# ND Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment



## Dick Monson

Below is the informational email concerning the ND Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment. I suggest that you forward it through your email address book so your like minded friends have the correct information about the proposal. Many hands make quick work and this is a case where sportsmen need to step up. Consider that in ND the Prairie Chicken season is closed, Sage Grouse season closed, pronhorn season closed, and deer and upland bird numbers are crashing. Hardly surprising facts since wildlife habitat is rapidly going down the tubes in ND. We can ***** about it, or actually do something constructive. A petition is easily filled and will take less time than walking your dog. Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friend in Conservation,
Help us launch one of the most important conservation campaigns in North Dakota's history: the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment. With your help, we'll protect North Dakota's clean water and lands for future generations, conserve critical natural areas, and create parks. See our website at http://cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/

Please sign up to volunteer ( http://cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/volunteer ), and attend a kick-off meeting and training near you to learn tried-and-true ways to successfully gather signatures, pick up your petition packets hot off the press, meet other volunteers in your area, and learn more about upcoming events and signature gathering locations. It's also a great opportunity to learn more about our campaign to place this important citizen's amendment on the November 2014 ballot.

Grand Forks Kick-Off Meeting & Training
Tuesday, September 10, 7pm
University of North Dakota Memorial Union- Room 204, 2901 University Ave, park in the UND parking ramp

Bismarck Kick-Off Meeting & Training
Thursday, September 12, 7pm
Ducks Unlimited - Conference Center, 2525 River Road, parking available at the Ducks Unlimited facility

Fargo Kick-Off Meeting & Training
Tuesday, September 17, 7pm
Downtown Fargo Public Library, 102 3rd Street N, parking available in the library/civic center parking lot

Be a part of our broad coalition of concerned citizens and leading conservation organizations, including Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation. Starting mid-September, we will begin gathering 40,000 signatures from North Dakota residents, and together we will place a historic conservation amendment on the November 2014 ballot. Gathering signatures is the most effective way you can help to ensure that this amendment makes it to the ballot!

Please sign up to volunteer online below or call 701-566-5058 to join the North Dakota's Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Campaign.

http://cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/volunteer

North Dakota is changing rapidly. Wildlife populations and our outdoor traditions are threatened. Escalating development and other land changes are threatening our clean water and natural places for people and wildlife. That's why we need your help!

On Wednesday, August 21st, we filed the North Dakota Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment with the Secretary of State's office. The amendment will protect North Dakota's clean water and lands for future generations, conserve critical natural areas, as well as provide natural flood control. The amendment will NOT increase taxes. Funds would come from a small portion of the state's existing oil and gas extraction taxes. While oil and gas development brings many benefits to our state -including jobs and millions in tax revenue - there are impacts. It only makes sense to invest now. We have a unique opportunity to:

• Protect our clean water in our rivers, lakes and streams 
• Create parks and other areas for recreation, hunting and fishing 
• Provide more opportunities and places for our children to learn about and enjoy the outdoors 
• Protect our communities and private property from flooding by improving natural flood controls 
• Protect wildlife and fish habitat

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to ensure we protect North Dakota's precious waters, wildlife, and parks, and we can't afford to let it pass us by. Help us fund conservation that forever protects our remaining natural treasures. Each signature from a North Dakota resident gets us one step closer to protecting what's best about living here: our natural areas that provide endless opportunities to hike, bike, fish, and hunt and an amazing diversity of plants and animals. We must take a stand now to protect North Dakota's natural heritage.

Sign up via our web site or call our campaign today at 701-566-5058 to speak directly to a campaign organizer. We will give you all the materials and training needed to get you started when the petitions arrive mid-September. We look forward to working with you on creating a conservation legacy we can all be proud of.

For North Dakota's future,

The Campaign Team - Sarah, Robbie, Ross and Courtney

Authorized by:
North Dakota's Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks
118 Broadway N, Suite 716
Fargo, ND 58102
701-566-5058
[email protected]

Sarah Michaels
Operations Manager
North Dakotans for Clean Water, Wildlife & Parks
118 Broadway Suite #716
Fargo, ND 58102
Phone: 701-566-5058
http://www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org


----------



## shaug

Busy little bees:

http://www.uplandjournal.com/cgi-bin/ik ... 31;t=83806


----------



## shaug

The Charitable-Industrial-Complex goes at it again.

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
We, the undersigned, being qualified electors request the following initiated law be placed on the ballot as provided by law.
SPONSORING COMMITTEE
The following are the names and addresses of the qualified electors of the state of North Dakota who, as the sponsoring committee for the petitioners, represent
and act for the petitioners in accordance with law:
Stephen E. Adair, Chair
1009 Cottage Dr
Bismarck ND 58501
Mylo S. Candee
2107 N 7th St
Bismarck ND 58501
Marlene Frei
118 Riverside Park Road
Bismarck ND 58504
Lloyd Jones
18460 Hwy 1804
Baldwin ND 58521
William Boyd Bicknell
4435 Riverbend Lane
Bismarck ND 58504
William Wagner
863 52nd Ave SW
Hazen ND 58545
Franklin G. Larson
11686 River Road
Valley City ND 58072
Mike F. Lalonde
408 Tulsa Dr.
Bismarck ND 58504
Bonnie T. Johnson
2029 N. 2nd St.
Bismarck ND 58501
Gabe Brown
3752 106th St NE
Bismarck ND 58503
Keith Trego
9100 Sycamore Lane
Bismarck ND 58504
Karen Kreil
831 N. Mandan St.
Bismarck ND 58501
Eric L. Rosenquist
1401 River Road
Center ND 58530
Jennifer P. Kross
320 17th Ave NE
Jamestown ND 58401
Deborah Brude
315 Main St N
Pekin ND 58361
Naomi Thorson
942 9th Ave W
Dickinson ND 58601
Richard E. Monson
3434 114th Ave SE
Valley City ND 58072
David Nix
525 Dohn Ave
Bismarck ND 58503
Paul H. Myerchin
8725 Spruce Creek Road
Bismarck ND 58503
Joseph J. Cichy
1220 N Mandan St
Bismarck ND 58501
Lisa M. Omlid
1325 N 21st St
Bismarck ND 58501
William E. Cornatzer
400 Restfull Drive
Bismarck ND 58503
Kim C. Christianson
1006 W Ave C
Bismarck ND 58504
Joseph A. Satrom
216 W. Ave B
Bismarck ND 58501
Jeff Weispfenning
6708 Island Dr
Bismarck ND 58504
David A. Brandt
8485 25th St SE
Buchanan ND 58420
David Lambeth
417 Terrace Drive
Grand Forks ND 58201
Thomas Hutchens
2424 Timberlane Place
Bismarck ND 58504
PETITION TITLE
TO BE DRAFTED BY SECRETARY OF STATE -- This initiated measure would add a new section to article X of the North Dakota Constitution creating the clean
water, wildlife, and parks trust and fund financed by five percent of the revenues from existing oil extraction taxes. The fund would be used to make grants to public and
private groups to aid drinking water quality, natural flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, park and outdoor recreation areas, access for hunting and fishing, the acquisition
of land for parks and outdoor education for kids. The fund would be governed by a clean water, wildlife and parks commission comprised of the governor, attorney general
and agriculture commissioner. To review grant applications, a thirteen-member citizen accountability board would be appointed by the governor, legislative leaders, the
state agriculture commissioner and the public service commission to serve three-year terms. Ten percent of annual revenues will be deposited in the trust. The trust
principal would be invested by the state investment board with the earnings appropriated to the fund to spend on programs after January 1, 2019. Every 25 years, the
people will vote on the question of whether the financing from existing extraction taxes should continue. The funds deposited in the trust will continue to protect North
Dakota's natural places for future generations.
FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE
IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED. IF MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING
DELETED. IF MATERIAL IS NOT UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MATERIAL IS EXISTING LAW THAT IS NOT BEING CHANGED.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. A new section to article X of the Constitution of North Dakota is created and enacted as follows:
1. The people of North Dakota create the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust to protect our clean water, wildlife and parks for the benefit of people as provided
herein.
2. There is created a clean water, wildlife, and parks fund that shall be used for grants to state agencies, tribal governments, local governments, political subdivisions,
and nonprofit organizations for the following purposes:
a. Protect, improve, maintain, or restore water quality through the restoration and protection of rivers, streams, lakes or other surface waters, groundwater, wetlands,
grasslands, prairies, or forests;
b. Improve natural flood control through the restoration or protection of natural areas along rivers, streams, lakes or other surface waters, groundwater, wetlands,
grasslands, prairies, and forests;
c. Protect, restore, or create wildlife and fish habitat through voluntary programs on private lands, including working farms and ranches, and public lands through
grassland, prairie, wetland, stream, lake, and forest restoration, creation, and protection;
d. Conserve or acquire natural areas, parks, and other recreation areas or provide access for hunting and fishing; or
e. Create more opportunities and places for children to learn about and enjoy nature and the outdoors.
3. There is created a clean water, wildlife and parks commission that shall be comprised of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner. The
commission shall govern the fund in accord with this section. Any money deposited in the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund is hereby appropriated to the commission
on a continuing basis for expenditure upon those programs selected by the commission as provided in this section. The commission shall keep accurate records of all
financial transactions performed under this section.
4. The commission may employ staff and enter into public and private contracts as may be necessary to operate the fund. The salaries of employees and other
expenditures for the operation of the fund must be paid out of the fund. No more than three percent of the funds available in a given year may be paid out of the fund to
operate the fund.
5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten
percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.
6. The commission may not use the fund, in any manner, to finance:
a. Litigation;
b. Lobbying activities;
c. Activities that would unduly interfere, disrupt, or prevent the development of mineral rights;
d. Projects outside this state or projects that are beyond the scope of defined activities that fulfill the purposes of this section;
e. More than fifty percent of grant awards per biennium for any one stated purpose;
f. The acquisition of land through condemnation or the use of eminent domain; or
g. Compliance with legal mitigation requirements of any local, state, or federal permit or grant.
7. The principal and earnings of the trust may not be expended until after January 1, 2019, and an expenditure of principal after that date requires a vote of at least
two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislative assembly. The state investment board shall invest the principal of the trust. The state treasurer shall
transfer earnings of the trust accruing after January 1, 2019, to the fund established in this section at the end of each fiscal year.
8. Each regular legislative session, the commission must file a report to the citizens of the state at a public hearing before each house of the legislative assembly.
The report must include a state auditor's report on the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust and clean water, wildlife, and parks fund for the previous two fiscal years.
9. There is created a citizen accountability board consisting of thirteen members. The board shall provide grant recommendations to the commission in accord with
the purposes stated in this section. The board members must be qualified electors of the state and shall be appointed as follows:

a. Four citizen members appointed by the governor, upon the recommendation of the director of the game and fish department;
b. Two citizen members appointed by the governor, upon the recommendation of the director of the parks and recreation department;
c. One citizen member appointed by the governor, upon the recommendation of the indian affairs commission;
d. Two members of the state senate, appointed by the president pro tempore, with equal representation from the two largest political parties in the senate;
e. Two members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker, with equal representation from the two largest political parties in the house;
f. One energy industry representative to be appointed by the public service commission; and
g. One farmer or rancher to be appointed by the agriculture commissioner.
10. The terms of members of the citizen accountability board will be three years, except the terms of the initial board will vary and be drawn by lot to ensure that no
more than five members be subsequently appointed each year. Board members may not serve more than three terms. The board shall select a chairman from among the
members. Nine voting members is a quorum at any meeting.
11. In making appointments to the citizen accountability board, consideration shall be given to the practical experience and demonstrated knowledge in one or more of
the following areas:
a. Science, policy, or practice of natural resources, conservation, or tribal lands;
b. Restoring, protecting, and enhancing groundwater or wetlands;
c. Conservation practices, including professional or volunteer work restoring and protecting working agricultural lands, wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish,
game, and wildlife; or
d. The maintenance and management of public parks and recreation areas.
12. This constitutional provision shall be self-executing and shall become effective without the necessity of legislative action.
13. The initial members of the citizen accountability board shall be appointed within ninety days after the effective date of this section. Grant applications shall be
considered within three hundred sixty-five days of the effective date of this section and grant applications shall be considered at least annually thereafter.
14. The state treasurer shall reserve five percent of the state's share of total revenue derived from oil extraction taxes for the purposes described in this section. Ten
percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust within thirty days after the end of each calendar
quarter. Ninety percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund within thirty days after the end of
each calendar quarter.
15. Upon voter approval of this measure, the provisions of subsections 13 through 15 herein shall be authorized and continue until the next general election held after
twenty-five years from the effective date of this section. In that general election, the secretary of state shall place a question, for approval or rejection by the people, of
whether the funds reserved as provided in subsection 14 shall continue. The question presented shall include a report from state investment board indicating the thenexisting
balance of the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust and the annual estimated earnings to be provided to the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund. At the next
statewide general election held twenty-five years after a reauthorization under this section, the issue of whether the reservation of funds described in subsection 14 herein
shall be resubmitted to the voters for approval or rejection, accompanied by the report as directed herein. If a majority of the voters fail to approve the continued
reservation of funds, subsections 13, 14, and 15 herein shall terminate on the first day of the calendar quarter following the date it is rejected by the voters.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective for oil produced on or after January 1, 2015, or the first day of the first
calendar quarter beginning after the date it is approved by the voters, whichever occurs later.
INSTRUCTIONS TO PETITION SIGNERS
You are being asked to sign a petition. You must be a qualified elector. This means you are eighteen years old, you have lived in North Dakota thirty days, and
you are a United States citizen. All signers shall also legibly print their name, complete residential address or rural route or general delivery address and the date of
signing on the petition. Every qualified elector signing a petition must do so in the presence of the individual circulating the petition.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug we have all got the idea by now that your anti conservation, anti hunter, anti wetland, anti habitat, anti anything that puts money into anything other than farming or ranching.

Charitable-Industrial-Complex what is that? It sounds like some hippie terminology. Pull your blinds the drones are watching you.


----------



## shaug

The Charitable-Industrial-Complex..............



> Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation.


President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined the phrase Military-Industrial-Complex because of their constant lobbying for General Treasury monies and the huge amounts of money they consume. The Military-Industrial-Complex needs perceived threats, real or imagined, to keep their procurement of taxpayer money coming their way.

Hence.......the Charitable-Industrial-Complex :rollin:


----------



## grusman

Dwight,

Does that mean you and Gabe part of the Self serving-Private-Simplex?????? :eyeroll:


----------



## shaug

Hello Mr. Brandt,

I see you are a sponsor again.


----------



## Dick Monson

Below is an interesting perspective on how North Dakotans versus others have looked at public use lands.

The Turtle Mountain plateau is split by the Canadians and us. About 3/4 of the area is on the ND side yet the Canadians have more than twice as much dedicated public use ground in 1 provincial park than we do. As our population increases with more recreational money in personal budgets the pressure on outdoor resources will only increase too. Maybe that is why our Gov. has his cabin in Minnesota. Where the people DID PASS a dedicated outdoor fund. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

That less developed patch on the east side in the United States is reservation right Dick?


----------



## Dick Monson

Yes. Canada has 45,000 acres in their park. ND a fraction of that in all public use areas, even though we have 3/4s of the whole Turtle Mountain escarpment. In the past we have seen little value in public natural areas. This measure could help change that perspective. Education is a slow process though.


----------



## Plainsman

If this calls for 5% from oil where is the other 95% going. When we talk millions it sounds like a lot, but when you look at it as 5% it doesn't sound like that much. How are we spending the money now? I think it would be good to know how much is going towards roads, how much is going towards schools, how much is going towards law enforcement etc.


----------



## Dick Monson

The last scheduled traing session is in Fargo tonight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fargo Kick-Off Meeting & Training

Tuesday, September 17, 7pm

Downtown Fargo Public Library
102 3rd Street N, Fargo
Parking available in the library/civic center parking lot


----------



## shaug

INITIATED CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION RELATING TO A CLEAN WATER, WILDLIFE AND 
PARKS TRUST FUND
THE ISSUE
Non-profit conservation groups and wildlife groups are circulating petitions 
to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. The amendment would create 
a special fund for wildlife and conservation groups to receive funding from 
oil and gas tax revenue. The measure would create a Clean Water, Wildlife, 
and Parks Trust Fund, governed by the newly created clean water, wildlife 
and parks commission.

Five percent of all oil and gas extraction taxes collected by the state 
would be designated to this fund. Under current oil production this would 
generate $150 million next biennium or $75 million in the first year.

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Commission includes the Governor, 
Attorney General, and Agriculture Commissioner and a citizen advisory board 
which is made up four citizens recommended from the director of game and 
fish, two citizens recommended from the director of parks and recreation, 
one citizen recommended from the Indian affairs commission, one member each 
from the minority and majority of the house and senate, one energy industry 
representative recommended from the Public Service Commission and one member 
appointed by the agriculture commissioner.
CONCERNS
THE MONEY
Based on the legislative projections for the 2013-15 biennium, 5% of the oil 
extraction taxes is roughly $150M, or $75M per year. The petition sets 
aside 3% for administrative costs or $1.5 million with current oil 
production. There is also a mandate that a minimum of 75 percent of the 
money ($56m at current oil production) is spent each year. These 
projections are historically low; the likely hood that this fund will be 
receiving over $100M per year is a real possibility. That is on top of the 
money included in the current Outdoor Heritage Fund, and all other money 
spent on conservation, natural resources and parks and recreation.
This measure also requires that the commission spend at least 75% but not 
more than 90% of the money deposited in the fund every year. That means 
whether there are needs or not this group must spend upwards of $1.5M a 
week, or more than $200,000 a day on conservation projects. Keep in mind 
under this constitutional measure this group can purchase land. It is 
dangerous to use tax dollars to bank roll the very groups that oppose our 
energy and agriculture industries.
WHAT THE MONEY CAN BE USED FOR
While this fund cannot be used for lobbying, litigation, the taking of land 
through eminent domain or disrupting the development of mineral rights, the 
fact that these tax dollars can be used to purchase lands seems to put that 
in conflict. The goal with many of these groups would be to purchase land, and 
thus not allow energy development on that land, thus disrupting energy 
production. Essentially what the language means is, this money can be used 
to disrupt future agriculture and energy development.
This money can be granted to state agencies, tribal governments, local 
governments, political subdivisions and non-profits, some of the likely 
non-profits that would see great benefit from this fund would be The Nature 
Conservancy, Sierra Club, Dakota Resource Council, ND Wildlife Federation and 
Ducks Unlimited. All of these non profits are involved and heavily supportive of this measure, 
which could be seen as a windfall for their organizations.
While we can all appreciate and support responsible conservation of our 
lands and wildlife, $150 million in the first two years is a LOT of money, 
and will continue to grow as our oil production increases. This is too much 
money for a single-vision special interest group, that $150million is at old 
production levels, best guess is by the time the measure is up for election 
or takes effect the number could double. This would mean approximately 
$1.5M a week would be going to this group. With that money, this board 
could potentially purchase 80 acres of land (at $2,500/acre) every day.
HOW THE MONEY IS MANAGED
The petition creates another level of state government. It creates a 
conservation commission made up of the Governor, Attorney General and 
Agriculture Commissioner. It also authorizes the commission to employ staff 
and enter into contracts, which is essentially the same power as any other 
state agency has.
The petition calls for a citizen accountability board, which sounds 
reasonable until you realize the qualifications for being on the board is that 
every member must have a background in land conservation and/or conservation 
activism. Essentially ensuring the conservation groups will be the only 
ones allowed to serve on this board. This board gives recommendations to 
the conservation commission, keep in mind that the conservation commission, under this 
petition would be CONSTITUTIONALLY mandated to spend at least 75% of the 
money. As you can see, there will be a lot of money that will have to be 
spent, so the merits of the projects themselves may not be as important as 
meeting the constitutionally mandated spending level.
IS THIS NEEDED?
As North Dakota continues to expand in business and population growth, there 
is a need to address the issues of access to the outdoors, habitat 
conservation, preservation of our natural areas and supporting stewardship 
of our lands. That is why we brought together representatives from 
conservation, agriculture, energy, business and recreation for a series of 
meetings last year to assist in developing HB 1278, the Outdoor Heritage 
Trust Fund.
This law, passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor allocates up 
to $15 million a year towards conservation efforts. The board, to be 
appointed by the Governor represents all the interested parties, are 
accountable to the taxpayers of North Dakota through the industrial 
commission and the legislature and ensures that land remains in the hands of 
private interests in North Dakota such as our farmers and ranchers. This is 
on top of the current $100 million we spend on conservation programs, parks 
and recreation and habitat.
This approach is a direct contrast to the proposed constitutional amendment. 
There are several issues in the initiative that require a decision regarding 
the direction of conservation in North Dakota. First is the governance 
structure. The proposed amendment creates a constitutional board comprised 
of conservation group representatives, elected officials, and limited 
representation from other interests. In the words of the petitioners, "it 
needs to be dominated by conservation groups". Should North Dakota create a 
new constitutional board with control dominated by conservation interests?
OTHER ISSUES
. These non-profit conservation groups (Ducks Unlimited, North Dakota 
Natural Resources Trust, Nature Conservancy, etc.) already have a 
significant amount of land set aside for waterfowl/wildlife habitat. The 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 
North Dakota Natural Resources Trust, etc. already have significant amounts 
of both state and federal dollars for conservation easements.
. State agencies, tribal governments, local governments, political 
subdivisions and non-profit organizations could apply for grants. If state 
or local governments use the money to purchase parks or recreation areas, 
state or local taxpayer dollars would have to be used to maintain the 
property. Can taxpayers afford this or even want it?
. If this measure were to pass, the oil tax money that is currently spent on 
road infrastructure, the additional needs of oil patch counties, and 
property tax relief would probably not be available.
. Bad precedence, if this measure passes there is concern that every special 
group will then try and get a cut of taxpayer dollars via an initiated 
measure. The North Dakota Legislature should balance the needs of the 
state, placing a priority on immediate needs, rather than being bound by 
constitutional "earmarks."

RANKINGS COMPARED TO OTHER STATE AGENCIES
Agency General Funds
1 Department of Public Instruction $1,723,613,325.00
2 Department of Transportation $1,464,020,000.00
3 Department of Human Services $1,171,116,129.00
4 Office of the State Treasurer $311,333,469.00
5 University of North Dakota $230,556,333.00
6 Department of Corrections and Rehab $180,915,389.00
7 North Dakota State University $171,193,784.00
8 North Dakota University System Office $162,045,136.00
*5% oil constitutional measure* (Based on 5% of the OMB projected $2.99B in oil 
extraction tax revenues) $149,753,337.45
9 Judicial Branch $98,305,993.00
10 Department of Commerce $64,457,060.00
11 NDSU Main Research Center $58,606,521.00
12 Office of the State Tax Commissioner $57,054,140.00
13 UND Medical Center $56,505,634.00
14 Minot State University $48,940,641.00
15 Highway Patrol $47,608,042.00

· We all support protecting ND's outdoors, wildlife and heritage, but this measure spends too much when other needs are so great.

· This measure will spend $2 billion over the next 10 years

o Roughly an average of $100M a year

o 1.5M a week

o Over 200,000 a day

· Equivalent to building:

o 26 Fargo Domes over the next decade

o 25 Alerus Centers over the next decade

o 44 Fargo Davies High Schools over the next decade

o 10,000 average homes in ND ($200,000 homes) over the next decade

o OR, One new home EVERYDAY

· That's $2 billion that won't be available for roads, emergency services, schools, tax relief, public employee salaries, Flood protection and water projects to just name a few.


----------



## slough

shaug,

I'd be curious to know who wrote that.

Even with the negative slant it tries to take, I still see no problem allocating this amount of money to natural resource conservation. We have a big state with great natural resources, I say we do whatever is needed to protect them.


----------



## shaug

slough wrote,



> We have a big state with great natural resources


Just think, with that much money these ecco-carpet baggers could purchase an average size farm every ten days. And they will have access to this fund for twenty-five years. How many acres is that? The great natural resources you speak of will be locked up. No production.



> I say we do whatever is needed to protect them.


Protect them from whom?

Slough, what do you do for a living?


----------



## indsport

Errors in the opposition argument

The fund would never be allowed to expend 75 million per year. Earnings would be spent but Section 2, Article 7, "expenditure of principal after that date requires a vote of at least two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislative assembly. " 10% has to be reserved. 
Section 1, Article 3. The commission (made up of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner) makes the final decision on expenditures. The citizens board is advisory only.

Section1, Article 6 e. Cannot spend any more than 50% on any one stated purpose (e.g. land acquisition)

Finally, land acquisition is still governed by the existing laws (e.g. non profits require approval of the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee).


----------



## shaug

Thomas,

You're a numbers guy. I'm sure you have your thumb on the pulse of the percentages and all that money.

Do you still do the audits for the wildlife society?


----------



## slough

indsport said:


> Finally, land acquisition is still governed by the existing laws (e.g. non profits require approval of the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee).


Bingo.

I'm a teacher, no idea why you ask but have at it.

Ultimately the voters will decide if this is needed.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug said:


> Thomas,
> 
> You're a numbers guy. I'm sure you have your thumb on the pulse of the percentages and all that money.
> 
> Do you still do the audits for the wildlife society?


Which are not relevant to this issue. Just more smoke and bull crap from you shaug!


----------



## shaug

slough wrote,



> I'm a teacher, no idea why you ask but have at it.


Is the school made out of finite resources such as brick and mortor? Do they use electricity or heat made from coal or oil? 
What about renewables such as paper or plastic?

If we let the enviro's lock up hundreds of thousands of acres of land, where do you suppose your children and grandchildren will get these materials or even find employment after college?



> Ultimately the voters will decide if this is needed.


If the signatures are collected, the voters are going to be barraged with some really slick ads. The Charitable-Industrial-Complex already has $660,000 in their bank account. The money came from American Wetlands Trust. If they spend two or three million to purchase the votes.....what the hay, not a bad investment. Two mil to get one hundred mil per year for the next twenty-five years.

Ron said,



> Which are not relevant to this issue. Just more smoke and bull crap from you shaug![/


Ron, you need to go to sloughs school and step up to the blackboard. Reach around to the backside of your head and grab a tuft of hair. Then ram your head into the blackboard until it cracks.

I don't understand you Ron. These friends of yours, over the years on several issues, have run the battle flag up the pole pounded the drums and hollered follow us and then they run everyone over the cliff.

Let's put it in a time capsule Ron, what chance do you think this will pass?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Again the financial papers of this group is not relevant to the petition nor the amendment if it gets to the voters. All you are doing is tossing crap and hoping some sticks. Unlike you I am concerned about our habitat and the ablity to maintain it. Not everyone can own land, but do have the constitutional right to pursue wildlife. Thus public lands for this are needed. Our state is in a very good situation to fund this but our legislator's are not willing to step up and do so.

So if the signatures are gathered it will be up to the people to determine if they want it. That is the beauty of our state in that we as citizens can by the ballot box do things such as this. You can argue against the petition and measure but again the other issue is not relevant to it.

So move on your drivel is old tired and flat. Without PETA involved your ads are not going to scare people. People want green space and they want it maintained. You want soybeans and corn fence row to fence row!


----------



## shaug

Ron wrote,



> Unlike you I am concerned about our habitat and the ablity to maintain it.





> People want green space and they want it maintained.


Thank you for bringing that up Ron. Maintenance. If hundreds of thousands of acres of private lands are purchased, how many technical service providers will the gubment have to be hire to maintain all this? This would create a lot of green jobs whos pay will have to come from the taxpayer.

Keep in mind that we already have more people who work for the State and Fed/gov than we do in dirty fingernail manufacturing.



> Not everyone can own land, but do have the constitutional right to pursue wildlife.


Ron, anyone can own land and they have a constitutional right to pursue property. No license required. Psh!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Out of context of what I meant as usual shaug in regards to land ownership. Finacially not everyone can purchase land for recreational use nor as an investment. However that does not change their constitutional right to hunt and pursue game and we do have an obligation to preserve land and create access for this. You and will always disagree on the issue of land moving from private to public ownership because we have a different view of whom a seller has a right to do with his land. You do not want any more competitors in buying and I think a seller should have as many as the market bears.


----------



## shaug

Ron wrote,



> You do not want any more competitors in buying and I think a seller should have as many as the market bears.


Ron, we have been down this road too many times to count. Corporations cannot own land. Nonprofits that are incorporated cannot either. That is the LAW. If a purchase is made in error, I believe they have something like three years to divest.

You may be of the opinion otherwise but it is just your opinion. Nothing more. You used to call into Joel Heitkamp a lot and he would say politely, "Ron, I recognize the voice so I'm going to cut you off because we at KFGO are more interested in what others have to say."

Corporations and non-profits that are incorporated cannot own real property. That is the LAW.

Ron, you need to take a cue from Heitkamp.


----------



## slough

Any idea when signatures will start be collected and where?


----------



## Dick Monson

slough said:


> Any idea when signatures will start be collected and where?


Slough, yes, the drive is going right now. You can check here for the closest event near you. http://cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/

They should be at the Ft. Ransom craft show this weekend. It takes a bit to get started with hunting season on now and farmers harvesting too. If anybody has a line on sporting shows, guns shows, home shows, etc, coming up, please let me know and we'll try to get petition circulators there. A petition only has 25 names on it, heck you can walk around the block, and get that many.


----------



## shaug

Interesting:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/three- ... 4-ballots/

On the November ballot there are four measures, each put there by the legislature because they amend the state constitution.

Measure 1: This is one of the abortion bills passed by the state legislature. It puts language into the state constitution recognizing the right to life of human beings at every stage of development. 
Measure 2: This prohibits any sort of a mortgage tax or tax on the transfer of property. "The state and any county, township, city, or any other political subdivision of the state may not impose any mortgage taxes or any sales or transfer taxes on the mortgage or transfer of real property." 
Measure 3: Replaces the State Board of Higher Education with a new governing body appointed by the governor. It also ends the independence of the university system, obliging those governing it to do so in accordance to statute passed by the state legislature. 
Measure 4: This measure has to do with initiated measures as well. It would prohibit any measure in the state constitution that directs the legislature to appropriate funds.

In terms of the measures being circulated now, whether or not Measure 4 passes on the November ballot could have consequences for the Outdoor Heritage Fund petition in that it would essentially make the petition illegal. Though it's hard to imagine the outdoor heritage people are going to have issues getting enough signatures between now and August of next year to make the November ballot.


----------



## indsport

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/414717/


----------



## shaug

From Mr. Sklebars fargo forum article,



> An International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies study shows 2,252 jobs in North Dakota and 12,419 in Minnesota were related to hunting in 2001. The sport also brought in more than $214 million to North Dakota and generated more than $1.3 billion in Minnesota in 2001.


The IAFWA did a study? I doubt most people hearing about or signing this clean water wildlife and parks amendment petition realize the extent/level of the cooperation between organizations to sell the public on this conservation theme. We'll be barraged with these kinds of articles until November 2014. No where in this fargo forum piece did they mention the $100 million per year they want. That will come later.

http://fishwildlife.org/?section=member_list

Some are active in North Dakota and some are not. The ones that are active have a glue that binds them together. $100 hundred million.

Contributing Members
American Bird Conservancy
American Eagle Foundation
American Sportfishing Association
Archery Trade Association
BASS/ESPN Outdoors
Bat Conservation International
Boone & Crockett Club
Bowhunting Preservation Alliance
Canadian Wildlife Federation
Council for Environmental Education
Delta Waterfowl Foundation
Ducks Unlimited Canada
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
FishAmerica Foundation
Forest Preserve District of DuPage County
Fur Institute of Canada
Fur Takers of America, Inc.
Future Fisherman Foundation
Hunting Heritage Trust
IWMC World Conservation Trust
Izaak Walton League of America
Manomet Center for Conservation Science
Mobile Satellite Ventures
Mule Deer Foundation
National Audubon Society
National Bowhunter Education Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife Museum and Zooquarium 
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Rifle Association/Conservation, Wildlife and Natural Resources Division
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
National Trappers Association
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wildlife Federation
NatureServe
The Nature Conservancy
North American Bear Foundation
North American Falconers Association
North American Grouse Partnership
North American Wetlands Conservation Council
North Dakota Natural Resources Trust
Northwest Marine Technology, Inc.
The Peregrine Fund
Pheasants Forever
Pope and Young Club
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation
Resource Management Service, LLC
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
The Ruffed Grouse Society
Safari Club International
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Texas Wildlife Association
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
The Trust for Public Land
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Weatherby Foundation International
Wild Sheep Foundation
Wildlife Management Institute


----------



## indsport

shaug, complain to the Forum or IAWFA. The organizations you list cooperate together because they support conservation just like the Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, and Stockmen's cooperate together to support agriculture. As to the 100 million, why are you assuming agriculture will not have their hands out if it passes? You bet they will be there will all the groups. As to the numbers, the IAWFA numbers are similar to the numbers used by the State Tourism bureau, NDGF, State Parks and convention and visitors bureau as to the importance of outdoor recreation and tourism in North Dakota. After oil and ag, tourism is the third biggest income producer in the state.


----------



## Dick Monson

indsport said:


> After oil and ag, tourism is the third biggest income producer in the state.


Sort of odd that ND Tourism is strangely quiet about increasing wildlife habitat, which produces the wildlife that their customers need for hunting. You'd think that the ND Beverage Dealers Asc., Convention and Visitors, etc. would be for this measure like gangbusters.

As to the "Outdoor Heritage Bill" $30 million figure that reporters keep misquoting, it is a CAP, not an appropriation. Check the actual wording of the bill in Section 20, page 3. http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-201 ... 0903224331

The funding for the "Outdoor Heritage" bill was set at slightly less than half of the capped amount, about 18 cents per acre.


----------



## Plainsman

We have people who want all the money and place no value on habitat or wildlife. Those people will try to scare you. They try to portray all kinds of good organizations as environmental wacko's. So I have eliminated many that sound slightly environmental. Now take a good look at those you should be familiar with if you are a hunter, trapper, or fisherman. We see people on here with all kinds of black helicopter theories. They want us to think the sky will fall if hunters get 5% eventually. Look close and see if you can relate to any of these. I highlighted the groups I like best, including the National Rifle Association, even though I still have not forgiven them for endorsing Harry Reid.

If you hunt, trap, or fish ask yourself do these groups look like your enemy? Then ask yourself why they are Shaug's enemy.

Contributing Members

American Sportfishing Association
Archery Trade Association
BASS/ESPN Outdoors
*Boone & Crockett Club*
Bowhunting Preservation Alliance
Canadian Wildlife Federation
Ducks Unlimited Canada
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
FishAmerica Foundation
Forest Preserve District of DuPage County
Fur Institute of Canada
*Fur Takers of America, Inc.*
Future Fisherman Foundation
*Hunting Heritage Trust*
*Mule Deer Foundation*
*National Bowhunter Education Foundation*
National Fish and Wildlife Museum and Zooquarium 
National Marine Manufacturers Association
*National Rifle Association/Conservation, Wildlife and Natural Resources Division*
*National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.*
*National Trappers Association*
*National Wild Turkey Federation*
*National Wildlife Federation*
North American Bear Foundation
North American Falconers Association
North American Grouse Partnership
North American Wetlands Conservation Council
*North Dakota Natural Resources Trust*
Northwest Marine Technology, Inc.
Pheasants Forever
Pope and Young Club
Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation
*Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation*
The Ruffed Grouse Society
*Safari Club International*
Texas Wildlife Association
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
*U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance*
Weatherby Foundation International
Wild Sheep Foundation
*Wildlife Management Institute*


----------



## shaug

It's the pheasant opener today, in case you pretend sportsmen didn't notice while pounding your keyboards all day.

We got a few but the numbers are down. Found quite a few piles of feathers. Need some predator control.

Plains wrote,



> They want us to think the sky will fall if hunters get 5% eventually.


I've heard reports that the oil production could double in a few years. The oil revenue rip off gang wants 5% to go towards their brand of conservation. They want to buy land. At 5% now they want $100 million per year. That figure could double as this constitutional amendment is tied to extraction.

Non-profits and/or the North Dakota natural resources trust act as facilitators to help purchase private properties and then flip them to some fed/gov agency after 18 months. And of course they enrich themselves along the way.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug wrote:


> It's the pheasant opener today, in case you pretend sportsmen didn't notice while pounding your keyboards all day.


  I'm more of an archery and rifle man Shaug.  You will notice how I spent my day on this thread. I went to Captain Phillips this evening. Good flick. Pheasants hmmmm, can't ever remember going out for the opener.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=102943


----------



## shaug

Mr. Sklebar wrote,



> After oil and ag, tourism is the third biggest income producer in the state.


True enough, people from other states leaving their money here benefits North Dakota. However, tourism and/or hunting isn't a creater of new wealth. If you burn a set of tires off or guzzel several hundred gallons of gas eating pugslie sandwiches washed down with pop or beer, you are consuming not producing.

New wealth can only come from two areas, mining and agriculture.

Mr. Monson wrote,



> Sort of odd that ND Tourism is strangely quiet about increasing wildlife habitat, which produces the wildlife that their customers need for hunting. You'd think that the ND Beverage Dealers Asc., Convention and Visitors, etc. would be for this measure like gangbusters.


Dick, what is truely odd is that just a couple of years ago, on this forum, the rant was against non-residents and the ND Tourism for promoting hunting. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, but the ND Tourism Department is a State run org and needs to be neutral. They shouldn't be for it like you say, "gangbusters." State Agencies shouldn't be lobbying for more of the State Treasury money.

I see one David Nix from the ND Tourism is a sponsor.


----------



## indsport

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/415071/


----------



## Plainsman

In the event some are to lazy to look up the article. As you read this understand that there are people right on the site who are doing their best to make sure the hunters get shafted and the environment takes a back seat to their personal wallet. If our legislature doesn't ditch their 18th century mentality when it comes to our natural resources were going to be in trouble. Why do you think there is even a debate about this subject on this site? Ask yourself that question, then ask yourself if you want your kids and grandkids to have the opportunities you have had. Time to ditch the apathy and smell the roses.



> North Dakota is at a crossroad. The direction the state takes might have as momentous and lasting impact as the great trends that shaped the state from the beginning: agriculture, drought, energy and more recently a diversifying urban economy. Decisions - private and public - made today regarding land and water stewardship will have ramifications for generations to come. If the drivers of the state's early 21st-century economy continue to erode the conservation, environment and outdoor ethic that makes the state unique, the damage to traditional values and cherished heritage will be irreversible.
> 
> Signs are clear. As hunting season gears up, hunters report significant changes: game numbers down; habitat lost; roads where there never were roads; truck traffic driving more sensitive game species off the range on which they've thrived for decades.
> 
> Carefully worded statements from the state Game & Fish Department euphemistically cite "development impacts" as among factors in the decline of game numbers and the loss of habitat and available hunting acres. They mean, of course, oil and gas activity.
> 
> On the farm, ditching, draining and tiling have accelerated to a pace never before seen in the state. Water once held on the land in sloughs and coulees as habitat and water recharge now siphons quickly into ditches and rivers. Regulation and permitting are laughable. Flooding is aggravated.
> 
> Mature shelterbelts and the habitat and soil protection they provide are being bulldozed without regard to why they were planted. Conservation Reserve Program acres are going under the plow at rapid rates - another significant loss of habitat and soil and water conservation. Game and nongame animals that have done so well because of CRP in the past 30 years disappear, too. Game and fish surveys confirm it.
> 
> The individual trends comprise profound mega-change on the landscape. Depending on perspectives and perceptions, it's fueled by the economics of agriculture and energy, or common human greed, or both. Whatever the combination of factors, the end game is yet to be played. The potential damage is yet to be honestly assessed. There is no appetite among the political class to take a critical look at the down side of a new kind of prosperity.
> 
> That's the crossroad. That's the question: Unprecedented prosperity on the farm, in oil country, in the cities - but at what cost to the land and water heritage that North Dakotans cherish. Or do they?


----------



## huntin1

I fail to see how anyone who gives a crap about this state, and water and animal resources, can argue that this measure is a bad thing.

Unless, of course, it somehow interferes with how much money they are going to make, or not make, depending on the outcome.

huntin1


----------



## shaug

The Fargo Forum is going to write editorial after these kind of editorials in the next couple of months. Free press to help the petitioners get the signatures. The Fargo Forum wants this amendment on the ballot. It is going to be economic development for them. A windfall. If the sigs are gathered and it makes the ballot more then two million is going to be spent by the proponents for ads.

One has to admit, the Forum has some talented writers. If they get a good size chunk of that two million, they can afford to hire even more talented writers. All the news that's fit to invent.


----------



## Dick Monson

http://www.capjournal.com/news/the-crop ... 963f4.html

Right on the button.


----------



## shaug

From Dicks article,



> And while that may be the case in some instances, landowners such as Keith Krull know that converting land is sometimes the only way to keep an operation economically viable.
> 
> Krull's family has ranched in the area since 1907. He and his brother bought the Krull Ranch in the early 1990s, and in 2002 the two brothers and their wives opened the Krull Lodge. Instead of farming all 11,000 acres, about 70 percent of the land is dedicated to hunting.
> 
> But Krull said when it comes to paying the bills, conversion is becoming more and more lucrative.
> 
> "We've seen a tremendous amount (of conversion) - CRP coming out and native grassland being farmed," Krull said. "We've done some of that ourselves. I don't blame anybody for doing it, because they're trying to make a living out here."
> 
> Krull added that as he and his family age, making a living by managing cattle becomes less appealing.
> 
> "Historically, one cow will generate about the same amount of income as one acre. Would you sooner have 1,000 acres or 1,000 cows?" Perman said. "It's all economic, and until the taxpayers or the lawmakers figure that out, this is going to continue."


Keith Krull readily admits farmer/ranchers need to make a living. But he has found a different approach to making money off of his land. He doesn't farm all 11,000 acres. Instead about 70% is dedicated to hunting. How does he afford it?

http://www.krulllodge.com/pricing.html

It would seem he is a commercializer of wildlife.

A few years ago I attended a wildlife society meeting and the Game Fish and Parks from South Dakota had two speakers there. They had a lot of ill will towards operations such as Krull Lodge. Mr. Krull only thinks he is better off then those who raise cattle and corn.


----------



## g/o

- A coalition headed by an influential business group is preparing to mount a campaign opposing the proposed Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Fund aimed for the November 2014 ballot.

Andy Peterson, president of the Greater North Dakota Chamber, said Wednesday that the business group and others plan to launch what will be called North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation early next year.

The proposal, backed by a coalition of conservation groups, would amend the state constitution to set aside 5 percent of the oil extraction tax for the outdoor heritage fund.

That would raise an estimated $150 million during the 2015-17 biennium, much more than the current fund, capped at $30 million per biennium.

Because it would amend the constitution to set aside funds, "It will set a precedent for our state," Peterson told The Forum Editorial Board, referring to the proposed Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Fund. "I just don't want this to be successful."

The emergence of a large coalition to oppose the expanded outdoor heritage fund sets up a major ballot measure battle in the 2014 general election.

Besides the chamber, those lining up behind the opposition coalition include the North Dakota League of Cities, North Dakota Association of Counties and North Dakota School Boards Association.

Several farm groups, including the North Dakota Farm Bureau, North Dakota Grain Growers and North Dakota Corn Growers, also oppose the measure, as do several energy groups, including the North Dakota Petroleum Council and the Lignite Energy Council.

Conservation groups supporting the proposed amendment include Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, The National Wildlife Federation and Audubon Society.

"It's going to be well-financed, well-advertised," Peterson said.

A report filed with the secretary of state showed $690,946 in contributions for 2012, including $237,000 from The Nature Conservancy and $100,000 each from individual donors, as well as $25,000 contributions from The Conservation Fund and World Wildlife Fund.

The state of North Dakota already provides more than $130 million per biennium on conservation and related efforts, according to figures cited by Peterson.

They include $31.8 million for parks and recreation, $67.5 million for game and fish, the $30 million authorized for the outdoor heritage fund and $1.1 million for soil conservation districts.

'Perfect storm'

Backers of the conservation amendment say significantly greater measures are needed to protect the state's air, water and land because of unprecedented oil and gas development, and the rapid loss of conservation acres on farms.

As a result, wildlife habitat is being rapidly lost, and the wide-open spaces North Dakotans have long taken for granted are at risk, conservation fund proponents said.

Among other things, the proposal would protect or restore rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, grasslands and forests, and conserve or acquire natural areas, parks and recreation areas.

The ability to buy land, and take it off the tax rolls, draws opposition from many farming groups and local governments, Peterson said.

Peterson did acknowledge, however, that energy development and the loss of conservation acres are changing the North Dakota landscape.

"We need to have some kind of conservation measure in our state," he said, adding that the threats to wildlife areas combine to form a "perfect storm."

About 145,000 acres of North Dakota native prairie were converted to cropland between 2002 and 2007, according to the conservation coalition. North Dakota has lost almost 2 million acres of conservation land.

Craig Whitney, president of the Fargo Moorhead West Fargo Chamber, said the local business group has concerns about the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment but has not taken a formal position.

"This issue will have to go through our systems," he said, including a review by the board of directors. "We will become very versed on it. We're troubled by a number of things."

Backers of the amendment have said public opinion polls show broad support for a bigger conservation fund.

The conservation coalition must collect 26,904 petition signatures to get the measure on the Nov. 5, 2014 ballot, and plans to collect 40,000.

Readers can reach


----------



## Dick Monson

Page 26 of the Feb-Mar. 2014 issue of Dakota Country magazine has an outstanding column by Ted Upgren Jr. on the importance of the CWWP measure to North Dakota citizens. It is a great read and I would urge you to do so.


----------

