# ND Conservation Fund Proposed/ HB-1278



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Governor Dalrymple's proposal would cap the conservation fund at about 1/2 of 1% of the oil and gas extraction tax. That is a pitance of the dollar amount that the Outdoor Heritage Measure would have produced. And it will be controlled by the Industrial Commission instead of a board of natural resource managers. That's not a step down. That is a fall down the elevator shaft. It will be interesting to see this one develope.

http://governor.nd.gov/media-center/new ... et-address



> *Preserving North Dakota's Outdoors*
> The outdoor experience and the tradition of hunting in North Dakota are also core elements in our quality of life. The challenges created by a growing population and expanding commercial development include greater risks to our outdoors, and that's why we are including in our budget a proposal to establish a permanent conservation fund to enhance the opportunities for hunting and all outdoor recreation experiences.
> Our budget calls for committing a portion of funds generated by oil production taxes to a newly created conservation fund, with an annual funding cap of $10 million. We propose creating an advisory committee made up of a diverse group of stakeholders to administer a grant program under the direction of the Industrial Commission. The committee will award grants to state agencies and non-profit groups to benefit statewide conservation practices, wildlife habitat, parks, and outdoor recreation.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Basicly he is throwing a few crumbs.......... uke:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

zogman said:


> Basicly he is throwing a few crumbs.......... uke:


Basicly they are throwing a few crumbs to shut down a measure that would have produced a $100 million for conservation in ND. Heck NDGF could have had it's own CRP program with public access in that measure.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I consider myself conservative, but often my fellow conservatives shame me. As I said to a good friend a conservative who does not believe in God worships money. Like those guys on here that complain about the 5% going to conservation. It's very likely they are already wealthy, but they just can't stand to see anyone else get anything. They would drink poison to keep someone else from having it. To them if it isn't making money it has no value.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

$10 million dollars for conservation. I am all for it.

However it needs a little more tweeking.



> The committee will award grants to state agencies and non-profit groups to benefit statewide conservation practices, wildlife habitat, parks, and outdoor recreation.


No money for non-profits. Too much room for too much mischief. The word "parks" needs to be clarified. Are we talking about up-grading or cleaning up the exiting ones or do it mean land aquisitions?

And I read somewhere that easements are on the table and that 20 years is going to be the maximum. Had the greedy non-profit non-governmental (wink wink) organizations involved from the start, approached all the other orgs in the state early on, maybe things wouldn't be so contentious.

Grant the money to existing state agencies to plant trees, to control erosion, flood retention etc. Real conservation. I like it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Well, it showed up today, underfunded and mismanaged as expected.

HB-1278 Outdoor Heritage Fund

A BILL for an Act to create and enact chapter 54-17.8 of the North Dakota Century Code,
relating to the North Dakota outdoor heritage fund; to amend and reenact subsection 1 of
section 57-51-15 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the oil and gas gross production
tax; to provide an appropriation; and to provide a continuing appropriation.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. Chapter 54-17.8 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as
follows:
54 - 17.8 - 01. Definitions .
1. "Advisory board" means the North Dakota outdoor heritage advisory board.
2. "Commission" means the industrial commission.
3. "Fund" means the North Dakota outdoor heritage fund.
54 - 17.8 - 02. North Dakota outdoor heritage fund - Continuing appropriation .
There is created a North Dakota outdoor heritage fund that is governed by the commission.
Any money deposited in the fund is appropriated on a continuing basis to the commission for
the purposes of this chapter. Interest earned by the fund must be credited to the fund. The
commission shall keep accurate records of all financial transactions performed under this
chapter.
54 - 17.8 - 03. North Dakota outdoor heritage fund purposes .
1. The commission shall use the fund to provide grants to state agencies, tribal
governments, political subdivisions, and nonprofit organizations to:
a. Provide access to private and public lands for sportsmen, including projects tha t
create fish and wildlife habitat and provide access for sportsmen;
b. Improve, maintain, and restore water quality, soil conditions, plant diversity,
animal systems, and to support other practices of stewardship to enhance
farming and ranching ;
c. Develop, enhance, conserve, and restore wildlife and fish habitat on private and
public lands ; and
d. Conserve natural areas for recreation through the establishment and
development of parks and other recreation areas.
*2. The commission may not use the fund, in any manner, to finance:
a. Litigation;
b. Lobbying activities;
c. Any activity that would interfere, disrupt, or prevent activities associated with
surface coal mining operations; sand, gravel, or scoria extraction activities; oil
and gas operations; or other energy development;
d. The acquisition of land or to encumber any land for a term longer than twenty
years,or
e. Projects outside this state or projects that are beyond the scope of defined
activities that fulfill the purposes of this chapter.*54 - 17.8 - 04. Commission to staff advisory board .
The commission shall operate, manage, and control the outdoor heritage fund and provide
staffing for the meetings .
54 - 17.8 - 05. Powers and duties of commission .
The commission is granted all the powers necessary or appropriate to carry out and
effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including the power to:
1. Make grants to a state agency, a tribal government, a political subdivision, and a
nonprofit organization;
2. Enter contracts or agreements to carry out the purposes of this chapter, including
authority to contract for the administration of the fund and staffing for the advisory
board;
3. Accept donations, grants, contributions, and gifts from any public or private source;
and
4. Adopt policies and rules necessary to effectuate the purposes of this chapter.

54 - 17.8 - 06. North Dakota outdoor heritage advisory board - Members .
1. There is created a North Dakota outdoor heritage advisory board consisting of twelve
members. The governor shall appoint representatives from each of the groups listed in
this section based upon recommendations made by the appropriate group. The
advisory board consists of:
a. Four members from the agriculture community . The governor shall appoint one
member from the North Dakota farm bureau, North Dakota farmers union, the
North Dakota stockmen's association, and the North Dakota grain growers
association.
b. Two members from the energy industry . The governor shall appoint one member
from the North Dakota petroleum council and one member from the lignite energy
council.
c. Four members from the conservation community . The governor shall appoint the
four members from the conservation community from a list of nominees provided
to the governor by the North Dakota chapter of the wildlife society .
d. One member from the business community from the greater North Dakota
chamber.
e. One member with technical background from the North Dakota parks and
recreation association.
2. The governor also shall appoint to the advisory board one representative from each of
the following agencies to serve as ex officio, nonvoting technical members: the
department of parks and recreation, the game and fish department, and the office of
the state forester.
3. The term of office of each member of the board is five years. The terms of office
commence on the first day of July. The initial terms for the advisory board members
must be staggered following a method determined by the board.
4. The advisory board shall select a chairman from among the members. Seven voting
members is a quorum at any meeting.
5. The advisory board shall have at least two regular meetings each year and additional
meetings as the chairman determines necessary at a time and place to be fixed by the
chairman. Special meetings must be called by the chairman on written request of any
five members.
6. The advisory board shall recommend to the commission the approval of grants for
funding activities that fulfill the purposes of this chapter.
7. Members of the advisory board appointed by the governor serve at the pleasure of the
governor.
54 - 17.8 - 07. Report to the budget section of the legislative management .
The advisory board shall provide a biennial report to the budget section of the legislative
management.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Subsection 1 of section 57-51-15 of the North Dakota Century
Code is amended and reenacted as follows:
1. First the tax revenue collected under this chapter equal to one percent of the gross
value at the well of the oil and one-fifth of the tax on gas must be deposited with the
state treasurer who shall:
a. Allocate five hundred thousand dollars per fiscal year to each city in an
oil-producing county which has a population of seven thousand five hundred or
more and more than two percent of its private covered employment engaged in
the mining industry, according to data compiled by job service North Dakota. The
allocation under this subdivision must be doubled if the city has more than seven
and one-half percent of its private covered employment engaged in the mining
industry, according to data compiled by job service North Dakota;
b. Credit revenues to the oil and gas impact grant fund, but not in an amount
exceeding one hundred million dollars per biennium; and
c. Credit four percent of the amount available under this subsection to the North
Dakota outdoor heritage fund, but not in an amount exceeding fifteen million
dollars in a state fiscal year and not in an amount exceeding thirty million dollars
per biennium; and
d. Allocate the remaining revenues under subsection 3.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

HB-1278-The Underfunded-Sandbagged-Designed to Fail- Conservation Fund, is up for committee hearing the 24th, this Thursday afternoon at 3 PM.

It just plain sucks and needs to die. If sportsmen can make it up to testify or even sign in against the bill, get up there. You can bet your boots the energy and farm orgs will make the hearing. This will likely be the biggest outdoor bill this session.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... -03000.pdf

Contact: House Natural Resources Committee HB-1278

"Dear Committee Members"

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

TTT

The hearing is this Thursday. Make your contacts to kill this bill.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

ttt The bill is up for hearing today. 1278 is going to the the most important wildlife bill this session.

$15 million per year for a "Conservation Fund". Grossly inadequate for a century of neglect.
It appoints a supervising board that is antagonistic to conservation and the Public Trust of public natural resources.

Ask the House Natural Resource Committee to kill this bill. 1278 is intentionally structured to fail.

Email addresses for the House Natural Resource Committee. You can submit testimony to the whole committee.

Chairman Todd Porter, Vice Chairman Chuck Damschen

[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; 
[email protected]


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Email off to the entire list Dick.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I attended the hearing today and am optimistic that this may get straightened out in everyone's favor. I believe when the Ag community has a chance to reflect on this bill they will see an opportunity rather than a liability. Many do already. The discourse was absolutely civil in all regards. Very pleasant compared to the hearings 10-12 years ago. Chairman Todd Porter and Vice Chair Chuck Damschen did a bang up job, along with Al Carlson's testimony. Hats off to them. There are going to be several amendments offered, possibly by both sides, so we need to keep an eye on this one. I should add that Rep. Scott Kelsh offered and will bring forth an ammendment to up the funding for this Outdoor Heritage Bill.

It potentially will be the biggest, most important wildlife bill in this lifetime for ND. It is now being titled the Outdoor Heritage Bill. Has a nice ring to it. Seriously. :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wonderful news Dick. Thanks for keeping us up to date. Great to hear about the ag community too. I have been to busy to get out and do any coyote hunting. That's when I get the most opportunities to talk to my farm friends. A couple have told me the last five years has made them millionaires, and they sure have been good to some charities. The online debate was making me very pessimistic. Your news about the ag community brightened my day.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/o ... 963f4.html


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Dick, I would hope it gets corrected. Is there a posted version of the current bill? Based on the original version, I had problems with the following clauses:

1) the bill says "not to exceed 15 million dollars" regardless of the percentage of oil and gas revenue 2) if it is to primarily benefit sportsmen, how come there are only 4 sportsmen's groups on the committee of 12. 3) if the money is supposedly to benefit both sportsmen and agriculture, why does the state industrial commission have the final approval and 4) why are two members of the appointed committee from the oil and gas industry when there is no intended purpose of the money to oil and gas industry and 5) the bill also requires no "interference" with any oil and gas industry development.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

See, I have been telling you guys for eons that agricultural organizations are neither anti conservation or anti sportsmen.

When the Land Water Conservation Fund was first proposed as a constitutional amendment last year about this time, the strongest opponent to it was the ND Chamber of Commerce. They lead the charge.

After the amendment did not get to the ballot, it was again the Chamber of Commerce who lead as a facillitator bringing many proponents and opponents to the table. Of course what was to be considered was that this fund was to be mutually beneficial to everybody. What came out of those meetings was taken to the Governor and then he designated $10 million for the fund in the state budget.

A lot of work went into this and many sides came to an agreement. Many factions and orgs decided to support the bill. However, a couple of days before the House Committee Hearing the number was bumped up to $15 million per year. That wasn't a total blind side so no one totally opposed and there was too little time to do anything about it.

As usual the propondents of a bill testify first so just about every farm organization I can think of came out supporting the Bill. Then Mike McEnroe testified saying that there was going to be an amendment proposed to the bill asking for a lot more than $15 million per year. I looked around the room and there were some big round eyes. When most of the propondents were done testifying, Rep. Kelsh took the podium and said he is going to introduce an amendment to fund this thing at $100 million.

There wasn't much opposition to the original Bill. Dick Monson testified and reported that he came down to the Capitol to oppose the Bill because the dollar figure was much to low. But he changed his mind hearing that a new amendment for more money was in the works.

What is obvious is that some form of a Bill is going to pass. The $100 million dollar amendment will more than likely be voted on seperately and I don't believe that part will make it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Some of you fellows have more information than the average sportsman who reads all this. I would like to see some facts that we can all agree on, and in black and white.

What is the total intake per year? 
I also think it's wise that our state has savings. I wish departments within our state government could do the same. In federal government waste occurs when you either spend at the end of the year or you loose it. That's foolishness. I guess that's another subject for another time. Now is a good time for all of us to understand the total funds we are talking about and the percentages that are proposed for all of those who will be receiving benefits. That will determin if $15 million is a lot or a little. That will determine if $100 million is extreme or not.

Shaug what was the 5% that you didn't like in dollars and cents? Where is the 95% going?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

indsport said:


> Dick, I would hope it gets corrected. Is there a posted version of the current bill? Based on the original version, I had problems with the following clauses:
> 
> 1) the bill says "not to exceed 15 million dollars" regardless of the percentage of oil and gas revenue 2) if it is to primarily benefit sportsmen, how come there are only 4 sportsmen's groups on the committee of 12. 3) if the money is supposedly to benefit both sportsmen and agriculture, why does the state industrial commission have the final approval and 4) why are two members of the appointed committee from the oil and gas industry when there is no intended purpose of the money to oil and gas industry and 5) the bill also requires no "interference" with any oil and gas industry development.


Those were my concerns also but the testimony had a different tone. The impression was the legislature, the Governor, and the oil industry do not want this coming back as a intiated measure. They want it settled and out of the way. Chairman Todd Porter introduced the bill and expalined it well. Al Carlson (House Majority leader) was the first to testify for the Outdoor Heritage Bill and he did a perfect job.
Both made mention of the need for habitat and access. Carlson said the funding may have to be adjusted upward from $15 million per year and there could-might be adjustments on the balance of the board. IMO there has to be an element of trust amongst all parties. We as sportsmen are not used to working with some of these groups or them with us. The Governor is going to set the final policy.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Trust is a good thing and glad to see ag groups signing on in support. However, if Carlson says there may be adjustments on the board and other parts of the bill, I want to see it in the final bill before I would support it. As to the dollar amount, how much is 15 million compared to the 4% figure? All projections are that revenue will continue to increase for the next 20 years (at least that is what the petroleum council, the governor and the legislative leaders are saying). If the committee thinks the amount could or should be increased and trust the petroleum council, the governor and the legislative leaders public statements, let the bill language read a percentage of the revenue with a minimum figure over the next bienneum. I cannot support the bill as it currently is written without further information.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Sure. But the bill is still in it's infancy and has a long way to go. I do support the broad concept though and increased funding and would also like to see a balanced advisory board. Rep. Scott Kelsh testified before the committee to suggest an amendment for the whole $100 million as in the initiated measure. There will likely be the normal dickering to reach settlement.

It was apparent that many people we are unaware of have worked hard behind the scenes to build this coalition of support. I don't think this is the time to draw a line in the sand but try instead to garner support for more funding.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Some of you fellows have more information than the average sportsman who reads all this. I would like to see some facts that we can all agree on, and in black and white.


If you want to see things and have more info, then you should have climbed out of your hidey hole and hitched a ride with Dick. He drove right past your city on his way to Bismarck.

Dick wrote,



> Those were my concerns also but the testimony had a different tone. The impression was the legislature, the Governor, and the oil industry do not want this coming back as a intiated measure. They want it settled and out of the way.


The legislature, the Governor and the oil industry fully realize that they are giving money to some organizations that are closet environmentalists. That is why they put safe guards in the Bill like language saying that non-profits can't use the money to litigate or lobby.

And my favorite: (c.) Any activity that would interfere, disrupt, or prevent activities associated with
surface coal mining operations; sand, gravel, or scoria extraction activities; oil
and gas operations; or other energy development;

My question is: Can that (c) part right there be amended to include agriculture? It would seem that if oil and coal can exempt themselves from the enviros why not ag too?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> My question is: Can that (c) part right there be amended to include agriculture? It would seem that if oil and coal can exempt themselves from the enviros why not ag too?


That would be silliness as it pertains to this bill. The offers are voluntary already. No one is forced to do anything. I doubt the legislature would steal that choice from their constituents who want to participate, especially when it appears the legislature wants this effort to succeed.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

HB-1278 Outdoor Heritage got chopped with an amendment to strike down conservation organizations on the advisory board. In effect conservation will get fewer votes for sportmen. Your legislature in action. Pay attention.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... ks&Page355


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains said,



> Some of you fellows have more information than the average sportsman who reads all this. I would like to see some facts that we can all agree on, and in black and white.


http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... 0211122537

Bruce, you need to get up earlier.

Look at the time Dick posted at the same time I was.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion ... 963f4.html


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

A squeaker out of Appropreations Committee:



> REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
> HB 1278, as engrossed: Appropriations Committee (Rep. Delzer, Chairman)
> recommends DO PASS (10 YEAS, 9 NAYS, 3 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING).
> Engrossed HB 1278 was placed on the Eleventh order on the calendar.


Headed to the House floor next week.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I believe HB 1278 will be voted upon tonight on the floor. Maybe maybe not. They have a lot of Bills.

http://video.legis.nd.gov/pb2/powerbrow ... &browser=0


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

1278 just passed 48 to 44. There wasn't any discussion. Porter introduced it and Damschun added (In so many words) that landowners are already very good stewards of the land. No one taxes their land to death and then simply moves on. There is wildlife out there everywhere. But there are those who would disagree with me, he said. That was it. With 44 nays you would have thought someone would have had the guts to oppose. This is one of those. Hold your nose and let 'er go.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

HB 1278: 
ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the amended bill, which has been read, and has
committee recommendation of DO PASS, the roll was called and there were 48 YEAS,
44 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 2 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

*YEAS: *Anderson; Beadle; Carlson; Delzer; Dockter; Dosch; Fehr; Hatlestad; Hawken;
Heilman; Heller; Hofstad; Hogan; Karls; Kasper; Keiser; Kiefert; Klemin;
Koppelman, B.; Koppelman, K.; Kreidt; Kretschmar; Kreun; Laning; Larson;
Looysen; Louser; Maragos; Martinson; Meier; Monson; Nathe; Nelson, J.; Owens;
Paur; Porter; Rust; Sanford; Schmidt; Silbernagel; Skarphol; Steiner; Sukut; Toman;
Vigesaa; Wall; Williams; Speaker Devlin

*NAYS:* Amerman; Becker; Bellew; Belter; Boe; Boehning; Boschee; Brabandt;
Brandenburg; Damschen; Delmore; Drovdal; Frantsvog; Froseth; Glassheim;
Grande; Gruchalla; Guggisberg; Haak; Hanson; Headland; Holman; Hunskor;
Johnson, D.; Kelsh, J.; Kelsh, S.; Klein; Mock; Mooney; Muscha; Nelson, M.;
Onstad; Oversen; Pollert; Rohr; Ruby; Schatz; Streyle; Strinden; Thoreson; Trottier;
Weisz; Wieland; Zaiser
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Johnson, N.; Kempenich

Engrossed HB 1278 passed.
********************


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I noticed in our paper today our legislator is considering suing the Fish and Wildlife service. They want their property surveyed. Originally the FWS simply used the quarter that a ten acre WPA was located on as it's description. That's why when the debates over Garrison Diversion were going on the ag interests claimed the FWS owned about ten times as much as they really did. Now here is the interesting thing. How many million will this cost the federal government? So is our legislator really conservative, or are they only conservative with North Dakota money and willing to waste federal money? It would appear that once again my theory about conservatives is right. A non Christian conservative worships money, but only their own. I don't understand why they want to do this, unless the goal is to make the FWS waste money so they can not take out easements. Our North Dakota's finest is always working against conservation and sportsmen.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman said:


> I noticed in our paper today our legislator is considering suing the Fish and Wildlife service. They want their property surveyed. Originally the FWS simply used the quarter that a ten acre WPA was located on as it's description. That's why when the debates over Garrison Diversion were going on the ag interests claimed the FWS owned about ten times as much as they really did. Now here is the interesting thing. How many million will this cost the federal government? So is our legislator really conservative, or are they only conservative with North Dakota money and willing to waste federal money? It would appear that once again my theory about conservatives is right. A non Christian conservative worships money, but only their own. I don't understand why they want to do this, unless the goal is to make the FWS waste money so they can not take out easements. Our North Dakota's finest is always working against conservation and sportsmen.


Plains,

Are you talking about HB1278 or HB1399??? Do you know the difference?

HB1399 would appropriate $350,000 of North Dakota Treasurey funds "if" there is need for the Attorney General to sue or force the USFWS to delineate exactly where they have an easement. Let's say they have an easement on a ten acre wetland from 1965. They don't seem to know exactly where it is because things move around and sometimes the wetland grows during the wet and shrinks during the dry. So they just tie up a whole quarter.

Ten acres out in the middle of 160 probably doesn't seem like a big deal until someone is trying to work around it. I think the USFWS should be able to tell someone where it is, not drag that person into court "after" there is a problem.

But if they do what is asked then the Attorney Generals Office doesn't have to do anything.

Recently the USFWS sent out a bunch of letters asking landowners if they would be interested in talking to them about easements. They are offering a lot of money. They only place they can get money is from Uncle Sam. Taxpayers money. So what exactly is the taxpayer purchasing?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Are you talking about HB1278 or HB1399??? Do you know the difference?


I didn't read the article I was listening as the person in the passenger seat gave me the highlights.



> Ten acres out in the middle of 160 probably doesn't seem like a big deal until someone is trying to work around it. I think the USFWS should be able to tell someone where it is, not drag that person into court "after" there is a problem.


I think I only had two points. Number one was that these people know very well that the USFW didn't own half the land they claimed when they wanted Garrison Diversion. Now after that big lie they want it surveyed. The second point was our legislator that always wants to be seen as not wasting money. Now they want to waste millions for surveys. Today it wouldn't cost as much to survey as it did years ago if everyone is satisfied with GPS. I think survey GPS is down to fractions of an inch. That should be close enough. Maybe not for the Montana rancher that fears someones shoulder may enter his air space.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

You now have up to four different issues lumped together.

No.1 This thread is about the ND Conservation Fund. HB1278

No.2 You are talking about someone sueing the USFWS to delineate easement acres. GPS is no solution because back in 1965 or whenever these easements were signed the USFWS personel drew a little round circle on a map. That is HB1399.

No.3 Now in your last two posts you are talking about Garrison Diversion. Are you talking about HB 1338? The Corp of Engineers has many extra acres that were taken during construction of the Garrison Dam. What 1338 would do is ask the fed/gov to return those acres to the State of North Dakota.

No.4 The Montana corner hopping issue is totally unrelated.

But in all of this it is not your fault. Somebody in the passenger seat read it to you out of a newspaper. Psh!!!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug said:


> No.2 You are talking about someone sueing the USFWS to delineate easement acres. GPS is no solution because back in 1965 or whenever these easements were signed the USFWS personel drew a little round circle on a map. That is HB1399.


Your statement right there proves you missed the point and know little about delineation of property. You're lumping or misunderstanding a tool (GPS) in with a legal procedure.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> > No.2 You are talking about someone sueing the USFWS to delineate easement acres. GPS is no solution because back in 1965 or whenever these easements were signed the USFWS personel drew a little round circle on a map. That is HB1399.
> ...


OK, let's say you are the very first home builder in a new 160 acre housing addition. Before any streets gutters or property lines are drawn the contractor draws a circle on a square one foot by one foot piece of paper that represents 160 acres and says you can build there.

Would you do it? Hell no. You would surely want to know exactly where your property lines are. If you are borrowing money the lender would need to see the abstract so that they can be certain.

What happened years ago was that the USFWS drew a circle on a square piece of paper and it was registered with the deed/abstract office that there was an easement "ABOUT" right here on this 160 acres. Or there may have been several circles.

Someone from the USFWS is going to have to make a determination "exactly" where it is. So then use GPS. First identify the middle of the easement and then work your way out from there to identify the boundaries. GPS has been known to have a margin of error 3 feet or less. How hard could it be for some official from USFWS to come out and do that? Hence: HB1399. Plainsman is making a big deal how it is going to cost millions to have everything surveyed. If he is even on the right page or Bill?

What landowners should do with USFWS wetland easements is sell those ten acre parcels to duck hunting clubs from Minnesota. I'll bet the new duck hunting club will want to know exactly where their property line is.

Hence: HB1399


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

*Well, this latest development certainly changes everything,*

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4027

13.3103.02000

Sixty-third

Legislative Assembly

of North Dakota

Introduced by

Senators Axness, Sinner, Triplett

Representatives Guggisberg, S. Kelsh, Oversen

A concurrent resolution to create and enact a new section to article X of the Constitution of

North Dakota, relating to an outdoor heritage fund; to provide an effective date; and to provide

an expiration date.

STATEMENT OF INTENT

This measure creates an outdoor heritage fund from four percent of the total revenues from oil

and gas production and extraction taxes and allows the fund to be administered by the outdoor

heritage commission for clean water, lands, and outdoor heritage.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRING THEREIN:

That the following proposed creation of a new section to article X of the Constitution of

North Dakota is agreed to and must be submitted to the qualified electors of North Dakota at the

general election to be held in 2014, in accordance with section 16 of article IV of the

Constitution of North Dakota.

SECTION 1.

A new section to article X of the Constitution of North Dakota is created and

enacted as follows:

1. To protect our clean water, lands, and outdoor heritage for the benefit of North Dakota

citizens, four percent of the total revenue derived from taxes on oil and gas production

and four percent of total revenue derived from taxes on oil extraction, up to one

hundred million dollars per year must be transferred by the state treasurer to a special

fund in the state treasury known as the outdoor heritage fund.

2. The outdoor heritage fund must be used for grants to state agencies, tribal

governments, local governments, political subdivisions, and nonprofit organizations for

the following purposes:

Page No. 1 13.3103.02000

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4027

Sixty-third

Legislative Assembly

a. Protect, improve, maintain, and restore water quality through the restoration and

protection of rivers, streams, lakes, or other surface waters, groundwater,

wetlands, grasslands, prairies, and forests;

b. Improve natural flood control through the restoration and protection of natural

areas along rivers, streams, lakes, or other surface waters, groundwater,

wetlands, grasslands, prairies, and forests;

c. Protect, restore, and create wildlife and fish habitat on private and public lands

through grasslands, prairie, wetlands, stream, lake, and forest restoration,

creation, and protection;

d. Conserve natural areas for people through the establishment and development of

parks and other recreation areas; and

e. Encourage beginning farmers and ranchers and enhance working farms and

ranches through conservation programs and conservation incentives.

3. The outdoor heritage commission shall oversee, govern, administer, and distribute the

outdoor heritage fund. The outdoor heritage commission consists of ten members.

The members include the governor, the agriculture commissioner, the director of the

game and fish department, the director of the parks and recreation department, the

state forester, the section chief for the environmental health section of the state

department of health, the senate majority leader, the senate minority leader, the house

majority leader, and the house minority leader. A legislative member may designate a

member of the legislative assembly from the same house as the member to serve on

the commission instead of the member. The commission shall elect a chairman and

vice chairman from the members of the commission, for terms of four years, and

without consecutive terms for the same position. The commission must receive advice

from an advisory board appointed by the governor. The governor shall appoint one

member from a list of names provided from parks and recreation interest groups, four

members from a list provided from general conservation interest groups, one member

from a list provided from hunting interest groups, one member from a list provided

from fishing interest groups, two members from a list provided from agricultural

interest groups, and one member from a list provided from tourism and business

interest groups. The governor shall appoint two nonvoting members. The governor

Page No. 2 13.3103.02000

Sixty-third

Legislative Assembly

shall appoint one member from a list provided from traditional energy interest groups

and one member from a list provided from renewable energy interest groups. The

governor shall provide within an existing agency of state government for an

administrative and fiscal agent for the fund and commission. The agency may spend

up to three percent of the annual income accruing to the fund for the purposes of

staffing and other administrative expenses incurred as a direct result of administering

the fund and commission and board activities.

4. Moneys in the outdoor heritage fund may not be used for litigation or lobbying

activities. The funds may be used for acquisitions of real property and easements as

allowed by state law. The funds must be used as a supplement to existing funding and

not as a replacement for traditional sources of funding. The state investment board is

responsible for investment of the fund.

5. During each regular legislative session, the outdoor heritage commission shall file a

report to the citizens of the state at a hearing before the natural resources committee

of each house of the legislative assembly. The report must include a state auditor's

report on the outdoor heritage fund for the previous two fiscal years.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE - EXPIRATION DATE.

If approved by voters, this measure

becomes effective for oil and gas produced after December 31, 2014. This measure expires on

January 1, 2039, and after that date is ineffective. In the general election directly preceding the

expiration of this measure, this measure must be submitted to the qualified electors of North

Dakota and the measure becomes effective for oil and gas produced after December 31, 2038,

if approved.

Page No. 3 13.3103.02000


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It does change everything, for the better...  :beer:

See: 
*SCR-4027 Outdoor Heritage/You get to vote it*

viewtopic.php?f=75&t=102818


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

When I first scooped the story on SCR 4027 I posted it here at 11:08am.

I should have started a new thread like you did Dick. However, you said in the new thread, "YOU GET TO VOTE IT"

One should never count their chickens................:snow:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

No problem. It is facinating to watch this issue play out. When the initiated measure didn't make the ballot last August, the measure opponents had to get the legislature to offer a weak watered down version of the concept, to derail the actual measure effect. They did that with the House version HB-1278. Opponent legislators could vote for the weak version without hurting themselves too much.

Maybe opponents of our outdoor heritage need to cut their losses and go with 4027? Because something else could be worse for them?

Now, the Senate concurrent resolution (SCR-4027) brings up a full strength Outdoor Heritage law for the people to vote on. Fully funded at a $100 million versus $15 million in the House version. 4027 has a managing authority of professional natural resource managers versus a kangaroo court that would kill conservation efforts. 4027 shines the spot light on who really supports the Outdoor Heritage of North Dakota. That is legislator scorecard material for sure in the next election.

If 4027 doesn't pass the legislature then one would have to think it would go to the ballot as an initiated measure to let the people vote. Proponents aren't going to let this slip away, IMO.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Longshot said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> > No.2 You are talking about someone sueing the USFWS to delineate easement acres. GPS is no solution because back in 1965 or whenever these easements were signed the USFWS personel drew a little round circle on a map. That is HB1399.
> ...


 :rollin: I can hear banjos playing can't you longshot? :rollin:

I think it's the attitude that anything not pro agriculture is worthless that makes the need for that $100 million. Even when my emediate family farmed we never had that self serving attitude. I grew up on a farm appreciating wildlife and habitat. When my father worked off the farm I worked the fields before I was big enough to reach a foot clutch I run a tractor with a handclutch. I learned to appreciate wildlife at a young age from the seat of a tractor. What happened since then? Today it's me me me, and if it doesn't put a dollar in the wallet it's worthless. Even worse some hate to see anyone else have anything.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> > shaug said:
> ...


Plains, Maybe you missed it but I already replied to Longshot. I too grew up on a farm appreciating wildlife and habitat. We had an A John Deere with a hand clutch. My dad had 480 acres. We milked cows seperated the cream and fed the skim to the pigs. Everything was done by hand and every acre had to be utilized.

Everyone did it that way back when. But things change, things intergrate up. The last dairy herd in this area was sold out two years ago. During deer season it is very hard to find anyone with a pig to mix into the deer sausage.

When I took over my dads operation I added more land and had a job off the farm. I plant sunflowers and wheat because that is what the people demand. Took some of the rough land my dad farmed and converted it into grass. Stock it with just enough animals to keep me around here all day. Have planted lots of trees and even one 20 acre block planting. The pheasant population is very good. I used to plant foot plots but the deer ate them out before the snow flew most years. Then they leave for the river bottoms. For the pheasants who stay I take an old 300 gallon gas tank, set it up on end and put it on a platform three feet off the ground. Cut a hole little bigger then a quarter at the bottom side. The pheasants jump up on the platform and scratch the wheat away from the hole and it gravity feeds piling up and then stopping when they leave. You have to put the feeder next to some brush and small trees so that they can make a get away from predators. I put a wire panel around it to keep the deer out because one time they ate it out in less than a week. Counted 17 of them.

Any sportsmen can go out and make a friend with a farmer and do something to enhance your hunting wildlife and habitat experience. Don't wait until opening day.

If you don't feel like doing that, the alternative is to join former federal employee Plainsman and others just like him who belong to non-profits. Fight like hell every year at the Capitol trying to help "them" get something. This year it is one hundred million dollars per year from the ND State Treasurey to fund "their" conservation.

While everyone groans we have too much government that is what this HB1278 or SCR-4027 will do more of. It will create a whole nother layer of bureaucracy. When it comes to gubment budgets, the one thing they never do is shrink. This one of those that will grow. It already is right before our eyes. The Governor allocated $10 million in his budget Jan.2013. A couple days before HB1278 it grew to $15 million and the during the hearing it was suggested it be amended to $100 million. Somebody needs to mind the barn door "before" the horse is out.

Back in the 60's Plainsman used to drive an old tractor with a hand clutch. Now his fingers whirl around a keyboard. Everything has intergrated up. Farming has too.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug, you are no friend to hunters. You have not been favorable to any hunter or conservation program unless we fill your pockets first. You can only see your own little world and if you don't benefit it's a big government program, but when you benefit it's the right thing to do. I'm sure most everyone can see though your BS. You're not a conservative like you claim you're a selfservative. uke:

self·serv·a·tive
[self-serv-uh-tiv] noun

1. A person promoting a sociopolitical agenda ostensibly as a means for the betterment of society as a whole, while in fact being only concerned with the ultimate promotion and betterment of themselves and their associates.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> While everyone groans we have too much government that is what this HB1278 or SCR-4027 will do more of. It will create a whole nother layer of bureaucracy. When it comes to gubment budgets, the one thing they never do is shrink. This one of those that will grow. It already is right before our eyes. The Governor allocated $10 million in his budget Jan.2013. A couple days before HB1278 it grew to $15 million and the during the hearing it was suggested it be amended to $100 million. Somebody needs to mind the barn door "before" the horse is out.


You sound just like Obama trying to scare everyone about the sequestration. This isn't about big government this is allocating the money from oil revenue. People want 4% to go to conservation, and young farmers will get a large share of it for conservation practices just like you brag about. I hope people can see your real problem is you want it all. You will do some conservation that benefits you, but you don't want conservation money used to benefit the general public. Why? Maybe because fewer will come and pay landowners to hunt? Out of one side of your mouth you tell us about your conservation practices, but out of the other side of your mouth you condemn conservation that will benefit people other than you. Your clearly against freelance hunters.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

palins wrote,



> People want 4% to go to conservation


What people? Their is only a small number who are in the know how this thing grew legs.

There is only a few days until HB 1278 and SCR 4027 are in front of the legislators. No time to debate with you now. If I'm going to the Capitol, I shall need to be prepared. :computer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

HB 1278 - Introduced by Rep's Porter, Carlson; Sen's Lyson, Wardner. Creates a North Dakota outdoor heritage fund which would provide access to private and public lands and develop fish and wildlife habitat. Passed house 48-44. Senate Natural Resources Committee heard 3/7, no action taken. Rereferred to Senate Appropriations. Senate Appropriations to hear 3/29, 8 a.m.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug are you testifying on behalf of the North Dakota Farm Bureau?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

HB 1278 just passed. Senators Axness and Triplet wanted it amended to exclude the Industiral Commission and replace them with the ND State Land Board.

One last gasp.

There was some lively debate. Almost sounded like it wasn't going to go. But it did. Can't remember the final vote but it was by a majority. I'll see if I can dig up the web-link so you greenies can watch it.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

The Floor Hearing video yesterday is now available on HB 1278 Outdoor Heritage Fund.

http://video.legis.nd.gov/pb2/powerbrow ... &browser=0

Click on Agenda, upper right hand corner, scroll down to

14th Order - Final Passage House Measures - HB1278 - Appropriations - Do Pass

I think Sen. Erbele had a good point. This a reactionary Bill. Some of us are just running scared and think we need to do something (anything) to head off another Constitutional Amendment. He said if G/F and soil conservation services need more money in their budgets than ask. I agree, the legislature should be in control of the purse.

Another was Sen. Andrist. He said this Bill is like paying a ransom to buy off the wildlife interests. Good point.

Then there was Sen. Sinner, he said this is a hunting Bill looking for access. Because of limited hunting in his part of the state he said he made 6 trips out west of the Missouri and each time he had to pay. Hmm, I myself have made several trips and have yet to run into that. And I have knocked on a lot of doors. But I do know where some of those places are. So what he wants is everyone in the state to pay or subsidize his hobby. Thirty million dollars worth.

What I would like to know is when Sen. Sinner made those 6 trips west, did he walk or did he drive? If he drove, did he put gas in his tank? Where did he get the gas? Did it come out of the ground from western ND? If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If he drove, did he put gas in his tank? Where did he get the gas? Did it come out of the ground from western ND? If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.


Good point. I guess that makes him as entitled to some of the oil money as anyone else.



> Another was Sen. Andrist. He said this Bill is like paying a ransom to buy off the wildlife interests. Good point.


So if Sen. Andrist is consistent he will say that same thing if farmers or ranchers get any of the oil money right? Or if education gets it we are just paying ransom to teachers?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

It will be interesting to see the individuals on the committee. The bill has four objectives of which only one is partially about access. As to proposed projects, I hear parks and rec wants 108 million, unfunded conservation requests from farmers on waiting lists at USDA offices total somewhere north of 150 million, NDGF budget is driven by their fees from hunters and fisherman but if they did have a source of money for habitat work on public and private lands that is already deferred or could be done, that is another 100+ million, and I haven't yet seen any proposals from non profits which are allowed under the bill that will add to the total. I hope all the proposals are required to be posted in the public record as well as all the votes. Sure is a lot to consider to parcel out 15 million dollars.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,

I posted at 7:21 am with the video link. You posted your drivel at 7:37 am. That's 16 minutes. You didn't watch the video did you?

indsport, you're back to posting big numbers and NEED. Real Conservative lawmakers have to sort out what is NEED and what is WANT. The power of the purse should reside with the legislature. They need to keep control.

HB 1278 isn't a good Bill, it is just a better bad Bill. Creating another layer of Government is stupid. Sen. Erbele had it right. State Agencies etc. have budgets and they go before the legislature if they need more money. indsport, what you really want is hundreds of millions in dedicated funding with a panel loaded with your people deciding how to spend the slush fund. The your people I am referring to are the very same who ran the Constitutional Amendment signature gathering process last summer for the Outdoor Heritage Fund. They spent $140,000 to purchase the signatures and what everybody got was signature fraud. Since that event we have had numerous Bills go through the 2013 legislature trying to give the secretary of states office some tools to correct these types of abuses. And you want these types in charge of hundreds of millions of the taxpayers money? The future scandals would make the NDSU football player incident look minor.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I posted at 7:21 am with the video link. You posted your drivel at 7:37 am. That's 16 minutes. You didn't watch the video did you?


I based my comments of your comments. Didn't you see the quotes?

I'm not familiar with who is working with the Outdoor Heritage Fund, but from posts on here my understanding was that they hired a company to get signatures. That company hired NDSU students. Those students handed in fraudulent signatures. There is no connection between the Outdoor Heritage Fund and the NDSU students. You simply try to make that connection to discredit anyone who works for conservation.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Poor shaug, can't read and doesn't have any comprehension of my most recent post.

I never said the word need. 
I never said hundreds of millions. 
I never said anything about who should be on the committee. 
I never said anything about the Heritage amendment in the post. 
I was merely pointing out how much has been reported as being* wanted* from the committee for the various groups including agriculture and am merely interested in who actually gets on the committee.

I know you have trouble understanding and have an obsession with implying what you think other people are stating but you can try to control your temper and stick to the facts, can't you?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport,

You don't have to poor shaug me. I totally understand. Everyone likes to be on the winning team. Nobody likes to be the loser but this is no time for you to bailout on your friends. You started a whole bunch of sentences with ....."I never"....

The conservation boyz "did" and when it was all happening you were on board. Now that the ship is taking on water you want off. If the conservation boyz run another constitutional amendment for 2014 then you'll be back on board.



> I know you have trouble understanding and have an obsession with implying what you think other people are stating but you can try to control your temper and stick to the facts, can't you?


Facts??????? I'm the guy posting the web-links where info can be found and how this all developed. People involved and their affiliations.



> I'm not familiar with who is working with the Outdoor Heritage Fund, but from posts on here my understanding was that they hired a company to get signatures. That company hired NDSU students. Those students handed in fraudulent signatures. There is no connection between the Outdoor Heritage Fund and the NDSU students. You simply try to make that connection to discredit anyone who works for conservation.


The conservation boyz spent $140,000 dollars to Terra Strategies to hire people to go out and get the signatures. They got 37,000. Of those, almost 25,000 were collected by eight members of the NDSU football team. That means all the other paid circulators only got 12,000. So how did eight get twice as many signatures as all the others combined? What was their secret? If $140,000 was spent, wouldn't the persons in charge take those eight out and at least buy them a steak supper? Shake their hand for a job well done? Before during and after supper wouldn't someone want to know or be inclined to ask, how? At what point after meeting these football players would the red flags, bells and whistles have gone off.

The simple answer is to find fault with the NDSU football players. I have been talking about this for some time. The Secretary of States Office can only enforce the rules governed by the tools we give them. And that isn't much. It's an honor system. It can't work when people have little or no honor. The NDSU players should never even gotten mixed up in this in the first place. Let the conservation boyz collect their own signatures.

And that's another thing indsport. I post the numbers and brought out this Terra Strategies thing early on. If you don't like the facts, that's too bad. You shall learn to control your temper.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

shaug said:


> indsport,
> 
> All of what I quoted below from your post about the original heritage amendment is off topic about my post and is irrelevant to my individual post. I was talking about the future, not the past. You don't refute my original post about the likely results of the passage of the House bill (provide new data or information) but just repeated yourself from a past post. Is misdirection or repeating yourself off topic your favorite sport or do you have a valid question? As to abandoning the effort to find funds for conservation to help both the outdoor recreation and land owners, as well as mitigate the problems caused in the oil patch as well as other areas, I have not yet begun to fight let alone come close to a bail out.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport,



> As to abandoning the effort to find funds for conservation to help both the outdoor recreation and land owners, as well as mitigate the problems caused in the oil patch as well as other areas, I have not yet begun to fight let alone come close to a bail out.


Find funds???? Why don't you explain how you want to take funds from one individual or group of individuals and give those funds with your blessing of course to another individual or group of indivduals. I'll be waiting for that explanation. Finding funds for conservation, outdoor recreation and landowners?????? Hold it right there, please do not tell people that you want money for landowners, in the "FUTURE," do not begger the taxpayers on our account. We never asked you or the conservation boyz to do that.

Mitigate the problems caused by the oil patch????? Did you listen to the Senate video? Did you hear Sen. Bill Bowmen invite anyone to come out to his area and he will ask you to point the location where the oil rig pad used to be and since it is now reclaimed he invites you to be able to find it.

Back in the 70's coal country ND used to be in the papers everyday. Oh the horrible scars to the land by strip mining. Today coal country is peaceful. The land is being reclaimed and the ecco-carpetbaggers have since moved on. But they would like to perform one more stick-up with a carbon tax. Dave Dittloff from the National Wildlife Federation said the issue isn't getting much traction but they haven't dropped global warming yet.

indsport, so you say you have not yet begun to fight. That quote was made famous by John Paul Jones. His ship the Ranger was shot below the water line and sinking. Fortunately he and his crew captured the Bon Homme Richard before the Ranger slipped below the surface. The Ranger cost the Colonials many Continental$. Had Jones lost the Ranger without gaining the Bon Homme Richard he would never have received another commission. When he coined those words he and his crew "had" to follow through.
Financially the country couldn't afford the loss.

Today you repeat the slogan but I don't know how to tell you this. HB 1278 passed. In the "FUTURE" the conservation boyz will have to learn to share with all the other stakeholders. There are twelve board members on the panel. In the "FUTURE" we can complain like hell over the oppostions pick.

What happened is that Rep. Porter said he was going to amend out Ducks Unlimited, ND Natural Resources Trust and Pheasants Forever. That didn't happen. But that is a whole nother story and we know how much you don't want to discuss the past. Ha

Anyways, in the "FUTURE" the non-profits can now pick someone to put their sticky fingers in the taxpayers cookie jar.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

shaug, you just don't get it do you? My original post was commentary on the likely groups that will approach the newly formed committee for funding and the amounts they will request for their projects including the agricultural community. My second post was pointing out that you had made no mention of the content of my post, other than accuse me of abandoning conservation.

As to your most recent post, find one comment of mine where I said the landowner should not get support for conservation practices on their own land. You made a totally erroneous assumption that " please do not tell people that you want money for landowners". Well shaug, I am repeating to you again in as simple a language as possible since you obviously haven't read other posts I made on the subject that I 100% support money for conservation for private landowners.

Shaug, I not only saw the video, but it was carried live on television. My comment about the oil patch is about the wildlife, the road problems, the oil spills and the water. I could take Senator Bowmen to any number of places and show him the problems.

Last comment, yes, I seek funds for conservation in North Dakota not just from the people who can vote to give it or not. HB 1278 was a vote by our elected representatives to give money for conservation in North Dakota. But further, if we can find private groups, donations and others who also want to freely give their money for conservation, I am looking for that as well. Even HB 1278 has a clause about additional donations. It is not all about you and your concern for your taxes or other taxes, it is also about people who want to give more. Look at the hundreds of my fellow North Dakotans who donate millions of dollars to DU, PF and any number of conservation organizations, probably many of them are your neighbors or customers. Are you opposed to them as well? I quoted JP Jones for two reasons, one, I served in the Navy, and second, don't you have anything you support? All we hear from you is what you oppose. I prefer to support conservation efforts and have for my entire life and have no intention of stopping. What do you support?

As usual, last post on this particular thread.

I leave it to the reader to make their own decisions which one of us has the more logical argument.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport wrote,



> My second post was pointing out that you had made no mention of the content of my post, other than accuse me of abandoning conservation.


I did not accuse you of abandoning conservation. I accuse you of abandoning or trying to put distance between the oil revenue rip off gang and yourself since they now smell worse than oil well sulfur gases.



> As to your most recent post, find one comment of mine where I said the landowner should not get support for conservation practices on their own land. You made a totally erroneous assumption that " please do not tell people that you want money for landowners".


You sure know how to twist things in your head. I never said landowners should not get support for conservation practices. What I am against is the conservation boyz wanting $100 million and then telling the public that money is for landowners. No one asked the pretend wildlife groups (the greenies cloaked in hunter orange) to do it.



> It is not all about you and your concern for your taxes or other taxes, it is also about people who want to give more. Look at the hundreds of my fellow North Dakotans who donate millions of dollars to DU, PF and any number of conservation organizations, probably many of them are your neighbors or customers.


Yes we do know about those millions to Ducks Unlimited. Look at their IRS 990 Form. They collect $75 million per year from Uncle Sam.



> don't you have anything you support?


Free Enterprize


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Free Enterprize


Shaug that must be my laugh for the day. There are few who truly support free enterprise anymore. The government has their hooks in nearly everyone. Remember how ticked you get when I post that site that reveals farm subsidies? There are few enterprises a subsidized as farming and ranching. I am very convinced that you don't want conservation to get a single penny because you want it all. Pot, Kettle, Black.

If memory serves me some of the money in that conservation bill was for agriculture. I think to support conservation for new and young farmers. I do have one of the same concerns you do, and that is who do we put in charge of that much money. You think ag interests and the legislature could do it. I can't think of anyone I would trust. There is to much chance of liberal conservationists turning into bunny hugging anti hunters. Ag interests would outright steal it and so would the legislature. If you don't think the legislature would just track the tobacco settlement money.

You also said you challenged anyone to be able to identify an old oil well pad. Any botanist worth anything could pick out an old oil well pad easily. I can pick out the ten year old ones from a distance. I agree they do a admirable job, but not as perfect as you would think. Much of the damage is not easily visible. That's to simplistic shaug. Do you remember the columnar juniper south of Medora by the burning coal vein? They thought they were a distinct species. When the coal vein burned out they went back to normal juniper shape. Studies revealed it was simply a reaction to the toxic gas hydrogen sulfide, the same gas you smell around oil wells. My intention isn't to knock the oil industry or slow oil I want it to keep going. My intention is to tell you that those who make that challenge are men with no biological expertise.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Here's another belly roller for ya,

I support free markets.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Here's another belly roller for ya,
> 
> I support free markets.


If that is true I will need to take you more serious. Now for the other stumbling block. Your priorities make me think your highest priority is a dollar, and that's how you measure quality of life. This is another one of those things I hope I am wrong about. I would rather live with less money and more freedom. However, if a sense of decency doesn't tell people not to destroy what others care about then we need laws to control those who plunder our resources and way of life. I think currently the EPA has to much power, but at the same time I don't enjoy the strong smell of 2-4-D with my coffee on the back deck in the morning. Growing up on the farm I always looked forward to june berries. We had about five acres. Our careless neighbor killed them all.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> at the same time I don't enjoy the strong smell of 2-4-D with my coffee on the back deck in the morning.


And let's not forget about the time that weed control guy sprayed Tordon 22k beside your drinking well. Why did you hire him? What was the reason?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I didn't hire him. The lot next door was full of leafy spurge so I called the owner and he called the county weed board. It was the county weed board guy that sprayed. Not only did he spray around the well he sprayed all the plants I spent three week-ends transplanting from a friends pasture. I had the state out to take water samples, but they would not tell me if Tordon was present in the water. The guy from the county weed board thought he was doing me a favor spraying all of the plants.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

1278 signed into law.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

I saw a short blurb on the news last night that there was an amendment added to this bill that removed DU, pheasants forever, etc. from administration of this money. Can't find it in print today - just wondering what that is all about.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

slough said:


> I saw a short blurb on the news last night that there was an amendment added to this bill that removed DU, pheasants forever, etc. from administration of this money. Can't find it in print today - just wondering what that is all about.


I'm not sure who should be in charge of the money, but this looks like perhaps Porter is the vindictive little man that shaug implied.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... 0412224204



> c. Four members from the conservation community. *The governor shall appoint* one
> member from ducks unlimited of North Dakota, the North Dakota natural resources trust
> fund, the North Dakota chapter of pheasants forever, and the conservation community at
> large.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks Dick. Other than the conservation community who else will be on it. If I remember there were supposed to be eight or nine.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

a. Four members from the agriculture community. The governor shall appoint one member
from the North Dakota farm bureau, North Dakota farmers union, the North Dakota
stockmen's association, and the North Dakota grain growers association.
b. Two members from the energy industry. The governor shall appoint one member from the
North Dakota petroleum council and one member from the lignite energy council.
c. Four members from the conservation community. The governor shall appoint one
member from ducks unlimited of North Dakota, the North Dakota natural resources trust
fund, the North Dakota chapter of pheasants forever, and the conservation community at
large.
d. One member from the business community from the greater North Dakota chamber.
e. One member from the North Dakota recreation and park association.

That advisory board looks like a disaster if (c) was indeed removed.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

At the last minute, they did change the bill and dropped DU, PF from the committee. See the House Journal page from yesterday for the details. http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... urnal.html


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

slough it does look like it has some checks and balances. It can't all be plundered for agriculture, and it can't all turn bunny hugger either. Maybe nothing will get done like in Washington.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

My worry isn't necessarily that it will spent on the wrong things, but that it will be spent at all. Seems like most conservation projects would get the thumbs down from that panel.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, there could be big improvements to that panel. I don't like to see Farm Bureau on it. I think they would work every angle to turn it into simply another agriculture subsidy fund. I don't know what agriculture is doing on a conservation panel anyway. A Farm Bureau member voting for anything conservation is like expecting a chicken to vote for Colonel Sanders. Of course this is North Dakota. I would rather see it all conservation groups, but then who controls the granolas that will try get on the panel?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

as usual you ramble about in the darkness of your hidey hole and don't know a thing about what is going on. Shall we take it from the top.

No.1 Dave Dittlof, regional director for the National Wildlife federation drove to ND in the fall of 2011 and presented "the plan" to our federation people. Tom France is the nwf rocky mountain regional director and serves on the board of our north dakota natural resources trust. Tom knows Keith Trego very well. Keith was a sponsor of the 5%oil revenue rip off and a spokesperson for the outdoor heritage fund. As everyone knows the constitutional amendment last summer didn't get enough signatures to get on the ballot.

The ND Chamber of Commerce and many commodity groups came together and extended an olive branch to the conservation boyz. Rep. Porter was the primary sponsor of HB 1278. A Bill to create a $30 million dollar fund for conservation. A bill mutually beneficial to everybody. I was at the 1278 Hearing and it was sick to watch each org get up and testify to something so wrong as creating a whole another layer of government. But each one did it while holding their nose because they were so worried that the conservation boyz were going to do another petition drive and actually do it without screwing it up.

After watching one hour of that sickness Rep. Kelsh spoke for the conservation boyz and wanted it amended back to $100 million. There was some big eyes about the room. Suprise suprise, I could have told them that. In committee that idea was killed. 1278 only passed the House by 48 to 44. No democrats said a word against it because they had an end run in mind. Senate Concurrent Resolution 4027. When Rep. Porter introduced 1278 on the Senate side he was mad. He emphasized how he was deeply disappointed by certain conservation orgs and said he was going to amend them out. Then he named them.

I'm not sure if he asked any Senators to do the amending for him. He could have done it had it gone to committee with an amendment, however the democrats didn't go to committee with amendments, instead they waited until 1278 was on the floor and then tried to amend taking the duties away from the Industrial Commission and placing them with the State Land Board. That failed also but by that manuever they effectively boxed Porter out from amending.

HB 1278 passed the House and Senate without Porters amendment. But Porter is determined and he is now placing an amendment on another Bill to amend 1278.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... =bookmarks

Page 1497

REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

SB 2242, as engrossed: Energy and Natural Resources Committee (Rep. Porter,

Chairman) recommends AMENDMENTS AS FOLLOWS and when so amended,

recommends DO PASS (11 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 0 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING).

Engrossed SB 2242 was placed on the Sixth order on the calendar.

Page 1, line 3, replace "subsection 6 of section 20.1-03-12" with "subsection 1 of section

54-17.8-06"

Page 1, line 4, after "Code" insert "as created by House Bill No. 1278, as approved by the

sixty-third legislative assembly"

Page 1, line 4, replace "and fishing fees for disabled veterans" with "the members of the

North Dakota outdoor heritage advisory board"

Page 1, remove lines 13 through 17

Page 1, after line 21, insert:

My computer does not recognize overstrikes so you will have to go to the web-link to see it. Almost everything in Section C below is overstruck meaning Ducks Unlimited ND Natural Resources Trust and Pheasants Forever will be excluded if SB 2242 is passed. It would seem Porter is being relentless. I am guilty of sending Porter some emails letting him know he has support.

"SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. Subsection 1 of section 54-17.8-06 of the North

Dakota Century Code as created by House Bill No. 1278, as approved by the

sixty-third legislative assembly, is amended and reenacted as follows:

1. There is created a North Dakota outdoor heritage advisory board

consisting of twelve members. The governor shall appoint

representatives from each of the groups listed in this section based

upon recommendations made by the appropriate group. The

advisory board consists of:

a. Four members from the agriculture community. The governor

shall appoint one member from the North Dakota farm bureau,

North Dakota farmers union, the North Dakota stockmen's

association, and the North Dakota grain growers association.

b. Two members from the energy industry. The governor shall

appoint one member from the North Dakota petroleum council

and one member from the lignite energy council.

c. Four members from the conservation community. The governor

shall appoint one member from ducks unlimited of North

Dakota, the North Dakota natural resources trust fund, the

North Dakota chapter of pheasants forever, and the

conservation community at large.

d. One member from the business community from the greater

North Dakota chamber.

e. One member from the North Dakota recreation and park

association."

Here is the link to the marked up version of Sen. Bill 2242

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... 0413222245

Plainsman wrote,



> I'm not sure who should be in charge of the money, but this looks like perhaps Porter is the vindictive little man that shaug implied.


Vindictive?????? You nor I were in those meeting rooms when words were exchanged. I think Porter and the Republicans should take Trego, McEnroe and Adair out back and give them the old what for. Those fools really burned a bridge this go-around.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It's odd that Chairman Porter, who was once considered a Grade A on the Sportsman Scorecard, has chosen to fall so deeply into this rut. The amendment he has ushered through last Friday to strip meaningful conservation organizations from the 1278 advisory board will now have to go to the floor, and if passed then to the Senate. It isn't a done deal. Then more votes. There may be a conference committee and then another vote....just like quack grass, never quite done.

Since 1278 was signed by the the Governor last Wednesday, Porter had to end-run his amendment on Friday by tacking it on to an unrelated bill, in order to let the air out of 1278.

And that does not reflect well on the legislature or the leadership, since the original bill was advocated by the Governor through the Lt. Governor to the legislature.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug I think your in love with Porter because he is in the Farm Bureau pocket. Right? How can someone like him change so much. He is doing an Ed Schultz. 
Shaug it was your words not mine that Porter was going to do something or another because he was angry. Anger for one or two people and the guy damages our natural resources? That's small.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick said,



> It's odd that Chairman Porter, who was once considered a Grade A on the Sportsman Scorecard


That is tright, Porter used to carry a lot of Bills forward for the sportsmen. Unfortunately the conservation boyz have cloaked themmselves in hunter orange.



> The amendment he has ushered through last Friday to strip meaningful conservation organizations from the 1278 advisory board will now have to go to the floor


Are you saying we won't have meaningful conservation without DU, NDNRT and PF having their fingers in the taxpayers wallet?



> There may be a conference committee and then another vote....just like quack grass, never quite done.


The conservation boyz did one constitutional amendment, tried to amend 1278 to one hundred million, tried a Senate Concurrent Resolution, tried a floor amendment to strip power from the industrial commission and place it with the State Land Board. All failed. Like leafy spurge popping up.



> And that does not reflect well on the legislature or the leadership, since the original bill was advocated by the Governor through the Lt. Governor to the legislature.


The above attempts probably didn't set well either with the Gov.

Plainsman wrote,



> Shaug I think your in love with Porter because he is in the Farm Bureau pocket. Right? How can someone like him change so much. He is doing an Ed Schultz.
> Shaug it was your words not mine that Porter was going to do something or another because he was angry. Anger for one or two people and the guy damages our natural resources? That's small.


What is small here is your small mindedness. Do you engage your brain before your mouth? Something is being done for natural resources. Are you saying we won't have meaningful conservation without DU, NDNRT and PF having their fingers in the taxpayers wallet?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> What is small here is your small mindedness. Do you engage your brain before your mouth? Something is being done for natural resources. Are you saying we won't have meaningful conservation without DU, NDNRT and PF having their fingers in the taxpayers wallet?


With the likes of Farm Bureau involved I doubt there will be meaningful conservation. They will simply find an agricultural way to bleed the funds to death. If memory serves me the Farm Bureau for at least the past years have always been on the opposite side of sportsmen. I think they will also fight any meaningful conservation.

I don't know Porter, but from everything you have told us shaug the guy has pulled an Ed Schultz. The get even attitude you tell us about isn't professional.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

shaug "Are you saying we won't have meaningful conservation without DU, NDNRT and PF having their fingers in the taxpayers wallet?"

Are you talking about DU or PF competing for the money from the Legacy or that they were originally to be on the committee or both? Let us know what you were asking.

As to the first part of your question, no, I agree with many your previous posts that most of the agriculture community does not engage in conservation (particularly the NDFB members) unless they get some sort of payment for it.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/g ... f887a.html

Heritage fund measure remains contentious
Print Email 2013-04-15T15:43:00Z Heritage fund measure remains contentiousBy BRIAN GEHRING | Bismarck Tribune Bismarck Tribune 
7 hours ago • By BRIAN GEHRING | Bismarck TribuneGov. Jack Dalrymple signed North Dakota's Outdoor Heritage Bill last week but an effort to get the issue to a vote of the people may not be off the table.

Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, has offered an amendment to a Senate bill to remove three conservation groups from the advisory committee that would make recommendations to the state Industrial Commission on how money from the fund is spent. The groups are in House Bill 1278 that the governor signed.

A representative from those groups, Steve Adair of Ducks Unlimited, said Friday they are considering options.

House Bill 1278 takes a percentage of oil and gas taxes, capped at $15 million a year, to go toward grants to state and tribal agencies, political subdivisions and non-profits for access to private and public land and to create or restore habitat.

The funds cannot be used for litigation, lobbying, the purchase of land or easements longer than 20 years or for activities that would disrupt mining, oil or natural gas production or exploration.

The bill creates a 12-member advisory board comprised of four members of state agriculture groups, two from the energy industry, one member each from the business community and parks and recreation field and four non-voting members from the state Parks and Recreation Department, Game and Fish Department, State Forest Service and state soil conservation districts.

In Porter's original bill, Ducks Unlimited, the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust Fund, Pheasants Forever and an at-large conservation group were named to serve on the advisory board.

But a competing Senate bill introduced before the legislative crossover seeking to make the fund a constitutional amendment created friction between Porter and backers of the Senate version of the issue.

The Senate version, introduced by Sen. Tyler Axness, D-Fargo, failed by a 10-36 Senate vote. Porter said Ducks Unlimited, the Natural Resources Trust and Pheasants Forever worked "behind the scenes" to kill his bill in favor of a constitutional measure.

Porter added his amendment to remove the three groups from the advisory board to SB2241, a bill dealing with license fees for disabled veterans. The amendments were scheduled be heard on the House floor Monday, before the day's session was cancelled by the snow storm.

Porter has made no secret of his displeasure with the groups, saying there are plenty of other conservation groups in the state willing to serve on the advisory committee. He said he has not had any discussions with representatives of the three groups since the bill was signed.

Adair said he hasn't ruled out the possibility of trying to get the issue on the ballot for a statewide vote. It was slated to be voted on in the November general election, but petition fraud disqualified the measure.

Adair acknowledged mistakes were made in circulating the petition by hiring an out-of-state company that hired North Dakota State University football players to circulate the petitions in only certain parts of the state.

Adair said from the start, DU and others believe more money is needed for the fund; $100 million was the recommended amount in the Senate bill. That bill did not include members of the ag community on the advisory board, which lead to groups like Farmers Union, the Farm Bureau and the North Dakota Stockmen's Association to publicly voice opposition.

"Our position has been the same all along," Adair said. "It's a good start." He said he has not made any decision on whether to push the issue to a vote. "We want to hear from people."

Porter said there are conservation groups like Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Mule Deer Foundation and Delta Waterfowl and others that have expressed interest in serving on the advisory board.

As far as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and the Natural Resources Trust are concerned, Porter said it's time to be up front about their stance. "They need to pick a side of the fence &#8230; we need to know their position," Porter said. "Are they party to this, or are they in the process of going after an initiated measure?"

Adair said they have already had a meeting to work to secure $1.5 million with the National Resources Conservation Service to offset expiring Conservation Reserve Program acres. He said there is $12 million in requests to enroll land into the program. He said that is one of the reasons his group pushed for the $100 million figure.

Adair said he would be willing to meet with Porter and others to discuss the future of the Outdoor Heritage Fund to "&#8230; see if the Legislature is serious about conservation, or trying to avoid a ballot issue."


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> It's odd that Chairman Porter, who was once considered a Grade A on the Sportsman Scorecard, has chosen to fall so deeply into this rut


Well Dick he worked hard to fool people into believing that the measure would pass if put on the ballot again. Many drank his Kool Aid and went with Todd and passed 1278. Then you and the rest of your boys Dick threw ole Todd under the bus and made a fool out of him. Now to save face Todd is throwing you and the rest under the bus,turn about is fair play I guess. Maybe Todd finally woke up, I doubt it. All and all it's been great humor I'm loving it!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://www.inforum.com/event/tag/tag/opinion

*Forum editorial: Stop drive to weaken a good law*

Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, N.D., is on his third attempt to remove respected conservation organizations from representation on the North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Conservation Fund's advisory board. His motivation is suspect. His reasons are nonsensical. And his third attempt is downright obtuse. 
By: Forum Editorial Board, INFORUM

Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, N.D., is on his third attempt to remove respected conservation organizations from representation on the North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Conservation Fund's advisory board. His motivation is suspect. His reasons are nonsensical. And his third attempt is downright obtuse, since the legislation easily passed both houses of the Legislature and has been signed into law by Gov. Jack Dalrymple. Oh, by the way, the legislation is pretty much what the governor proposed. It's not all conservation groups hoped for, but it's a sound compromise.

Despite overwhelming support for the bill, Porter is engaging in legislative sleight of hand with an amendment that would remove participation by Ducks Unlimited of North Dakota, the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust and the North Dakota chapter of Pheasants Forever. The 12-member board also includes an at-large member from the conservation community.

Porter contends at least two of the groups are pursuing a constitutional amendment to establish a conservation fund. Leaders of DU and the trust assured him they are not. In fact, the three groups targeted by Porter helped write the legislation. Their only concern was it did not include enough money ($30 million over two years), but they understood what was possible and supported the bill. They went to work with the governor and lawmakers when a ballot measure did not get on the 2012 statewide ballot. Their good-faith position was to help write the legislation, which is precisely what conservation groups did.

Now Porter's amendment is undermining that spirit of cooperation by attempting an end run around a signed law. He's doing what conservation organizations feared the Legislature would do: Erode the effectiveness of a conservation fund by eliminating from the process qualified advocates for conservation, stewardship and habitat.

Porter is in a snit because conservationists pushed a resolution in the state Senate asking for $100 million for the fund. It was defeated. It was introduced in response to Porter's attempts to pull a fast one by removing conservation voices from the fund's board. The resolution was an honest reaction to Porter's scheme to fracture relationships that had been nurtured among all interests involved in the legislation.

The groups in Porter's gun sights are among the most respected, most successful outdoor/conservation/

habitat advocacy organizations in the state. Leaders and members are North Dakotans who value the state's natural - and threatened - heritage. Porter, who ironically is a member of DU and Pheasants Forever, is one of those threats.

Porter's amendment passed the committee he chairs. Maybe members were deferring to the chairman. Nonetheless, the sneaky amendment is guaranteed to debase respect for the Legislature. The full House should bury it."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Erode the effectiveness of a conservation fund by eliminating from the process qualified advocates for conservation, stewardship and habitat.


That's my problem with some people I debate with. I spent 36 years involved in conservation as a professional yet I will get people with no training in this or any other profession telling me how it should be done. Have you ever noticed that often the less one knows the more they think they know? As an example I don't know everything about ranching, but I debate ranchers who think they know everything about wildlife ecology. How does that work?



> Porter contends at least two of the groups are pursuing a constitutional amendment to establish a conservation fund. Leaders of DU and the trust assured him they are not


I guess he is trying to throw them under a buss that isn't moving. 



> Porter is in a snit


Looks like you were right shaug. :thumb:



> The groups in Porter's gun sights are among the most respected, most successful outdoor/conservation/


I guess he doesn't agree with shaug on this one. Shaug holds them up as the enemy every chance he gets. The media today is trying to link the bomb in Boston to the Tea Party. Shaug does the same thing by trying to link respected groups with radical groups. I hope people are smart enough to see that.

Thanks for that post Dick. It's good to see an author that doesn't have his head where where the sun doesn't shine once in a while. I just wish some of the guys who are so excited about the next DU banquet would speak up on here once in a while.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

SB 2242 - Introduced by Sen's Oehlke, Hogue, Lyson; Rep's Hofstad, D. Johnson, Hunskor. Would allow a resident disabled veteran with a 100 percent service related disability to purchase a fishing license for $3, and a combined general game, habitat, small game and furbearer license for $3. Passed senate 47-0. House Energy and Natural Resources Committee amended to remove the fishing license portion of the bill, and removed Ducks Unlimited, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust and Pheasants Forever from the outdoor heritage advisory board. Passed house 94-0 as amended.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

SB 2242 - Introduced by Sen's Oehlke, Hogue, Lyson; Rep's Hofstad, D. Johnson, Hunskor. Would allow a resident disabled veteran with a 100 percent service related disability to purchase a fishing license for $3, and a combined general game, habitat, small game and furbearer license for $3. Passed senate 47-0. House Energy and Natural Resources Committee amended to remove the fishing license portion of the bill, and removed Ducks Unlimited, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust and Pheasants Forever from the outdoor heritage advisory board. Passed house 94-0 as amended. Senate refused to concur. Conference committee hearing 4/24, 9:30 a.m.

The continuing saga....


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

The vote was 94-0 for SB 2242, however, there was an amendment to 2242 placed by Rep. Porter that would amend 1278. Rep. Corey Mock asked that the 1278 amendment be discussed and voted on seperately. That passed.

The 1278 amendment to amend 2242 was discussed and passed 68-26. After that 2242 passed by itself 94-0. The 1278 amendment now has to go back and pass on the Senate side. There was a conference committee last week and another on Monday the 22nd and yet another scheduled for tomorrow the 24th. The committee:

Representatives: Silbernagel, Peter F. (R), Damschen, Chuck (R), Kelsh, Scot (D) 
Senators: Laffen, Lonnie J. (R) (Chair), Hogue, David (R), Murphy, Philip M. (D)

Silbernagel is with Porter, Damschen is against the whole concept of creating another layer of government and Kelsh wants to spend big big bucks.

I don't know anything about Laffen, Hogue is barely on board with this conservation scheme and Murphy did vote for SCR 4027. Murphy is a nice guy but he is a democrat.


----------

