to lock threads, make rules, and determine what is talked about and what content is allowed on this site?


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Question:
> 
> 
> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that ag should have some restrictions, whose ideologies do you believe should do so? And why are theirs more legitimate that anyone else's?
> 
> 
> 
> Answer:
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restrictions on industries that are unreasonable to a point of ending the industry itself as an agenda should IMHO be questioned why? Personal ideologies such as veganism, ect... are likely not the best basis to regulate agriculture from. The intent of most all agriculture is to produce food for people in one form or another. When these restrictions move to making this impossible in an attempt to further an agenda of ending one form of agriculture, I beleive they have moved past being "reasonable"
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This really didn't answer the question, but as I expected, your opinions are the only valid ones in your mind and your views are the only viable regulations for your industry. I would guess that you are or were a politician as you have the ruling class mentality. It's a good thing we all have a right to vote. At least that opinion cannot be stifled.


----------



## gst

longshot if you specifically wish to know who I beleive is best suited to ensure that personal agnedas do not take over the REASONABLE regulation of agriculture, I beleive the legislature as the ELECTED representatives of the people would be appropriate. (I know there are those that beleive the legislature merely capitulates to ag's demands when they don;t get what THEY approve of thru the legislature and is merely the hand maiden for agriculture) :roll:

But as has been seen all to often, these orgs with their agendas have used the Federal courts to "interpret" and over rule state laws created by these representatives of the people of the state.

So I ask you to please share an idea how something like what happened in the horse slaughter industry whereby it has been completely shut down in this country will not happen to other targeted agricultural industries in the manner it was.


----------



## Longshot

I also don't agree with Judges trying to legislate from the bench and that I will agree with you. What I don't agree with is you believing your view of regulation being the only viable one there is. Ag regulations through the legislature is voted on by the whole public including the opinions of those you don't agree with, not just the ag industry. I don't agree with adding this to our state Constitution, but would support some kind of law against frivolous law suits these types of groups bring to the courts and not just those against ag. The flooding of our courts by activist groups is like a child throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way through the proper enactment of law. It does need to stop.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> What I don't agree with is you believing your view of regulation being the only viable one there is


Long shot I do not beleive I have EVER stated that MY veiw of regulations should be the only one. I have repeatedly said REASONABLE regulation and have suggested that the legislature is the format to create this.

Sometimes I really wonder if you guys let your personal bias get in the way of actually reading what is written.



gst said:


> longshot if you specifically wish to know who I beleive is best suited to ensure that personal agnedas do not take over the REASONABLE regulation of agriculture, I beleive the legislature as the ELECTED representatives of the people would be appropriate.


 Pretty plain and simple.

So how then do we ensure that a Federal judge will not rule on say veal production, Hog CAFO's ect.... here in ND as was done with the horse slaughter?

If you do not wish to see this measure please give alternative ideas that will stand up to the agendas and manners in which they are being forwarded by these anti ag groups.


----------



## Plainsman

Bad Dog I think in a nutshell you and I can agree we don't want anymore trivia in our constitution. Also, I find it funny that when we had the high fence debate I said simply let the people vote. Now those who want the FB amendment are saying the same thing. Actually what they are doing is trying to ensure that the people don't get to vote on agriculture things. If HSUS comes to North Dakota and wants to stop chicken or wheat farming we just step on them at the voting booth. Simple. Oh, I would be against cultivating congressmen for more freebies.

We don't need a back door to get around reasonable policies on ag. We don't need uncontrolled drainage, we don't need uncontrolled pesticide use, we don't need uncontrolled agriculture. Every other business has controls on it. We don't need intrusive government, only enough to keep any business that would allow the greedy to dump on the rest of society. We don't need the FB amendment, because we can take care of each threat, if there are any, as they come. Let society vote on each of them, but voting for something that would eliminate that choice? No, I don't think so. It's like eliminating the democratic process, and some of them claim to be conservative. I don't think so.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Also, I find it funny that when we had the high fence debate I said simply let the people vote


And now you are claiming they do not need the chance to vote on this amendment. :-?



Plainsman said:


> we can take care of each threat, if there are any, as they come. Let society vote on each of them,


plainsman. I do not recall having the opportunity to "vote" on wether horse slaughter, and the gutting of the horse market be allowed???

Answer this honestly. If you and the other sponsrs of the HFH measure could get a Federal judge to rule to ban captive cervid ranching and it's operations would you?

Plainsman you have been asked a number of questions that you have not answered. Lets just forget the ones about chastizing anyone else for "personal" comments as it is clear that will not happen equitably so your own chastizing one person against "getting personal" while allowing others to continue is exactly that, personal. :roll:

. Lets even forget the ones about what you and other "super" moderators control as to content and "stifling" conversation on here, it is clear from past history you allow what YOU want on your site (1st amendment claims and all) :wink:

What is amusing is there is often the accusation of wanting an oligarchy form of govt on here. Please explain how this site is not that very thing where a handful of individuals "control" what is discussed, how it is discussed, and who gets to discuss it.



Plainsman said:


> we don't need uncontrolled drainage, we don't need uncontrolled pesticide use, we don't need uncontrolled agriculture.


You do not seem to be able to help yourself! :roll: 
Once again plainsman please substantiate where this measure and resulting amendment will allow what you claim. There must be some factual reference as you keep making these claims.

If you can not provide the factual proof to substantiate the claims you have just once again made, we will be left to assume you are doing the very same thing groups like HSUS do in furthering their agendas by misrepresenting the truth (some have another name for that) hoping that no one will ask it to be substantiated. Which only lends fuel to why agriculture beleives this measure is needed.


----------



## Longshot

I don't think you will get any answers since I believe some have finally put you on the ignore list. You should reread a few posts and maybe you will begin to understand other's opinions. You do nothing here but twist people's words to get the meaning you want to believe.

As to your amendment, please show me the guarantee that these things Plainsman listed won't happen. As vague as it's written it sure does leave the door open for interpretation. Maybe it's yours and other's goal to leave it vague in order to push YOUR will through judges. For a guy who claims he doesn't agree with this amendment you sure are pushing for it.



gst said:


> So here it is, hold on to your hats, it really can't be, swift and plainsman have told us otherwise, but as this measure is written, I do not know wether I would sign it or not.


Of course when you wrote that we all knew better.


----------



## gst

longshot, do you honestly beleive this measure if it passes will trump the Federal regulatory guidelines for pesticide use?????????

Give me a break.

Do you understand what regulatory requirements are included regarding drainage if you participate in Federal Ag Programs?????

Give me a break.

The "expert" in agriculture based on his 36 years as a Federal biologist trapping tiger salamnders has been tod these things yet still he makes claims he can not substantiate.

Think what you wish I have been too busy calling bull**** on stupidass claims such as these and pointing out shining examples from right here in this thread why some in ag beleive this measure is necessary to really consider much more wether I would sign this. But as much as I agree with Bad Dog regarding our Constitutions, the more I listen to the unfounded bull**** people on here spout off about ag they can not back up when asked and how they demand ag capitulate to their ideologies in order to "support" ag I consider this measure more and more necessary with every personally bias claim that is made on this site. :roll:

So stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la and ignore someone all you wish, it only goes to show that someone will make claims, yet will not substantiate them when they are asked to because they can not and they know so. That to me is simply lying to further your personal agenda. But then again that was quite comman in a previous initiated measure, right down to a group of "hunterrs" here in ND talking with an anti hunting/animal ag org and inviting them to "help" with an ad campaign. All the while denying it ever happened. Cry wolf about the HSUS involvement?????? right.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Also, I find it funny that when we had the high fence debate I said simply let the people vote. Now those who want the FB amendment are saying the same thing.


Plainsman I was spoofing you guys when I said that. Actually, I believe it was Ron Gilmore who used to often say, "let the people decide." But then he adamately used to say there was absolutely no HSUS connection. Somebody must have left him out of the loop.

Plainsman, said,



> Yes, I know many of the people at the FU office. Some very well. I like most of them except they are extremely liberal.
> 
> I have an idea. Tell us about somoe of those attacks and lets see if we are as far apart on any of those as we are the FB amendment.


You always try to paint them as socialist or liberal. They are not that at all. FU is part and parcel of Farmers Union Oil (Cenex) and Farmers Union Elevator etc. They are co-ops that produce. Socialism is the ********* bastard child of Capitalism. It cannot stand on its own two feet for great periods of time and instead needs an infusion of money, medicine, meat and wheat from time to time. Without these essentials provided to it by capitalism, socialism is doomed to failure. FU is hardly that.

General wealth increases when people with legal business ideas get equal opportunities to introduce those ideas to the marketplace. Entrepreneurs must be free to pour resources into products and services that people want. In such a system, entrepreneurs win by providing the best products and services in the fastest, cheapest ways. Businesses and consumers win.

But activists are out there trying to pass economically destructive legislation. Misinformation campaigns that paint the presumption of harm (remember the Alar Apple Scare) dishonest scare tactics, distortions that advance a grotesque falsehood.

Farm Bureaus measure is the first of its kind. The state of Ohio tried to get ahead of the curve recently creating a board that would handle issues concerning Ag. The first of its kind also. Of the 10 on the panel only one seat was reserved for the Humane Society. So the HSUS ran an initiated measure to get more seats on the board. They almost had the signatures when the state capitulated. Ohios situation is one of those cases of, "beware the equal rights of others."


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug, I noticed the politics of farmers changes a lot from community to community. Working with farmers in southern states I found many conservative. Around my home town I think Stalin would have been welcome. Around my home town they think the sun rises and sets on the FU. They have FU buss tours, FU youth camp, FU bingo, FU picnic and on and on. If you don't belong to the FU they look at you like you just landed from Mars. Yup, lots of friends and relatives in the FU and all extreme liberal. My parents were FB because of that, and I do notice that as the biggest difference between the two organizations. I suppose since I don't like them I shouldn't buy all my gas and propane from them. 

If they write something up more specific that didn't open the doors to abuse I would support it. It would have to include something that covered CWD. If it became prevalent in captive herds I think it would have to be stopped. Other than that I could support agriculture on all current animal raising in North Dakota now. I could also support all grain farming. There are just a handful of practices I don't like, and this amendment is a little scary.


----------



## Longshot

You want people to prove to you the Amendment would be abused, yet refuse to prove it wouldn't happen. I would not doubt the amendment was written as vauge as it is for a reason.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> longshot, do you honestly beleive this measure if it passes will trump the Federal regulatory guidelines for pesticide use?????????
> 
> Do you understand what regulatory requirements are included regarding drainage if you participate in Federal Ag Programs?????


longshot the "proof" would lie in your answer to these questions. As well as in the language in Sec 21 of our state Constitution that I provided earlier and will do once again.

Section 21. No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly

The very wording of our constitution has assured that the legislative assembly whom you stated yourself should be the regulatory athourity here in our state will remain so.

Now longshot if you would please "prove" that these means of regulatory authority will be usurped by this measure and the claims plainsman made of illegal pesticide use and illegal draining will suddenly become "legal" to substantiate these claims.

As stated earlier, the question I would like to see answered by someone that may actually know the FACTUAL answer (as opposed to someone with a willie over an ag org pulls out of their ***) is how the second half of Sec 21 of our constitution and this new amnendment can coexist in the same Constitution.

Sec. 21 nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
citizens.

Perhaps this amemdment is considered "granted" to "all citizens" as "all citizens" have the ability to engage in farming if they so choose??? I admittedly do not know the answer and would like this explained.

This is where my opinion of this measure being worded questionably arose from. If someone with any degree of unbiased knowledge can indeed answer this question it would be interesting to hear their response. At some point in the discussion regarding this measure it will likely have to be addressed. Perhaps if people took the time to better inform themselves rather than just jumping to conclusions and the resulting claims we saw at the start of this thread, these questions could have been answered prior to putting the cart in front of the horse in peoples willingness to condemn an ag org they admittedly do not like and make claims they can not substantiate. Heck perhaps if people would have just asked could the claims made even happen instead of stating authoratatively they will, we could have had a descent discussion regarding this measure. 
The demand for "personal" comments has been made and a return to debating the measure ordered. So perhaps if these demands are universally applied to ALL, we can actually have a point counterpoint type discussion of the measure itself. :wink: .


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> If they write something up more specific that didn't open the doors to abuse I would support it. It would have to include something that covered CWD. If it became prevalent in captive herds I think it would have to be stopped.


If a farmed elk herd has even one confirmed case of CWD the whole herd is depopulated. End of story. The measure doesn't change that.

What this measure more than likely will do is stop activists from advancing to the public a presumption of fear, a presumption of harm etc.

All those presumption are put out there for public consumption "by design" to sway public opinion against a certain person or group of persons.

Measure Two isn't the no.1 reason why FB is advocating for this, however, I can tell you it had a role in it. Measure Two just may have awakened a sleeping giant.


----------



## Plainsman

> If a farmed elk herd has even one confirmed case of CWD the whole herd is depopulated. End of story. The measure doesn't change that.


I wish they would have said something like that. I know most of the people will follow those rules, but every year it appears people are less and less inclined to abide by rules. I mean everyone, not just farmers or ranchers. Do you think this law would give some of them an inclination to challenge the current rules in the courts?



> What this measure more than likely will do is stop activists from advancing to the public a presumption of fear, a presumption of harm etc.
> 
> All those presumption are put out there for public consumption "by design" to sway public opinion against a certain person or group of persons.


I wish we had presumed the Japanes would attack pearl harbor.  Presumptions, presumptions, ya, there are good ones and bad ones. Bad ones normally run on emotions and good ones run on experience or sound science. My experience in life is that there are always those few looking for every loophole. It's not guys like you that I am worried about Shaug, but I know some that would do anything for a buck. I offered the poppy comment as an exaggeration, and just for a reaction, but while thinking about it afterwards I am sure I know one person ( I just realized that a person on here may think I am talking about him, but I am not) that would if he could. Every barrel has a bad apple or two.



> Measure Two isn't the no.1 reason why FB is advocating for this, however, I can tell you it had a role in it. Measure Two just may have awakened a sleeping giant.


I have no doubt that got some people thinking. However, I think the HSUS involvement was played like Obama plays the race card. As for the sleeping giant it isn't agriculture. It's those who pay little attention to politics, but make up the majority of our people. Something neither of us perhaps want to wake up. If they are to stupid to pay attention to things will they know how to vote when something important comes up?

I was sort of surprised about your FU comments. About the only people that I know that don't think FU is a far left outfit is the people who belong to it. However, because I buy a lot there I guess I am a member. Maybe I better start paying attention. It was funny at Dorgans town hall meeting here in Jamestown. I knew if I sat with the FU group he would call on me. Yup, but that was a mistake.


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> What this measure more than likely will do is stop activists from advancing to the public a presumption of fear, a presumption of harm etc.
> 
> All those presumption are put out there for public consumption "by design" to sway public opinion against a certain person or group of persons


Shaug you mean something like this???  :wink:

by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

Quote" I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.

Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan.

I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen." End quote

You see, it is important to be able to substantiate your claims when you make them.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I wish we had presumed the Japanes would attack pearl harbor. Presumptions, presumptions, ya, there are good ones and bad ones. Bad ones normally run on emotions and good ones run on experience or sound science.


Was measure two about emotion or sound science?

Plainsman said,



> I think the HSUS involvement was played like Obama plays the race card.


Was there one in the wood pile?

Plainsman said,



> As for the sleeping giant it isn't agriculture. It's those who pay little attention to politics, but make up the majority of our people. Something neither of us perhaps want to wake up. If they are to stupid to pay attention to things will they know how to vote when something important comes up?


Plainsman, that is quite a generalization that the voters are stupid. Maybe they "cannot" know that Freedom to Farm is about getting the over-reaching over-regulatory arm of the Federal Government out of Ag, however they "did" know that fair chase isn't real.

GST wrote,



> Shaug you mean something like this???


That is exactly what I mean. I think I shall collect signatures for this measure. I realize as a petitioner that I can tell any Karnsarn thing I want to the signer because according to the secretary of states office it is up to the signer to know what they are signing. I could tell horrific lies, spread disinformation, untruths etc. Did you know that certain employees of the USFWS, the USGS and HSUS are fellow travelers? I could tell story after story about measure two and even add a few unfacts. I won't be able to shove a pen into the hand of a potential signer fast enough. OK, I'm not going to do any of those things. That is the low road.


----------



## Plainsman

> OK, I'm not going to do any of those things. That is the low road.


Whew, had me for a moment.



> Was measure two about emotion or sound science?


A little of both I think. Sportsmanship I suppose is an emotion. We often cheer for the underdog and that's an emotion. Maybe I better state that all emotional things are not bad. We love our children and that's an emotion.



> Was there one in the wood pile?


 :rollin: Shaug, Shaug, Shaug, :rollin: There may have been, and that ticks me off too. What's that old cliche? I think it's something like "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". In other words there may have been one in the woodpile, but don't throw away all the good things about the measure.



> Plainsman, that is quite a generalization that the voters are stupid.


Not at all. It's saying that those who do not pay attention to politics are ignorant of politics. Would you want someone from New York wearing $2000 high heal Gucci shoes, a $5000 dress, $20,000 in jewelry deciding what you plant next spring?

Hmmm, I just realized we didn't say anything about the amendment we just argued instead of debated. So tell me some good things about the FB amendment.

Since my worries about this bill are abuse I must base that on my experience with human behavior. When turned loose with the protection of an amendment like this do you think farmers will react better than any other segment of society. You see there is no sound science so neither side has that to use in our judgement. Our opinion about this amendment can only be that ---- opinion. My opinion is there will be a small number cause many problems. They already drain illegally now, and the amendment will only give them another crutch for those illegal activities. Illegal drainage will continue, and is there any doubt this amendment will be used in court as a defense? If I had illegally drained I would sure try to use it as a defense.


----------



## gst

quote="Plainsman"]They already drain illegally now, and the amendment will only give them another crutch for those illegal activities. Illegal drainage will continue, and is there any doubt this amendment will be used in court as a defense? If I had illegally drained I would sure try to use it as a defense.[/quote]

plainsman, stop and consider just for a moment what you wrote. It really does punch a hole in your arguement quite nicely. If someone is doing an ILLEGAL activity now, this measure will not suddenly make it LEGAL so it will still be ILLEGAL.

If it is ILLEGAL to use Tordon within so many feet of a water source now, it will STILL be ILLEGAL to do so if this measure passes contrary to your unsubstantiated claims.



Plainsman said:


> Would you want someone from New York wearing $2000 high heal Gucci shoes, a $5000 dress, $20,000 in jewelry deciding what you plant next spring?


No more than I would want someone dressed in custom made hunting boots, the latest camo outfit from Cabelas, and a $20,000 custom side by side from right here in good old ND telling me what I can or can't raise on a ranch. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> I think I shall collect signatures for this measure.


Shaug, did you seriously consider otherwise?

Since I didn't get a response I would guess it's not because you agree, but because your very busy. I hope everything is going well.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

I don't believe any segment of our agricultural people should have to go through something like measure two. If Farm Bureaus proposed ballot initiative can save our farmer/ranchers from an attack like that than I am for it.

Measure two was a dirty war. No science, all emotion and fear. Myself, I do not debate the red herring issues that far too many people get suckered into debating. Instead, follow the names of certain individuals. These same federal and state individuals lead the fight on many issues. Environment and animal rights. When I go to meetings with The Landowners Associations, Stockmens, Dairy or whomever, I mostly talk about these players. Bruce, these Ag Orgs totally get it. They know they need some sort of stop gap legislation. Measure two was a wake up call.

And hell no, not everything is going well. I had a 40 bushel wheat crop but it got scab. Now I got 40 bushel straw and a 20 bushel wheat crop instead. It is happening all over the state. My advice, buy your bread, macaroni and noodles now. Or, you elite conservationists can advocate for the production of government funded food stamps. I hear if you add water and microwave they aren't too bad.


----------



## Plainsman

> Now I got 40 bushel straw and a 20 bushel wheat crop instead.


I'm seriously sorry to hear that.

Around here it looked real good, but I thought the heads were so heavy it would lodge before they got it off. They got the fields off around my house, but I haven't talked to my friend yet to see what he got for bushels. I'm thinking it was very good.

I think the measure two was based on emotion. The idea was if it was ethical or not. That's how we have made a few other decisions too. The FB amendment would do nothing to stop what I would like to see. Simply make it illegal for hunters to shoot big game animals that can't escape. That would include fences, tied to posts, drugged etc. Leave the landowner out of it.

If the bunny huggers ever come after your domestic livestock I will argue as strongly on here for you as I have argued against high fence.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If the bunny huggers ever come after your domestic livestock I will argue as strongly on here for you as I have argued against high fence.


Just as long as that definition fits YOUR personal agenda. :wink: Why is YOUR agenda any more legitimate than the ELCA's or other groups???

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c25.pdf

36-25-06. Agricultural pursuit.
Farmed elk are livestock, and the products of farmed elk are farm products for purposes of
financial transactions and collateral. The raising of farmed elk is agricultural production and an
agricultural pursuit.

And there in lies the basis for why many beleive something of this nature is necessary. As shag stated measure two was a wake up calll given what is happening in other states around the country.

Bad dog, if you do not want our constitution to include things such as this, eplain how you deal with those who will overlook our state laws as created by the ELECTED representatives of the people in pursuit of their personal agendas regardless of the affects on agricultural producers.

Explain how you keep an activist judge from shutting down an entire industry negatively affecting agriculture as was done regarding horse slaughter.

Explain how you prevent things like this from happening and you might convince people in ag this is unnecessary.

We in the livestock industry are dealing with the implementation of a Federal Animal Disease Traceability program as this is typed. There are a number of brand states that beleive the brand recording program is a viable traceability program. Right here in ND in a pilot program for a Federal mandatory ID program we proved our brand recording system was more accurate in tracing and finding animals that were sold and moved interstate than the latest ear tag technologies. Yet there are those opposed to brand (HSUS) so if we pursue having brand included as an "official" form of traceability how much do you want to bet this will end up in the courts with animal rights groups getting an injunction in the implementation of this program? How much do you wish to bet that these same groups will take this to a district Federal court where they beleive they can get a favorable ruling from ONE judge and branding itself will be banned?

Those of use in ag, particularily animal ag deal with and see these battles all the time that most others do not. So please explain to me how we keep these ideological agendas from UNREASONABLY negatively affecting and restricting ag?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I think the measure two was based on emotion.


A lawyer in a courtroom will honestly tell you if he doesn't have the facts on his side he will go with emotion.



> The idea was if it was ethical or not.


Who should legislate morals?



> That's how we have made a few other decisions too.


Really??????????



> The FB amendment would do nothing to stop what I would like to see.


Something needs to be done to stop the constant harrassment of our farmer/ranchers.



> Simply make it illegal for hunters to shoot big game animals that can't escape.


Are you more comfortable putting them in a squeeze shute at a federally inspected kill facility and then ramming a bolt into their heads.



> That would include fences, tied to posts, drugged etc.


read above



> Leave the landowner out of it.


Farmed elk are the property of the landowner. Kind of hard to leave him out of it, don't you think? Are you against on farm slaughter? Would you rather see all animals taken to a federal plant so it would create more jobs for federal workers?

Gst wrote,



> We in the livestock industry are dealing with the implementation of a Federal Animal Disease Traceability program as this is typed. There are a number of brand states that beleive the brand recording program is a viable traceability program. Right here in ND in a pilot program for a Federal mandatory ID program we proved our brand recording system was more accurate in tracing and finding animals that were sold and moved interstate than the latest ear tag technologies.


A couple years ago my wife and I attended a South Dakota Stockgrowers Association meeting in Rapid City. The ranchers liked their brand system and kept badgering the federal guy when was the federal government going to make mandatory its proposed National Animal Identification Program permanent. The federal guy knew the backlash to anything permanent would be swift so he kept saying the program is voluntary and would never be made permanent or mandatory. The ranchers didn't trust him and the battle sea-sawed for thirty minutes. The federal guy held his own very well. But then an old rancher about 100 took the microphone. In a cratchety voice he said, "I have been around for a very long time, and I was there when the federal government told us that the income tax was going to be voluntary too." Fight over.


----------



## Plainsman

> Who should legislate morals?
> 
> That's how we have made a few other decisions too.
> 
> Really??????????


Yes, really. When our nation formed we had no laws. Just about every law we have is based on Judeo Christian values. As wildlife became less of a part of our diet we looked more to them as sport hunting. Following those values there is no sport in shooting an animal in a pen. Is that what this amendment is all about?



> Judeo-Christian Roots of America's Founding Ideals and Documents
> www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html - CachedSimilar
> Listed below are a few principles or ideals to which the Founders adhered. Given immediately following each one are passages showing Judeo-Christian roots ...


►



> Something needs to be done to stop the constant harrassment of our farmer/ranchers.


I agree, but at the same time something has to have a control over some poor practices. When practice on one farm is a detriment to another farm, or floods a city there has to be some control. Control vs out of control.



> Are you against on farm slaughter?


No, I am against farm slaughter sold as a hunt. Raise them, kill them, eat them, but don't tell me it's a hunt. I'll watch as I worry about disease too.

As for the brand and it's value as a tracking system tell me how it works. I have heard it, but to tell the truth I didn't listen well enough and it's been some time. You can educate me here as BigDaddy did in the GMO thread. I do thank you for any information you can give me.


> "I have been around for a very long time, and I was there when the federal government told us that the income tax was going to be voluntary too."


I think that was social security, but I understand and am in agreement with you.


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, Shaug, I forgot to thank you for reasonable answers and questions. This thead doesn't have to go south as so many do. Thanks, and help me out on that brand thing. Also, tell me more about what the government wanted if you don't mind.


----------



## Bad Dog

Shaug - In sincerity. Give me some examples of the constant harrassment ND farmers receive. I'll be honest, I don't believe there is any harrassment to ND farmers.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Bad dog, if you do not want our constitution to include things such as this, eplain how you deal with those who will overlook our state laws as created by the ELECTED representatives of the people in pursuit of their personal agendas regardless of the affects on agricultural producers.
> 
> Explain how you keep an activist judge from shutting down an entire industry negatively affecting agriculture as was done regarding horse slaughter.
> 
> Explain how you prevent things like this from happening and you might convince people in ag this is unnecessary


Bad dog, if you would please address these couple of questions.


----------



## Bad Dog

gst - I know absoluting nothing about the horse issue. Therefore I do not know why a court may have ruled to close it down.

However, I do believe in 'the system' especially since I do not like the alternatives. Our judicial system is obligated to make rulings based on evidence and fact, not emotion. Therefore I am led to believe that the horse issue was shut down based on a law or regulation that someone chose not to follow.

If there was a rogue judge that arbitrarily made a ruling incontrary to evidence and fact, then one would believe that the ruling could be easily overturned by an appeal.

The way one insures their activity is not shut down via a lawsuit or court ruling is to make sure that they are following all the laws and regulations correctly. If one does not agree with a particular law or regulation affecting their chosen activity, then the way to correct it is have it changed.

You obviously disagree with a ruling that was made to the horse industry. I am sure, there are other rulings that you also disagree with, as there are for I also. If we feel strong enough about those rulings the way to change them is via the legislative route or via policy. It is not via the constitution to try and superceede the ruling.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Yes, really. When our nation formed we had no laws. Just about every law we have is based on Judeo Christian values. As wildlife became less of a part of our diet we looked more to them as sport hunting. Following those values there is no sport in shooting an animal in a pen. Is that what this amendment is all about?


Wildlife changed from sustainance to sport hunting and now it is changing again. Many people now consider hunting a blood sport.



> I agree, but at the same time something has to have a control over some poor practices. When practice on one farm is a detriment to another farm, or floods a city there has to be some control. Control vs out of control.


Control is what happens at the capitol. The legislature is a very formal setting. In subcommittee hearings both sides are given equal time to plead their case. Out of control could be best described as the campaign for measure two.



> No, I am against farm slaughter sold as a hunt. Raise them, kill them, eat them, but don't tell me it's a hunt.


On Nov.2, 2010 the people voted down measure two. It is a hunt. The people have spoken. Which part don't you understand?



> As for the brand and it's value as a tracking system tell me how it works. I have heard it, but to tell the truth I didn't listen well enough and it's been some time. You can educate me here as BigDaddy did in the GMO thread. I do thank you for any information you can give me.


A brand is applied with a hot iron to the hide. The wearer has it for life. You probably do not have an HSUS brand stamped on your buttocks but you will carry that stigma with the sportsmens community for a very long time.

Bad wrote,



> gst - I know absoluting nothing about the horse issue. Therefore I do not know why a court may have ruled to close it down


The only correct thing you have stated is that you know absolutey nothing. There was no court, rogue judge or judicial system involved in shutting down horse slaughter. It was done at the federal level. When asked why they voted for it our DC legislators said that all the letters, emails, and phone calls demanded it. Didn't they realize that the letter writers were activists? Didn't they realize that the horse owners and ranchers were not writing?

Bad Dog, did you know some of those letter writing activists live in ND? Did you know they were sponsers and signature gatherers for measure two? All it takes is a handful of activists. A truck driver from ND used to haul unwanted horses to Illinios. He had to run a gauntlet of rock throwing activists to get in the slaughter facility. The media was culpable in all this because they painted the rock throwers as the good guys.

I have a 22 year old horse for sale. Sway backed, hook nosed, one glass eye and only two wire cuts. I want $600 bucks for him. When can you pick him up?


----------



## gst

Bad dog, the horse slaughter industry was shut down thru BOTH the Federal judicial and legislative arenas as a result of various activist agendas. Sound science and fact were trumped by emotion and untruthes and as a result the value of non usable horses was dramatically affected as well as ultimately horse welfare.

This is merely ONE exmple of successful activist campaigns against various forms of agriculture. The horse issue was an easy one for these activists to acheive because of societial perception about what is unquestionably a beautiful animal. It is indicative of the changing society we live in. As was stated there is a generational disconnect from agriculture that widens with each subsequent generation. Many in agriculture realize this and dispite trying to tell our story of producing this nations and worlds food in a positive, responsible, sustatinable manner, there are ALWAYS those that wish to further their agendas based on THEIR beleifs and wants and often times do so thru unfactual claims and emotional rhetoric.

If we indeed lived in the idealistic society as you described and our judicial system actually worked as you beleive, horse slaughter would still be hppening here in the US. But the REALITY is that these groups have learned that indeed there ARE activist judges and that to accomplish their agendas it is easier to get these issues to a court "system" whereby ONE judge may be swayed rather than convincing a larger percentage of the population. You may keep your idealic veiws, but those in agriculture have experienced firsthand the actual realities.

So what is being asked is if you do not wish to have this amendment considered, please show how those involved in agriculture can protect and prevent these examples that HAVE already happened from being repeated in other ag industries. If you do not wish this to be included in our constitution, take the time to really actually learn why there is no horse slaughter here in the US rather than simply assuming things and tell those of us in ag (particularily animal ag) why we should beleive that could not or will not happen to other animal ag industries.


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> gst - I know absoluting nothing about the horse issue.


I am not singling you out for this direct and honest admission, but this in itself is why those in agriculture beleive these type constitutional amendments are necessary. Far to many people "know absolutely nothing" about far to many aspects of agriculture any more, and the people and orgs with agendas against ag or ag practices based on their ideals know this. These groups use this lack and apathy of knowledge and informing one self to their direct advantage and often times tell some pretty good whoppers to these people who " know absolutely nothing" to sway their "opinions".

I know no one likes to rehash the HFH deal, but it is a perfect example of why this measure and ammendment are here today. Recall the claims made that these HF animals are put in "cages" and shot or shot in the hind quarters on purpose and slowly left to die so not to ruin the cape. These "claims" were made and yet when asked to provide one instance of proof that HERE IN ND where this law was going to be ennacted this was happening, they could not because it was not happening here. Yet the claim/insinuation had been made and how many of those people that "know absolutely nothing" beleived it and voted to support that measure.

So please answer the question, why is plainsmans agendas for ag that HE beleives should be followed any more legitimate than the ELCA's or HSUS's? Then Bad dog, tell those of us in agriculture what can be done to ensure that examples such as those mentioned do not continue to happen and agriculture practices being banned or unreasonably restricted thru what is the REALITY of todays society and system.

Todays world is much differnt than that of yesterday in the ideals this country was founded and grown on. And sadly tommorrows will likely be much less than even todays. Reality/ideals. Those in ag are looking forward into that time . So if you do not wish our constitution to be cluttered up with things of this nature, please show how these issues can be dealt with in other ways given how soiciety is changing.


----------



## Plainsman

> A brand is applied with a hot iron to the hide. The wearer has it for life. You probably do not have an HSUS brand stamped on your buttocks but you will carry that stigma with the sportsmens community for a very long time.


I know how they are done, I have done it (smart ***  please take that in the humorous way ). I also have a rudimentary memory of how they are tracked, but I would like you to educate me further on the tracking. I would have thought you would welcome that. There has to be something better than Elmer Fudd keeping track right? oke: Ok now you can get even?

As to me carrying this stigma, I doubt it because their mistake of allowing HSUS involvement was a factor in not being a member of the Fair Chase Committee any longer.



> Wildlife changed from sustainance to sport hunting and now it is changing again. Many people now consider hunting a blood sport.


We will never change the shallow minds of groups like HSUS and PETA, but the general public will only think this way if we take "sport" out of the sport hunting. That's what high fence shooting does to my mind, it takes sport out of it. Sort of like a pedophile considering himself a great lover. Speaking of: the world is a messed up place. A psychological/social group (code for messed up idiots) say we must remove the stigma from pedophilia because it isn't kind and it's a disease. Every pervert has an excuse today. The positions at TSA were a dream come true for these guys. Sorry for getting off subject.



> Control is what happens at the capitol. The legislature is a very formal setting. In subcommittee hearings both sides are given equal time to plead their case. Out of control could be best described as the campaign for measure two.


The problem in our state is a much larger than representative number of grain farmers makes up our legislature. Who else but old retired guys like me and grain farmers can take the time to do that?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The problem in our state is a much larger than representative number of grain farmers makes up our legislature


Plainsman, once again, can you substantiate that claim? If you recall, you made that similiar claim in a thread earlier this year when the legislature was in session. I provided you the data from the legislative website regarding the numbers of those representatives involved in any form of agriculture or related business.

And please answer this, how does this perceived "larger than representative number of grain farmers) end up in the legislature?

It appears not only do you wish to limit what agriculture does according to YOUR demands, you now wish to limit agriculture's voice in the ELECTED legislature that EVERYONE who can legally vote has a say in, according to YOUR wishes.

Bad dog, do you begin to see why agriculture beleives this measure might be necessary?


----------



## Bad Dog

Wow! Not to make a pun here, but I would like another example of a court shutting down something pertaining to ag cuz we have beat the dead horse thing enough.

Looks sort of like we are back to the beginning of this thread where if ag gets a constitution admendment, then I want one as well. In fact, I think there should be a constitution amendment that states everyone gets a constituiton amendment. There's an aweful lot in this world that really p*@^&$# me off and there's a lot of people and groups that would love to do me in so I guess I better get me one of those amendments so I can continue on.

Democracy is rule of the people by the people. If the people spoke and said no more horse slaughtering than so be it. It is not like we are all eatening horse meat every night, nor need to for survival. Do not make the leap from horse slaughtering to legally growing non-gmo grains. No one is threatening the lifestyle of the average ND rancher. The lifestyles of a few large crop farmers could and should be in jeopardy if they are practicing a scorched earth policy of ag production.

I digress. I want my own amendment!


----------



## gst

Bad dog simply because you do not know anything about the horse slaughter issue, please do not dismiss the legitimate concerns those of us in animal ag have. Take the time, they are readily avalible on this very same internet, and you will find many examples of courts shutting down something pertaining to ag. Perhaps given your lack of knowledge about the horse slaughter issue you should take the time to talk to spokes people within the animal ag industries to get a better perception of the "threats" even ranchers here in ND are facing.

Have you heard of the spaugues pipet? How about the Meatrix? How about the programs HSUS is providing school age kids here in ND? Simply because you are not familiar with these "threats" does not mean they do not exist. I understand how those not directly connected to ag do not take the time to understand these things, I might not weither if my livihood was not tied to ag. I get this is a hunting site and the primary concerns people have of how good their next hunting outing will betrumping those of production ag. Once again if I was not directly involved in ag I might very well have those same concerns. I get that, all that is being asked is please simply do not dismiss legitimate concerns people in ag have just because you beleive they may not affect you or you know little about them.

I have asked you to provide another means whereby ag could be assured of what we have SEEN happen will not continue to happen without this measure so that the constitution does not have to include things like this and you have given no response. Convince those in ag why they will not need something like this in the futurte as an even wider generational disconnect from ag happens and perhaps you will get somewhere.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog wrote,



> Democracy is rule of the people by the people. If the people spoke and said no more horse slaughtering than so be it. It is not like we are all eatening horse meat every night, nor need to for survival. Do not make the leap from horse slaughtering to legally growing non-gmo grains. No one is threatening the lifestyle of the average ND rancher. The lifestyles of a few large crop farmers could and should be in jeopardy if they are practicing a scorched earth policy of ag production.


This statement pretty much sums up some bad attitudes on this website. While it is true we do not eat horse meat for our survival we also do not need to hunt for our survival either. Be careful what you wish for. There is a market for unwanted horses. The French are buying them. Before the ban unwanted horses were bringing $600 dollars. Today they are worth zero. The people who now own these worthless horses were never compensated for their loss in value. How can the government make your property worthless without compensation?

Divide and conquer. Horse owners were divided. Some wanted the $600 bucks some thought old babe should go to a retirement home. I visited with a horse breeder who got herself involved on the wrong side of measure two. She told me she would never sell a horse to a slaughter house, they all go to good homes. She complained that prices are getting softer and colts have no price. What I wanted to know, after a period of time, all theses good homes that need to "dispose" of all those old horses, purchased from her, where do they go? It would seem she never looked that far ahead.

Bad Dod, keep in mind she had emersed herself in the fair chase initiative. As a horse breeder her days are numbered if no one wants to buy her product. The very same template was used in the campaign for measure two. Divide and conquer. Divide the hunters. Divide the city folk from the country folk.

Maybe Farm Bureaus measure will address some of this.

PS. That bit you wrote about big farmers are practicing a scorched earth policy, well, you really need to get a grip on your hatred.


----------



## dakotashooter2

I guess if the the ag community wants the same freedom to farm as their ancestors did 100-150 years ago then they should be allowed the same economic support their ancestors got ................ none..... No low interest ag loans...no federal crop insurance... no subsidies......... They are just on thier own to do whatever they want.............. Life is full of compromise.... It would seem farmers have it pretty sweet compared to 100 years ago...............


----------



## Plainsman

> PS. That bit you wrote about big farmers are practicing a scorched earth policy, well, you really need to get a grip on your hatred


It's not hatred shaug. Perhaps it's just vocabulary. I do know big, I mean very big operations that when they buy land they bulldoze all the shelter belts. They drain all the wetland possible. They break up all associated native prairie, and if it doesn't produce to expected results they resell it. They spray everything months ahead of time with roundup, then put it to the bulldozer and plow. After they burn all the vegetation they can so they don't plug equipment up. I am aware that these three operations that I can think of are not the average farmer, and I don't judge farmers based on them, but they bother me, and it's their operations that make me worry about the constitutional amendment proposed by Farm Bureau.

I am in a bit of a quandary here. I agree with BadDog about the constitution, but I agree with you about the horses. I would let the French and Japanese eat them. I may want that slaughter to stay in the United States for humane reasons, but also for the jobs it would provide. Send them the meat at a premium price. The wild horse thing is entirely out of control. Their numbers are detrimental to habitat and ranchers.


----------



## dakotashooter2

It really is a scorched earth practice. It's difficult to see many farmers looking past their own lifetimes in terms of land conservation. Farmers have become more and more dependent on chemicals and fertilizers to get land to produce. Common sense tells me that means they are already pushing the land too hard. They are bulldozing shelter belts for convinience not economics. The average farmer will be luck if he sees an economic payback on the removal of a shelter belt for 10-15 years. (excavators don't work cheap) My generation hasn't been around long enough to know first hand why those shelter belts were put there. But one day we will find out. The dirty 30s WILL happen again......................and somebody will be crying in their milk.........


----------



## gst

dakotashooter2 said:


> It's difficult to see many farmers looking past their own lifetimes in terms of land conservation.


Then you must know very different farmers than I do. Todays farmer has a wealth of information on soil health and maintainance avalible to them that was not even heard of years ago. Technologies and advancements in equipment provide forward thinking producers to reap far more from less than ever before. These producers understand to continue moving in this direction the "scorched earth" policies spoke of here simply do not work.

dakota shooter, do you beleive this countries govt has had a food security policy over the last 50 years?

Do you beleive farming technologies and practices have advanced from 70 years ago and will continue to do so?

Do you beleive the demands placed on ag production/acre have increased from what they were 70 years ago?

Would I like to return to the "simpler times" of years past, possibly so. But the REALITY is there are new demands placed on farming today thatwere not even a part of the picture back then. Many of these demands are beyond the control of our industry. That is the reality in todays ag. Please do not base what you beleive ag should be on yesterdays ideals.



dakotashooter2 said:


> I guess if the the ag community wants the same freedom to farm as their ancestors did 100-150 years ago then they should be allowed the same economic support their ancestors got ................ none..... No low interest ag loans...no federal crop insurance... no subsidies......... They are just on thier own to do whatever they want.............. Life is full of compromise.... It would seem farmers have it pretty sweet compared to 100 years ago...............


The same org that is proposing this amendment is also proposing govt be removed from agriculture as well. If govt is removed in the areas you propose, then should they also be removed from regulating and controling the draining of private property, the conversion of native prarie ect....?


----------



## Bad Dog

shaug - when posting I try and choose my words carefully as this is a one demensional medium and things can be misinterpreted. What I said was the FEW large crop farmers THAT practice a scorched earth policy should be in jeopardy. Please do not cite that I want ALL large crop farmers in jeopardy. That is just slander.

There is still a market for horses so please stop stating that there isn't. It may not be for what it used to be, meat, and it may not be at the market price that it once was $600, but people still buy, sell, barter horses. Yeah, it sucks that if I CHOSE to grow echinacea and the market was good. Then a group shut the market down because they believe echinacea leads to health issues. But remember, that in a capitalist democracy, markets come and markets go. I may not agree with it but "it is cuz it is".

Now if we want security, than there is an option for that. It is called Socialism. We are already there to some degree with the current farm program. All we would have to do is go a little further and everyone would have the security that it appears you want.

Becareful for what I wish for? I am everyday. Let me say this AGAIN, hunting is not a RIGHT. Yes, it would suck if hunting altogether was banned. But I would never consider litter our constitution just so I can recreate like I had in the past.

I requested for examples of how ND farmers are being harassed. You must of missed that post. Please provide.


----------



## gst

Bad dog, take the ime to talk with most anyone directly involved in ranching and see what they have to say about the concern over how the ban on horse slaughter here in the US transpired. If you are willing to dismiss this one significant ban as irrelevant simply because you "know absolutely nothing about it" or because it does not affect you personally, what good will it do to provide you other examples as well. Nationally this was a wake up call to those that make their livings in animal ag. Here locally measure 2 was the same wake up call. Simply because you do not beleive they are not "legitimate" reasons does not mean those in ag do not.

I am like you in that I do not want our constitution to begin to make these things a mundane part of it. But you have been asked to provide some other way that these legitimate concerns ag has in UNREASONABLE RESTRICTIONS AND BANS from being forced onto ag and you have given none. If you wish an alternative means other than a constitutional ammendment, perhaps answering this question would give a reason one could get behind.

I have suggested a "truth in the creation of law" statute that would address it on the state level, but how would you deal with activist appointed judges ruling as happened in the horse slaughter?



Bad Dog said:


> shaug - when posting I try and choose my words carefully as this is a one demensional medium and things can be misinterpreted. What I said was the FEW large crop farmers THAT practice a scorched earth policy should be in jeopardy. Please do not cite that I want ALL large crop farmers in jeopardy. That is just slander.


  Glad someone considers this!!


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog wrote,



> I requested for examples of how ND farmers are being harassed. You must of missed that post. Please provide


Throughout these threads I have given many examples of a presumption of harm a presumption of guilt a presumption of fear which culminates into harrassment.

The Alar apple scare
Prairie dogs in SD and how the SD wildlife federation got on the wrong side
Horse Slaughter
Certain groups trying to ban antibioic use in livestock
I believe I mentioned HSUS spending $4 million in Missouri to pass the puppy mill iniative. The Missouri legislature gutted it. 
The Ohio iniative where HSUS wanted more seats on the board.
And last but not least the fair chase folly of ND.

These events are real and did in fact happen. I have probably given more examples but still you demand something more specific while at the very same time you cast about generalizations such as farmers are practicing a scorched earth policy. You will need to be more specific.



> Now if we want security, than there is an option for that. It is called Socialism. We are already there to some degree with the current farm program.


The last pie chart I looked at concerning the expenditures of the farm bill looked something like 53% to nutritional programs, 3% to research, 15% to farmers and 17% to conservation. Can't remember the rest. The point is of that 15% to farmers 6% goes to insurance programs which leaves only 9% going directly to farmers. Conservation gets a bigger percentage. Yes, let's get rid of the farm program. Cut your nose off to spite your face.

Dakotashooter wrote,



> pushing the land too hard. They are bulldozing shelter belts for convinience not economics. The average farmer will be luck if he sees an economic payback on the removal of a shelter belt for 10-15 years. (excavators don't work cheap) My generation hasn't been around long enough to know first hand why those shelter belts were put there. But one day we will find out. The dirty 30s WILL happen again......................and somebody will be crying in their milk.........[/


The hardiest trees are between ages 40 and 60 years. Many of those shelterbelts planted back when used a fast growing tree not known for their longevity. They are old and tipping over. What do you suggest be done?


----------



## swift

GST and Shaug,

How about this, The ag orgs try to take a positive approach of educating the voters of the country as to the importance of the controversial farm issues under attack such as the horse slaughter issue. The route you and your orgs have taken now are to ostracize anyone not involved in ag and cry victim. The policies of the orgs do in fact have ag in their best intrest with a huge burden to the non ag population.

It seems to me their is a symbiotic relationship between sportsman and ag producers. The ag orgs have pushed the common sportsman away to try to capture the pay to hunt crowd thereby increasing their profits. When ag issues arise and votes for or against an ag issue are on the ballot sportsman remember the farmers that are friendly and really remember the orgs that are not. Since the FB, FU and SA have taken the responsibility of speaking for the ag producers of the country they have a larger impact on the outcomes from the ballots.

This is not meant to be a threat just an observation. I heard alot of reasons why the horse slaughter needed to end and not once why it shouldn't. YOUR organizations dropped the ball and you have them, and yourselves to blame.

This is how our system of government was meant to run. Not adding an amendment for every cause.


----------



## gst

swift, if you recall I stated earlier ag HAS to do a better job of proactively telling their story as you mentioned.



swift said:


> The route you and your orgs have taken now are to ostracize anyone not involved in ag and *cry victim*.


Now is that your "opinion" or something more? 



swift said:


> The policies of the orgs do in fact have ag in their best intrest


I am glad you have finally realized this.



swift said:


> with a huge burden to the non ag population.


Can you give examples of this "huge burden"?



swift said:


> The ag orgs have pushed the common sportsman away to try to capture the pay to hunt crowd thereby increasing their profits.


Here in ND, MOST ANYONE that wishes to hunt on private property can if they invest a little time and effort (no Georges) :wink: in creatiung a relationship with a farmer or rancher. If you can not perhpas there is a legitimate reason. To play the pay to hunt card, while it exists, is not the norm.



swift said:


> How about this, The ag orgs try to take a positive approach of educating the voters of the country as to the importance of the controversial farm issues under attack such as the horse slaughter issue.





swift said:


> I heard alot of reasons why the horse slaughter needed to end and not once why it shouldn't. YOUR organizations dropped the ball and you have them, and yourselves to blame.


Swift, do you recall ever having the opportunity to vote on the horse slaughter ban????? You and others do not seem to understand, our ag orgs NEVER got the chance to "educate" the voter why horse slaughter is a necessary part of the horse industry. So please tell us how "educating" the voter will prevent appointed activist judges and the orgs that put these issues in their arenas from banning and restricting agriculture such as what was done in the case of horse slaughter.

I have said repeatedly now if you wish to not go down this path of an amendment, please give an alternative solution to the activist judicial rulings that have effected ag.


----------



## swift

Prior to the horse slaughter ban I saw several ads, tv specials and print media expressing the disgust of horse slaughter. Never once do I remember any media attention to the benefits of \or the need for the horse slaughter industry. Maybe there was some but I would have to think it too little and too ineffective since I can't recall it.

Go ahead and continue to strongarm people and see if the next Ag issue near and dear to your heart gets support or not.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug I can only assume you have chosen not to educate me in brand tracking because the fox is in charge of the chicken coupe. In other words those who use the brands monitor it, and it's private with no public accountability. I hope I am wrong, and if I am someone please tell me.

Throughout these threads I have given many examples of a presumption of harm a presumption of guilt a presumption of fear which culminates into harrassment.



> The Alar apple scare
> Prairie dogs in SD and how the SD wildlife federation got on the wrong side
> Horse Slaughter
> Certain groups trying to ban antibioic use in livestock
> I believe I mentioned HSUS spending $4 million in Missouri to pass the puppy mill iniative. The Missouri legislature gutted it.
> The Ohio iniative where HSUS wanted more seats on the board.
> And last but not least the fair chase folly of ND.


I think Alar was hyped. I am not familiar with the prairie dog controversy, but stop poisoning on federal land and let hunters take care of it. If there are millions great. Puppy mill is farming?????? Antibiotics? Ya, they should keep it our of feed because that's an abuse by agriculture. Over use of antibiotics creates super bugs, and the misuse of antibiotics by doctors is not even comparable to the over use by ranchers and feed lots.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Go ahead and continue to strongarm people and see if the next Ag issue near and dear to your heart gets support or not.


If asking people to substantiate the false claims they make regarding agriculture is "strong arming" people, then indeed I am guilty.

Swift you were asked a couple of direct questions. 
1. Do you recall ever getting a chance to "vote" on the ban on horse slaughter?
2. If you do not wish to see this amendment to our constitution, how do you propose the activist judicial rulings such as the one made regarding horse slaughter that negatively affect ag based on emotion rather than sound science be dealt with?



Plainsman said:


> Shaug I can only assume you have chosen not to educate me in brand tracking because *the fox is in charge of the chicken coupe*.


You can only "educate" those that actually wish to be "educated".

Plainsman, your statement at the end of the sentence indicates you are less concerned about becoming "educated" than you are in once again making unsubstantiated accusations.

As a director on the org. that administers our states brand program I could "educate" you all you wish, but for some reason I have the idea it would simply end up like most other times. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug, sorry I had to cut that last post short, but I had a noon meeting.

Anyway, I see swift used the term strongarm, so I am assuming gst is still crying about horses and "strong opinion". Since my statement about agriculture overuse of antibiotics may inflame some I would say go to google and google agriculture antibiotic overuse. You will find dozens of articles. Some that have endangered farm workers. Here is an excerpt from one:



> This is not an isolated incident and chickens aren't the only concern. A University of Iowa studylast year, found a new strain of MRSA -- in nearly three-quarters of hogs (70 percent), and nearly two-thirds of the workers (64 percent) -- on several farms in Iowa and Western Illinois. All of them use antibiotics, routinely. On antibiotic-free farms no MRSA was found.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/ ... 1530.shtml

The problem is they don't wait for animals to become sick they package food with antibiotics already in it. Sort of a just in case mentality. That is the mentality that will develop super-bugs. As a matter of fact many of the articles you find will use the term super-bug. Agriculture will make obsolete antibiotics as fast as we can produce new ones. While doing that they will also produce the new even more dangerous and improved supper-bugs. This isn't just a wild opinion, it is well documented in the scientific community. 
So how about that brand tracking system. I know your perhaps busy, but I would have thought someone would have responded.


----------



## swift

Plainsman, isn't the ignore feature great?


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> Plainsman, isn't the ignore feature great?


So you figured that one out.  Yup, no use listening to things that have no value. I suppose though that it will be taken advantage of. We will get debated and not even know it. Sort of like a 200 lb sophomore boy pounding on a 6th grader and bragging about it. Ooooor shooting an elk inside a pen.  But, life is great.  I just hope when Shaug finds the time he can tell me about tracking brands. No doubt gst would know that too, since he knows everything. oke: However, I want reality not bs. If I don't get an answer maybe Elmer Fudd really is the tracking for brands.

One thing I have figured out is that Shaug actually works will gst has a lot of time on his hands. oke:

Actually I have a relative that still has a registered brand. I suppose I could break down and ask him. Also, he gets some kind of publication from I think it's the stockmen's association.


----------



## gst

For some reasonn this "ignore" feature seems to be a bit like a child on the play ground sticking his fingers in his ears and singing la la la as loud as he can so he simply des not hear what others are saying. :roll:

The "nonpersonal" pledge was nice while it lasted!!! :wink:

plainsman, Regardless of how far in your ears you wish to stick your fingers if you choose to make claims you can not substantiate as true regarding agriculture it will be pointed out. :wink:

Swift would you care to answer two simple questions?


----------



## Plainsman

Swift your in medicine are you not? Maybe you can tell me if I am right or wrong. Doesn't research prove their is a link between continuous use of antibiotics in animal food and the development of more resistant strains or as they describe it super-bugs?


----------



## swift

Over use of antibiotics is certainly blamed for antibiotic resistant organisms. I am not trained in vet medicine so I cannot say with certainty the same holds true in the animal world. Common sense would say the same holds true in animals but common sense is not so common anymore.


----------



## Plainsman

Over use is very common in the domestic animal world. Antibiotics are included daily with food. It is fed to chickens, turkeys, pigs, cattle etc on a daily basis. Large producers of turkeys, beef feed lots etc order food containing antibiotics. They shovel it to them sick or not. A just in case attitude. I guess it's cheaper than loosing an animal or two. Same with the growth hormones in food for poultry. I wonder how many chemicals we are getting in our food?

Unfortunately ag has a big club in the political world. Ag responds to our questions just like those old ladies in the Kohls Diner advertisement that say "shut up und eat".


----------



## ShineRunner

I used to raise broiler house chickens, we had to put med's in the water and the feed was medicated. 5 to 6 lb. chickens withing 5 weeks. Go figure! At one time we had to clean the litter out and sweep the chicken house floors, wash the interior with chemicals and guess what the chickens got sick. More med's didn't work so they finally had us go to cleaning out the house once a year and no washdown. Chickens where obese but not getting sick. I am not a organic freak but from my experience with the chickens too many med's and too clean is not the answer.

What I am trying to say is that the genius's at Tyson finally figured out that feeding the additional med's didn't prevent disease but only caused other problems.

Plainsman below is a website that explains some of the problems with excessive medications in livestock.

http://www.saveantibiotics.org/


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Over use is very common in the domestic animal world.


please define "over use" as it is "very common" .

Responsible use of antibiotics as well as any pharmaceutical is VERY important. However all to often people who do not have enough understanding regarding this make comments that show their lack of understanding or have an ulterior agenda. The use of "hormones" is an often claimed "evil". Yet the same people making these claims when asked know very little about how much of these same "hormones" occur naturally in other foods or in other items they consume. I would suspect this is a case of the same.



Plainsman said:


> I wonder how many chemicals we are getting in our food?


You always have the option of buying "organic" foods that are certified "chemical" free! :wink:

There is a difference between responsibly and factually monitoring and discussing the safety and quality of our food in this country, and making claims simply because you have a willie over ag, ag orgs, or individuals involved in ag. To use these as a basis behind ones comments regarding food production here in the US lacks credibility.


----------



## gst

Shinerunner, we haven;t bought a commercially raised chicken for years. Eat beef!!! :wink:


----------



## swift

another argument I've heard is that hormones are natural. Fact is the livestock do produce hormones but not at a level that are needed for the rapid growth and quick maturity larger weights at sale barns.

Barry Bonds had plenty of endogenous testosterone to live a healthy life. The exogenous testosterone made him bigger and stronger and likely will shorten his life.

Lyle Alzado died as a result of taking exogenous steroids. Our bodies produce several different steroids at the levels needed to live and grow. Overdosing the body with "natural " hormones and steroids can and has been proven to have a negative effect on the body.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

I am too busy for a lot of coffee shop talk. I do not want to get too far into branding and/or my neighbor who is an inspecter.
He is a farmer and I support that local control. Given the choice between local and big brother I am quite sure you would support big fed/gov control.

Swift wrote,



> Prior to the horse slaughter ban I saw several ads, tv specials and print media expressing the disgust of horse slaughter. Never once do I remember any media attention to the benefits of \or the need for the horse slaughter industry. Maybe there was some but I would have to think it too little and too ineffective since I can't recall it.
> 
> Go ahead and continue to strongarm people and see if the next Ag issue near and dear to your heart gets support or not.


I was visiting with a friend in Texas. Hay is now 250 per ton for poor grass hay. People have had their horses on a crash diet for months praying for rain. Some had given up and dumped their horses loose on public highways etc. The wild fires have given people an out or alibi to turn others loose with no intention of recovering them. Recently 450 homes burned by Austin. I am familiar with Basdrop County. Little farms with a horse or two here and there. Swift, these people did not organize and collect millions of dollars to protect they property or the rights in the property. That right was taken from them. Now their horses are worthless. You can't feed them 250 dollar hay. You can't let them starve. You can't sell them.

Swift, the state of Texas is now rounding up these unwanted horses and putting them into a facility stocked with 250 dollar per ton hay paid for by the taxpayers. Where is the public outrage? Where are the tv specials and print media ads expressing digust of the horse slaughter ban? Swift, you have been duped.

So where do we go from here? Dump all the unwanted horses on the lawn of the DC Capitol because the politicians passed the law. Not hardly. Do we dump them on that activist constituency who prodded their politicians into action? Not hardly. They won't take responsibilty claiming instead it is now everyones responsiblity. They don't care if the taxpayer is spending 250 per ton for hay or $500. In Nevada, the wild horse round-up is costing the taxpayers millions. Swift, have you seen the videos on TV of the helicopter pilot who touched a mustang with a helicopter skid shoe? Oh the torture these horses are being subjected too. On the flip side swift have you seen even one video released by the media talking to a rancher who lives at ground zero? Again swift, you have been duped, along with all the soccer moms living in Cities.

What we need to do is pass the Farm Bureau measure. It would be the first of its kind but isn't the first time something like this has been introduced. In Missouri a joint resolution has been introduced to the legistature. The second part says,

2. No initiative proposal relating to the opportunity to harvest bird, fish, game, wildlife, or forestry resources shall take effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast thereon, except that this provision shall not apply to any iniative proposal involving the establishment, amendment or repeal of sales taxes for conservation purposes pursuant to section 43(a) of this arcticle.

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt ... R00431.htm

The trouble with 2/3 rds majority is than everyone would want the same protection from the ballot box.

But something needs to be done. A person can follow all the rules set forth by the state. Invest their livelyhood, their sweat equity and their family into a business venture and some activists can get the meda behind them simply bulldoze them under. That is BS.

Bad Dog wrote,



> There is still a market for horses so please stop stating that there isn't. It may not be for what it used to be, meat, and it may not be at the market price that it once was $600, but people still buy, sell, barter horses. Yeah, it sucks that if I CHOSE to grow echinacea and the market was good. Then a group shut the market down because they believe echinacea leads to health issues. But remember, that in a capitalist democracy, markets come and markets go. I may not agree with it but "it is cuz it is".


Who is going to invest in America? Why is so much capital sitting on the sidelines? Bad Dog, we are not a capitalist democracy, we are a republic. We are not majority rule or mob rule. Even the little guy has rights.

Bad Dog, yes I know markets come and markets go. Let the consumer decide with their pocket book. Somehow I get the feeling you work for the government and you would like to have the authority to make those choices for others.


----------



## swift

Shaug, I understand the horse slaughter ban is a bad thing. I just wanted to show if the ag orgs would have taken some effort to blitz the media like those pushing for the ban maybe it wouldn't have happened. Why hasn't the ag orgs appealed the ban? Why is it still in effect? Too much time and effort is wasted on trying to secure every acre of land for farmers, pushing for a no tax life and spitting in the face of what once was the biggest outside supporters of agriculture, instead of fighting was is truely an ag issue.

Here is another eyeopener for you... Many Americans have lost their pensions, investments, jobs and livelyhoods because of the bad luck economy. Somehow in your post about Texas you seem to think these horse farmers should be afforded special protections for their investments. If you guys want to run ag like big business then go ahead and take your losses with your gains. How many of those little farms with horses have aquired horses since the ban on slaughter came into effect? If your still buying horses then you are accepting the risk just like if I was still buying ENRON stock.

Again you cry victim. Fact is an investment was made and the return isn't what you expected.

there was a day when a neighbor with hay would have not gouged the price just because he can. I say this because "family farms" looked out for their own back then. Now we no longer have family farms just big business wearing overalls and cowboy hats that don't give a hoot about anyone but their own bottom line. This is how it was in Texas when I lived there from 1979-1982 and is how it is becoming in ND thirty years later.

1. Questions for you and GST...
How would your great-grandfathers react to the way their farms are run today? How would they respond to the policy book of the FB now?

We won't agree on the answer because you wont give an honest answer.

One more comparison to your worthless horse story....
2 years ago I bought a Black Lab for $1000 (true story) at age 12-15 he will die most likely. Why must I incur that loss of a thousand dollars that I spent? This is no different that the horse that isn't worth anything 20 years later that you gave $600 for that you used as an example.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> 1. Questions for you and GST...
> How would your great-grandfathers react to the way their farms are run today? How would they respond to the policy book of the FB now?


Swift, I honestly do not know. And here is why. What would our great grandfathers say about people right here in ND trying to ban a legally approved livestock enterprise?

What would our great grandfathers say of the societal changes that have occured?

What would our great grandfathers say about the technological changes that have occured since their generation?

What would our great grandfathers say about the fact you can not legally start a plant to process kill horses here in ND???

I have an idea what my Grandfather would have said about that!! 



swift said:


> Why hasn't the ag orgs appealed the ban?


Swift, the ND legislature is researching the options avalible to the horse industry here in ND.



swift said:


> I just wanted to show if the ag orgs would have taken some effort to blitz the media like those pushing for the ban maybe it wouldn't have happened.


You do not seem to understand how the ban on horse slaughter transpired here in the US. There was no chance to "blitz" the media.



swift said:


> One more comparison to your worthless horse story....
> 2 years ago I bought a Black Lab for $1000 (true story) at age 12-15 he will die most likely. Why must I incur that loss of a thousand dollars that I spent? This is no different that the horse that isn't worth anything 20 years later that you gave $600 for that you used as an example.


Swift has someone moved to block funding for the Federal inspections of the plant where you would have disposed of your lab for a value?? Is there legislation pending that would make it illegal to knowingly sell that lab to someone that at some time may kill that dog? Has an activist judge ruled blocking you from having the opportunity to receive a value that once existed for your old unwanted lab?? Swift what you do not seem to understand the loss of value is only one small part of what disturbs those in ag about the horse slaughter ban. It is the fact that you can no longer slaughter, process, or possibly in the future even transport horses to do so in this country that is the issue. So now that these groups have succeeded in banning this for horses, what animal ag industry do you suppose they will target next???

What is "worthless" here is your comparison that has no connection to the ban on horse slaughter what so ever. At least Bad Dog admitted he "knew absolutely nothing about the horse slaughter ban"!! :wink:


----------



## shaug

Well swift, it certainly didn't take you long to get everything mixed up in your head. Yes hay is $250 dollars per ton in Texas. But you are wrong about gentlemen wearing cowboy hats trying to profit off of the misfortunes of others in Texas. It is always the same theme with you. Greedy ranchers greedy farmers. It seems a person has to take you by the hand like a little boy and draw you a map.

Here is the situation. There is no hay in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and parts of Missouri. Hay is being trucked right now from North Dakota south. The producers in ND are getting $50 dollars per ton and the trucking costs $200 dollars to Texas. Swift, I do know something about this as my hay is going to Kansas.

The point I was trying to make is that the taxpayers should be outraged that their tax dollars are going to feed expensive hay to unwanted horses.

Swift wrote,



> Again you cry victim. Fact is an investment was made and the return isn't what you expected.


As a taxpayer, you are the victim dummy.


----------



## swift

> An ongoing drought in areas of Texas, Oklahoma, and southern Kansas is driving up the price of hay
> 
> The high hay prices will be a source of concern for cattle producers in the South but it opens up a bigger market for Nebraska producers.
> 
> Hay sitting in area fields can be a gold mine for local producers.
> 
> The drought is prompting producers in the southern plains to look for hay in other places like Nebraska.
> 
> "What we have been seeing is a lot of hay being sold in Nebraska even as far north as South Dakota," said Jerry Volesky, a range specialist. "The hay is being shipped to the southern plains areas that are seeing the serious shortage. In turn, that has driven up the prices."
> 
> http://www.knopnews2.com/index.php?opti ... Itemid=105
> 
> *Hay Shortage Leads To Price Increase *
> 
> Volesky says the higher price of hay is not good news for all producers but there will be quite a few that will benefit from the higher prices.
> 
> "Overall it is probably more of an advantage for the producers of hay," he said. "We did have pretty good hay production year in Nebraska and may cow calf producers do make a good portion if not of their own hay they use. There are a few livestock producers here in Nebraska that do buy hay. They need to expect a more scarce supply and expect to pay more than they did last year."
> 
> The price of alfalfa hay is 50 percent higher but grass hay is holding steady.
> 
> Volesky expect the price of gas hay to go higher through the fall.
> 
> He also expects more hay to be on its way out of the state as producers in the south do everything they can to feed their cattle.


Your right Shaug, Nobody is profiting on the disaster down south.

Just think how much money I could make if everytime there was an Influenza outbreak I could raise my prices due to supply and demand. But we both know that is not ethical in my business. Thats why we are "family medicine" We take govt subsidy money, so we cannot refuse patients or charge different. You take govt subsidy and still get to call your own shots.

What do you think Shaug is the loss of CRP and other hay ground to crop production playing a roll in the hay shortage? Should ND open their CRP to haying because of a shortage caused by flooding in the state but have hay leaving the state for bigger paydays?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> You take govt subsidy and still get to call your own shots.


I tell you what swift, lets do away with all govt subsidies in ag. In return the govt (the people) then have no say in what is done on these private lands in regards to draining, farming of HE soils ect... They have no say in the conversion of native grasslands to crop production even if it is detrimental to the Sprauges Pipet. :wink:

Call your own shots???!!!???? Apparently you have not spent much time in a FSA office!!


----------



## swift

> California Ballot Proposal Would Ban Home Foreclosures
> 8/17/[email protected]:52PDT News Desk
> 
> Image via Wikipedia
> 
> Aug. 17, 2011
> Business Law Daily
> 
> SACRAMENTO, Calif. - *California could ban lender-initiated home foreclosures, under a proposed amendment to the state's constitution that would make home ownership a fundamental right.*
> 
> Initiative 11-0014 could appear on the ballot in November 2012, if supporters submit more than 800,000 voter signatures necessary to qualify the measure.
> 
> The Foreclosure Modification Act, a proposed citizen's initiative, would ban mortgagees from foreclosing on owner-occupied dwellings in the Golden State. It would further require banks and other lenders to help mortgage borrowers struggling amid financial hardship or illness.
> 
> Additionally, lenders would be required to reduce loan principal amounts to reflect a drop in local property values of at least 10 percent. Payments would be adjusted without a new credit review, the proposal states.
> 
> Lending institutions would have 45 days - from a borrower's requests - to refinance a loan maintained for at least three years, the proposal seeks to mandate.
> 
> If enacted, the initiative would state a finding that "foreclosure has become a method of increasing a lending institution, loan servicer, mortgagee, trustee and beneficiary's bottom line and profits by turning borrowers out of their homes."
> 
> David A. Benson of Sacramento brought the ballot question on behalf of himself and other California homeowners. On June 7, he requested a ballot title and summary from the attorney general's office. The documents are required for the secretary of state to set filing deadlines for the initiative.
> 
> 'Fundamental Right'
> 
> If approved by two-thirds of ballots, Article I of the California Constitution would be amended, in part, to add Section 31, declaring: "It is a fundamental right for every Californian to purchase and own a home and real property. As such no township, city, county, municipality, corporate entity, the Legislature or agents thereof shall infringe on this given right of the State of California to its citizens."
> 
> California Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) on July 27 approved Initiative 11-0014 for signature collection. A copy of the materials is here.
> 
> For the measure to go before voters, proponents must submit at least 807,615 valid signatures to county elections officials. The campaign has until Dec. 27 to do so, the state Division of Elections specified in County Clerk/Registrar of Voters (CC/ROV) Memorandum 11-055.
> 
> Article II of the California Constitution says that for a proposed constitutional amendment to qualify for the ballot, the number of registered voters' signatures submitted must be equal to at least 8 percent of the total votes cast for governor at the most recent gubernatorial election (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8(b)).
> 
> State Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) last month approved the measure's ballot title and summary for petitions.
> 
> On July 27, the office forwarded the language to Bowen, the state's chief elections officer.
> 
> The Department of Justice's analysis of the bill submitted to Bowen found that some of the initiative's provisions could be unconstitutional and possibly clash with federal statute and regulations for federally chartered banks, which are supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) through Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
> 
> Revenue Loss
> 
> Adjusting loan amounts would cost local governments billions of dollars in lost revenue from property taxes and other assessments, DOJ noted.
> 
> Potential state costs are "up to the low billions of dollars annually" because constitutional provisions require the treasury to replace the loss of property tax revenue to cities and counties.
> 
> That's partly because local tax coffers are used to meet education-funding requirements for K-12 public schools and community colleges. Minimum schools' funding provisions were placed in the California Constitution in 1988, with voter approval of Proposition 98.
> 
> The secretary of state's Elections Division will have until April 27, 2012, to certify the initiative as qualified for the ballot, under the timeframe provided in statute, at Elections Code section 9031(d) and Section 9033.
> 
> Election Requirements
> 
> Initiative 11-0014 is subject campaign disclosure requirements outlined in California's Political Reform Act of 1974 (Cal. Gov't §§ 81000 et seq.), the Elections Division memo stated.
> 
> The ballot measure must qualify at least 131 days before the next statewide election at which time the measure would appear on the ballot (Cal. Elec. § 9016).
> 
> Residents' right to seek initiatives is guaranteed in Article II and Article XVIII of the California Constitution. Initiatives may be sought to propose laws or make changes to the state constitution (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8).
> 
> The citizen initiative process was created Oct. 10, 1911, after Senate Constitutional Amendment 22 was approved by the California Legislature (S.C.A. 22; Ch. 22, Stats. 1911).
> 
> Voters ratified the constitutional amendment through passage of Proposition 7, in a special election called by Gov. Hiram Johnson (R).


A right to borrow money and not pay it back. Just like a right to an occupation you are clamoring for. Neither should be garnered through a constitutional right. They should be gotten through hard work and good practices. Where do these constitutional rights end?


----------



## shaug

Swift,

I see you are up to your old tactics. When you mentally run out of material you start cut and pasteing anything you can find on the net. Beware of that organic consumers site. (grin)


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Swift,
> 
> I see you are up to your old tactics. When you mentally run out of material you start cut and pasteing anything you can find on the net. Beware of that organic consumers site. (grin)


I think that's because gst wanted things substantiated. Meaning anyone but us I think. Actually I think gst means a farmer has to say it. 



> The producers in ND are getting $50 dollars per ton and the trucking costs $200 dollars to Texas. Swift, I do know something about this as my hay is going to Kansas.


Wow, I would have thought that was very high for shipping. I guess I am behind on the trucking costs. Monday I am going to call a local shipper here in Jamestown. If I find a better price do you want the truckers name?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Wow, I would have thought that was very high for shipping. I guess I am behind on the trucking costs. Monday I am going to call a local shipper here in Jamestown. If I find a better price do you want the truckers name?


The trucks that are coming up from down south are carrying pumps and pipe into the oilfield at $4.00 dollars per loaded mile. They charge us $2.50 per loaded mile on the back haul. If they charged us 4 there is no way any of this hay would be going anywhere.

That local shipper, is he a friend of yours? Does he even remotely think like you? Would he be able to turn right if he came to a right turn in the road? Ha


----------



## swift

Shaug I see your up to your old tactics of ignoring the questions and attacking the cutting and pasteing even though you want things to back up my claims. That organic website was a TV station report nice try though to discredit the point that hay producers are making a huge profit on the draught down south.

Again should CRP be opened in ND to Haying because of a shortage related to flooding when hay producers are shipping hay to Kansas and Texas for a big profit?

How much hay that you sold to Kansas was CRP hay?

It's not that hard of questions. Educate me.

I have 325 bales sitting in my field I'm selling to a local rancher because, by his own admission, he broke all his hay ground to plant corn. Now he doesn't have any hay for his cattle. I suppose I would be better off selling it to Kansas and Oklahoma for big money but for me being a good neighbor means more than making a couple thousand dollars off some people already stretched thin by a natural disaster.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Shaug I see your up to your old tactics of ignoring the questions





gst said:


> What would our great grandfathers say about people right here in ND trying to ban a legally approved livestock enterprise?
> 
> What would our great grandfathers say of the societal changes that have occured?
> 
> What would our great grandfathers say about the technological changes that have occured since their generation?
> 
> What would our great grandfathers say about the fact you can not legally start a plant to process kill horses here in ND???





gst said:


> Swift has someone moved to block funding for the Federal inspections of the plant where you would have disposed of your lab for a value?? Is there legislation pending that would make it illegal to knowingly sell that lab to someone that at some time may kill that dog? Has an activist judge ruled blocking you from having the opportunity to receive a value that once existed for your old unwanted lab?? So now that these groups have succeeded in banning this for horses, what animal ag industry do you suppose they will target next???





gst said:


> Swift you were asked a couple of direct questions.
> 1. Do you recall ever getting a chance to "vote" on the ban on horse slaughter?
> 2. If you do not wish to see this amendment to our constitution, how do you propose the activist judicial rulings such as the one made regarding horse slaughter that negatively affect ag based on emotion rather than sound science be dealt with?


Swift, if you are going to critisize someone for not answering questions, perhaps you should take the time to answer the ones you have been asked first! Particularily ones directly related to the topic of the thread!!! :wink:



swift said:


> How much hay that you sold to Kansas was CRP hay?


Swift, much like there are regulations preventing certain things from happening in the medical "profession" , there are rregulations regarding the haying of CRP as well. One regulation is CRP hay that is put up under an emergency declaration can not be sold.

You seem to have a significant "willie" over the haying of CRP.

You do know that "profit" is what is left after expenses have been taken out right? Take the time to actually talk with these producers you claim are making "huge profits" and see after land costs (principal, interest and taxes) fuel costs, repair costs, machinery costs, seed costs, fertilizer costs, ect... how much "huge profit" is left. :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> *Educate me.[/b]
> I have 325 bales sitting in my field I'm selling to a local rancher because, by his own admission, he broke all his hay ground to plant corn. Now he doesn't have any hay for his cattle..*


*

swift We can try!!!  It really is simple math. With commodity prices where they have been the last few years and planting technologies and methods more dollars can be generated off that land/acre thru farming it than can be done in ranching thru grazing or forage production. That rancher can than take those dollars and purchase more hay than could be raised on that same amount of land.

It is a simple business decision, some years the producer will get caught with lower commodity prices and higher hay costs some years not.



swift said:



I suppose I would be better off selling it to Kansas and Oklahoma for big money but for me being a good neighbor means more than making a couple thousand dollars off some people already stretched thin by a natural disaster

Click to expand...

Swift you would just end up paying even MORE taxes than you already do on all those "huge profits" from selling your hay any way. That hay you are "selling" your neighbor would be from CRP would it?? :wink:*


----------



## Plainsman

> That local shipper, is he a friend of yours? Does he even remotely think like you? Would he be able to turn right if he came to a right turn in the road? Ha


Shaug, why the sarcasm? No he isn't a friend. I think he could turn right at a right turn. The 20 some trucks they run keep coming back home. 
So it's $2.50 per loaded mile. Put that in real numbers for me if you don't mind. How much per ton, how many miles, how many tons do they carry?

Swift, your going to be told they can't sell CRP hay. As a matter of fact your post is nearly an hour old so I bet you have already been told that.  Here is how the farmers I know work it. They keep their CRP hay and sell the hay from other land. Section one is CRP and section two is their traditional hay land. Hay section one and keep the CRP hay, then hay section two and sell it all. You could drive a train through the loophole. The program is not working as intended. Every year is a disaster. Seventeen inches of rain is a drought disaster, and seventeen and one half is a flood disaster.

I hope they don't cut to much of that CRP or the pheasant whisperers are not going to cash in this fall.


----------



## swift

gst, I can only think you are answering my posts with more of your crap. Don't bother I will not open your posts nor will I get into another lopsided discussion with someone that cannot follow a single thought. I would reccommend you enable the ignore feature on my posts as well then maybe the conversations will be civil and meaningful. Then you wont know when I am spreading lies or whatever you think I do. Its working for me.


----------



## Plainsman

Swift you know how some guys constantly complain? If we had as many negative things to say about what we do you know what they would say don't you? They would tell us to do something else. My serious advise would be get out. Sell the land and live off the interest of two or three million.  We all know why North Dakota has more millionaires per capita than any other state.


----------



## gst

For some reason after reading the last couple of posts by swift and plainsman I have the image of a couple of old ladies in a hair salon sitting under hair driers with their heads cocked so one ear is outside the drier doing their best to "ignore" what is being said!!!


----------



## Plainsman

You bet I checked. Swifts post sounded serious. My curiosity got the better of me. So now you can get back to unloading that CRP on some Texas guy.  Ooops, I mean your hay. I know your CRP hay will not leave the farm.


----------



## shaug

GST wrote,



> For some reason after reading the last couple of posts by swift and plainsman I have the image of a couple of old ladies in a hair salon sitting under hair driers with their heads cocked so one ear is outside the drier doing their best to "ignore" what is being said!!!


I don't care who you are, that right there was funny.

Swift wrote,



> Shaug I see your up to your old tactics of ignoring the questions and attacking the cutting and pasteing even though you want things to back up my claims. That organic website was a TV station report nice try though to discredit the point that hay producers are making a huge profit on the draught down south.
> 
> Again should CRP be opened in ND to Haying because of a shortage related to flooding when hay producers are shipping hay to Kansas and Texas for a big profit?
> 
> How much hay that you sold to Kansas was CRP hay?
> 
> It's not that hard of questions. Educate me.


I never pressured you to back up "your claims." We both know that they are just that, nothing more. "Claims"

Farmers selling hay to Kansas or Texas for a big profit? Another claim.

How much sold was CRP hay you presumably claim? Sorry, but I do not have any CRP. Nor do I think it should be sold. No. 1 the law says so and No. 2 it is junk hay. Green needle, western wheat and some other natives have little protein, relative feed value or nutritional value when dried and baled. It's crap.

Swift, you sound like a stuck record. You have your pet peeves and every conversation has to go down the path you desire. Greedy rancher/farmers, CRP, the communists over at Farm Bureau/Farmers Union, high fence etc. Everything in your life is a contradiction.

You say you are a pharmicist but you don't sound all that professional. You brag you pay lots of taxes. If you are paying taxes then you are making money and that is a good thing unless according to you that person is in agriculture, then they are greedy. You do not like guides and outfitters because they are commercializers but then you turn right around and hire them to take you charter fishing. You do not like high fence but went to Africa and hunted on one.

Swift, there is something very wrong with this picture. You never add anything of substance to these discussions. It isn't even vocabulary. Do you just like to argue? Are you really a pharmicist? You just don't seem all that professional.


----------



## swift

Typical shaug don't like the proof in the pasted article take a swipe at me personaly. I a not a Pharmacist nor did I ever claim to be one. Fact is the hay producers will come out very well because of this draught. CRP will be hayed in ND because there is a "shortage" but you are shipping hay to Kansas because their is either no market for it in ND or you can turn a larger profit down south. AGAIN WHY SHIP HAY TO KANSAS IF THERE IS A SHORTAGE IN NORTH DAKOTA? Even my dull mind can figure out transport costs would be a lot less staying in state. By the way you never saw a post against HFH. I would not support the measure as written because it violated private property rights. If your going to bash me atleast get Some understanding of what I stand for.


----------



## Plainsman

> Sorry, but I do not have any CRP. Nor do I think it should be sold. No. 1 the law says so


Good man Shaug. I think maybe you and swift should stop arguing. If you feel that way I don't think your that far apart. Maybe your just arguing because your a farmer and think you need to support them. I'm not blaming you for that it appears everyone in society does that. I would perhaps have made a lot more money in my career if I hadn't told superiors they were screwing up when they were screwing up. Not everyone wants honest answers when they say they do.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> CRP will be hayed in ND because there is a "shortage" but you are shipping hay to Kansas because their is either no market for it in ND or you can turn a larger profit down south. AGAIN WHY SHIP HAY TO KANSAS IF THERE IS A SHORTAGE IN NORTH DAKOTA? Even my dull mind can figure out transport costs would be a lot less staying in state.


Emergency grazing of CRP was allowed this past spring because cattle needed to be moved to higher ground.

Plainsman wrote,



> Good man Shaug. I think maybe you and swift should stop arguing. If you feel that way I don't think your that far apart. Maybe your just arguing because your a farmer and think you need to support them. I'm not blaming you for that it appears everyone in society does that. I would perhaps have made a lot more money in my career if I hadn't told superiors they were screwing up when they were screwing up. Not everyone wants honest answers when they say they do.


Swift belongs in a group session someplace. He has a lot of issues.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> swift wrote:
> Plainsman, isn't the ignore feature great?
> 
> So you figured that one out





Plainsman said:


> You bet I checked. Swifts post sounded serious. My curiosity got the better of me.


Plainsman, there's no peeking! :wink:


----------



## gst

This was sent to me in an email.

People can come on this site and make all sorts of accusations of "greed, sticking their heads in mailboxes, rip rape and run, elitists, lords of the land, anti sportsman" ect... and claims they can not substantiate against agriculture in an attempt to paint a picture of agriculture that fits THEIR agendas.

And yet this above video is what the VAST majority of farmers and ranchers here in ND are still about. Particularily the very last part.

Those not involved in agriculture may not understand this generational connection to the land their operations and the stewardship that contnues this connection for the next generation and it'simportance to those involved in agriculture production. I understand that. If I was not directly involved in production agriculture I would likely not understand the specific challenges and rewards either. What is being asked here is to simply be honest and truthful in discussing issues such as these and try not to make the assumptions that others are trying to have people believe with unsubstantiated claims.



swift said:


> If your going to bash me atleast get Some understanding of what I stand for.


This statement cuts both ways.


----------



## Plainsman

> Swift belongs in a group session someplace. He has a lot of issues.


I agree with him on most things, and I think in private:

Are you sitting down? Truth be told I think if you, swift, gst, and I were at a coffee table we would agree on more things than we disagree on. It's not farmers I am against it's some practices. I know there is pressure to be united, because you really do have enemies. However, in private I am absolutely sure you guys have more conservation minded operations. GST told me so, and I believe him, even if he calls me a liar, but I can't push him to agree on those bad practices. So I have a conflict in my mind about gst. Is he the conservationist I believe him to be, and if so why does he protect bad ag practices. Yes, I am behind on some of the more modern practices, but once I look at them I have the background to tell if they are good or bad. Some are good for everyone, some practices are good for most, some are only good for farmers, and slightly bad for the rest of us, some are slightly bad for farmers and real bad environmentally, Some old practices need to be dropped.

I think you guys argue to protect all ag practices because your afraid if you give an inch some a hole will try to take a mile. However, there are a few among you who really do practice rip, rape, and run. Gst can't admit that. That means he thinks all farmers are good and all practices are good. That's not true. For me doing the right thing is more important than simply sticking up for my profession. How many times have you heard me talk about stupid government regulations?

CRP? It isn't CHP, conservation haying program. I think about it just like I think about illegal aliens. When they sneak cross that border they are criminal. When they sell CRP hay I think they are just as criminal because they have stolen not from the government, but from the people because the people are the government. Your reaction towards this speaks volumes of your integrity. So much so that I don't like being on the opposite side sometimes.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> However, there are a few among you who really do practice rip, rape, and run. Gst can't admit that.


Plainsman, just in case you decide to "peek" again, if you go back and actually read what I have said on more than one occassion, I have said that like every other industry or "profession" agriculture has it's "bad apples" .



Plainsman said:


> Is he the conservationist I believe him to be, and if so why does he protect bad ag practices.


As you have never personally met me you have no idea what I "protect" and what I do not, yet you continue to assume.



Plainsman said:


> Are you sitting down? Truth be told I think if you, swift, gst, and I were at a coffee table we would agree on more things than we disagree on


I typically do not spend much time at cofee tables with people that have no actual back ground in an industry, but yet have the arrogance to tell some one in said industry what is best for their operations, particularily when they have never once met these individuals nor have any knowledge of their operation.



Plainsman said:


> Yes, I am behind on some of the more modern practices, but once I look at them I have the background to tell if they are good or bad.


Good or bad for agriculture and the people that depend on it at the grocery store, or good or bad for YOUR purposes whatever they may be? A perfect example of the arrogance that "supports" agriculture as long as agriculture does what THEY want. And THAT is why many in ag beleive this amendment is necessary. HSUS "supports" agriculture as long as it is done THEIR way as well!


----------



## Plainsman

I decided to hang in and watch for your response.
GST wrote:


> A perfect example of the arrogance that "supports" agriculture as long as agriculture does what THEY want.


Isn't that how the world works? You support many things until it doesn't work out for you gst. That's how others operate also. There are those like myself that admit it, then there are the deceivers. 
GST wrote:


> Good or bad for agriculture and the people that depend on it at the grocery store, or good or bad for YOUR purposes whatever they may be


Plainsman wrote previously:


> Some are good for everyone, some practices are good for most, some are only good for farmers, and slightly bad for the rest of us, some are slightly bad for farmers and real bad environmentally, Some old practices need to be dropped.


gst, if you could close your mouth long enough for your brain to work you would have seen that I already explained that. Perhaps your brain is working. You need an enemy (boogeyman) for your scare tactics to work. Hence it agitates you when reason is spoken. 
I have jumped to no conclusions about what you support gst. You debate me on different types of wetland drainage, which means you support them. Ethanol is a joke, but you debate what I say, so evidently you support it. Either that or you see yourself an agriculture Einstein and your simply looking for ways to flaunt your brilliance. Not. 

I don't ignore you because I am like a little boy with his fingers in his ears. I ignore you because I don't want my reaction to your drivel making other farmers/ranchers take to heart what I say to you. I am open to Shaug's opinion because he has been open. I will ignore you because I don't want you to get your little hammer and try drive a wedge in that. You to me are not a good representative of agriculture.


----------



## swift

believe it or not I don't have a personal gripe with Shaug. Just the alter he bows down to known as the NDFU and NDFB. IF these orgs actually cared about how their agendas swipe at the vast majority of the citizens of ND and made policies that promoted ag without ostracizing non-ag people they would likely be a very good thing. It is painfully obvious that members like GST don't have much use for anyone that doesn't drive a tractor. I hoped that Shaug wouldn't have that same mindset. It seems that those that embrace the organization to the point of office holding have the most extreme beliefs. Much like the unions in the 40's the ag orgs, in order to be relevent in the 21st century they have to keep pushing beyond their initial worth.


----------



## gst

lets see, I thought we were suppose to keep from making "personal" comments plainsman? Apparently the law you lay down does not apply to you or swift. :wink:

I thought we were suppose to stick to the topic at hand which is the NDFB measure plainsman? Apparently that does not apply to you or swift?

And last but not least,



Plainsman said:


> swift wrote:
> Plainsman, isn't the ignore feature great?
> 
> So you figured that one out.


 :wink: Don't get a kink in your neck hanging your ear outside the hair drier!!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> A perfect example of the arrogance that "supports" agriculture as long as agriculture does what THEY want.
> 
> Isn't that how the world works? You support many things until it doesn't work out for you gst. That's how others operate also. *There are those like myself that admit it,* then there are the deceivers.


So plainsman, now that you are no longer "ignoring" me,  and just so the record is straight, you are now admitting your "support" of agriculture only happens if YOUR ideals are followed regardless of what those in agriculture beleive???

A legally defined agricultural practice of raising captive cervids.

*Your "support" of this form of DEFINED agriculture was to be a sponsor for a measure aimed at banning this*.

What standards do you beleive HSUS holds their "support" of agriculture to?

Perhaps the end to horse slaughter?

What animal agriculture industry do you beleive they will target next?

Plainsman, what practice or form of agriculture will you sponsor an initiative to end next?

And there in lies the reason some in agriculture beleive this measure is necessary.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Much like the unions in the 40's the ag orgs, in order to be relevent in the 21st century they have to keep pushing beyond their initial worth.


You and plainsman malign these ag orgs every chance you get.

Tell me why from a percentage basis they now have a higher percentage of the people in production agriculture as members than they did in the 40's?

Even if the numbers of people involved in production agriculture is declining, shouldn;t the percentage of memberships to these orgs be correspondingly declining as well if your claims are true?

Perhaps as a result of the more "vocal" arrogance that claims agriculture must capitulate to THEIR demands to garner support has gotten a higher percentage of those involved in production agriculture realizing the value of these orgs. As last years top membership recruiter for the Stockman's , perhaps I should extend a thank you for the years use of a new stock trailer to plainsman and swift!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

> lets see, I thought we were suppose to keep from making "personal" comments plainsman?


If your going to dish it out expect an honest answer back. Of course all you want is a one way street. If you actually read what we write I would be surprised. Your just thinking of your next brilliant come back, and you ask questions that have already been answered.



> just so the record is straight, you are now admitting your "support" of agriculture only happens if YOUR ideals are followed regardless of what those in agriculture beleive???


Again, close your mouth and open your eyes. Read what I wrote the first time and try to comprehend it. I'm sick of answering the same question ten different ways and you still don't understand. I know you want us to keep answering it until it comes out the way you want. We completely agree, or we agree in a way that allows you to hold us up and demonize us. Get real. You constantly try to make this personal then whimper when we point out your inability to understand. Perhaps if you were not so impressed with yourself you would read what we actually say. At least make up your mind if your going to be a bully , or the poor picked on boy. You can't keep jumping back and fourth and build either case.

I doubt if you can stay on subject. Here we are eight pages later and because you can't have it all you somehow think a miracle is going to happen and everyone will agree with you. I doubt that.



> Don't get a kink in your neck hanging your ear outside the hair drier!!


No problem, don't get a kink in yours trying to kiss your own behind. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I am not going to make any personal comments I am just going to say enough is enough, and subject is the Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment. Drop the personal and site complaints NOW.


Well I guess we now know who that applies to and who it does not. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Like I said I was drawn in also, but this is the end of it. * So now I will take control of myself not to do that*. I will also take control so no one else does it more than once.


 :-?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many times can a policy statement use the words Tax Exemption before they get across they want to be a ward of the state? Or is it they want to be the kings of the country and let the peasants pay their way?
> 
> I didn't see your policy regarding halting farm programs in the FB's communist manifest? Just like you to try to twist the topic in your first post
> 
> 
> 
> And so it begins! :-? maybe plainsman should just lock this thread right from the start!!!  :wink:
Click to expand...

 From page one.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, I have no intention of answering any of your questions anymore.





Plainsman said:


> If your going to dish it out expect an honest answer back.


   .


----------



## swift

C'mon Plainsman he is suckering you in. Don't peek he is not worth it. I figured out that no matter what I say it will be twisted into a pretzel to make me look like I'm the bad guy. Now it's easy just don't peek.

Back to the topic at hand, Do you see any parallel between the California initiative to make a state constitutional amendment that makes owning a home a RIGHT, and the wishes of the FB to make farming a right? I think the the same abuses that would follow the homeowners could occur with the farms.


----------



## Plainsman

All these new constitutional amendments remind me of the window stickers "Baby on Board". Then it was "Mother on Board". Followed by "Crazed Killer on Board". The problem is the constitution should not be like bumper stickers and window stickers, they are for everyone. Every time some special interest gets a constitutional amendment it's not only saying they are special but everyone that isn't one of them isn't worth as much. It's the same stupidity as political correctness they just don't see it because it favors them ---- this time.
As far as protection for high fence operations, which this really is, it would afford them no protection the way I would like to do it. We passed laws that you can't spotlight deer at night, and we can pass laws that restrict our non sportsman hunting in other ways. I was against it as a limitation of landowners because that's a tougher sell in North Dakota, but no one asked me. When we get CWD I would then look at limiting raising deer and elk. The time will come and I hope sportsmen don't wake up to late. Until then let the sleeping dog lay. 
Swift your right about twisting what everyone says. I only popped back because I wanted to see the post that upset you last time. I can tell it's a game because he will call someone arrogant, then give it back and he whines about getting personal. If I want to play with a little boy I will play with my grandson. So like you it's time to hit that button in friends and foes again. 
Watch how nasty it gets trying to lure me back. 
Eight pages is not debate it's simply bickering, but it was worth sticking with it to expose that. I know I can not get everyone to agree with me, that's just life, but some can not accept that.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Watch how nasty it gets trying to lure me back.


That is quite the assumption that you're making there plainsman that you are even wanted "back" :wink: It was kinda peaceful with the "ignore" option in affect. 

Any way what has been said will show to those that are wondering with an open mind why some in ag beleive this measure is necessary. So as long as a couple of fellas on here can refrain from making more unsubstantiated claims regarding agriculture there is not much more to "debate".


----------



## Plainsman

> Back to the topic at hand, Do you see any parallel between the California initiative to make a state constitutional amendment that makes owning a home a RIGHT, and the wishes of the FB to make farming a right? I think the the same abuses that would follow the homeowners could occur with the farms.


Sorry, I didn't answer that directly. The parallel is that everyone does have a right to own a home and everyone does have a right to farm. The other parallel is both groups want special attention. The people who want a right to a home already have it they just want it without working. Likewise farmers already have the right to farm, but what they are really looking for is protection from social reaction to scorched earth land mining.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> As far as protection for high fence operations, which this really is, it would afford them no protection the way I would like to do it.


You are reaching Plainsman. Farm Bureaus measure is not solely about the HFI. It is going to be about much more. It won't make farming a right. What it is going to do is hold agricultures oppondents to a higher standard. One thing I would like to see is a change made at the Sec. Of States Office for ballot measures. Currently, the petitioner can tell the signer anything even make false statements. It is up to the signer to know what they are signing. That's BS. The petitioners and cheerleaders for the HFI behaved so poorly it proved to the people of ND we need to get ahead of the next attack and fix some of the loop holes.

Plainsman, as far as your bumper stickers go, here is one. Have you seen the one on a house door saying, "these premises are protected by 44 magnum?" It is meant as a deterrent. It is effective and it works.

Farm Bureaus measure sends a message. (My opinion) We have a right to protect property ownership.


----------



## Plainsman

I suppose that was rather simplified saying it was to protect high fence. I think it is for that, but for more also.

If it doesn't make farming a right, what kind of constitutional amendment is it? I have always heard it was a right to farm. Perhaps I need a refesher. I know you posted it somewhere on here.



> One thing I would like to see is a change made at the Sec. Of States Office for ballot measures. Currently, the petitioner can tell the signer anything even make false statements.


Many still will make false statements. I don't know what the fair chase members said to people, only what I said when I collected one day. As for if they did I only have the word of those I don't trust much. Mostly that story came from high fence operators or their supporters. I am left wondering who made the false statements the Fair Chase people or the high fence operators. My thoughts are if you can call high fence shooting a hunt you can make many other false statements also.



> Plainsman, as far as your bumper stickers go, here is one. Have you seen the one on a house door saying, "these premises are protected by 44 magnum?" It is meant as a deterrent. It is effective and it works.
> 
> Farm Bureaus measure sends a message. (My opinion) We have a right to protect property ownership.


The first part of that sounds like an avoidance of regulations through threat and damage to normal democracy procedures.

The second part I need to think about. I hope your opinion is right and mine is wrong. However, I am some bothered by how they protect property. If the protect it by limiting the freedom of others it's not a good thing. You mentioned closing loopholes, and I don't know if it's actual loopholes of freedom that is being shut down. I think freedom should be for all, and that freedom expanded for some should not result in freedom diminished for others.

I do however understand your perspective, and because of radical groups like PETA I do understand and share those concerns. I hope you can understand my reluctance.


----------



## LT

Shaug Stated:


> One thing I would like to see is a change made at the Sec. Of States Office for ballot measures. Currently, the petitioner can tell the signer anything even make false statements. It is up to the signer to know what they are signing. That's BS. The petitioners and cheerleaders for the HFI behaved so poorly it proved to the people of ND we need to get ahead of the next attack and fix some of the loop holes.


Your exactly right Shaug. There needs to be some changes. It is not right that petitioners can basically lie to collect a signature and that the following are allowed: Illegible signatures, incomplete addressess, no dates, people filling in addresses for other people. Some people even signed for other people. The first signature was legible but the second signature was a chicken scratch, but you could tell it was the same person by the handwriting on the address. I was told the verification card on an illegible signature is just sent to boxholder at the address listed, but of course if no one sends the card back to state that they did not sign the signature is counted.

I did not realize how lax our state is with signature gathering and verification process until I was involved with checking the petitions. I wonder why they even bother with the following CAUTION:

_Caution: Petition circulators should instruct petition signers to sign legibly and to add the date
and their entire address (including complete residential address, rural route or general delivery
address, city, state, and zip code) to the petition._
http://www.nd.gov/sos/forms/pdf/initiating.pdf

Plainsman Stated:


> Many still will make false statements. I don't know what the fair chase members said to people, only what I said when I collected one day.


Was that the same day you signed your wife's name? :shake:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> . I am left wondering who made the false statements the Fair Chase people or the high fence operators.


I beleive the Fair Chase folks repeatedly said there were no conversations held with HSUS in regards to being involved in this measure and then Mike McEnroe admits in Dakota Coountry having a direct conversation in which HSUS ended up being a part of advertising for this measure and the "Fair Chase people" invited them to do so.

There indeed does need to be a "truth in the creation of law" statute whereby if you lie while collecting signatures or advocating for your measure it will be disqualified from the ballot.

Perhaps there should be something like that for this site as well!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Was that the same day you signed your wife's name?


I never asked my wife to sign it and I don't think she ever did. That's just one more of your stories. Just like me calling everyone names at the Jamestown meeting. When you talk about petitioners not sticking to the truth I think you better go look in a mirror LT. Yes, yes you have acknowledged that wasn't me in the Jamestown meeting, but only after telling everyone it was.

LT I doubt our sec of state is that lax. That's just another poor poor me story also. I wonder what stories we will hear from FB when they collect their signatures? I"ll bet there will be some tall tales. You know, like disappearing posts etc.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:



> I never asked my wife to sign it and I don't think she ever did.


I did not say she signed, I said you signed for her, or maybe that was another lady you signed for right under your name.



> That's just one more of your stories. Just like me calling everyone names at the Jamestown meeting. When you talk about petitioners not sticking to the truth I think you better go look in a mirror LT. Yes, yes you have acknowledged that wasn't me in the Jamestown meeting, but only after telling everyone it was.


NO ONE ever said it was you at the meeting and I never told anyone it was and neither did DG. I have repeatedly stated that but you continue to twist this. One guy at the meeting thought you might have been the "potty mouthed" federal employee and asked that person at the meeting if it was you. That is as far as it ever went. Apparently your friend told you this and you have turned this into your own little story.



> LT I doubt our sec of state is that lax. That's just another poor poor me story also. I wonder what stories we will hear from FB when they collect their signatures? I"ll bet there will be some tall tales. You know, like disappearing posts etc.
> LT I doubt our sec of state is that lax. That's just another poor poor me story also. I wonder what stories we will hear from FB when they collect their signatures? I"ll bet there will be some tall tales. You know, like disappearing posts etc.


Believe what you want Bruce, but I have the petitions and yes they were that LAX. As far as disappearing posts, just go to the thread with DG's last post ever, and you will see that you are talking to yourself. :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

You have the petitions, great. I'll tell you what, photo copy the page with my signature. Then cut out and PM or email me my signature and the one below. I can tell you one thing, I write like crap, and my wife writes perfect. It will be easy to tell our writing apart. You can read hers. 

To tell the truth I have forgotten who said it was me in Jamestown. You just keep coming to mind. However, if memory serves me it got posted on here. I did think it was DJ. If it isn't there now my thoughts were the poster removed it. It sure didn't do much for me trusting people I can tell you that.

By the way, what the heck are you doing with the petitions? If the state gave them to you I am very disappointed. You have no legal right to them.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> By the way, what the heck are you doing with the petitions? If the state gave them to you I am very disappointed. You have no legal right to them.


I have copies, not originals. The elk growers paid for copies. But I believe, anyone can view them as it is a public record.

Your handwriting is pretty distinct. :lol:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> As far as protection for high fence operations, which this really is, it would afford them no protection the way I would like to do it. We passed laws that you can't spotlight deer at night, and we can pass laws that restrict our non sportsman hunting in other ways. I was against it as a limitation of landowners because that's a tougher sell in North Dakota, but no one asked me.


You know Plainsman this whole statement was quite a mouthfull. You just classified someone who would frequent a game farm as a non sportsman. And you would like to see a law that would restrict his or her activities. But that is not what happened. The fair chase committee (loaded with federal employees) along with Paul Germoluos descended onto the library at the capitol. They found a loop hole in the ND Century Code. Elk are defined as big game in the G/F section and farmed elk in the livestock section. Had the HFI passed the farmed elk section would have ceased to exist. Options on property are the property of the owner. A government enforced taking of options with no compensation should never be taken lightly.

But getting back to your thoughts;


> "We passed laws that you can't spotlight deer at night, and we can pass laws that restrict our non sportsman hunting in other ways." [unquote] Now if I am reading you right, what you would like to see is a law to restrict people whom you regard as non sportsman from frequenting a game farm. And to accomplish this the people of ND already know you and yours have no reservations about getting into bed with HSUS. Again, if I am reading you right, you would partner with anti-hunters to stop people who you regard as non-hunters.
> 
> Plainsman, Do you consider people who frequent pheasant farms as non sportsman?


----------



## Plainsman

So how about you send me those two names, one being mine?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *To tell the truth I have forgotten who said it was me in Jamestown. You just keep coming to mind. However, if memory serves me it got posted on here. I did think it was DJ. If it isn't there now my thoughts were the poster removed it. It sure didn't do much for me trusting people I can tell you that*.
> quote]
> 
> :-? :roll: I do not recall! :wink: What the evidence is not there to substantiate my claims, it must have been removed.
> 
> I'm sure when claims that can not be substantiated are made about people and what they do for a living, and how they go about doing it, a great deal of "trust" is garnered. :eyeroll:


----------



## swift

Isnt it funny that to be a member of this grassroots organization all you have to do is own their car insurance? Great way to pad your membership numbers. If a person lives on a farmstead and does not farm will the FB advocate for them to receive the farmstead tax exemption, if they have Nodak Mutual?

Farmstead Exemptions From the NDFB policy book....
We believe that people who live on a farmstead and are not actually engaged in farming should not be eligible for the farmstead tax exemption, except for retired farmers as provided in current law. --ID#: 757/11

Shaug you want to argue about HFH which I concur with you. Why not explain how this policy is not directly showing the arrogance and elitist views of the NDFB? I'm sure there is a reason why the members of the NDFB feel non-ag working Americans should be subjected to higher taxes than those that work in the ag industry. I'd love to hear the rationale behind this policy...as a starting point.


----------



## shaug

Swift said,



> Shaug you want to argue about HFH which I concur with you.


I do not want to argue about HFH. Plainsman brought it up claiming that is what FB measure is about. It is not.



> Why not explain how this policy is not directly showing the arrogance and elitist views of the NDFB? I'm sure there is a reason why the members of the NDFB feel non-ag working Americans should be subjected to higher taxes than those that work in the ag industry. I'd love to hear the rationale behind this policy...as a starting point.


Does someone always need to hold your hand and lead you through everything step by step?

People living in the country pay taxes on their land. If farmer J has 1000 acres his assessment may be $3.00 dollars per acre or $3,000 dollars. If City dweller J owns a home in town their assessment can also be $3,000 dollars. The monies are thrown into the pot to pay for services. However, if city dweller J moves to the country and purchases five acres what do you think his/her assessment should be? Five acres times three bucks per acre???????????????

You can't be a pharmicist if you can't do math.

Here is another scenario. My wife and I both have jobs off the farm. The law says a person has to make 51% of their income off the farm to be a farmer. Our farm makes less so our home becomes taxable. And that comparison is net income off the farm verses gross income off the job. So I am getting a double whammy paying on my home and land that we own. Swift, you are trying to debate the wrong guy.


----------



## Plainsman

> And to accomplish this the people of ND already know you and yours have no reservations about getting into bed with HSUS. Again,


You know that's not true. I didn't sponsored the initiative last time around and the involvement with HSUS was part of the reason. The other part was I would have done things different, but they never asked. I told gst that privately, but you know he can't keep things to himself and blew it on open form.

Do you consider outlawing spotlighting as in bed with HSUS? Do you consider stopping the netting of fish in bed with HSUS? Do you think the guys that set up the rules for record book animals were in bed with HSUS when they define unsportsman ways of taking animals? I think an animal helpless in water or on ice is one of them. It's been years since I read those rules. However, you think all those things mean people are in bed with HSUS. I suppose if someone had said lets not shoot the last passenger pigeon they would be anti hunting. Think about these things shaug.

Look at some of the pictures in my album. Read some of my posts in deer hunting, predator hunting etc. then come back and try tell people I am in bed with HSUS. Your grasping and straws and making foolish accusations. If anyone follows my posts over the last six years and looks at my pictures your credibility is toast.

One of the reasons I don't like high fence shooting is it gives the rest of us a black eye. Not many people see shooting an animal in a pen as sportsman like. If many hunters don't think so what do you think the general public thinks of it? I think keeping these operations will play right into anti hunting hands and they will use it like a club to beat us. I am against it because I am pro hunting.


----------



## Plainsman

LT I would never sign someone elses name. However, since you have stated I did please send that proof by email. I would like to have someone look at that. Or at least tell me what page it is on so I can contact the state for a copy. Thank you.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> One of the reasons I don't like high fence shooting is it gives the rest of us a black eye. Not many people see shooting an animal in a pen as sportsman like. If many hunters don't think so what do you think the general public thinks of it? I think keeping these operations will play right into anti hunting hands and they will use it like a club to beat us. I am against it because I am pro hunting.


Hey, you are the one who made the classification that anyone who would frequent a HF operation is a non-sportsman. What about a fella who shoots a buffalo at a ranch or someone who hunts at a pheasant farm? Do you classify them as not worthy to call themselves a sportsman? The anti-hunters don't care if it is high fence low fence or no fence. Divide and conquer.

Plainsman, and that tripe you just wrote about what does the general public think? Nov. 2nd 2010 there was a vote. Remember..........Where is that man beating a dead horse emoticon when a person needs it.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, and that tripe you just wrote about what does the general public think? Nov. 2nd 2010 there was a vote. Remember..........


We also need an emoticon that shows an idea going right over the head. The people who voted in that election looked at it as a property rights issue. I was talking about it as a hunting issue. Many have a totally different attitude. You could tell that in our debates because people woulds say "I would never do it myself but it's a property issue etc".



> ..........Where is that man beating a dead horse emoticon when a person needs


You are right. Lets move on. I'm not real happy revisiting the dead horse either. It was just hard to listen to the same old same old from LT. I'm looking forward to that information she has.

I also think this subject unless there are new participants with new ideas is starting to look "dead horse".


----------



## swift

I guess I don't understand if you pay $3000 acres on your land why you would think you shouldn't have to pay property tax on your home like most people in the country do. If a business owner in Fargo pays $3000 a year on the property he makes his living on (his auto shop lets say), should he be exempt from paying property taxes on the house and lot he lives in?

To be honest since farming is to be treated like the big business it is with so many being "family" corporations, maybe farm land should be assessed as commercial property. After all GST continually points out that Ag is the largest industry in the state. Certainly Ag should have the same tax liabilities as the other industries in the state.

My point is your neighbor that does not work in town should have the same comparable tax liability that you do for his house even though he is a farmer. Either you both have a tax exemption or neither of you do. Maybe if the farmstead tax exemption law was repealed the coffers in the rural areas would be full enough to fix the roads, and Game and Fish license money wouldn't be needed to pay for township road repairs, (another policy the NDFB is advocating for).


----------



## Plainsman

> Game and Fish license money wouldn't be needed to pay for township road repairs, (another policy the NDFB is advocating for).


What????, and here I didn't think there was anything that could be said about NDFB that would shock me. Is their no integrity anymore that they would steal money they have no right to? We are fools if we vote to give them a constitutional amendment. They simply look at all of us as suckers who's pockets they wait to pick. In my book that puts them as low as any organization I can think of. I see those guys spring and fall with overloaded heavy trucks, and then I hear them blame hunters. Well guess what it isn't their roads, and I doubt they pay the lions share of those roads.


----------



## swift

We believe a fee should be added to hunting licenses for township road maintenance. --ID#: 1419/10 2011 NDFB policy book

Just to document my source so I don't get accused of spreading untruths.


----------



## swift

> Wildlife Property 147
> We believe that wildlife property and wetlands should be subject to eminent domain procedures in the same manner as is private property. --ID#: 785/11


Shaug, Can you explain this one to me?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> I also think this subject unless there are new participants with new ideas is starting to look "dead horse".


Err........Wait a minute, Swift thinks he may have found a pulse.........


----------



## gst

gst said:


> I am glad you have finally realized this.
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> The policies of the orgs do in fact have ag in their best intrest
Click to expand...

. quote]

Well it appears swift may have already forgotten this novel idea that ag orgs advocate for the benefit of agriculture. I know it is a hard concept to grasp that an ag org would develope policies that would actually benefit agriculture as opposed to say emergency room PA's, but hey I'm sure the American Medical Association advocates for property rights, rural road maintanence ect..... :roll:

Hell I'd just be happy if the AMA had policy stating that the physicians time is no more valuble than mine when I am left to sit over an hour past my schedualed appointment in a waiting room. Or have a doctor spend at the very least 3 minutes total in a room over a 3 day period when you are in the hospital for a staff infection that you got while at the ER of said hospital! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> In my book that puts them as low as any organization I can think of.


Even as low as that North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase org. that admittedly hopped in bed with the nations largest anti hunting org to try and accomplish their "policies"??? :wink:

shaug, you may be dangerously close to incurring the dreaded "ignore" button.  !!!

plainsman and swift it appears sure do seem to have a "willie" over these ag orgs. simply because they do not follow what THEY think is best. It is simply hard to beleive that these literaly thousands of ag producers represented in these grassroots ag orgs would develope policy without consulting them first.


----------



## swift

Shaug,

Please put away the sarcasm and explain the purpose of this policy. Explain to me how the agri-businessman will benefit and if anyone else will suffer because of it.



> Wildlife Property 147
> We believe that wildlife property and wetlands should be subject to eminent domain procedures in the same manner as is private property. --ID#: 785/11


----------



## Plainsman

Swift NDFB wanting Game and Fish money for roads is a good subject all by itself. Perhaps a new thread is needed to bring everyone's attention to this. 
Who drives the roads for a month or two in the fall?
Who drives the roads year around?
Who drives the roads with heavy trucks?
What percentage do land taxes pay for roads?
What percentage if any comes from the state general fund?
What other monies go into rural roads?

I live in the county and pay county tax so are these my roads? 
Who do the roads belong to?
Do rural people like myself have more right to these roads?
Should I as a rural person be able to rob the Game and Fish fund to pay for "my road"? 
Is this reasonable, or simply another case of greed when taking money from anyone you can get it from? Is this asking or forcefully taking money from Game and Fish at the point of a politician?

Maybe it's time for our state legislature to get a message from the voters like the liberals have been getting the last couple of years. How long are we going to let a biased legislature dump on everyone else?

Maybe we should raise the land tax to pay for city streets that farmers drive on.  Also, if our legislature wants to be fair they should start charging license fees equally for all people, and by the weight not the value of the vehicle. If it drives on a road license it. After all what wears roads, a 4000 pound GMC Yukon, a 3000 pound car, or a truck loaded to the max, a (whatever a combine weights), a four wheel tracktor with 30 foot implement behind? What degrades these roads?


----------



## gst

Boy it sure gets hard to tell just who "supports" agriculture on here sometimes!


----------



## swift

I understand there was a need to help the family farmers back when there were family farms. Guys farming 400 to 1000 acres scratching by to feed their families. But now there are tax laws to punish the "hobby farm" through increased taxes and removal of tax exemptions afforded the huge farm corporations. Something is wrong with the system and the mentality when the little guy that the law was put into place to protect gets slammed while the corporate farmers reap all the benefits.

Again I'm sure there are many farmers from the 30's and 40's rolling over in their graves with the metality of the FB. Here is a newsflash no citizen is above their responsibility to pay taxes regardless of their occupation.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Again I'm sure there are many farmers from the 30's and 40's rolling over in their graves with the metality of the FB.


As was said before there are a number of things these folks might find disturbing, including the attitudes of a handful of people on here!



swift said:


> Here is a newsflash no citizen is above their responsibility to pay taxes regardless of their occupation.


It might be interesting to hear swift's accountant on how strongly swift beleive's this when it comes to HIS taxes! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

LT, did you remove your posts?


----------



## LT

Plainsman,



> LT, did you remove your posts?


As a moderator I think you know that I cannot remove an entire post, unless I am the last person to post in the thread, but once someone else posts, you cannot delete a whole post (only moderators can do that), correct?

Some of us do not post on here 24/7, and I do have other pressing things to attend to right now, so as far as finding your signature in the 11,000 some signatures, it may take me some time, which I don't exactly have a lot of right now.


----------



## Plainsman

I understand about the time. About post removal I guess I have been a moderator so long I didn't know you could not entirely remove your own post. Thanks, and I appreciate your help with that signature. I know us old geezers have bad memory, but I was interested to see it because I couldn't remember signing myself. I suppose I must have, but I would like to confirm it. Thanks again.

Oh, I should ask, did you ask someone else to remove them? I simply want to make sure you don't think I did it. OK?


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Shaug,
> 
> Please put away the sarcasm and explain the purpose of this policy. Explain to me how the agri-businessman will benefit and if anyone else will suffer because of it.
> 
> Wildlife Property 147
> We believe that wildlife property and wetlands should be subject to eminent domain procedures in the same manner as is private property. --ID#: 785/11


Swift, Listed below is a wildlife property owned by Ducks Unlimited and is for sale.

http://www.pifers.com/view.php?id=1361

It is in your backyard so you should snap it up. The sale is Sept. 21st. Whether you own it, plainsman owns it or DU. No one should get a privledged exemption from eminent domain.

Swift, are you going to read to us all the FB resolutions?


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> Oh, I should ask, did you ask someone else to remove them? I simply want to make sure you don't think I did it. OK?


Ok, now you have me confused, as I am not sure what posts you are talking about...nothing in the current thread has been removed, unless I am missing something. Now if you want to know if posts have been removed from old threads, uumm yes, and I did not ask them to be removed, actually DG's very last post and my post just before his last post went poof.

But I thought that you thought the disappearing posts were all in my "head" and I was just making up stories. oke:


----------



## Plainsman

Hmmmm, I could have sworn a couple of your recent posts were missing last night, but they are there this morning. Maybe I was just trying to do to many things to fast last night. Sorry to confuse you. Now to unconfuse myself. Some days I like those compasses that have a little bubble in them. They don't always tell you which way is north, but they will tell you which way is up. 

Edit: 10:09am


> But I thought that you thought the disappearing posts were all in my "head" and I was just making up stories


.

No, I didn't think it was all in your head, but it upset me that you thought I would do that without an explanation. When I remove or edit anything I always leave my name on the post and the reason I made any changes.


----------



## swift

Shaug, Either you don't know the reasoning behind this policy, or you are too ashamed to explain it. Why would you not want to take the opportunity to explain how this policy would benefit farmers and ranchers? You have so much hostility pent up toward me for asking you to justify policies that could have a direct negative affect on people in ND. I have to say I thought you to be a stand up guy that wanted to help set the record straight but you are fast becoming another GST, dodging questions and pointing fingers at everyone else for picking on ag.



> Swift, are you going to read to us all the FB resolutions?


I think the bigger question is, are you afraid I will read all the resolutions to you. You can't even legitimately defend the one or two I asked about so far. And saying "The FB advocates for Ag" is a cop out answer that doesn't mean a thing.

Here is you chance to show that the FB is a stand up organization that does think about the collateral damage their policies may incur.

More quips and changes of the subject will continue to show you and your organization are interested in controlling most everything outside the big city limits in ND. Of course you need the big cities to pay for all your policies since your group doesn't feel the obligation to pay taxes. Dare I say...just like the old European lords did a couple of centuries ago.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I have to say I thought you to be a stand up guy that wanted to help set the record straight but you are fast becoming another GST, dodging questions and pointing fingers at everyone else for picking on ag


Since it appears that plainsmans " no personal comments" rule is not being followed, I will take the opportunity to simply say swift you are an arrogant idiot. If you can not determine what the purpose is behind the resolution you are asking about, it will do no good to explain it. And as you CLEARLY have a significant "willie" over these ag orgs any way, no matter what anyone would explain will not be accepted, you have proven that in the past. You wish to call people involved in ag "elitist lords of the land" but you are not smart enough to realize your demands that ag capitulate to YOUR ideologies dispite literally thousands of members of these orgs involved in production ag determining these policies, that YOU are the "elitist" jackass that give sportsman a bad name. Your "head in the mailbox" comments along with others simply prove that you are one of the few "sportsmen" that create problems for others. Luckily MOST sportsmen here in ND are not of your arrogant stripe and so for most, the issues you whine about such as access are not an issue.

I rarely call someone an idiot, but you sir fit the bill nicely.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> two And saying "The FB advocates for Ag" is a cop out answer that doesn't mean a thing.


You and plainsman really have a hard time "ignoring someone don;t you! :wink: Yes an ag org creating policy that benefits ag is irrelevant in discussing why the policy was developed. The actual thought that an ag org would advocate for agriculture is apparently to complex to comprehend.

As I said swift you sir are an idiot.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Of course you need the big cities to pay for all your policies since your group doesn't feel the obligation to pay taxes.


Talk about trying to pit rural against urban! :roll: Obviously the "big city" gets NOTHING form agriculture or rural communities.

I tell you what swift, you keep your "big city" revenues and us rural folk will keep our land taxes and energy revenues and every other revenue that is generated thru ag here in ND. :wink:

You sir are an idiot. Luckily most other hunters here in ND are not, wether they come from a rural community or a "big city"!


----------



## swift

Which is it Shaug? ashamed or don't know?


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Which is it Shaug? ashamed or don't know?


Now you are being ridiculous. You just took a head spankin' and you want more. You want to debate Farm Bill resolution



> Wildlife Property 147
> We believe that wildlife property and wetlands should be subject to eminent domain procedures in the same manner as is private property. --ID#: 785/11


My answer: Eminent Domain is used when it is for the greater good for the greatest many if property is taken for public use. If it is a power line, highway, or pipeline. Let me ask you this swift. If a pipeline that cuts across much private land suddenly comes to some land is owned by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or land that has an easement by Ducks Unlimited should the pipeline go around at great cost?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Of course you need the big cities to pay for all your policies since your group doesn't feel the obligation to pay taxes. Dare I say...just like the old European lords did a couple of centuries ago





swift said:


> Certainly Ag should have the same tax liabilities as the other industries in the state





swift said:


> I'm sure there is a reason why the members of the NDFB feel non-ag working Americans should be subjected to higher taxes than those that work in the ag industry. I'd love to hear the rationale behind this policy...as a starting point.






swift said:


> Here is a newsflash no citizen is above their responsibility to pay taxes regardless of their occupation.


Now from another outdoor site FBO.  http://www.fishingbuddy.com/obama_to_pr ... ue?app_p=1
_quote [by swift on 09/19/2011 09:41 AM | Reply #2 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

swift
Joined: 01/23/2002 
Location: SD

Should he get what he wants, You will see a lot longer lines in clinics and other small businesses.

My example is this, The plan is to increase the top tax bracket to 47%, add social security tax and state income tax and you are approaching 60% tax on your income. * Both my wife and I are in medicine and we broached the magic number of 250k therefore we will make more money in our pockets if we earn less than 250k. To do that we will work less. That may mean 4 day weekends instead of 2 day weekends. Patients are already booked out 4-5 weeks to get in if we have to cut our hours to maintain our take home pay the wait to be seen will increase by 20-40%. * Play that out over the hundreds of rural clinics across the state and available healthcare just took a huge hit_. :]End quote

Swift, for someone that maligns agriculture for being "greedy" and not paying "their fair share" of taxes, you seem to be more than willing to overlook the need of those who depend on your "profession" for their medical needs just so you do not have to pay " your" portion of taxes.

Lucky for us, we have a medical "professional" in our "rural" clinic that is more concerned about actually helping those depending on his skills and professionalism than he is about how much he and his wife may pay in taxes. :roll:


----------



## gst

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/landowners_ ... ?app_p=2by swift on 09/19/2011 09:21 AM | Reply #25 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

swift ONLINE!
Joined: 01/23/2002 
Location: SD

bjpederson: ﻿Guys I would like to hear some more thoughts. Would a landowner base management work? As you can see I am not a big fan of big government. I am opinionated and a little confrontational but always willing to admit when I am wrong and I am starting to see some holes in my theories. My first hole would be if you left it up the the landowner would it become a "rich mans sport"? This is how we learn, people from different backgrounds and experiences.

Swift: quote[ NO is a pretty safe answer. All one has to do is realize farming still holds the majority of the land in ND. Farming is a business to make a living. Wildlife significantly cut into that living. Removing wildlife would increase profits.

Have you noticed the lack of CRP around the countryside? CRP is being removed and crop is replacing it to increase profits. *Most farmers have to look at their bottom line to stay in business and realize hunting is still a hobby.* Too many sportsman have made hunting into a competition and would manage for wildlife as shown on TV. ]end quote

I'm starting to wonder if swift has an "alter ego" on different websites! :wink: I am confused now, is it the "s[portsman" that are to blame or the "greedy", "elitist" farmers? :-?

Apparently on FBO there are no "elitist lords of the land" that want to "commercialize" hunting and keep others from "their" wildlife!


----------



## swift

Shaug, was that not easy? All I asked for was a simple explanation. You still couldn't provide it. I know what eminant domain is. If your referring to a head spanking from GST's posts I really have given up reading them. He really doesn't have a clue to life off the ranch. The ignore feature is good for this. I have great respect for farmers and their way of life. As in all groups there are those that believe they know more than everyone else and those that know they can learn from others. I thought I could learn from you. I think if you will bury the hatchet I still can. Just don't bury that hatchet in my scalp. GST brings nothing to the table.

I openly admit I have issues with the NDFB. I can admit it. I have that right as an American to question them. I do not think they speak for all farmers or even a majority. Much like the AMA doesn't speak for physcians. Only 15% of physicians are even members of the AMA. I believe having to pad member numbers by including those that buy your insurance is a perfect example of what is wrong with that grassroots Agriculture organization.


----------



## gst

by swift on 09/20/2011 09:58 AM | Reply #48 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

Swift quote ["Flyfish,b]Come spend a week with me and then pass judgement[/b]."] end quote.

Man it would be nice if that alter ego FBO swift carried over to this site as well, perhaps following his own advise could help abit!



swift said:


> I have great respect for farmers and their way of life


You have a different way of demonstrating it with your "head in the mailbox" comments and others. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Hey swift, I just got back from tagging along on a hunt for elk with longbow. Oh, and did a little fly fishing on the Little Blackfoot and the West Fork. We stopped at Cabela's in Billings, and got to talking for a minute with another North Dakotan. Guess what? He gave me the lowdown on gst and the president of NDFB. Don't worry about not pleasing gst. Nobody can. You can't work hard enough for him or give him enough money to make him happy. Happy is not in his vocabulary even if he does say he has a sense of humor. I think his sense of humor is you or I kicking off. Anyway, that was more the opinion of the guy I talked to than mine.

I think the FB guy could be described as a cross between a socialist and an agriculture Oligarchy.


> Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.


 He wants the taxpayer money, but he wants to say who pays and how much he gets, hence Game and Fish pay for "his roads". Anyway, that's the impression I got, and that was the second guy in two weeks to tell me the same thing. Oh, and both of those guys said they were farmers.

You know it's sort of like the radical Muslims. We say we would like to hear some moderates condemn the action of the radicals, but we never do. We hear many hunters tell of their appreciation of farmers. I have seen you express those thoughts, and so have I many times. Once I would like to hear some appreciation for that support, but like the Muslims we never do. At least not publicly like hunters do on here. All I want is for this to be a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic relationship like NDFB, gst, and perhaps shaug would like. I will reserve my judgement of shaug until he tells me if he thinks what I ask it to much or not?

Anyway swift just to inform you so you don't loose heart. I am in hopes it's simply radicals we debate and not representative farmers.


----------



## Bad Dog

Although this doesn't have much to do with the topic, I think we pas that point a while back, I found something interesting. I was talking with a neighbor who has a quarter section next to ours. Half of it is in CRP and the other 80 is native prairie. This individual was asking me my thoughts on him plowing up the whole quarter. Since he asked my thoughts, I told him what I thought. I said that I would like to see the quarter left in grass. He explained that he will get $70/ac rent from a crop farmer if he plows it up. I explained that since his children are into ranching, why not fence it off and run cows on it. I explained that there are a number of programs that would even pay for the fence. As him and I walked through the native piece, I was explaining all the fine native grasses and forbs I was seeing and how important the are. This piece is not drift prairie that is relatively flat, this is in the heart of the Coteau, very hilly stuff. The kind of stuff that should not be crop farmed. He explained that he will just have the CRP plowed.

I further explained that I would even buy it and work with his grandkids to graze it. Well, now the whole quarter is roundup'd, including the native prairie. I will also mention that this individual is retired and is not broke. I can't wait to see him again and ask him, what happend. My thoughts are this, bottom line is it is about the $70/ac, the money, or as some religous texts call it, "greed".

Plainsman, I have seen a couple of times your reference to radical muslims. Don't get me wrong, any religous zealot that teaches hate has no place in my world. However, what some of these radical muslim zealots are spreading is no different them some christian zealots such as Phelps of the westboro baptist church.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Hey swift, I just got back from tagging along on a hunt for elk with longbow. Oh, and did a little fly fishing on the Little Blackfoot and the West Fork. We stopped at Cabela's in Billings, and got to talking for a minute with another North Dakotan. Guess what? He gave me the lowdown on gst and the president of NDFB. Don't worry about not pleasing gst. Nobody can. You can't work hard enough for him or give him enough money to make him happy. Happy is not in his vocabulary even if he does say he has a sense of humor. I think his sense of humor is you or I kicking off. Anyway, that was more the opinion of the guy I talked to than mine.
> 
> I think the FB guy could be described as a cross between a socialist and an agriculture Oligarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.
> 
> 
> 
> He wants the taxpayer money, but he wants to say who pays and how much he gets, hence Game and Fish pay for "his roads". Anyway, that's the impression I got, and that was the second guy in two weeks to tell me the same thing. Oh, and both of those guys said they were farmers.
> 
> You know it's sort of like the radical Muslims. We say we would like to hear some moderates condemn the action of the radicals, but we never do. We hear many hunters tell of their appreciation of farmers. I have seen you express those thoughts, and so have I many times. Once I would like to hear some appreciation for that support, but like the Muslims we never do. At least not publicly like hunters do on here. All I want is for this to be a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic relationship like NDFB, gst, and perhaps shaug would like. I will reserve my judgement of shaug until he tells me if he thinks what I ask it to much or not?
> 
> Anyway swift just to inform you so you don't loose heart. I am in hopes it's simply radicals we debate and not representative farmers.
Click to expand...

 :eyeroll: credibility.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, I have seen a couple of times your reference to radical muslims. Don't get me wrong, any religous zealot that teaches hate has no place in my world. However, what some of these radical muslim zealots are spreading is no different them some christian zealots such as Phelps of the westboro baptist church.


Yep, there are radicals and there are just ordinary people. Many ordinary Christians condemned the radical at westboro, but I am still waiting for an ordinary Muslim to condemn the radicals Muslims. It made me feel better about Christians, it would make me feel better about ordinary Muslims and ordinary farmers.  It's not a Muslim thing or a farmer thing it simply would help me separate ordinary from radical. I may not explain that well, but I hope you understand.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog wrote,



> I further explained that I would even buy it and work with his grandkids to graze it. Well, now the whole quarter is roundup'd, including the native prairie. I will also mention that this individual is retired and is not broke. I can't wait to see him again and ask him, what happend. My thoughts are this, bottom line is it is about the $70/ac, the money, or as some religous texts call it, "greed".


Roundup works great for killing CRP. I bought some land with that crap on it. I remember the first 5 years the landowner had bukoo birds on it. Because the gov and conservation groups didn't want legumes in it back when, the CRP was mostly needle grasses and tall wheat. The last 5 years it became a dead zone for small chicks. No dew droplets, no aphids, no bugs. When cutting alfalfa an operator will see 10 times more hens than in older CRP.

Breaking CRP costs and the first couple of years it takes a lot of inputs to get it producing again. Has nothing to do with greed. Farming is a business.

I also have some native prairie. Have no intentions of farming it.

Plainsman said,



> Yep, there are radicals and there are just ordinary people. Many ordinary Christians condemned the radical at westboro, but I am still waiting for an ordinary Muslim to condemn the radicals Muslims. It made me feel better about Christians, it would make me feel better about ordinary Muslims and ordinary farmers. It's not a Muslim thing or a farmer thing it simply would help me separate ordinary from radical. I may not explain that well, but I hope you understand.


Plainsman, Trying to embed a message that the leadership of Farm Bureau are as crazy as radical religous radicals isn't going to work here for you. Nobody but a fool would believe your nonsense. You can stop now.


----------



## Plainsman

Your silly shaug. I'm not comparing people, I am comparing situations, but you are intelligent enough to know that. You simply hope others are stupid enough not to understand. I guess I got my answer about where you stand.


----------



## swift

Plainsman, I have washed my hands to him. He can circle the drain for all I care.

Shaug, I hoped you would enter into a good discussion to explain why the FB does what it does. I guess not. I will maintain the FB as a hypocritical organization that pads its membership numbers through it's insurance business. I highly doubt the real farmers of the state really support the NDFB.


----------



## Plainsman

Swift, some farmers support it, but even those who do don't agree with all of their positions. I simply don't understand the third grade mentality of stick together no matter what. It is what has so divided this country. I have often said what bothered me with government as an employee. When I started it was hunters and fishermen who cared about the resource as our ancestors have for thousands of years. Colleges started turning out politically correct activists and now I think the majority that work for wildlife are the bunny hugger types. With the start of affirmative action the government looked to hire everyone but a white male. It is the most prejudiced program to happen in my lifetime. A day of training more often than not included hours of government approved prejudice indoctrination. The gene pool in government certainly needs Clorox. My point was do we ever hear that from Muslims or Farmers, or for that matter union people?

Like I said my goal is a symbiotic relationship like that of the past and not a parasitic as it is becoming. Do some people have to be paid every time they turn around. I don't live in Jamestown, but I sandbagged in Jamestown. I don't live in Bismarck, but I sandbagged in Bismarck. I don't live in Minot, but I'm going there with the Church to help build this week-end. I passed up $25 an hour Saturday to go help in Minot. Now my hunting license should pay for rural roads ruined by heavy farm equipment?


----------



## Bad Dog

I obviously missed the discussion on taxing hunters to pay for township roads. I have thought about that before as well. Although I think it is unfair to just tax hunters for township roads. Why not put a $0.01 state tax on ALL gallons of fuel. That tax is then held by the counties and they can then ditribute to the townships. That way it is not just picking on the hunters but EVERYONE will have to pay their fair share. Unless I am mistaken the current fuel taxes go to national and state roads, not townships.


----------



## Plainsman

People from the towns drive on rural roads and people from the country drive on city roads. The difference is none of us drive trucks weighing tons. I don't know about your area, but it's getting more common to see farmers with semi trucks. Big trucks on gravel roads do a lot more damage than your pickup or SUV. For some reason they think city roads belong to everyone, but rural roads belong to them. The FB is just looking for another way to exploit anyone they can.


----------



## Bad Dog

Plainsman, please do not tell me that the fb is stating that hunters should be taxed to fix township roads? I thought that something that idiotic was just gibberish being thrown around here.

If the fb is calling for this, then it is the fb that is driving the wedge between hunters and farmers by stating idiotic trash like this. Again, if the fb is calling for this than obviously, the fb is not a professional organization as this statement is not well thought out, and it is obviously run/managed by not very dynamic individuals. I, personally, would be ashamed to be a member of such a non-professional org.

I do hope that the fb was not so foolish.


----------



## Plainsman

Swift found it on their website and put it in this thread somewhere. Yes it called for some of the Game and Fish funding from licenses for rural roads. Like I said this organizations is always looking for ways to get their hands in other peoples pockets. I would be ashamed of being such a parasite.


----------



## Longshot

http://www.ndfb.org/image/cache/Final_book_11_web.pdf\



> We support allowing producers to transport their products statewide without a commercial driver's license. --ID#: 1037/10


Translation; We support ag to be above the law and could care less about public safety. Why should anyone in ag have to prove they can operate safely?



> We support allowing 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight on a five-axle semi, regardless of trailer length. --ID#: 859/09


Translation; We could care less how much damage to roadways we do as long as others pay for the repairs.



> We believe farmers have the right to transport goods or livestock with no further restrictions. --ID#: 1502/11


But all other businesses must follow the rules, we are special.



> The North Dakota Department of Transportation should provide ongoing education as to safety and regulations regarding agricultural vehicles and equipment. --ID#: 1392/10


Translation; The public needs to get out of our way we are more important see no licensing requirement above.

And here it is;


> We believe a fee should be added to hunting licenses for township road maintenance. --ID#: 1419/10


This could go on for much too long. These people want everything yet don't want to contribute anything. If that isn't the definition of greedy, I don't know what is.


----------



## wurgs

Read through most of the list and agree with alot of it but some of the things they want are nothing short of ridiculous. Want a child to be able to get a drivers license at 14.5 years of age and be able to haul products statewide with no CDL? Really? A 15 year old driving a semi with no CDL from Pembina to Bowman would be legal?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Like I said this organizations is always looking for ways to get their hands in other peoples pockets.* I would be ashamed of being such a parasite*.


Where do Federal employees get their paycheck and their retirement from ????? :wink: :eyeroll:

Credibility


----------



## gst

From longshot's link,

Highway Funding 107
We support increased state funding for repairs and maintenance of county and township infrastructure to repair road damages as a *result of various forms of traffic*. --ID#: 1460/11
We support the new funding formula for road construction and repair, which "pools" funding for county, *city,[/b] township and public transit road construction, repair and maintenance. --ID#: 1371/10
The State Aid Distribution Fund and Highway Distribution Fund should be increased to provide for the maintenance of roads for counties, cities and townships. --ID#: 1286/09
Instead of being remitted to the state, we believe that counties should retain fines collected for speeding and [b]overloaded **vehicles* on county roads. Money from these fines should be used by the county for the repair and maintenance of county roads and for traffic enforcement. --ID#: 55/09


----------



## gst

wurgs said:


> Read through most of the list and agree with alot of it but some of the things they want are nothing short of ridiculous. Want a child to be able to get a drivers license at 14.5 years of age and be able to haul products statewide with no CDL? Really? A 15 year old driving a semi with no CDL from Pembina to Bowman would be legal?


worgs, please substantiate where this claim of a 15 year old driving a semi from Pembina to Bowman is being advocated for. For this to happen a direct change to the states statute requireing CDL holders to be 18 would have to be advocated for, it is not. Please do not fall into plainsmans habit of making claims and accusations that are wildly unfactual. The policy on the 14 year old licensing is merely to continue the permit process that has been in place where by rural kids can drive to school for school events and help by driving nonCDL required vehicles on the farm under the state permit process.


----------



## gst

From longshots link
Fuel Tax 121
We favor funding for parks and recreation roads and trails come from parks and recreation budgets and not from public road funds. --ID#: 16/11

We believe that fuel taxes should be dedicated to roads and not recreational trails. --ID#: 97/10

if these dollars taxed for roads , are being used for these purposes rather than maintaining the "public" roads, perhaps it is not entirely out of line to ask that a fund be avalible for road maintanace for say township roads that are damaged during deer season as a result of numerous vehicles traveling over minimum maintainance roads that are posted to stay off when wet that no one seems to do during deer season thru a small portion of license sales.

If you wish to pick apart policies developed by an ag organization, please do not act so shocked that these policies are designed to be of a benefit to agricultural producers. I realize it is a hard concept to understand, but it really is not that novel of an idea than ANY org will advocate for the benefit of what ever industry or profession it is comprised of. Amazing I know.

Perhaps if those maligning this ag org for the developement of policies that benefit ag would share what professions or industries they make their livlihoods in we could begin examining the orgs that represent their specific industries/professions and their policies as well ???


----------



## shaug

Man, you guys have really got the dirt on these farm orgs. Here is some more. Ha! This resolution is from Farmers Union. Look at this farm org trying to horn in on some of that free lunch that conservation orgs get.

http://ndfu.org/data/upfiles/legislativ ... I_2011.pdf



> We urge that half of the funds allocated to the Natural Resources Trust fund should be designated as a soil conservation trust fund to assist agricultural producers.


The Natural Resources Trust was created by the fed/gov after Ducks Unlimited financed Sen. Bryon Dorgans first campaign and he helped kill the Garrison Diversion Project. The Natural Resources Trust received $25 million in taxpayers monies. The Trust lives off the interest on that $25 million. NRT is supposed to act as an ombudsman between government and landowners. Keith Trego is the current head guy and has been for some time. He likes working with Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Wildlife Society and just about any chicken little the sky is falling pretend conservation org.

Keith Trego was a sponser of the Fair Chase Iniative. He thinks a landowners should have the right to sell their land to the highest bidder including DU. However, he doesn't think a landowner should be equally able to sell a farm raised elk to the highest bidder. Back in January of 2010 the National Rifle Association sent out emails, notifying sportmen not to sign the HFI because the Humane Society of the United States was involved. Beginning of Feb. 2010 Keith Trego called the NRA, informed them that he works for the fed/gov was a sponser and told the NRA to back off. Thinking out loud, "was that proper?" Is it legal for a federal guy to use his badge or bully?

In the end who was right? The NRA or Keith Trego? Everyone knows the HSUS put up $150,000 dollars. Does Keith Trego now have egg on his face or lose credibiliy? Has his relationship with Mike McEnroe cooled? Everyone knows Mike negociated the HSUS involvement because he and Dick Monson admitted to it in Dakota Country Rag Mag.

You guys on this forum keep saying that Farm Bureaus membership numbers are inflated or the leadership doesn't represent the members. Not true.

Let me tell you something that is true. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, DU, PF, NRT, Wildlife Society and several orgs I have named were created by the federal government. These orgs claim they represent tens of thousands of sportsmen. That is a gross overstatement. There are always some willing dumb bells who want to carry water for these orgs, truth be told, these orgs need them to do just that.

Safari Club International had a good arcticle about how Chicken Little "Conservation" Robs Hunters, Local Economies

Can't find it on the net but below is the opposition.

http://www.realaspen.com/article/833/Co ... elease-Act



> The groups signing the letter include: Backcountry Hunters and Anglers; Bull Moose Sportsmen's Alliance; Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers; Colorado Trout Unlimited; Colorado Wildlife Federation; National Wildlife Federation; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and Western Native Trout Initiative.


If you google search HR-1581-Wilderness-and-Roadless-Area-Release-Act you can read arguments from both sides. It shouldn't take you long to figure out who the environmentalists are. I wonder if these environmental orgs, posing as sportsmens orgs, are as top heavy with federal agents as our ND Fair Chase Committee was?

BTW, SCI reported the Pew Foundation (an Environmental org) is leading the charge on roadless rules and wilderness designations. A couple years ago it was reported the Pew Foundation gave a lump sum of $25 million to Ducks Unlimited in Feild and Stream Magazine. And to think anyone is foolish enough to believe his $20 dollar DU membership buys clout. Psh!!!

The Pew Foundation is owned by the Pew Family owners of Sunoco Oil. An oil company is funding the environmentalists? Now that certainly is the $64,000 dollar question.

A Farm Bureau membership costs $35 bucks and a Farmers Union membership costs $20. And they don't take money from the Pew Foundation or the Humane Society of the United States. Enough said.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> .
> These people want everything yet don't want to contribute anything. If that isn't the definition of greedy, I don't know what is.


longshot,
I tell you what, go fill your shopping cart in your local grocery store with food products, and then travel to most any other industrialized country and fill it with the very same food products and see what has been "contributed". :wink: Do a little research into what was a significant factor in the uprising that happened in Egypt not so long ago ?(hint, food avalibility and cost)

Perhaps you could post the policy resolutions handbook of some of the various sportsmen/wildlife orgs here in the state. Maybe we could examine their "wants" as they apply to and effect others and their willingness to "contribute" to accomplish them to measure their degree of "greed" in advocating for their own particular agendas. Perhaps you could tell us how these policies are developed by members thru their grassroots involvement?

Can anyone tell me if you attend a DU banquet if you have a "say" in the developement of their policy? How about even if you are a "member"? How about some of the other "sportsmen" groups that claim to represent "all" sportsmen even if a majoity of sportsmen are not members?

It most certainly seems as some on here willing to cast stones at others for fostering a "rift" between sportsmen and those in agriculture are more than willing to do so themselves by their uninformed comments.


----------



## gst

From longshots link

National Farm Policy 229
We believe that all government agricultural program payments should be eliminated. We favor a private insurance program for risk management. --ID#: 1509/11

swift seems to have overlooked this policy!! 

Perhaps a "moderator" could get this discussion back "on topic" in regards to the actual measure!  :wink: That is if people are done bashing the ag producers that make up this org. Or if they are not too busy getting the "lowdown" on people from whatever sources they wish people to beleive! :wink: "Oh hey by the way shaug, last weekend I was in Bismarck and ran into a couple of guys that gave me the skinny on....... " :roll:  oops better not, I wouldn't want to get crossways of plainsmans "nonpersonal comment" pledge and demand. :thumb:

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

Good post longshot, I think we see a lot of one way benefits in those supported items. One way benefits:



> par·a·site   /ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Show Spelled[par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
> noun
> 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
> 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
> 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.


The FB Freedom to Farm will be more benefits for them, and more of a mess to clean up for the rest of society. It's like paying for a bucket of bull droppings. More draining, less control of pesticides etc. What a nightmare.

DU a government organization????? Does anyone see what a radical view this is? Don't bend over I think I hear banjos. :rollin:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> . a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others


Perhaps the trapping of salamanders was a "useful or proper return" for the tax payers monies all those years. :wink:

So where do Federal employees get their paycheck and retirement from? :-?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Good post longshot, I think we see a lot of one way benefits in those supported items. One way benefits:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> par·a·site   /ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Show Spelled[par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
> noun
> 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
> 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
> 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> The FB Freedom to Farm will be more benefits for them, and more of a mess to clean up for the rest of society. It's like paying for a bucket of bull droppings. More draining, less control of pesticides etc. What a nightmare.
> 
> DU a government organization????? Does anyone see what a radical view this is? Don't bend over I think I hear banjos. :rollin:
Click to expand...




gst said:


> Perhaps a "moderator" could get this discussion back "on topic" in regards to the actual measure! That is if people are done bashing the ag producers that make up this org.


guess not! :roll:

plainsman can you substantiate the claim you made yet once again that was enlarged and underlined ???

Credibility


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> DU a government organization????? Does anyone see what a radical view this is? Don't bend over I think I hear banjos.


I did not say government organization, I said "creation of the federal government." Here is the list of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

http://www.trcp.org/about/partners/

What do they all have in common? Follow the money. Actually the taxpayers get a triple whammy from these orgs. First, they continually lobby for taxpayer dollars to fund their agenda. Second, they take millions in from foundations. Years ago legislation was passed that the super rich could put before tax dollars towards foundations to do philanthropy work. Like Red Cross etc. The legislation became watered down over the years and the foundations are now dictating more and more how these monies can be spent. Pew Charities is a great example of this as they give much to environmental orgs such as Ducks Unlimited. Third, these pretend parasite sportsmens orgs push wilderness designations and roadless rules in the name of sportsmen. Thats BS.

The Safari Times had a good piece in their Sept. 2011 issue page 6 Washington Report talking about the standard theatrics of these parasite pretend sportsmens orgs as they spew their alarmist hype. (I cannot find the arcticle on the net) That is what goes on here at Nodak. Fear, Hate, Alarmist Hype.

Farm Bureau is gathering signatures now to put on the ballot an initiated measure to protect farming/ranching from outside attacks by activists or influences that could negatively impact farming/ranching. How could anyone who likes to eat food and participate in this economic engine be against that?

To answer my own question, someone who advocates making all public land private and endeavors to make all private land public.


----------



## swift

Wow Shaug, Nothing substantial in your posts. Nothing to back the Farm orgs you are a member of. Just things that say "hey atleast we aren't as bad as these other guys" Classy. Thats just what the bully says when he is confronted on the playground. Longshot and myself have taken the time to point out potentially dangerous policy brought forth from the FB. You have not defended one item. You just attack conservation orgs that aren't even in the conversation. If you want to talk about the way conservation orgs i.e. Pew or DU negatively affect agriculture start a new thread. The conservation orgs are not asking for a right to be amended into the state constitution.


----------



## swift

> To answer my own question, someone who advocates *making all public land private *and endeavors to make all private land public.


WHO advocates for this?

Let me answer my own question... The NDFB does. 
"We support a net reduction of government-owned land. For every acre acquired, a reduction of two acres should be made and/or for every dollar of value acquired, two dollars of value should be relinquished. --ID#: 764/11"

"We are *opposed to any policies *in the Forest Service Management Plan and/or its administrative rule for National Grasslands/Forest Service lands located within North Dakota that alters the multiple-use of such lands, and that would adversely impact North Dakota residents. In addition, North Dakota Farm Bureau is opposed to any policy in the management plan for said lands that:
1. *Inhibits or reduces economic uses of said lands, including, but not limited to, livestock grazing;*
2. Reduces the ability to fully develop all energy resources on such land, including, but not limited to, oil, wind, coal or gas resources;
3. Inhibits or reduces recreational uses of said lands;
4. Undermines, or changes, the purpose for which said lands were initially acquired;
5. Reduces revenues from said lands that would reduce payments in lieu of taxes to the counties in which the land is located; and
6. Inhibits or restricts free and unlimited access to improvements (ex. Water, pipelines, fences, roads, etc.) made upon the National Grasslands. --ID#: 1361/10 *This is PUBLIC LAND*


----------



## gst

swift said:


> 4. Undermines, or changes, the purpose for which said lands were initially acquired;


This from swifts post from the NDFB policy. Please note the word "initially", it is an intrical part of why these policies are adopted.

Some on here wish to take a snapshot of a policy and paint a picture with it without fully understanding the basis from which it came. This is done to further their side of the arguement, but it is a bit disingenuous to not include the full basis for understanding. Do a little research into what the policy was of multi use of these now Forrest Service controled lands back at the origin of the aquiring by the Federal govt. and how that has now changed. Go back and research how these lands changed control to the Forrest Service and how some states such as Mt. had the foresight to see the problems associated with maintaining the INITIAL multi use agreements and policy under their management and opted out back when they could.

As usual there is a lot more to the story than what some on here would like you to beleive. Plainsman's claims of uncontroled, unregulated drainage and pesticide use have been repeated now a number of times with NO factual information to substantiate that. Even though this section of our state constitution maintains the ultimate control in regulatory law with the state legislative body.

*North Dakota Constitution 
Article 1 Section 21. 
No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;*

But hey how would this actual fact help the claims and "fear mongering" being laid out on this site by a handful of people that by their own admission dislike these ag orgs and the grassroots ag producers that create these very policies that are big maligned?

Luckily these veiws are held by only a smal vocal group of "radical" sportsmen (ie.. NDHfor FC ect...) much like the Muslim religion is scarred by the veiws of their "radical" voices and the vast majority of ND sportsmen are simply enjoying the opportunities they have to pursue their recreational endeavors of hunting on these private agricultural lands unencumbered by the results of the hateful rhetoric spewed forth by a handful of these "radical" "sportsmen" towards the agricultural orgs and their producer members on this site!!!  :wink: :roll:

Credibility


----------



## shaug

Swift,

The comment where I said conservation orgs that advocate to make all public land private went right over your head. I was talking about roadless rules and wilderness designations. Hunters are not for this no matter how these parasite pretend sportsmens orgs spin it. Walking access only, benefits no one when we are talking about 100 million acres owned by the fed/gov. If you walk out there fifty miles into the wilderness be sure to take a frying pan with you. Because if you shoot something you are going to have to sit down right there and eat it.

Swift, when reading or posting on this forum one must consider where you are at. Many of the posters are biologists ecologists etc. hiding behind screen names or psuedo names.

The looting of the general treasury and our national resources by parasite pretend conservation orgs needs to stop. Cut the federal dollars to these 501(c)3 non-governmental non-profits they will die and take all their trouble making ways with them.

First stop, discontinue the farm bill. Gut it. Without subsidies from the fed/gov these TRCP partners will eventually fold. They cannot stand on their own.

I am a proud to be a life member of Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and a few more. They stand on their own.


----------



## swift

> I am a proud to be a life member of Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and a few more. They stand on their own.


 And a few stand on others throats as well.

You still keep deflecting the topic to conservation orgs. I want to know how the NDFB considers their policies implications on non-ag people? I find it funny you pasted a very well written policy of the NDFU as a defense for the NDFB. The conservation policy of the NDFU contradicts the policies of the NDFB on several points. I applaud the NDFU's policy on conservation. I deplore the policies of the NDFB. I don't understand how anyone can be proud to be a member of two organizations that have fundemental differences in their policy. Unless it's because you follow blindly.

Can you deny the NDFB has the goal to privatize nearly all land in ND? And, if you can explain the two for one policy of the FB.


----------



## gst

swift regardless of any "explaination" one might give and it's basis, you will simply not accept it when it comes to these ag orgs as you have admitted having a "willie" over these orgs. You have proven it in the past time and again.



swift said:


> You still keep deflecting the topic to conservation orgs. I want to know how the NDFB considers their policies implications on non-ag people?


swift what you and others seem to overlook is the MAJORITY of people that reap the benefits of low cost, readily avalible, safe food do not have the same concerns regarding hunting and demands you and others wish to place on private lands and producers.

I challenge ANYONE on this site to do what was suggested earlier. Fill your grocery cart with food items here in the US, then go to most ANY other country and do the same and see what percentage of your disposable income you pay there as compared to the US. But hey that "contribution" that American agriculture and it;s producers provide to these ends is of no consequence to people like swift who "pay more in taxes than most people make" by his own claims. Perhaps if it was like it is in other countries where your next meal and what it would cost was not taken for granted this demand that ag capitulate to the ideals of a few "radical" sportsmen would not be so prevalent on sites such as this one.

Luckily for sportsmen, this "radical" vocal few are still largely dismissed by most.



swift said:


> And a few stand on others throats as well.


You and others wish to malign agriculture and the thousands of producers that are members of these ag orgs and the policies that have for generations provided the lowest cost, safest, most readily avalible food for families here in the US, soley to benefit YOUR ideals so you have a few more ducks to shoot when the vast majority of citizens are more concerned about how much of their disposable income is going to place food on their tables regardless of what YOUR ideals and policies will ultimately cost these families.

All over a recreational activity.

And yet you and others claim these ag orgs and their producer members are "greedy"???????? 
:eyeroll:

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

Looking at some of these posts I have to ask myself these questions:

With 95% of the population being urban is it radical to propose public land?
With 5% of the population rural is it radical to propose they have all of the land?

Is it a radical organization that promotes habitat conservation?
Is it a radical organization that promotes that only landowners get to say what happens in this country because they own all of the land.

Is it a radical view to consider that landowners be socially responsible with their wetland drainage?
Is it a radicsal view that freedom to farm should turn them loose with no regulations?

Is it radical to think that someone should be controlling drainage north of Devils Lake?
Is it a radical view to think it's their land they can do what they want, and let Devils Lake do as it will?
Is it racial to view landowners profits upstream negating homeowners loss downstream?
Is it radical to view one citizen more valuable than another?
Is it radical to believe in social responsibility? 
Is it racial to believe that one man's dollar in gain is more important than another man's ten dollar loss?

Is it a radical view to promote free lance hunting into the next century?
Is it a radical view that all land should be private and hunting will be pay to play?

Is it a radical view to think all citizens have a say in what direction our country takes as far as conservation of land and water?
Is it a radical view to think that only landowners have a say in what conservation practices take place if any?

Is it radical view to think that income derived from hunting license should remain with the Game and Fish?
Is it a radical view to think that landowners should be able to raid the coffers of other agencies and groups for their benefit?

who has the radical agenda? 
Is DU radical or NDFB?
Is the Wildlife Federation radical or NDFB?
Is Pheasants Forever radical or NDFB?
Is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation radical or NDFB?
Who is driving the wedge between hunters and landowners? Radicals?? Who are the radicals? How do you compromise with radicals?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Who is driving the wedge between hunters and landowners? Radicals?? Who are the radicals? How do you compromise with radicals?


Plainsman, who is driving the wedge between hunters and landowners? Ask yourself that age old question, "who benefits?" You do not compromise with radicals. Farm Bureau is a grass roots org made up of people who live and work here. Their resolutions and positions are voted on by North Dakota members. The Wildlife Federation well.............here is some of their radical positions.

http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming.aspx

Now there is a novel idea. Shut down industry, lay off everybody. Cap and Tax. We'll all be able to breathe easier as we pedal our bicycles around looking for work.

The recurring theme from the Obama administration is we need to create jos. The fed/gov cannot create a job in the private sector but can certainly take one away with over-regulations.


----------



## swift

Shaug, Grassroots organizations do not need to pad their memberships by selling a product. I would venture a guess that the majority of members of the FB are just holders of a Nodak Mutual insurance card, and have little to do with ag production.

Again why attack other orgs when it is proof the FB is trying to do away with public land? I am not a member of the NWT, NRA, TRCP or DU. I do not have to defend their practices. I don't agree with enough of their policies that I choose to not support them financially. You are proud to be a member of the FB lets hear why, and explain how you can support one group that has a policy to enhance CRP and one that has a policy to end CRP. It seems the two are competeing against each other on several policy points but you are proud to be a member of both. That tells me you really don't stand for anything in particular.


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> From longshots link
> Fuel Tax 121
> We favor funding for parks and recreation roads and trails come from parks and recreation budgets and not from public road funds. --ID#: 16/11
> 
> We believe that fuel taxes should be dedicated to roads and not recreational trails. --ID#: 97/10
> 
> if these dollars taxed for roads , are being used for these purposes rather than maintaining the "public" roads, perhaps it is not entirely out of line to ask that a fund be avalible for road maintanace for say township roads that are damaged during deer season as a result of numerous vehicles traveling over minimum maintainance roads that are posted to stay off when wet that no one seems to do during deer season thru a small portion of license sales.
> 
> If you wish to pick apart policies developed by an ag organization, please do not act so shocked that these policies are designed to be of a benefit to agricultural producers. I realize it is a hard concept to understand, but it really is not that novel of an idea than ANY org will advocate for the benefit of what ever industry or profession it is comprised of. Amazing I know.
> 
> Perhaps if those maligning this ag org for the developement of policies that benefit ag would share what professions or industries they make their livlihoods in we could begin examining the orgs that represent their specific industries/professions and their policies as well ???


First, most farmers I know pay little in fuel taxes. ND state fuel tax is 23 cents / gal. farmers can get a refund of 16 cents / gal every year. So I pay 23 cents a gallon tax, farmers pay 7 cents per gallon.

What I would like to see is a fee levied on the farmers who are using semi-trucks designed to haul 80,000 pounds on roads that were never designed for that kind of weight. In addition, that fee should be doubled for those who routinely load these trucks any where from 10,000 to 20,000 pounds over the 80,000 pound rating.

The gross vehicle weight of my Trailblazer is between 5000 and 6000 pounds, and you really believe that it does anywhere near the damage to these township roads as one of these "farm trucks"?

Tell you what, you agree to this additional fee on these trucks and the abolishment of fuel tax rebates and I will agree to a fee attached to my hunting license for the minimal damage my Trailblazer does to the roads I drive on during deer season.

After all it is fair that we all pay for the damage that our vehicles do to the roads. And it is only fair that the vehicles doing the most damage be accessed a higher fee, right?

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

Swift I don't belong to any of those organizations either. So like you I don't have to defend those organizations. What the NDFB guys are doing is saying but, but, but, look how bad all these other nasty people are. 
So Shaug you don't like these organizations. The only reason I sometimes defend them is if your going to complain about something at least be correct. Like DU is organized by government and silly things like that. It sounds like a Jim Jones, black helicopters, and close encounters with space alien type crazy stuff. So like I said to Swift I don't belong to them so I really don't have to defend them. Now tell us why NDFB is good beyond the evident exploitation of anyone they can.

While your at it tell me why farmers should be exempt from regulations while all other businesses are not. What makes landowners have more rights than anyone else under the United States constitution.


----------



## gst

huntin 1, what do you pay in property taxes per year? What portion of those property taxes you pay go to maintain these rural township roads?

What does it cost to license your "little" trail blazer? Have you ever licensed a semi and trailer?

Tell you what, the next time we get 2 inches of rain right before opening weekend of deer season you come up and see some of the "minimal damge" vehicles like your "little trail blazer do to minimum maintainance roads! :wink:

Tell you what guys slam agriculture and agriculture groups all you wish, and in sticking with that theme, from here on out hunt only public lands even if these private ag lands are not posted, and I will have a degree of respect for your position.

Mean while, the vast majority of sportsmen that do not have such a willie over agriculture, ag orgs and their producer members can carry on as they have done for generations having great hunting experiences on private agricultural lands owned by these ag producers that most are good friends with that make up these evil ag orgs you love to malign. Fair enough??? :wink:

Plainsman, your comments about the "radical" side of things has me wondering if you are peeking again???? 

Credibility


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> huntin 1, what do you pay in property taxes per year? What portion of those property taxes you pay go to maintain these rural township roads?
> 
> What does it cost to license your "little" trail blazer? Have you ever licensed a semi and trailer?
> 
> Tell you what, the next time we get 2 inches of rain right before opening weekend of deer season you come up and see some of the "minimal damge" vehicles like your "little trail blazer do to minimum maintainance roads! :wink:
> 
> Tell you what guys slam agriculture and agriculture groups all you wish, and in sticking with that theme, from here on out hunt only public lands even if these private ag lands are not posted, and I will have a degree of respect for your position.
> 
> Mean while, the vast majority of sportsmen that do not have such a willie over agriculture, ag orgs and their producer members can carry on as they have done for generations having great hunting experiences on private agricultural lands owned by these ag producers that most are good friends with that make up these evil ag orgs you love to malign. Fair enough??? :wink:
> 
> Plainsman, your comments about the "radical" side of things has me wondering if you are peeking again????
> 
> Credibility


I pay around $2000 a year property taxes on my house. How much do you pay on yours? Oh, that's right, farm residences and outbuildings are exempt from property tax. I don't know what portion of it goes to the road maintenance fund. How much of the tax on your house goes to pay for the roads? Oh, that's right..............

My Trailblazer costs around $100 a year to license. No, I've never licensed a semi- trailer, but according to the Century Code a truck or truck trailer combination that is used as a farm vehicle with a gross weight of 78,000 to 80,000 pounds costs $409 a year. Wow, a whopping $300 more, do you think that an 80,000 pound vehicle does just $300 more damage than my "little" Trailblazer? Or do you think it may be a bit more?

I am not "slamming" agriculture. It is not all farmers who are damaging these roads, just like it is not all hunters who are causing damage. What I am suggesting is that perhaps it is time for those who do the real damage to these roads, and depend on them year round, to step up and agree to pay a fair share to maintain them. Instead of demanding that hunters, who do very little real damage to them, pay to maintain them.

huntin1


----------



## wurgs

gst said:


> wurgs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read through most of the list and agree with alot of it but some of the things they want are nothing short of ridiculous. Want a child to be able to get a drivers license at 14.5 years of age and be able to haul products statewide with no CDL? Really? A 15 year old driving a semi with no CDL from Pembina to Bowman would be legal?
> 
> 
> 
> worgs, please substantiate where this claim of a 15 year old driving a semi from Pembina to Bowman is being advocated for. For this to happen a direct change to the states statute requireing CDL holders to be 18 would have to be advocated for, it is not. Please do not fall into plainsmans habit of making claims and accusations that are wildly unfactual. The policy on the 14 year old licensing is merely to continue the permit process that has been in place where by rural kids can drive to school for school events and help by driving nonCDL required vehicles on the farm under the state permit process.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier I do agree with alot of whats in there. My uncles still farm the original farmstead my great grandpa started in the early 1900s so I understand many of the issues farmers face in day to day operation. If you put the 2 things together they are advocating, hauling products in state without a CDL and getting a drivers license at 14.5 years old the exampl I gave is realistic. I never said they were advocating it, just it would make it legal.


----------



## gst

huntin, you do realize that property taxes are paid on each and every farm land acre that is owned? I know a great number of farmers that would like to get by paying only $2000 in property taxes a year. I'll leave it up to you to find out on average what land taxes are paid and what percentage goes back to road maintainance as opposed to your house taxes.

Perhaps you should call the motor vehicle dept and ask what it costs on average to license a semi and trailer. Now for a little math, how many miles/gallon does your blazer get as compared to what these semis you speak of that get a fuel tax refund? In other words, how many actual dollars/mile in fuel tax are being paid for each mile driven on these roads from the different vehicles? Not exactly even steven, but closer than what you previously stated even with the refund. ie. blazer, 21mpg at 23 cents and loaded semi, 8 mpg at 7 cents Now add in land taxes paid to the county that go back to road maintainance, increased license fees, ect... well perhaps you get the point that it is not so black and white as some may wish others to beleive.

wurgs, please show where ANY ag org has claimed they want 15 year olds to be able to drive vehicles requireing a CDL from Pembina to Bowman. There are already a few people on here that make these types of wild baseless accusations, please do not fall into their ranks. Discussion regarding agriculture or any topic is great, crossing the line to unsubstantiated claims and personal malingering comments made by a very small number of people is less great. :-?

The point here is no one single org, wether it is agriculture or any other is 100% perfect in what they advocate for. Particularily in the eyes of other individuals that are not directly involved in the industry or profession the org represents. You go thru and if a majority of their policies are things you agree with, join and thru the grassroots involvement that creates these policies work to change waht you do not agree with. If enough others agree with you policy is developed or changed. Tell me how many of these sportsmen orgs have this ability??? And yet the accusations of an oligarchy have been repeatedly bantered about aimed at these grassroots ag orgs.

What happens on sites like this is a very small handful of spiteful people choose to malign agriculture with often times less than factual/honest accusations and claims because they have a personal willie over someone or something. What good does that really do???

Both swift and plainsman have made accusations of purposely dividing sportsmen and farmers and ranchers. Take an honest look at the rhetoric that has been spouted off even right down to the "head in the mailbox" comments swift makes and the "parasite" comments plainsman makes long with others and tell me who is doing the dividing.

I have said on a number of occassions if these factless claims and snide personal accusations were to stop from these "radical" few regarding agriculture there would be little reason for me to even be on this site. But given the fact the people in charge of this site are more than willing to let their moderators carry on in the manner they have it appears these wild claims and personal accusations will likely continue.

So anyone price out a cart full of food stuffs in any other countries yet??? :wink: Oh heck what the hell does agriculture contribute to the average American citizen anyways particularily here in ND.

Credibility.


----------



## gst

http://familyfarmalliance.clubwizard.co ... Report.pdf

quote:
"USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) also reports the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all food sold in the U.S. increased at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in 2005 and is forecast to increase as much as 3.0 percent in 2006 as retailers pass on higher energy and transportation costs to consumers in the form of slightly higher retail prices. Still, American consumers are getting a bang for their buck when it comes to food.
"When any of us go to the store and buy food, we look at the check register and sometimes feel like we are spending too much," says Searle. "But in comparison to other countries, food is still a bargain."
International statistics provided by ERS only account for the percentage of disposable income spent on food at home. Still, the numbers show huge disparities between the U.S. and other countries.
The U.S. percentage is 6.1 percent. The next lowest figure comes from consumers in the United Kingdom at 8.3 percent. (Note: No statistics are available in the report for Canada, which would be considered a lower percentage country.)
German consumers spend 10.9 percent of their disposable income on food at home, followed by Japan (13.4 percent), South Korea (13.4 percent), and France (13.6 percent) among high income countries.
Middle income countries include South Africa (17.5 percent) and Mexico (21.7 percent). China (28.3 percent) and Russia (36.7 percent) are seeing rapid decreases in food expenditure percentages but are still relatively high. India (39.4 percent) and Indonesia (49.9 percent) are among the highest when it comes to the amount of disposable income spent on food.
It all points back to something Americans often take for granted.
"There are few other places in the world where you can get the diversity and the amount of food for the dollar you spend than the United States," says Searle.
U.S. consumers can thank American farmers and ranchers, in large part, for that great bargain".
:end quote

Perhaps here is a little insight into what ag "contributes" over all as they are "stepping on the necks of others" and engaging in agricultural practices at the "expense of the nonag public" as swift so eloquantly wrote. :roll:

Does it mean ag gets a "pass"? Of course not, but please stop and consider what is so often taken for granted when unsubstantiated accusations and comments like some in this thread are made by these few "radicals".

Credibility


----------



## Longshot

gst, why do you think there are load restrictions, especially in the spring? Heavy equipment does far more damage to all roads and the difference is even greater on rural roads. Now stop and think about city property tax. Road maintenance and construction is much more expensive in urban areas because of high traffic volume. The biggest factor being truck traffic that supports moving your product. Let's see where is most of the money for county road maintenance coming from, oh that's right the general fund along with the usual federal aid funding that is administered through the state. The western counties are taking a beating and do need more funding for roads, but that isn't from hunters.

I think many people are tired of hearing people in ag complain. What makes supporting ag difficult is that when you do it's never enough for them. As the saying goes, "give them an inch they take a mile". gst you have very little Credibility. Try to look outside your own little world and beyond what effects you for a change.


----------



## gst

longshot, as someone that actually lives and works directly in these rural areas and uses these roads daily I understand quite well where the wear and tear comes from. What is being pointed out is more than where road maintainance funding does or shouold come from, it is that people pick out one policy/issue and use it to further their agendas without fully including the basis from which these policies are created all because of a personal "willie" over someone or some ag group.

I have sat on resolution committees and have been a part of creating policy thru my involvement in these grassroots orgs. so I have some firsthand knowledge of what they are about and how they are established. So to try and break it down to the very basic level that some can understand if they so choose to even try here goes.

How many of you guys ever wrote a Christmas "wish" list? How many times did you ask for something you knew you would likely never get, but you thought well if I ask for this, maybe I'll get this other thing I kinda want instead?

Does anyone actually beleive Federal/public lands will ever disappear here in ND? Likely not. So why would a group advocate for that? Stop and think for a moment how things work in govt and politics. Most all resolutions are aimed at accompliching things that can be accomplished, but some are put in place with the understanding they will likely never be accomplished, but by having them on record it allows for those that actually determine and create what laws end up governing to stop and think. Most reasonable people that do not have such "willies" over agriculture, the ag orgs and their producer members understand and realize this, apparently some do not.

I'm sure this explanation will likely not be satisfactory for 2 or 3 people on this site, but then as was just said, when it is merely a small "radical" portion of sportsmen that are heard constantly complaining, people get tired and when ever an inch is given a mile is taken. :wink:


----------



## swift

I think what is lost in all this by the FB is evolution. That is farming has evolved from a small family farms to huge corporations. But the FB claim the small family farmers need these supports while the huge corporations want the best of both worlds. It is similar to Steve Jobs claiming to need tax cuts, road assistance, fuel tax refunds and such because Apple computer was once a small family business based out of a garage. As you grow and become the biggest economic factor in the state you responsibility to the state grows as well. Atleast it does for non-ag business.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> Try to look outside your own little world and beyond what effects you for a change.


longshot, if a poll was taken nationally and this question was asked,

Rank in the order of importance:
1. safe, affordable economical sources of food or;
2. more ducks and hunting opportunities

Which do you beleive the majority of Americans are concerned with???

Follow your own advise and look outside of your own little world. The vast majority of Americans do not hunt and are not concerned with you having a "quality hunting experience". So where does finding this rest? In the relationships one fosters with these farmers and ranchers you have admitted having a hard time "supporting"



Longshot said:


> What makes supporting ag difficult is that when you do it's never enough for them. As the saying goes, "give them an inch they take a mile".


I guarantee you MANY in ag feel the same way about most of these wildlife and conservation groups and the vocal people that "support" them. So what is to be gained by coming on sites like this and making claims about agriculture that one can not substantiate or are flat out untrue? What is to be gained by making comments such as "lords of the land", "head in the mailbox", "parasites", "greed at it's darkest" ect...... any of a number that have been made in just a couple of threads on this site?????

I get that this is an outdoor/hunting site. I understand what ideals most on here will have. What has been asked repeatedly is simply do not make claims regarding agriculture that one can not substantiate or that are simply not truthful. If that is "asking for an inch and taking a mile" well you have a funny way of measuring. As for credibility, if there are claims that I have made that are not factually correct, please directly point them out for me and I will most certainly appologize for making them.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I think what is lost in all this by the FB is evolution. That is farming has evolved from a small family farms to huge corporations. But the FB claim the small family farmers need these supports while the huge corporations want the best of both worlds. It is similar to Steve Jobs claiming to need tax cuts, road assistance, fuel tax refunds and such because Apple computer was once a small family business based out of a garage. As you grow and become the *biggest economic factor in the state *you responsibility to the state grows as well. Atleast it does for non-ag business.


So swift, what would you rather have these "huge corporations" growing what you consume or these smaller family farms that still do exist but are slowly disappearing? This is indeed an issue in that many still look at agriculture as what their grandpa or uncle or someone they once knew while growing up "on the farm" still is today. You can not base your perception of what you beleive agriculture is on these outdated ideals. Those actively involved in agriculture realize just how fast technologies and advancements in agriculture are happening. As with ANY industry, care must be taken to ensure these advancements are actually positive for the long term along with the policies being put in place governing and regulating as well. Stop and consider for a moment the consequences of some of what were once well intended regulations.

AS I have said before, does this mean agriculture gets a pass? And as was answered before, of course not. I actually have questions regarding this measure I would like answered and I have not yet signed this petition even though I have had the opportunity to do so. I do beleive because of the wording I have eluded to in our state constitution the claim made by plainsman of illegal draining and pesticide use are not true (he has yet to substantiate any factual basis for them) and I do have questions how this measure is not in conflict with other wording in our state constitution and have asked them of people that need to provide the answers.

But as usual on this site, the debate regarding it has turned into a "slam agriculture" the orgs representing it and their producer members and individuals for a small handful of people, a couple of which are moderators on this site (one that even made a nonpersonal pledge and demand that lasted a whole what, 2 posts) :roll: . I think someone mentioned that would likely happen at the very start of this thread. :wink:

Credibility. and I might add predictability! :wink:


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> longshot, as someone that actually lives and works directly in these rural areas and uses these roads daily I understand quite well where the wear and tear comes from.


You're not the only one gst. The only difference is that some of use see the whole state not just your own personal neighborhood.



gst said:


> longshot, if a poll was taken nationally and this question was asked,
> 
> Rank in the order of importance:
> 1. safe, affordable economical sources of food or;
> 2. more ducks and hunting opportunities
> 
> Which do you beleive the majority of Americans are concerned with???
> 
> Follow your own advise and look outside of your own little world. The vast majority of Americans do not hunt and are not concerned with you having a "quality hunting experience". So where does finding this rest? In the relationships one fosters with these farmers and ranchers you have admitted having a hard time "supporting"


This is about farming not hunting. We are talking about a tax burden that ag believes they shouldn't have to contribute to but everyone else should.



gst said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes supporting ag difficult is that when you do it's never enough for them. As the saying goes, "give them an inch they take a mile".
> 
> 
> 
> I get that this is an outdoor/hunting site. I understand what ideals most on here will have. What has been asked repeatedly is simply do not make claims regarding agriculture that one can not substantiate or that are simply not truthful. If that is "asking for an inch and taking a mile" well you have a funny way of measuring. As for credibility, if there are claims that I have made that are not factually correct, please directly point them out for me and I will most certainly appologize for making them.
Click to expand...

Once again you are not even close to what was written. The "give an inch they take a mile" saying was referring to ag support. You give them your support and it is never enough. You could give ag all the support in the world and it wouldn't be enough and you and others would still complain that we don't support you. It seems impossible for you and shaug to debate ag without bring in the conservation orgs. It is that the ag arguments can't stand on their own that it requires this deflection?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> So Shaug you don't like these organizations. The only reason I sometimes defend them is if your going to complain about something at least be correct. Like DU is organized by government and silly things like that. It sounds like a Jim Jones, black helicopters, and close encounters with space alien type crazy stuff. So like I said to Swift I don't belong to them so I really don't have to defend them. Now tell us why NDFB is good beyond the evident exploitation of anyone they can.


Wrong, you defend them because you used to belong. You posted on here somewhere that you were a wildlife society member. The wildlife society is now a member of Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. It is the last one lower left. The red calender icon.

http://www.trcp.org/about/partners/

Did you look? Surrogates of the fed/gov. Controlled opposition groups. The environmentalists.

You guys complain about a FB resolution to get F/G funds to repair roads damaged durring hunting season. It is just a resolution. It is not pending legislation. On this site, Farm Bureau must be demonized from any angle.

Plainsman,

I see your old buddy Huntin1 finally got in here to help you. Is it true, awhile back, you were a part time cop and Huntin1 used to ride around shotgun with you?


----------



## Plainsman

> I see your old buddy Huntin1 finally got in here to help you. Is it true, awhile back, you were a part time cop and Huntin1 used to ride around shotgun with you?


No


----------



## gst

longshot, if you would, please take the time to read the post that included the percentages various countires pay of their disposable incomes for food.

Now if you would please answer why the US is one of the lowest (if not the lowest) percentage????

Then if you would answer what the difference is if you are paying 28% of your gross income in taxes, or 28% of your disposable income for food?

Then please consider for a moment what ag and this countries policies regarding it "contributes".



Longshot said:


> This is about farming not hunting. We are talking about a tax burden that ag believes they shouldn't have to *contribute* to but everyone else should.





Longshot said:


> You give them your support and it is never enough. You could give ag all the support in the world and it wouldn't be enough and you and others would still complain that we don't support you


Everyone seems to be overlooking THIS policy from the NDFB policy book.

National Farm Policy 229
We believe that all government agricultural program payments should be eliminated. We favor a private insurance program for risk management. --ID#: 1509/11



Longshot said:


> It seems impossible for you and shaug to debate ag without bring in the conservation orgs. It is that the ag arguments can't stand on their own that it requires this deflection


So longshot, lets get rid of the Govt involvement in agriculture thru the farm program and along with it all the regulations tied to it such as Sod and Swampbuster AND conservation programs. :wink: You see any more the two can not be separated as these conservation orgs have embedded themselves squarely in the Farm Bill program and govts involvement in agriculture. Go to DU's or PF's website they have a specific farm bill link that talks about this. See what THEIR policy is in regards to govt "support" thru the CRP program.

I would be willing to bet you wish govt to be involved in agriculture in this regulatory manner or "supporting" ag thru conservation programs as long as it addresses YOUR agenda, but as soon as ag creates policy to address govt involvement in agriculture either from a regulatory , taxation or production perspective it is a whole nother ball game and ag is nothing but "greedy". :roll:

Hmmm isn;t there a word for this? :-?

Hint: it is NOT Credibility


----------



## swift

> You guys complain about a FB resolution to get F/G funds to repair roads damaged durring hunting season. It is just a resolution. It is not pending legislation. On this site, Farm Bureau must be demonized from any angle.


Maybe its because the policies of the FB are easy to demonize. Maybe it is the FB that is the problem. I love the "it's just a resolution" statement. What does that mean? are you not wanting this to become legislation? If not why have the resolution? More games from a blind sheep being led by the nose. Think for yourself Shaug. Answer why you support two groups with opposite ideas.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Answer why you support two groups with opposite ideas


Perhaps it is because someone has chosen not to have their support of these orgs fall on one single issue??? Perhaps people look to the bigger picture and realize that both groups have a value in what they are advocating for on various issues? Perhaps someone IS actually "thinking for themselves" instead of "blindly" following this admitted personal dislike for ag orgs. ! 
:-?


----------



## Plainsman

> "it's just a resolution" statement. What does that mean?


Swift, it's a mask to hide intent. You can bet if it's a resolution they want it. If they (NDFB) deny that they are liars. If you belong to both groups it's because each have a way into the taxpayer pocket. That's what these groups are about. Not only that they lead the way in keeping Canadian wheat out because we can buy it cheaper. Groups like that keep Argentine beef out because we can buy it cheaper. They even keep Minnesota milk out of North Dakota because they don't want competition. Were getting shafted every time we turn around. Perhaps ethanol is the greatest example of shafting the taxpayer for the benefit of very few. It's not a green program it's a welfare program, and no matter who wins the 2012 election it's gone. There is no difference in the ethanol program and the solar energy company that Obama gave billions to that went bankrupt.

I think NDFB may come close to getting it's wish after the next election. Many subsidy programs are going away, and not just for farmers. However, the regulatory will largely remain in place.


----------



## swift

Plainsman I didn't wake up one day and think, 'I don't like the NDFB' as Shaug would imply. Years of lobbying against sportsman started it and the explanations like...Oh those are just resolutions they don't mean anything, just ignore them, have showed me how they work. They don't give a hoot about anyone really. IF they had ag's best interest at heart they wouldn't be so opposit to the NDFU. For people to condemn me for bashing Ag because I don't like the FB is shortsighted and childish. The AMA does not reflect my ideals and I don't support theirs either. Therefore I don't belong much like 75% of practicing physicians and midlevels. I guess thats the difference between a professional and a nonprofessional. oke:


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Everyone seems to be overlooking THIS policy from the NDFB policy book.
> 
> National Farm Policy 229
> We believe that all government agricultural program payments should be eliminated. We favor a private insurance program for risk management. --ID#: 1509/11


And where is the FB during the farm bill debates? They say one thing and then act the opposite. They tell a story at the front door and shovel the money in at the back door. Yah, that's credibility alright. I would bet the FB put it there just for that argument.



gst said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems impossible for you and shaug to debate ag without bring in the conservation orgs. It is that the ag arguments can't stand on their own that it requires this deflection
> 
> 
> 
> *So longshot, lets get rid of the Govt involvement in agriculture thru the farm program and along with it all the regulations tied to it such as Sod and Swampbuster AND conservation programs.* :wink: You see any more the two can not be separated as these conservation orgs have embedded themselves squarely in the Farm Bill program and govts involvement in agriculture. Go to DU's or PF's website they have a specific farm bill link that talks about this. See what THEIR policy is in regards to govt "support" thru the CRP program.
Click to expand...

Once again gst you are delusional. Private business still deals with regulations with no subsidies and continued Government involvement. Only you would think ag should be special again and only get one or the other. You should try real private business sometime without the government assistance.


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> huntin, you do realize that property taxes are paid on each and every farm land acre that is owned? I know a great number of farmers that would like to get by paying only $2000 in property taxes a year. I'll leave it up to you to find out on average what land taxes are paid and what percentage goes back to road maintainance as opposed to your house taxes.


I fully understand the land tax issue. But, we weren't talking about land tax, you asked what I paid in taxes per year on my home. And if I owned three lots instead of just one I'd be paying taxes on all three lots along with my home. Why is it that there is a property tax exemption for the farm home and all farm buildings. My home isn't exempt. This is what we were talking about, and you are the one who brought it up.



gst said:


> Perhaps you should call the motor vehicle dept and ask what it costs on average to license a semi and trailer.


Not sure why I would have to do that, I already gave you the amount it costs to register a truck trailer combination as a farm vehicle with a gross weight of 78,000 - 80,000, it's $409. It is written in black and white in the ND Century Code here: http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/sta ... -code.html
Don't really see how the motor vehicle department could give me an answer that is different from what is written in state law.



gst said:


> Now for a little math, how many miles/gallon does your blazer get as compared to what these semis you speak of that get a fuel tax refund? In other words, how many actual dollars/mile in fuel tax are being paid for each mile driven on these roads from the different vehicles? Not exactly even steven, but closer than what you previously stated even with the refund.


I'll give you this one gst, it is really is impossible to compare the two.

The whole point is that agriculture is exempt from "Most" taxes that go to maintain roads, even though farm traffic does the most damage to these roads. Now we have the FB suggesting a fee added to hunting licenses to pay for the damage that hunters do to roads. Does this not seem a bit ludicrous to you? It sure does to me.

I really don't begrudge these exemptions for farmers. I just find it a little frustrating when those who do the most damage to the roadways want someone else to pay for the damage they do.



shaug said:


> Is it true, awhile back, you were a part time cop and Huntin1 used to ride around shotgun with you?


Now, where in the heck did you come up with something like this? I've been a full time licensed cop for over thirty years, plainsman has never ridden in a patrol car with me, and I've never ridden in a patrol car with him.

huntin1


----------



## Bad Dog

Awesome!

I will admit, that I am sick and tired of fear mongering. My distain for this goes back to the previous adminsitration and all the false fear they spread for propaganda. Ag has jumped on the fear band wagon by spreading fear on the amargadon of our food supply. Even ngo's have jumped in with apocalyptic predictions of spp populations.

We are no closer to food shortages in this country then we were 100 years ago. Actually, probably more so 100 years ago then now! Even if there was a shortage in the us, it would be based on the fact that most crop farmers are not diversified and plant primarily corn and beans. Gone long ago are the crop farmers that raised multiple crops, had multiple species of stock, etc. Why is everyone planting corn and beans? Money.

I do think gst is confused. He does qoute an ag statistic regarding the percentage of disposal income the world's countries pay on food but then he and the fb want to eliminate all gov from ag. Why do you think the US's percentage is so low? It's because of gov involvement, subsides. Imagine if gst and the fb got there wish and ag was totally privatized. Then we would see prices skyrocket!

I also can't understand why gst does not want ALL public/federal lands to disappear. As he pointed out, the majority of the US population is urban, so shouldn't there be places for these urban people to go and see nature, experience the outdoors, etc.? Or should it all be corn and beans?

I have to ask, wtf?


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> I will admit, that I am sick and tired of *fear mongering*.


So bad dog, what is it when plainsman makes the claims regarding this measure that he has??? He has been asked to substantiate them and has not.



Bad Dog said:


> We are no closer to food shortages in this country then we were 100 years ago.


Bad dog we have been thru this once before in another thread. There are only so many arable acres capable of growing crop, some pretty smart people (smarter than either you or I) have said the worlds population will grow to 9 billion people ( I posted a link to an article from the Furrow mag in another thread). Without continued advances in ag and finding more lands suitable for crop production, these same people have predicted food shortages in the not so distant future, possibly yours and my lifetime.



Bad Dog said:


> I do think gst is confused. He does qoute an ag statistic regarding the percentage of disposal income the world's countries pay on food but then he and the fb want to eliminate all gov from ag. Why do you think the US's percentage is so low? It's because of gov involvement, subsides. Imagine if gst and the fb got there wish and ag was totally privatized. Then we would see prices skyrocket!


Bad dog perhaps it is you that are confused as that was EXACTLY the point trying to be made. I'm glad you are in agreement that if the govt involvement in agriculture here in this country were to end food costs would "sky rocket". So what does the average tax payer get for their tax dollar involved in agriculture???? So do the math, take the taxes you pay, divide by the percentage of the total federal income tax that goes to ag subsidies and then compare that to what you would have to pay in additional grocery bills if you were paying say 28% of your disposable income for food rather than 9%. We did this once already in another thread and the numbers were provided if anyone recalls. Perhaps then plainsman can see what the result of this countries food security programs have been and what "benefits" EVERYONE gets from agriculture and the govt's involvement in it. If I recall correctly it was roughly one penny out of every dollar in taxes paid that went to ag subsidies. I beleive it was in the thread where plainsman claimed govt spending on agriculture was second only to defense! :-?



Bad Dog said:


> I also can't understand why gst does not want ALL public/federal lands to disappear. As he pointed out, the majority of the US population is urban, so shouldn't there be places for these urban people to go and see nature, experience the outdoors, etc.? Or should it all be corn and beans?


Please show me where I have EVER stated I wish all public/Federal lands to "disappear".


----------



## gst

longshot, I give up you win.


----------



## gst

huntin 1, I actually thought the conversation was about who pays what for road maintainance (fair share) . You brought up your house tax, I merely mentioned land taxes as they too are a source of revenue for road maintainance. So on average, who do you think pays more towards rural road maintainance, you out of your $2000 home tax or a farmer that pays $800/quarter on say 30 quarters for a total of $24000? Your claim farmers are "exempt" from most taxes that go towards road maintainance is not exactly true when you look at total dollars paid thru county land taxes for this purpose.

So what portion of your $2000 house tax goes toward the maintainance of rural roads? Particularily the township gravel or minimum maintainance roads? How much of your fuel tax goes to these particulr roads?

As these are the roads being tore up when it rains during opening weekend of deer season, not the hiways and interstates, well perhaps you begin to see the point.


----------



## wurgs

gst said:


> wurgs, please show where ANY ag org has claimed they want 15 year olds to be able to drive vehicles requireing a CDL from Pembina to Bowman. There are already a few people on here that make these types of wild baseless accusations, please do not fall into their ranks. Discussion regarding agriculture or any topic is great, crossing the line to unsubstantiated claims and personal malingering comments made by a very small number of people is less great. :-?
> .


You talk about baseless accusations but you've done it twice responding to my posts.You really need to read my posts more carefully. I never once said anyone advocated, wants, asked for or even liked the idea in the example I gave, just that it would make it legal which most people would agree is a bad idea. The way some of the things they advocate are worded are just too vague in my opinion.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If you belong to both groups it's because each have a way into the taxpayer pocket. That's what these groups are about. Not only that they lead the way in keeping Canadian wheat out because we can buy it cheaper. Groups like that keep Argentine beef out because we can buy it cheaper. They even keep Minnesota milk out of North Dakota because they don't want competition. Were getting shafted every time we turn around. quote]
> 
> 
> 
> Bad Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do think gst is confused. He does qoute an ag statistic regarding the percentage of disposal income the world's countries pay on food but then he and the fb want to eliminate all gov from ag. *Why do you think the US's percentage is so low? It's because of gov involvement, subsides*. Imagine if gst and the fb got there wish and *ag was totally privatized. Then we would see prices skyrocket*!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think NDFB may come close to getting it's wish after the next election. Many subsidy programs are going away, and not just for farmers. However, the regulatory will largely remain in place
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

plainsman please feel free to go to Canada, Argentina, and even Minnesota and do your grocery shopping! When you get back perhaps you can compare what you paid to here in good old ND.

Bad dog, perhaps you can explain to plainsman what value he is getting for his tax dollar that goes to ag in low cost food. He seems to be "ignoring" me!! 

And there it is. plainsmans demands for regulation of ag to fit HIS agenda will remain, but the subsidy programs that provide an ofsetting value to the farmer for these regulatory aspects will disappear. And plainsman claims ag is greedy??? :wink:

When everyone that is demanding govt and taxpayer dollars get out of ag, please remember this when the Sodbuster/Swampbuster programs that are tied to participation in these ag programs are gone along with the conservation programs and govt involvement in ag. Perhaps you can comiserate about the loss of these programs as you stand in the foodstamp line as food prices "skyrocket". What are the odds that this portion (food assistance) of the ag budget will remain???? :wink:


----------



## gst

wurgs said:


> You talk about baseless accusations but you've done it twice responding to my posts.You really need to read my posts more carefully. *I never once said anyone advocated, wants, asked for or even liked the idea in the example I gave,* just that it would make it legal which most people would agree is a bad idea. The way some of the things they advocate are worded are just too vague in my opinion.


wurgs, I have yet to meet ANYONE that is a member of NDFB that beleives allowing a 15 year old kid to drive a vehicle that requires a CDL from Pembina to Bowman is a "good idea" perhaps they are out there, but I have yet to meet any nor would I advocate for this as I do not think it a good idea or necessary.

I explained why the policy on 14 year old drivers is there, if you wish to beleive it is to "vaguely" advocate they be allowed to drive a semi across the state thru the repeal of the states century code regrding the age limits for CDL's or not, that is entirely your perogative.

But if you do not beleive this group is advocating for this, what was your point in pointing out these two separate policies if you do not beleive they are being advocated for?

I beleived instead of "accusing" you of anything, I merely asked you to point out where what you claimed was possible, was being pushed by this ag group.


----------



## wurgs

I was just pointing out some of the things that I feel if passed could cause problems if worded the way they are on their website. Overall I think they are a good organization even though I don't agree with some of their views. Most organizations are started because of the need to protect a group of people and give them a united voice to ensure their future. This group is going to look after farmers just like NRA looks after gun owners and WWF looks after wildlife. Not everyone will agree with them but I think organizations like this are desparately needed to give them a voice.


----------



## gst

wurgs said:


> I was just pointing out some of the things that I feel if passed could cause problems if worded the way they are on their website. Overall I think they are a good organization even though I don't agree with some of their views. Most organizations are started because of the need to protect a group of people and give them a united voice to ensure their future. This group is going to look after farmers just like NRA looks after gun owners and WWF looks after wildlife. Not everyone will agree with them but I think organizations like this are desparately needed to give them a voice.


Wurgs, point taken, I apologize for being a little"jumpy" in regards to some people "claims" on here! And sincerely thanks for a common sense post.

And if some could get over their personal willies, I don't think I have EVER said I blindly agree with every position these ag orgs take. But as they are true grassroots orgs, if you do not belong you can not effect change. And my veiw is that if you are not involved, you have no standing to complain.


----------



## wurgs

gst said:


> wurgs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out some of the things that I feel if passed could cause problems if worded the way they are on their website. Overall I think they are a good organization even though I don't agree with some of their views. Most organizations are started because of the need to protect a group of people and give them a united voice to ensure their future. This group is going to look after farmers just like NRA looks after gun owners and WWF looks after wildlife. Not everyone will agree with them but I think organizations like this are desparately needed to give them a voice.
> 
> 
> 
> Wurgs, point taken, I apologize for being a little"jumpy" in regards to some people "claims" on here! And sincerely thanks for a common sense post.
> 
> And if some could get over their personal willies, I don't think I have EVER said I blindly agree with every position these ag orgs take. But as they are true grassroots orgs, if you do not belong you can not effect change. And my veiw is that if you are not involved, you have no standing to complain.
Click to expand...

Not a problem. I've actually really enjoyed this thread and the discussions on it. I wish it wouldn't get into personal attacks but realize when people are passionate about their views these things happen. I don't ever take it personal myself. Not knowing much about the Farm Bureau, this thread has got me looking into them a little bit.


----------



## swift

I would hope everyone would look into the FB a little closer. Both sides should look into the FB with an open mind. I will be accused of not having an open mind, but like I said, I have formed my opinion on the NDFB based on their lobbying over the years and their own published policy book. If that is having a "willie" then so be it. I call it making an informed opinion.


----------



## shaug

Huntin1 wrote,



> Now, where in the heck did you come up with something like this? I've been a full time licensed cop for over thirty years, plainsman has never ridden in a patrol car with me, and I've never ridden in a patrol car with him.


Plainsman told Burly1 that you and he are buds, one is a cop and the other sometimes rides around shotgun. OK, when conversing with Plainsman always trust but verify. Two out of three ain't bad. You guys are buds, you are a cop, but he may have exaggerated the part about riding shotgun.


----------



## swift

Shaug your losing credibility by the post. Now some he said she said has you poking at Plainsman. Just like your idol GST do the end around to deflect the real topic. Do they teach you guys that at a weekend NDFB manipulation workshop?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> And if some could get over their personal willies,





swift said:


> If that is having a "willie" then so be it.


swift, you wouldn't be "peeking" again would you??  :wink:

I'm just curious when ag is acused of being "greedy", what is it when someone else demands that agriculture capitulate to THEIR ideals that have nothing to do with the production and economic considerations and realities those in ag must deal with to remain in business?

Some on here demand that ag follow their agendas and ideals so they may have better recreational opportunities and yet do not see the irony in calling others greedy. There is more to greed than just dollars.

And the real irony is the vast majority of sportsmen are able to enjoy these very same recreational opportunities without ever once placing demands and maligning ag, ag groups and their producer members each and every fall as they venture out into the large tracts of private lands to hunt . So it causes one to consider, is it really ag that is preventing these vocal few from enjoying what they beleive is their "right" or is it their very attitudes and willingness to bad mouth ag in the manner they have on this site? Why can literally tens of thousands of sportsmen enjoy what this state and it's ag producers have to offer without seeing the problems claimed by a few on this site?

There are indeed "radicals" in every segment of our population, including sportsmen, I beleive that is demonstrated on this site all too often by a small minority of people that seem to not be able to address a subject concerning agriculture without the "greedy", "head in the mailbox" "parasite" ect.... comments that are all to familiar on here.

And in the long run, what is gained by comments and attitudes such as these?????


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman told Burly1 that you and he are buds, one is a cop and the other sometimes rides around shotgun. OK, when conversing with Plainsman always trust but verify. Two out of three ain't bad. You guys are buds, you are a cop, but he may have exaggerated the part about riding shotgun.


I was licensed so that I could, but I never did. Another plan gone astray. Number one being neither of us ride around in patrol cars. But what does this have to do with the subject shaug, or are you just trying to throw dirt into the conversation? Ya, it''s evident.

Swift if the NDFB puts in proposals they don't expect to get it's for only one reason. The reason is they put in totally asinine proposals to make their other insane proposals look relatively sane. For example a three year old child asks his mother for a sack of a dozen chocolate bars. The mother says no. So the child says how about a cookie, and without thinking mom says OK. That's the NDFB.

As for food shortages, one thing they could do is allow imports. There are people other than our local farmers that want to sell us food. They even deny our neighbor Minnesota the right to sell milk here. Were being held hostage. Hey, how much more dangerous is Argentine beef than Colorado melons?


----------



## gst

plainsman, are you aware of some of the infectious disease issues in SA countires? Do you realize that in order for beef to be imported into the US it must pass thru USDA inspected plants in the countries that import it? Do you realize there are a number of different issues involved in the importation of beef? Do you realize that the US indeed imports a percentage of their beef from other countries? Would you simply like this country to throw open it's doors to imports without maintaining any food and animal health safety standards??

The NDFB is an advocate of fair and balanced global trade.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> your losing credibility by the post. Now some* he said she said *has you poking at Plainsman.


swift, perhaps you should tell plainsman and his claims based on his new "friends" he met in Billings his "credibility" is in jeapordy as well!  :wink: That is if you are truly approaching this subject with an "open mind"!! :-?

As for the "poking"???



swift said:


> I guess thats the difference between a professional and a nonprofessional. oke:


Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> Shaug your losing credibility by the post. Now some he said she said has you poking at Plainsman. Just like your idol GST do the end around to deflect the real topic. Do they teach you guys that at a weekend NDFB manipulation workshop?


Ya, poor, poor, poor. Shaug the big reason (no joke) I joined law enforcement is your friend Gordon Kahl. See I did some aerial surveillance and those guys like to kill federal people, but they for some reason say they respect local law enforcement. I got tired of that black car with the little white star following me from Harvey to Minot every Sunday afternoon. That wasn't you was it? 

There is still a reward out to kill some local law enforcement people. Nice guys right? I think I will see if I can find out what kind of organizations Gordon Kahl belonged to and where he got his radical ideas. He didn't want to pay taxes, but he sure burned up the road going to cash his government support checks.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Hey swift, I just got back from tagging along on a hunt for elk with longbow. Oh, and did a little fly fishing on the Little Blackfoot and the West Fork. We stopped at Cabela's in Billings, and got to talking for a minute with another North Dakotan. * Guess what? He gave me the lowdown on gst and the president of NDFB. Don't worry about not pleasing gst. Nobody can. You can't work hard enough for him or give him enough money to make him happy. Happy is not in his vocabulary even if he does say he has a sense of humor. I think his sense of humor is you or I kicking off. Anyway, that was more the opinion of the guy I talked to than mine.*
> 
> I think the FB guy could be described as a cross between a socialist and an agriculture Oligarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.
> 
> 
> 
> He wants the taxpayer money, but he wants to say who pays and how much he gets, hence Game and Fish pay for "his roads". Anyway, that's the impression I got, and that was the second guy in two weeks to tell me the same thing. Oh, and both of those guys said they were farmers.
> 
> You know it's sort of like the radical Muslims. We say we would like to hear some moderates condemn the action of the radicals, but we never do. We hear many hunters tell of their appreciation of farmers. I have seen you express those thoughts, and so have I many times. Once I would like to hear some appreciation for that support, but like the Muslims we never do. At least not publicly like hunters do on here. All I want is for this to be a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic relationship like NDFB, gst, and perhaps shaug would like. I will reserve my judgement of shaug until he tells me if he thinks what I ask it to much or not?
> 
> Anyway swift just to inform you so you don't loose heart. I am in hopes it's simply radicals we debate and not representative farmers.
Click to expand...




Plainsman said:


> swift wrote:
> Shaug your losing credibility by the post. Now some he said she said has you poking at Plainsman. Just like your idol GST do the end around to deflect the real topic. Do they teach you guys that at a weekend NDFB manipulation workshop?
> 
> Ya, poor, poor, poor. Shaug the big reason (no joke) I joined law enforcement is your friend Gordon Kahl.


Well I guess subtely pointing out the hypocracy in some peoples statements doesn;t get noticed!!! 

I guess the "he said She said" thing doesn't apply to moderators and conversations with anonymous people in Billings! :wink:

Shaug, I am surprised to see plainsman is so informed as to who everyones "friends" are!  
(note: the above comments are subtle sarcasm regarding plainsmans hypocritical comments regarding the poor, poor, poor, nature of "poking" at people!)  :roll:.

Credibility


----------



## bioman

> _*So longshot, lets get rid of the Govt involvement in agriculture thru the farm program and along with it all the regulations tied to it such as Sod and Swampbuster AND conservation programs. *_ You see any more the two can not be separated as these conservation orgs have embedded themselves squarely in the Farm Bill program and govts involvement in agriculture. Go to DU's or PF's website they have a specific farm bill link that talks about this. See what THEIR policy is in regards to govt "support" thru the CRP program.


Gabe, please elaborate on the highlighted quote. Are you inferring that ag producers should be 'free and clear' of federal regulations?


----------



## Plainsman

bioman said:


> _*So longshot, lets get rid of the Govt involvement in agriculture thru the farm program and along with it all the regulations tied to it such as Sod and Swampbuster AND conservation programs. *_ You see any more the two can not be separated as these conservation orgs have embedded themselves squarely in the Farm Bill program and govts involvement in agriculture. Go to DU's or PF's website they have a specific farm bill link that talks about this. See what THEIR policy is in regards to govt "support" thru the CRP program.
> 
> 
> 
> Gabe, please elaborate on the highlighted quote. Are you inferring that ag producers should be 'free and clear' of federal regulations?
Click to expand...

 :rollin: :rollin: I have asked that question before and it gets sort of danced around and outright denied. However, if you keep them talking long enough the truth slips out. NDFB talks big, but if they really got into the position they would have no government support it would take a very large diaper to contain the mess. Second you can bet that's what they are actually after and that's no regulations. Drain baby drain.

Is there anything in the farm program that says they can not buy their own insurance?


----------



## Bad Dog

Food is obviously a necessity. So why would we trust it to be solely in private hands? Its not like it's an ipod or a shotgun. For items that are necessities, there should be government involvement. I think there should be more government involvement in ag.


----------



## Plainsman

I think it's time to tell people the opinions I have are not related to hunting. They are related more to the economy. I have always supported price support, because I believe it's the only way to get it to the farmer and not everyone else from the field to the grocery shelf. However, if one of you NDFB guys want to start a measure to eliminate farm subsidies bring it on and I'll sign it simply to call your bluff. You haven't got the guts to be on your own. If you do put up or shut up. 

Let me be perfectly clear I have things before hunting like clean water, no flooding, clean air, etc. That and the constant effort to get their hands in everyone's pocket. It wouldn't be so bothersome if it was appreciated, but from what I garner on these threads there is no appreciation, only a entitlement attitude. Entitled to what they earn and what everyone else earns. Trying to rob the Game and Fish shows no pride. With big trucks tearing up not only township roads, but country roads and state highways there is still an arrogance that says it's ok to shaft anyone they can for another dollar. In this case hunters who drive on rural roads. Maybe if their house catches on fire they can demand the fire department pay for "their road" when they come to extinguish the flames.

Act like a neighbor and people will treat you like a neighbor, but dump on them and expect your behind to be kissed is sort of a stretch. My attitude comes from FB and friends PR efforts which really suck.


----------



## gst

Bioman, please show where I have EVER suggested agriculture should be "free and clear of Federal regulation" . Despite what bull****/lies plainsman claims, here in this very thread in the last couple of pages I have asked the question "does this mean agriculture should get a pass"? and have answered it with "of course not". In other threads I have suggested that EVERY industry/profession ect... INCLUDING ag needs REASONABLE regulations.

From a few posts back in this very thread.



gst said:


> Those actively involved in agriculture realize just how fast technologies and advancements in agriculture are happening. As with ANY industry, care must be taken to ensure these advancements are actually positive for the long term along with the policies being put in place governing and regulating as well. Stop and consider for a moment the consequences of some of what were once well intended regulations.
> 
> AS I have said before, does this mean agriculture gets a pass? And as was answered before, of course not


Hopefully that clears that up directly despite plainsman's opinion/claims/whatever.

As to the Swampbuster and Sodbuster regulations, they are tied DIRECTLY to voluntary participation in the farm program. So as asked if the farm program subsidy payments to offset the cost of these restrictions that are placed on ag producers are taken, why should these regulations controling what is done on private lands remain? If you do not agree with this ideology, consider what our Constitution says about "takings".


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If you belong to both groups it's because each have a way into the taxpayer pocket. That's what these groups are about.





Plainsman said:


> He didn't want to pay taxes, but he sure burned up the road going to cash his government support checks.





Plainsman said:


> Were getting shafted every time we turn around.





Plainsman said:


> I have always supported price support,


       

You sure have a funny way of expressing that!!!  If you would like I can go back thru some other threads and post a montauge of your greatest "hands in our pockets" comments regarding "price supports"! :wink: :roll:

Although I do not know if I could retreive them from the threads you have "locked" or not!!  :roll:

Credibility


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> However, if one of you NDFB guys want to start a measure to eliminate farm subsidies bring it on and I'll sign it simply to *call your bluff*. You haven't got the guts to be on your own. If you do put up or shut up.





Plainsman said:


> Swift, it's a mask to hide intent. You can bet if it's a resolution they want it. If they (NDFB) deny that they are liars.


Okay, now I am confued, which is it, if it is a resolution NDFB wants it?????? Or is it merely a resolution that is a "bluff"!

plainsman you have to pick one position or claim and stick with it, others wise you start to lose............ , well you know, :wink:

Credibility


----------



## gst

In all fairness to plainsman as he has proven time and again he does not understand the formation of policy thru grassroots orgs, starting a STATE measure here in ND would do little good in getting the FEDERAL govt out of production ag.

These policies such as the one to end govt involvement in agriculture are developed at a state level by voting members at the annual convention after much discussion and then advocated for on a national level where these decisions are made thru Congress. So as you can see putting effort into a state measure is somewhat pointless.

Just a little "ag policy 101" for those like plainsman and swift who have a hard time comprehending (seriously) how these grass root ag orgs function.

I do realize as they are both somewhat "ignoring" me, they will likily not get the benefit of the lesson, but so be it I guess!!! 

And after swifts claim to be looking at these issues regarding NDFB and other ag orgs with an "open mind" I really thought perhaps I could get thru to him!!!! :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Ya, poor, poor, poor. Shaug the big reason (no joke) I joined law enforcement is your friend Gordon Kahl. See I did some aerial surveillance and those guys like to kill federal people, but they for some reason say they respect local law enforcement.


The aerial surveilance? It wasn't a black helicopter was it? Local law enforcement (sheriff) are elected by local people. Anyone can understand the dynamics behind liking him more than a bunch of gun-ho fed/gov officials.

Bad Dog wrote,



> Food is obviously a necessity. So why would we trust it to be solely in private hands? Its not like it's an ipod or a shotgun. For items that are necessities, there should be government involvement. I think there should be more government involvement in ag.


Pick a country, any country and hold their ag program up as a model. Now which ones have a better ag program?

Dog, You must work for government if you think there should be more government in ag. More government equals more over-regulation. Over-regulation has caused many companies to out source to other countries. Take the tannery business for instance. Environmental over-regulation has caused almost all to move off shore. Plainsman already wants to outsource ag to other countries.

Today in this country, the government has more people hired then does manufacturing. Plainsman wants cheaper beef from Argentina. If people here stop working because everything is outsourced then who is going to pay the taxes that in turn pay Plainsmans pension. What we need are tarriffs that protect American jobs at the waters edge.

What ND needs is FB's measure.


----------



## swift

Shrug that's a load of crap and you know it. If we relied on tax dollars paid by ag producers we couldn't buy a box of cereal. What this country needs is a flat tax whereby every American is supporting their country equally. No more tax exemptions on million dollar purchases. No more depreciations on equipment. Just all of us red blooded Americans contributing to our nations costs with an equal percentage of our income to cover costs. I'm not going to stereotype all ag producers as greedy but I will say that the FB has a posse comatatis feelabout their policies.


----------



## Plainsman

> Over-regulation has caused many companies to out source to other countries.


That's true.



> Plainsman already wants to outsource ag to other countries.


That's not true.



> Plainsman wants cheaper beef from Argentina.


No I don't I was just pointing out the cheap food bull droppings that I always hear. However, I would like some of that Minnesota milk. Odd that landowners want all those Minnesota hunters, but no milk.  Don't worry guys I'm not a no nonresident freak.



> Plainsman wants cheaper beef from Argentina. If people here stop working because everything is outsourced then who is going to pay the taxes that in turn pay Plainsmans pension.


Boy are you ignorant. That's already switched over. Retired people I think get 1.5% of their salary, reduced social security, and a sort of 401K which they contribute 5% to and government matches. Reagan raided our fund to save your social security. I paid into social security, but can not get it. I'm not complaining I voted for Reagan again the second time after that theft because I put my country before my job.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Just all of us red blooded Americans contributing to our nations costs with an equal percentage of our income to cover costs. I'm not going to stereotype all ag producers as greedy but I will say that the FB has a posse comatatis feelabout their policies


From the FBO site:

Quote: "Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue
by swift on 09/19/2011 09:41 AM | Reply #2 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

swift
Joined: 01/23/2002 
Location: SD

_ "Should he get what he wants, You will see a lot longer lines in clinics and other small businesses.

*My example is this, The plan is to increase the top tax bracket to 47%, add social security tax and state income tax and you are approaching 60% tax on your income. Both my wife and I are in medicine and we broached the magic number of 250k therefore we will make more money in our pockets if we earn less than 250k. To do that we will work less*. That may mean 4 day weekends instead of 2 day weekends. Patients are already booked out 4-5 weeks to get in if we have to cut our hours to maintain our take home pay the wait to be seen will increase by 20-40%. Play that out over the hundreds of rural clinics across the state and available healthcare just took a huge hit.

This jobs initiative will have the opposite effect on the workforce than it is suppose to_" end quote

It appears that swift is so concerned about paying less in taxes that he is willing to make the people he swore and oath to care for "wait in line" to get their health care while he and his wife are taking more days off.

I'm not going to stereotype all medical "professionals" as greedy, but I will say swift sure seems to have an "I'm only in it for the money feel to his chosen "profession".


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Retired people I think get 1.5% of their salary, reduced social security, and a sort of 401K which they contribute 5% to and government matches.


Hmmm, it appears that retired Federal employees have "their hands in our pockets". :wink:

plainsman, what is the amount paid out annually in retirement benefits by the Federal govt to retired Federal employees?

Where do these dollars come from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html 

And that is just what is paid to the dead federal employees!!! Perhaps they could not tell they were in fact dead as there was no noticable difference in what they "contributed"!!  :wink:

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ove ... al-workers 
From this site:
When benefits such as health care and pensions are included, the federal compensation advantage over private workers is even larger, according to the BEA data. In 2009, federal worker compensation averaged $123,049, or double the private-sector average of $61,051

Politics also plays an important role. *Federal workers are a powerful special-interest group, and they are very effective lobbyists. *Members of Congress who have large numbers of federal workers in their districts push relentlessly to expand pay and benefits.

:-? Say it aint so!!! 
plainsman, it appears that ag is not the only "special interest group" that "controls" the legislature and has "their hands in our pockets"! :wink:

Perhaps it would be interesting to read some of the policies of some of the orgs representing this particular "powerful special interest group" ! :wink: 
Credibility


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Boy are you ignorant. That's already switched over. Retired people I think get 1.5% of their salary, reduced social security, and a sort of 401K which they contribute 5% to and government matches. Reagan raided our fund to save your social security. I paid into social security, but can not get it. I'm not complaining I voted for Reagan again the second time after that theft because I put my country before my job.


From http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ove ... al-workers

Employee Benefits
Comparisons of federal and private pay often just look at wages and do not consider the superior benefits received by government workers. The Bureau of Economic Analysis provides data showing the average value of federal and private-sector benefit packages.15 In 2009, federal workers enjoyed average benefits of $41,791, which compared to average benefits in the U.S. private sector of just $10,589. That huge advantage stems both from more federal workers receiving certain types of benefits and from particular federal benefits being more lucrative than those available in the private sector.

Federal workers receive health insurance, retirement health benefits, a pension plan with inflation protection, and a retirement savings plan with a government match. They typically receive generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible work hours, training options, incentive awards, generous disability benefits, and union protections.

Plainsman, if you are not getting a pension plan with inflation protection like your peers than "boy are you ignorant."

Swift wrote,



> If we relied on tax dollars paid by ag producers we couldn't buy a box of cereal.


Swift, Do you even "think" before you hit the submit button? Read it again. That's stupid. Anyone who writes like this can't be a professional or a physicians assistant as you claim. Maybe you just got done dumping out some bed pans?


----------



## swift

Like I said before Shaug if the full time farmer has much of a tax liabilityat the end of the year he likely needs a new accountant.


----------



## wurgs

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> The aerial surveilance? It wasn't a black helicopter was it? Local law enforcement (sheriff) are elected by local people. Anyone can understand the dynamics behind liking him more than a bunch of gun-ho fed/gov officials.
> .


I got buzzed by Border patrol helicopter twice while working south of Starkweather Friday. A little strange being about 50 miles from border


----------



## shaug

Swift said,



> Like I said before Shaug if the full time farmer has much of a tax liabilityat the end of the year he likely needs a new accountant.


Farming is like taking two steps forward and one back. Two years a person can make good money and that third can get hailed out or dried out or whatever curve mother nature wants to throw. Durring those two years when a farmer makes money he can either pay tax on the profit or can buy some machinary, fencing supplies, fertilizer and deduct them as a business expense. That in turn provides many jobs for others. A dollar spent back into the economy trickles down seven times. There are many people indirectly involved in the production of food.

The whole safe, economical system, for the production of food was set up by people who are a lot smarter then us.

That is, until you came along and posted how if a full time farmer is paying taxes he needs a new tax accountant. Instead of drive-by shooting from a screen name (swift) why don't you go to the capitol when the legislature is in session and testify to your beliefs. If you hate farmers tell them that, if you hate Farm Bureau tell them that too.

Put your real name on it.


----------



## gst

swift, here's a question for you.

If that farmer gets to the end of the year and see's he will have a "tax libility", what then does he do????

Does he put that money into a "tax shelter" ect.... or are those dollars most times put back into the local economy?

While your at it, please answer this question as well (I know how much you enjoy these questions!  ).

Where do you think these dollars are better spent in regards to over all effect on this country, into the local economy thru the purchase of say the next years crop inputs or machinery, thus allowing that dollar to be turned over by conservative estimates 5 times within said economy, or paid into the bottomless pit of waste and fraud that has become our tax system and govt??? 
(keep in mind the millions paid out to dead Federal employees in benefits as you answer!!) :wink:

And before you malign those in agriculture for "stimulating the economy" remember this is indeed a free country where you could have CHOSEN to become involved as an ag producer rather than having to make those desicions to work less so you do not have to pay "your" taxes! :wink:

Oh, and by the way swift, how much did YOU pay in property/land taxes last year? You brag about how you pay more in taxes than most people make, I know many farmers that pay enough in land taxes each year that a family could live off quite nicely.

The difference is they are not on sites such as this claiming they will work LESS so they have to pay less in taxes or bragging about how much they pay as a status as to how much they make.

You see most of us involved in animal agriculture realize the responsibility we have to the animals that are under our care when we chose to enter into this "occupation" and their care is our priority. Luckily for us when one of those animals injures one of us the vast majority of medical "professionals" are more concerned about the oath they took to care for people when they CHOSE to enter their "profession" and provide the care needed than they are about how much they pay in taxes and decide to take 4 day weekends even if it means their patients end up dealing with those choices. :roll:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> From the FBO site:
> 
> Quote: "Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue
> by swift on 09/19/2011 09:41 AM | Reply #2 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
> 
> swift
> Joined: 01/23/2002
> Location: SD
> 
> "Should he get what he wants, You will see a lot longer lines in clinics and other small businesses.
> 
> My example is this, The plan is to increase the top tax bracket to 47%, add social security tax and state income tax and you are approaching 60% tax on your income. Both my wife and I are in medicine and we broached the magic number of 250k therefore we will make more money in our pockets if we earn less than 250k.* To do that we will work less. That may mean 4 day weekends instead of 2 day weekends. Patients are already booked out 4-5 weeks to get in if we have to cut our hours to maintain our take home pay the wait to be seen will increase by 20-40%.* Play that out over the hundreds of rural clinics across the state and available healthcare just took a huge hit.
> 
> This jobs initiative will have the opposite effect on the workforce than it is suppose to"





shaug said:


> Swift, Do you even "think" before you hit the submit button?


Apparently not!!


----------



## swift

Shaug I don't hate farmers. I wish you could get that through your manipulative mind. I hate many of thee thongs the FB does and stands for. That does not mean I hate farmers. I hate many of the things the Democrats do in congress but that doesn't mean I hate the people that choose to be democrats. Can you twist you head around that? I don't think you can since the FB for decades has cried the same cry. Those that don't agree with the FB's stance must hate all farmers so let's boycott everyone. That's the way you have rolled on this topic and the way GST has done it since he graced this site with his presence.

Another question can you explain AG income deferment to me and why someone would defer income until next year? What is the benefit of income deferment to a farmer? See if you can stay on topic here. You seem to have some ADD when your asked a question. Another hint this has nothing to do with conservation orgs so leave them out of your explanation.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Another question can you explain AG income deferment to me and why someone would defer income until next year?


I already answered that. For every two years enjoying goods crops it seems mother nature has a way of reminding us to be thrifty by delivery a loss on year three. By deferring income from year two into year three it is a way of income averaging.



> Another hint this has nothing to do with conservation orgs so leave them out of your explanation.


Or, if you are a really big player instead of income deferrment a person or group of persons can set up a foundation. Divert the tax money owed to the IRS away from the general treasury and instead put it into their very own foundation. The Pew Charities does this and the board who dispenses the money decide where it goes. The Pew board is made up mostly of family members. They own Sunoco Oil. They give millions to Ducks Unlimited. Some people think DU gets it money from membership dues. Not so, much comes from money that should have gone to the US General Treasurey.

The rip off to the US taxpayers isn't complete here however. There is more.

http://www.ducks.org/news-media/sportsm ... -a-reality



> "The Prairie Pothole Region is commonly known as our nation's 'Duck Factory' because it plays a central role in sustaining strong duck populations and conserving this area is a top priority for our organization," DU Chief Conservation Officer Paul Schmidt said. "To demonstrate our support, Ducks Unlimited has committed $50 million over ten years to purchase easements under this program. Now is the time to let our nation's leaders know that sportsmen support this program and are willing to do their part to make it happen."


Swift, where did DU get $50 million? But the rip off to the US taxpayers still isn't done here. DU is trying to get their people to write letters to get behind the Dakota Grasslands Proposal. Putting up $50 million will surely attract attention. They want our Washington DC legislators to get behind a scheme to fund the Dakota Grasslands Proposal. The cost. Only $588 million. The money would go to the USFWS to purchase perpetual easements.

We are told it is for cleaner water and air. Who amongst us is against that? However, consider that this country is borrowing millions at interest from the Chinese. So what we are doing is spending money we do not have at interest and burdening our children with this debt.

Call your congressman and tell them no more federal spending. This has to stop, it cannot continue.


----------



## swift

Well atleast your consistent. Again, What is the benefit of income deferment to the ag producer? I think the answer is TO PAY LESS TAXES. Is that it Shaug? to avoid tax liabilities? to avoid paying taxes? One more time What is the benefit? I dont know if thats the reason? 
And What other FOR PROFIT entity gets the benefit of income deferment? NONE! I think that is the answer. Maybe I'm wrong. When We started a new job we received a sign on bonus. Guess what? We paid all the income tax assessed by the IRS and couldn't defer all or part of that income to the next year to average our income. So keep up the facade of ag producers paying equal taxes to the nonag workers of the state. The previous generations of farmers thanked the voters that supported them through open arms and posted fields. This current generation...not so much. Good luck with your amendment to the constitution. I see it as one more way to defend the greed that is the North Dakota Farm Bureau.

I knew you couldnt steer away from consevation org bashing. I understand you dislike those orgs as much as I dislike the FB. But truth be told your willie for the conservation orgs as well as GST is a pretty good example why there is a necessity for those orgs. As I said before I only belong to one conservation organization that being Delta Waterfowl, Our members are members by choice not by default for owning one of thier products. I have some issues, many of the same issues that you have with DU so I don't belong to their organization. You on the other hand compromise your beliefs to belong to FB and FU. Who is right in their approach? I guess I will err on the side of integrity.


----------



## Plainsman

> federal workers enjoyed average benefits of $41,791


Your even more ignorant than I thought. I know federal employees who's salary and benefits are under 30 thousand.

Shaug, I don't know where you got your information, but it's worthless. Many employees don't make as much as the 41 grand you posted. We know what our benefits are because we have to pay taxes on every cent. Our benefits are counted as income. We don't get health insurance, we get reduced cost to our monthly premiums because the government negotiates prices. We pay about 2/3 of what you would as a private citizen. However, take my insurance card and go to the clinic. They look at it and say ohhhh. The coverage is not as good because in the negotiation to get the price down they negotiate away some coverage.

Every ten years government looks at our jobs and compares them to the private sector. Then they decide what we should be making. They compare by expertise. Last time they did it we were 37% behind the private sector. However, we got a 3% raise.



> union protections


I only ever knew two federal employees that belonged to a union, and that was in the last year before I retired.



> Plainsman, if you are not getting a pension plan with inflation protection like your peers than "boy are you ignorant."


No shaug your the ignorant one. Perhaps military get something like that I don't know. I'll admit ignorance to military retirement. However, no federal employee none have inflation protection. Even as I worked we often had no cost of living allowance. When we did it was two or three percent. The current federal retirement is largely in the stock market. You show me any inflation protection in the stock market. I don't know what kind of worthless material you read, but it is not correct. Perhaps something published by NDFB professional whine publication. I forget which year that people lost so much in savings in the stock market. where I worked I knew people who had worked for 30 years and lost $12 (edit $12 thousand, 12 thousand) in August that year. There is no recovery for them, or insurance against that loss. They have no other retirement. Shaug, when I started in 1971 federal retirement was number one, but by 1980 we were not in the top 500 and have not been since.

Please understand I am not complaining, but simply trying to set someone straight who , as it appears, knows less than nothing. I know the question was simply a form of deflection, but it was so dumb it deserved answering. I am surprised shaug brought it up though since many farmers get more federal money than federal employees. The difference is federal employees work for the people of the United States for their salary and farmers get paid to work for themselves. Good gig don't you think?

Now about the freedom to farm as if you didn't already have it? Lets hear anyone justify this foolishness.


----------



## Plainsman

> I already answered that. For every two years enjoying goods crops it seems mother nature has a way of reminding us to be thrifty by delivery a loss on year three. By deferring income from year two into year three it is a way of income averaging.


Hmmm, I have never been able to do that. Can teachers, police, truck drivers etc do that? Why not? That could be worth tens of thousands to a farmer right? Wow. It gets better all the time. Keep them talking swift.



> We are told it is for cleaner water and air. Who amongst us is against that? However, consider that this country is borrowing millions at interest from the Chinese. So what we are doing is spending money we do not have at interest and burdening our children with this debt.
> 
> Call your congressman and tell them no more federal spending. This has to stop, it cannot continue.


I agree that no one is against clean air and clean water, (other than freedom to farm that is) and I also agree that the crazy spending has to stop, however you make it sound like clean air and clean water are the problem and not "entitlements". I put quotes around entitlements because most I don't consider people entitled to. Your entitled to what you have contributed to like social security, but your not entitled to day care if your a single mother, your not entitled to food stamps if your lazy, your not entitled to anything from another man's sweat. As a matter of fact shaug your not entitled to support prices it only comes from the generosity of the American taxpayer, and the American taxpayer is taxed to death. If your a farmer and paying income taxes shaug get a new accountant. A blood relative of mine had to quick go out and buy a combine in December one year. If he had forgot and not bought that combine to add to his expenses he would have had to pay taxes that year. Whew, that was a close one.


----------



## swift

> The money would go to the USFWS to purchase perpetual easements.
> 
> We are told it is for cleaner water and air. Who amongst us is against that? However, consider that this country is borrowing millions at interest from the Chinese. So what we are doing is spending money we do not have at interest and burdening our children with this debt.


If only you could speak the truth. The truth and the answer to your question "Who amongst us is against that?" is YOU and the NDFB through a legislative effort to end perpetual easements. This is a great example if the lack of integrity you and your pet org has. You are opposed because you cannot profit from it. Plain and simple. So in the future don't claim oppostion due to federal spending. I will do that for you. This is one of the projects I am opposed to and another reason I let my membership lapse a few years ago. Lay it out there like GST did as a family problem. It is another effort to control landowners rights by taking them from the landowner.


----------



## gst

Where to begin???



swift said:


> What is the benefit of income deferment to a farmer?


As a part of "income averaging" it is simply a way of managing your tax burden. If you lose money 2 out of three years and all of a sudden make a large income because of a swing in the market (you see this tends to happen when dependant upon markets rather than a guaranteed salary such as most medical professionals and Federal employees have) You can spread that tax burden over the years that by tax law you could have received a refund.



swift said:


> But truth be told your willie for the conservation orgs as well as GST is a pretty good example why there is a necessity for those orgs.


Swift answer me why the largest percentage of conservation program acres are on private lands? Perhaps, just maybe it is because many of us ag producers beleive enough in conservation programs to pony up the other portion that cost share does not cover in these conservation programs. And I guarnatee you that dollar amount is much larger than a membership to Delta Waterfowl. Tell you what, you match what I paid out of pocket for conservation the last 5 years and I'll pay your Delta Waterfowl membership for the next 5 years! Deal?? :roll:



Plainsman said:


> Shaug, I don't know where you got your information, but it's worthless.


Apparently any number of webstes are simply not correct.



Plainsman said:


> Please understand I am not complaining, but simply trying to set someone straight who , as it appears, knows less than nothing.


Perhaps as little as someone that beleives ag is second only to defense in Federal spending and notill planting of corn is not happening!!! 

Credibility


----------



## gst

There are so many I simply ran out of room on the last post! 



Plainsman said:


> Now about the freedom to farm as if you didn't already have it? Lets hear anyone justify this foolishness


plainsman for some one that demands govt subsidies be taken out of agriculture, perhaps once again here is an example of "knowing nothing". Do a little research into what this "freedom to farm"thing was all about. :roll:



Plainsman said:


> I forget which year that people lost so much in savings in the stock market. where I worked I knew people who had worked for 30 years and lost $12 (edit $12 thousand, 12 thousand) in August that year


I know farmers and ranchers that lose that in one single days market swing every year on any number of commodities several times over! 



Plainsman said:


> A blood relative of mine had to quick go out and buy a combine in December one year. If he had forgot and not bought that combine to add to his expenses he would have had to pay taxes that year. Whew, that was a close one


So apparently now not only are ag producers "contributing" by providing the lowest cost, safest, most readily avalible food to Americans, they are also stimulating the economy by purchasing large ticket mfg items for literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop supporting thousands of working folks mfging these items! As was said earlier, what is better for this country, a $30,000 tax liability that disappears into the coffers of this govt to be spent as it has, or a $300,000 capital purchase that is turned over 5 to 7 times in the economy? I wonder what the fella working at the JD plant Moline thinks about this tax policy??? How about the people employed by the local implement dealers, or even the fella that builds houses that contracted to build a couple for these employees in the local rural community, ect.................Luckily there are a few "brighter minds" creating these policies than some on here!! :wink: 

Damn, shaug, keep them talking! :wink:

I tell you what, it appears no one is going to debate the actual amendment, it is simply a bash agriculture, ag orgs, and the ag producers members. It has been fun, but a guy can only take so much. So as was said earlier, for guys like swift and plainsman, buy your food in any other country and see what you pay, hunt only on public federal lands and try not to bash the farmer or this countries food security policy with your mouth and belly full. :wink:

Credibility


----------



## gst

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just how many times can a policy statement use the words Tax Exemption before they get across they want to be a ward of the state? Or is it they want to be the kings of the country and let the peasants pay their way?
> 
> I didn't see your policy regarding halting farm programs in the FB's communist manifest? Just like you to try to twist the topic in your first post
> 
> 
> 
> *
> And so it begins! :-? maybe plainsman should just lock this thread right from the start!!!*  :wink:
Click to expand...

From WAAAAAAAY back at the very begining of this thread!!!  This was actually my second post, my first was:

by gst » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:51 pm

National Farm Policy 229
We believe that all government agricultural program payments should be eliminated. We favor a private insurance program for risk management. --ID#: 1509/11

I know it is a hard concept to grasp that an agriculture org. would advocate for those involved in ag." end quote.

This is the policy that swift and plainsman seem to want to forget about! 

So what say, we all just support NDFB policy and get govt completely out of agriculture along with the regulatory policy directly tied to participation in the govt programs and let the chips fall where they may? Damn the people that have depended on this nations food secrity policies and the fact this country has provided EVERYONE with low cost food one way or another. ALL funded thru the ag dept budget.

Once again a thread relating to agriculture on Nodak Outdoors has disintegrated into a bash agriculture montauge of plainsman and swifts finest with a few others joining in. My how land owner/sportmen relations have been helped by anyone reading this. Luckily this "radical" few are not the voice of the majority of ND sportsmen. :wink:


----------



## shaug

Swift said,



> If only you could speak the truth. The truth and the answer to your question "Who amongst us is against that?" is YOU and the NDFB through a legislative effort to end perpetual easements.


Under the Dakota Grasslands Proposal The USFWS would receive $588 million ripped off from the taxpayers and Ducks Unlimited is offering to put up another $50 million that it got from foundations who didn't pay their taxes to the IRS. The USFWS is going to be paying landowners about $225 per acre for those perpetual easements. Two kinds of people are going to sign up. The first is someone cash strapped who will take the money up front to bye time trying to dig out of debt. However, long term he will become a serf on his own land. The second person to sign up will be someone wanting to leave a legacy and doesn't make his livelyhood from farming. Someone like Craig Larson owner of Starion Financial bank. The USFWS had meetings last summer looking for concensus. Craig Larson gave a speel how if he had more land he would put more in. Psh!!!

Swift, Not one of us is against clean water or clean air. What I am against is the cost to the taxpayers. And some of what the fed/gov is proposing will cost jobs. Our children can all breathe easier as they pedal their bicycles around looking for jobs that don't exist while trying to pay back the loans to China at interest.

New wealth can only be generated from two areas. Mining and agriculture. Let's protect them. Sign the Farm Bureau measure.

Plainsman said,



> If your a farmer and paying income taxes shaug get a new accountant.


Hurry up and pay it in, I need to draw it out. (grin)


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman for some one that demands govt subsidies be taken out of agriculture


Do you value the truth at all gst? You hope someone just coming on and reading this believers it. However folks you go back and read past posts of mine, and you will find I have supported price supports. I have stated that I support them because I know the farmer gets them and not everyone but the farmer. One time I simply said if you guys really want to get rid of price supports I will support you. Then I said put up or shut up. The truth is they want to keep price support, but do away with regulations. Go back and read. Gst does not tell the truth about this.



> I know farmers and ranchers that lose that in one single days market swing every year on any number of commodities several times over


So if they have brains and manage it right they can make a mint. To bad retirement accounts can't be managed by the person holding them. They just choose fund C,D, or etc. They don't have any idea where there money is going. The person that lost that $12 thousand lost 23% of their retirement. They could have retired three years sooner and had a better retirement. No whinning, just trying to show shaug the picture isn't quite that bright. Those retirement accounts can be changed twice a year in open season. The farmer can sell on days when the price is good. If your not a total idiot you don't loose at all it only swings up and down and you sell on a high day. Also, if you loose that much in a day you evidently have twenty to thirty times as much money as that guys retirement, and that's comparing 30 years of work to one years harvest. No problem though because money can't buy happyness. The trick isn't to be rich, but happy. Your rich (if slight swings are $12 thousand in a day) and grumpy, but I wouldn't trade places. 

I can only see one reason for Freedom to Farm, and that is to duck regulations. Where does the NDFB president live? Is it Leeds, North Dakota? Is he in the Devils Lake watershed? Is he pro drain? We all know that no one likes dirty air or dirt water, but for some it's a matter of choice. The choice is do I like clean air more than money? Do I like clean water better than money? Does $10 in my pocket justify a flooded urban house and $5000 in federal money to protect another farm yard? Does it make any difference if Fargo kids are sucking up pesticides from their water supply if I make a couple of thousand more this year? There are good farmers and there are bad farmers, and the land miners noticed that the high fence initiative could be used to cry wolf. This is nothing but a step backwards and favors dollar over all else. Dollars for a few, but expense in dollars and health for everyone else.



> Hurry up and pay it in, I need to draw it out


I appreciate the humor among all this grip. Thanks for the grin this morning.


----------



## gst

plainsman you sure seem to get a bit touchy when the topic is YOUR livlihood and the conversation is about how deep YOUR hands have been and still are "in the tax payers pockets"!!! :wink:

Perhaps Those "claims" shaug made regarding the uses of taxpayer dollars and excesses paid to retired Federal workers were merely his "opinion" !!  :wink: At least he did provide a link to substantiate his "opinion"! 



Plainsman said:


> Gst does not tell the truth about this


plainsman, please realize that as I said, you have a funny way of showing you support price subsidies in agriculture with your repeated "hands in our pockets, we are getting the shaft every time we turn around" comments in this and most every other ag related thread. So if you do indeed "support price supports for agriculture" as I said, you have a funny way of showing it.

People do not have to take my word for it, simply go back thrru any number of ag related threads and read plainsman's very own words.

Plainsman you may claim one thing, but your own comments betray you. :wink:

And if we are talking "telling the truth" here plainsman, come on fess up, you really have not been "ignoring" me as you have claimed you were are you!!  :wink: :roll:


----------



## swift

> long term he will become a serf on his own land.


 Instead of a "lord"? I still think that person has the right to sign any easement he wants without the say so of the FB, FU, SA or the governor. What your advocating here is that big brother look out for what is best for people that are not asking for their opinion.

Shaug you still havent answered the question....What is the benefit of income deferment?


----------



## gst

A few of plainsmans ways of claiming he "supports" price supports/govt in agriculture. The following are quotes of plainsmans statements in a couple of ag related threads:



Plainsman said:


> When the nations economy is in terrible trouble they are there to suck the last from the trough. Their buddy Obama may get the socialist nation they want, but it's not their trough he will fill.


Actually I think I am pro ag. It's just that I don't like every single farmer/rancher in ag. Mostly the ones I don't like are the ones that expect to be kissed up to every time they turn around. How many other industries do we pray for in church? How many others do we exempt from the rules of our state? How many others pay little to no income tax every year and are still not called a hobby? How many others already have the protection they do? *How many others have a guaranteed can not fail because of government support?* Now many others rather than being thankful snub you like you have the plague? How many others would tell a young man you are not Sh*&^t if your not a landowner? No, I don't dislike farmers/ranchers I just dislike the attitude of the few.

You have a lot bigger problems than a false right to farm, and I suggest doing something more meaningful. Like a public relations program that tells the farm story, *and ge away from government programs *which taxpayers don't like much at this time.

[b]Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. [/b]

There is only so much good crop land and we have already gone beyond that. Every dumb government agriculture program has been habitat destructive. Often good grazing land is put to the plow because a government ag program insures they can't fail. Then because we have an even greater surplus they need support prices. They destroy their own land, their own prices at the market because of surplus, then the taxpayer picks up the mess.

yes I am conservative, and I don't like the term "entitlements". You see I don't think your entitled to have your hand in my pocket. Lets call it what it really is, welfare.

No, what I am saying is that you get many breaks beyond anyone else. The carpenter that builds a house in town gets paid for what he produces, but he doesn't get double through a government price support program. He doesn't get paid by the government because he wasn't working for them he was working for the homeowner he contracted with. Farmers like any other business are working for themselves. What is the difference with farming? Maybe the government should have cheap houses too

As I said, plainsman you have a funny way of showing it. :-?


----------



## Plainsman

Yes, I don't like those who get paid every time they turn around and don't appreciate it. Most of my anti pay every time I turn around has been developed by your attitude over the last year. Until that time I was under the impression farmers appreciated public support. There comes a time when a man feels like he has been a sucker rather than just a good neighbor. Most farmers I don't mind the price supports and have stated such many times. You just failed to post those examples. My big beef is when is enough enough? I don't mind helping, but I don't like being a sucker, and I can tell when I am a sucker because people expect it rather than appreciate it. Time and again your attitude tells me you think your entitled to it. Would I support price supports for you? Not a chance. Would I support price supports for shaug? Maybe. Would I support price supports for 75% of farmers? Yes.

People who feel entitled to the sweat of another man's brow I think are people who have been given much and not had to work for it.

If you want to be truthful now gst, and not just misleading for the sake of argument, go back and find those where I have explained my view of price support. Then you can post them.

Yes, there are other things I do not support. I would support the NDFB position of getting their own insurance. We don't pay taxes to support insurance for the oil companies or any other business. Agriculture is a business and the emotions connected to the family farm are just that emotions. I'm am not even one generation removed from the farm. My parents never received all the government money that's available now. Perhaps they would not have taken some of it. My father told me about being in church one day when his fellow farmers said "we never had it so good". The economy was up because of the Korean war and my father said he would rather be poor than rich on blood money. He was a farmer, but he was honest with himself about why things were so good. The life of those boys dying in war were more important to him than money from it. Where has pride gone.



> plainsman you sure seem to get a bit touchy when the topic is YOUR livlihood and the conversation is about how deep YOUR hands have been and still are "in the tax payers pockets"!!!


The big difference is for my salary I worked for all people who pay taxes. You get as much or more in tax dollars to work for yourself. To make the comparison it would be like me making kitchen cabinets for sale and for every dollar from the customer the government gave me another dollar. I could go for that, but not with a clear conscience, and I certainly wouldn't expect more, and I certainly would not expect to dump my garbage from my operation into my neighbors yard and have him happy about it. I think that's what the Freedom to Farm is about.

Yes, and that bugs me. My retirement was a private account, and Reagan took it to save your social security. Everyone thought he performed a miracle, but what he did was steal from the federal retirement account to save social security. Now the pigeons come home to roost and I have to rely on tax money. I don't like it at all. I do feel entitled because every dollar in their was paid by me from my salary. Not in addition to my salary, but from it. I don't understand how Reagan did that legally, but he did. Yes, I am touchy. I paid for it and got robbed. I never wanted to rely on my fellow Americans after I retired. However gst I appreciate what I have and would never look at my taxpaying neighbor as a sucker. I think you do.


----------



## Plainsman

> And if we are talking "telling the truth" here plainsman, come on fess up, you really have not been "ignoring" me as you have claimed you were are you!!


Sometimes I have sometimes I don't. Sometimes I use the ignore feature, and after while I think "oh well I'll have a look". I should learn my lesson though because you twist truth, you exaggerate truth, you argue for the sake of argument, and your simply antagonistic. You think the world owes you because your a farmer. You see others as worth nothing if they are not landowners. At least that's the way you come across to me. Royalty without the gold crown.

So I suppose I will use the ignore feature, come back, sometimes ignore you because it isn't worth responding even when I do see it. I notice that if I do ignore you then you go off the deep end with wild claims and accusations to get me back. You sure want attention don't you. :wink:

I really should ignore you so that your attitude doesn't destroy what I really do think of farmers and agriculture. I have noticed I am getting a bad attitude about farming even though most of my family farms. I don't like thinking like I am starting to think. Your starting to destroy my respect for some people and I know I should not think that way.


----------



## swift

> Swift, Not one of us is against clean water or clean air. What I am against is the cost to the taxpayers. And some of what the fed/gov is proposing will cost jobs. Our children can all breathe easier as they pedal their bicycles around looking for jobs that don't exist while trying to pay back the loans to China at interest.


Air Quality 132
We object to the Environment Protection Agency's (EPA) proposing lowering of the current eight-hour ozone standard, which will put McKenzie County and potentially North Dakota into non-attainment. --ID#: 1197/11 Clean Air 502

We oppose any EPA regulations regarding dust control. --ID#: 1445/11

Who is it against clean air?

Water Policy 142
We support the agricultural use of drain tile both as a conservation tool and as a flood mitigation tool. We oppose regulatory policy of damming or blocking drain tile without just compensation. --ID#: 1549/11

We propose that agricultural drain tile projects not be automatically considered as new drainage projects. --ID#: 1210/11
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers should allow access to Lake Sakakawea for industrial use in oil well fracturing operations. --ID#: 1512/11

Who is against clean water? THE NDFB IS.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Yes, I don't like those who get paid every time they turn around and don't appreciate it. Most of my anti pay every time I turn around has been developed by your attitude over the last year. Until that time I was under the impression farmers appreciated public support. There comes a time when a man feels like he has been a sucker rather than just a good neighbor. Most farmers I don't mind the price supports and have stated such many times. You just failed to post those examples. My big beef is when is enough enough? I don't mind helping, but I don't like being a sucker, and I can tell when I am a sucker because people expect it rather than appreciate it. Time and again your attitude tells me you think your entitled to it. Would I support price supports for you? Not a chance. Would I support price supports for shaug? Maybe. Would I support price supports for 75% of farmers? Yes.


No thanks to price supports, speaking for myself I would rather get my paycheck from the marketplace than the mailbox.


----------



## Plainsman

> No thanks to price supports, speaking for myself I would rather get my paycheck from the marketplace than the mailbox[/quote
> 
> LIfe is odd. For those who think they can bully us into giving them our money I don't want to support them. Then a guy comes on and says something like this and I respect it so much that I want to support him.
> 
> Shaug, the only reason I really do support price support is because it gets to the farmer. Higher prices at the grocery store doesn't mean you get a fair price. If you can get a fair price then great. Farmers don't worry me to much, but there is a small percentage that are land miners and not farmers. Because of them I think lack of regulations would be a disaster for the health of the rest of us. I think those that support NDFB want to be land miners. By land miner I mean those that take all they can from the land with no regard for stewardship, their neighbor, or anything other than money.
> 
> After reading swifts post it is very apparent that there are those who consider a dollar more important than clean air or clean water. We have been told that this has nothing to do with getting past regulations because it isn't realistic to think federal regulations can be eliminated. However, the NDFB shows that is exactly what they are up to. No regulations means you can buy a 20 acre farmstead that you saved a lifetime for and your neighbor can drown you out and you have no recourse. Cities like Devils Lake are already paying the price of the old pioneer attitude of leave your mark on the land. It's more like leave your scares on the land. Sure everyone likes clean air and clean water, but put it up against a dollar and many will take the dollar. Then we wonder what's wrong with society and why it's lost it's values. One need look no further than the NDFB.
> 
> Yes, I am conservative but I am also one that respects the constitution. Rights end when others suffer. I don't know how pay hunting stands the test of the constitution since wildlife belongs to the states. It will make a buck for the landowner today, but tomorrow when they come for him he will have no support. Hunting will go first because only the rich can hunt when the prices cut the rest of us out. Few people means little political clout. Few hunters and few landowners, but divided we will be conquered.


----------



## gst

plainsman I could care less if you would "support" price supports for me. :roll: You have never once met me and yet you foolishly claim you know something about me. I tell you what, I will bet that I have spent more on conservation and stewardship practices personally in the 30 plus years I have been engaged in production agriculture than you have done in your entire life. Care to take me up on that one? And yet you are foolish enough to make claims you can not factually substantiate regarding my veiws on conservation in agriculture. How many times have you made accusations towards me that I have asked you to substantiate that you have not???? And you wish to speak of being "truthful"????

You actually complimented me on more than one occasion on my commitment to conservation in PM conversations when I first came on this site, right up until I took an opposing veiw on HFH than you. Since then you have gone out of your way to disingenuously paint a picture of someone you have never once met and know nothing about. That to me is simply petty and childish. You have been backed into a corner for making claims that are simply not true regarding agriculture time and again and yet you wish others to beleive you "support" agriculture. Once again, you have a funny way of showing it. The ONLY support you give agriculture is when it capitulates to your demands.

You repeatedly have dismissed the contributions agriculture and this nations food security program have made simply because you are to foolish and arrogant to take the time to honestly understand what these policies have accomplished for generations of consumers here in the US. You demand people refrain from making "personal comments and yet you and swift are the worst ones on here for doing so. Just take a look at your responses calling shaug "ignorant" simply because he has a different veiw point regarding your Federal benefits and pay whereby YOUR hands were in the tax payers pockets.

So make whatever bull**** personal claims and comments you wish, but realize that when you pull crap out of your *** regarding agriculture you will be asked to substantiate it with fact. So if you wish to have ANY credibility, substantiate these following claims you made and were asked to substantiate pages ago regarding the topic of this thread with FACT or PROOF or admit you can not.

Plainsmans claims:
I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.

I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen. :end

Credibility, Until you back up these claims with ANY proof explaining how this measure will trump the current regulatory standards preventing specifically what you claim, and suddenly allow it to happen, you have none.


----------



## Plainsman

> Credibility, Until you back up these claims with ANY proof


The proof that what NDFB wants was posted by swift.

If someone doesn't think they will use Freedom to Farm towards that end they are a fool. You don't need proof, only half a brain.



> Once again a thread relating to agriculture on Nodak Outdoors has disintegrated into a bash agriculture montauge


It wouldn't if you could stop bragging about yourself for a minute, and how we all owe you.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> LIfe is odd. For those who think they can bully us into giving them our money I don't want to support them. Then a guy comes on and says something like this and I respect it so much that I want to support him


Would you support someone who raises farmed elk? They do not get price supports nor do they want anything from government. They pretty much stand on their own. Very independent. They are not land miners. They use very little fertilizer and chemicals. Their animals are practically organic. They pay taxes on their profits to the IRS. I'm at a loss as to why you cast your lot with such a despicable bunch as ND Hunters for Fair Chase and it friends at HSUS.

Plainsman wrote,



> There are good farmers and there are bad farmers, and the land miners noticed that the high fence initiative could be used to cry wolf.


When you attended the meeting with Roger Kaseman, David Alan Brandt etc. in Jamestown back in 2007 didn't you guys think of this very thing? Of course you did. Somewhere you said there was about 8 to 10 sponsers at that meeting. There is a video on the net of David Alan Brandt talking about this this very thing way back in 2006. On the video David (federal employee) popped the question, "does anyone have any ideas how to keep Farm Bureau from getting invloved for the elk growers?" David didn't want the elk growers getting any help. But the whole scheme has now back-fired. When the HSUS gave fair chase $150,000 for those TV ads it raised the "ire" of Farm Bureau. Plainsman, you have been noticed. The spotlight is now on you.

I am not saying that Farm Bureaus measure is the direct fallout from the HFI, but it does play a part in it. There was 7 federal employees as sponsers of the HFI and more were calling the plays in from the sidelines. Mike McEnroe (retired federal biologist) and lobbyist for the wildlife society admitted in Dakota Country that he was in contact with HSUS. The elk growers had a lot of circumstancial evidence that there was HSUS involvement from day one. No they do not have a picture with Wayne Pacelle, Mike, you and Dick in the same bed. However, Farm Bureau knows Plainsman, Farm Bureau knows.

Maybe that is one reason you hate them so much? Plainsman, Which do you hate worse, those elk growers or Farm Bureau?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The proof that what NDFB wants was posted by swift.
> 
> If someone doesn't think they will use Freedom to Farm towards that end they are a fool. *You don't need proof*, only half a brain


Shaug as I said, plainsman has a funny way of showing his support for different forms of agriculture, in the case of these farmed elk operations he showed this "support" by joining with the likes of Kaseman and being a sponsor to run them out of business. 

As I said before, plainsman would have made a good witch burner back in the day. "you don't need proof" simply accept what plainsman deems fact. :roll:

plainsman anyone with "half a brain" knows that ag is NOT second only to defense in federal spending, yet that was the claim you made in another thread as well. Did you not?

Anyone with "half a brain" knows notill planting of corn has been around for quite some time, yet you claimed it was not in another thread as well. Did you not?

For someone that "claims": to "support" agriculture, you have a funny way of doing so thru your "claims" regarding it that simply ARE NOT TRUE.

So can we now assume these claims you have made regarding the NDFB amendment are simply more of the same?

Swift did not make the claims, nor did he substantiate them in any way. Step up and back up YOUR claims with ANY sort of proof that current regulations that prevent what you claimed specifically from happening now will be overturned and these claims you made will actually happen as a result of this amendment, or we are left to beleive these claims carry as much truth as previous ones regarding agriculture that you have made.

Credibility.


----------



## Plainsman

> Maybe that is one reason you hate them so much? Plainsman, Which do you hate worse, those elk growers or Farm Bureau?


Hating an elk grower would be personal and I don't hate them. I mostly worry about disease.

NDFB is an organization not a person and I do think very little of that organization. When my relatives belonged it was more level headed, but today I think it is run by radicals. Some say they will not get rid of regulations, but what swift posted tells us that is what they want. Now if they get this Freedom to Farm it will be one more tool in thier tool chest to meet that end. If they can get rid of some regulations remains to be seen.



> Would you support someone who raises farmed elk? They do not get price supports nor do they want anything from government. They pretty much stand on their own. Very independent. They are not land miners. They use very little fertilizer and chemicals. Their animals are practically organic. They pay taxes on their profits to the IRS. I'm at a loss as to why you cast your lot with such a despicable bunch as ND Hunters for Fair Chase and it friends at HSUS


Some good points to think about. I do hate HSUS. That's the second time I have had some reasonable discussion. The first was some lady from a game farm in the Sheyenne Grasslands. She was polite, explained their operation, but unfortunately was so afraid of rumors from people like LT that she didn't dare email me. To bad I would liked to have talked with her. Then again maybe I would have been chicken to email her too.


----------



## swift

> I really should ignore you so that your attitude doesn't destroy what I really do think of farmers and agriculture. I have noticed I am getting a bad attitude about farming even though most of my family farms. I don't like thinking like I am starting to think. Your starting to destroy my respect for some people and I know I should not think that way.


This is exactly why I don't peek at his posts. Unfortunately everytime somebody quotes him the ignore doesn't work so I still get a taste of his point of view.


----------



## gst

plainsman, as you are choosing once again to "ignore", can we then assume you have yet once again made a claim regarding agriculture that you can not substantiate because as with other such claims you have made regarding agriculture it simply is not true?

What these orgs support is reasonable regulation based on sound science which allows agriculture to continue to do what it has for generations, provide the US citizen the safest, cheapest, most readily avalible source of food of ANY country in the world. All the while dioing so in a manner that has INCREASED almost every species of wildlife in the last 100 years as well as developing more and more sustainable enviromentally friendly production practices. Some of which these people will deny exist! :wink:

These positions and realities of continueing positive advancements in production agriculture of producing more while lessening the footprint we leave simply does not sit well with furthering the agendas of different groups of radicals of various nature that beleive THEIR agendas are more important than those of the vast majority of consumers and citizens. People like swift and plainsman will use fear mongering and disingenuous manipulations of the truth to further THEIR ideals of what agriculture should be according to THEIR beleifs. They will even go as far as making claims towards individuals they can not substantiate when asked to paint this picture of agriculture they wish to portray. We have seen it in virtually every ag related thread on this site.

I ask ANYONE on this site, what good has their unbstantiated accusatations, disingenuous claims and comments of "greed at it's darkest" and "head in the mailbox, hands in our pockets, agriculture is a welfare state" ect.... done in fostering positive ag/sportsmen relations ships? ANYONE?

Credibility


----------



## LT

Plainsman Just Stated in this thread:


> Some good points to think about. I do hate HSUS. That's the second time I have had some reasonable discussion. The first was some lady from a game farm in the Sheyenne Grasslands. She was polite, explained their operation, *but unfortunately was so afraid of rumors from people like LT that she didn't dare email me*. To bad I would liked to have talked with her. Then again maybe I would have been chicken to email her too.


Plainsman Stated in a previous thread (2nd post from the top, last paragraph): viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86974&p=697316#p697316



> Some people made good points about disabled people. Most of these high fence operators strike me as money hungry at any cost. *One lady I talked with convinced me she has a heart. *I may go look at that operation to try form an opinion. I didn't care for the way this bill was written. I would like to see one that said something like: It is illegal for a non disabled hunter without a permit to hunt within a high fence, and they must hunt in a sedentary style within an enclosure that approximates a natural home range of the species being hunted. This in no way infringes on property rights. If they grow them here and ship them out of state to another high fence operation it's that states responsibility to do as they see fit. I would have stringent quarantine on animals coming into the state, but the states they would go to would be responsible for incoming animals to that state.
> 
> As you may notice my main concern is the future of hunting. That of course has many aspects including industrialization, disease, public perception, etc etc. Yes, I would like to see another shot at this, but from a different approach, including regulations for the disabled, and perhaps more. I need time to think, and time to rebuild trust if possible. One man on here told everyone what a jerk I was a the Jamestown meeting which I was not at. *A number have violated the rules of spewing their mouth about what is in PM's. I was going to email the lady I was talking to, but after those experiences I don't dare be open with her in emails. What a shame that some of you destroyed trust.*


Plainsman I see you are at it again, making up stories. I personally know the lady you are talking about from Dragon Creek ranch. She was not afraid of any rumors from me, why would she be? And how would I have known the content of anything she would have emailed you? And why are you dragging me into this, trying to discredit me, and you are a moderator, :eyeroll:

P.S. I found the signatures. Is your wife Sheryl? If so, the handwriting looks the same, very neat, and it was actually flagged as the same handwriting by the attorneys.


----------



## gst

LT, it certainly does appear certain moderators on this site are allowed to get away with much more than one would expect. Perhaps it is because of his status as a "super moderator"! :wink:

He has threatened others with banishment for behavior he leads the way in demonstarting and allows a chosen few to continue as well.

One would beleive they would choose to lead by example. I have simply asked plainsman to refrain from making claims regarding how I make my livihood he can not truthfully or factually substantiate, (one would think that not too much to ask) and I would have no reason to be on this site. Yet he can not seem to refrain from making such claims even at the promise of such an intrigueing end result for some on this site. 

I have patiently waited for plainsman to factually substantiate a number of personal claims he has directed at me which he has not once done. ( you recall all of those "please show me" requests) His refusal and inability to do so says more than enough about the nature of these claims and what some might call them.

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

LT, good send me those signatures. I do apologize for blaming that on you. She didn't mention your name specifically, but she did say she was afraid to email me. I got the feeling it was because of that guy in Tennessee. She may have wondered how I knew so much about him. I got some very strange things from him and didn't dare open the packages. It looked like a set up to me so I took the packages unopened to the state crime bureau. Nothing bad was in them that I suspected, but the behavior was very odd. It was careless of me to assume the fear came from your comments since many people had comments.

Still I am interested to see those signatures. I know my memory is not the greatest, but to tell the truth I can't remember signing the petition myself. I really want to see those signatures.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> LT, good send me those signatures. I do apologize for blaming that on you. She didn't mention your name specifically, but she did say she was afraid to email me. I got the feeling it was because of that guy in Tennessee. She may have wondered how I knew so much about him. I got some very strange things from him and didn't dare open the packages. It looked like a set up to me so I took the packages unopened to the state crime bureau. Nothing bad was in them that I suspected, but the behavior was very odd. It was careless of me to assume the fear came from your comments since many people had comments.


And a couple pages ago Plainsman said,



> Shaug the big reason (no joke) I joined law enforcement is your friend Gordon Kahl. See I did some aerial surveillance and those guys like to kill federal people, but they for some reason say they respect local law enforcement.


I think there is a pattern developing here. Plainsman, are you afraid to look under your bed?


----------



## Plainsman

PM sent with explanation.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> She was polite, explained their operation, but unfortunately was so afraid of rumors from people like LT that she didn't dare email me.





Plainsman said:


> She didn't mention your name specifically, but she did say she was afraid to email me.


  :roll:

You know plainsman making personal accusations you can not substantiate is getting to be a bad habit. One would think the people in charge of this site would expect more from their moderators.

So which was it was she afraid of LT specifically as you allude in your first claims or was LT's name never brought up as you admit in your "revised" claim?

It certainly is beginning to look as if you will say most anything in an attempt to further your claims and when called on it, there of course is always the "explanation" :roll: !!

Credibility


----------



## swift

Oh Shaug, You seem to like to hold Plainsman's feet to the fire but you are ignoring me. I obviously insulted you with my tax accusation. You haven't answered my question yet. Since the farmers pay so much in taxes what is the reasoning behind income deferment? What is the FB's stance on property taxes? What is the FB's policy on sales taxes? Come on Shaug convince us that the FB feels the need to have the same tax liability as us non farmers. Betcha can't. Just admit the NDFB is a socialist organization that is much more like ACORN than a legitimate farm supporting org.


----------



## gst

swifts accountant must not understand tax liability management. Perhaps he is the one that has just simply told swift to work less to make less to pay less taxes regardless of the consequences to swifts patients he took and oath to care for.I can hear the phone message now. 
"Please do not let your illness interupt our tax management plan of taking 4 day weekends. Please call back Tuesday to make an appointment for one of the 3 days we choose to help you. Have a nice day." :-? :wink:

Quote: "Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue
by swift on 09/19/2011 09:41 AM | Reply #2 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

swift
Joined: 01/23/2002 
Location: SD

"Should he get what he wants, You will see a lot longer lines in clinics and other small businesses.

My example is this, The plan is to increase the top tax bracket to 47%, add social security tax and state income tax and you are approaching 60% tax on your income. Both my wife and I are in medicine and we broached the magic number of 250k therefore we will make more money in our pockets if we earn less than 250k.* To do that we will work less.* That may mean 4 day weekends instead of 2 day weekends. Patients are already booked out 4-5 weeks to get in if we have to cut our hours to maintain our take home pay the wait to be seen will increase by 20-40%. Play that out over the hundreds of rural clinics across the state and available healthcare just took a huge hit.

This jobs initiative will have the opposite effect on the workforce than it is suppose to"

Perhaps it was the Hypocritical Oath swift took instead!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

LT, the PM I sent you wasn't nasty. I will not infect your computer and spy on you. I can not read all of your other PM's. Please read the PM that I sent to you. Thanks.


----------



## Plainsman

OK, guys here is my gripe. Hunters are a minority, and farmers are a minority. In the past we supported each other and realized that alone we has much less clout. I don't mind supporting agriculture if people appreciate it. I have voiced my appreciation to the taxpayer many many times, but I have never seen it from farmers who belong to groups like NDFB. I think we need to appreciate each other. I believer hunters owe farmers by providing recreational opportunities not to mention the obvious, food. I also believe farmers owe hunters for tax dollar support and political support. Groups that demand make me feel like a sucker. See shaugs post:


> Plainsman, you have been noticed. The spotlight is now on you.


So I expect shaug knows that because he talked to someone at the NDFB. Does the first amendment still apply when we talk about the NDFB. Is this an attempt at dialogue or a threat? Do they mean spotlight as in cross hairs? Is this organization so wonderful that they are beyond reproach? Are they so important that no one should say anything about them?

As long as I have their attention: Hey guys why do you want to go back to the 17th century? Today we have chemicals that are dangerous and they didn't have them in the 17th century. My question is since you don't like regulations do you really think you should have no one question use of dangerous pesticides? Do you think tile and drain have anything to do with Devils Lake flooding? I often try shock people into reality with the statement hands in my pocket every time I turn around. Does that statement make you understand we all benefit from one another, or does it simply make you angry because you don't want anyone to know how good you have it? Please understand I will continue to support agriculture because friends and family farm, I like to eat, and 90+ are good people. However, groups like the NDFB make me think they don't care about the people that support them (appreciation), but rather look at us as suckers. No one likes to be taken for granted or looked at as a sucker. Is it to much to ask to have a symbiotic relationship ? I look at your website and feel like I am a second rate American. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I am serious. Perhaps you need a PR specialist

The above is an attempt to have a respectable two way discussion with people who can tell the truth and not twist everything someone says. I would rather have a debate than an argument.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I believer hunters owe farmers by providing recreational opportunities not to mention the obvious, food. I also believe farmers owe hunters for tax dollar support and political support. Groups that demand make me feel like a sucker. See shaugs post:


Here is part of your problem. Regardless of what you claim, I know of NO ag producers that beleives anyone "owes" them any thing as you claim. Nor should hunters beleive they owe or are owed anything. I have been farming and ranching for 30 plus years and have never once heard any one in ag claim the taxpayer or hunter "owed" them anything.

Those of us directly involved in production ag simply want to be able to continue to do what we have for generations and have the opportunity to allow future generations to continue, and that is provide this country and others with low cost, safe, avalible foods. We only ask that REASONABLE regulations be put in place based on sound science rather than emotion and personal agendas that while protecting society do not prevent agriculture producers from being able to make a living or produce the ever growing amounts of commodities it will take to feed an undeniably growing population on less and less arable lands. And all the while coincedentally bolstering almost every population of wildlife hunters enjoy pursueing thru their recreational endeavors.

It is human nature to want more, it is not necessarily always "greed" that drives this. But if one wants to examine actual "greed" lets be honest in where it is found. How many Federal programs spent money that was not needed to be spent just so they would get the same amount the following year? If we wish to examine each profession/industry under a microscope I know of NONE that would be so squeaky clean as to throw stones without breaking some glass, Federal biologists or medical professionals included. So what is to be gained by the rhetoric of "hands in our pockets" "heads in the mailbox" that ALWAYS seems to be present by a couple of people on this site in these ag related threads??? Really anyone?

Plainsman, you continueally claim to "support" ag, but your words and even actions paint another picture. It all depends on ag capitulating to YOUR demands for this support to be given. If you wish this to be a mutually beneficial arangement, as said before you have a funny way of showing it. Perhaps you could begin to change your own part in all of this by simply only making claims you can factually substantiate regarding agriculture. THAT would be a step in the right direction. Until then well you know.

Credibility


----------



## shaug

Plainsman, sorry but I do not do the PM thingy.

Plainsman said,



> Plainsman, you have been noticed. The spotlight is now on you.
> 
> So I expect shaug knows that because he talked to someone at the NDFB. Does the first amendment still apply when we talk about the NDFB. Is this an attempt at dialogue or a threat? Do they mean spotlight as in cross hairs? Is this organization so wonderful that they are beyond reproach? Are they so important that no one should say anything about them?


Now you are just acting paranoid. On this forum in the past you used to say over and over, "the spotlight is now on those elk growers." I was simply mimmicing you.

The whole thing has now back fired. If durring the collection of signatures, Farm Bureau petitioners put up a picture of Wayne Pacelle and yours side by side and told the signers here are two reasons to sign, would you consider yourself a victim? Not saying it could or would happen, just sayin'.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> But if one wants to examine actual "greed" lets be honest in where it is found. How many Federal programs spent money that was not needed to be spent just so they would get the same amount the following year? If we wish to examine each profession/industry under a microscope I know of NONE that would be so squeaky clean as to throw stones without breaking some glass, Federal biologists or medical professionals included. So what is to be gained by the rhetoric of "hands in our pockets" "heads in the mailbox" that ALWAYS seems to be present by a couple of people on this site in these ag related threads??? Really anyone?


So once again gst, you want to justify your bs by calling out another. I guess ag can't stand on it's own? Just because someone else wastes money it's ok if someone else does also in your mind. You do point out one common problem though.


----------



## Plainsman

Well longshot you post made me curious enough to check things out again.

gst, yes I agree with longshot and you. That is a problem. What a waste. Government agencies should be rewarded for turning back money, not limited the next year because they save one year. Some years require larger purchases than other years. Some years require less. Your statement that no one is squeaky clean is spot on. Now please, don't spout your mouth and call this backpedaling it's agreeing when you are right.

You think every question is for your. News flash your not the center of the universe. I was more addressing the NDFB or anyone who can represent it. We want to support agriculture, but we don't want to get dung flung in our face doing it. What will the words hands in our pockets accomplish? It will get members who belong to some of these organizations to ask about the PR of these organizations and also ask are they helping our image or hurting it.

Life is sort of a quandary. I think my membership is still up with Farmers Union, but I dislike their political leaning. The vast majority that I know are way to liberal. Myself I am conservative like the NDFB, but they go so far right they border on insanity. No regulations???? Are you kidding me???? Even with 95 percent of the farmers being good guys the other five percent could wreak havoc with the environment. Am I a radical environmentalist? NO. In fact I am a conservationist, not a preservationist. I put people before all else. If people were actually starving because there was not enough land to support the food needs of people I would put a plow to Yellowstone Park. That should drive my wildlife friends nuts. Oh well, you can tell when your fair everyone hates you equally. 

How about a little test. Here is a question for you gst. A section of land comes up for sale. Who has more right to it the guy who offers $1000 per acre, or the guy who offers $12000 per acre? Who has more right to the land the farmer, the wildlife agency, the out of state hunter, the outfitter, the local banker, the retired teacher?

Shaug the PM didn't require a response. I know you guys are paranoid about PM's. It was simply information for you


> On this forum in the past you used to say over and over, "the spotlight is now on those elk growers


."

I did? It doesn't sound like my language, but maybe.


----------



## LT

Plainsman,

I don't care for PMs either, as anything I have to say can be said on here, nothing to do with paranoia. I personally don't say one thing on this forum and then another through a PM .

In regards to the sigs, I do not care to email them, PM them, or mail them. With your permission, I will just post them here.


----------



## Plainsman

LT said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> I don't care for PMs either, as anything I have to say can be said on here, nothing to do with paranoia. I personally don't say one thing on this forum and then another through a PM .
> 
> In regards to the sigs, I do not care to email them, PM them, or mail them. With your permission, I will just post them here.


No, I wouldn't want my wifes name on here. Dragging her into it would be very poor. I would like to have someone who knows about handwritting check those signatures. Thanks. You could send them postage due. Are they still available to purchase?

The PM doesn't require a response. It was simply something for you.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> On this forum in the past you used to say over and over, "the spotlight is now on those elk growers."
> 
> I did? It doesn't sound like my language, but maybe.


I cannot remember the exact language but I saw it in politics between you and G/O.



> How about a little test. Here is a question for you gst. A section of land comes up for sale. Who has more right to it the guy who offers $1000 per acre, or the guy who offers $12000 per acre? Who has more right to the land the farmer, the wildlife agency, the out of state hunter, the outfitter, the local banker, the retired teacher?


The wildlife agency? Are you talking about the Department of the Interior? They already have in their possession 1/3 of the US.


----------



## shaug

plainsman wrote,



> No, I wouldn't want my wifes name on here. Dragging her into it would be very poor. I would like to have someone who knows about handwritting check those signatures.


plainsman, I thought the HFI was about ethics? Did you sign for your wife? As a petitioner you cannot sign your own petition but can sign that of another petitioner. Whose petition did you sign? Dick Monsons, David Alan Brandts? That person in turn takes their signatures gathered and gets them notorized signing an oath that they did the collection and veiwed each person signing. Let's say you signed Dicks. Surely he knows the differance between you and your wife. Somebody may have lied under oath.

Measure Two should have been a wake up call to our state leaders that our initiated measure process in ND has been compromised. This state is wide open for the picking. I think HSUS spent $150,000 dollars as a litmus test to see if the public could be swayed. Fargo and Grand Forks got duped. I think this is just the beginning for ND what other states have been going through for some time. The fair chasers opened the door.

The Sec. of States Office needs to tighten things up a bit. Farm Bureaus measure if passed won't address that but when it comes time for the legislature to define the measure, it might be a good time to address all the problems experianced during the HFI.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug, the question was who has more right to that section?

Shaug I wanted the signature to see what they looked like. It's been so long I can't remember signing anyones pettition. Not only do I want to see my wifes signature, I want to see my own. You ask who's I signed and I can't even remember signing at all. I'm not saying I didn't I'm saying I want to see it because I can't remember. Ya, if both signatures look alike the Sec. of State does need to look closer. Why didn't someone challenge it?

I make it to Bismarck once in a while. I guess I'll go to the Sec. of States office.


----------



## gst

longshot, I already said "you win".



Plainsman said:


> What will the words hands in our pockets accomplish? It will get members who belong to some of these organizations to ask about the PR of these organizations and also ask are they helping our image or hurting it.


In the case of yours and a couple others posts and comments, it will simply get people saying once again here are a small handful of "sportsmen" that know little to nothing about agriculture demanding ag capitulate to their demands. As I said luckily most in agriculture understand the vast majority of sportsmen are not this radically vocal.

plainsman with all this talk of PM's and their content, I tell you what I will give you my permission to share what comments you made to me in PM's when I first came on this site prior to taking an opposing stance on the HFH issue and the conversations we had back then regarding farming and conservation. Go ahead tell the folks of our conversations about how ag is implementing many more conservation practices and moving towards better and better stewardship of the land all the time. Please feel free to share the compliments you gave my commitment to conservation thru our operation back then. I do not recall any "rip, rape, and run comments being made pre HFH. I do not recall any personal bull**** accusations being made pre HFH. I do not recall you making your "hands in their pockets" claims pre HFH. So go ahead and share with everyone on here the comments you made back then before I questioned you on the HFH issue and took an opposing stance.

As to your question plainsman, I tell you what, you go back and answer EVERY time I asked you to "please show me" in response to one of your claims you made towards me personally and I will then answer your question. If you can not answer these claims you have made that you have been asked to substantiate, it speaks volumes about the man who made them. You mention your bible study quite often on here. Ask your fellow members what they would consider it being and call it if someone makes a claim about someone they can not substantiate as it simply is not true and this person knows it? Answer THAT question if you would.

Credibility


----------



## shaug

GST asked,



> You mention your bible study quite often on here. Ask your fellow members what they would consider it being and call it if someone makes a claim about someone they can not substantiate as it simply is not true and this person knows it?


ANSWER

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor is one of the Ten Commandments,[1] which are widely understood as moral imperatives by legal scholars, Jewish scholars, Catholic scholars, and Post-Reformation scholars.[2] The book of Exodus describes the Ten Commandments as being spoken by God,[3] inscribed on two stone tablets by the finger of God,[4] broken by Moses, and rewritten on replacements stones by the Lord.[5]

There are different views on the meaning of this commandment. Some interpret the scope in the narrowest possible sense, as only a prohibition of lying in courtroom testimony. Other interpretations view the commandment as a prohibition on any false statement that degrades our neighbor's reputation or dignity. Still others interpret the commandment in the broadest possible sense: as a prohibition on all lying.[6]

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.


----------



## swift

> and one who sows discord among brothers.


 Sounds like a good descripton of the NDFB's policy making committee.

Plainsman, Shaug is not interested in explaining anything. He follows the lead of the master and blames, twists, and quotes out of context. I really think he know his pet organization is inherantly bad but doesn't have the guts to admit it.

Shaug, are you just going to ignore the question of tax liability or admit you are wrong? Have you found that new accountant yet?


----------



## Plainsman

Swift, yes it is very clear they do not follow their own advise, but hide behind it.

Here is where we are:
1 One group looks at the Freedom to Farm, then they look at the home page which wants to do away with regulations and see a pattern.

2 Another group looks at Freedom to Farm, then looks at the home page and doe snot see a pattern.

3 Another group looks at the Freedom to Farm, then looks at the home page and knows their is a pattern but deny it to deceive others.

I have kept talking to try stimulate new ideas from each side, but I don't think there is anything left to be said so people who read this will have to apply their own intelligence and experience then put each of us in one of those categories.

I just got back from Hardees and having coffee with a group of farmers. It's interesting how even among friends their are different ideas. When I mentioned Farmers Union one good farmer friend of mine said "oh that's just a bunch of hammer and sickle people". LOL. When I mentioned NDFB two more said they were just right wing nuts. There was five at the table. All were retired, but still own their old farms and rent them out. These guys have coffee every morning, and I make it about once a week. We talk farming, religion, politics, and do the morning crossword puzzle. My best friend of the group has shingles and is miserable. This morning he more or less told me if I didn't stop talking about Farmers Union he was never going to get over them. LOL 

Take your own advise on scripture fellows. I know your sincere, but the problem is you have deceived yourselves. :eyeroll: On some subjects proof is not available and you must rely on intellect and experience. If proof was always available none of us would ever disagree. It's like OJ standing in court and saying prove it. The guilty will often ask you for proof. Especially when there is none one way or the other. You the reader will need to decide what you think is correct and what is not.

Here we are on page 13 and we do not agree. Is there anyone that thinks we will all of a sudden agree on page 32? I think this post is a gracious out for everyone. I think anyone who continues past this is insane. So if your a nut job that just has to have your way have at it. Next


----------



## swift

> The Sec. of States Office needs to tighten things up a bit. Farm Bureaus measure if passed won't address that but when it comes time for the legislature to define the measure, it might be a good time to address all the problems experianced during the HFI.


What problems the system worked exactly how it should have. 
1. an iniative was made, signatures gathered.
2. went to a vote
3. was voted down because it was a bad intiative.

That is a success story in my mind. Nobody had their rights trampled on. Get over it already. The outcome was as it should have been. It seems any attempt to change the HFI scenario would revolve around taking away a citizes right to form an intiative. Then again the FB doesn't really care about anybodies rights. They know what is best for everyone, just ask them.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

I'm going pheasant hunting for the next few days. Please try to refrain from making any false claims, accusations or bashing of someones charactor.



> I just got back from Hardees and having coffee with a group of farmers. It's interesting how even among friends their are different ideas. When I mentioned Farmers Union one good farmer friend of mine said "oh that's just a bunch of hammer and sickle people". LOL. When I mentioned NDFB two more said they were just right wing nuts. There was five at the table. All were retired, but still own their old farms and rent them out. These guys have coffee every morning, and I make it about once a week. We talk farming, religion, politics, and do the morning crossword puzzle. My best friend of the group has shingles and is miserable. This morning he more or less told me if I didn't stop talking about Farmers Union he was never going to get over them.


Plainsman, keep the funny stories coming. You crack me up.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Take your own advise on scripture fellows. I know your sincere, but the problem is you have deceived yourselves.


plainsman, you are one arrogant hypocritical fool.

You can not answer those "please show me" requests and back up your claims simply because THEY ARE NOT TRUE.

Dance around it all you wish, but even my 6 yer old daughter knows what comprises a lie. So go back and answer those "please show me" question in response to personal claims you have made or realize you have painted yourself as someone very disingenuous simply because you have a personal animousity towards someone.

My what good Christian behavior. :eyeroll:

It is not about "having to have your way", I realized after taking an opposing stance as you on HFH and the personal comments and 180 degree turn you made since then we will likely never "agree". It is about CREDIBILITY. You have REPEATEDLY simply been asked to refrain from making claims you can not substantiate regarding how someone makes their living in agriculture. You have not.

So in keeping with the topic of this thread yet once again. Substantiate how this measure if adopted will : 
1. Allow for illegal use of pesticides
2. Allow illegal draining
3. Allow feedlots to be illegally built on rivers so the water can wash the manure away.

ALL claims you have made regarding the topic of this thread. I do not expect you to agree with me, I simply expect you to debate a topic with facts rather than unsubstantiated bull****.

CREDIBILITY until you substantiate how this measure will trump current law and allow the things you claim to happen, you have none.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> One group looks at the Freedom to Farm,


I would have thought an "expert" on agriculture and farming would have realized this, but "Freedom to Farm" was actually the title of a program pushed for and acheived several years ago which greatly reduced govt involvement and funding of agriculture subsidies.

Please do not confuse the two.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> It is about CREDIBILITY. You have REPEATEDLY simply been asked to refrain from making claims you can not substantiate regarding how someone makes their living in agriculture. You have not.
> 
> So in keeping with the topic of this thread yet once again. Substantiate how this measure if adopted will :
> 1. Allow for illegal use of pesticides
> 2. Allow illegal draining
> 3. Allow feedlots to be illegally built on rivers so the water can wash the manure away


plainsman, can you substantiate these claims you have made regarding this measure as the truth? Yes/No?

If you wish a "gracious out" simply admit you have made claims about someones livilihood you can not substantiate and refrain from doing so in the future.


----------

