# Cook Waterfowl sues state,



## g/o

> FARGO, N.D. (AP) - A nonprofit group that purchases land for waterfowl habitat is challenging North Dakota's corporate farm law in federal court.
> 
> Cook Waterfowl Foundation says a law that prohibits corporations from owning farmland in North Dakota violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> It says the law prevents it from buying land in North Dakota.
> 
> In court documents cited by KFGO radio, Cook Waterfowl said similar laws in other states have been ruled unconstitutional.
> 
> Cook Waterfowl is a Delaware corporation with offices in Minneapolis.


Cook Waterfowl is a Delaware corporation, wonder why Delaware could it be because of loopholes?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Really does not matter where or why they chose to incorporate in DE! What is more important is that the current law will not withstand higher courts. I am not in favor of the law being gutted, but you can thank FB and FU and Stockmans Assn for this! Another example of selective restrictions from the groups and their supporters who chime in and claim everything is always a property rights issue. What is more of a property right than to chose whom you sell your land to!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Scott LeDuc

g/o said:


> FARGO, N.D. (AP) - A nonprofit group that purchases land for waterfowl habitat is challenging North Dakota's corporate farm law in federal court.
> 
> Cook Waterfowl Foundation says a law that prohibits corporations from owning farmland in North Dakota violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> It says the law prevents it from buying land in North Dakota.
> 
> In court documents cited by KFGO radio, Cook Waterfowl said similar laws in other states have been ruled unconstitutional.
> 
> Cook Waterfowl is a Delaware corporation with offices in Minneapolis.
> 
> 
> 
> Cook Waterfowl is a Delaware corporation, wonder why Delaware could it be because of loopholes?
Click to expand...

g/o - Deleware is well known for being the easiest (cheapest, quickest, less red tape) state to incorporate a business. It's common practice for companies all over the country to incorporate in Deleware. I don't believe the fact they incorporated in Deleware provides more loopholes but I may be wrong on that one.


----------



## Dick Monson

This one will be interesting.

Maybe next legisltaive session we'll see a bill to void all court rulings in ND.  Although it didn't work with the EPA.


----------



## gst

Please do not beleive this lawsuit is a benevolent action on behalf of a group looking to enhance wildlife habitat and public access opportunities for the hunters here in ND. This lawsuit is purely a selfserving attempt by a "corporation" comprised of wealthy out of state individuals looking to circumvent state law so they can continue to purchase lands to be used for their own closed hunting opportunities.

It is ironic, some of the very same people that bemoan giving a nonresident hunter one more weekend to hunt ducks here in ND will likely support this lawsuit. Some of the very same people that claim out of state hunters are the cause of more and more land being leased and closed to opportunities for resident hunters will likely support this lawsuit. These people apparently are unable to look at a bigger picture that includes the consequences of this lawsuit succeeding which include more and more of these large "corporate" purchases of private lands for PRIVATE hunting clubs, unregulated nonprofit groups buying lands (imagine who could end up being your neighbor) , multi national ag corps managing purchased lands to soley maximize profit potential thru draining wetlands, bulldozing habitat and closing hunting opportunities with mandatory policies of no tresspass ect....( who do you talk to at Archer Daniels Midland to gain access on opening weekend???) If one truly beleives there are changes taking place in ag now that affect public hunting opportunities in this state, wait and see what happens if this lawsuit is successful.

Some people would like you to beleive as stated this is the result of 3 ag orgs here in ND. In actuality, it is the result of STATE LAW which was created by the ELECTED representatives of ALL the people of this state. This state law does not prohibit nonprofits such as Cook Waterfowl from owning lands here in ND, it merely requires them to go thru an approval process in which the GOVENOR (elected by ALL NDans) , not these ag groups as some would like you to beleive, has the final say. These laws limit private property rights much the same way other state laws that require individuals or groups that wish to build things such as feedlots, packing plants, airports, penitentaries a refinery ect.... to go thru a similar approval process regulating what can be done on private lands that these individuals or groups own limit private property rights. The representatives that were ELECTED by the people of this state weigh the consequences of limiting these property rights carefully and crafted ALL these state laws and others beleiving they are in the best long term interest of the state and ALL it's residents.

I would be willing to bet, the individuals that comprise the memberships of the ag groups that were mentioned earlier have and will continue to provide the hunters of this state more wildlife habitat, access opportunities and quality hunting experiences on their privately owned lands for the sportsmen and women of ND than ANY of the orgs or corporations that will come into this state if this lawsuit is successful. In their blind bias towards the states ag groups some people do not seem to realize that in the bigger picture in regards to this anti corporate farming law this lawsuit looks to overturn, what is good for the family operated agriculture enterprises here in ND is ultimately good for the sportsmen of ND.


----------



## Plainsman

> Some people would like you to beleive as stated this is the result of 3 ag orgs here in ND. In actuality, it is the result of STATE LAW which was created by the ELECTED representatives of ALL the people of this state.


No, that's the problem. Out elected representatives are not for ALL the people. They are mostly farmers and don't give a crap about anyone who isn't a farmer.



> I would be willing to bet, the individuals that comprise the memberships of the ag groups that were mentioned earlier have and will continue to provide the hunters of this state more wildlife habitat


That's a nice fantasy.

gst, I don't think I am for this group myself. I will need to learn more about them. However, my experience with you is that your all for yourself, and that may slant your view. I look at the above quotes about our representatives representing ALL of us and just shake my head. Then you talk about farmers providing more wildlife habitat, and I shake my head again. If your going to shovel that bull droppings there would be no better endorsement in favor of Cook. Like I said I don't know, but from my point of view right now it's a struggle between groups none of which have any interest in the future of the average hunter who doesn't pay.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> No, that's the problem. Out elected representatives are not for ALL the people. They are mostly farmers and don't give a crap about anyone who isn't a farmer.


That is not true. There are some whos bias leans heavily in the other direction. Check out this Representatives biography:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-201 ... anson.html



> Retired Teacher
> • BS, UND Branch Ellendale; MS, Moorhead State University
> • 1981 and 2003 ND Wildlife Federation Legislative Conservationist of the Year Award; 1994 Jamestown United Sportsman of the Year; NDEA; NEA; ND Wildlife Federation; Ducks Unlimited; United Sportsman; Officials Hall of Fame; Delta Waterfowl; United Sportsman; Trinity Lutheran Church (ELCA)
> • Married (Betty); 2 children
> • House since 1979


He is getting kind of old. Plainsman, you could run in his absence. Is he a relative of yours?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> No, that's the problem. Out elected representatives are not for ALL the people. They are mostly farmers and don't give a crap about anyone who isn't a farmer.


 :bs: Good thing I kept this icon handy!!!  Your bias against ag is showing by once again making claims regarding it that are not true! :wink: As I said earlier when you made this claim as to the make up of the background of our legislators, go to the legislative website and check out the bios, a link to one was provided for you.

If what you are saying in the second part of your claim is true, why do these ELECTED representatives get ELECTED and most times RE ELECTED?

Plainsman if you are going to quote someone, please do so in context. 


gst said:


> I would be willing to bet, the individuals that comprise the memberships of the ag groups that were mentioned earlier have and will continue to provide the hunters of this state more wildlife habitat, access opportunities and quality hunting experiences on their privately owned lands for the sportsmen and women of ND than ANY of the orgs or corporations that will come into this state if this lawsuit is successful.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> , that's the problem. Out elected representatives are not for ALL the people. They are mostly farmers and don't give a crap about anyone who isn't a farmer


This claim is made ocassionaly, so for the heck of it on this rainy morning I went thru the legislative website and compiled who is involved in production ag in our legislature. There are a handful that do not have their occupation (current or retired) listed, but I beleive it was only 3 or 4 total. So this may not be EXACT, but it will be close. 
District and number of farmers or ranchers they have as legislators
1 0 16 1 31 2 46 0
2 1 17 0 32 0 47 0
3 0 18 0 33 3
4 2 19 2 34 0
5 0 20 1 35 0
6 1  21 0 36 1
7 3 22 1 37 1
8 1 23 0 38 0
9 2 24 1 39 1
10 3 25 1 40 0
11 0 26 1 41 0
12 0 27 0 42 0
13 0 28 2 43 0
14 2? 29 3 44 0
15 2 30 0 45 0

There are a total of 141 legislators. 
38 are farmers/ranchers or direct ag related businesses (consultant)
24 out of 47 districts do not have ANY farmers/ranchers as representatives.
4 out of 47 districts have all 3 of their representatives as farmers/ranchers.


----------



## Eric Hustad

A couple of quick thoughts: I suppose our tax money will go to pay for the lawsuit and if a big group comes in and buys a bunch of land doesnt that raise the price of land around that area so a young farmer will have to pay more to expand his farm operation?


----------



## Plainsman

> He is getting kind of old. Plainsman, you could run in his absence. Is he a relative of yours?


Ouch  No, not a relative of mine. Although there are some liberals in the family he isn't one of them.

I still maintain there are many ag people in the legislature. Even those who are not vote with ag most of the time. I know it is our major contributor to the economy, but some of our legislatures need to understand it's not the only one. As an example look back in the 1970's when our legislature passed a bill that required county commissioners and the governor to approve sale of land to the U S Fish and Wildlife. The about shut down the wetlands acquisition program in North Dakota. It's still alive and well in other states. I wish the feds had the guts to take that to court based on our constitution.

County commissioners approving sales isn't a good chance when many are looking to buy land themselves. They don't want competition. They may have to pay some poor widow a fair price for her farm. We even have some farmers claiming to be conservation oriented who try to bar the freedom of fellow farmers from signing perpetual easements. I can't remember the guys name, but there is a Farm Bureau guy on the legislature that is nothing short of a nut case.

Every time budget comes up we have to keep ag from raiding our money in the Game and Fish department. There is nothing more hypocritical than those who post, ask to be paid for hunting, then want to raid Game and Fish to pay for wildlife damage. I don't understand attitudes today. It's not that far back in our history and people like this would have been ashamed to show their face in public. Today's attitude of tolerance lets thieves walk among respectable people.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Blow more smoke gst! FU,FB,and SA all have in place policy mandates that oppose any and all sales to conservation organizations for profit or non profit!!!!!!!!! Over the last 4 sessions attempts to tweak the current law to make it more likely to pass through the courts have been thwarted by these organizations lobby effort.

So now Cook someone with enough money is going to gut this law, and Monsanto,Cargill, etc... are going to compete for land. Bad news for sportsman as well as farmers, but people like you failed to see what many of us knew a long time ago regarding this!

So spout some more, defend FB,FU etc... and pretend all you want that they have been and remain the driving force as to why our current law was not fixed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## g/o

[quoteThe state ag commissioner chairs the committee, which also includes representatives from the North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Farm Bureau and North Dakota Stockmen's Association, along with the directors of the state Game and Fish Department, Parks and Recreation Department and North Dakota Forest Service.
][/quote]

Ronnie, Looks like a balanced ticket to me except for the Ag Commishinor. If we could get Sarah Vogel or Roger Johnson back I'm sure things would look more favorable to you.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Blow more smoke gst! FU,FB,and SA all have in place policy mandates that oppose any and all sales to conservation organizations for profit or non profit!!!!!!!!!


 :bs: This icon is pretty handy! Ron this is simply not true and you should know it by now. These orgs have policy opposing any increase in GOVT ownership of land state or Federal. No net gain. There is no separte policies aimed at conservation orgs as you claim. It is STATE law as created by the ELECTED representatives of ALL NDans. that these orgs support.

Ownership of land by the private individual is the cornerstone of why many came to this country. And the membership of these orgs. beleives there should simply be limited lands owned by govt. The peoples representatives, thru the legislative process determined that there should also be a process in place to regulate what nonprofit groups could come into our state to purchase land for their agendas as well as corporations so applicable state law was created. Stop and think what possibilities could have happened if this law was not in place. If you are going to keep a non profit group of KKK members from coming into our state, purchasing land for their purposes, you can not discriminate against them and simply allow other nonprofits to not go thru this same regulatory process. IT IS NOT THE AG ORGS YOU MENTION THAT DETERMINE WHO PASSES THIS PROCESS. THEY SIMPLY WEIGH IN AS DO OTHER NON AG GROUPS. IT IN THE END IS THE SOLE DETERMINATION OF THE GOVENOR WHO IS ELECTED BY ALL THE PEOPLE OF ND THAT MAKES THIS DETERMINATION. Please remember that every 4 years every single NDan can weigh in on their approval of the govenors actions in what they have done that is best for this state and it's citizens.

Ron your insinuations that are echoed by a few others who dissaprove of these ag orgs. claiming that they have an agenda against the sportsmen of ND and conservation because of their policies would carry a little more crediblity if the very members of the orgs you mention did not provide countless wildlife habitat, as well as unrestricted public access to quality experiences each year. Even the lands that may be posted offer access to many who ask. These orgs members support volantary,mutually benefitial, renewable conservation programs offered by these very conservation groups you claim they are against and many enroll a portion of the acres they own and operate in them. But yet because of a burr under your saddle, you are willing to support a lawsuit that is cutting off the nose to spite the face.


----------



## Bad Dog

Does the state law state that only non-profits are not entitled to freely purchase land from a willing seller or are there for-profits that must as well? Does the state define a non-profit as any org whose purpose is not to make a profit? Would religous entities fall into this category? Do they have seek permission prior to acquiring land?

Or does that the law stipulate corporate ag and conservation entities?


----------



## gst

bad dog, I do not know the answers to your questions. How ever Cook Waterfowl is not an ag corp nor a conservation entity. Because of state law, they were required to divest of lands they had previously bought for private hunting purposes as a nonprofit corp., and as a result this lawsuit emerged. Anyone that beleives this lawsuit will be good for wildlife habitat, conservation or hunting or agriculture here in ND does not see the big picture


----------



## Ron Gilmore

GST said:


> bad dog, I do not know the answers to your questions. How ever Cook Waterfowl is not an Ag corp nor a conservation entity. Because of state law, they were required to divest of lands they had previously bought for private hunting purposes as a nonprofit corp., and as a result this lawsuit emerged. Anyone that believes this lawsuit will be good for wildlife habitat, conservation or hunting or agriculture here in ND does not see the big picture


gst almost to a person everyone that I know has said that a law suit challenging the Corp Farming law is bad for all. However again policy of FB,FU,etc has contributed to this lawsuit.

You want to split hairs over words, but give me one example of a non profit corp such as DU as an example that has had a stamp of approval for purchase the last years!!!!!!! Just one!!!!!!!!!!! even though state law includes them in corps that are allowed to purchase land in ND!

Can you do that without blowing more smoke???????????


----------



## Bad Dog

gst - I will disagree with you on Cook. Most of the property that he has is this state, he purchases and restores the habitat. For example, if one of his tracts is cropland when he purchases it, he will go in and seed it back to grass, and restore any of the wetlands that were previously ditched and drained. So what he does is actually very good for wildlife.

Again, it seems like most of his properties he keeps as a refuge, closed to hunting, even for him. It is good for wildlife to have places here and there were they can rest without being constantly pursued.

There are individuals that do use Cook property for bird watching (from the road-no different than any other posted land), research, etc.. So they do provide some income to local communities and the state.

It seems to me that Cook is trying to give back to wildlife. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's no different if than another property owner that wants to convert all their grass and drain all their wetlands so they can plant corn. It should be a landowner's choice what they want to do.


----------



## gst

Ron, you wish to call it slitting hairs, when in fact you made a statement you know is not true. I have made it fairly clear, these orgs beleive this state and country are best served by keeping OWNERSHIP of a majority of land in private individuals hands. These orgs. beleive in and support these private landowners ability to enter into volantary,renewable conservation agreements with these groups rather than land ownership by them. This link is a perfect example of what can be accomplished thru these volantary programs rather than land ownership. http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation ... nts/ND.pdf Take a look at this commitment from private land owners with just one single org. and you would be hard pressed to say volantary habitat programs are not working here in ND. I wonder if any of these little red ducks are on members of these ag orgs private lands?

We have had conversations in the past regarding the state law regulating nonprofits and how things work in what the govenor takes from the process to make his decision. They are not all denied, and they are not all passed. But ultimately it is the Govenor that makes this decision on his own. You know this, but simply look to pin decisions by the Govenor (who weighs all input and decides what he beleives is best for this state) that you do not agree with on these ag groups you have an issue with.

Ron, if this law and this process and the resulting decisions made by the Govenor and the consequences of them are so bad for ND, why do the legislators that made and continue to support the law as well as the Govenor who makes these decisions continue to keep getting elected? Answer that one question.

Bad dog, please consider and answer each of the following 4 questions if you would. 
1.Are these lands owned by Cook open to public hunting?
2.Do members of the Cook Waterfowl Corp. hunt waterfowl on them? 
3.If the Corp Farming law is overturned, do you think it will be good for wildlife, hunting opportunities and conservation?
4.If you as a nonprofit corp. or individual's primary concern was conservation here in ND, do you beleive you would be ultimately best serving conservation as a whole in this state by filing a lawsuit aimed at overturning this law to benefit your relatively small amount of acres you are trying to conserve?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

*Stop blowing smoke gst and name one land sale to DU or similar organizations that the named groups have supported instead of asking others questions anwser once for a frigging change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## shaug

Dick Monson wrote,



> This one will be interesting.
> 
> Maybe next legisltaive session we'll see a bill to void all court rulings in ND. Although it didn't work with the EPA.


Representative Collin Peterson from Mn. had an opinion piece in Agweek that was very good.

http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/18205/



> Responding to questions about the reason and need for some of their farm-related regulations, the EPA says it only is doing what the courts tells it to do. The fact is that environmental activist groups often sue the EPA, but the cases don't even reach the point of a judge's decision.
> 
> Instead, there seems to be a pattern of an activist lawsuit, followed by an EPA settlement, resulting in new EPA regulations to comply with the settlement.
> 
> Environmental groups use the courts to twist laws against American farmers and agricultural production. This is resulting in policy decisions being made by activists, bureaucrats and lawyers without consideration of what's best for American agriculture.
> 
> This pattern has been going on far too often and many times without adequate transparency.
> 
> This is no way to make policy.
> 
> 'Sue and settle'
> 
> This so-called "sue and settle" strategy keeps the process in the dark and often ignores producers until after the fact. Farmers and ranchers working and living on the land have a right to a seat at the table when policy decisions are made, especially when the settlements frequently contain provisions critical to agriculture and rural communities.


The courts shouldn't be used to make law, just whether or not a law is constitutional. In this instance, the precedent has alredy been set. Nebraskas anti-corporate farming law was overturned some time ago. Cook may be pursueing this because he has enough money and wants it his way or he is letting others put up the money having it their way. Follow the money.

I don't believe Cook is a non-profit, just incorporated. Two brothers from another state purchased land in my area. They were incorporated. It wasn't learned until after the purchase. They were given ample time to divest.

Non-profits such as Ducks Unlimited are incorporated and unable to be the highest bidder. Is that a bad thing?


----------



## Plainsman

> I have made it fairly clear, these orgs beleive this state and country are best served by keeping OWNERSHIP of a majority of land in private individuals hands.


So would they be happy with 51% of the land in private ownership?
How about 60%?
How about 70%?
I could go along with 80%, how about you?

This all sounds good, but once they get what they call a cooperative agreement they set about undermining it. Much like CRP. They have that, then they try to undermine and use the land that was set aside. Non of these groups can be trusted especially Farm Bureau. If they had their way landowners would rule the nation. All I need to see is their name on something and I know I don't want it. The more I hear from them the less respect I have for them. You get upset when I speak of greed, but when I see Farm Bureau I see an organization greedy for power.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> So would they be happy with 51% of the land in private ownership?
> How about 60%?
> How about 70%?
> I could go along with 80%, how about you?


The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States.



> Non of these groups can be trusted especially Farm Bureau. If they had their way landowners would rule the nation. All I need to see is their name on something and I know I don't want it. The more I hear from them the less respect I have for them. You get upset when I speak of greed, but when I see Farm Bureau I see an organization greedy for power.


On the opposite side is our federal government whom the states do not trust. Check it out.

http://www.oregonsnow.org/page47301858.aspx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110429/ap_ ... rules_utah

I belong to Farm Bureau. It is more that we like to keep in check, those that are greedy for power.


----------



## gst

Easy there Ron, don't blow a gasket!  

We have had the discussion previously about how often times in the case of the groups that are a part of the NAAC that what is not said often weighs as much as what is said in the Govenors decision. How many of these land sales have been given permission by the Govenor to go thru???

Perhaps if you did not have such a bias against these ag groups, you would accept it is as has been mentioned how many times the GOVENOR that makes the determination regarding these land sales as required by STATE LAW created by the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE in which roughly only 1/4 of these representatives are tied to agriculture. Yes agriculture is a big part of this state, but do not delude yourself that the groups representing it have as much power as you are giving them. 70% or so of the states elected representatives have NO involvement in agriculture. So explain how legislatively this almost 3/4 majority simply sucumbs to ag as you and others would like people to beleive.

Just perhaps the representatives that the people of this state have elected, and quite often RE ELECT, are looking past your personal agenda to what is actually best for this state as a whole. Kinda like they are suppose to be doing. Naw that simply can not be, it has to be the absolute power of the "greedy" ag groups of this state. :roll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

*More smoke, anwser the question gst!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It should not be to hard!!!!!!! How many thumbs up have the named groups given to any land sale to DU or other groups?*


----------



## Bad Dog

Bad dog, please consider and answer each of the following 4 questions if you would. 
1.Are these lands owned by Cook open to public hunting?
2.Do members of the Cook Waterfowl Corp. hunt waterfowl on them? 
3.If the Corp Farming law is overturned, do you think it will be good for wildlife, hunting opportunities and conservation?
4.If you as a nonprofit corp. or individual's primary concern was conservation here in ND, do you beleive you would be ultimately best serving conservation as a whole in this state by filing a lawsuit aimed at overturning this law to benefit your relatively small amount of acres you are trying to conserve?

gst - 
1. No. 
2. The majority of the properties, No.
3. Don't know. Wildlife & Conservation - I could see where it could go either way. For instance, if the law is found unconstitutional, then ND landowners could sell their property to Conservation Organizations as they would like to without the Government telling them they can not. This could lead to more land being bought and put into conservation. I could also see the Mega Ag corps possibly buying land from those landowners wishing to sell to them as well. Hunting Opportunities - If it would go in my first example, it could be a boon as more habitat means more wildlife even if all the land is posted. I choose not to hunt private land as it is more of a hassle then public. If it would go the other way, it would be a bust as typically crop production destroys more habitat then it creates.
4. Yes.

If the fear for creating the law is to truely keep land in smaller ag production (crop & ranching) by excluding the Mega Ag corps, then redo the law to continue to exclude them but allow conservation entities the right to purchase. The Conservation entities would be able to rent crop and grasslands to locals.


----------



## Plainsman

You know I started out neutral on this issue, but I have to admit I may be sliding towards Cook. Not sure yet.

Ron, you did make an excellent point that I agree with. I think it was 1977 when our brilliant (sarcasm intended) legislature passed the law that county commissioners and the governor had to approve land sales to non profit organizations and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service. As long as that unconstitutional law stands I will be in favor of Cook suing. That doesn't mean I like what Cook is doing, but I would accept it if he shoves dirt in the face of our ag arrogant legislature. I think when that law passed is when I begin to struggle with supporting agriculture. I still do most of the time, but it becomes more of a struggle every day. 
People don't like me bringing up the word greedy in the same sentence as agriculture, but when someone would try stop their neighbor from selling land to anyone, and then selling cheaper to a farmer that is greed. When anyone would try stop a neighbor from signing a perpetual easement if they want to simply to have their way that is greed. Doesn't anyone have any shame anymore? When I raised my kids I didn't care if they turned out ditch diggers or doctors, only that they turned out to be decent people. I wish others would have had the same priority. I swear some people would eat poison just so no one else could have it.

I apologize to people for dragging that one debate out for ten pages. My curiosity was just getting the best of me. I was curious how long some people would beat a dead horse. When you say the same thing over a dozen times your beating a dead horse. Thanks for having patience with me.


----------



## TK33

Ron, DU does not have a good track record with their land acquisitions. It often times ends up in the hands of wealthy donors, including outfitters. It has happened in Arkansas and other Southern states. You are forgetting about precedence, if the governor allows Cook or DU to buy land they have to give the same opportunity to every jack *** group in the country. It would just be someone else suing the state.

If these BS not for profits like Cook or any other group is allowed to buy land then so will some of the other companies mentioned, like ADM, Continental, Hughes, and Cargill. Land lost, closed. They will not let anyone, well maybe employees, on the land for liability reasons. Then we will need the government to come in and buy or control more land to keep some hunting access opened.

There is already too much commercialization going on here, between the TV shows, the 3rd party "guides", our own Tourism Dept, and other interests access is going to get tougher every year. I have seen it change drastically in the 25 years I have been hunting. I really do feel bad for people who don't have access now, it isn't going to get better.

This Cook nonsense should be a good time for resident sportsmen to get together with farmers and ranchers and call on our legislators and governor to shut this down before it has a chance. Call a special session if need be. This lawsuit is a road to nowhere for about 95% of the people who hunt in this state, R or NR. Who cares how it got to this point, there is blame and short sightedness to go around, we need to look ahead instead of pointing fingers now and fix this fast.

Plainsman, I agree that at times greed is a motivation but sometimes I think your assessment of greed is misplaced. A lot of farmers know what could happen because it has happened before and is happening now. It is not only the cheaper land but the opportunity to keep the land in private production and keep it from being an investment commodity. That is the motivation.

It is just like the drain tile debate, keeping land in the hands of smaller producers benefits us all in ND. Guys like Ron and myself benefit way more from the family farm then we will from the big corporate operations, even though we don't farm ourselves. A fair amount of people in Fargo, Bismarck, Jamestown, Minot, and Forks are clueless as to how much their job and lifestyle are effected by agriculture, no matter what their job is. People need to stop and think for a second what the trickle down effect of a big diversion or a 25,000 acre holding lake in the southern valley or a BS not for profit gobbling up 10,000 acres. That is like losing several small farms that support our economy.

For the record I still don't support commercial hunting. If a landowner chooses to do it, fine, it's their land.


----------



## gst

I wonder how big you can make letters in these posts? 

Bad dog, you seem to know abit about Cook. Would he be the same individual that started out several years ago in central ND guiding and leasing land? The fact of the matter is this is a corp of wealthy out of state individuals that wish to purchase land for their personal hunting opportunities. How many threads have there been with people outraged over out of state residents merely hunting one more weekend here in ND yet these same people against that are supporting this lawsuit?????? It matters little it they do not hunt a portion of what they own, the fact is they do not allow anyone else to hunt it either. Is this what we really want to do? Open this state to wealthy cporporations to come in and buy up land for hunting?????? For every acre DU puts into conservation, I promise some corp will come in and purchase land for hunting. Throw in the corporate farming multi nationals and I have to disagree this would be good for much of anything.

Bad dog, I am curious why you beleive groups like DU owning land is better than the volantary conservation programs they currently have in our state that were presented in the link I provided? How much land do you beleive an org like DU should own in a state the size of ND?


----------



## blhunter3

gst said:


> For every acre DU puts into conservation, I promise some corp will come in and purchase land for hunting. Throw in the corporate farming multi nationals and I have to disagree this would be good for much of anything.
> 
> Bad dog, I am curious why you beleive groups like DU owning land is better than the volantary conservation programs they currently have in our state that were presented in the link I provided? How much land do you beleive an org like DU should own in a state the size of ND?


 :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## gst

Bad dog, an example of how "rifts" are fueled.



Plainsman said:


> As long as that unconstitutional law stands I will be in favor of Cook suing. That doesn't mean I like what Cook is doing, but I would accept it if he shoves dirt in the face of our ag arrogant legislature.


What it boils down to is Cook did not follow state law when they purchased these lands they had to divest. Had they, perhaps they would have had the same result the people in McKenzie county did last year. Now they wish to change the law that has served this state and it's residents well over the years.


----------



## shaug

Bad dog wrote,



> If the fear for creating the law is to truely keep land in smaller ag production (crop & ranching) by excluding the Mega Ag corps, then redo the law to continue to exclude them but allow conservation entities the right to purchase. The Conservation entities would be able to rent crop and grasslands to locals.


You don't need to redo the law. Why wait for conservation entities to deliver what you want? Go out and purchase 160 acres or whatever you can afford. Work all summer planting trees and building habitats. I did it with my own money and sweat equity.

Your other option is to join some of these conservation orgs and watch them rip off the US General Treasurey to the tune of millions. The (non-profit) Nature Conservancy is worth 4 billion. The National Wildlife Federation has sued the federal government 427 times in the last 15 years. Will they help Cook sue the state? This type of conservation doesn't pay, it costs everybody.

The question is how bad do you want it? Bad enough to get out there and partner or make some connections with landowners? Or bad enough to join Cook and company and then (quote) "shovel dirt in the face of our ag arrogant legislature?"

Plainsman wrote,



> I swear some people would eat poison just so no one else could have it.


Coming from the poison pen.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

*Again more smoke and a direct avoidance of answering the question gst!!!!!!!!! Size is as big as the website allows so get use to it, I will keep asking on this thread and every other thread until you step up and answer the question!!!!!*

TK, the only reason I use DU is it is easy to type, it could be Delta,Nature Conservatory,RMEF,Pheasants Forever it really does not matter! The lawsuit should never have had to been filed if the Leg would have acted instead of caving into the groups listed. We now face the real likelihood that current law will be tossed opening the doors wide. That is not lost on me, and it has me PO'd because it all could have been avoided.

The horses are out of the barn, shutting the door now is a futile act. I and many others wanted to put a lock on that barn door, gst and his groups he defends did not want the lock! Now those farm groups and their boards have screwed everyone!!!!!!!!

This sale should have been allowed if for no other reason than to prevent the lawsuit, and then move forward to fix the current law! gst and others did not want that, whined and whined and the sale was nullified. Now they will reap what they sowed!!!! They thought nobody would have the guts to fight the arrogance, guess they thought wrong! I said two years ago that all parties involved made a mistake on this because Cook was not going to back down. They won at the state level, but with this being a commerce clause issue it now will move beyond the state! No more home grown judges!


----------



## 58504451

Ron - DU has several parcels that were purchased by the org or individuals and attached easements to them. Stop and think about what your are saying about corporate ownership - you admit they will buy land and be competition to ag and wildlife - shouldn't you be supporting the groups you are bashing?? Do you think that if Cabelas or Monsanto were to buy land that they would open it to public hunting? How about conservation minded farming practices - guess again. Fact is you can sell your land to anyone you want as long they are an individual. When was the last time you went to a DU, NWTF, or RMEF meeting where the members were able to vioce their concerns and vote on it's board members?? These organization are fundraisers first and foremost - their missions would be non-existand without funding. I'll bet you could attend a NDSA,FB, or FU meeting and run for the board!

Cook is trying to create a foundation for private use - do you agree with that?

Seems like most supporting this either have a willy for ag or think this will open more acres for them to hunt instead of knocking on some doors!


----------



## gst

*Ron, take it easy there fella. At various times since this law was introduced and the committee formed the groups you have mentioned have not taken a stance or weighed in against these purchases. But for some reason I doubt you will accept that.*

Also as I said in these situations it is often what is not said amoungst the parties involved that sends a message to the Govenor as well.

Forget the excuse DU is simply "easy to type", :roll: what TK brings up is exactly what the govenor takes into consideration when he determines wether to allow these sales or not. Tell me why the govenor who is elected by the people of ND would allow DU to buy land to resell to their wealthy donors to use as their private hunting clubs here in ND all in the name of "conservation" when in fact they have volantary beneficial conservation programs already in place???? Remember all those little red ducks in the DU link I provided? For Christ sake man your bias is blinding you. You mention the Nature Conservancy, how many acre do they currently own in ND? We had a vet from western Mt putting embryos in that talked about issues some in Mt. are claiming is happening with RMEF purchased lands out there. From what he was saying they are perhaps taking a page from that "easy to type" group DU playbook "rewarding" their wealthiest donors with resales of lands.



Ron Gilmore said:


> This sale should have been allowed if for no other reason than to prevent the lawsuit, and then move forward to fix the current law!


So you are saying the govenor should have caved in to Cook rather than stand up for the intent of the laws made by the representatives of the people of this state???? Give me what I want or I will sue you. Then what do we do with the entities that are not happy after the "law was fixed" So DU gets to buy land but they do not and they come around saying they will sue if they don't get their way. You can not seem to accept the fact the representatives of the people of this state that were ELECTED by the people of this state have a different veiw regarding these sales than do you.


----------



## gst

Ron you mentioned the Nature Conservancy. I remembered hearing something about them. 


Ron Gilmore said:


> TK, the only reason I use DU is it is easy to type, it could be Delta,Nature Conservatory,RMEF,Pheasants Forever it really does not matter!


To some it does "matter" . :roll: 
http://volokh.com/posts/1074339535.shtml

[Tyler Cowen, January 17, 2004 at 5:38am] Trackbacks
Further scandal at The Nature Conservancy:
The IRS is starting a large-scale audit of The Nature Conservancy, one of the largest non-profits in the nation. Today's Washington Post presents the gory details, note that the published version is much longer and more detailed than the on-line account. Here is an earlier article. *The institution made major loans to employees and board members, bought and then resold land to trustees and supporters at reduced prices*, and drills for oil on nature preserve land. The tax records of the institution are considered a complete mess. The institution has over $3 billion in assets, so this is hardly a small matter.

At least one of the lessons is simple: know something about the non-profits you support. :wink: This area is just ripe for institutional failure. Too many donors would rather look the other way and pat themselves on the back for their generosity. They do not want to hear bad news, which is one reason why news about bad non-profits often remains hidden for so long. Feeling good about oneself is a worthy endeavor, but it also can interfere with the smooth functioning of voluntary institutions.

http://tncscandals.blogspot.com/
http://www.theglobalreport.org/issues/2 ... nment.html
http://tncscandals.blogspot.com/2008/02 ... -next.html

Or perhaps it really "doesn't matter" as these non profits seem to be using the same playbook. Lets simply throw the door open wide here in ND. :eyeroll: Perhaps the process works as intended.


----------



## g/o

> Clois Hetletved had his mother's farm on the market for over a year before he received an offer to his liking - from Ducks Unlimited (DU). Proceeds from the sale were to be used to pay for his 87 year-old mother's care in a Bismark retirement home. But before the sale could be finalized, it had to be approved by the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee, an eight-member panel of agriculture and conservation representatives. North Dakota has fiercely protected private property in the state for over a century, beginning with anti-corporate farming laws enacted in the 1930s. Non-profits were originally labeled corporate entities and were not allowed to own land until the mid-1980s, when the state legislature voted to allow some of those groups to buy land. But first, the sale must be approved by the Advisory Committee. The Hetletved/DU deal didn't make the cut. The Advisory Board voted 6-2 against the deal, citing a lack of public benefit. The Kidder County Commissioners voted 2-1 against it. Governor Hoeven followed the Committee's recommendation and denied DU's application to purchase on February 12. Brian Kramer, North Dakota Farm Bureau director explained, "Most of the time these folks [non-profits] come in and try to say there's something new or unique or whatever about this land purchase&#8230;In our minds, they're just looking to buy up more land and take it out of production." Jim Ringleman, DU's director of conservation for the Dakotas and Montana, was disappointed by the decision. However, he recognizes that DU's stated intention to establish a permanent easement on the land through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was a big factor in the denial. North Dakota is the only state in the U.S. that prohibits selling perpetual easements. State law limits easement agreements to no longer than 99 years.


Painsman and Ronnie, What is wrong with a democracy? The advisory board voted 6-2 not to approve this sale also the county commissiners voted 2-1 against it.



> The state ag commissioner chairs the committee, which also includes representatives from the North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Farm Bureau and North Dakota Stockmen's Association, along with the directors of the state Game and Fish Department, Parks and Recreation Department and North Dakota Forest Service.
> 
> The chairman of the county board in which the land is located rounds out the committee


Sounds pretty fair to me


----------



## Bad Dog

As I said earlier, I only hunt public land so if Cook or DU or my small landowner neighbor posts their land, it makes no effect to me. It is their right to post land. Is this discussion about Cook and this lawsuit really about access? If it is then make a law where an individual has to seek county commissioner and govenor's approval to post their own land.

I welcome anyone, or any entity that takes land and creates habitat.


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> As I said earlier, I only hunt public land so if Cook or DU or my small landowner neighbor posts their land, *it makes no effect to me.[/*quote]
> 
> Bad dog, what some do not realize is the representatives of the people that make these laws, the groups sitting on this committee, both ag and others, as well as the elected Govenor do not have the luxury of only being concerned with how it "effects" them from a singular perspective as an individual such as just hunting. I understand this is a hunting website, but there are a wide range of issues and consequences that are and should be considered in these purchases as well as policies besides how they effect someones hunting.


----------



## swift

> What it boils down to is Cook did not follow state law when they purchased these lands they had to divest


What is boils down to is ND has an unconstitutional law on the books that prevents people from excercising their rights as US citizens. Finally someone with the means will take up the fight. It's too bad that those in power were not willing to give a little in the past and maybe garner some support outside their own clubhouse.



> *perhaps they would have had the same result the people in McKenzie county did last year. Now they wish to change the law that has served this state and it's residents well over the years.*


Since we cannot really argue this hypothetical statement. (which is BS as we all know) We do know for certain that when the state land acqusition committee voted there would be a guaranteed three no votes. FU, FB and SA.



> How many threads have there been with people outraged over out of state residents merely hunting one more weekend here in ND yet these same people against that are supporting this lawsuit?????? It matters little it they do not hunt a portion of what they own, the fact is they do not allow anyone else to hunt it either. Is this what we really want to do? Open this state to wealthy cporporations to come in and buy up land for hunting?????? For every acre DU puts into conservation, I promise some corp will come in and purchase land for hunting. Throw in the corporate farming multi nationals and I have to disagree this would be good for much of anything.


For a guy that routinely bashes the states hunters and sportsman this sounds like a plea for help. Almost like the school yard bully that finally gets his hat handed to him by the little guys he usually picks on. All of a sudden somebody needs a friend.

Funny how most of the early posts started out in oppostion to the lawsuit then GST weighs in and the support dwindles.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

*why wont you answer the question gst instead you blow more smoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have a backbone instead of acting like chicken dung!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

G/O, to be clear, I am sadden by the lawsuit because I know what will be the result. How we arrived here is pretty clear and like it or not, the result of the likes of FB,FU and SA influence and lobby efforts to keep any significant changes that would have kept the state in compliance with the commerce clause. Something you might remember was when ND had a law that prohibited non residents from operating as Guides and Outfitters in the state. They chose to change the law vs fight a losing battle in the courts.

This is very much the same thing with all the same tangibles! I stated that they should have approved the sale and changed the law. It would have kept Cook from suing and having the law tossed and opening the door. Not anywhere close to what you are trying to imply. I have talked in great length with Sen and Rep regarding this law and the need to change it. None of them where willing to buck the FU,FB,SA lobby, because it meant a death sentence to anything else they wanted to do. To bad for the people of ND, now thanks to them and our weak elected officials we will lose the good portion of a law because people like GST and the named groups had their head up a dark smelly place!!!!!!!!!


----------



## g/o

> What is boils down to is ND has an unconstitutional law on the books that prevents people from excercising their rights as US citizens. Finally someone with the means will take up the fight. It's too bad that those in power were not willing to give a little in the past and maybe garner some support outside their own clubhouse.


Whether or not ND"s law is unconstitutional is yet to be determined by the court. Fact is Cook didn"t follow the law, he could own the land as a individual but chose to become a nonprofit. The law in does not allow this and when it was voted on he never recieved one vote, even the game and fish voted against him.


----------



## g/o

> G/O, to be clear, I am sadden by the lawsuit because I know what will be the result


You also knew how measure 2 would turn out and you were dead wrong. If he does win then it opens the door for everyone not just DU, so welcome to the badlands Ted Turner.


----------



## gst

Ron, I answered the question. These groups do not have standing policy against conservation groups as you claim. They have also not voted in opposition of these sales at various times since this law was adopted. If you do not want to veiw this as an answer, so be it.

There are a handfull of individuals that have such a "willie" as was accurately put earlier against these ag groups that it clouds their abilities to reason. Beleive what you wish regarding the "absolute power" you insinuate these 3 ag groups have over the ELECTED representatives of the people of this state. If they truly did yield the power you claim, why was there more net dollars included in the G&F budget for land purchases than what they even asked for passed by this very legislature you claim does nothing except the beck and call of these ag groups?


----------



## swift

It really was a simple question GST.

Have any of the Three orgs EVER supported a land transfer from private ownership to public ownership? YES OR NO

Have any of the three orgs EVER supported a land sale to a Non-profit organization? YES OR NO

Leave out the conjecture and the crap. YES OR NO?

Mutually beneficial, voluntary blah blah blah.

From the policy manual of the NDFB



> Wildlife Property 147
> We believe that wildlife property and wetlands should be subject to eminent domain procedures in the same manner as is private property. --ID#: 785/11
> 28
> *We support an acreage and value cap on state and federal wildlife programs (such as PLOTS and CRP)* administered and/or funded by state and/or federal agencies that use private land for public use. These programs should not cause adjacent land values or rental rates to escalate.


Sounds self serving to me.


----------



## g/o

Swift the answers are YES several times


----------



## swift

> Swift the answers are YES several times


When? and remember not voting is not supporting something.

Farmers unions policy on LAND OWNERSHIP from their website...



> We oppose the purchase of North Dakota farmland by environmental groups, investment groups and other outside investors. In the event of such purchase, the taxable valuation for property tax purposes shall be no less than the purchase price.


From the Farm Bureau's policy book...



> We support a no-net gain of government-owned land, county by county and state by state.


 How could these orgs support any private to public transfer of land without violating their own policies? Seems like maybe someone isn't being truthful.

This was an interesting find but I have to say I'm not suprised.



> 2011 Priority Issues - North Dakota Farm Bureau
> (in no particular ranking order)
> (Adopted by Focus Meeting Committees and ratified by NDFB Board of Directors - Nov. 21, 2010 - Fargo, ND)
> We oppose any tax increase.
> *We support new legislation that would allow outside capital investment by unrelated individuals
> in the family farm corporation*.


I don't want to pay taxes and I don't want corporate farms but I want to receive tax dollars and corporate investment monies. WOW is all I can say.


----------



## bioman

One of my all-time favorite ND conservation stories, and the support it garnered from the Big 3!!!!!!

Outdoors groups join forces on Eberts ranch
By BLAKE NICHOLSON 
Associated Press Writer

Nearly three dozen wildlife and conservation groups, including one that Theodore Roosevelt started more than a century ago, want the federal government to buy land where the former president ranched in North Dakota's western Badlands.

It is the latest development in a four-year struggle by the Eberts family to sell 5,150 acres of picturesque property amid hills, buttes and the Little Missouri River. The Ebertses say they want to preserve the land, but neighbors worry about a federal land grab.

The Boone and Crockett Club, started by Roosevelt in 1887, hopes to enlist the support of other groups around the country to lobby Congress to approve the purchase.

A U.S. Senate Appropriations subcommittee is considering legislation to allow the Forest Service to start the land acquisition by spending $1.45 million within its present budget.

The groups backing the proposal range from the Theodore Roosevelt Association to the Dallas Safari Club. They share the goal of preserving habitat and wildlife.

"To the conservation community, this is sacred ground," said Lowell Baier, executive vice president of the Boone and Crockett Club. "This is where the whole concept of conservation in North America was born. The (goal) is to maintain it in a manner that is consistent with the way Theodore Roosevelt experienced it."

Some say they don't want an expansion of federal land in western North Dakota, which is home to the 1.1 million-acre Little Missouri National Grasslands.

_*"We just kind of feel that the Forest Service and the federal government own enough land in North Dakota," said Devils Lake farmer Eric Aasmundstad, the president of the North Dakota Farm Bureau.*_

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said the Forest Service last week agreed to several conditions. The Forest Service has agreed to sell other property, so there is no increase in the amount of federally owned land in North Dakota, Dorgan said.

The Eberts ranch, owned by Ken and Norma Eberts in partnership with Ken's brothers, Dennis and Allan, is near one of Roosevelt's two Badlands ranches. Roosevelt's cattle grazed on the land the Ebertses want to sell, and the former president helped form the state's first grazing association.

Roosevelt came to the Badlands after a personal tragedy and spent more than three years there in the 1880s.

"It was where he was able to recover from the huge double blow of losing both his wife and his mother (to separate illnesses) on St. Valentine's Day," said his great-grandson, Theodore Roosevelt IV, a New York investment banker.

Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909, set aside millions of acres for national forests and wildlife refuges during his administration.

"That wouldn't have happened but for his three-and-a-half years being in the West," Baier said. "This is where it was inspired, nurtured, cultivated, created, born. This is not just for North Dakota, this is for America."

The proposal to buy the Eberts ranch is not for people like Jim Arthaud.

"(The county) being 50 percent federally owned already, we're opposed," said Arthaud, who is chairman of the Billings County Commission. "This is the third time it has come up now, and we opposed it every time."

Earlier proposals involved selling the land to the National Park Service, and having the state buy it for $3.5 million. The Legislature rejected the latter proposal last year, with some lawmakers calling it a "rip-off" of taxpayers.

The Ebertses want to sell their land so they can retire. They say their ranch, with its history and scenery, is worth more than $3.5 million.

Dorgan is the senior Democrat on the Interior Appropriations subcommittee, which is considering money for the first phase of the purchase. He said the Forest Service has agreed to divest an equal number of acres in North Dakota and assure continued grazing and other uses, including hunting and oil and gas production.

"We've always wanted multiple use," Norma Eberts said. "Grazing is important to us, we want to see hunting on it, oil development."

"Just as is being done now," Ken Eberts said.

Dorgan said the Forest Service also has agreed to support a change in law to prevent the agency from reinstating national grassland grazing rule changes that were withdrawn last year after ranchers objected.

Dave Pieper, a Forest Service supervisor in Bismarck, said the $1.45 million is a first installment for buying the land. More federal money will be needed in the next budget year, but Pieper said the amount is not known because a land appraisal hasn't been completed.

"The opportunity for us in North Dakota to acquire (the land) and preserve and protect it for future generations is, in our view, quite an opportunity," Pieper said.

He said the Forest Service is aware of opposition to more federal land ownership and said the agency is amenable to selling other property that is isolated and hard to manage.
_*
Curly Haugland, vice president of the Landowners Association of North Dakota, said several state groups, including LAND, the Farm Bureau, the North Dakota Farmers Union and the Stockmen's Association, urged Dorgan to oppose the land purchase unless the Forest Service provided guarantees on such matters as no net increase in federal land in the county.*_

Gov. John Hoeven said he supports the Forest Service purchase under the agreement Dorgan has spelled out.

"I think that's fair to everybody," he said.

Arthaud said the county does not object to preserving about 700 acres of Eberts land directly across from the cabin site on Roosevelt's Elkhorn ranch. However, even if the Forest Service sells off 5,150 acres of isolated parcels so it can buy the entire Eberts property, "you've still lost a family unit," he said.

The county last year won a court battle to put a private road across the land so it will connect two state highways.

Arthaud, who lives in a county with fewer than 700 adults, is dismayed by the lobbying effort on behalf of the land purchase.

"East Coast environmental groups always seem to have more clout than people who live on the land, for some strange reason," he said. "When you live in a sparsely populated county, it's hard to fight that.

"It's still frustrating to us that a national environmental organization that's never seen it or knows nothing about it is trying to preserve a piece of land that's got oil wells all over it," Arthaud said.

Baier, whose organization is based in Missoula, Mont., said conservation groups are aware of the significance of the land, and that is why they support the federal purchase.

"This is a national interest project," he said. "It's the cradle of conservation."


----------



## Longshot

It's evident that these groups only care about property rights when it suits them and care less about others looking to sell property that is theirs. It looks more like price fixing than anything else. Cut out the high bids in hopes that it doesn't sell so they can pick it up for a bargain.

By the way gst, not voting is not support, a yes vote is support. The man with all questions and no answers, yet everyone who doesn't see it his way is wrong and only his links are facts. :rollin:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

g/o you and I both know that the measure 2 issue was dead the minute HSUS took out the ads to support it, even people I knew that supported the measure would not vote for it with them running the ads. This however is a bit different in that we have case law from several states that have been tossed written very similar in nature with the same intent!

I agree with you on Ted Turner,and I am worried that companies like Buckmasters and such are going to have an open door when this is done. This could have been fixed,in 03-05-07 was not addressed in 09 and was drubbed down in 11 with the above named groups doing the bulk of the lobbying to prevent the legislation from being brought forward!

Now back to my question, I asked when they gave a thumbs up or a YES vote! That has not been answered even by you, all I can find on any of the sales the last 10 years is NO votes. I am open to be shown otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!

*GST KEEP BLOWING SMOKE!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE AVOIDED THE QUESTION OVER AND OVER!!!!!!!!!!! YES OR NO!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## shaug

Gilmore said,



> g/o you and I both know that the measure 2 issue was dead the minute HSUS took out the ads to support it, even people I knew that supported the measure would not vote for it with them running the ads. This however is a bit different in that we have case law from several states that have been tossed written very similar in nature with the same intent!


I can remember reading some of your rants before Nov. 2nd. 8 out of 10 poeple are going to vote yes on measure 2. Adamately proclaiming the HSUS will not be involved. There is absolutely no connection with HSUS. Property owners should "not" be able to sell their property to the highest bidder because property rights are not absolute. You went on and on for months. Sickening.

FB, FU, SA and a multitude of home based organizations came out and supported the elk and deer ranchers. It is well known some of your ilk partnered with the HSUS against the people of ND. You invited the Humane Society of the United States and their legislative fund worth millions into the state and now you are doing it again. Have you no shame?

http://www.wlt.org/sanctuaries.asp



> Since its founding in 1993, the Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust has worked with private landowners to create more than 100 permanent wildlife sanctuaries in 38 states and eight foreign countries. On these sanctuaries recreational and commercial hunting and trapping will always be prohibited.
> 
> The Wildlife Land Trust, alone or in collaboration with a variety of partners, has been involved in the protection of millions of acres of wildlife habitat. As a proud affiliate of the Humane Society of the United States, the WLT joins in campaigns to protect wildlife from cruel and indefensible practices such as poaching, steel-jawed leghold traps, Internet hunting and canned shoots.


----------



## Plainsman

I dislike HSUS as much a I dislike PETA. However, my opinion is much like the old cliche: even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn. Can you name any organization that all things they do is good, or an organization that all things they do is bad? I would say wildlife sanctuaries are good, and it does not depend on who does it. A mallard that finds rest on a sanctuary cares little if the land was purchased by you or I, or the state, or the country, or HSUS. Crying "the sky is falling" doesn't always work. I doubt you would oppose them if they called for all internal combustion engines to be run on ethanol. I doubt you would oppose them if they called for $10/bushel corn, wheat, flax etc.
I oppose HSUS on the grounds of their anti hunting attitude. I oppose PETA for the same reason. I also oppose gun control advocates if they are democrat or republican. I oppose Farm Bureau on many occasions, but if they do something good I would be foolish to oppose them. It would appear that blind opposition are what some of you advocate. Although you want that blind opposition to be in your favor. Something else I will disagree with many of you about, and that is, I will not agree to blind loyalty. I have seen blind loyalty from a couple of you. It's not about organizations it's about right and wrong. Shaug, your post above is a form of deception.

I put HSUS, PETA, and Farm Bureau at the same level of respect. I consider Farm Bureau more dangerous, because they are better at convincing the simple minded. We all see the devious intent of HSUS and PETA, but often the simple minded don't see the destruction to our sport that Farm Bureau would eventually bring. To the sportsman does it make any difference if they outlaw hunting, or bring the expense to a point that 95% of the people can not hunt? Those that bought into the HSUS story during the high fence debate shot themselves in the foot. Now you want them to take another self destructive step.
If you want to stop land acquisition by Cook you should have thought of that 30 years ago. Through our legislator organizations like FB should not have painted such a broad brush with land purchases. This is a self created problem. Those who whine the most now were those who created this problem. Now you want support to shaft us more. Sorry, but that scary HSUS story is wearing a little thin. The only good thing about the HSUS coming up again is that it exposes the bull droppings that it was before. When reason fails many look to a fall guy boogie man we all dislike. If I was one who believed in reincarnation I would swear many of you were lemmings in a past life.  You know, there is no law against thinking for yourself.


----------



## gst

Stop and consider for one moment how arrogant, foolish and egotistical it would be for me to come on a site such a this and make claims regarding groups representing medical professionals, sales business owners, retired Federal employees, given the fact that none of them are my "profession" (or occupation)  and given the fact I am not a member of them, and given the fact that the people speaking about them being maligned may actually be members and directly involved in the inner workings of these orgs.

To make claims regarding the ideologies and factors driving the policies these orgs make based on my uninvolved, outside limited understanding and knowledge of these groups and their members would seem quite foolish, as well as arrogant or egotistical. "I know more about a group than the actual members or people in leadership positions of an org. do and I know what is best for their "profession/occupation" or org. and it's members" And yet that is exactly what is happening here. No matter how a question is "answered" it will not be right for some as they beleive they already know the answer to the question.

I do not beleive these orgs have ever voted in favor of these aquisitions since this stae law was implemented. But in the instance of the NAAAC where by the people actually involved understand the basis from where each committee org is coming from, and when one org that usually votes against these purchases does NOT vote against them, a REASONABLE person would come to the conclusion perhaps they support it and weigh that into their decision. THAT is what a REASONABLE Govenor has had the ability to do in making his decision in the process this state law requires. I'm sure this "answer" will not be what some are looking for, and likely only the very first sentence from this paragraph will be "quoted" instead of the entire "answer" but people are free to beleive whatever their biases allow them.

To carry on debates with people of this means of thinking is rarely productive. Think what you will of these orgs, In regards to the one I am most directly involved in the NDSA, it has a longstanding heritage of representing the wishes of it's members well thru their grassroots involvement. And the manner in which they have been represented over the years have earned this org the utmost respect in the eyes of those individuals that actually know this org and it's members and veiw thru open unbiased eyes what it stands for. I am quite proud to be a part of continueing this heritage of carrying out the policies our members beleive is best not only for the states ranching community but the lands from which we make our living and pass down to future generations and the heritage of independence and self reliance that has served this org., our state and it's citizens well. As an org, we will continue to move forward as times and issues change and carry out our member created policy to deal with them directly in a manner we can remain proud of regardless of what a handful of people on this site may beleive.


----------



## Longshot

What a load of BS gst. You have no standing on the poor actions of an organization so you try to tell people they can't say anything without being a member. So is that to say you don't oppose PETA? You claim to oppose HSUS, are you a member? So you have no view or opinion on any other organization outside your vocation? You got it I call :bs:

Everyone has a right to voice their opinion. You want to stifle it because of the poor decisions of your beloved org. You are correct that an org is supposed to carry out its members wishes, but it's not always the case. When those decision impact people outside the org or vocation you can bet people will say something about it.

You still haven't answered the question that Ron asked, it's a simple yes or no. Continue that blind bias gst.


----------



## Plainsman

I need to ask a question here and see if my memory is right. Wasn't Farm Bureau one of those organizations supporting an early pheasant opener? You know, the old one we called pheasant gate that Hoeven took so much grief over. I'm just trying to get things into perspective for myself.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

longshot he did answer!.



> I do not believe these orgs have ever voted in favor of these acquisitions since this stae law was implemented


While answering he continued the blowing of smoke up peoples *** hoping they think it is a medical enema that makes them better!! He got caught with his pants down, on this, and does not want to man up to the fact that the very organizations that are suppose to be helping farmers have with their policy put true family farms in great peril of being priced out! For people like myself who own farm land that want to maybe sell down the road it is a good thing. I will get more money from some large corp farming organization than I would a family farmer or better yet a beginning farmer. But who knows maybe I will sell it contract for deed and finance the thing myself and get to sell the land again!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

So I am sure that FB,FU,SA etc will file briefs in support of the ND law, but those briefs will fall on non ND appointed Judges who will be looking strictly at the constitutionality and case history not the wants of the farm organizations! You can chalk up the pushing of Cook as the dumbest move by so called farm friendly organizations and legislators in the history of ND!

Oh and by the way G/O your comment about Cook not following the law is funny because if declared unconstitutional then it is the state who is not following the law!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also to have legal standing sometimes one has to defy a law in order to prove it is unconstitutional!

Again I am not happy that Cook is pushing the issue, but do not vilify Cook, look toward the people and organizations that created the situation that caused Cook to act!

Anyone of us that feel our constitutional rights are being taken away have the right to challenge it in the courts. Cook is acting upon these rights!


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> What a load of BS gst. You have no standing on the poor actions of an organization so you try to tell people they can't say anything without being a member


longshot please show where I have said "they can't say anything without being a member" It you comprehend what was written, you would realize I am merely suggesting (giving an "opinion")these nonmembers will likely not know as much about the inner workings, policies, and the ideologies that drive them than would a member of said org. I may not agree with HSUS policy, but for me to argue I know more about what drives their formation than does a HSUS card holder or board member would be foolish , arrogant, or egotistical in my "opinion".

Every one can indeed beleive what they wish and form their own opinion. In regards to the org. I am most directly involved in, I am proud to say many people have and it is slightly different than a handful of people on here. So you are most certainly welcome to beleive what you wish and form whatever opinion you want.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> longshot he did answer!.


Ron now that indeed I have answered your question as you have stated I have, would you please answer one of mine. Given the fact groups like DU, the Nature Conservancy and others have been "caught with their pants down" reselling these lands they purchased in the name of conservation to their wealthy donors for oil developement, exclusive private hunting clubs closed to their very own members, building waterfront mansions as well as refusing to pay property taxes on said purchases where allowed by law, ect... Do you think groups that operate in this manner should be allowed to purchase unlimited amounts of lands here in this state to carry on as they have been without some sort of process to regulate it?

Part of the arguement against HFH by those you supported claimed without measure 2 passing into law, outside entities would come in and start up these operations here in our state. What if a nonprofit wanted to come into this state and build a HFH operation, would you still support their right to do what they are granted under both the Federal and state Constitution as well as state law, or would you lobby and advocate for a law to keep them from doing so?

2 simple questions Ron for you to answer if you would. And you can even do so in regular size print if you like! :wink:


----------



## duckp

How about controlling 'use' of the land,not the right to buy/sell.When people(tyrants?)say you can't sell your land,its time to pick up your weapon. :evil:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, you are a complete dumbass who has a reading comprehension issue. I have stated that current law needed fixing not tossed out, I have said the current process of who decides also needs fixing. To your hypothetical situation private or non profit as you stated I dislike HFH period.

Get this through your thick head gst, this is no longer a public debated in which you or I can sway public support one way or another. This is not on the ballot! So all your BS and smoke is done in an effort to paint sportsman as the bad guys here!!!!!

What is happening and I know you know this, but I will spell it out so your smoke crap quits!

ND law is being challenged in court,other states with very similarly worded laws either have changed them or lost in court. The states that moved and changed have been able to withstand a court challenge. So now the courts are going to decide if Cook and or Cargill get to buy land in ND! Not, you, not me,not even our legislators etc... That horse is out of the barn.

You want to frame the debate as COOK IS BAD!!!!!!!! URRRRRRH!

I think it more appropriate that we talk about how we got here and why so that once this is settled, and guidance given we go down the constitutional path that works. I know that FB,FU,SA etc. are always going to lobby to self serve. That is the way it is!

So in a nut shell gst!!!!!!!!!!!! With all your attempts to misdirect this thread, the reality is simple! Cook is challenging a law as to constitutional value. I agree with his position that as it is written it does not meet constitutional muster. I am opposed to everything being opened up as a free for all in regards to sale of land.We had models that work and meet the commerce clause from laws adopted by states that meet constitutional standards. We did not move toward them instead we lived with an arrogance that has us now in a position of defending a indefensible position! I put the blame for that taking place at the feet of organizations Farmers Union,Farm bureau Stockman's Assn.

So your questions are anwsered!


----------



## swift

> Stop and consider for one moment how arrogant, foolish and egotistical it would be for me to come on a site such a this and make claims regarding groups representing medical professionals, sales business owners, retired Federal employees, given the fact that none of them are my "profession" (or occupation) and given the fact I am not a member of them, and given the fact that the people speaking about them being maligned may actually be members and directly involved in the inner workings of these orgs.


The arrogance, foolishness and egotism comes when one (or a group) doesn't allow for criticism by those affected by the policies of an organization.
Your beloved organizations are advocating for the taking from one group to give to their own. Then you come on here and say we don't have the right to call them out on it. AND since their policies transcend the federal level I as an out of state person and federal taxpayer have just as much right to form an opinion and voice that opinion.



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


On another thread GST you called me a liar for saying the AG orgs wanted control of the depredation season. Here is the policy and I await your apology.


----------



## swift

From the NDSA policy resolution


> FEDERAL LAND USE - 9 (AP)
> WHEREAS, the NDSA believes in the concept of multiple-use on federal lands; and
> 
> WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that livestock grazing is an integral part of the multiple-use concept; and
> 
> *WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that livestock producers are the original stewards of the land; and
> *
> WHEREAS, livestock producers are the only users to pay for forage use on federal lands.
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA supports a federal grazing fee formula that is fair and equitable with considerations for the value of livestock, the value of forage and the economic impact on local communities.
> 
> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the NDSA opposes the raising of federal grazing fees past the point of diminishing returns.


Speaking of Arrogance do you really think livestock producers are the ORIGINAL STEWARDS OF THE LAND? WOW what a load of BS. If overgrazing and laying claim to ownership of public land is being a good steward. Folks have been hunting and gathering LONG before the first cow was brought to this country.

If the grazing fees are raised past the point of diminishing returns you should find another place to graze. It seems easy enough.


----------



## Plainsman

> On another thread GST you called me a liar for saying the AG orgs wanted control of the depredation season. Here is the policy and I await your apology.


I think I had that happen three times on one thread. As a moderator I believe I have to have a little thicker skin, so I just pass it off. I didn't see anyone call you a liar, but if I do see it I will give that person a warning, and not tolerate it a second time. We all get frustrated, but publicly attacking others integrity is inexcusable. When people have personal things to say use the PM. However, the PM isn't for abuse of another it's just for things non of the rest of us are interested in.



> If the grazing fees are raised past the point of diminishing returns you should find another place to graze. It seems easy enough.


Back in 1975,76,77 I covered six states looking at grazing and associated breeding avifauna. I noticed on some fence lines it was like night and day looking at the grazing pressure. The ranchers are the ones who have grazed government land to the dirt, then complain that it isn't worth the price. Your right, drop those pastures if they are not worth it. 
We needed to do lightly grazed, moderately grazed, and heavily grazed lands in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. I walked eight to 12 miles a day on government land. We had a very hard time finding lightly grazed government land. Often when we were out there the person leasing would try kick us off. If they think that's good public relations they are sadly mistaken. 
I wonder if growing up on a farm/ranch and a degree from a college of agriculture with a minor in botany/range management gives me the right to have an opinion?


----------



## shaug

Gilmore said,



> Get this through your thick head gst, this is no longer a public debated in which you or I can sway public support one way or another. This is not on the ballot! So all your BS and smoke is done in an effort to paint sportsman as the bad guys here!!!!!


Nobody said anything over the real sportsmen here as being the bad guys. We are talking about opposing camps. FB, FU, NDSA were created by farmer/ranchers. Ducks Unlimited, North Dakota Wildlife Federation and orgs like The Natural Resources Trust are not sportsmens orgs. They are government advocacy groups. Keith Trego is head of the Natural Resources Trust and has been advocating for many years to do away with North Dakotas Anti-Corporate Farming Law.

Mr. Cook won't be going to court alone. For now he will be the lighting rod, the front man. If things turn south bad, he will be the fall guy. The organizations behind this will live to fight another day. It's measure two all over again. Same dance different tune. And as usual we have Ron Gilmore and swift giving us the play by play. Trying to build concensus announcing early on that the win is already in the bag. Psh!!!!!

swift wrote,



> If the grazing fees are raised past the point of diminishing returns you should find another place to graze. It seems easy enough.


You do realize what you advocate for will raise the cost of beef? If the cost of food becomes too high past the point of your budget, then what? Easy enough, you will just find another place to graze?


----------



## swift

Do you realize the cheap grazing in our national grasslands has NO impact on the price of beef. If every cow in ND died the price of beef would likely not change. And if it did it would be for a short time. I'm glad to have ND and SD beef in my freezer but I can just as easily have Brazilian beef. The thing to remember is we are the customers that pay front end for the cheap grazing and back end for the product. That $10.00/lb Ribeye is much more expensive when you add up the other costs the industry keeps asking for. I don't begrudge most ranchers they work hard all year long to supply the finest beef in the world. But when their organization passes policy that slaps their customers in the face it will be only so long until we shop elsewhere... Canada, Brazil or Texas. And if your too arrogant to believe this look at this very topic. The warning was given many times to stand down and be reasonable but the hammer kept swinging and now your looking for friends.


----------



## swift

And shaug, FYI I supported the HFH industry. I will be HFH in 4 weeks in South Africa. I believe in property rights for all. Not just for the elite FB, FU and SA members. I didn't support the attempts of GST attempt to squash the fundamental constitutional rights of those that brought the initiative to vote. I said over and over argue the merits. But in true GST elitist tyrant fashion he went after the rights of Roger Kaseman and Ron Gilmore.


----------



## LT

Swift Stated:


> And shaug, FYI I supported the HFH industry. I will be HFH in 4 weeks in South Africa. I believe in property rights for all. Not just for the elite FB, FU and SA members. I didn't support the attempts of GST attempt to squash the fundamental constitutional rights of those that brought the initiative to vote. I said over and over argue the merits. *But in true GST elitist tyrant fashion he went after the rights of Roger Kaseman and Ron Gilmore.*


That is such bull. He went after Roger and Ron for lies that were stated as fact asking if law should be created based on lies.

As far as your support, :rollin:


----------



## bioman

> Think what you will of these orgs, In regards to the one I am most directly involved in the NDSA, it has a longstanding heritage of representing the wishes of it's members well thru their grassroots involvement. _*And the manner in which they have been represented over the years have earned this org the utmost respect in the eyes of those individuals that actually know this org and it's members and veiw thru open unbiased eyes what it stands for.*_ I am quite proud to be a part of continueing this heritage of carrying out the policies our members beleive is best not only for the states ranching community but the lands from which we make our living and pass down to future generations and the heritage of independence and self reliance that has served this org., our state and it's citizens well. As an org, we will continue to move forward as times and issues change and carry out our member created policy to deal with them directly in a manner we can remain proud of regardless of what a handful of people on this site may beleive.


What an absolute biased load of stinking BS Gabe. Is that quote straight from the preamble :lame: :thumb:?


----------



## swift

LT look back at the posts. I continued to say discuss the merits. GST continued to press why this initiative should not be allowed. And right or wrong freedom of speech is not inherent to the truth. The only one that discussed the merits was Dwight. He represented his group very well. The folks that would have been affected, if the initiative passed, owe a debt of gratitude to Dwight. And if it ever comes up again should ask GST to stay out. Just like this topic that started out with support of the anticorporate law whenever he weighs in the opinions change quickly. He has a knack for polarizing a topic, I truely believe it is his mission to destroy what is left of any producer/nonproducer relationships that still exists.

You can also look back and see where I said Roger Kaseman will hang himself without the crap that lowered his opposition to his level. Thankfully it worked out the right way. You don't have to like what someone has to say but you do have to give him the right to say it. That is the American way.


----------



## LT

I will have to disagree with you about GST, but will agree about Dwight. Interestingly he is the one that has been kicked off this board. As far as ruining any kind of relationships, I really don't think what is said on this board will have much bearing. Maybe years ago when the fair chase initiative started, as there would be 1000s of views, now not so much.


----------



## swift

Plainsman, there is no worries I've been called a lot worse by a lot better men.

Our conversation on April 26th.


> Could it be the ranchers wanted to control the depredation season themselves? They wanted to hold the cards as to who and when the deer could be shot? The NDGF was not in support of that little tidbit were they
> 
> *This statement by swift simply is not true. *
> 
> All I am asking for is for people to try and refrain from making untrue statements regarding agriculture and the people involved in it. If people wish to have a burr under their saddle over someone they have never met and know nothing about that is certainly their choice.


Again I will post the policy of the NDFB regarding this very topic and maybe GST is admit he was the one making the untrue statement.

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


----------



## swift

> I will have to disagree with you about GST,


 I respect your opinion. I don't have to agree with it but I do respect it.


----------



## LT

Swift Stated:


> LT look back at the posts. I continued to say discuss the merits. GST continued to press why this initiative should not be allowed.* And right or wrong freedom of speech is not inherent to the truth. The only one that discussed the merits was Dwight. He represented his group very well. **The folks that would have been affected, if the initiative passed, owe a debt of gratitude to Dwight. *And if it ever comes up again should ask GST to stay out. Just like this topic that started out with support of the anticorporate law whenever he weighs in the opinions change quickly. He has a knack for polarizing a topic, I truely believe it is his mission to destroy what is left of any producer/nonproducer relationships that still exists.





> You don't have to like what someone has to say but you do have to give him the right to say it. That is the American way.


Yes, Dwight did represent the elk growers very well. His full name is Dwight Grosz. He was 
DG on this board and everybody knew he was Dwight Grosz, President of the Elk Growers. The election was on November 2, and shortly after he was no longer able to log into this board. He was booted from the board with no explanation given. He emailed Nodak Outdoors and never even received a reply.


----------



## Plainsman

Thanks swift, it was not hinted at when addressing me I was called outright a liar. Oh well, both sides here have stepped over the line and need to control the frustration. I think some use the frustration angle by agitating if they can not win a debate. I will offer this advise to everyone. When someone makes you feel disrespected know that we all see it and understand what's happening. Don't take the bait, but keep it civil and debate the merits.

Ya, the high fence thing was crazy. I had one guy telling people on here what I had said at the Jamestown meeting and what a jerk I was. I wasn't at the Jamestown meeting. One has to keep in mind that things like that don't hurt you they hurt the other people. Perhaps frustration will be less if people know we all get the manipulation of emotions.

Cheers. :beer:



> edit: Nobody said anything over the real sportsmen here as being the bad guys. We are talking about opposing camps. FB, FU, NDSA were created by farmer/ranchers. Ducks Unlimited, North Dakota Wildlife Federation and orgs like The Natural Resources Trust are not sportsmens orgs. They are government advocacy groups.


See people said that during the high fence debate and some believed it. It's misinformation now, but was disinformation last year. The Wildlife Federation is a sportsmens group. The Wildlife Society is a professional organization. One has to keep in mind that many of these people mix up U S Fish and Wildlife with North Dakota Game and Fish. That's why they think because Wildlife Federation uses the term Federation they must be FEDERAL. Not correct, and there are no ties whatsoever. It's just a product of Pete and Repeat.


----------



## LT

Plainsman stated:


> Ya, the high fence thing was crazy. *I had one guy telling people on here *what I had said at the Jamestown meeting and what a jerk I was. I wasn't at the Jamestown meeting. One has to keep in mind that things like that don't hurt you they hurt the other people. Perhaps frustration will be less if people know we all get the manipulation of emotions.


I have asked you several times in another thread to name this person on here who did this, as we both know you mean DG.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86974&p=697316#p697316

You know darn well that it was not somebody on here and that what really happened was one of the elk growers at the meeting thought one of the biologists at the meeting (who was being a jerk) was you and asked him at the meeting if it was you, but no one on this board has claimed that you were a jerk at the Jamestown Public Forum that Dwight and I attended.

My response to you in another thread:



> _Plainsman Stated: One man on here told everyone what a jerk I was a the Jamestown meeting which I was not at. A number have violated the rules of spewing their mouth about what is in PM's. I was going to email the lady I was talking to, but after those experiences I don't dare be open with her in emails. What a shame that some of you destroyed trust._
> 
> You know plainsman you keep repeating this about one man on here (I am sure you mean DG) telling everyone you were a jerk. Where has he said that? What happened is another wildlife biologist who attended the meeting was the jerk, not you. Someone at the meeting thought that perhaps he was you and accused him at the meeting of possibly being plainsman, but never has DG accused you of being that jerk at the meeting. I witnessed the other wildlife biologist being a jerk that night.
> 
> You sure seem fixated about something that you seem to be believe that was said about you. I wonder how you would react to someone slandering and libeling you and your business and then try to take that business away from you.


DG's response to you:



> Again, how old are you now? 62? I have told you before. Federal Agent Glen Sargent argued for a full hour and a half after the Jamestown Public Forum back in March 2008 with Gene Guthmiller. Gene thought any man who liked to argue that much maybe could be Plainsman. You need to get over it.


*Funny that you are bringing all of this up again Plainsman as that is how the last thread ended with us trying to explain what was said and then the posts were removed. There were no obscenities from Dwight or myself, no half truths, no lies, but nonetheless our posts were removed. Do you want the truth, do you want to clear the air, can I post what happened, or will it be removed again, and will I then be thrown off the board?*


----------



## Plainsman

I never did see the post. Why don't you PM it to me.

I have not named anyone, because I didn't see that post either, only heard about it. I also don't know who is who on here, and thought you were a guy I went to college with. I can't remember who the guy was that sent me a PM (get to many to keep) but he said LT says Hi you old fox. Anyway, an old friend of mine always said that in college. I thought you were him. As you can see I have lost track of things, and don't know all these people your talking about. I guess I'm not on the inside as much as many on here. 
I also thought DG just stopped posting once the high fence election was over. No one on this site talked about him being booted. Maybe there is some other explanation. Things like threatening PM's get people booted too. I have no idea.

I do see the same old crowd gathering, and the same old disinformation though.


----------



## gst

So ron, I take that to mean you are not going to answer my questions?  You stated, Quote"I think it more appropriate that we talk about how we got here and why so that once this is settled, and guidance given we go down the constitutional path that works."

I kinda thought that was what my questions are doing?  Apparently you beleive we should only discuss what YOU beleive is relevant to the debate. Or simply something you don't have to answer! 



swift said:


> On another thread GST you called me a liar for saying the AG orgs wanted control of the depredation season. Here is the policy and I await your apology


*swift the conversation we were having at the time was about the SPECIFIC content of SB2027 the depredation bill that became state law this session and the cooperation amoungst the groups involved to reach this solution, NOT policy of some org*. But then you know that. (Re: SD man sentenced by swift » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:38 pm "Why didn't they pass if they had so much support? Could it be the ranchers wanted to control the depredation season themselves? They wanted to hold the cards as to who and when the deer could be shot? The NDGF was not in support of that little tidbit were they?" )

Often times when people choose to make statements that are not true, they make 2 choices. One admit what they said was not true for whatever reasons, or refuse to admit it and continue the untrue statement by justifying or "explaining" .

As to the rest of your comments, I will simply leave you and others on here to your "opinions" as it seems once again it has turned personal and no one is interested in answering any questions regarding this debate. There was mention of a school yard bully earlier in this thread. It seems that when backed into a corner they do not have answers to get out of school yard bullies often were left replying with nothing more than the intellectual , "Well your momma wears army boots"! It appears perhaps we reached that point in this debate. 
:wink:


----------



## Plainsman

I think we beat another horse to rags.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst your questions where answered, if you do not like them to frigging bad!!!! Now again the courts have this issue, whether or not one agrees or disagrees with Cook or the current state law is mute at this point. What is not mute is how we got here. The road to this lawsuit( it was bound to happen with the way the law is written and implemented) has a direct path leading to it from FB,FU and NDSA!

Stated policy, votes by those on the committee from the board ,successful lobbying efforts that stopped any change that would have stopped a future lawsuit. The map is all there, now we wait and see the outcome. I stated in my opinion that with precedent regarding this issue and the fact that our law mirrors two that where tossed previously, this stands little chance of being upheld.

The best possible outcome is that a portion of the law is upheld that would prevent companies like Cargill from buying land. I doubt that, but one can hope.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> gst your questions where answered, if you do not like them to frigging bad!!!!





Ron Gilmore said:


> gst, you are a complete dumbass who has a reading comprehension issue.


Ron I simply missed where you answered the following two questions that were asked previously.



gst said:


> Ron now that indeed I have answered your question as you have stated I have, would you please answer one of mine. Given the fact groups like DU, the Nature Conservancy and others have been "caught with their pants down" reselling these lands they purchased in the name of conservation to their wealthy donors for oil developement, exclusive private hunting clubs closed to their very own members, building waterfront mansions as well as refusing to pay property taxes on said purchases where allowed by law, ect... Do you think groups that operate in this manner should be allowed to purchase unlimited amounts of lands here in this state to carry on as they have been without some sort of process to regulate it?
> 
> Part of the arguement against HFH by those you supported claimed without measure 2 passing into law, outside entities would come in and start up these operations here in our state. What if a nonprofit wanted to come into this state and build a HFH operation, would you still support their right to do what they are granted under both the Federal and state Constitution as well as state law, or would you lobby and advocate for a law to keep them from doing so?
> 
> 2 simple questions Ron for you to answer if you would. And you can even do so in regular size print if you like!


Perhaps you would be so courteous as to show this "dumbass" with a "reading comprehension issue" where and how exactly you answered them.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> What is not mute is how we got here. The road to this lawsuit( it was bound to happen with the way the law is written and implemented) has a direct path leading to it from FB,FU and NDSA!
> 
> Stated policy, votes by those on the committee from the board ,successful lobbying efforts that stopped any change that would have stopped a future lawsuit. The map is all there, now we wait and see the outcome.


Ron just in case you decide to answer any questions, here is one more for you. If you are interested in following the road to this law as written and "how we got here", who ELECTED and in many cases RE ELECTED the representatives(legislators) that created and upheld this state law as well as the Govenor that carried out his decisions as this law required?

The answer is simply the citizens/voters of the entire state of ND. Just as in the HFH measure that was defeated by these very same people (citizens and voters) it appears you and others have a hard time accepting the democratic process when it goes against your ideologies.


----------



## Plainsman

It may be a democratic process in North Dakota, but just by a hair. Notice the connections to agriculture. To bad there are not others willing to get away at that time of year. You have to be free to go to the legislature, and you have to be power hungry enough to do it. I'm not impressed. What's the going price for a state legislature these days?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, so that you can comprehend, I am in favor of controls on Corporations buying land in ND. I am not in favor of this stopping conservation groups from buying land, nor should they have to go through a rigged process to do so. In regards to the activity on the land, I oppose HFH, however it is legal in the state just as it is legal for someone to do the exact same things you listed. So either deny them all, or deny none!!!!!!!!!!! For people like you that crow and preach property rights, the hypocrisy is that choice of whom you decide to sell your land to and for what price is the ultimate right!

The cry of the HFH crowd was about income and the future yada yada!!! Blah Blah Blah!!!!!!!!! Joe farmer worked to pay off his land, is not rolling in cash. Does not have a lot of money stashed, but his retirement is his land. Now you say sell Joe, but sell to me or another farmer for less value than you can get from Nature Conservancy or Isaak Walton League or any other! Be a good friend and be a FU and FB member, pay your dues they support property right, right up to when you sell it!!!!

So get real gst, like I said the courts have it, your wanking, whining,spinning twisting with 100 questions means nothing now! Nobody is voting on this issue, or twisting the arm of a Sen or Rep. So your show boating means nothing!!!!

If I had the position that all land should be open to purchase by anyone for whatever price the seller could get, or if I had the position that land should only be bought by native born ND or those married to a native born, it matters not one frigging bit anymore!!!!!!!!

You cannot win a public opinion vote in your favor on this nor can I change the fact that Cook sued and is likely to win!
What you can do is keep proving the point that your group and the others painted the road map for the lawsuit!
Do you get it?

Now no more stupid what if questions!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Here is one for you gst! The people as you say have voted for elected officals that have sustained our current G&F Trespass law. Didn't your group help support the lawsuit to change that?

I little tit for tat I would say!!!!!!!!!!!!

You do not like the current law so sue to change it since it cannot get done in the Leg, now Cook does not like the current law so he is suing to change it. Difference is he has a real chance of winning!!!!!!


----------



## gst

bioman said:


> Think what you will of these orgs, In regards to the one I am most directly involved in the NDSA, it has a longstanding heritage of representing the wishes of it's members well thru their grassroots involvement. _*And the manner in which they have been represented over the years have earned this org the utmost respect in the eyes of those individuals that actually know this org and it's members and veiw thru open unbiased eyes what it stands for.*_ I am quite proud to be a part of continueing this heritage of carrying out the policies our members beleive is best not only for the states ranching community but the lands from which we make our living and pass down to future generations and the heritage of independence and self reliance that has served this org., our state and it's citizens well. As an org, we will continue to move forward as times and issues change and carry out our member created policy to deal with them directly in a manner we can remain proud of regardless of what a handful of people on this site may beleive.
> 
> 
> 
> What an absolute biased load of stinking BS Gabe. Is that quote straight from the preamble :lame: :thumb:?
Click to expand...

bioman, there has been much ado made about the "power" these ag orgs wield over the legislative assmebly. Lets simply look at the org. I was mentioning in what you quoted. They have about 3000 members. 3000 votes spread across the states districts. What is that in the big picture of the total electorate in this state??? So how do you think a measely 3000 members of an org get any politician to pay attention to their policies???? Waving the "we'll take our 3000 votes away" stick likely will not be too large of a threat so how does this org. accomplish having it's policies adopted? Particularily in a legislature where only slightly over 1/4 of the members have a direct tie to agriculture??? Ponder that for awhile.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> gst, so that you can comprehend, I am in favor of controls on Corporations buying land in ND. I am not in favor of this stopping conservation groups from buying land,


 So can I take it this is your answer to my question that you beleive groups like DU and the Natrue Conservancy who have been "caught with their pants down" reselling land they have bought as "conservation groups" to their wealthy donors for oil developements, private hunting clubs, building waterfront mansions, ect... SHOULD be allowed to purchase lands here in ND to carry on in this manner here in our state with no process to control that?????? A simple yes or no answer to the question would have been mch easier for all to "comprehend". :wink:

It appears YOU wish to have YOUR say in who can and who can not buy land in ND, all the while maligning anyone or any group who does as well simply because you disagree with their policy? If I can sell it to DU (a "conservation" org) so they can resell it to a wealthy donor, why should YOUR policy prevent me from selling it to ADM??? Wouldn't it be Joes' right to sell to ADM just as much as your pet groups?



Ron Gilmore said:


> hypocrisy


Nowhere have I claimed Cook does not have the right to engage in this lawsuit thru the Judicial arena just as ANYONE can. I am merely presenting another veiw of how we got here regarding the state law that was a catalyst for this lawsuit that is of a different opinion than the claims you made at the start of this thread. So answer this, is Cook sueing as a nonprofit conservation org. or as a corporation?


----------



## gst

["Now no more stupid what if questions!!!!!!!!!"]

"What if" I want to ask one?


----------



## Plainsman

> So how do you think a measely 3000 members of an org get any politician to pay attention to their policies????


I think they have a lot of money and make political donations. Like I said what's the price of a legislator now days? Now I voted for Hoeven, but I think we all know why he supported Cannonball and the new early pheasant season.


----------



## g/o

> I think they have a lot of money and make political donations. Like I said what's the price of a legislator now days? Now I voted for Hoeven, but I think we all know why he supported Cannonball and the new early pheasant season.


Plainsman as a liberal such as yourself I can see why you were against Pheasantgate. Personally as someone who likes to see revenue coming into the state I was in favor. One week of hunting in ND bring lot's of $$$ into this state.


----------



## swift

Gst the fact is, it is personal. The policies of the three ag orgs in many cases tread upon the rights of individuals. There is no denying this. You call it advocating for its members. I call it stealing from the citizens. Your groups steal their neighbors rights to sell their land or donate their land. You advocate to steal funds from the G&F to manage weeds and roads. You believe you have some God given right to a legacy of agriculture. When you finally realize that the folks not involved in agriculture have the same rights as you do then maybe some support. What you need to learn is, agriculture producers are no better than the Janitor in Fargo,or the Doctor in Bismarck or the Mechanic in Minot.

I thank you for inviting me to research you orgs. They really do have a communistic feel to their policies. I lost count on all the policies demanding state and federal money while at the same time demanding to pay less taxes. You call yourself a conservative but live like a socialist. Nice work if you can get it.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So how do you think a measely 3000 members of an org get any politician to pay attention to their policies????
> 
> 
> 
> I think they have a lot of money and make political donations. Like I said what's the price of a legislator now days? Now I voted for Hoeven, but I think we all know why he supported Cannonball and the new early pheasant season.
Click to expand...

Plainsman as a director on the board of this org. I can tell you for a fact your claim is simply not true. I'm sure some will choose to not beleive me, but there are directors of this org. from every area of the state that anyone is from, simply contact one from your area and ask them.

How it happens is the MEMBERS of this group create it's policies thru grassroots action. These adopted policies are then advocated for in a very direct, factual, and profesional manner by the people this org has that have EARNED a degree of RESPECT because of this in the legislative arena. It is actually an example of how the legislative process should work, policy being developed thru a voting process by these orgs because of merit, precented in a factual, direct manner and taken up and debated by the legislature elected by and who is held accountable by ALL NDan's, weighed and considered and voted on according to merit. Some policies pass some fail. But it seems any time a handful of people on here do not get their way in this process, it is big "greedy" ag that is to blame.


----------



## gst

swift, the invite was for you to actually attend our state convention where by you could see firsthand how policies are developed, meet the people that develope them, and see where and why the respect people who have DIRECT dealings with this org. such as our state legislators is garnered.

The offer still stands if anyone wishes to gain any firsthand knowledge.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

You can ***ume anything you want gst, it does not make it correct. It just makes you an ***!

By the way you keep talking about the process, but when your group did not like the outcome you joined in support of the Trespass Lawsuit. Isn't that counter to what you are saying is the Leg process? More of the same BS from you!!!!!!!!!

Cook has peed in your cereal bowl, but you are the ones that opened the door for him to do so. Now deal with the outcome!


----------



## gst

Ron, please simply give a direct yes or no answer to the questions, an no one has to assume anything. (Even I can "comprehend" the meaning of a simple yes or no!!!)  You admitted I answered your question, if you wish to explore how we got to where we are in regards to this lawsuit, please return the favor by answering the ones asked of you.

As to filing suit, that is how the system is meant to work, if one beleives they have a case they take it to the judicial branch just as Cook has done or as Mr Froliech did over the interpretation of common law in regards to entering private property did with ag groups support. In some cases one is successful, in some, one is not? 9 states regulate or prohibit land sales in some form or another. Not all the laws in each are the same, there are aspects of ND's law that are different from ones that have been overturned in the past. We will have to wait and see how the judge involved in ruling veiws this state law created by the elected representatives of the people of ND.

What needs to be remembered here is NO group is prohibiting anyone from selling their land like some claim, state law has simply put stipulations on who it may be sold to and provided a process for certain ones of these sales to go thru in an attempt to regulate WHO purchases land just as there have been laws created and adopted to regulate WHAT these lands are used for. The laws regulating WHAT the land can be used for are just as effective in limiting ones ability to sell land to willing buyers as are any others. If I want to build a feedlot, and Joe wants to sell me the land to do so (I'm offering 20% more than anyone else) , but state law says I can not build a feedlot on Joe's land because of any number of regulatory controls, so I will not buy Joes land if I can not build a feedlot there and as a result of this state law a willing buyer that he wishes to sell to has been taken away from Joe and he has effectively been restricted in his ability of WHO he can sell to and what he can receive for his lands by the state.


----------



## Plainsman

> Mr Froliech


 There is the name. I had forgotten it. He is the radical that thinks you guys should be royalty and the rest of us peasants. That guy is not a conservative or republican, in my book he would choose Oligarchy over a republic. So would you I think. All one needs to know is that Froleich supports it and you know if your not a farmer or a rancher your going to loose something. Most often it isn't simply landowners gaining it also includes average citizens loosing. He is Farm Bureau isn't he? I consider him very radical. A few years ago I was going to go with Nodak Mutual Insurance, but I think I had to have membership in Farm Bureau. I was ready to sign the bottom line until I seen that.

In the past I sort of liked Farm Bureau. They are more conservative than the Farmers Union. My father worked for Farmers Union for years, but they leaned to far left for me. It's Froliech's antics that have really turned me off with Farm Bureau now.


----------



## g/o

> Oh and by the way G/O your comment about Cook not following the law is funny because if declared unconstitutional then it is the state who is not following the law!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also to have legal standing sometimes one has to defy a law in order to prove it is unconstitutional!


I guess this is the difference between you and I Ronnie, I was raised to respect the law even if I disagreed. If you feel a law needs changing then you go through the proper channels and not break it as Cook did. Unlike you Ronnie regardless of how this turns out I will not have much respect for Mr Cook.


----------



## shaug

swift wrote,



> And shaug, FYI I supported the HFH industry. I will be HFH in 4 weeks in South Africa. I believe in property rights for all.


Didn't I read somewhere that you took a fishing trip to the Carribean last year? Did you charter an outfitter/guide with a ship? How much did that cost? Don't get me wrong, I'm not concerned about how much money you make. And now you are going to South Africa to hunt high fence. How much will that cost? Does the outfitter/owner lease land or own it? Do you consider what you are doing as pay to play? Are you commercializing wildlife?

If your guide from the Carribean or South Africa came here and paid g/o to hunt at his place, would you have a problem with that or should North and South Dakota be reserved for residents only? You contradict yourself a lot.

Plainsman wrote,



> I think they have a lot of money and make political donations. Like I said what's the price of a legislator now days? Now I voted for Hoeven, but I think we all know why he supported Cannonball and the new early pheasant season.


That is a good question. How much did Ducks Unlimited give to Byron Dorgan on his first run at Congress? They got their monies worth when he helped kill the Garrison Diversion.

Plainsman wrote,



> edit: Nobody said anything over the real sportsmen here as being the bad guys. We are talking about opposing camps. FB, FU, NDSA were created by farmer/ranchers. Ducks Unlimited, North Dakota Wildlife Federation and orgs like The Natural Resources Trust are not sportsmens orgs. They are government advocacy groups.
> 
> See people said that during the high fence debate and some believed it. It's misinformation now, but was disinformation last year. The Wildlife Federation is a sportsmens group. The Wildlife Society is a professional organization. One has to keep in mind that many of these people mix up U S Fish and Wildlife with North Dakota Game and Fish. That's why they think because Wildlife Federation uses the term Federation they must be FEDERAL. Not correct, and there are no ties whatsoever. It's just a product of Pete and Repeat.


I have no trouble keeping the distinction between these orgs separate. At the end of Garrison Diversion the Natural Resources Trust was created. The federal Government put $25 million dollars into an account for NRT. The profits are to be used to operate the Natural Resources Trust. Former G/F Director Keith Trego is the head of it. Their mission is to act as an ombudsman or neutral party in public/private affairs.

On the surface these things always sound good. But in practice Keith Trego is anything but neutral. He was a sponser of the HFI and read it below:


> BISMARCK, N.D. - June 17, 2010 - A large majority of North Dakotans support conserving the state's best water, natural areas and wildlife habitat through dedicated state funding and by providing landowners the tools they need to conserve their property, according to a poll released today by Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Dakota and the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust.
> 
> Conducted by a bipartisan research team, the survey results clearly demonstrate that by a wide margin North Dakota voters support conservation and approve of expanding upon current efforts to better protect the state's natural areas, water, and wildlife habitat. Specifically, voters favor dedicating state funding for conservation, allowing landowners to sell their property to non-profit conservation organizations, and permanent conservation easements.
> 
> The poll found that 67 percent of voters support dedicating state funding for conservation. Voters are nearly twice as likely to strongly support setting aside state money to protect North Dakota's lands and waters than to strongly oppose such an action. Support for dedicating state funding for conservation is not only deep but also broad, with voters from every region of the state and from a wide variety of demographic groups in the state backing the concept.
> 
> "The state is changing and it's clear that a sizeable majority of North Dakotans agree that it's time to preserve our best lands and waters, including by increasing state funding for conservation," said Keith Trego, executive director of the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust.
> 
> Genevieve Thompson, vice president and executive director of Audubon Dakota, agreed. "North Dakota residents love the outdoors. And they want to conserve their water, wetlands, wildlife habitat and native prairies."
> 
> The poll also showed that an overwhelming majority of North Dakotans - 85 percent - support allowing landowners to sell their property to conservation organizations. Support is overwhelming even among voters who make a living from agriculture - 83 percent among those at least somewhat reliant on agriculture favor allowing landowners to sell their property to conservation organizations.
> 
> In addition, three-in-five North Dakota voters support allowing conservation organizations to use permanent easements as a strategy for conserving natural areas, water, and wildlife habitat in the state. More than 60 percent of voters support conservation easements, or voluntary land preservation agreements, that allow landowners to continue to own, work and maintain their property but ensure that the land is not developed.
> 
> "There seems to be a disconnect between what North Dakotans want and the state allows, especially regarding laws that keep landowners from conserving their property with a permanent conservation easement or by selling it to a conservation group," said Steve Adair, director of Ducks Unlimited's Great Plains Office in Bismarck.
> 
> Peggy Ladner, director of The Nature Conservancy in North Dakota, said she hopes the results released today will prompt state leaders to step up and provide the tools needed to conserve North Dakota's best lands and waters.
> 
> "We're hopeful that state lawmakers will recognize that this is both what the public wants and what is best for North Dakota," she said. "By conserving key lands and waters, we protect the quality and quantity of our water supply, mitigate flooding, control erosion, preserve grazing lands and ensure the state remains a great place to live, work and explore."
> 
> The telephone poll of 400 likely voters from throughout North Dakota was conducted between April 6 and April 8 by the bipartisan research team of Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican political and public affairs research firm, and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, a Democratic research and public policy analysis firm. The poll's margin of error for the full sample is 4.9 percent.
> 
> Contacts:
> Chris Anderson, The Nature Conservancy, 612.331.0747, [email protected]
> Becky Jones Mahlum, Ducks Unlimited, 701.355.3507, [email protected]
> Genevieve Thompson, Audubon Dakota, 701) 298-3373, [email protected]
> Keith Trego, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust, 223.8501, [email protected]


WOW, after reading all those polls a person would be inclined to believe that all North Dakotans are wanting the buffalo commons right now. Maybe it is time to defund The Natural Resources Trust or give the fed/gov their $25 million back. Our central government has trillion dollar deficits and still has 22 million employees on the books. If in fact Keith Tregos position is even on the books. Somebody is going to pay him handsomely in his retirement.

Plainsman, are you still confused?


----------



## swift

Shaug you really don't know me or what I believe. As I said in the last topic WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH THEIR LAND IS THEIR BUSINESS AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INFRINGE ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S RIGHTS OR PROPERTY. It is wrong to ask for handouts to solve a problem you have created. If you want to guide on your property more power to you. If you want to restrict access to game animals and then expect the state to cover losses those game animals do then you should be told no. There is a mechanism in place for population control of game animals. If people choose not to use those mechanisms they shouldn't demand funds to cover their losses.

So Shaug go ahead and guide or post your land or leave it open to everyone to enter. I don't care. Try to raid the game and fish coffers or demand your losses be paid for by taxpayers and I do care. Allow hunters to reduce game populations and some help via govt money should help you out. Give and get not just take and take.

I did fish a year ago in the Pacific not the Carribean. I also fished in Hawaii 2 weeks ago and no I didn't take my boat with me. In RSA the wildlife are owned by the landowner. The typical European model. What you don't seem to understand is. In the USA landowners do not own or legally control the wildlife. But as shown above there is still a push to regain ownership or control of the wildlife.


----------



## Plainsman

> Former G/F Director Keith Trego


I will have to admit I don't pay much attention to the politics of the North Dakota Game and Fish. What years was Keith Trego director? I don't remember that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

*gst, so that you can comprehend, I am in favor of controls on Corporations buying land in ND. I am not in favor of this stopping conservation groups from buying land, nor should they have to go through a rigged process to do so. In regards to the activity on the land, I oppose HFH, however it is legal in the state just as it is legal for someone to do the exact same things you listed*

Hint for you seek the underlined statement!


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Shaug you really don't know me or what I believe


Swift have you and I ever met or conversed in person?


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> *gst, so that you can comprehend, I am in favor of controls on Corporations buying land in ND. I am not in favor of this stopping conservation groups from buying land, nor should they have to go through a rigged process to do so. In regards to the activity on the land, I oppose HFH, however it is legal in the state just as it is legal for someone to do the exact same things you listed*
> 
> Hint for you seek the underlined statement!


Ron, so then indeed if my comprehension is right YOU beleive the state should regulate who can purchase land here in ND according to YOUR ideals. Yet you malign the states ag indusrtry as well as the states ELECTED representatives of the all the people of this state that created and support the current law thru the democratic process that beleive their ideals should be followed in regards to the state regulating land purchases.

So explain to us why Joe should be able to sell his lands to conservation groups who then turn round and resell these lands to their wealthy donors for their use and gain without any controls in place according to YOUR ideals but then why Joe should not be able to sell his land to ADM according to YOUR ideals.

Here is one simple question, "What if " we did away with the electoral process here in ND where by the people get to vote and ELECT the people that represent them in the legislature and create the laws that govern this state thru a democratic process, and then get to weigh the jobs these people they have ELECTED to represent them have done and the consequences that have resulted from the democratic creation of these laws on a regular basis and decide wether to RE ELECT them or not and simply appointed Ron, swift and plainsman to run the state as they wish it to be ran, would it be better for the people of ND? It surely does appear you fellas have an issue with our current form of govt and legislative process.

Definitions of oligarchy 
ol·i·gar·chy [ ólli grkee ] 
small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes


----------



## 58504451

Ron - you continue to blame ag groups for the corporate farming bill still being on the books yet you want only certain corps or your selected groups to be able to buy land?? Which is it - just the ones you like? I view the groups you mentioned as more of a threat than the corps who would buy land and run it as a business. Do you think that the conservation groups would be dependant on profits to own and pay for land? I asked you earlier in this thread and you never answered the question - when have you ever had any say in the governance or programs of a national conservation group? The path to the board is via donations - not free elections to it's members.

The legislature has been portrayed as in the farmers/landowners pocket. Have you guys ever thought they don't really like your views and they don't represent the majority ? Take a look at the HFH vote results, it was the urban areas that supported your idea and in rural areas you struggled to get approval, go back and look at the numbers by county.

So a question for anyone to answer - if not for the ag groups supporting anti-corp ownership we would probably already have it. What should these groups have done differently in the past to aviod this coming to a court decision??


----------



## swift

I guess if the orgs would have had the common sense to evaluate each land sale on the merits of the sale instead of having a blanket policy of no net gain of govt owned land would have been a start. Also policies that pushed to amend the anticorporate farm laws to include nonprofits really has no place in the law. Non farming conservation groups will not hurt the farmers but help them by reducing the amount of product in the marketplace. Less supply equals more demand. Granted land prices likely will increase but the seller will benefit. I would question an antitrust violation with the way things are now. Price fixing and controlling land sales with the object to keep land costs low is basically setting up a monopoly through the legislature.

Why do the ag orgasms have policies opposing the increase of federal grazing fees but no policy opposing the increase of private land rental rates? The answer is found throughout the policy manuals the common theme is control the private and demand from the govt. Personally I don't think wanting it both ways is right.


----------



## gst

swift, I know before I type this you will not beleive it, but as a director of an org that has a seat on the NAAAC that has been directly involved in these orgs discussions on these saless, I can assure you a great deal of consideration is given each land sale. If you actaully knew what was discussed it might just surprise you.

Consideration is given to our members from that area that are most likely to be directly affected. Consideration is given the most local form of govt involved in the decision, the county commissioners who are ELECTED by ALL the people of the county in which these sales are to take place. So as an outsider who has likely never been directly involved in the process by which state law has determined these sales are to be reviewed, you probably are making assumptions based on little direct knowledge of these individual land sales.

And what is being forgotten about here is the following. IT IS NOT THE AG ORGS THAT MAKE THE DETERMINATION WETHER THESE SALES SHOULD BE ALLOWED. IT IS THE GOVENOR AND THE GOVENOR ALONE THAT MAKES THIS DETERMINATION. HE IS OPEN TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS EVERY 4 YEARS. 
So tell us if you would, ron, swift, plainsman, did you ever vote for Gov. Hoven?


----------



## gst

On a little lighter note, you might be getting your websites mixed up here swift! 



swift said:


> Why do the ag orgasms have policies


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, if it is legal for you to do it and be OK! HFH as an example, but it is not OK for someone else to do or profit from the purchase and resale come on you cannot be that frigging dumb?

You are making the argument for me without realizing it. Just like your groups will do for Cook! All the things you listed as things I may not like or want to happen fly in direct conflict with the commerce clause and how it applies. But you seem to not believe that!

To make it a bit more simple to grasp for you and I know you are scrambling hard thinking you have produced a gotcha moment ND elected officials could say we will not allow anyone from MN to enter into ND and drive. ND could pass the law by the people elected, have it signed by the Gov or even had the law passed via the ballot box. It would not matter because of the commerce clause. The very same clause your group hollered and threatened that they would use to sue to have the HFH law repealed had it passed.

Now why do I think it is OK for DU as an example only buy land and not Cargill. Well for one DU is a non profit conservation organization and not a for profit company. That does not mean that they cannot make a profit from the sale of land they own or benefit from mineral rights etc... What it does mean is that any net gains will be put back into conservation efforts.

Cargill on the other hand is a for profit company. One that can have the potential to cause market havoc etc.. I believe that the designation and intent of use makes a great big difference. Maybe the courts will see both as having the right to equal opportunity meaning that you or any other cattle producer now will have to compete with Cargill on purchase and use of the lands. Most cattle producers that need grazing stand a better chance of being able to rent pasture land from DU vs cargill. DU could for example restore wetlands and protect native grasses. If they sold the land the buyer could as well be Joe Rancher instead of as you try and spin it that millionaire big wig!

So it is very cler gst, that you and your group are peeing down your leg in fear over this because you realize the strangle hold you have held is likely to end. And to be clear it does not matter one bit if the law was passed by elected officials with majority backing if it violates the Fed Constitution.


----------



## swift

Autocorrect can make me want to scream. And not in the good way. You see GST FB, FU, and SA do get to voice their opinions to the governor. NO other private group gets that privlage. They have publicly aired their wishes and their demands. They don't need to even show up because they can just fax their policy to the committee. They dont even need to know the circumstances of the sale. By your own admission their are only about 3000 members of those orgs. It seems their policiies for the most part are intrusive to the other 600,000 residents.

If it is true that those groups don't always oppose govt or corporate or nonprofit buyers then you are not following your members wishes. What is worse screwing over the population by adhering to a bad policy or screwing over you members by not voting as per the policies? The right thing would to CHANGE THE POLICY TO ALLOW FOR OPEN DISCUSSION!


----------



## swift

GST is it fair to stereotype all ag producers based on a couple of bad apples? Are all famers and ranchers crazy tax evading murders because Gordon Karl was one? Of course not just as a few investigations of some conservation groups does not mean they are all bad.


----------



## Chuck Smith

I have a question...

Can schools, FFA groups, Booster clubs, etc buy land in ND?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Not under state law!

gst something to ponder on when talking about the rule of law. Last year the SCOUTS(Supreme Court for you comprehension challenged) ruled that Corp have basically the same rights as a person when they made their ruling regarding campaign contributions. That designation has had a big ripple affect all across this nation in how laws are crafted or had to be re-written.

Now just think how that applies to our current state law regarding who can or cannot buy land. If that designation crosses over into areas like this as well, then what?

I really do hope the law is not completely gutted, it will not bode well for ND overall, but the afore mentioned groups have a huge footprint on what is taking place and no amount of spin and smoke with what ifs like gst posted changes that!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Now why do I think it is OK for DU as an example only buy land and not Cargill. Well for one DU is a non profit conservation organization and not a for profit company. That does not mean that they cannot make a profit from the sale of land they own or benefit from mineral rights etc... What it does mean is that any net gains will be put back into conservation efforts.


Ron, DU or the Nature Conservancy can not make a profit on these lands, but when they are resold to wealthy donors who in turn develope them for oil, build waterfront mansions, create exclusive private hunting clubs, ect... who then in turn "donate" more money so the org can purchase more land. It is EXACTLY what the Nature Conservancy and DU got caught with their pants down doing. You can not deny that. And THIS is what you beleive is okay to have come into ND and you claim to be reperesenting what is best for the ND sportsman?????? Talk about making an arguement FOR the law we have in place that prevents that. By the way, how much land does DU OWN in an area roughly the size of ND to the north of us in Canada? How many acres does DU have volantary conservation programs on here in ND?

What you do not seem to comprehend in what I am stating is not that because our legislators voted and pased this law that it will withstand a court challenge, but that simply it was the wishes of a majority of the people thru their ELECTED representatives that this law was created, NOT by decree of the ag orgs you love to hate as you and others insinuate. Nor is it these ag orgs that determine wether these sales go thru or not.

Now answer these questions if you would. 
1. Is Cook sueing the state as a corp or a nonprofit? 
2 Did you ever vote for the Govenor that denied these sales thru the NAAAC process. 
3. Why should you be able to allow Joe the right to sell his land to DU, but deny him the right to sell it to ADM? 
I thought you and swift and plainsman and others thought people should be able to sell to whoever they wish????



Ron Gilmore said:


> the hypocrisy


 Ron you are making my arguement for me when YOU wish to control who people sell their lands to but malign others for doing the same.


----------



## gst

swift when you did live in ND, did you ever vote for a Govenor that denied one of these sales?

I will tell you one thing you simply do not have any understanding of these grass root orgs and how they function. And as I said if you did, both you and ron might be very suprised as to what "discussion" has taken place and by whom. But you guys have developed such a personal bias it likely wouldn't matter.



swift said:


> GST is it fair to stereotype all ag producers based on a couple of bad apples? Are all famers and ranchers crazy tax evading murders because Gordon Karl was one? Of course not just as a few investigations of some conservation groups does not mean they are all bad.


That is EXACTLY why the law as implemented works. The govenor has the ability to allow the "good" ones to purchase lands as happened in McKensie county and other times while keeping the ones who wish to resell these lands to their wealthy members from purchasing lands here in ND. As TK mentioned way back when, precedence. If this law is overturned, ANY nonprofit group can come into this state and purchase land for ANY reason. You guys are so narrow mindedly thinking about your pet orgs. that you have forgot about the consequences of what other nonprofits are out there. The legislators charged with looking out for the well being of this state do not have that narrowminded luxury. Nor have the majority of the people that have elected them wanted them to. As I said, if you changed the law to allow conservation nonprofits into this state, how could you then keep out the Klan nonprofit that wants to purchse land for a neo nazi compound next door to you?


----------



## Plainsman

> 3. Why should you be able to allow Joe the right to sell his land to DU, but deny him the right to sell it to ADM?
> I thought you and swift and plainsman and others thought people should be able to sell to whoever they wish????


Well, I certainly don't want to be hypocritical so you convinced me. I will support selling land to anyone a landowner wishes. Can I be against selling to China?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, no more questions! You keep moving the goal line so enough as I said before. I am torn over the issue of land sales, always have been and always will be. What I want and what the law allows may not be the same. I stated why I see sales to DU or others like them as a positive especially for ranchers or people who run cattle. Grass lands need maintenance and grazing or haying with controls is one of the best. Heck even the USFWS has this figured out because people from DU and Delta taught them!

I see small farmers being pushed out and the opportunity for new farmers to start being very limited. With the financial capabilities that public traded companies have land ownership for them will be even harder. I get it, I understand this, and I understand why the law was put in place. But all that aside, the courts have not been kind to laws like ours. DU and others did not challenge it because even if they won they would lose in public opinion and support.

Cook regardless of if he is suing as a corp or individual does not have the PR issue to lose. That is why if FU,NDSA,FB had a single brain cell of common sense they would have let this sale alone and supported it, thus keeping our current law out of the courts. Not to hard to figure out. But the arrogance and you have demonstrated that well on this thread simply would not allow for common sense to move forward.

The land in question is not farm land of any value with the water conditions, it was not RRV land, or even land in my area back home. But your group,and yes Hoven as well simply could not see the forest through the trees. Cook has the money,time and desire to push this. Most mom and pop sellers did not and I stated why the others chose not to!

So you can ask anything you want, spin it any way you want the fact remains that the road map to this law suit lays at the doorstep of the Ag groups who sit on this committee!


----------



## gst

Bull****. These ag orgs did not create this law, the ELECTED representatives of the people of this state did. These ag groups did not deny the sale of these lands, the purchase was made in vioolation of state law and the States AG went back and made Cook divest these purchases because he did not follow the state law the elected representatives of the people created.

You guys want to make it seem our legislature is made up soley of farmers and ag runs roughsode over the wishes and interests of the people of this state. The FACT is only slightly over 1/4 of the legislature is made up of people involved in ag and yet you wish people to beleive this significant MINORITY has the ability to get whatever they want??? What kind of fools do you beleive people are???? No wonder you can not get much response from your legislators in support for your ideals, your constantly stated beleifs they are no more than stooges for ag likely sits well with them. :eyeroll:

You critisize others for their ideals and the fact they regulate land sales and take away someones right to sell their land to whom ever they choose, but yet you want to do the very same only based on YOUR ideals. THAT is hypocrasy at it's finest. You demand answers to your questions, but refuse to answer others and go so far as to demand they stop being asked. It seems you would fit nicely in plainsmans oligarchy. :roll:

You, swift and plainsman as well as acouple of others have as was accurately described a "willie" for these ag groups. Plain and simple. And you are not willing to accept the fact that for several elections the people as well as the legislators and Govenor they elected to represent them have created, supported and carried out these laws that have served the state well up to this point simply because they are not what YOU want. Hell you guys are having a hard time accepting and getting over the most direct referendum on your ideals regarding the HFH initiative.

It matters if Cook is sueing as a corp. to over turn the law, if they are, the positions these orgs took regarding any land sales would have no impact, as corps. were not subject to approval OR denial thru the NAAAC process regulating nonprofits and these ag orgs had NOTHING to do with Cook corps purchases or the fact they were done in violation of state law and your whole claim these ag groups denials of the sale were the cause of the lawsuit would be so much bull****. But then you likely knew that and were simply hoping it would not be questioned so you could continue to lay the blame at the feet of these ag orgs you love to hate.


----------



## g/o

> . DU and others did not challenge it because even if they won they would lose in public opinion and support.
> 
> Cook regardless of if he is suing as a corp or individual does not have the PR issue to lose. That is why if FU,NDSA,FB had a single brain cell of common sense they would have let this sale alone and supported it, thus keeping our current law out of the courts. Not to hard to figure out. But the arrogance and you have demonstrated that well on this thread simply would not allow for common sense to move forward.


Come on Ron, no one supported him not the game and fish,forest service, parks and rec. So don't blame the ag groups alone on this guy. Your comment is stupid I can't believe it, why should have they let him slide by? They gave him the same treatment everyone else gets and some get passed.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> DU and others did not challenge it because even if they won they would lose in public opinion and support.


Ron remember that "gotcha" moment you spoke of? This statement you made in and of itself admits that even you know that "public opinion" would support the law they were challenging. Other wise what would DU have to "lose in public support and opinion" if they challenged it ?????


----------



## Plainsman

> No wonder you can not get much response from your legislators in support for your ideals, your constantly stated beleifs they are no more than stooges for ag likely sits well with them.


You know what gst. I think your worried that if to many people (voters) complain about our legislature they will not want to stay in the ag pocket. I think a fair playing field scares the snot out of you.


----------



## 58504451

Ron - I'm interested in your opinion on this - If not for the ag groups supporting anti-corp ownership we would probably already have it. What should these groups have done differently in the past to aviod this coming to a court decision??


----------



## gst

by Plainsman » Thu May 05, 2011 8:47 pm

quotegst [No wonder you can not get much response from your legislators in support for your ideals, your constantly stated beleifs they are no more than stooges for ag likely sits well with them.]end quote

quote plainsman [You know what gst. I think your worried that if to many people (voters) complain about our legislature they will not want to stay in the ag pocket. I think a fair playing field scares the snot out of you. ]end quote

plainsman remember the numbers? Of 141 total legislators, only 38 involved in or with ag or 27%. 73% of legislators have NO involvement in ag. How much "fairer" of a playing field do YOU need? You simply can not accept the fact that these other 103 legislators that are not involved in ag as well as the 38 that are may very well consider issues with an open mind and vote on what they beleive is best for ND as a whole. Simply because it does not fit your ideals. If you can not get your agendas passed with 73% of the legislature not involved in ag, perhaps it is time to consider perhaps your agendas are not that popular outside of this site. :wink:

You must admit it did seem that way in regards to how the HFH measure turned out.

What you do not seem to realize and accept, each Nov. the people of this state HAVE the ability to "complain" about their legislators and the jobs they are doing.

Perhaps you should begin to consider that given the fact they continue to elect these representatives that you say are nothing but stooges to ag, perhaps the people that continue to elect them simply do not agree with you and show it with their votes.


----------



## gst

58504451 said:


> Ron - I'm interested in your opinion on this - If not for the ag groups supporting anti-corp ownership we would probably already have it. What should these groups have done differently in the past to aviod this coming to a court decision??


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman remember the numbers? Of 141 total legislators, only 38 involved in or with ag or 27%. 73% of legislators have NO involvement in ag


No involvement is a very broad brush. I think they looked at those only directly involved. Not the implement dealer, the seed salesman, the chemical dealers etc. I don't know how many indirectly involved there would be, but in North Dakota it's a bundle. You mentioned roughshod, and that is exactly what they have done on some occasions. I think their mind is made up, or helped to be made up by organizations like Farm Bureau before the public ever has input.

I think those organizations goofed when the law was so strict against non profit organizations like DU buying land. If they had left conservation organizations alone they would have been much better off. The land the organizations purchased would have been a drop in the bucket. However, rather than lt them purchase less than one tenth of one percent of the land in North Dakota they mostly shut it down. That has led to building resistance. Organizations that pushed our legislature to this radical stand were groups like Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, and the Grazing people. These organizations simply want to keep their thumb on any competition no matter how small. That no compromise attitude is coming back to bite you. Unfortunately, it will bit many more people than just farmers. Your pro ag group has screwed up. That's not an anti farmer opinion, but it is reality and perhaps anti pro ag group. They messed up. The biggest disservice was to farmers.


----------



## gst

plainsman, here is the website. http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-201 ... legis.html
check it out for yourself.



Plainsman said:


> The land the organizations purchased would have been a drop in the bucket.


Plainsman how much land does this one conservation org DU own in Canada in an area roughly the size of ND??? Now take that times say 10 "conservation" orgs. How many acres of volantary conservation programs do they have here in ND??

DU HAS a SIGNIFICANT conservation prescence here in ND.

http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation ... nts/ND.pdf

Check out all the little red ducks on the above site. So given they are involved in these volantary conservation orgs, what exactly would there to be gained by their owning land over what is being done?????



Plainsman said:


> I think those organizations goofed when the law was so strict against non profit organizations like DU buying land. If they had left conservation organizations alone they would have been much better off.


So plainsman, how would the state have then handled other non conservation nonprofits that wanted to purchase lands here in ND??? So would you then allow DU to buy how ever much land they can get donors to give them monies for? How many acres should they be able to buy say over the next 100 years?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

58504451 said:


> Ron - I'm interested in your opinion on this - If not for the ag groups supporting anti-corp ownership we would probably already have it. What should these groups have done differently in the past to avoid this coming to a court decision??


There have been numerous attempts to bring this law to a point that it would likely pass a court challenge. The lobby efforts by these organizations have kept that from happening. What should we have done? First looked at the court rulings from other states and made the needed changes to our current law. I know that some tried to do this, but well gst can tell you how that went and would go.

I want to you stop and think about something from our not to distant past in the Leg. Back in 05 or 07 not sure which session it was, a bill was introduced that would have opened the door to farmers in regards to borrowing money for their operations. No change in regards to who can buy land, just who farmers could borrow from. FB and FU flooded the air waves claiming that the Leg was trying to undo the Corp farming law. Hell I believed it until I read the bill talked with people who sponsored the bill and even some who voted against it that supported it. Because they knew that come election time that vote even though positive for farmers would be held over their heads as being anti farmer. That is the influence of FB and FU as well as NDSA in regards to this issue

Keep in mind,I am for keeping Corp like Cargill out of landownership, but reality is reality and the SCOUTS enforcing the Constitution trumps many wants. Thus the smart path would be to draft a law that will pass muster or don't pee in the cereal bowl of someone that has the means to push you into court and challenge the law you are unwilling to change!

I have stated my views regarding conservation organizations before. Du is the least likely to buy land in ND as they mostly do not intend to keep it. They normally restore the wetlands and sell the property. Most times at a loss but never the less they do sell it. But with our 30yr easement rule they tend not to do much in ND anymore.


----------



## swift

What I keep reading is "how much land should but sold" "what about other nonconservation groups buying land" and really those answered by your own ranks. DU or Mr Cook or HUS can't buy an acre if there is not a seller. Since the members of your orbs hold title on most of the private land in ND wouldn't it better suit your cause to ask your members to be selective of who they sell their land to? It sounds like you don't have confidence in the roots of your grassroots organizations.

My turn for a question. Does anyone believe the anticorporate farming law infringes on the personal rights of an individual?


----------



## Plainsman

Here is what happened. Our state passed a law that was so broad that it can and will be easily shot down. If organizations like FU, FB, and NDGA had not stopped the attempt to adjust that bill to withstand a court challenge there would be no lawsuit now. To their bone headed way of thinking it was all or nothing. Well, they are going to get nothing. This court challenge is all but over and done with. Thank guys like gst when the big companies come in and start buying up land. gst, I'll call it greed again, because that's what it was. FU, FB, and NDGA lined up like pigs at a trough for North Dakota land and they didn't want anyone else sipping their slop.


----------



## gst

Ron, nice story, it tends to reinforce the stated veiws you have that the legislators can not think for themselves. And you wonder why you have a hard time getting them to champion your ideals.



Ron Gilmore said:


> I have stated my views regarding conservation organizations before. Du is the least likely to buy land in ND as they mostly do not intend to keep it.


Why will that fact keep them from buying land in ND?

Ron you never did answer how many acres DU OWNS in Canada just north of us in the Prairie Pothole Region.

How many acres does DU have in volantary conservation programs here in ND already?

What is to be gained given these programs they already have by allowing them to own purchase then resell lands here in this state?



Ron Gilmore said:


> But with our 30yr easement rule they tend not to do much in ND anymore


What 30 year easement rule?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> My turn for a question. Does anyone believe the anticorporate farming law infringes on the personal rights of an individual?


It likely does. But you must realize NOT ALL RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE! But great care must be taken in considering the consequences of infringement upon them. I do not have the "right" to build a feedlot where ever I want. There are law that have been developed to regulate me from doing so. There are any numerous examples of how "personal roghts of an individual" are "infirnged upon all the time in our everyday lives. But it is the job of the people who create the laws that do so to weigh carefully the value and consequences of these laws that do infringe on these rights. The voters than cast their support or displeasure of the decisions these legislators make every Nov.

If the people of this state do not beleive their elected representatives are doing the job of weighing the cost and consequences or benefits of these laws they create as they should, every Nov. they have the opportunity to replace them with someone that will. GIVEN THAT ONE SIMPLE FACT,IT IS KINDA HARD TO LAY THE BLAME FOR THESE LAWS SOLEY AT THE FEET OF THESE AG GROUPS LIKE SOME ON HERE WITH THEIR "WILLIES" WOULD LIKE TO. That is unless you beleive ag has some sort of control over the individual voter here in ND as well! :roll:

So plainsman, swift, ron, did you ever vote for govenors that denied these land sales or legislators that supported these laws?


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsman, swift, ron, did you ever vote for govenors that denied these land sales or legislators that supported these laws?


You know why that is a stupid question? Because there was never an alternative. Every candidate that I can remember for the past 50 years got up and thumped their chest and talked about how they were for the farmers. In this state a candidate would not dare do otherwise. Agriculture has a death grip on our politicians.



> Ron you never did answer how many acres DU OWNS in Canada just north of us in the Prairie Pothole Region.


 How many acres ----not enough



> How many acres does DU have in volantary conservation programs here in ND already


Not enough



> What is to be gained given these programs they already have by allowing them to own purchase then resell lands here in this state?


That depends on who they sell to, if they do.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> There have been numerous attempts to bring this law to a point that it would likely pass a court challenge. The lobby efforts by these organizations have kept that from happening. What should we have done? First looked at the court rulings from other states and made the needed changes to our current law. I know that some tried to do this, but well gst can tell you how that went and would go


So ron did these attempts you mention address the consequences of opening the doors to ANY nonprofit to purchase land here in ND in the attempts that were made to let your pet nonprofits in??? The legislators of this state do not have the luxury to veiw these bills with the blinders on that you and others do. They actually do have to take into consideration ALL the consequences of these bills not just the simple fact DU gets to land. You sin a nice story, but you have not addressed how a legislature comprised of only slightly over 1/4 ag producers gets it's way everytime as you suggest. your denial that these ELECTED legislators are doing the job the people that ELECTED them want them to is starting to sound abit like "I didn't get my way so something must be wrong"

So plainsman, swift ron, answer this one question. How do these representatives, if they are screwing the people of ND over so badly by creating these laws and merely being stooges for ag all the time, get elected and re elected? 



gst said:


> It matters if Cook is sueing as a corp. to over turn the law, if they are, the positions these orgs took regarding any land sales would have no impact, as corps. were not subject to approval OR denial thru the NAAAC process regulating nonprofits and these ag orgs had NOTHING to do with Cook corps purchases or the fact they were done in violation of state law and your whole claim these ag groups denials of the sale were the cause of the lawsuit would be so much b#llsh*t. But then you likely knew that and were simply hoping it would not be questioned so you could continue to lay the blame at the feet of these ag orgs you love to hate.


Ron is Cook sueing as a Corporation or nonprofit?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So plainsman, swift, ron, did you ever vote for govenors that denied these land sales or legislators that supported these laws?
> 
> You know why that is a stupid question? Because there was never an alternative. Every candidate that I can remember for the past 50 years got up and thumped their chest and talked about how they were for the farmers. In this state a candidate would not dare do otherwise. Agriculture has a death grip on our politicians.


Why is that???? Could it just possibly be because agiculture plays a largerole in this state and v=even the legislators not involved in ag realize the importance of the laws they create regarding it? Naw couldn't be. Must just be "greedy ag' and the death grip they have on these legislators instead. :roll:



Plainsman said:


> Ron you never did answer how many acres DU OWNS in Canada just north of us in the Prairie Pothole Region.
> How many acres ----not enough
> How many acres does DU have in volantary conservation programs here in ND already
> Not enough


Take your "not enough" blinders of for a moment and consider that just perhaps these legislators have the responsibility to look at more than just they want DU to own more and more acres in this state.


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsman, swift ron, answer this one question. How do these representatives, if they are screwing the people of ND over so badly by creating these laws and merely being stooges for ag all the time, get elected and re elected?


The same way a piece of dung now occupies the oval office.

The bottom line gst is that you guys could have paid a small price, but greed is going to cost you a lot more in the end. Don't give me that :bs: that your pet organizations did it for the farmers, they do it for themselves, but in the end they did it to you and themselves. Now they will try make the gullible farmers think they need them more than ever.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> o plainsman, swift ron, answer this one question. How do these representatives, if they are screwing the people of ND over so badly by creating these laws and merely being stooges for ag all the time, get elected and re elected?
> 
> The same way a piece of dung now occupies the oval office.


plainsman I will agree with you that in some cases where there is no track record of a candidate for people to consider mistakes are made, but here in ND legislators are most OFTEN re elected so once again, in that case, once their voting is on record how do they keep getting RE ELECTED if they are screwing the average NDan over to please ag all the time?



Plainsman said:


> Don't give me that that your pet organizations did it for the farmers, they do it for themselves,


Plainsman, who do you think these orgs are????? These orgs do not buy land here in ND so what do you beleive they are "doing it for themselves" for??? Careful, your "willie" is showing. :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I will have to admit I don't pay much attention to the politics of the North Dakota Game and Fish. What years was Keith Trego director? I don't remember that.


Why don't you ask Keith Trego yourself. In 2010 the wildlife society had their annual meeting in Minot. Keith Trego always attends. The ndctws meeting is usually in February and durring years when the legislature is meeting they sponser a luncheon to lobby our elected representatives. When they get as high as 60 legislators they boast about it. Plainsman, did they have it in 2011? Two years ago (2009 legislative session) I believe it was at the Kelly Inn. Can I take your coat? May I get you something to drink? Can I give you a tongue bath?

Plainsman, all this talk about the legislature being in the pocket of FB, FU and NDSA is total BS. The state leaders, the legislature needs to deal with this squeaky wheel syndrome. Take you spoiled children out back.

Plainsman wrote,



> FU, FB, and NDGA lined up like pigs at a trough for North Dakota land and they didn't want anyone else sipping their slop.


Plainsman, when you attend the wildlife society meetings you really need to stop ordering the purple kool-aid.


----------



## gst

Okay here is the botom line INHO, I'm not a lawyer, so I am not going to make assumptions about this lawsuit or the likelyhood of it's success. I'm simply wondering if Cook is sueing as a corp. and people think he is going to be successful in overturning our anticorporate farming law based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, why have other corps that have much more value to gain not attempted to over turn it based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? If Cook is trying to overturn this law as a nonprofit, how can he use the "Commerce" Clause of the Constitution as a nonprofit, nonprofits can not exactly engage in "commerce"?

I will readily admit I do not know the answers to these questions nor how the courts will ultimately rule. If the legal advisors to the people that create these laws have done their jobs, these laws could stand up for the most part. If not then it will be back to the drawing board next legislative session to draft legislation that more effectively deals with the intent of these laws..

But for individuals to lay this lawsuit soley at the feet of these ag orgs and claim the ELECTED legislators that create our laws are nothing more than stooges for ag is simply nothing more than than bilnd bias. I have readily admitted as an ag producer I have a bias towards production ag. Perhaps it is time a few on here admit their biases as well. They have already shown them in their comments.


----------



## swift

Yes I voted for Hoevan. If you vote for a candidate or against a candidate based on a single issue you are a fool. There hasn't been a candidate yet that has done everything perfect. If they were perfect they would be a rancher not a politician.

Next question, what percentage of ND population are ag producers?

Your continued used of a Bismarck feedlot is humorous. But since you can't grasp zoning vs exclusion look at it this way. The rights of one are squashed to protect many people. With this law the rights of many are squashed for the protection of few. That in a nutshell is what the problem is. I'm. Sure you still wont understand. You aren't capable of seeing the other side.


----------



## gst

Swift, so when you voted for Hoven could it have been because of his judgement he had shown in doiing what was best for the state of ND?

Could he have been using this judgement when he denied as well as permitted some of these land sales?

I was not referenceing one particualr feedlot in my example. But lets take a look at this example for a moment. A 10,000 head feedlot will employee 5-10 people, it will spend millions of dollars in business, these dollars multiplied thru the local ecoomy benefit many. State law has regulations regarding these feedlots to protect those that may be impacted. One of those requires a "setback" from residents in the area. So Joe has some land that meets all the state requirements for soil types, water issues ect... and he wishes to sell it to me and I wish to buy it to build a feedyard. However there happens to be a neighbor living directly across the road from Joes property within the required "set back" . State law says I can not build that feedlot there as a result of this one person living there, and as a result state law has efectively infringed upon Joes ability to sell his property to a willing buyer.

Now before you go off stateing this is a regulation on land usage (zoning) rather than land sales, please know I understand that, but also please be honest enough and reasonable enough to admit these laws do effectively limit who one can sell their properties to. They limit who will be a "willing" buyer. I would have paid Joe 25% more for his land than someone else will simply because it met all the other state requirements of soil type, water, ect...Of course Joe has the ability to sell this property to someone else other than me for this feedlot, but he also has the same ability to sell his property to someone else other than DU in the instance of these other land sales. So please realize the state thru various methods regulates and effectively prohibits the sales of land to many entities thru various state laws.

So now the question is will you, ron, and plainsman be as staunch an advocate for a change in other state laws that effectively infringe on someones ability to sell their land to a "willing" buyer? Or will you only advocate for changes in the ones that pertain to YOUR agendas.


----------



## natasha76hehu

No, that's the problem. Out elected representatives are not for ALL the people.


----------



## swift

Gst land usage controls and land ownership are two different topics and I wont argue them with you as though they are the same. It is just another typical spin. There has not been a constitutional issue with zoning. There has been multiple constitutional issues with anticorporate farming around the country.

You admit to pushing your agenda as an ag producer because it is your occupation. Then you slap down me and Ron for doing the same thing. Then you claim not to be an elitist. Your posts are by definition elitist.

C'mon, Gst admit, it you think your better than us. And you don't like it when your authority is questioned. Don't worry soon this will be all over. If the lawsuit prevails will you be willing to publicly apologize for for the decades you lobbied to squash private property rights of the people of North Dakota? Dont worry I won't hold my breath. "I'm sorry and I was wrong" is not in your vocabulary.. You more likely will call for a boycott of hunters like you usually do.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> You admit to pushing your agenda as an ag producer because it is your occupation. Then you slap down me and Ron for doing the same thing


swift, please show where I have ever suppgested orgs or individuals do not have the right to advocate for their ideals (agendas) 
And before you go there please remember I never suggested the HF advocates did not have a right to pursue the initiatited measure, from the very start I merely questioned the wisdom of sportsmen involving the nonhunting public in regulating hunting in this manner that would open the door to involvement of anti hunting groups.

How many times have I suggested to you that it is not an unreasonable concept for agriculture to advocate for the benefit of agriculture just as the medical profession advocates for the benefit of the medical profession ect.... . You, ron, plainsman and others simply seem to not be able to accept that agriculture plays a significant role in the well being of this state. The people elceted by the voters of this state, (as well as many of the voters outside of this site) realize this as well. Many of them while not directly involved in production ag have some economic connection to agriculture. Some might even go so far as to say if you eat you are connected to agriculture. This is not an eliteist mentality, it is simply the reality here in the agricultural based state of ND. The point being made was you guys are critisizing ag for supporting a law that may regulate who someone can sell land to, but then ron supports a law (anticorporate farming) that does the same simply because it does not target the orgs he likes. So answer this question, if Joe can sell his land to DU why should he not be able to sell it to ADM or someone building a feedlot or airport?

So these elected representatives of the people can not soley look at letting a handful of one groups pet orgs own land in ND without considering the full consequences of doing so. You do not seem to understand that when this is done and YOUR agendas are not followed, it is not soley the fault of 3 ag orgs. And when these laws , their consequences and the elected representatives that have created them have been upheld by the people of this stae thru the voting process for multiple elections perhaps you need to come to an undestanding not everyone agrees with your agendas and you do not always get your way. It is called the democratic process. But instead of coming to this realization, it is much easier on the ego to blame "greedy" ag.

In this last legislative session, the one org I am involved with was successful in passage of about half of the issues we lobbied on. Even with the respect this org is held in on the hill in Bismarck by legislators, we do not get every thing we lobby for. Things are advocated for, these elected reps. of the people weigh them and the votes are cast. It is the way the process should and does work.

As I said if the legal advisors to the states legislature have done their job, this law will stand, if not it will likely be addressed in the next legislative session. Just think of the pages of debates that will be good for!!!


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Gst land usage controls and land ownership are two different topics and I wont argue them with you as though they are the same


It has never stopped you in the past! 

swift answer this one question. Joe has land I want to buy to build a feedlot on, and Joes WANTS to sell me this land so I can build my feedlot, I will not buy this land unless I can build a feedlot on it. But a state law prevents me from building a feedlot on Joes land for whatever reason, has a willing buyer been taken away from Joe in essense limiting who he can sell his land to because of this state law??

No spin, simply a direct question. Often times there are 2 different paths one can take to get to the very same end point.

Are land usage regs and land ownership regs two different things? Yes, but they both end up at the same end point.

So if yours and others concern truly is the "right" of the individual to be able to sell their lands to whom ever they wish as has been claimed, surely you will advocate for Joes right to sell to the feedlot fella just as strongly as you advocate for him to be able to sell to DU.


----------



## Plainsman

> So answer this question, if Joe can sell his land to DU why should he not be able to sell it to ADM or someone building a feedlot or airport?


I think anyone should be able to buy it, but they can't build a feedlot. It's apples and oranges. You want to buy the land go for it, but you can't build a feedlot. It doesn't mean you can't own it. Do something else with it. Your not telling Cook what he can do with land, your telling him he can't own it. You spin fast gst, but if people are paying attention they are seeing through it.



> Plainsman, when you attend the wildlife society meetings


I have not been to a wildlife society meeting for six or seven years. So I will not see Keith Trego.



> Former G/F Director Keith Trego is the head of it.


So when was he director?

As far as politicians sadly we often have to vote for the one we dislike the least.


----------



## 58504451

Swift - your question on infringing on private ownership rights is interesting and will probably come into play. Is a corporation considered an individual - I would say not. Consider what Cook is doing and relate it to your profession. He's creating a non-profit foundation which can pay it's employees, write off the donation to it, avoid property tax and be able to use it for personal use only if he wants. How could you utilize this idea in your profession to get an advantage on the competition??


----------



## 58504451

Ron - I'm interested in your opinion on this - If not for the ag groups supporting anti-corp ownership we would probably already have it. What should these groups have done differently in the past to avoid this coming to a court decision??

Maybe we should try the question again Ron. Your answer was as expected. The bill you mention had to do with giving you the option to go to Walmart to borrow money - the banking crisis pretty well took care of that. I would like to have some direct examples and you failed to bring any to the table again. If you have none maybe you should drop the acquisations??

You would like to have your favorites own land but not every corp?? Isn't that the same hypocricy you pinned on others? I would also like to know when you were able to express your views to the national conservation groups? Have they ever allowed their members to vote on issues?? Unless you are a major donor do you think you could run for the board - have you ever voted for the members?? I'll help you out - the answer is no. You are simply part of the fundraising. Non profits are more of a threat that a for profit corp owning land - they don't have to worry about profits - just push the membership for more donations. Will they be paying taxes and creating jobs in the communities ??

Still interested in the specifics to the question above. Thanks.


----------



## gst

plainsman you and others are not seeing the similarities simply because you do not want to. The arguement made at the start of this debate was state law should not prohibit anyone from selling their land to anyone they wish. I want to buy Joes land to build a feedlot, but state law says I can not build one on Joes land for various reasons and the ONLY reason I will buy this land is to build a feedlot, then state law is in essence prohibiting Joe from selling me the land. Yes the methods are different, state law is not specifically prohibiting the sale,only the usage, but in the end the result is the same, state law has kept a willing seller from selling his land to an individual that wished to buy it. So spin how it is we got here, but Joe and DU are left wondering why they can;t just sell their land to whomever they wish when the answer simply is the state has put in place regulations for reasons that are intended to be in the best interests of the citizens of this state. Wether these regulations put in place by these legislators is in fact good for the citizens of this state is weighed every Nov. And it appears as if a majority of the voters have agreed this law in question is.

I realize swift,ron, and you will never get over this "willie" you have for these ag groups, and you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. But please realize if you choose to come on sites like this and make insinuations and claims you really know little about regarding these groups, you will be taken to task for doing so, especially if they are not based in fact.

As was said this will run it's course thru the courts and if need be end up in the next legislative session being delt with to address aspects that need to be addressed. And for some reason, I get the feeling there will be another thread with comments of "greedy" ag and "willies" popping up over these ag orgs once agian. So until then.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman asked,



> I have not been to a wildlife society meeting for six or seven years. So I will not see Keith Trego.
> 
> Former G/F Director Keith Trego is the head of it.
> So when was he director?


Deputy Director for NDG/F 1981


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman you and others are not seeing the similarities simply because you do not want to. The arguement made at the start of this debate was state law should not prohibit anyone from selling their land to anyone they wish. I want to buy Joes land to build a feedlot, but state law says I can not build one on Joes land for various reasons and the ONLY reason I will buy this land is to build a feedlot, then state law is in essence prohibiting Joe from selling me the land


Well, hand Joe the check and see if the state law is prohibiting you from buying the land. The state would pay no attention unless you try to build the feedlot. It's your decision. You would not buy land that was six feet under water for wheat because it would not meet your criteria. You also would not buy from Joe because the land would not meet your criteria. You would be making the decision to buy or not buy the land and are not hampered by state law. That was the poorest twist to logic that I have seen you make.



> So until then.


Later gst. Oooooor ya right. oke:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I think anyone should be able to buy it, but they can't build a feedlot. It's apples and oranges. You want to buy the land go for it, but you can't build a feedlot. It doesn't mean you can't own it. Do something else with it. Your not telling Cook what he can do with land, your telling him he can't own it. You spin fast gst, but if people are paying attention they are seeing through it.


That is incorrect. Mr. Cook "can" own it. He simply cannot be incorporated from out of state. If an exception is made for one (Mr. Cook) than an exception is made for all. (Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, The Humane Societies Wildlife Land Trust)

Plainsman, The part you said about "do something else with it." That's it, just do something else with it. Are all things in your head that simple?


----------



## Plainsman

> That's it, just do something else with it.


Or don't buy it. That doesn't mean the state is stopping him from buying it. One is state law, one is suitability and personal choice. The state will not stop gst and Joe isn't going to put a gun to gst's head and make him buy it.

Well, the court case will be interesting. Just remember it wasn't nasty hunters, environmentalists, HSUS, or the bogyman that did this to you it was your own. Oh, and those geniuses WE elected.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Well, the court case will be interesting. Just remember it wasn't nasty hunters, environmentalists, HSUS, or the bogyman that did this to you it was your own. Oh, and those geniuses WE elected.


Yes the court case should be interesting. However there won't be any (quote)nasty hunters(unquote) in the court room as there are no sportsmen or sportsmens organizations involved in it now. The political advocacy groups will be there and more then likely will confuse the press by telling them they are sportsmens groups. A clever ruse.

What is it you hope to gain by always mocking our elected representatives?


----------



## 58504451

Plainsman wrote,

"Well, the court case will be interesting. Just remember it wasn't nasty hunters, environmentalists, HSUS, or the bogyman that did this to you it was your own. Oh, and those geniuses WE elected."

Wonder how many conservation groups are going to be invisible and contributing attorneys and funds. Any bets ??


----------



## Plainsman

> What is it you hope to gain by always mocking our elected representatives?


That people will think when they vote. That people will question what their elected officials do and not just look up to them as royalty. That people will realize these are our elected servants not our masters. That when people do pay attention elected officials will be held accountable. I could go on for pages. I think many of these people are in because no one pays attention to them.


----------



## swift

> Swift - your question on infringing on private ownership rights is interesting and will probably come into play. Is a corporation considered an individual - I would say not. Consider what Cook is doing and relate it to your profession. He's creating a non-profit foundation which can pay it's employees, write off the donation to it, avoid property tax and be able to use it for personal use only if he wants. How could you utilize this idea in your profession to get an advantage on the competition??


58xxxxx the private ownership rights being infringed on are those of the seller. I agree the corp is not an individual. I really don't know what Mr Cook will do with the land and really don't see an advantage he may be gaining other than federal tax laws. Federal tax shelters has nothing to do with the ND law being questioned, it is another topic of unto itself.

The problem with the anticorporate law as I see it is.
1. When it was first passed the intent was to protect family farms. I believe the average farm in the 30's was around 160 acres.
source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ag ... ao295g.pdf
The average farm today is 1300 acres roughly a 9 times increase.
source: http://stuffaboutstates.com/agriculture ... e_size.htm

We have very few "family farms left" What we have are corporate family farms. CORPORATE being the optimal word.

2. the initial law did not include the exclusion of non-profits. That was added by the legislature after being lobbied for by the ag orgs. At the time there were a different generation of people in charge of the farms.

3. The idea that a landowner cannot donate or sell their own property to the entity of their choosing is the definition of tyranny.
tyr·an·ny (tr-n) KEY NOUN:
A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. In ND the governor has tyannical rights over the private citizens rights to sell their property as they see fit.

The very people that are calling for defense of this law are also asking for the law to be amended to allow for non-family corporate investments.

2011 Priority Issues - North Dakota Farm Bureau
We support new legislation that would allow outside capital investment by unrelated individuals
in the family farm corporation.

That is a start. It seems the family farmer is much less abundant than they were when the law was enacted. And the law impedes on private persons rights. And the law was amended to include nonfarming entities at a time of Swampbusters when the image of conservation organizations was being run through the mud by the agriculture organizations. Suffice it to say the fruit was ripe for the picking at the time nonprofits were added to what was a pretty good law.


----------



## swift

> I realize swift,ron, and you will never get over this "willie" you have for these ag groups, and you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. But please realize if you choose to come on sites like this and make insinuations and claims you really know little about regarding these groups, you will be taken to task for doing so, especially if they are not based in fact.


I have continued to post my opinion to the published policies, priority issues and resolutions of the three ag orgs you defend to strongly. If you cannot see that this isn't just a "willie" issue and is actually well researched and well thought out opinions than your not as intelligent as I thought you were. You continue to use apples to oranges analogies and refuse to accept that land ownership laws are NOT the same as LAND USAGE laws. One is arbitrarily excluding people from selling THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY.

I understand your willie issue is protective of the people in your chosen industry. The problem is you do not have a given right to farm, ranch, grow elk. You certainly should not have legal protection of your industry based on laws that infringe on peoples rights that are guaranteed by the constitution. Again the Ag orgs should be working with its members to protect farming on a grassroots level by encouraging sales to family farmers. Again all the corporations in the world cant buy an acre without a willing seller.


----------



## Plainsman

Very well written swift. I think many will find that interesting. Don't be discouraged that you will not be able to convince the Fu, and FB lap dogs. Some people have become so accustomed to others kissing up to them that they simply go off the deep end when faced with logic based on facts. 
We have a law that I think is unconstitutional. That destroys the whole law. Unfortunately it takes wealth to fight that law. In the end they will have done a disservice to the family farm. For those foolish enough to think I simply hate farmers I am one of those people who volunteer (no pay and expense is my own) to monitor for invasive species. I worry about agriculture impact.


----------



## swift

I hear ya Plainsman. I am going to help work lambs next Saturday _and work calves next Sunday. I'M sure any little credibility I might have is lost now with our resident cattleman since I'm helping with sheep. . It is amusing to hear the cry for entitlement from a guy that considers himself a conservative. I agree with Ron that the lawsuit was fostered by the slit attitude of the Fu and Fb.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> 58xxxxx the private ownership rights being infringed on are those of the seller


The seller is not being prevented from selling his land. Anyone that is not a nonprofit or corp. can buy it. What is being restricted is these entities from buying the land. In the case of a nonprofit there are instances were indeed both the seller and the buyer have been allowed to proceed. This limitation on the seller is no more infringed upon than the person who can not sell to someone that wishes to build a feedlot if the state regulations prohibit a feedlot from being built. If it was not for the state law, the sale would go thru. The "apples to oranges" difference in structure between laws restricting land usage and landsales is as obvious as the fact they both often times have the same result. *A willing seller is limited from selling to a willing buyer because of something the state has restricted or limited*. You do not wish to accept this as it does nothing to further your arguement, but that does not change the fact that Joe was not able to sell his land to an individual that might very well have paid more than anyone else if he could legally built a feedlot on Joes property.



swift said:


> You continue to use apples to oranges analogies and refuse to accept that land ownership laws are NOT the same as LAND USAGE laws.





gst said:


> The arguement made at the start of this debate was state law should not prohibit anyone from selling their land to anyone they wish. I want to buy Joes land to build a feedlot, but state law says I can not build one on Joes land for various reasons and the ONLY reason I will buy this land is to build a feedlot, then state law is in essence prohibiting Joe from selling me the land. Yes the methods are different, state law is not specifically prohibiting the sale,only the usage, but in the end the result is the same, state law has kept a willing seller from selling his land to an individual that wished to buy it. So spin how it is we got here, but Joe and DU are left wondering why they can;t just sell their land to whomever they wish when the answer simply is the state has put in place regulations for reasons that are intended to be in the best interests of the citizens of this state. Wether these regulations put in place by these legislators is in fact good for the citizens of this state is weighed every Nov. And it appears as if a majority of the voters have agreed this law in question is.


----------



## gst

swift, you never answered the question without some sort of process in place to regulate sales to non profits, how will you keep ones even you would find objectionable from purchasing lands here in ND? Or do you truly beleive it is in the best interests of the state to simply allow ANYONE to purchase and own land here in ND regardless of their affiliations or ideologies?

And if you do answer the above questions directly, here is one more, s Cook sueing as a nonprofit or a corporation?

Now if you guys stayed at a Holiday Inn and think you are qualified to argue this case, you are most certainly welcome to your opinions. I will simply wait on the courts decision and then be a part of the legislative process to deal with the results.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, the state does deny the owner the right to sell. You keep throwing up meaningless drivel as if it was real debate. All you have accomplished is showcase the mindless stubbornness that caused this problem to begin with. Your not for landowner rights. You tell us of your activities to support landowner rights, but I think it's a smokescreen. Your kid is going to farm, so you don't care about anyone else. That was evident in you opposition to perpetual easements. Some people want their kids to have a say in 30 years, some people want more money right now, but you don't care. Quality of life means more than money gst. Freedom isn't bad either. Compassion for older farmers isn't bad either. Thirty years would be ok, but after debating you I could never support it because I believe as soon as you get it you will try to destroy the freedom of others for your gain. Look at the intent of CRP and how it was twisted after they got it. The more you talk, the less I trust. 
Your inconsistent gst. The high fence you cried landowner rights as did others. Now you want to step on landowner rights. Who will you use for the scapegoat this time? Your rights end when it infringes on the rights of others.
Like Ron and Swift I don't want to see big corporations come in and destroy the family farm either. However, I see you as the greater threat, so if Cook sueing is what it takes I wish him good luck.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

If I want to sell our land today, I cannot sell it to the highest bidder if that is someone who is excluded by our current law. That is a denial of my right to sell to whom I choose. Mince it anyway you want, that is the backbone of the law, it is also the most blatant contradiction to the commerce clause since the law discriminates.

Corp rights changed dramatically with the ruling regarding campaign contributions. Laws both state and Federal got kicked hard in the teeth that took away rights by limiting amounts of contributions to less than what a individual could spend. I do believe that this is going to cross over into this as well.

I cannot find online the Judaical summary of the NE case, but it is worth the read if someone can find the link or posting of it. Talked a bit over the weekend about this issue with some farmers. Most where unaware of the Cook filing, and most think that the law will be stripped. Not that they want this, but they understand that we have been very lucky to go this long without the law being challenged.

What exactly could have been done was asked? I will repeat what I said, review the court cases, take out what has been tossed, strengthen the areas that are allowed. NE did have some exceptions in the ruling as did other states. Then move forward. In hind sight like I said, approval of Cook would have meant this would not be taking place and maybe would not have for another ten years or more.
Cannot undo that, but keep in mind, ND is no longer an island like it once was.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> If I want to sell our land today, I cannot sell it to the highest bidder if that is someone who is excluded by our current law. That is a denial of my right to sell to whom I choose.


So Ron what is it if I havea quarter of land that someone comes to me and says hey the slope, soil types ,sheltered protection, water holding ect.... is perfect for a feedlot, and they are willing to pay me twice what I could get from anyone else. But my neighbor who lives acrsoss the road is within the state required setback distance so this individual can not build a feedlot on my land. I "choose" to sell him my land, he wants to buy my land, but state law says he can not do with this land what he wants so he will no longer buy my land. A willing buyer (highest bidder) has been "excluded" by state law from puchasing my land thru usage restrictions and as a result I can not sell my land to this particular willing buyer ("whom I choose") that would pay me more than anyone else. The people being denied selling to DU can sell to any other individual that wants to buy their land just not a nonprofit. So tell me exactly how the end result varies between the two different examples

If you guys can not see the similarities in the end result, it is because you don't want to.

Ron what exactly is it that DU has to "lose in public opinion" as you claimed had they challended this law if the citizens of this state do not want the law in place?


----------



## Plainsman

I think buyers are often limited. You mentioned soil type, protection, water holding, etc. All those things were limiting factors to land use. None of them including the state would keep you from buying the land. If you have a field of rocks more than likely no one will buy it for wheat production. It's limited by rocks, not law. If someone was dumb enough to give you $1000 an acre the state would let them. Land use vs the freedom to sell. I can think of no better situation that fits the old cliche "apples and oranges". If you want to see who is having the comprehension problem gst look in the mirror. 

I'll bet we can talk about this for another 20 pages and you will still pretend to not understand. I'll also bet you stick with it for another 20 pages. oke:


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> In hind sight like I said, approval of Cook would have meant this would not be taking place and maybe would not have for another ten years or more


For someone that sure claims to know alot about the law, explain this, If Cook was allowed as a corporation to keep the lands he purchased in violation of state law, how long before some other corp would have challenged this law based on that allowal?

.


----------



## gst

g/o said:


> Cook Waterfowl Foundation says *a law that prohibits corporations *from owning farmland in North Dakota violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

Cook is sueing as a corporation.

Report this postReply with quoteRe: Cook Waterfowl sues state,
by Ron Gilmore » Sun May 01, 2011 10:34 am

Stop blowing smoke gst and name one land sale to DU or similar organizations that the named groups have supported instead of asking others questions anwser once for a frigging change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Ron, given the NAAAC has NOTHING to do with aproval or denial of corporaions purchasing land, how does the position of these groups regarding State law regulating nonprofits play into this lawsuit?


----------



## Plainsman

Ron, Swift does this look serious?



> Stop blowing smoke gst and name one land sale to DU or similar organizations that the named groups have supported instead of asking others questions anwser once for a frigging change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





> So Ron, given the NAAAC has NOTHING to do with aproval or denial of corporaions purchasing land, how does the position of these groups regarding State law regulating nonprofits play into this lawsuit?


I mean Ron, you asked a question and got no answer all you got was another question. I am starting to not take gst serious. As a matter of fact many of his opinions are starting to look like he wants to make ag look bad. I think we have been had.


----------



## swift

> swift, you never answered the question without some sort of process in place to regulate sales to non profits, how will you keep ones even you would find objectionable from purchasing lands here in ND? Or do you truly beleive it is in the best interests of the state to simply allow ANYONE to purchase and own land here in ND regardless of their affiliations or ideologies?


Answered the question here



> Again the Ag orgs should be working with its members to protect farming on a grassroots level by encouraging sales to family farmers. Again all the corporations in the world cant buy an acre without a willing seller.


Next question


> swift, please show where I have ever suppgested orgs or individuals do not have the right to advocate for their ideals (agendas)


answer:


> So now the question is will you, ron, and plainsman be as staunch an advocate for a change in other state laws that effectively infringe on someones ability to sell their land to a "willing" buyer? Or will you only advocate for changes in the ones that pertain to YOUR agendas.


Again GST zoning laws infringe on the rights of FEW to benefit MANY. (Much like eminant domain) Land sales exclusion laws infringe on the rights of MANY to benefit FEW. Since you continue to cling to a scenario that has nothing to do with this topic maybe you can see it this way.


----------



## gst

swift, I have gave an example of a nonprofit group with affiliations to say the KKK wanting to purchase land in our state for a neo nazi compound. Without some law in place to regulate the sales of lands to nonprofits how can the state prevent this from happening? Or perhaps you truly beleive it would be best for our state if there was NO process to prevent these sales and a "willing seller" should be able to sell to a "willing buyer" regardless of who they are. So please answer the question, should there be a process in place to regulate these nonprofits wanting to buy land in ND?



swift said:


> Next question
> 
> swift, please show where I have ever suppgested orgs or individuals do not have the right to advocate for their ideals (agendas)
> answer:
> So now the question is will you, ron, and plainsman be as staunch an advocate for a change in other state laws that effectively infringe on someones ability to sell their land to a "willing" buyer? Or will you only advocate for changes in the ones that pertain to YOUR agendas.


Maybe my "comprehension" is bad as ron claims,but where in that answer do I say you or anyone else does not have a right to advocate for their ideals.

The feedlot example I gave showed that building this feedlot would benefit many, however the setback law preventing it from happening only benefits the one person living across the road. Perhaps you should consider that the ELECTED representatives as well as the people that have elected them have realized that not having a process in place to regulate these land SALES to nonprofits as well as people wanting to buy land to DEVELOPE for certain usages would ultimately hurt more people than it would help.

Perhaps when ron mentioned DU would "lose in public perception" had they been the ones to challenge this law he was admitting to knowing this. Perhaps you can look at it in that manner instead of "clinging" to your beleifs that despite repeated attempts to change these laws by self interest groups (DU/Delta members/donors,ect...), the ELECTED representatives of the people who are most times RE ELELECTED have kept these laws in place for the best interests of the many NDans that vote for and support their actions each November.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift, I have gave an example of a nonprofit group with affiliations to say the KKK wanting to purchase land in our state for a neo nazi compound. Without some law in place to regulate the sales of lands to nonprofits how can the state prevent this from happening? Or perhaps you truly beleive it would be best for our state if there was NO process to prevent these sales and a "willing seller" should be able to sell to a "willing buyer" regardless of who they are. So please answer the question, should there be a process in place to regulate these nonprofits wanting to buy land in ND?


Since we live in a FREE country there should be no law that infringes on a belief. The KKK has just as much a right to build their compound as the rancher does to raise a herd, or the HFH operator has to run their business. This is an excellent example of how the law infringes on the constitution. You don't have to like the beliefs of the KKK. You have the right to assemble to protest the preachings of the KKK. BUT the KKK has the SAME rights to assemble for what they believe in. *There is an old adage that goes ' I don't have to believe in what you say; but I will die for your right to say it. *

FREEDOM, That is what America is built on. Now that you have admitted that you are defending a law that forces people to follow the beliefs of a few. Maybe you can understand this. Right now the governor has tyrannical powers over common citizens property. That is NOT what America was built on. And to the contrary is what led the founding fathers to flee England.

NO! there shouldn't be a process to prevent nonprofits from buying land.


----------



## gst

Hereis something else to consider, How is it that SOME of these nonprofits are allowed to purchase these lands?

What goes on in this process needs to be considered, the groups involved specifically lay out a plan for their USAGE of these lands after they are purchased. At that time, the process allows for the Govenor to weigh this usage against the intent of the law and make his determination.

So it is most often the USAGE plans that are presented by these orgs that factor into the Govenors decision as much as any groups recomendations based on policy.

I would imagine if DU's or the Nature Conservancies USAGE plan (or even their track records)included reselling these lands to thier wealthy donors for their private USAGE and profit in exchange for another donation to purchase more land here in the state  , perhaps the govenor would ultimately veiw these sales as benefiting the FEW at the cost to the MANY residents of this state.


----------



## swift

What exactly is the "intent' of the law?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> So Ron what is it if I havea quarter of land that someone comes to me and says hey the slope, soil types ,sheltered protection, water holding ect.... is perfect for a feedlot, and they are willing to pay me twice what I could get from anyone else. But my neighbor who lives acrsoss the road is within the state required setback distance so this individual can not build a feedlot on my land. I "choose" to sell him my land, he wants to buy my land, but state law says he can not do with this land what he wants so he will no longer buy my land. A willing buyer (highest bidder) has been "excluded" by state law from puchasing my land thru usage restrictions and as a result I can not sell my land to this particular willing buyer ("whom I choose") that would pay me more than anyone else. The people being denied selling to DU can sell to any other individual that wants to buy their land just not a nonprofit. So tell me exactly how the end result varies between the two different examples


GST... your example here is you can still sell the land. But the buyer of the land can't put a feed lot on it. It has nothing to do with the sale but has to do with use of land. A person can want to buy the land a put up a Bar and grill and pay top $...but if they don't a liquor license, pass state health boards, etc. But again this has nothing to do with the sale just the use of land.

The case that this whole thread was started on is that a Corperation or Non-profit can't buy land. It is discrimination. Now this "class" or the classification of a Corperation is not covered under the Fair Housing Act of 1968. But there could be in the Federal Commerce laws out there that this is violating.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Since we live in a FREE country there should be no law that infringes on a belief.


 Really swift???? Your bias over this law and these ag groups is clouding your common sense and judgement.

So then if these KKK members beleive that perhaps blacks should not be able to purchase land you would support their "right" to have this "beleif" simply because we live in a "free" country???

So you would support someone whoose "belief" is he should be able to build a feedlot anywhere they wish???

So you are asking us to beleive that if your neighbor was offered an outlandish price by an nonprofit group representing the KKK for building a neo nazi compound by your home you would be standing beside them demanding they be allowed to purchase this land to do so?

What about a rancher that moves in a legal distance from your house to the NW or SE (think prevailing winds) and builds a feedlot in compliance with state and federal law. Are you expecting us to beleive you would be demanding he be allowed to build this feedlot if your neighbors were protesting his lot?

What about the HFH operation that wanted to purchase the land surrounding your property and fence them for their operation, are you expecting us to beleive you would be supproting his right to buy this land and build this fence? Ooookay then.

What you are mistaken in is that the Founding Fathers fled England and fought a war so that the CITIZENS of this country or now state would have the ability to involve themselves in the legislative process that governs them. That is EXACTLY what this process that has developed and upheld this state law is doing. A handful of people simply can not accept that the ideals of the people that have elected the representatives that created this law disagree with their personal ideals.


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> GST... your example here is you can still sell the land. But the buyer of the land can't put a feed lot on it. It has nothing to do with the sale but has to do with use of land. A person can want to buy the land a put up a Bar and grill and pay top $...but if they don't a liquor license, pass state health boards, etc. But again this has nothing to do with the sale just the use of land.


Chuck please realize that in the case of the nonprofits everyone is up in arms over( who here is opposed to limiting corps from owning land???) these individuals these nonprofits want to purchase land form, still have the ability to sell these lands to someone else. This law is not prohibiting them from doing so. And as was pointed out, thru the process this law provides, it is the "usage" plan that is laid out by these orgs that is weighed by the Govenor in making this determination. Some are approved, someare denied by the Govenor. I understand the difference between laws governing usage and the corp. farming law that prohibits ownership. But can you realize and admit that despite the differences, often times the end result of the differing laws is the same, a willing seller is prevented from a willing buyer purchasing their lands because of a state law. Why would the buyer buy the land if they can not build a feedlot if that is their sole intent for purchasing the land? Why would an individual purchase the land to build a bar if they can not meet the requirements to get a liquor license? So state law has effectively limited an individual in who he can sell his land too.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> What exactly is the "intent' of the law?


The "intent" of the law is to provide a process whereby land sales by nonprofits can be examined to determine the value or consequences of the sale to the citizens of the State of ND and approved or denied by the Govenor as he beleives it would best serve the people that ELECTED him. This intent has been carried out in some sales being denied, while some have been approved. Individuals opinions as to wether hisdecisions are right may indeed vary, but that is the intent of the law.

Reasonable people would suggest that if the ELECTED representatives of the people who created this law and support this law as written continue to be ELECTED, perhaps the voters of this state approve their decisions regarding this law and it's intent.


----------



## gst

swift, do you beleive corporations should be allowed to purchase lands in ND?


----------



## gst

Chuck, do you beleive corporations should be allowed to purchase land in ND?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

But state law should not limit a person from selling canned hunts!!!!!!!! Get a clue gst, the more you post the more obvious it is that all you are trying to do is stir the crapper!!!!!!!!

I live in Fargo, I have watched countless times where sellers and buyers run up against zoning rules that scrub deals. But in all those cases, the city or county did not prevent the sale of land simply on the basis of classification of the entity status being a for profit,non profit, or individual.

This remains the biggest issue in regards to will it pass the smell test regardless of intent. Your example of the KKK is simply a play on emotions. But in your attempt to sway people with emotions you expose the fact that you are more than willing to trample on one groups rights simply because you do not like them.

You could just as well substitute DU or NC for KKK and blacks with farmers and it paints a clear picture, never realizing that as Swift points out the KKK is equally entitled to the same rights as blacks. You may not like what they say or stand for, but it is irrelevant on what one likes or dislikes. It is all about how the law looks at people or groups.

Using your own example of groups, let's say the ***** College Fund decided that land in ND was a good investment and provided a better rate of return. Since it is a minority group that does good, they as a non profit would face the same hurdle in buying land in ND as the KKK. Using your own logic, then the NCF should be given the green light if it all about doing good?

I will say that it is a good thing you are not representing the State in regards to this issue because your lame attempts to justify the law have really been more about showing why the law is flawed and why it will not pass the smell test of the US Constitution!

No more feeding the troll!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> But state law should not limit a person from selling canned hunts!!!!!!!! Get a clue gst, the more you post the more obvious it is that all you are trying to do is stir the crapper!!!!!!!!


ron the very people who are governed by the laws they create made this determination. Get over it. I wouldimagine this ahsmore to do wiht this debate thatn you wish to let on.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> I live in Fargo, I have watched countless times where sellers and buyers run up against zoning rules that scrub deals. But in all those cases, the city or county did not prevent the sale of land simply on the basis of classification of the entity status being a for profit,non profit, or individual.


So you are admitting the end result of these laws and regulations is a willing seller is prevented from selling his land to a willing buyer as a result of these determinations?


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Using your own example of groups, let's say the ***** College Fund decided that land in ND was a good investment and provided a better rate of return. Since it is a minority group that does good, they as a non profit would face the same hurdle in buying land in ND as the KKK. Using your own logic, then the NCF should be given the green light if it all about doing good?


If the sale was examined and passed under the current processs allowed by state law you would be correct. I do not know if educational entities are allowed as thelaw is written or not.


----------



## gst

Ron have you ever explained why according to your ideals Joe should be allowed to sell his land to DU without going thru the NAAAC process, but Joe should not be able to sell his land to ADM?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

I did and I said my wants most likely would not pass the smell test either!!!!!!!!!!! But keep stirring!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol: :lol:


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> You could just as well substitute DU or NC for KKK and blacks with farmers and it paints a clear picture, never realizing that as Swift points out the KKK is equally entitled to the same rights as blacks. You may not like what they say or stand for, but it is irrelevant on what one likes or dislikes. It is all about how the law looks at people or groups.


Ron it is not what one individual may or may not beleive that is the basis for this law being debated creation. It was the ELECTED representatives of the people of this state that created a law they beleive was in the best interests of this state and it's residents. This law has withstood attempts by some to change it and the people that have stood up to those attempts havebeen RE ELECTED by the people of this state because they support this law. Even you admitted this when you referenced the fact DU would "lose public support" if they had been the ones to challenge this law.

And ron what would your opinion be if the initials HFH were substituded?


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> This remains the biggest issue in regards to will it pass the smell test regardless of intent. Your example of the KKK is simply a play on emotions. But in your attempt to sway people with emotions you expose the fact that you are more than willing to trample on one groups rights simply because you do not like them


Given your stance on the HFH measure and debate, one might veiw this statement as a bit hypocritical. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> And ron what would your opinion be if the initials HFH were substituded?


Hey, let me try that with half a brain tied behind my back. Ron would say let them buy the land, but let a law restricting lower than poaching restrict use of the land. It's land use again and not purchase gst. You get it, but you want to pretend not to just in the event there is someone here with an IQ lower than 50 and idiots vote too.


----------



## swift

> Really swift???? Your bias over this law and these ag groups is clouding your common sense and judgement.


It is your judgement and common sense being clouded.



> So then if these KKK members beleive that perhaps blacks should not be able to purchase land you would support their "right" to have this "beleif" simply because we live in a "free" country???


Certainly they have the right to voice their opinion. I would support their right to SAY what ever they want within the law. I would not support the bill they enacted to try to exclude people from purchasing land.

Here is another example for you. The FU decides Farmland must be controlled by family farmers. Laws should prohibit concentration of farmland ownership by persons of Norweign descent. You understandably would not back this stupid policy. BUT the Farmers Union has every right to voice it and put it into their policy. Just like the KKK does.

Now lets look at the actual policy of the Farmers Union...*Farmland must be controlled by family farmers. Laws should prohibit concentration of farmland ownership by corporations and off-farm interests.* There really isn't much of a difference here. The underlined piece is as alarming to me as a non ag producer that would like to invest in farmland. Because I am not a family farmer one of the most powerful lobby organizations in the state openly states its opposition to my controlling land. (I know they have no legal claims in their policies but) they are advocating for descrimination the same way the KKK is by advocating for a law to prevent blacks from owning land in your hypothetical scenario.

GST your true colors are showing the longer you stay in this debate. You are by no doubt an elitist. You are no better than the KKK clansman that shouts racist remarks. The difference is your discrimination is cleaner and more politically correct.


----------



## swift

Question:


> Ron have you ever explained why according to your ideals Joe should be allowed to sell his land to DU without going thru the NAAAC process, but Joe should not be able to sell his land to ADM?


Answer:


> 2. the initial law did not include the exclusion of non-profits. That was added by the legislature after being lobbied for by the ag orgs. At the time there were a different generation of people in charge of the farms.


Repeal the Non-profits from the exclusion list and keep the law as the originators wrote it. Seems simple to me.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Here is the huge problem I have always noticed about the law..... A corperation can buy a "commercial lot" or a chunk of commercial land to build a factory, warehouse, develope, etc for its business. But yet it can't buy "land" only for the sole purpose of "land". This is kind of a form of so called "block busting" and "Steering"....which means only allowing one group or people able to buy property.


----------



## swift

> The "intent" of the law is to provide a process whereby land sales by nonprofits can be examined to determine the value or consequences of the sale to the citizens of the State of ND and approved or denied by the Govenor as he beleives it would best serve the people that ELECTED him. This intent has been carried out in some sales being denied, while some have been approved. Individuals opinions as to wether hisdecisions are right may indeed vary, but that is the intent of the law.


Again you have a comprehension issue. You did not discuss the intent of the law. You discussed the process of the law.

The intent of the law is to lend security to the small family farmers in ND. The law does this by effectively reducing big dollar competition. The idea of the intitial law was noble. Maybe not constitutional but was written in good faith.

The introduction of Nonprofits into the law in 1981 was in response to a largely criticized conservation agenda called swampbusters and since DU advocated for Swampbusters DU received a black eye by the producers. This is likely why DU was not willing to take up the fight. They have felt the scorn of the North Dakota farmer in the past. And something that the producers are not willing to realize that DU likely does is, We all need each other.


----------



## Chuck Smith

I have no problem with Corperations buying land or even non-profits. This law is just discrimination all around. It does not let people get top $ for there land. I understand it is meant to keep small farmers around.

Here is a example of a big problem with this law....and I will use small farmers as an example.

Lets say three brothers want to be sucessful farmers. One brother has great credit, one has average credit, third got a divorce and had his credit just killed. So they decide to form a Corperation calling themselves "Joe Family Farms". They are forming this corperation for tax purposes, buying power, etc. Now with this law they can't go out and buy land. They can buy the tractors, equipment, seed, supplies, etc....just not the land to work. Does that make sense? These are three families trying to make a living off of farming....but this law is stipulating their way of life.


----------



## swift

Chuck with this law they can buy land, The anticorporate farming law allows for family corporations to farm and buy land. That is the interesting part for me. And now atleast one of the farming orgs wants to allow nonfamily coporate investors while continuing to prevent non family corporate land purchases. In my opinion this screams of greed.


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck, yes it does make sense. The one brother with poor credit is a ball and chain to the corporation. If you had the money to lend would you be willing to risk it. Banks are not in the business to be fiscal baby sitters.

Swift, I think the law is simply a way to eliminate any competition. In a nation that is supposedly capitalist there sure are a lot of socialists. For many landowners who think they are conservative they may be correct in that they are socially conservative, but they are fiscally socialist. They take a lot of taxpayer money to make their business work. Yet they want to deny some of those taxpayers the right to buy land, and deny some the right to sell land. It's a very self serving and hence a greedy law. How can some young fellow about 30 feel good about denying some poor old widow the right to sell her land for $100 more an acre than he is offering her? I couldn't hold my head up and look her in the face.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> And ron what would your opinion be if the initials HFH were substituded?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, let me try that with half a brain tied behind my back. Ron would say let them buy the land, but let a law restricting lower than poaching restrict use of the land. It's land use again and not purchase gst. You get it, but you want to pretend not to just in the event there is someone here with an IQ lower than 50 and idiots vote too.
Click to expand...

Plainsman, I was not going to bother with your comments, but those with an IQ higher than 50 will realize and admit that if a law restricts someone from the usage of the land they want to pursue, they will likely not buy the land. Why would they? They are looking for somewhere to build a feedlot, HFH, airport, ect.... So in essence the law restricting usage is also restricting purchases. It is taking a willing buyer away from a willing seller. It is really not that hard of a concept to grasp. End results.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Now lets look at the actual policy of the Farmers Union...Farmland must be controlled by family farmers. Laws should prohibit concentration of farmland ownership by corporations and off-farm interests. There really isn't much of a difference here. The underlined piece is as alarming to me as a non ag producer that would like to invest in farmland. Because I am not a family farmer one of the most powerful lobby organizations in the state openly states its opposition to my controlling land. (I know they have no legal claims in their policies but) they are advocating for descrimination the same way the KKK is by advocating for a law to prevent blacks from owning land in your hypothetical scenario.
> 
> GST your true colors are showing the longer you stay in this debate. You are by no doubt an elitist. You are no better than the KKK clansman that shouts racist remarks. The difference is your discrimination is cleaner and more politically correct.





swift said:


> Question:Ron have you ever explained why according to your ideals Joe should be allowed to sell his land to DU without going thru the NAAAC process, but Joe should not be able to sell his land to ADM?
> 
> Answer:2. the initial law did not include the exclusion of non-profits. That was added by the legislature after being lobbied for by the ag orgs. At the time there were a different generation of people in charge of the farms.
> 
> Repeal the Non-profits from the exclusion list and keep the law as the originators wrote it. Seems simple to me.


Swift first you are condemening FU for it's policies of restrictiong who can own land and then in the VERY NEXT POST you are stating your ideals that do the very same (note the underline request to keep the law preventing corps from owning land.) ? You do not answer the question? Why should Joe be able to sell his land to DU according to YOUR ideals, but NOT sell it to ADM? Before you brand someone as an elitist, take a look at your own ideals designed for what??? YOUR own wants and benefit. So why does ron beleive DU would suffer bad public perception if it was their org. that challenged this law?????


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Swift first you are condemening FU for it's policies of restrictiong who can own land and then in the VERY NEXT POST you are stating your ideals that do the very same? You do not answer the question? Why should Joe be able to sell his land to DU according to YOUR ideals, but NOT sell it to ADM? Before you brand someone as an elitist, take a look at your own ideals designed for what??? YOUR own wanrts and benefit. So why does ron beleive DU would suffer bad public perception if it was them that challenged this law?????


Wow gst, haven't you ever heard of a compromise? But of course in your true greedy fashion you want all or nothing. I don't think you can even grasp when someone is trying to make a compromise with you.


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> I have no problem with Corperations buying land or even non-profits. This law is just discrimination all around. It does not let people get top $ for there land. I understand it is meant to keep small farmers around.
> 
> Here is a example of a big problem with this law....and I will use small farmers as an example.
> 
> Lets say three brothers want to be sucessful farmers. One brother has great credit, one has average credit, third got a divorce and had his credit just killed. So they decide to form a Corperation calling themselves "Joe Family Farms". They are forming this corperation for tax purposes, buying power, etc. Now with this law they can't go out and buy land. They can buy the tractors, equipment, seed, supplies, etc....just not the land to work. Does that make sense? These are three families trying to make a living off of farming....but this law is stipulating their way of life.


Chuck I actually have respect for this opinion. If you are simply looking at this to open it up to all regardless of consequences at least it is not hypocritcally condemning one org for lobbying to restrict purchases while maintining the very same policy merely revised yourself. As I asked why should DU be able to buy land from Joe but not ADM. It is actually why FB policy regarding corp. farming has changed as has farming itself.

Now if the underlined comment is primary, why should the fella wanting to pay 30% more to the poor old widow for her land to build a feedlot on, be restricted from building his feedlot and as a result preventing him from paying her more for her land than anyone else and ultimately be kept from buying this land by a state law restricting usage? For some reason I get the idea people like swiift plainsman and ron would have no problem looking this little old widow in the eye and saying tough **** thats the law. Particularily if they were her neighbor beside the purposed feedlot the fella wishing to buy her land wanted to build.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swift first you are condemening FU for it's policies of restrictiong who can own land and then in the VERY NEXT POST you are stating your ideals that do the very same? You do not answer the question? Why should Joe be able to sell his land to DU according to YOUR ideals, but NOT sell it to ADM? Before you brand someone as an elitist, take a look at your own ideals designed for what??? YOUR own wanrts and benefit. So why does ron beleive DU would suffer bad public perception if it was them that challenged this law?????
> 
> 
> 
> Wow gst, haven't you ever heard of a compromise? But of course in your true greedy fashion you want all or nothing. I don't think you can even grasp when someone is trying to make a compromise with you.
Click to expand...

Longshot this statement and question is simply being asked to point out the hypocracy in someone condemning someone for doing the very exact same thing themselves.

So why does ron beleive DU would suffer bad public perception if it was their org that challenged this law?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> The "intent" of the law is to provide a process whereby land sales by *examined to determine the value or consequences of the sale to the citizens of the State of ND *nonprofits can be and approved or denied by the Govenor as he beleives it would best serve the people that ELECTED him. This intent has been carried out in some sales being denied, while some have been approved. Individuals opinions as to wether hisdecisions are right may indeed vary, but that is the intent of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Again you have a comprehension issue. You did not discuss the intent of the law. You discussed the process of the law.
Click to expand...

Ummmm, if the underlined emboldened part of my response is not the "intent" of this law, perhaps your "comprehension" of the intent of this law is clouded by your bias.

No one has ever explained or answered the question, if these laws are so bad for ND and it's citizens, why do the voters of this state continue to elect and re elect the people that support the continueation of the laws as they are written? Why does ron beleive DU would get bad public perception if they had challenged this law here in ND?


----------



## swift

Come on GST take off your goggles for a minute. You use the word "PROCESS" in your description. What you underlined has nothing to do with the intent. If you don't believe me ask some 7th grader they should be smart enough to tell you the difference. Do I really have to explain "intent of the law"? 


gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "intent" of the law is to provide a process whereby land sales by *examined to determine the value or consequences of the sale to the citizens of the State of ND *nonprofits can be and approved or denied by the Govenor as he beleives it would best serve the people that ELECTED him. This intent has been carried out in some sales being denied, while some have been approved. Individuals opinions as to wether hisdecisions are right may indeed vary, but that is the intent of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Again you have a comprehension issue. You did not discuss the intent of the law. You discussed the process of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummmm, if the underlined emboldened part of my response is not the "intent" of this law, perhaps your "comprehension" of the intent of this law is clouded by your bias.
> 
> No one has ever explained or answered the question, if these laws are so bad for ND and it's citizens, why do the voters of this state continue to elect and re elect the people that support the continueation of the laws as they are written? Why does ron beleive DU would get bad public perception if they had challenged this law here in ND?
Click to expand...

Maybe the answer to your last question is so stupid it doesn't deserve answering. The law was first passed in the 1931. Then amended in 1981. I would doubt there are any people still living that voted on the first law and very few still in office that voted on the amendment. The majority of people in ND support agriculture and nobody has even questioned the law likely out of support and respect for agriculture. Now it is being questioned by an out of state entity. So another answer to your stupid question is. The people of ND actually support agricultures interests. But the more policies that negatively affect the nonproducing population the weaker the allegience to ag they have. Remember when I told you even the nicest dog will bite you when kicked enough? Well I hope you've had your rabies shots.

Again ALL of us want the lawsuit to fail in part except you. You prefer to continue to have your cake and eat it too. The more idiotic statements you make grasping at land usage laws comparing them to land ownership laws pushes more to the side of an open market system. OH DOESN'T THAT SOUND TERRIBLE AN OPEN MARKET IN THE US.

You have convinced me though there is no room for compromise, You are absolutely correct, there is NO REASON ADM OR ANY OTHER CORPORATION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE ALL THE LAND THEY CAN BUY IN NORTH DAKOTA. Thanks for clearing that up I thought maybe there was some room for wiggling but as you pointed out there is not.


----------



## Plainsman

longshot wrote:



> Wow gst, haven't you ever heard of a compromise? But of course in your true greedy fashion you want all or nothing. I don't think you can even grasp when someone is trying to make a compromise with you.


Swift wrote:



> You have convinced me though there is no room for compromise, You are absolutely correct, there is NO REASON ADM OR ANY OTHER CORPORATION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE ALL THE LAND THEY CAN BUY IN NORTH DAKOTA. Thanks for clearing that up I thought maybe there was some room for wiggling but as you pointed out there is not.


gst it's apparent that in your small community you have become accustomed to beating people into submission. It's not hypocrisy that people have it's exactly what longshot picked up on. Your all or nothing attitude is the same attitude the legislature had and that is why we have a problem now. What you accomplish on this form is what Swift wrote. He may have been being facetious , but I personally know a half dozen that seriously feel that way. Perhaps I have changed minds against what I say, but I know it's ten to one against you. So keep it up. We are on page five, you have accomplished nothing, and may have alienated many against agriculture.

Not only is the horse dead it's starting to smell, but don't let that stop you. :eyeroll: Don't think you represent agriculture you don't. I say that for those who are perhaps angered, and in the best interest of my family that farms. I think you have done enough public relations damage for farmers. I should perhaps not debate you, but it's hard to let all for me attitudes go unchallenged.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

But Chuck the made allowances for (family corp ) farms, and that will be another problem as again the law practices selective discrmination! For anyone that really takes gst as being serious in his blather about elected officials and popularity of this as the reason the law should remain. Do some searching and read the opinions handed down in other states!


----------



## gst

Okay we have asked a few questions and everyone has had their opinions regaqrding them so far in this debate. One that has been widely accepted by the likes of swift, plainsman, ron, longshot and others is that the restriction of usage or purpose that lands maybe used for is without question an acceptable means to create laws for. And it is hard to dispute these restrictions on purpose/usage do indeed limit who may actually buy land here in ND based on wether they wish to remain in compliance with the rules regarding usage/purpose of of how the land is used.

From the NDCC
10-06.1-09. Certain nonprofit organizations or trusts may own or lease land -
Certain nonprofit organizations may continue farming or ranching - Restriction on
acquisition and ownership of land.
1. A nonprofit organization or a trust for the benefit of an individual or a class of
individuals related within the degrees of kinship specified in subsection 2 of section
10-06.1-12 may own or lease farmland or ranchland if that land is leased to a person
who farms or ranches the land as a sole proprietorship or partnership, or a
corporation or limited liability company allowed to engage in farming or ranching
under section 10-06.1-12.
2. To the extent farming or ranching is essential to a nonprofit organization's charitable
purposes, a nonprofit organization actively engaged in the business of farming or
Page No. 2
ranching in this state on January 1, 1983, may continue to engage in the business of
farming or ranching without interruption after January 1, 1983.
3. A nonprofit organization that owned farmland or ranchland for the preservation of
unique historical, archaeological, or environmental land before January 1, 1983, may
continue ownership of that land without interruption after January 1, 1983. An
organization that is holding land for scenic preservation shall either prohibit all
hunting, or if any parcel of the land is open to hunting, it must be open to hunting by
the general public.


----------



## gst

From the NDCC Note the reference a number of times to the "purpose" and the laws that are tied to this purpose. 
Particularily 2. c.

10-06.1-10. Acquisition of certain farmland or ranchland by certain nonprofit
organizations. A nonprofit organization may acquire farmland or ranchland only in accordance
with the following:
1. Unless it is permitted to own farmland or ranchland under section 10-06.1-09, the
nonprofit organization must have been either incorporated in this state or issued a
certificate of authority to do business in this state before January 1, 1985, or, before
January 1, 1987, have been incorporated in this state if the nonprofit organization
was created or authorized under Public Law No. 99-294 [100 Stat. 418]. A nonprofit
organization created or authorized under Public Law No. 99-294 [100 Stat. 418]
may acquire no more than twelve thousand acres [4856.228 hectares] of land from
interest derived from state, federal, and private sources held in its trust fund.
2. The land may be acquired only for the purpose of conserving natural areas and
habitats for biota, and, after acquisition:
a. The land must be maintained and managed for the purpose of conserving
natural area and habitat for biota.
b. Any agricultural use of the land is in accordance with the management of the
land for conservation and agricultural use, and is by a sole proprietorship or
partnership, or a corporation or limited liability company allowed to engage in
farming or ranching under section 10-06.1-12.
c. If any parcel of the land is open to hunting, it must be open to hunting by the
general public.
d. The nonprofit organization must fully comply with all state laws relating to the
control of noxious and other weeds and insects.
e. The nonprofit organization must make payments in lieu of property taxes on the
property, calculated in the same manner as if the property was subject to full
assessment and levy of property taxes.
f. All property subject to valuation must be assessed for the purpose of making
the payments under subdivision e in the same manner as other real property in
this state is assessed for tax purposes. Before June thirtieth of each year, the
county auditor of any county in which property subject to valuation is located
shall give written notice to the nonprofit organization and the tax commissioner
of the value placed by the county board of equalization upon each parcel of
property subject to valuation in the county.
3. Before farmland or ranchland may be purchased by a nonprofit organization for the
purpose of conserving natural areas and habitats for biota, the governor must
approve the proposed acquisition. A nonprofit organization that desires to purchase
farmland or ranchland for the purpose of conserving natural areas and habitats for
biota shall first submit a proposed acquisition plan to the agriculture commissioner
who shall convene an advisory committee consisting of the director of the parks and
recreation department, the agriculture commissioner, the state forester, the director
Page No. 3
of the game and fish department, the president of the North Dakota farmers union,
the president of the North Dakota farm bureau, the president of the North Dakota
stockmen's association, and the chairman of the county commission of any county
affected by the acquisition, or their designees. The advisory committee shall hold a
public hearing with the board of county commissioners concerning the proposed
acquisition plan and shall make recommendations to the governor within forty-five
days after receipt of the proposed acquisition plan. The governor shall approve or
disapprove any proposed acquisition plan, or any part thereof, within thirty days after
receipt of the recommendations from the advisory committee.
4. Land acquired in accordance with this section may not be conveyed to the United
States or any agency or instrumentality of the United States.
5. On failure to qualify to continue ownership under subsection 2, the land must be
disposed of within five years of that failure to qualify.


----------



## gst

from the above note emboldened underlined sections. 
*Before farmland or ranchland may be purchased by a nonprofit organization for the
purpose of conserving natural areas and habitats for biota*, the governor must
approve the proposed acquisition.*A nonprofit organization that desires to purchase
farmland or ranchland for the purpose of conserving natural areas and habitats for
biota* shall first submit a proposed acquisition plan to the agriculture commissioner
who shall convene an advisory committee consisting of the director of the parks and
recreation department, the agriculture commissioner, the state forester, the director
of the game and fish department, the president of the North Dakota farmers union,
the president of the North Dakota farm bureau, the president of the North Dakota
stockmen's association, and the chairman of the county commission of any county
affected by the acquisition, or their designees. The advisory committee shall hold a
public hearing with the board of county commissioners concerning the proposed
acquisition plan and shall make recommendations to the governor within forty-five
days after receipt of the proposed acquisition plan. The governor shall approve or
disapprove any proposed acquisition plan, or any part thereof, within thirty days after
receipt of the recommendations from the advisory committee.

It appears these land sales are regulated based on purpopose/usage of these lands. Following is one of the "usages" as required by state law. 
*
c. If any parcel of the land is open to hunting, it must be open to hunting by the
general public.*

It was stated earlier by someone apparently familiar with Cook that SOME of these lands were used for hunting by the members of this corp./nonprofit but were indeed not "open to hunting by the general public" so Cook if these lands were purchased as a nonprofit would hve been inviolation of the regulations regarding the USAGE/PURPOSE of these lands.


----------



## gst

Now if someone is in violation of the above state codes this is the result.

5. On failure to qualify to continue ownership under subsection 2, the land must be
disposed of within five years of that failure to qualify.

If Cook purchased this land as a corporation he was in violation of a law most everyone supported prior to getting their undies in a bunch over personality clashes and by state law would have to divest.

If Cook purchased this land as a nonprofit he was in violation of the regulations regarding the "usage/purpose" of these lands set forth by the State requiring them to be left open to ALL the people of the state of ND if ANY hunting was allowed and would as a result have to divest.

So ron, swift, plainsman, who do you supposed lobbied to get this particular section of the law included???? Seems like maybe even the sportsmen of the state lobbied and got involved in writing this law.

So without these rules of "purpose/usage" to hold over these nonprofits heads, how many of them do you beleive would be so magnanimous to the sportsmen and women of the state that do not donate large sums to their orgs???

It appears as if Cook as a nonprofit was caught doing much the same thing as DU and the Nature Conservancy. If you wish to allow nonprofits with their mega multi millions in donations from the likes of wealthy doctors and businessmen come into this state and purchase land for their own private hunting clubs, investment properties, waterfront mansions ect.... uncontroled as they have in other states, it would be interesting to see how many other sportsmen and citizens would agree. Perhaps this is what ron meant when he said DU would have lost public support if they had been the ones to sue. Hey wait a minute, swift, ron, you wouldn't be one of these wealthy doctors or businessmen making these donations to groups like DU that get to hunt these exclusive properties are you.  :wink: We all know that swift pays more in taxes than some people make by his own claims! :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

The very nature of how the law is written


> Before farmland or ranchland may be purchased by a nonprofit organization for the
> purpose of conserving natural areas and habitats for biota, the governor must
> approve the proposed acquisition.


 states clearly it is discriminatory,which is in clear violation of the commerce clause. I believe as was the case in NE which was not challenged by a non profit, but a for profit that such restrictions that discriminate impede commerce.

Now regardless of what Cook states as his goal prior to purchase or if he even did will not matter gst, because he can argue that such restrictions do not apply to a average Joe Farmer who could purchase the same land with the same intent. The state will argue that it is protecting commerce by making sure the land stays in production, thus helping local and state business entities.

You keep going back to that this law was put in place by elected officials etc... and if people are unhappy why was it not changed. Keep in mind GST, that CA as an example passed twice laws with majority at the ballot box defining marriage as man and woman, but the first time and now this last time again it was tossed for not meeting Constitutional muster.

Roe vs Wade is another example of long standing law that was overturned, Segregation,poll taxes etc.... So it helps that the law has been in place for 70 years, but if it violates the US Constitution it matter not!

Buford, Jake and Homer, are friends who did well in life, now want to buy land in ND for hunting or investment options. Like Joe farmer and his brother and son or son in-law, they want to protect assets from future liability so they incorporate. Really there is no difference and that is how the court is going to look at it. We do not live in a democracy we live in a Republic with democratic rule making. The fact that we are a Republic gst, means that minority rights are protected and cannot be taken away by simple majority rule via a law passed. So get off the elected officials issue and address how this current law meets the commerce clause portion of the Constitution.


----------



## gst

Ron I have readily admited I am not a lawyer and do not make assumptions thinking I am. Nor do I beleive I have ever argued the Constitutionality of this law as it will be interpreted by the courts. Nor do I make the assumption the courts always get it right. As in the case of the California law you mention, how many NDans do you beleive would vote in favor of how the courts ruled regarding marrige not being between a man and a woman? Remember there is also an avenue to address and change the Constitution. Now before anyone goes off claiming I am suggesting this happen in regards to this law, I am not. I'm merely pointing out that even if the Courts rule if there are enough people in enough states even the constitutional writings can be addressed. THAT is the essence of Democratic rule of law you mention in a Republic, NO govt. entitiy in and of itself contain the power to over reach their bounds, and if enough people do beleive in an issue, they can indeed change the Constitution and as a result the laws that govern this country, so ultimately the power IS in the hands of the people.

At the state level, the people of ND have spoken time and again regarding this law and their representatives that have voted on it and supported it since the 80's. As I said it will be interesting to see how the courts deal with it. If the people advising the lawmakes of this state have done their job this law or most aspects of it will stand up to the challenge. If not it will be back to the drawing board to deal with it. It is not uncommon amoungst people on the losing side of legislative issues such as this to malign how the system does not work, but often these very same people when their agedas are moved forward legislatively defend it as how well the system works. You can not have it both ways. If the court overturns this law, so be it, it has served the state well for 30 years and the legislature will move forward and address what changes need to be made to accomplish what the people have supported for 30 years to the extent they can.

But the simple fact is if the people of this state wanted this law changed in the 30 years since it was modified it would have been. Stop and think about it for a moment, if the ag groups had the power a handful of people on here claim they do legislatively, would there be ANY state laws regulating the building of feedlots, packing plants, processing facilities, hog farms, dairies, any ag interests ????? What politician would dare cross them and vote for these laws restricting ag and land usage by ag??? The simple fact of the matter is a majority of the people in this state supported the law because it has kept entities such as other states have out of this state of ND. Ron aluded to this when he admitted DU would lose public support by being the one to challenge this law.

A vast majority of NDans do not want a nonprofit branch of the KKK buying land beside them here in the state regardless wether it is their Constitutional right to do so or not. It is easy to defend these orgs and their "right" to do so on a computor keyboard, but I would really like to see swift standing in front of his neighbors defending their (KKK's)right to buy land when it is next door to his family and his neighbors families. For some reason, under those circumstances I would bet he would be a staunch defender of this law as written as would most of us. Those are a part of the consequences of things the people charged with creating laws for the best interest of this state and it's residents have to consider besides how many ducks can this state produce.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> We do not live in a democracy we live in a Republic with democratic rule making. The fact that we are a Republic gst, means that minority rights are protected and cannot be taken away by simple majority rule via a law passed.


And ron, just curious, what were you and the people sponsoring measure 2 trying to do and how were you trying to do it? I beleive a simple 51% of the votes would have taken away the "rights" of individuals to maintain a HFH operation here in the state of ND. It appears when the democratic rule making suits you to further your agendas you support it, when it does not, well we've seen your response in the last few pages.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst for someone who sits on a board representing people you are pretty ignorant if you have to ask the questions you did because the answers have been taught in grade school,high school and college and still are. So I will break it down for you simply. The commerce clause is part of the US Constitution thus making it federal rule. Thus even if 99% of the people of ND voted in favor of a law or the Leg voted 100% in favor of a law if it violates the Fed Constitution then it matters not. Your basic history lesson for the day.

Raising elk or wheat are a use of the land, land use restrictions have been allowed constitutionally both at the Fed and State levels. Ownership is not the same and you know it. You try to make swift or myself as KKK lovers when in fact we more than you and more than your organization based on its stated policy are Constitution supporters.

Different subject but let's look at the creeps that protest at the funerals of fallen service men. To me they are scum of the lowest kind. I detest what they do, what they say and how they twist the bible teachings to support their actions. However I agreed with the SCOTUS ruling in they have the right no matter how vile the speech to speak. Does not make me a supporter of them just as supporter of the Constitution. Same goes with this issue, as I have said is that I do not *want* Cargill as an example to be able to buy land in ND. I do however recognize that they may be able to because our law most likely violates the US Constitution.

Most people are on to your little games like bringing the KKK into the conversation to deflect away from the fact you have no clue as to Constitutional working. So your little foray into trying to paint swift or anyone that may disagree with the policy position from a constitutional point of view of said organizations as bad people is not working! So give it up! Talk about the merits of the law from a legal standpoint, not the gibberish you have been blathering!


----------



## gst

Ron, what "questions specifically do you beleive shows my "ignorance". I fully understand the Federal Constitution trumps state law. Please point out where I have ever argued the constitutionality of this law? Or suggested state law is supreme.

So if this law that regulates the usage/purpose of the lands purchased by these nonprofits is over turned and ANY nonprofit group can now come into ND without having the threat of being forced to divest hanging over their head how many of them do you beleive will be so magnanimous to keep these lands they purchase open to all NDans for hunting? You, swift,plainsman and others always rail against the commercialization of hunting. The overturning of these laws regulating nonprofits will do this very thing in this state, and yet your hatredof 3 ag groups is so strong you will overlook this simply to throw this in their faces.

If these laws this state has that hold the ability to force divesture of these landsis taken away from the state what different kinds of nonprofits do you beleive will come into this state? You wish to avoid discussing this very reality because you know it is the basis of the public support for these laws that you referenced would go against DU if they had beenthe ones to file suit against this law. But the reality wether you wishto ignore it or not is this law has served this state well to contro what these lands purchased by these nonprofits are used for in much the same way other laws do.

As I said, it is very easyto defend the rights of some group on a computor keyboard, but I wonder how your support of the Constitution would hold up when it is directly affecting you when some group you don;t approve of wants to buy your neighbors land for purposes you do not agree with. For some reason I get the feeling people like you and swift would be less supportive of theConstitution than you would like us to beleive. Heck the Constitution guarantees my right to free speech to ask questions and how many times in this thread have you demanded I stop asking questions!!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Ron the KKK was brought up for the same reason HSUS was brought up. If logic fails they bring in the bogyman to prey on the minds of the not very smart. They want to make guilty by association, even though none of us are. It's not real, it's not ethical, it's below the belt, but hey it sometimes gets the job done. The other thing is keep people talking, frustrate them, and sooner or later someone will make a misstatement even incorrect for what they believe. Be very careful of that because I goofed in my identification of a geographic area one day and was called a liar. If logic fails they try every way to demonize to opposition. In this case the constitution agrees with you, swift, and I. 
Ron and Swift, thank you for repeating over and over sound logical conclusions. We don't see many people involved in this debate, but they are reading it and they are learning.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Ron the KKK was brought up for the same reason HSUS was brought up. If logic fails they bring in the bogyman to prey on the minds of the not very smart


plainsman, if your mind can recall, some suggested by taking your personal crusade against HFH to the public thru an initiated measure it would open the door to anti hunting groups such as HSUS gaining an opportunity to address the nonhunting public here in ND giving them an opportunity to spread their antihunting proroganda. What exactly did happen there?

Perhaps it is the" minds of the not very smart" that either fail to undestand that or are so blindly bias they simply do not care.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

One more time GST, WANT vs US CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! I will defend that position in front of the President, my neighbors our your frigging group any day and every day!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because most people are capable of reasonable thought. They would know that while I am in agreement with not wanting Cargill as a land buyer, I am a Constitutional supporter first and that the Constitution does not always make me happy in who it protects!!!!!!!!!!

So again get past the petty attempts of trying to turn people against each other with your asinine statements, and address the issue of viability of this law passing the court smell test!!!!!!!

Something you are not aware of is that I have spoken my piece about this issue many times and for years to farmers all over the state. In a civil conversation none have walked away upset with my position because they have cognitive logical abilities to grasp what is being said.

So maybe I should address your group directly? Engage them in the same discussion and see if they are like you without common sense!


----------



## Plainsman

> What exactly did happen there?


You know what happened. Tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars came in from the wildlife exploiters. HSUS paid for some North Dakota hunters to present their view. In this case money talked again.

Sorry for getting of subject, but bull droppings deserve an answer. gst, after dealing with you I will watch the grazing association carefully so they don't try steal the National Grasslands ----- again. So you represent them, is that right?


----------



## gst

Easy Ron. Your commitment to the Constitution would have been more convincing if you had not spent the first half of this debate railing against the groups you thought were responsible for having this law taken to court and openingthe door to the law preventing corporations from being addressed. You can not deny you wished to have your pet orgs like DU allowed to o=own land why corps like ADM were prevented. Only after being backed into a corner have you now tqken this stance you would support the Constitution no matter what. The simple factis your own earlier statements do notgive this newclaim much credibility.

So you will have to excuse me if for some reason a nonprofit wishing to engage in HFH for their wealthy donors were to purchase lands by your favorite hunting area that you would be so supportive of their Constitutional right to do so.

If you wish to engage any of these ag groups directly you are most certainly welcome. If you wish to, please let me know and I can get you a spot on our next agenda regarding this issue. It would be interesting to hear your response to what you would be told regarding my position concerning these land sales and our policies regarding them and what was said would likely happen a year ago when this issue was discussed. But likely you would not beleive it anyway


----------



## swift

> A vast majority of NDans do not want a nonprofit branch of the KKK buying land beside them here in the state *regardless wether it is their Constitutional right to do so or not.[/*quote]
> 
> There in lies the whole problem with GST in a nutshell. He doesn't care about anyones rights as Americans but his own. The constitution of the United States means nothing.
> 
> Get off the farm once in awhile and learn to deal with other people without strong arming, threatening and lobbying for unconstitutional laws. This whole issue shows the two faced self serving attitude you possess. Your a staunch supporter of private property and defend it tooth and nail unless you can't control all of it through you associations. You come on here an admit to wanting to exclude certain peoples rights because they do not fall into your little niche.
> 
> You GST are an egomaniac with a superiority complex and massively prejudice against anyone that doesn't live in your exclusive world of agriculture. The very idea you lobby for the opportunity to deny a fellow American their constitutional right to assemble. (KKK complex) is no differant than marching infront of a building site of a Jewish Synagogue or a Black Baptist church.
> 
> Pathetic
> 
> And for the record I am not condoning the teachings or beliefs of the KKK. I am supporting their constitutional right to assemble. Just as I support your constitutional right to assemble as a Methodist, Catholic, Jew or Muslim.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> HSUS paid for some North Dakota hunters to present their view.


So you are claiming the nations largest antihunting org who has vowed to end ALL hunting one step at a time would spend thousands of dollars to "help" ND hunters present their veiw???

Perhaps your own words explain.



Plainsman said:


> minds of the not very smart


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Chuck, yes it does make sense. The one brother with poor credit is a ball and chain to the corporation. If you had the money to lend would you be willing to risk it. Banks are not in the business to be fiscal baby sitters.


Plainsman..... The reasons why the "three" brothers would go into is because of spreading out risk. If the one brother with poor credit is a hard worker. Why not help him. The one brother with good credit is good at books but not working land....another perfect combination. This is not the bank being a babysitter.


----------



## gst

swift In regards to the statement I made you quoted regarding the people of the ND not wanting a nonprofit org of KKK members buying land here in ND, do you really beleive that is only MY veiwpoint? I would guess if asked most NDans would not want to allow groups like this into our state. There are many instances of the people wishing and voting for things that thecourts rule Unconstitutional. So according to you if a majority of people beleive marriage should be between a man and a woman they are all egomaniacs???

The Constitution is a living document that changes as the will of the people determines. It is designed not to be easily done, but simply having veiws that are not at the time in conjunction with the Constitution does not automatically make one anti constitutional or an egomaniac. How many amendments have been implemented into the original document? Were all the people that beleived in,advocated for and accomplished these amendments selfserving egomaniacs? Get over the whiney *** childish personal bull**** that ALWAYS arises in these simple debates and try to drop the juvenile name calling.

As I said, it is easy to defend the Constitution on a computor keyboard, but I would guess most that have heard you rail against various other things would question your commitment to supporting the right of an org of this nature if they were buying land beside your family. I simply have the honesty to admit it.

Remember it was ron who stated if only state law had been broken and Cook was allowed to keep his lands he bought and used in violation of multiple state laws, the"unconstitutional" law preventing corps owning land would have stayed on the books here in ND as ron wished and would not have been challeged by Cook. Where is your indignation over his personal disregard for the Constitution simply to fit his own ideals and agendas. "Strongarm" tactics of disregarding state law,  "threatening" people to stop asking questions regardless of their Constitutional right to do so,  "lobbying" to overturn one unconstitutional law while keeping another equally unconstitutional law. :-? Somehow this is not the qualities of a selfless defender of the Constitution one would imagine. :wink:


----------



## swift

Keep deflecting, 
It is you that openly argued against the constitution on the basis of what you feel is right and wrong.

I guess I can't expect an egomaniac to see I am defending the constitution. You can question my intentions all you want but it really boils down to YOU condoneing excludeing a religious organization from buying land because you do not have the same beliefs.

You refuse to acknowledge there is a difference in land usage laws and land ownership laws. And continue to argue them as the same.

You continue to try to twist this into a hunter vs landowner issue like you always do. When in fact it has NOTHING to do with HUNTERS, LAND ACCESS or sportsman groups. As is your normal behavior you try to drive that wedge.

Would I like it if the KKK built a compound next to my property? NO; but all I can do is be vigilant watching for illegal activities and reporting them. I am not willing to compromise the most inate value of being an American (freedom) to get my way. I have said this over and over. You keep coming up with nonsense questioning my values. For the last time. BEING AMERICAN AND HAVING FREEDOM COMES WITH A COST. AND IT'S NOT JUST THE BLOOD OF THOSE DEFENDING OUR FREEDOM.

You can question my motives but hear this LOUD AND CLEAR, *Nobody has the right to infringe on another Americans constitutional rights.*


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> The Constitution is a living document


 that is a liberal point of view, when in fact the Constitution is a changeable document that provides for amending it. If you hold that view then the 1st and 2nd are not guarantees but simply guidelines to adjust with social change.

Like I said before gst, wants vs what the Constitution allows for are two separate things. In regards to Cooks purchase I do believe the Gov could have approved the sale under the current law could he not? If I missed that part sorry, but I do believe that is correct as did the courts on some of the property since not all was ordered sold.

My want and position has not changed you have on the other hand jumped around. I think if anyone is backing up against the wall it is you.

I would address your group and want one single answer to these questions and maybe they could post it here for all to see, all debate aside.

Did your group lobby to prevent changes to the current law that would have brought it in line with other court rulings around the nation regarding this issue.

Has your group ever given a thumbs up to any sale to a non profit conservation group?

Next will be please explain how this current law meets constitutional muster in discriminating against certain groups or organizations without the blather of the people of ND do not want the law to change?

Then will you release the survey results as to actual number of people that responded to the questionnaires in forming policy and when was the last time such a questionnaire was sent out?

Remember this is for the President since he sits on the review committee not you!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> The Constitution is a living documentthat is a liberal point of view, when in fact the Constitution is a changeable document that provides for amending it. If you hold that view then the 1st and 2nd are not guarantees but simply guidelines to adjust with social change


Okay now who is mincing words, do you really beleive there is much difference between the intent of the word living and changeable?

I am not going to rehash your "position" it is clearly written out in this thread.

So ron, even if the Govenor would have approved any sale, how would you as an individual with the power to do so deal with the fact that in violation of state law regarding the USAGE ofthese lands,Cook,while hunting on these lands himself,did not leave these lands open to public hunting in direct violation of a law sportsmen such as yourself and the groups representingthem lobbied to get included in this law? 10-06.1-10 2. c. of the NDCC

So is it even constitutional to demand and require public access to privately owned lands in this manner? Perhaps these sportsmen orgs and the members that comprose them that lobbied for and "strongarmed" this section into this law need to examine the constitutionality of what they are advocating for before accusing other groups.

Hmmm I wonder if this part of the law will be thrown out as well? I'm sure the sportsmen of ND will appreciate orgs that have millions to spend from wealthy doctors and business men that doante will now be able to buy upthe best hunting lands here in ND and use them for their own private hunting clubs such as is happening in many other states where it is only these wealthy donors that get to hunt these lands with no recourse to address this here in our state. Particularily when it seems as if a wealthy doctor (I pay more in taxes than you make)and businessman are the loudest advocates of this section of the law being over turned. :wink: Swift, ron, do you guys donate to DU???

And just out of curiousity, as I have lost my "egomaniac" handbook, which chapter was it where you tell someone you pay more in taxes than they make for a living? :wink:


----------



## gst

Once again a debate on a serious subject has turned to childish name calling. Ron if you wish to contact ANYONE involved in this group you reference,you are most certainly welcome to do so. I would imagine as this lawsuit proceeds and more publicity is given it, the orgs you guys love to hate will be discussing and commenting on this. I would caution you though given the dialogue of name calling and juvenile comments the likelyhood of getting others to comment on this site regarding your questions is rather slim. Perhaps if a courteous,factual, debate could be held regarding these issues without going down this path of name calling everytime,,,,,, Well that will likely not happen.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Again gst, what sportsmen appreciate is mute! Do you not get it? What matters is does it pass the smell test with the US Constitution!!!!!!!!!

So you have my questions, let see if your Pres will respond or do so in a public setting for all to here? Simple as that! Oh and I did not mince words, the definition between the two are clear! A living document would mean that our 2nd Amendment rights would go away without the ratification of 75% of the states approving it as well as 2/3 of Congress! Changeable means that the only way they can go away is as I stated! So there is no mincing of words! The Constitution is what it is, and as such minority interests are protected equally! Something you fail to grasp with your responses!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst said:


> Once again a debate on a serious subject has turned to childish name calling. Ron if you wish to contact ANYONE involved in this group you reference,you are most certainly welcome to do so. I would imagine as this lawsuit proceeds and more publicity is given it, the orgs you guys love to hate will be discussing and commenting on this. I would caution you though given the dialogue of name calling and juvenile comments the likelyhood of getting others to comment on this site regarding your questions is rather slim. Perhaps if a courteous,factual, debate could be held regarding these issues without going down this path of name calling everytime,,,,,, Well that will likely not happen.


It appears that your bluff is called and now you are backing up as usual!


----------



## gst

Ron, I don;t mean to burst your bubble, but wether the leadership of these ag orgs respond publically to this issue will be determined by the wishes of their membership and what they beleive is best, not some juvenile, childish name calling fella on a website such as this. I have a friend I help work cattle on occasion. He has a yappin little dog that really does not do much more than yap. All day long as people are going about accomplishing the tasks they must this little dog runs around yappin. On occassion he gets his nose bent over something and growls at someone, and has even been known to bite a time or two, but at the end of the day what must be done has been done and this growling yapping biting little dog has had nothing to do with helping it be accomplished.

So lets get over all this petty little name calling and go back to the very first post you made regarding this issue to see if we can set the one thing I entered this debate over straight.

Quote[ by Ron Gilmore » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:46 pm 
Really does not matter where or why they chose to incorporate in DE! What is more important is that the current law will not withstand higher courts. I am not in favor of the law being gutted, but you can thank FB and FU and Stockmans Assn for this! Another example of selective restrictions from the groups and their supporters who chime in and claim everything is always a property rights issue. What is more of a property right than to chose whom you sell your land to!!!!!!!!!! ]end quote

*Now ron if what you and others haved claimed, as was done in this above post, these ag orgs. here in the state have the power to force the elected representatives of the people of this state to make laws that may or may not be ruled unconstitutional simply for their benefit regarding something as significant as land ownership, answer this one single simple question. Why then would these very same orgs allow these very same elected representatives of the people to make laws restricting what these ag orgs members did (usage) on these lands they own? *

I do not beleive I have EVER debated the Constitutionality of this law. As you have pointed out yourself, people vote on and make laws that are not constitutionally correct. And this country does indeed have measures in place to address when this happens. In regards to this particular law for decades the people and the representatives they have elected have supported this law because it has served this state well wether you personally beleive so or not. You and a handful of others simply can not accept this fact that it was a populous decision to keep this law on the books here in ND. (you elude to it in your admission DU would lose public support if they had challenged this law, but you do not have the honesty to admit it any further)

As I said I am not lawyer nor claim to be an expert in the law and as a citizen of this state I place my reliance on the determining of this with the people charged with examining state law for this very purpose that are also elected by ALL the voters of this state. If it is overturned by the courts as unconstitutional so be it. The people that were elected to represent the citizens of this state will deal with this issue at that time. I'm sure you and others will be advocating for your ideals just as others will be advocating for theirs, the process will move forward as it is designed, new law will be created based on what the courts leave or overturn and life will go on. But the fact you can not deny is wether this law is deemed constitutional or not the part relating to corporations has lasted 70 plus years, and the part relating to nonprofits has lasted 30 years and the ONLY way this is possible is if the voters of the state want it to be and it is not challenged.

So if you would simply answer the emboldened question that was asked above in response to your claim that started this whole debate.


----------



## swift

> I do not beleive I have EVER debated the Constitutionality of this law. As you have pointed out yourself, people vote on and make laws that are not constitutionally correct. And this country does indeed have measures in place to address when this happens. In regards to this particular law for decades the people and the representatives they have elected have supported this law because it has served this state well wether you personally beleive so or not. You and a handful of others simply can not accept this fact that it was a populous decision to keep this law on the books here in ND. (you elude to it in your admission DU would lose public support if they had challenged this law, but you do not have the honesty to admit it any further)


This is completely false.

First of all whether the law served the state well is a subjective call. Ofcourse you would think it served the state well you benefit from the law.

Second,


> You and a handful of others simply can not accept this fact that it was a populous decision to keep this law on the books here in ND.


You seem to think think since nobody has challenged the law, that shows support for the law. The ELECTED officials of ND had NEVER addressed the law in the 22 years I lived in ND. So the only elected officials that have anything to do with this law are either dead or retired. It wouldn't by the ELECTED officials that would look into it anyway. The Governor would need to ask the Attorney General for his opinion on the constitutionality of the law. Why would the governor, that was granted tyrannical rule and know he would loose the support of agriculture if he called for the opinion, even question the law?

Go to a civics class and learn about the checks and balances of the government, You must of been sick the day they taught that in professional farmer college.


----------



## gst

swift earlier in the debate ron accused the ag groups you guys love to hate of shutting down every attempt to change the intent and content of this law thru the legislature that was attempted, so which is it, this law has never been looked at or it has and these "ag groups" shut it down.

You have claimed as well the responsibility these ag groups have had due to the "power" they wield over the legislators the people elected. Please answer this question.

Now ron if what you and others haved claimed, as was done in this above post, these ag orgs. here in the state have the power to force the elected representatives of the people of this state to make laws that may or may not be ruled unconstitutional simply for their benefit regarding something as significant as land ownership, answer this one single simple question. Why then would these very same orgs allow these very same elected representatives of the people to make laws restricting what these ag orgs members did (usage) on these lands they own?

Here is another question swift, if someone is in violation of a law regarding usage of land here in ND should they be held accountable as accorded by state law?

And if there is no public support for the law here in ND, why would ron claim that DU never challenged the law because they would lose public support?


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> HSUS paid for some North Dakota hunters to present their view.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming the nations largest antihunting org who has vowed to end ALL hunting one step at a time would spend thousands of dollars to "help" ND hunters present their veiw???
> 
> Perhaps your own words explain.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> minds of the not very smart
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's what people who supported HFH said, and I didn't think they would tell an open bald faced lie. I was not involved with the initiative remember? That means I don't know what happened. Don't let facts like that get in your way though gst. Your here to fight North Dakota sportsmen no doubt about it. I think you care little about the sportsmen, but you found this site and decided to come here and fight for agricultural. You are not a supporting member, and you have never posted on another form. Your here for your self interest plain and simple, and you dare question my integrity as a North Dakota hunter, and second amendment supporter. You will twist and degrade anyone for your way, isn't that right?



> The Constitution is a living document that changes as the will of the people determines.


That's what those with the anti hunting, anti second amendment always say. That is right from the radial left playbook.



> Ron, I don;t mean to burst your bubble, but wether the leadership of these ag orgs respond publically to this issue will be determined by the wishes of their membership and what they beleive is best, *not some juvenile, childish name calling fella *on a website such as this. I have a friend I help work cattle on occasion. He has a yappin little dog that really does not do much more than yap. All day long as people are going about accomplishing the tasks they must this little dog runs around yappin. On occassion he gets his nose bent over something and growls at someone, and has even been known to bite a time or two, but at the end of the day what must be done has been done and this growling yapping biting little dog has had nothing to do with helping it be accomplished.


Follow your own advise gst. You see the bold above? Then read what you think is a sly way to demean Ron. Do you thihk we are all stupid enough to make the comparison and say: oh ya gst has a point and he didn't call names. So who is the yappy dog? Ya, I got you. Like I said follow your own advise. The frustration level involves you more than anyone else I have observed on the site. Maybe try following your own adviser. Forget about Joe who wants to sell his land, the yappy dog, the HSUS, and all your bogyemen and address the questions you have been presented with rather than another 20 of your own. I'll be waiting, but not holding my breath. I would like to see real opinion without the bull dropping smoke screan.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So gst, you as a board member of the NDSA extended an invitation for me to address them and get my answers, I accepted, now you are running away from it. Trying to make claims etc... so let me be perfectly clear, you and only you are the one I called a dumbass,ignorant,etc... I have stated and would expect a honest answer from your board if they lobbied to prevent the changes. Now I have accepted, I will wait on the date of the meeting! Or an admission that you did not have the power or right to extend such an invitation and as such where blowing smoke like usual!!!!!!!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Your here for your self interest plain and simple, and you dare question my integrity as a North Dakota hunter, and second amendment supporter. You will twist and degrade anyone for your way, isn't that right?


plainsman, I have made it perfectly clear on more than one occassion I started posting on this site to give a different perspective than what so often is heard on here. It is obviouus that some disagree and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But if you can show where I have ever called anyone an idiot, dumbass, ignorant,tyrant, ect..... or even gone so far as to acuse someone of having a small (well ron can fill you in onthat one) please show where I have. If there has been a question asked I have not answered please post it and I will try to answer it if it is not too far out there.

As to questioning your integrity as a hunter or second amendment supporter, PLEASE show where I have done so. If one looks with an open mind, it could be said that you are questioning my integrity as a hunter and sportsman. :wink:


----------



## gst

ron, if you wish to address the entire board I will speak with our executive director and see if we can get you a spot on our next board meeting in July. Or if you wish perhaps you would sooner address a wider representation of our membership and do so at our annual convention in Sept.. PM me your phone number and I will let you know. Or if you would rather do so yourself you can contact our office directly and ask to be placed on the agenda to discuss this lawsuit. Mr Kaseman did so and addressed our entire board regarding a baiting initiative so I would guess you can have a few minutes as well. Please plan on keeping your comments brief and directly to the point as we only have so much time to get thru our entire agenda.


----------



## swift

> swift earlier in the debate ron accused the ag groups you guys love to hate of shutting down every attempt to change the intent and content of this law thru the legislature that was attempted, so which is it, this law has never been looked at or it has and these "ag groups" shut it down.


GST i'm not Ron Gilmore, Ask him your questions that pertain to what he said. You are in the know. Has there ever been a legislative push within the state to challenge the law? Maybe there has maybe your just taking things out of context again?

As far as the name calling YOU were never called a tyrant. The governor was given tyrannical power over land sales in ND. You are guilty of defending the law to the point of making several arguements against our constitution. The other names you were called...if the name fits so be it. You have proven through your postings to have an attitude superior to us lowly non-landowners. This goes all the way back to the CRP arguement when you threatened a boycott of ND's hunters for a lawsuit brought on by a National organization. Even though the states affilliate supported the ranchers.

I have dissected the policies of the three ag orgs as they are published online. I have to say the one with the least obnoxious policies is the NDSA. Don't worry they are not a whole lot better in their demands for increase tax entitlements, demand for usage of public lands at less than market value and demands for lower tax status. The NDFB and NDFU are (in my opinion) boarderline communistic in their policies. Since I know many many ag producers I can't help but think these grassroots organizations have changed to extremist fringe organizations. Much like Al Qaeda is when compared to the rest of the Muslim world. I'm sure you wont like that comparison but as an American I have the right to voice my opinion and not even the great GST can take that away from me.


----------



## Plainsman

> But if you can show where I have ever called anyone an idiot, dumbass, ignorant,tyrant, ect


I do thank you again for editing those posts where you insinuate I am a liar. Thanks.

I went half way through one thread and you have to admit you try push peoples buttons. Now for a little humor:



> I would have a bit of respect for you. As it is I do not.
> If you wish to add anything of value to this debate please try to refrain from making assinine, childish, personal assumptions
> And once again a mature well thought out diatribe that brings little value to the debate
> As usual these debates turn into childish personal attacks towards people someone has never met
> I no longer have the respect for you to feel obligated to answer your childish rants.
> fact remains that I have very little respect for a supposed adult that would make snide childish comments
> If you lack the mental capacity
> you are a fool.
> For some reason your comments above conjures up a picture of a small child
> Christ almighty man what the hell are you smoking???
> This is a perfect example of you pulling crap out of your a$$.
> I will end my involvement in this debate. For real this time. Unless someone makes more childish personal comments again.
> Okay, okay, okay, I know, but I never really expected to get a direct answer from plainsman
> I actually would like to end this debate, but everytimeI try plainsman pulls somethingout of his a$$
> save your juvenile, snide comments
> refrain from pulling crap out of your a$$
> So you are saying pulling dollar figures and "facts" out of your a$$
> Realize if you are going to pull stuff out of your a$$


After seeing my rear end mentioned so much I got nervouse and stopped reading half way through that thread.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> That's what people who supported HFH said, and I didn't think they would tell an open bald faced lie. I was not involved with the initiative remember? That means I don't know what happened. Don't let facts like that get in your way though gst. Your here to fight North Dakota sportsmen no doubt about it. I think you care little about the sportsmen, but you found this site and decided to come here and fight for agricultural.


The fair chase committe didn't have any money for advertizing so they asked the hunters to donate $16.50 from an email list that they got from the NDG/F Department. I don't think that went very well so HSUS put up $150,000 to get their message out in those TV ads. This is not a lie, it is a fact. And yes, Plainsman you were involved in the fair chase iniative. You were a sponser of fair chase one. The real ND Sportsmen voted against measure 2. Now, here we are again with this anti-corporate farming law challenge. It is the very same people trying to mix themselves in and hide amongst sportsmen again. The very same people.

GST said,



> ron, if you wish to address the entire board I will speak with our executive director and see if we can get you a spot on our next board meeting in July. Or if you wish perhaps you would sooner address a wider representation of our membership and do so at our annual convention in Sept.. PM me your phone number and I will let you know. Or if you would rather do so yourself you can contact our office directly and ask to be placed on the agenda to discuss this lawsuit. Mr Kaseman did so and addressed our entire board regarding a baiting initiative so I would guess you can have a few minutes as well. Please plan on keeping your comments brief and directly to the point as we only have so much time to get thru our entire agenda.


The AG Coalition is also meeting in July. It is non-partisan. The presidents name is Alan Tellman. Here is your chance to really shine Ron Gilmore. Bring swift Plainsman whoever. (If they can tear themselves away from their computers.) You will meet people who produce honey, lentils, flax, beef, milk, flowers and whatever. Just say yes and I'll call Alan.


----------



## Plainsman

> That's what people who supported HFH said, and I didn't think they would tell an open bald faced lie.





> The fair chase committe didn't have any money for advertizing so they asked the hunters to donate $16.50 from an email list that they got from the NDG/F Department. I don't think that went very well so HSUS put up $150,000 to get their message out in those TV ads. This is not a lie, it is a fact.


Shaug please go reread my post. I didn't say it was a lie, I explained I posted that because I believed it. "and I didn't think they would tell an open bald faced lie".



> Plainsman you were involved in the fair chase iniative.


 Not true this year when the advertisement came out that we are talking about.



> You were a sponser of fair chase one.


Yes, but I was not involved in past one which we are talking about.



> The real ND Sportsmen voted against measure 2.


Now that is a joke. I have more respect for a guy with a spotlight and full auto than I do a fellow shooting inside a fence. Just so that isn't misinterpreted let me make it clear I do not respect the guy with the spotlight. Isn't it sad that we can't be honest enough in our debates that we have to make so many explanations to avoid dishonest spin?


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck Smith said:


> Chuck, yes it does make sense. The one brother with poor credit is a ball and chain to the corporation. If you had the money to lend would you be willing to risk it. Banks are not in the business to be fiscal baby sitters.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman..... The reasons why the "three" brothers would go into is because of spreading out risk. If the one brother with poor credit is a hard worker. Why not help him. The one brother with good credit is good at books but not working land....another perfect combination. This is not the bank being a babysitter.
Click to expand...

It's still a risk for the bank. They don't know how much influence he has among the three brothers. One bad apple as they say. Banks are in business like anyone else. Why do people expect them to take risks they would not take themselves. Nope, no family in the banking business, no one I know in banking. It's just that everyone expects so much out of banks and often makes a villain out of them.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst said:


> ron, if you wish to address the entire board I will speak with our executive director and see if we can get you a spot on our next board meeting in July. Or if you wish perhaps you would sooner address a wider representation of our membership and do so at our annual convention in Sept.. PM me your phone number and I will let you know. Or if you would rather do so yourself you can contact our office directly and ask to be placed on the agenda to discuss this lawsuit. Mr Kaseman did so and addressed our entire board regarding a baiting initiative so I would guess you can have a few minutes as well. Please plan on keeping your comments brief and directly to the point as we only have so much time to get thru our entire agenda.


I will gladly take you up on that, I will be brief as you know what questions I have for them and I am sure the anwsers from them will be brief as well. If they do not intend to anwser the questions then let me know that as well prior. Because my intent is not to influence the organization, but to make sure I am clear on the activity I have said they have engaged in.

I will PM you my home phone #

shaug I have no interest in speaking to them as of now since they do not hold a position on the committee. Thanks for the offer and down the road I may take you up on that. I am not anti ag, far from it and I am not in full opposition to the current law. I am opposed to practices that are askew of the US Constitution.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> .
> 
> Did your group lobby to prevent changes to the current law that would have brought it in line with other court rulings around the nation regarding this issue.
> 
> Ron you would more than likely have to have specific examples of when and what changes were attempted in changing this bill to be able to answer that as it would depend upon what policy was at that particular time. Policies are reveiwed and either renewed or dropped on a 3 year cycle.
> 
> Has your group ever given a thumbs up to any sale to a non profit conservation group?
> 
> Ron, this would be a repetition to what you said I already answered when I said I beleived they had not
> 
> Next will be please explain how this current law meets constitutional muster in discriminating against certain groups or organizations without the blather of the people of ND do not want the law to change?
> 
> Ron as this group is a representation of cattlemen, we depend upon the people elected that are to make sure state law is constitutional to make that determination. We are not lawyers, and ultimately that is an opinion for the courts to determine.
> 
> Then will you release the survey results as to actual number of people that responded to the questionnaires in forming policy and when was the last time such a questionnaire was sent out?
> 
> Ron you and others have been informed how our policy is formed thru the membership that meets at our annual conventions, whereby ANY member can brinng ANY policy to debate and vote on. There are no surveys mailed out. You simply can not get the discussionin real time to allow MEMBERS to develope policy in that manner. It has also been pointed out that each resolution developed by members regarding policy is renewed every 3 years and so voted on once again at that time. If you wish to have a say in how policy is formed in this org. you need to be a member.
> 
> Remember this is for the President since he sits on the review committee not you!
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> I am not anti ag, far from it and I am not in full opposition to the current law. I am opposed to practices that are askew of the US Constitution.


Here is what is hard to fully accept ron, you admittedly want to keep the section of the law preventing corporations from purchasing land here in ND and yet you repeatedly claim this is in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. So explain if you would how you can be opposed to practices that are askew of the US Constitution and yet support the part of this law that prevents corps from buying land ?


----------



## gst

Ron, I went back and read some of the posts in this thread once again. And after reading being called an ignorant dumbass as well as other personal comments on a number of occasions, recall the baiting and HFH debates as well, you will have to forgive me but I am not going to be the one that brings someone who has a track record of this nature to a meeting of my friends and collegues given the tendencies you have to respond in the manner you do. Given second thoughts, your replies and attitude has not earned enough respect from me personally to extend the invitation I did. If my kids were to carry on in this manner, they most certainly would not be rewarded for doing so.

That in no way prevents you from contacting our office and either getting on our agenda or speaking directly with whomever you need to answer your questions yourself. Perhaps if you could carry on debates without these types of personal attacks it would have been easier to stand by the invitation, but as it is given your track record of replying to people you do not agree with in the manner you do, I am not going to place friends and collegues in the path of this type of vitreolic wrath.

I have answered the questions you have asked regarding this org. as you have admited yourself and will continue to do so if I can. If you beleive they are not what you seek, you may most certainly on your own pursue what you feel you need to yourself. Make of it what you will, which I am sure will happen, but I have to much respect for my friends and collegues to introduce them to someone who so easily begins down the path of name calling with people he does not agree with rather than giving the same respect of answering questions himself when asked while demanding answers to his let alone demanding others stop asking questions all together.

All to often I find myself being sucked into these debates I know I should refrain from entering and end up replying at levels that accomplish little, for that I apologize. As is most often the case little good comes from this type dialogue.


----------



## Longshot

Pot meet Kettle! :rollin:

gst, you play right out of the democrats playbook. You commit the same things you accuse others of doing. When someone reacts back to you in the same manner you chose, you then try to play the victim and cry about it. When you get caught or your challenge met you look for the back door. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

> Ron Gilmore wrote:
> I am not anti ag, far from it and I am not in full opposition to the current law. I am opposed to practices that are askew of the US Constitution.


Ron, I understand you perfectly. Often our feelings conflict. Like you I would like to see the family farm continue in North Dakota, and I find that in conflict with the constitution that I respect so much. Some make the mistake and think this is hypocritical, but I would ask them to look inward and see if there are not conflicting views in their life. If forced I will choose the constitution first, because wise men who scripted it set this nation on a course that has made it the greatest nation on earth. I'm amazed that some can not grasp out dilemma.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst said:


> Ron, I went back and read some of the posts in this thread once again. And after reading being called an ignorant dumbass as well as other personal comments on a number of occasions, recall the baiting and HFH debates as well, you will have to forgive me but I am not going to be the one that brings someone who has a track record of this nature to a meeting of my friends and collegues given the tendencies you have to respond in the manner you do. Given second thoughts, your replies and attitude has not earned enough respect from me personally to extend the invitation I did. If my kids were to carry on in this manner, they most certainly would not be rewarded for doing so.
> 
> That in no way prevents you from contacting our office and either getting on our agenda or speaking directly with whomever you need to answer your questions yourself. Perhaps if you could carry on debates without these types of personal attacks it would have been easier to stand by the invitation, but as it is given your track record of replying to people you do not agree with in the manner you do, I am not going to place friends and collegues in the path of this type of vitreolic wrath.
> 
> I have answered the questions you have asked regarding this org. as you have admited yourself and will continue to do so if I can. If you beleive they are not what you seek, you may most certainly on your own pursue what you feel you need to yourself. Make of it what you will, which I am sure will happen, but I have to much respect for my friends and collegues to introduce them to someone who so easily begins down the path of name calling with people he does not agree with rather than giving the same respect of answering questions himself when asked while demanding answers to his let alone demanding others stop asking questions all together.
> 
> All to often I find myself being sucked into these debates I know I should refrain from entering and end up replying at levels that accomplish little, for that I apologize. As is most often the case little good comes from this type dialogue.


What I _*want*_ and what the law will allow may not be the same! I have repeatedly said this, and it is not to hard to understand. Like I pointed out before, regarding the Westbro Church. My feelings are that they should be silenced, not allowed to do what they do, but I had to agree with the ruling handed down because it follows the Constitution regarding 1st Amendment rights! So again your repeatedly asked questions are answered but you continue to ask them over and over.

Oh and by the way, your refusal is a cop out! You made an offer and it was accepted, then reneged on it which puts on full display your credibility. If your board wants to decline, fine but you should at least bring it to them or are you afraid they are not going to like what you did?


----------



## gst

Ron, if you simply wish these 4 questions posed answered by someone other than myself from this org., all you simply have to do is make a phone call or email to this org. As a member or a director we can bring anyone we choose to to a board meeting to make a presentations. However after giving it some thought, if all your intention is was to ask 4 questions that can be answered thru other means, I am not going to ask my friends and fellow board members to take up time that can be constructively used to cover the issues of concern to our members we have to in the alloted time we have. Particularily not for some one that has responded in the manner you have within this discussion. I feel fairly confident I am representing the boards wishes in regards to this. And they will be made aware of your comments and this thread in our discussion regarding this lawsuit. Of course if you wish, you may indeed do as Mr Kaseman did and contact our office to be put on the agenda yourself.

I have been reluctant to mention this, but the most ironic part of this whole thing is I have actually discussed the very position you have had regarding these land sales and their approval in the posibility they would ultimately indeed lead to the challenging of this law. Most in ag knew it was only a matter of time. I expect some will choose not to beleive it, but there are those within this org that would tell you this for a fact. But some people are so quick to assume they know more about people on these internet sites they have never met than what they do.

There was a thread in the open forum regarding wether this site is losing people posting. There was at least one individual that stated he has quit commenting on here because of the personal attacks that some feel obligated to engage in over a simple difference of opinion. I thought the moderators on this site were there for this very reason. It appears on this site by their own admission they are here to simply post snide comments meant to poke ( oke: ) at someone themselves. Ironically this thread commenting on this site possibly going down hill was locked by one of these "moderators" and disappeared. I fully understand hot topics is exactly that and if you are going to get your feelings hurt, don;t bother posting in it. But it seems as if it is far beyond simply having vigorous discussions of opposing veiws and more to making derogatory personal comments if you disagree with someone. I am a bit disappointed in myself for while not calling people ignorant, dumbasses, stupd, idiots, egomaniacs, elitest ect.... directly, I did allow myself to be sucked down to this level when the somewhat more veiled comments were made in response to others more direct ones. For that I apologize.

The org I am involved in has a longstanding history of respect and honor. This has a great deal to do with the people that have been involved in the leadership positions, but most importantly because of the members themselves who are likely your neighbors. It's policies created by it's members and actions of it's leadership stand on their merit wether a handful of people on sites like this agree or not. I have realized I do not have to get everyone to appreciate or like this org., particularily ones that have the attitudes shown the past few pages. The reputation and integrity of this org. is not dependent upon their approval but rather the actions of it's members and leaders. And having allowing myself to be lowered to the level this discussion delved to, for that I apologize to them. .

A number of people have pmed me saying they have quit posting on this site because of the very examples of what we saw in this discussion. I too have decided that the minutes I spend on here posting what is simply my opinions often times backed by links to base them on only to deal with the personal crap that invariably ends up coming from about 4 individuals are simply wasted. 2 of these individuals post on another outdoor site whose moderator/manager has less tolerance for this childish name calling and it shows in their posts on this particular site. So simply, plainsman, ron, swift, you win. You have driven another person off this site. To all those that have pmed me with their personal comments in regards to issues thank you and the ones that wish to stay in touch please do.


----------



## swift

> A number of people have pmed me saying they have quit posting on this site because of the very examples of what we saw in this discussion. I too have decided that the minutes I spend on here posting what is simply my opinions often times backed by links to base them on only to deal with the personal crap that invariably ends up coming from about 4 individuals are simply wasted. 2 of these individuals post on another outdoor site whose moderator/manager has less tolerance for this childish name calling and it shows in their posts on this particular site. So simply, plainsman, ron, swift, you win. You have driven another person off this site


Its funny GST because I only ever have a problem with ONE person on here. So lets look at the common denominator. You are crying about being picked on and you are also my only problem on this site. Maybe YOU are the problem afterall.

I am just glad the bully is moving on and we can have real discussions without the drama.

Your last post is really telling of you the person. In the beginning you could have said you discussed this very issue and knew the law would be challenged but you chose to be the aggressor in an idiotic fight. Good I'm glad you realize you have been taking advantage of the people with the understanding you and yours were benefiting from a bad law without being a man and trying to fix it.


----------



## shaug

Ron Gilmore wrote,



> shaug I have no interest in speaking to them as of now since they do not hold a position on the committee. Thanks for the offer and down the road I may take you up on that. I am not anti ag, far from it and I am not in full opposition to the current law. I am opposed to practices that are askew of the US Constitution.


Ron, are you sure? Because they do hold positions on the committee. You see NDFU, NDFB and NDSA are members of the AG Coalition. The offer still stands, but I want to up the ante. You have to bring swift and plainsman with you. Any coward can hurl insults through a keyboard and a screen name. I want to meet them face to face. After your presentation is heard, then you have to listen to ours.

I think it is important for sportsmen or whomever to have a forum or website for the exchange of laughs, info, gunsmithing, dogs or whatever. Some of what goes on here is over the top.


----------



## LT

Gst Stated:


> There was a thread in the open forum regarding wether this site is losing people posting. There was at least one individual that stated he has quit commenting on here because of the personal attacks that some feel obligated to engage in over a simple difference of opinion. I thought the moderators on this site were there for this very reason. It appears on this site by their own admission they are here to simply post snide comments meant to poke at someone themselves. Ironically this thread commenting on this site possibly going down hill was locked by one of these "moderators" and disappeared. I fully understand hot topics is exactly that and if you are going to get your feelings hurt, don;t bother posting in it. But it seems as if it is far beyond simply having vigorous discussions of opposing veiws and more to making derogatory personal comments if you disagree with someone. I am a bit disappointed in myself for while not calling people ignorant, dumbasses, stupd, idiots, egomaniacs, elitest ect.... directly, I did allow myself to be sucked down to this level when the somewhat more veiled comments were made in response to others more direct ones. For that I apologize.
> 
> A number of people have pmed me saying they have quit posting on this site because of the very examples of what we saw in this discussion. I too have decided that the minutes I spend on here posting what is simply my opinions often times backed by links to base them on only to deal with the personal crap that invariably ends up coming from about 4 individuals are simply wasted. 2 of these individuals post on another outdoor site whose moderator/manager has less tolerance for this childish name calling and it shows in their posts on this particular site. So simply, plainsman, ron, swift, you win. You have driven another person off this site. To all those that have pmed me with their personal comments in regards to issues thank you and the ones that wish to stay in touch please do.


GST, I have to commend you for hanging in there as long as you have. I believe this site has been going downhill ever since the Fair Chase Initiative. 11 of the sponsors came from this site, many of them being moderators. The bias and name calling was rampant. I had posts removed and altered. During the second go round, a lady that started posting on here later told me that her posts were being removed. She asked me why that would be happening, don't they want this to be fair. She did not realize that this board is rigged, rigged, rigged, and was started for one purpose.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=63



> Fetch » Fri Mar 08, 2002 5:16 pm
> I tried to post the above post at F B earlier this week. Not there ??? I wrote them 2 days ago and asked why ? still nothing ??? I just wrote them again - this time not as nice. Telling them it is well known that they side with the commercial interests. & that their censorship & who they support, is getting comical & most ND residents know it. I tell ya these people & the politicians are just stalling and thinking this issue is going to go away. Plus they will get a compromise that suits them. It is TIME for all ND outdoor sports people, that really care, to turn up the pressure & write & call & email & drop the gloves and come out swinging. Tell those in office to wake up. The pheasant thing is only the begining. We are sick of the direction they are considering going. ND G&F dept. is not there to help the commercial interests. It is about time someone there has some GUTS and comes out & says, what we keep hearing, they really feel. If they receive political backlash. The outdoors recreation tax payers of this state will try to help you & support you & even admire you. Seems 50 to 1 or more is substantial. & how they are trying to control these meetings & not allow questions, tells me they want to try & SPIN this some how, in the best light they can. I have been a Republican. But this is making me think twice. When business can screw with something as important, as this is, to so many of us - is unreal !!! We need a independant thinker / doer - not the status quo network of Ying Yangs trying to run things & criticise each other & take credit for everything - like normal government. This is too important to for that. & FB is no longer on my computer.
> 
> ________________________________________
> by Chris Hustad » Fri Mar 08, 2002 6:35 pm
> That was a big motivator for getting this site up. Discussion going on there is a joke, because you only see the opinions that THEY SEE FIT(people who lease help pay their bills, they'll never pay mine). How is anything ever going to get accomplished there? After trying to post unsuccessfully for a month without getting one post on, I quit going and got working on this site.
> 
> That's censorship at it's finest. You can pay there to get your posts to show up immediately, but they can still delete them. My buddy is a member there and a lot of his gets deleted, and is it a coincidence that his posts deleted were about leasing of land???
> 
> Chris Hustad
> webmaster


----------



## swift

Shaug, Its too bad you have your mind made up about us based on some internet postings. I have never met the other two guys you seem to dislike but as for myself I don't need to come visit with the group. Their policies are not inline with my beliefs. Much the same way the policies of HSUS or PETA or Obamacare are not in line with my beliefs so I will not be attending their meetings either.

I said from the beginning it is personal with me and GST. I don't hold that sentiment with you. You can argue without the bravdo until now. The thing is this state is made up of many people. There are many professionals, technical workers, students, and a few ag producers in comparison. The idea purveyed by GST is that of total domination by ag with little regard to others affected. Just look at his posts the whole KKK arguement is classic.

Anytime you want to have a solid debate and actually give credence to others ideas knowing the same credence will be given you let me know. If you want a pissing match as you have seen I can accomodate that too.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> I have been reluctant to mention this, but the most ironic part of this whole thing is I have actually discussed the very position you have had regarding these land sales and their approval in the posibility they would ultimately indeed lead to the challenging of this law. Most in ag knew it was only a matter of time. I expect some will choose not to beleive it, but there are those within this org that would tell you this for a fact. But some people are so quick to assume they know more about people on these internet sites they have never met than what they do.


I'm not surprised that you are less than truthful about your true opinions. This goes to prove you are only here to stire the pot.



LT said:


> She did not realize that this board is rigged, rigged, rigged,


 :bs:

You have been able to say as much as anyone on here. You do realize that this is not your site don't you? Yet you are allowed to make you opinion know just like everyone else has. You guys sure like to play the victim.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> There are many professionals, technical workers, students, and a few ag producers in comparison.


Professionals of what profession? Technical workers of what occupation? Students of what class?

Longshot said,



> You have been able to say as much as anyone on here. You do realize that this is not your site don't you?


It is your theater and you can yell fire if you want to. (eyeroll)


----------



## Plainsman

Longshot, I might add that no one has had a post removed unless it violated rules. Even then in the hot topics many times things are not removed. gst complained, but I see he edited where he called me a liar a number of times. He also called me a fool and other things. I figured if I let him by with that how do I jump on others in the hot topics. No, some are angry because they were unable to beat others down which evidently is their personal method of operation. 
As to few posters the people who say that are those who can't have their way or have a personal beef with someone. Normally it's the season that has more to do with that than anything else. There are those that don't want to simply take their bat and ball and leave the sandbox, they want to destroy the sandbox before they leave.
If I have learned anything in these debates it is that FU, FB, and the NDGA need much more watching than I knew. I also hope that the disregard for downstream people isn't the general attitude of upstream farmers. It's been an extremely disappointing experience witnessing the willingness of some to run roughshod over others.


----------



## swift

> Professionals of what profession? Technical workers of what occupation? Students of what class?


There in lies the problem of some. If your not a farmer/rancher your not crap. That attitude is what got us to this point.


----------



## spentwings

Even though I had to hold my nose, I supported gst's defense of HFH because I believed it was a property rights issue.
However, I wasn't naive enough to believe gst cared anything about the sportsmen of ND.
This messy thread accomplished a couple of things, increased you vs. me animosity and, more positively,,,gst is gone. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> Professionals of what profession? Technical workers of what occupation? Students of what class?
> 
> 
> 
> There in lies the problem of some. If your not a farmer/rancher your not crap. That attitude is what got us to this point.
Click to expand...

I don't want to give away towns, or names, but my son worked at this one place and a rancher said to him "if your not a rancher your not S??t. Seriously, right to his face. They were not arguing, it just came out of the blue. Even if the guy thought it that was not a smart thing to say. Words like that get around.

Some are on this site for enjoyment, some are on for advise, some are on to pass on knowledge, some are on simply for entertainment, and some are on to further their agenda. If you find people in only one form you have to ask yourself why. If they come on a hunting and fishing site with views that oppose I think the idea is to divide and conquer. I don't know about the rest of you but it makes me feel used. I especially felt that LT''s response was an anger that they were unable to use to their satisfaction.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug, again your group directly does not hold a seat. I would like the opportunity to ask the listed questions of the groups named and get a response from them. Like I said at a later point I may, but right now this is my focus. I think it important that these things are on record publicly especially the behind the scene off the record type lobby efforts question.

Now if you want to bring all the boards together and have a Q&A for the public to come and participate then yeah!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

One other thing, gst I do not think you should leave. You are a involved in Ag, you can offer a perspective from that point of view. Why not do this! If you agree with a position and it differs from NDSA or any other Ag group then do not defend the group simply stay out so you are not caught in between.

History is history, all can move forward from here!


----------



## spentwings

Ron,, I think the only disagreement we've had was if the .243 is adequate for deer but give me a break!!!!
Sounds to me like you'll miss your #1 antagonist.
This thread has been nothing more than divisive BS.
Plainsman has it right once again. :huh:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

spentwings said:


> Ron,, I think the only disagreement we've had was if the .243 is adequate for deer but give me a break!!!!
> Sounds to me like you'll miss your #1 antagonist.
> This thread has been nothing more than divisive BS.
> Plainsman has it right once again. :huh:


We can now agree on the .243 if you are using TSX bullets! :thumb:


----------



## spentwings

Thanks for the conciliatory BS Ron. :lol:


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> I don't want to give away towns, or names, but my son worked at this one place and a rancher said to him "if your not a rancher your not S??t. Seriously, right to his face. They were not arguing, it just came out of the blue. Even if the guy thought it that was not a smart thing to say. Words like that get around.


Funny thing, this story sounds very familiar to the story that were in some of my posts that were erased. Remember Plainsman, your friend and fellow USGS federal worker who attended the Jamestown Public Forum to air the fair chase initiative, the one who I witnessed stating to one of the elk growers who was handing out a piece of paper talking about property rights, "You F'n landowners with your F'n property rights, that sh*$ does not mean anything to me." and then he flung the paper back at the elk grower.

Plainsman Stated:


> Some are on this site for enjoyment, some are on for advise, some are on to pass on knowledge, some are on simply for entertainment, and some are on to further their agenda. If you find people in only one form you have to ask yourself why. If they come on a hunting and fishing site with views that oppose I think the idea is to divide and conquer. I don't know about the rest of you but it makes me feel used. I especially felt that LT''s response was an anger that they were unable to use to their satisfaction.


Plainsman, this forum was used as a platform and agenda for the fair chase initiative by the sponsors and supporters, so you guys opened the door for some of us nonhunters to pay you a visit. I stated immediately when I joined in these discussions that I was a nonhunter and that I was here to offer another side, rebut lies, and present some facts on the elk industry. You honestly believe if you are going to take someone's livelihood away that they have no right to be on this forum and express their views or even to not be angry, especially since many of the moderators were sponsors of the initiative (you included)!!!

Have fun playing in your sandbox. Just remember if you don't want cats playing in your sandbox, just don't open the door.


----------



## spentwings

So what LT?
And guess what,,,,no one has right to be on any internet forum including me.
You guys are really helping *your *agenda. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

> Funny thing, this story sounds very familiar to the story that were in some of my posts that were erased. Remember Plainsman, your friend and fellow USGS federal worker who attended the Jamestown Public Forum to air the fair chase initiative, the one who I witnessed stating to one of the elk growers who was handing out a piece of paper talking about property rights, "You F'n landowners with your F'n property rights, that sh*$ does not mean anything to me." and then he flung the paper back at the elk grower.


Yes, I do remember that fairytale. I and the fellow that it was attributed to have had many debates. I have had him so frustrated he has been to the point of pulling his hair out. I have never heard him use that kind of language. It either didn't happen or you attributed it to the wrong man. 
LT complained that measure 2 would have taken away livelyhood. Now, I don't know who the owner of this site is, but I would guess he has it for income. So what is a statement like this intended for:


> She did not realize that this board is rigged, rigged, rigged, and was started for one purpose.


 I'll tell you what it's for. It's meant to destroy because they could not shut some people up.

Since the original debate is over I think this is a great time to move on.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Anytime you want to have a solid debate and actually give credence to others ideas knowing the same credence will be given you let me know. If you want a pissing match as you have seen I can accomodate that too.


What would you like, a ten page whizzin match. I'll pass. I wouldn't, in real life, argue with a drunk at a bar or try to reason with a pimple faced kid. I'm not going to try to reason or debate you on a forum that is dying.

Ron wrote,



> shaug, again your group directly does not hold a seat. I would like the opportunity to ask the listed questions of the groups named and get a response from them. Like I said at a later point I may, but right now this is my focus. I think it important that these things are on record publicly especially the behind the scene off the record type lobby efforts question.


If you have a list of questions you can send them to the offices of these associations. (Off the record type lobby efforts question?????????????????) You lost me there.

and



> Now if you want to bring all the boards together and have a Q&A for the public to come and participate then yeah!


NDFU, NDFB, NDSA all have their resolutions out there already visible. If you want a public forum then have DU, The North Dakota Natural Resources Trust, The Nature Conservancy and whoever is raising all the hell over the law plan one. Or would that be unpopular?

I had to go digging to find an old arcticle that made little to no sense at the time. I too think it is important that things are on record publicly especially the behind the scenes stuff. This is from before Nov.2nd. A letter from the editor of the Tribune. This editor opinion below got his or her info from.................WHO?????????? It is obvious many unrelated issues have a common denominator. "A certain small group of people" "Behind the scenes"

[quotehttp://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_dcc73860-d304-

Measure 2 -- Captive Hunting

If North Dakotans are opposed to corporate farming and in favor of using the National Grasslands to support ranching culture in western North Dakota, which our laws and policies suggest is the case, then to be consistent we should oppose captive hunting.

The state has legislated against corporate farming, because of a strong belief in the concept of family farms. It supports a way of life fundamental to North Dakotas development. The state supports ranchers in their agreements with the federal government to lease range from the National Grasslands because of a popular belief in the ranching culture that grew up with the state. It, too, is a way of life.

North Dakotans are equally engaged in the hunting culture. And that incudes the ideas of sportsmanship and public ownership of wild game that took hold in this country after the arrival of early immigrants from countries where land-owning classes controlled hunting. Captive hunting isn't an issue of class in North Dakota today, but the fair-chase cause reverberates with democratic principles.

Although the issue isn't really so sensational, at the core many North Dakotan find shooting confined animals in the name of "sport" repugnant. And, yes, that's despite growing up on farms and ranches where livestock are killed in the butchering process.

North Dakotan have historically been protective of individual property rights. But when it comes to a choice between those rights and public hunting and sportsmanship, the state's residents are willing to release their tight hold on property rights.

The writers of this measure have not been unreasonable. They have been careful to give existing captive hunting operations plenty of lead time if the measure passes.

The Tribune endorses a "yes" vote on Measure 2, in support of fair chase.

][/quote]


----------



## swift

Shaug, it seems you want to take up where your mentor left off. I'm not interested in another meaningless diatribe that has nothing to do with the topic. Pimple face kid. That's well thought out and well written.

Back to the topic.
As in all things around us when we witness a wrong we should try to correct it. The bigger person will try to make the wrong right even though that wrong was benefitting him. It has now been admitted that the ag representative organizations already knew that this law in question was "most likely unconstitutional" but have chosen posit back and reap the rewards, lobby for it in their policies and take away their own members rights to do with their land as they see fit.

I would like someone to give a reasonable explanation why this is okay?


----------



## g/o

> I would like someone to give a reasonable explanation why this is okay?


The same reason the Game and Fish would not allow N/R Outfittters or Guides in this state.


----------



## swift

Is it the same thing? I don't know, my gut says it's not. G/O's are a part of the management tool of the publics wildlife for which the G&F are tasked to manage . Each state is delegated to manage their states wildlife, Maybe it is in violation to the commerce code to prevent business activities across state lines. Maybe the commerce clause doesn't recognize commercialization of the publics wildlife as commerce therefore it does not violate. IDK?

If in fact G/O's were just providing access and assistance I'm sure the state would allow them to outfit non hunting and fishing activities such as wilderness camping trips or bird watching trips. Again I don't know for sure so maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

G/O and when presented with the fact that this restriction was not in line with the Commerce Clause what did they do?

Same thing can be said about this law we are discussing. The groups know it will not pass in all likelyhood, but instead of working towards something that would they instead pushed to hold the status quo.

To bad these organizations did not have the common sense the G&F have!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> I would like someone to give a reasonable explanation why this is okay?
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason the Game and Fish would not allow N/R Outfittters or Guides in this state.
Click to expand...

In all honesty I think that depends on what they guide for. Migratory wildlife comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. As much as I hate seeing wildlife commercialized I can't dump on the constitution to stop it. I hope it doesn't destroy hunting for the guy who can just scrape up enough money to do a little hunting.

I think the non migratory wildlife that comes under the jurisdiction of the state is up to the state if they wish to allow or stop outside guide services.

I guess my hopes would be that the licensed North Dakota guides would join with North Dakota hunters in preserving what we both have. Outside influence is competition for our resident guides, and it will drive the price of hunting out of reach for the average Joe. I hope the next generation can enjoy our outdoors as I have.


----------



## gst

Ron you claim you wished me to stay in this forum to present a perspective from being involved in Ag. Given the response to doing that very thing, why would I. I'm not THAT much of an "ignorant dumbass". 

I will only post this to have people that wish to to consider it as an "agricultural perspective" . Make of it what you wish.

*There are numerous examples of laws being created that had they been challenged Constitutionally at the time they were created, they would have likely withstood the challenge and been deemed Constitutional because of the ideologies of the members of the Court at that time that would not be upheld based on todays courts interpretation of the very same segments of the Constitution.* As time passes and the make up of the Court changes, so does their *interpretation *of the Constitutionality of these laws. So can ANYONE on this site claim that in the 1940's the corp. farming laws shortly after the time of their creation would not have been upheld by the Court that was in place at that time as a result of their *interpretation*? Nor can anyone say for certain wether in the 80"s had the segment of the law regarding nonprofits being challenged that given the makeup of the Court and their *interpretation* of the Constitution at that time it would have been ruled unconstitutional. The ag groups mentioned as well as others in ag have watched the change of the makeup in the courts and have seen how this has affected the current Courts *interpretation* of Constitutional law. That is why there are those in ag that beleive what was not challenged as uconstitutional for decades may indeed be challenged know. Wether it is *interpreted *as unconstitutional in part or totaly remains to be seen.

In 1971 the 26th Amendment to the Constitution allowing 18 year olds the right to vote only took 3 monthes 8 days to be ratified. Prior to that any state law granting 18 year olds the right to vote would have been rulled unconstituional had the court interpreted it so. Of the 27 ammendments to the Constitution over the years, 7 took less than one year to ratify. The Constitution as well as the Court that rules on it's *interpretation *CHANGES with society as society determines who appoints as well as approves these justices that *interpret *the Constitution. These changes in the possibility of *interpretation* are what some in these ag groups have realized and considered.


----------



## g/o

> To bad these organizations did not have the common sense the G&F have!!!!


Now that's the biggest joke of the day, the game and fish knew they were wrong all along. They have the attitude they can do whatever they please. Once they were challenged they tucked tail and ran. You call that common sense Ron?????????????????

We are talking two different scenerio's here Ron,and I don't why you feel the present system is so unfair? You have 3 farm groups that will usually vote a certain way, but you also have 3 groups that vote the other way. Now all you need to do is get a bunch of greenie liberals in the Ag commish position and Govenors office and you should be able to get all the Wildlife land needed.


----------



## spentwings

glad you're back gst! :wink: 
I didn't think it would be possible, but his thread is becoming even more amusing. :beer: 
There's a psychiatric term for antagonists that enjoy debating each other to death accomplishing nothing,,,it's called politics.


----------



## swift

G/O what would you say the reason is for no nonresident guides or outfitters? And do you really think there is a comparison to anticorporate farming law?

My church was given several sections of land by a member that passed away. Our church leases the farming to area farmers and is in turn able to earmark those funds for various projects such as a new roof on the church, missionary trips to Haiti and childrens programs. Since my church is 75 miles south of the ND boarder we didn't have to divest the land in 5 years like in ND. our church benefit the person that left us the land got what he wanted and the land stayed in agriculture.

I asked before what the intention of the law was and wasn't given a real answer. I will ask again was is the INTENT of the law. What is the law on the books to accomplish? I understand the process of the law. In my opinion the law is there to protect small family farms from corporate competition. This seems logical. IF that is the intent exactly how is my church violating that intent if we were 75 miles north? The land stayed in agriculture. The local family farmers are farming it. and the rent is benefiting the parish.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> I asked before what the intention of the law was and wasn't given a real answer. I will ask again was is the INTENT of the law.


The anti-corporate farming law was passed in 1931. Why didn't it include non'-profits? Because the federal government had not yet created them such as Ducks Unlimited until at least 1936. Why was the law amended in 1981 to include non-profits?

In 1965 Congress created the Land Water Conservation Fund Act. $900 million to be appropriated toward reinvestment. The money was to come from oil and gas lease monies from off the Outer Atlantic Continental Shelf. Oil companies lease these areas from the general public for $5 billion a year and the money was deposited into the US General Treasurey.

The trouble with the LWCF act of 65 was the conservation groups involved had to go back to congress every year to secure the funding. It was never seriously funded. The conservation groups were looking for something more secure like an earmark.

In 2000 they introduced (CARA) The conservation and reinvestment act. They wanted the whole $5 billion a year diverted from the US General Treasurey directly to them for a period up to 15 years or about $40 billion dollars worth. The bill failed, but had it passed we would have found out what they meant by reinvestment. They were going to buy land through these federally created non-profits. Everytime a piece of ground comes up for sale they would be there as the highest bidder. Who is going to out bid them with all the money at their disposal. The states need to do something to protect themselves.

But there is more. I believe it was back in the late 90's, Field and Stream reported that Pew Charities gave a donation of $23 million to Ducks Unlimited. Where did that kind of money come from? Pew is a foundation. Congress created foundations many years ago. The super rich and big corps can put before tax money in them for philanthropy projects such as orphanages red cross food banks whatever. These are tax dollars that were destined for the US General Treasurey but then were diverted. Over the years the super rich lobbied Congress to allow them more leniency and/or leeway to what 501(c)3's they can give the funds to.

Pew Chartities (7 billion in assests) is owed by the Pew Family who in turn own Sunoco Oil. When Sunoco Oil makes a profit they owe taxes. But instead of paying in to the US General Treasurey they can divert it to Pew Charities Foundation and then on to...............
Ducks Unlimited.

Everyone complains the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. Check it out. Foundation after Foundation, Billions and Billions. Enough to purchase every acre of farmland and fund every activist group to get it done in North Dakota?????

CHECK IT OUT:

http://activistcash.com/index_foundations.cfm

Several activists groups who receive money from these foundations are active in ND

Why did our legislature amend the law in 1981 to include non-profits? What did they see looking into the future?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

When the original law was passed its intent was to get the land back into the hands of farmers as much of the land because of the depression and drought was either in rears for taxes or owned by banks,insurance companies etc.... The law was never intended to stop state or federal agencies from owning land nor conservation organizations. The blow up that occurred during the building of the Garrison Diversion and then followed by Swampbuster triggered the changes that occurred in 1981!

That is the short and precise history of how we arrived where we are today!!!!!!

Sorry swift that I did not give you this info prior. G/O you are the one that brought up the issues, you may think it funny but the G&F at least knew better than to fight a fight they would lose.


----------



## shaug

Ron said,



> The blow up that occurred during the building of the Garrison Diversion and then followed by Swampbuster triggered the changes that occurred in 1981!


Swampbuster came four years after 1981 when our legislature amended the anti-corporate law to include non-profits.

http://www.wetlandresearch.com/wiki/ind ... wampbuster

The Food Security Act of 1985, more commonly known as the Swampbuster Act, refer to certain provisions of the act discouraging the conversion of wetlands to farmland. Under the Swampbuster provisions, a landowner will not be eligible for USDA program benefits, including loans, subsidies, crop insurance, and other important agricultural subsidies if a landowner used a converted wetland (a wetland that has been drained or dredged for agricultural purposes) after December 23, 1985.

Ron, you are correct. There was a big blow up over Garrison Diversion. Ducks Unlimited backrolled Sen. Byron Dorgans first campaign for public office. When elected he helped kill Garrison Diversion. At the end of the diversion the federal government created the ND Natural Resources Trust to act as a neutral between landowners the state and the fed/gov. $25 million was put in trust and its profits were to be spent making that happen. That was then. Today Keith Trego is the head of it and has been busy campaigning for the end of the anti-corporate law. Involved himself in the fair chase iniative and takes a federal position against the state. Maybe it is time to defund the ND Natural Resources (dis)Trust? They work against the state.

Someday when Keith Trego and Lloyd Jones pass, they are going to have to screw them into the ground.


----------



## spentwings

shaug said:


> Someday when Keith Trego and Lloyd Jones pass, they are going to have to screw them into the ground.


Reminds me of my great grandpa. My uncle used to say they had to put him face down in the coffin to get the lid closed.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug

You at least admit that the law change to non profits was a retaliation and vendetta because of positions DU or others may have taken. See I am OK, may not agree, with such actions as long as it is out in the open. Instead of hiding and using other things as a reason or excuse. FU or FB or even your group does not like DU, fine, wants to oppose them fine but in doing stand up and say " Hey, we do not want DU buying any more land because they support a position we oppose." Simple straight forward and best of all honest!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are right about the Swampbuster time line,got events messed up. However farmers where very angry during that time, with FCS and the embargo on grains that hurt prices. 1980 also was a period of time when many places had drought conditions some even more severe locally than in 1988! Cattle producers where mad because at the time Wetbank or waterbank acres existed covered in grass and congress mainly because of the USFWS would not authorize a change to the programs that would have allowed haying or grazing.

Disaster relief came in a form of simply more cheap loans that many realized they could not repay. For me it helped because I was able to get a lower rate of interest and pay off my operating loan for the year. What it did though is make it almost impossible to get a operating loan for the next planting season. Hard to borrow when it is all dust in March and no snow.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> You at least admit that the law change to non profits was a retaliation and vendetta because of positions DU or others may have taken. See I am OK, may not agree, with such actions as long as it is out in the open. Instead of hiding and using other things as a reason or excuse. FU or FB or even your group does not like DU, fine, wants to oppose them fine but in doing stand up and say " Hey, we do not want DU buying any more land because they support a position we oppose." Simple straight forward and best of all honest!!!!!!!!!!!!


The "agricultural perspective" of the three groups mentioned regarding the ownership of land has been discussed on a number of occasions in a "Simple, straight forward and best of all honest" manner on this site. *The "agricultural perspective" of these groups is that the local communities, townships, counties, states and even this very country are best served by most lands being kept in private ownership and to have some sort of abilities in place to address this.*

Simple, straight forward, and honest. As it has been presented on this site numerous times. Agree with it or disagree with it for what ever reason you choose, but please do not insinuate this "agricultural perspective" (policy) of these groups has not been honestly presented. Please realize these laws as worded and written did not "target" a certain particular group because of a "vendetta" but rather are written and worded to address the very concern emboldened above encompassing MANY orgs and nonprivate entities that may wish to purchase land unregulated in our state. DU simply was one of these orgs. that happend to amass the contributed dollars from wealthy donors and were looking to purchase land in an unlimited manner at that time. The legislature at that time, dealt with the concern over the consequences of ANY nonprofits with the financial resources to purchase unlimited amounts of land for their specific purposes were to come into this state unregulated as well. Did agriculture support these concerns and law that was created, yes.

As the law that is now being challenged has been around for over 7 decades and the portion some have an issue with has been around 3 decades, one can possibly beleive given the representatives elected and re elected by the people of this state that have dealt with legislative challenges to this law over these extended time frames have done so in the manner they have upholding the intent, that as such the people of this state support these laws and their intent as do these ag groups.


----------



## Plainsman

I think a mosaic of ownership better serves the country today. Hunting, camping and many other outdoor activities have become an important economic benefit. I would like to see some numbers from the North Dakota Tourism Department. I think the agriculture interests hide behind the idea that keeping it all private is best. I think the real goal is to eliminate competition for land and keep it cheap so they and their children pay less for it. If agriculture simply wanted what is best for the country they would turn down those billions in support prices. 
People get upset when I mention greed, but it's the great motivator in all of society. Greed drives the hunters to have more government land, greed drives the agriculture community to keep it for themselves and create laws to keep it out of the hands of others. I am not just calling agriculture greedy, I am saying humanity is greedy, and that includes agriculture. Some of us can admit it while others lie to even themselves.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If agriculture simply wanted what is best for the country they would turn down those billions in support prices





Plainsman said:


> Some of us can admit it while others lie to even themselves


From an agricultural perspective:

Perhaps those who are willing to understand this countries "food security" policies can "admit" this govt's "cheap food policies" regarding agricultural subsidies have resulted in them paying far less in food costs of their disposable incomes than citizens of any other industrialized country as a result of the literal pennies they pay/ dollar in tax dollars that go to ag subsidies, while others will not.


----------



## Dick Monson

Just running a Google search on corp. farm laws in others states shows that idea hasn't faired well. ND lawmakers may have missed the boat by not exempting conservation organizations. They lost a big time ally right there. Oh well, now we'll see how it plays out. Jim Cook quit the other time when ND sued him but maybe he has some more chips in his pocket this round.  I think maybe he does.


----------



## gst

From an agricultural perspective: 


Plainsman said:


> I think a mosaic of ownership better serves the country today. Hunting, camping and many other outdoor activities have become an important economic benefit.


There is a "mosaic" of ownership as well as usage across this state and country. And those people that come to visit have a differing perspective of this than do the people that actually live in these areas. How many of the people that "visit" enroll their children in the local schools? How many of the people that "visit" buy feed or parts at the local businesses? How many of the people that visit sit in the pews at church and give to the offering to keep the doors open?



Plainsman said:


> I think the agriculture interests hide behind the idea that keeping it all private is best. I think the real goal is to eliminate competition for land and keep it cheap so they and their children pay less for it.


Ag is similar to other segments of society in what drives the people involved. But what you will find consistantly in rural communities that is often lacking as a whole elsewhere is a drive to keep their rural communities alive. If a community loses it's school it is dying. If it loses it's businesses, it is all but dead, if it loses it's churches it is dead. You need people living on the land to keep these intrical parts of a community alive. More people involved in ag have a greater concern wether there will be schools for their childrens children to attend, businesses for them to support or be involved in ect.... than they are in manipulating land cost thru legislative actions.


----------



## gst

Dick Monson said:


> ND lawmakers may have missed the boat by not exempting conservation organizations. They lost a big time ally right there.


 Conservation groups are NOT prohibited from owning land in ND as are corporations, they simply must go thru an approval process as do ALL nonprofits. So Dick from a legal perspective, explain how the state legislature could have done this by "exempting conservation organizations",and not still ended up where we are today with some other "nonexempt" groups filing suite ?


----------



## Plainsman

> Conservation groups are NOT prohibited from owning land in ND as are corporations, they simply must go thru an approval process as do ALL nonprofits.


How many have they approved?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> How many have they approved?


"they" ?????? Remember, according to state law it is only the Govenor that has the power to aprove or deny these sales.

I honestly do not know since this process was implemented how many have been aproved by the Govenor and how many have been denied by the Govenor. Some have not, some have been approved and gone thru.


----------



## Plainsman

> some have been approved and gone thru.


I am not aware of that. Could you name one?

I thought the county commissioners were involved too.

If none have been approved then it's simply a charade. It's not the law depriving conservation organization it's a regulation set up to meet the same end, but hide the real intent. I think the courts will see through that thinly veiled deception.


----------



## gst

The most recent one to go thru this process in McKenzie County, the Ochs Tract Proposal, was approved by the Govenor and the sale moved forward. There were also parcels tied to this tract purchased by the same group that had been approved earlier. I beleive the sale of the Eberts Ranch was also approved by the Govenor. As I said I am not familiar with each and every one of these that have come before the Govenor since this portion of the law was added regarding ALL nonprofits, but some do get approved and allowed to go thru.

The County Commissioners who are elected by the residents of the county in which these sales take place do indeed have representation on the NAAAC. Also on the committee is the ND Ag Commissioner, who is elected by ALL the voters here in this state. Here is a link to results the last time the make up of this Committee was addressed in the legislature. http://www.dakotapolitics.com/2005_SB_2138
As can be seen, an overwhelming majority of the elected representatives of the people weighed the testimony given on the make up of this committee in this bill by various groups and individuals and voted to support the current structure of this committee.

What should be realized in the case of this particular lawsuit is that BOTH Cook Waterfowl and it's sister corp. Crosslands are 501(3)C tax exempt CORPORATIONS. The purchases of lands they engaged in do NOT fall under the NAAAC procedure regulating nonprofits as they are NOT conservation nonprofits.

What also needs to be realized is ND is not unique in having a Natural Areas Aquisition Advisory Committee that weighs in on purchases or sales of land areas that fall under certain guidelines.


----------



## Plainsman

> the Eberts Ranch was also approved by the Govenor


I am not familiar with all of those, but if memory serves me the ranchers demanded that other land be given up by the park or the Forest Service I don't remember which. The governor caved, and so did the park service. I don't think the sale of the Eberts Ranch added one acre to North Dakota. Did any of those sales occur without offset acres?


----------



## swift

> Ag is similar to other segments of society in what drives the people involved. But what you will find consistantly in rural communities that is often lacking as a whole elsewhere is a drive to keep their rural communities alive. If a community loses it's school it is dying. If it loses it's businesses, it is all but dead, if it loses it's churches it is dead. You need people living on the land to keep these intrical parts of a community alive. More people involved in ag have a greater concern wether there will be schools for their childrens children to attend, businesses for them to support or be involved in ect.... than they are in manipulating land cost thru legislative actions


The problem with this theory is since the law was passed in the thirties the average size of farms have nearly tripled. So with fewer people occupying more acres the rural areas are dying. The anticorporate farming law is doing nothing to preserve the rural towns. I would argue it is hurting more than helping. Farms that cover ten thousand acres have very little to do with keeping the local small town thriving. And the bigger the farmer the more political power they have.

The real intent of the law was to preserve the family farms by keeping the big money corps from buying large tracts of land and out bidding the next generation that wants to keep farming. The crap posted above is a tear jerker for sure but look in the mirror every time you expand your operation you displace one more family that was farming that land. You are your own worst enemy.


----------



## gst

plainsman, yes.

From an agricultural perspective:
There are MANY reasons why rural communities are being affected and increasing farm size due to economic factors is one. 30 years ago you could raise a family on 100 cows and 10 quarters of land. Now that figure is 300 cows and 30 quarters of land. 30 years ago a tractor cost $50,000, now it costs $150,000. As I said ag is no different than any other segment of society or business. There are indeed those who care about little more than what affects them. Some people care little how their farming practices impact others, some people care little how their land setaside/usage/ownership ideals affect others. But for every one that cares little about their communities in rural ND, there are dozens that strive to keep them alive for future generations.

When I speak of ag, I am particularily speaking from the ranching side. Over the generations, the ranching industry has realized that conservation, what is good for the land, is also good for their operations. It is also good for the wildlife and habitat that are a part of these lands as well. The ranching industry is rapidly including conservation practices in their own operations and yet too many "conservationalists" have little knowledge of this, or understanding and acceptance that along with this conservation needs to be a balance of production to maintain not only the individual operations, but the communities these families call home as well. 
Veiw these land sales from a differing perspective of making your home, raising your family, and maintaining your community where these groups with their donated millions of dollars wish to have UNLIMITED access to purchase lands on occassion with an open mind of how it might affect you, your family and community if you were in that particular situation. .

Perhaps there are some whose concern lies more with having one more duck to shoot or place to hunt may snidely call what is happening in our rural communities "crap" or a "tearjerker" but it is the reality that many families and communties are dealing with. I have friends whose children ride the bus over 90 miles each day because of school consilidation as a result of dwindling numbers. Will the folks from DU that wish to buy these lands uncontroled send their children to these schools? Do the people that donate millions to these orgs to buy these lands care wether the schools that are a vital part of these particular rural communities stay open? It is much more than simply "ag" that is affected over this issue. The elected representatives of this state realize this and it is a part of what they consider when forming the laws they do.


----------



## swift

> Perhaps there are some whose concern lies more with having one more duck to shoot or place to hunt may snidely call what is happening in our rural communities "crap" or a "tearjerker" but it is the reality that many families and communties are dealing with. I have friends whose children ride the bus over 90 miles each day because of school consilidation as a result of dwindling numbers. Will the folks from DU that wish to buy these lands uncontroled send their children to these schools? Do the people that donate millions to these orgs to buy these lands care wether the schools that are a vital part of these particular rural communities stay open? It is much more than simply "ag" that is affected over this issue. The elected representatives of this state realize this and it is a part of what they consider when forming the laws they do.


It's nice to see the same ole GST back. twisting what I said without giving any credit to what is the real problem.

DU buying a section of land or GST buying that same section of land does nothing to increase the population on that land. It could be argued that open access to that land for hunting and other activities as well as the DU staff that will work that land will add more to the local economy than GST would ADD to that same local economy.

It really is simple, Mother nature is looking out for the ducks, I was home this weekend to see my Folks by Minnewaukan. We were catching walleye's in what was a canola field last year. There will be plenty of ducks the next few years. GST keeps making the arguement of 'one more duck' it really has no bearing on this law.

GST, can you really argue that the mega family farms have not hurt the rural towns in ND? If so I'd love to have an Ag's perspective of that arguement.


----------



## Plainsman

gst I understand what both you and swift are saying.

My home town is 300 people. Back in the early 1960's I rode about 60 miles a day on the school bus. There was about two dozen kids in my class. Today there are about five kids per class and the school consolidated with three other schools. Now like you say the bus travels twice as far.
However, it wasn't DU that caused the problem. I don't know if they even existed then. I do care about the problem, and I think the world of my relatives, but some have farms ten times the size they did back then. The families still have two or three kids, but when they buy land it adds no children to the schools just like DU would add no children to the schools.
I hate to see the small towns die, but how do you stop it? You or any other farmer contributes to it when they buy up land that a young couple could move on to. My home town had three elevators, two restaurants, three bars, three groceries, two drug stores, a movie theater, and three gas stations when I was a kid. It now has one gas station, one bar, and one elevator. Perhaps if ten percent of the area was public land they would bring in outside people and more money. Perhaps you and twenty other landowners should get together with the city council and work on a plan that would bring people in. The problem I see in western North Dakota is most of those landowners dislike people around. It's evident with signs like "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again". 
I understand the problem gst, but I can't think of a solution. I see growing farms as much of a problem as anything else. Perhaps more considering if conservation organization had more land it may draw more people. From Jamestown, to Carrington, to Robinson, to Steel, and back to Jamestown they started Birding Drives North Dakota. It brings in a few people. We who grew up on the prairie are often surprised that so many people want to come and see it. I guess some people just don't appreciate what they have until it's gone.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Average size farm in 1960, just over 600 acres, average in 2010 close to 2000 acres if the recent data from the census is correct and number of farmers has dropped by almost 50%!

Biggest drop in farms came during the period from 1950 to 1980 which was about 28000 farms lost rounding the figures and less than 10,000 the last 30 years. We here about farm loss due to CRP, conservation acres etc.. but the reality is the data does not reflect the rhetoric!

Info pulled from the Prairie Public website where they compile the data from the census!


----------



## swift

> GST, can you really argue that the mega family farms have not hurt the rural towns in ND? If so I'd love to have an Ag's perspective of that arguement.


 I hit submit too soon. Can you argue that having a nonprofit organization buy land instead of a local farmer/rancher buying it and expanding their hurts your local economy more?


----------



## gst

I am not going to get into a personal back and forth.

Swift myself or another "farmer" buys that land, my family will continue going to the school in our local community. Perhaps if a local rancher purchases these lands there will be enough of a land base so two of his children can remain in the community and continue to raise there families and send them to school and do business with local feed and parts stores. How many children attend these schools as a result of these nonprofits owning these lands?

No where have I ever suggested nonprofits buying land is the SOLE cause of declining populations in rural areas. There are as said MANY issues these rural communities deal with in this reagard. However this issue of nonprofits being able to buy land with their donated millions UNCONTROLLED is a piece of the puzzle. Once these nonprofits no longer have to go thru an approval process to buy these lands, what guarantees remain as to what usages they will allow on these lands? Look to the section of the law that requires these lands to be open for public hunting if ANY hunting is done on them. If this section is overturned with the entire law, how many "nonprofit" private hunting preserves will begin in this state? Some of these nonprofits have a track record of this very thing. Once these "private" "nonprofit" hunting preserves start to occur, how long before leasing other private lands bordering them will occur? People rail against the "commersialization" of hunting here in our state by G/O and "leasing" ect...yet support the very groups that have a track record of doing this very thing coming into this state and buying land UNCONTROLED. So how whould this benefit the sportsman and hunting here in ND?

Ron as the total numbers of farms decline over a period, the total numbers lost each year will also decline accordingly under a diminishing numbers equation. Back in 1960, how many farm wives worked off the farm to contribute to family income? How many ranchers had second jobs to contribute to family income? As was said there are MANY reasons farms are growing in size and numbers are declining. Please do not suggest these nonprofits with their donated millions being able to buy land UCONTROLED in our state will not contribute to the issues these rural communities may face in the future. Recall a debate regarding flooding recently held. While one particular practice may not CAUSE flooding, if left to grow uncontroled it can contribute. These nonprofits being allowed to buy land UNCONTROLED is much the same, while they are not the CAUSE of declining rural populations they will contribute.

What needs to be understood is the issue of economic scale in agriculture, in order for a family to remain on the farm today and send their kids to school in the local community they have to farm twice the amount of acres now than the same family would have 30 years ago. Many of the lands that are purchased or rented to expand these operations are from retired people as the age of our farmers continueally rises. If these family operations wish to expand so two or more children can continue to live in the communitiy and send their kids to the schools they have to continue to expand. Often times as said this is done on retired ect... operations that no longer have children remaining to run the operation and send their kids to the local school and support the local community businesses. So if a nonprofit purchases these lands whoose children will remain in the community to send their children to school there??? You can not simply pass off the growing size of operations on greed as there are MANY factors involved.

There is no easy answer to an issue that has many contributing factors. But the reality is what happens in regards to rural ND affects far more than just ag. And the legislators elected by the people of ND that create our laws have to deal with these issues and their consequences right here in this state. And for a number of decades they have beleived that preventing these corps and nonprofits from owning land UNCONTROLED here in ND has been best for ALL NDans. We will see what a handful of judges else where beleive!


----------



## gst

swift said:


> GST, can you really argue that the mega family farms have not hurt the rural towns in ND? If so I'd love to have an Ag's perspective of that arguement.
> 
> 
> 
> I hit submit too soon. Can you argue that having a nonprofit organization buy land instead of a local farmer/rancher buying it and expanding their hurts your local economy more?
Click to expand...

Can anyone guarantee that once these nonprofits no longer have to go thru an approval process to gain the Govenors support over concerns of how these lands will be used and the impacts this may have on local communities to be able to purchase these lands, and they can simply buy them UNCONTROLED with their donated $ millions, that they will allow these lands to stay in production and support the local communities? There are many things legislators consider when creating law.

I have not once agrued that "mega family farms" do not impact rural communities in ND. It is indeed an issue that these communities deal with. For many it is a firsthand, very real, limiting factor in wether their own children will be able to continue in expanding and continueing operating their own family operation as these "mega" operations get bigger. If you have a solution to this issue, please feel free to express it.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> I am not going to get into a personal back and forth.
> 
> Swift myself or another "farmer" buys that land, my family will continue going to the school in our local community. _*So no more kids will go to the school if you buy it for atleast another 15 or 20 years until your kids get old enough to have school age children.*_Perhaps if a local rancher purchases these lands there will be enough of a land base so two of his children can remain in the community and continue to raise there families and send them to school and do business with local feed and parts stores. How many children attend these schools as a result of these nonprofits owning these lands? _*We just had a DU biologist assigned to our NRCS office start in my town. So I guess we don't know the answer.*_No where have I ever suggested nonprofits buying land is the SOLE cause of declining populations in rural areas. _*Of course you haven't nonprofits have not been allowed to buy land so the proof is they have NO affect on declining populations. Therefore it must be the factors in place that are to blame.*_There are as said MANY issues these rural communities deal with in this reagard. However this issue of nonprofits being able to buy land with their donated millions UNCONTROLLED is a piece of the puzzle. Once these nonprofits no longer have to go thru an approval process to buy these lands, what guarantees remain as to what usages they will allow on these lands_?*What entitles agriculture to any guarantees that other businesses aren't afforded?*_ Look to the section of the law that requires these lands to be open for public hunting if ANY hunting is done on them. If this section is overturned with the entire law, how many "nonprofit" private hunting preserves will begin in this state? _*Rarely if ever are complete laws overturned when the constitutionality is in question.*_Some of these nonprofits have a track record of this very thing. Once these "private" "nonprofit" hunting preserves start to occur, how long before leasing other private lands bordering them will occur? People rail against the "commersialization" of hunting here in our state by G/O and "leasing" ect...yet support the very groups that have a track record of doing this very thing coming into this state and buying land UNCONTROLED. So how whould this benefit the sportsman and hunting here in ND? _*Many non-profits have all or portions of their properties open to public access. Rarely if ever are lands leased by G/O's or other commercialized hunting businesses ever open to the public. It seems common sense which would benefit sportsman more*._
> 
> Ron as the total numbers of farms decline over a period, the total numbers lost each year will also decline accordingly under a diminishing numbers equation. Back in 1960, how many farm wives worked off the farm to contribute to family income? How many ranchers had second jobs to contribute to family income? As was said there are MANY reasons farms are growing in size and numbers are declining. Please do not suggest these nonprofits with their donated millions being able to buy land UCONTROLED in our state will not contribute to the issues these rural communities may face in the future. Recall a debate regarding flooding recently held. While one particular practice may not CAUSE flooding, if left to grow uncontroled it can contribute. These nonprofits being allowed to buy land UNCONTROLED is much the same, while they are not the CAUSE of declining rural populations they will contribute._ *On the flooding issue there are decades of experience. Your idea is just maybe's and could be's.*_
> 
> What needs to be understood is the issue of economic scale in agriculture, in order for a family to remain on the farm today and send their kids to school in the local community they have to farm twice the amount of acres now than the same family would have 30 years ago._ *Why? Can it be that the standard of living is much higher? I'm not saying farmers/ranchers should not work for the things they want but the previous generations didn't have the extras that today seem to be a neccessity. Farmers are no different than any other working class stiff that puts in overtime or works two jobs so they can have that Ranger boat, and 34ft camper and new vehicles in the driveway of a new house. The impact on the community is much higher in rural areas because those wants get paid for through larger operations that in turn displace younger farmers with families from filling up the schools.*_Many of the lands that are purchased or rented to expand these operations are from retired people as the age of our farmers continueally rises. If these family operations wish to expand so two or more children can continue to live in the communitiy and send their kids to the schools they have to continue to expand. Often times as said this is done on retired ect... operations that no longer have children remaining to run the operation and send their kids to the local school and support the local community businesses._ *History repeats itself over and over. Fewer farm kids are following in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers as your example above shows. To use the arguement that Kids coming back to farm will save the towns is a nice thought but isn't reality.[/b*_*]So if a nonprofit purchases these lands whoose children will remain in the community to send their children to school there??? You can not simply pass off the growing size of operations on greed as there are MANY factors involved.
> 
> There is no easy answer to an issue that has many contributing factors. But the reality is what happens in regards to rural ND affects far more than just ag. And the legislators elected by the people of ND that create our laws have to deal with these issues and their consequences right here in this state. And for a number of decades they have beleived that preventing these corps and nonprofits from owning land UNCONTROLED here in ND has been best for ALL NDans. We will see what a handful of judges else where beleive!*


*
Rural areas need to think outside the box and realize that there isn't a boom of children to take over. One answer might be to attract temporary money to fill the coffers a couple months a year. Push for unposted land, don't look at it as being overrun by out of towners look at as the next economic stimulus that really has very little cost and potentially huge returns.*


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> If you have a solution to this issue, please feel free to express it.


The fix is simple, do not provide subsidy coverage for farmers above a set dollar amount. This will impact me in the value of my land negitivaely but land is over valued and headed for a bubble I do believe. This change alone would allow younger people to get into farming which it is the younger people that have kids and re-populate, not people my age and up. For the most part those in their late 40's and 50's are done with kids and they are also the majority of people buying land. The Farm Program for years has been skewed to larger operations and is now a huge hurdle for a beginner without family help!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> If you have a solution to this issue, please feel free to express it.
> 
> 
> 
> The fix is simple, do not provide subsidy coverage for farmers above a set dollar amount. This will impact me in the value of my land negitivaely but land is over valued and headed for a bubble I do believe. This change alone would allow younger people to get into farming which it is the younger people that have kids and re-populate, not people my age and up. For the most part those in their late 40's and 50's are done with kids and they are also the majority of people buying land. The Farm Program for years has been skewed to larger operations and is now a huge hurdle for a beginner without family help!
Click to expand...

Ron, you will get no arguement from me in regards to this. What needs to be considered in determining how "simple" the fix is, is the production segment of the Farm Bill content is largely influenced by these very corporate farming entities that are allowed in many other states. They are the ones with the "clout" in DC, not the guy farming 3000 acres and running a couple hundred cows.

Swift, feel free to beleive your experience and training as a medical professional provides you the insight needed to make assumptions about what is involved in production ag and what is best for agriculture as a whole here in ND more so than the people actually involved in production ag making a living from it and their concerns of maintaining their rural communities in the future, or even those given the responsibility of creating laws to provide for the best interests of ALL NDan's.


----------



## gst

[


----------



## duckp

When it's obvious the status quo isn't working,reasonable people change it-maybe even in a constitutional manner.


----------



## swift

> Swift, feel free to beleive your experience and training as a medical professional provides you the insight needed to make assumptions about what is involved in production ag and what is best for agriculture as a whole here in ND more so than the people actually involved in production ag making a living from it and their concerns of maintaining their rural communities in the future, or even those given the responsibility of creating laws to provide for the best interests of ALL NDan's.


And GST continue to blame everyone else as your town dries up and blows away. Your inability to think of any other way to save your towns is indicative of your close mindedness on most subjects. Here is a little thought to chew on. Your town has been failing for decades with the status quo why would it change now? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. As the community leader you profess to be you should be willing to listen to some other ideas because yours AREN'T WORKING.

FYI the nearest walmart from my house is 40 miles and my town has 2500 people in it. The town I lived in prior to this one was New Leipzig, ND. I guess that doesn't give me any credability for what I'm saying.
Keep up the ignorance ploy it's really shines.


----------



## swift

> *Ron, you will get no arguement from me in regards to this. What needs to be considered in determining how "simple" the fix is, is the production segment of the Farm Bill content is largely influenced by these very corporate farming entities that are allowed in many other states. They are the ones with the "clout" in DC, not the guy farming 3000 acres and running a couple hundred cows.
> *


So when they didn't question the anticorporate farming law they were "OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS" doing what is best for the state.

Now they are Largely influenced by corporate farming entities!

You adamantly denied Ag has much influence in the state government and now you claim Corporate Ag has influence in federal government. Which is it? We with our heads out of the sand know the answer are you willing to pull yours out?

When I was on the economic development attitudes like GST's were commonplace. Many of the locals didn't want new businesses because they were afraid of the type of people they would attract. Some didn't want their countryside overrun with out of towners. Some didn't trust anyone that wasn't born in the county. And some knew for a fact that only those with an agricultural background could find the answer, all other ideas were cast aside. The result was dismal. The only thing that progressed in the county was the average age of the residents. The school closed, the grocery store closed, the cafe closed. The town is hanging on by a thread. But the same "community leaders" are there leading the residents in a circle, like water circles the drain before it's gone.


----------



## gst

swift, most reasonable people would possibly beleive someone who went to school in the medical profession and is employed in it for their living simply does not have as full an understanding of production ag and the issues it faces as those who make their living in it. Nor does simply living in a town of 2500 people necessarily give you the insight into the challenges and changes occuring in production ag. Although I could be wrong and if I am I apologize.

I was asked to continue being involved in this site to provide an "ag perspective" and yet when it is done in a direct, straight forward, honest manner, it is ridiculed because of an admitted personal bias. So swift, if you wish to continue to make these discussions personal, you will have to excuse me for no longer directly addressing your comments. I enjoy good debates on issues, I simply will not waste my time responding to personal diatribes.


----------



## swift

That is a cop out GST, I engaged your comments with reasonable and thought out remarks. And without venom. You and only you took it to the personal level by bringing in my profession as a swipe at me not being worthy of comment.

Now if you can rebute my statements above without the idea that I know nothing about rural America or Rural North Dakota because I don't drive a tractor at work great. You see people can see outside their little boxes. I see the plight of rural towns. I lived in little towns and the attitude you just exhibited was one of the factors that cost a little town of 160 their Doctor. Continue to be part of the problem instead of opening your mind and listening to someone "outside your little box".

BTW I just bought my first tractor a 1996 Case IH 4210.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> When I was on the economic development attitudes like GST's were commonplace. Many of the locals didn't want new businesses because they were afraid of the type of people they would attract. Some didn't want their countryside overrun with out of towners. Some didn't trust anyone that wasn't born in the county. And some knew for a fact that only those with an agricultural background could find the answer, all other ideas were cast aside. The result was dismal. The only thing that progressed in the county was the average age of the residents. The school closed, the grocery store closed, the cafe closed. The town is hanging on by a thread. But the same "community leaders" are there leading the residents in a circle, like water circles the drain before it's gone.


So true Swift, local tries to keep the grocery store open and some of the locals will not shop there because back when he or she was a kid they maybe raised a little hell. Local sells it to someone outside and even more now will not shop their because they did not grow up there. Local bar gets sold, kids for the most part where allowed to come in and eat with parents( I know it is not legal under ND law) but served the community. Lots of farmers would send kids in to pickup food orders to bring out to the field etc... Outsider comes up with the money to by the bar, locals upset so they complain to the AG and as a result now under 21 cannot come in and pick up orders.

For the most part rural communities are there own worst enemy. Small towns abound with homes that are empty, lots overgrown or taxes delinquent on the property. Someone wants a summer home comes in and buys one of these places and the town council is upset that a new face purchased the delinquent property. Saves the city from mowing,weed control etc.. Removes a blight, but again outsiders are not welcomed!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> One other thing, gst I do not think you should leave. You are a involved in Ag, you can offer a perspective from that point of view. Why not do this! quote]
> 
> Ron, I tell you what, next time you wish to hear an " ag perspective" simply ask swift.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, did you expect everyone to agree with your perspective? Are you interested in other perspectives? Are you interested in how agriculture can garner public support?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, did you expect everyone to agree with your perspective?


No, I simply "expect" if this perspective is given in a straight forward, direct factual manner backed up with links to support the information/perspective being shared that it be given a degree of respect for being presented in this manner wether it is agreed with or not.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Are you interested in other perspectives?


If they are presented in a straight forward, direct, factual manner with links to where the information the "perspective" is based on is included, indeed I am interested in hearing and courteously debating these "perspectives". I just might even agree with them on occassion! If they are simply attacks against an individual because someone has admittedly chosen to make it personal, no.

I understand that people that like to hunt ducks might want Ducks Unlimited to own a bunch of land in ND, I get that, I understand why. If my only concern when I visited an area for a week was how good the duck hunting was going to be, I would likely support that position as well. But as much as I like to hunt ducks, as much as I realize the existing volantary programs DU has implemented in our state benefit conservation, wildlife, and hunting, I also realize some of the possible negative consequences of allowing ANY of these nonprofit groups (wether tied to conservation or not)to purchase lands UNREGULATED here in the state. As do our ELECTED state legislators who have repeatedly shown overwhelming support of the state laws regulating this each time they have been challenged over the decades these laws have been in effect. I, as do many others, simply beleive the negatives of allowing these orgs., as well as any others, to buy lands UNCONTROLED will outweigh the benefits. Particularily when these benefits are already being acheived thru these volantary conservation programs implemented by these orgs on PRIVATE lands. See the below link.

http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation ... nts/ND.pdf


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Are you interested in how agriculture can garner public support?


Study after study has shown when agriculture directly, factually, tells their story/"perspective" in a personal, straight forward manner, the open minded public  supports what is being shared with them as well as the people sharing it. When a face, a family, the facts are presented regarding what agriculture is and does, people tend to support it.

Wether it is HSUS misrepresenting how the vast majority of those involved in animal agriculture as a whole raises and cares for their animals, or someone else making inaccurate or false claims about other issues within ag, the people making the claims likely do not think much of the people in ag that take it upon themselves to point out the misrepresentations and inaccuracies in their claims, but the public that is willing to approach it with an open mind does. The best way "agriculture can garner public support" is simply by telling the truth about what we do, and occasionally the truth about what those with other agendas do as well.

The following link is an example. 
http://humanewatch.org/.


----------



## swift

Wow, GST. You are back to the same ole drivel. Facts this, and you know nothing medical guy that. The FACT is I care about the rural areas. The fact is you care about yourself so much that you cannot even entertain the idea that something you didn't come up with might be a viable option to save small towns.

Can you tell me one fact I screwed up since you decided us worthy of your opinion again? I tried to keep it civil since you returned. But you really don't want to hear from anyone else. Your mind is made up and everyone elses opinion is wrong.

Ron's post is spot on regarding you and yours being your own worst enemy and your recent posts on here are exactly the way things play out all across the small towns in the Dakotas. You have made the arguements that my opinion doesn't count because I'm in the medical profession, and because I'm a duck hunter. Well you know what ,I and the tens of thousands like me that come to ND to visit a week or two each fall and a week or two each summmer have lots of money to leave in some small town willing to make us feel welcome. If that is a cash cow you want to turn your back on then so be it. Keep holding on with your fingernails because things are slipping away from you.

When Antler goes away you can atleast be proud to say you killed it your way.


----------



## Plainsman

Swift may I add to your opinion. I hunt ducks seldom. Still I enjoy bow hunting deer and wildlife photography, oh, and yes fishing. If I didn't I would not own a diesel pickup, a fifth wheel, a boat, two ice houses, a couple thousand in photo equipment etc. None of those things would have contributed to the North Dakota economy if I didn't enjoy the out doors. 
Some of my family who farm see the Rocky Mountains as wasteland. I see them as majestic. I see grain fields as necessary. I see farming as a noble way of self employment. I see grazing land in much the same light as mountains. I can not walk across a mile of prairie and not have it tell me something of it's history and below ground water levels reflected in it's above ground plant communities. I also look at that and see it's past grazing history and it's present carrying capacity. There are ways for wildlife and agriculture to be more compatible. There are farmers that see that and those that rip rape and run. Society has the right to choose those agriculture practices we support and those we do not. For example when they overgraze public land they should loose all grazing rights.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Can you tell me one fact I screwed up since you decided us worthy of your opinion again?





swift said:


> Of course you haven't nonprofits have not been allowed to buy land so the proof is they have NO affect on declining populations. Therefore it must be the factors in place that are to blame.


I will only address this one.

Nonprofits ARE allowed to own land in ND by going thru an aproval process by the Govenor, and have indeed been allowed to buy land here in ND. The most recent being the Ochs Bros. tract in Mckenzie county that tied into previously approved sales of land to nonprofits as well.



swift said:


> Well you know what ,I and the tens of thousands like me that come to ND to visit a week or two each fall and a week or two each summmer have lots of money to leave in some small town willing to make us feel welcome. If that is a cash cow you want to turn your back on then so be it. Keep holding on with your fingernails because things are slipping away from you.


Are you suggesting that by allowing nonprofits to purchase land "UNCONTROLED" here in ND will dramatically add to these "tens of thousands" of people like yourself that "visit" ND for a week or two in the fall to hunt and as such save the rural towns?

It would be interesting to hear the veiws of the many individuals that post on this site regarding this very issue of NR's "visiting" our state " by tens of thousands" for a week or two each fall on your plan to save rural ND by allowing nonprofits to purchase lands so MORE NR's will come "visit" here in our state. Perhaps the legislature could even address this for you by allowing NR's UNCONTROLED access to things such as PLOTS lands and opportunities for extended time frames to come "visiting" in our state each fall. :wink:

As to my opinion of this, please show where I have ever suggested these NR's coming into our state is not a boone to rural communities. Myself and many of my neighbors here in Antler welcome these NR's visiting each fall, provide them great opportunities for zero compensation personally, and encourage them to purchase homes and prior to a local individual partnering with a retired military individual on our local bar, encouraged a number of "nonlocals" to invest in our community thru this opportunity. But then again as you have never met me or know me or my neighbors or much about our little community of Antler, it is no wonder your claims and assumptions are not as accurate as you would like others to beleive.

I am simply suggesting given the wide spread impact agriculture has across our entire state, what effects agriculture negatively also affects this state negatively. Does this mean agriculture simply has free rein to do what they wish, of course not, but it does mean in considering what is best for this state, the consequences of actions that negatively affect agriculture must be carefully weighed and considered. In regards to nonprofits being able to purchase land UNCONTROLED here in our state, that is exctly what has been done for decades by our elected representatives.This is merely an "ag perspective" I have shared. Agree or disagree if you wish.


----------



## swift

Plainsman in an attempt to keep things honest there are as many non-farmers that rip rape and run as well.

GST, your right my idea would not sit well with many people on this site regarding looking to the NR and city dwelling outdoorsman for economic recovery/stabilization of rural towns. And I will hold the same stance that they are putting their own sacrifices ahead of the community. It is said many times that the younger local residents are entitled to have the preferential access, preferential licensing and the preference of not seeing a blue license plate because they live here. I think some of that is true. BUT they typically don't have the disposable income that is needed to revitalize rural ND.
Then one would have to ask is this BEST for the state of ND? or is pandering to the locals that hunt 60 days a year because they don't have a steady job, steady income and are likely a burden on the social services system really who you want to invest in.

Again this has been the status quo how well is it working out for your small town?

As far as nonprofits owning land I would be willing to bet the part of the law that mandates nonprofit land be open to the public is held to be constitutional. If this proves to be the case then YES more nonprofits owning land will be a positive economically.

Who owns the Ochs parcel that sold? I'll save you the answer the State of North Dakota owns it, Every acre of the flood plain that the stockmans association, farm bureau, farmers union and county commissioners opposed the sale of. That land hadn't had an agricultural use for several years prior to the sale. I hunted that land when Ochs owned it. Have you laid eyes on any of it?

When was the last time DU was afforded permission to buy land?????


----------



## gst

Swift, who initially purchased the Ochs land before transfering title to the state? Were they a nonprofit?



swift said:


> Again this has been the status quo how well is it working out for your small town?


Please do not make asssumptions as if you know about the circumstances of a small community somewhere in the state. You asked if I have ever laid eyes on the Ochs properties?

Have you ever "laid eyes" upon the community of Antler and the individuals such as myself and others that make up this community to assume you know their ideals and attitudes or committmentys???? Or for that matter any other comunity you do not have an active part in thru commiting yourself and your family to living there tht your making asasumptions about? To base your assumptions of every rural community off that of one or two you breifly lived in likely is not fair to these other communities.

I have once again simply shared an "agricultural perspective" thru being involved in agriculture as I was asked to and it has been received in the same manner from the same couple of people. Perhaps it is best these two or three people thru their extensive involvement in agriculture be left to provide the "ag perspective" on this site as they do not seem to beleive the one being given is worth much.

Make what claims you wish, in regards to this issue, the court will give it's ruling and the state will move forward from there as they have done before.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> Swift, who initially purchased the Ochs land before transfering title to the state? Were they a nonprofit?
> 
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again this has been the status quo how well is it working out for your small town?
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not make asssumptions as if you know about the circumstances of a small community somewhere in the state. You asked if I have ever laid eyes on the Ochs properties?
> 
> Have you ever "laid eyes" upon the community of Antler and the individuals such as myself and others that make up this community to assume you know their ideals and attitudes or committmentys???? Or for that matter any other comunity you do not have an active part in thru commiting yourself and your family to living there tht your making asasumptions about? To base your assumptions of every rural community off that of one or two you breifly lived in likely is not fair to these other communities.
> 
> I have once again simply shared an "agricultural perspective" thru being involved in agriculture as I was asked to and it has been received in the same manner from the same couple of people. Perhaps it is best these two or three people thru their extensive involvement in agriculture be left to provide the "ag perspective" on this site as they do not seem to beleive the one being given is worth much.
> 
> Make what claims you wish, in regards to this issue, the court will give it's ruling and the state will move forward from there as they have done before.
Click to expand...

Wow are you ever arrogant! You are born and raised in the same 10 square miles and claim to know whats best for the rest of the state. Aren't you guilty of the exact thing your accuseing me of? Your NO better than me because you have an ag job. I'm no better than you because I do what I do but I'm willing to listen to constuctive criticism. YOu are not. This is just another glaring look at your inability to look beyond your own pasture. Good luck with "perspective" And thanks for proving my point you are your own worst enemy. Now go pout for a couple days until you feel full of yourself again.


----------



## swift

> I have once again simply shared an "agricultural perspective" thru being involved in agriculture as I was asked to and it has been received in the same manner from the same couple of people. Perhaps it is best these two or three people thru their extensive involvement in agriculture be left to provide the "ag perspective" on this site as they do not seem to beleive the one being given is worth much.


Show me the ag perspective you have given. You used keeping your towns afloat by continuing to forbid buyers.

I would love to have an Ag perspective from someone that isn't so anti non-agriculture. Some that can hold a conversation without claiming superiority because of a job title.

GST, I'd say you found your calling as a rancher. You wouldn't last long having to work with other people.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Wow are you ever arrogant! You are born and raised in the same 10 square miles and claim to know whats best for the rest of the state.


Actually I was not born and raised in the same 10 square miles. Perhaps your other assumptions regarding me are less than correct as well! 

Nor do I claim to know what is best for the rest of the state. The "ag perpsective" that I have shared regarding these nonprofits being allowed to purchase lands UNCONTROLLED here in ND is a perspective held by the thousands of other members of these ag orgs, as well as many ag producers not involved in these orgs, as well as an overwhelming majority of the state legislators elected by the people of this state. I beleive I have been pretty consistant in stating that it is these ELECTED representatives of the people of this state that have to consider and weigh all aspects of issues that have to be concerned with what is best for the rest of the state when they create the laws such as the one at the heart of this debate regarding nonprofits that has stood for 30 years.

It will be interesting as Cook is sueing as a corporation regarding the anti corporate law prohibiting corps from owning land how the Court will deal with the rest of the law regarding nonprofits. As I said the Court will rule and the state will deal with it at that time.

But regardless, thanks for keeping this debate nonpersonal once again. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> The "ag perpsective" that I have shared regarding these nonprofits being allowed to purchase lands UNCONTROLLED here in ND is a perspective held by the thousands of other members of these ag orgs


gst, farmers and ranchers are purchasing land UNCONTROLLED. Do you for some reason have more rights than others? Maybe society should start putting more controls on landowners and take away some of that independence. I'm not advocating that, but you make me consider it.


----------



## swift

Your right GST,this unconstitutional law is very beneficial to Agriculture at a cost to the rights of nonage people. Once again you admitted you and your orgs knew this would be challenged and would more than likely lose. But you continue to justify stomping on the rights of other Americans because it benefits ag. Now you hold me in contempt because I don't stand by your draconian thought process that everyone else be damned, unless they farm or ranch. I bet it gets lonely up on your throne looking down on us nonfarming knaves. The days of land price fixing are coming to an end. I hope your operation survives because I don't imagine you have many other skills atleast people skills.


----------



## swift

Plainsman be careful painting all ag folks with the same brush as GST. He is not representative of most people that make a living off the land. He is a radical an extremist. We both know and respect many in agriculture, none that I know have the same superiority complex as this arrogant guy. Don't fall into his trap so he can run to his clubhouse and whine that farmers aren't respected. We both have seen the radical stances of the DB and FU. He fits right in those leftist groups


----------



## gst

plainsman, please consider the possibility that "society" here in ND has agreed with the laws that their elected representatives have put in place and maintained for 3 decades in regards to these nonprofits simply being regulated (not prohibited) in the lands they purchase as being best for ND regardless of what you might beleive. Neither I nor these few thousand members of these ag groups have the political clout to hold these state wide elected representatives hostage to our perspectives in regards to this law for 3 decades unless a majority of the rest of the voters of this state beleive the same and show it with their votes.

Consider for a moment, if the 3 ag orgs mentioned at the start of this debate have policy opposing these land sales, and yet some are still approved by the Govenor, doesn't that in itself blow a hole thru the theory ag has a strangle hold over the political people involved in this process? So if given this consitant policy by these ag groups and some sales are still approved, why would others be denied? Could it just possibly be the Govenor examines each individual sale on its merits as presented by the nonprofit wishing to purchase these lands and some org's plans for these properties simply do not measure up to what the Govenor beleives is best for this state as was the intent of this law??? Remember, even with the consistant position the ag groups take the Govenor has approved some of these sales. So what differentiates the ones he has approved from the ones he has denied? Clearly it can not soley be these ag groups position or NONE would have EVER been approved.

How much direct knowledge do you have as to why some of these sales have been denied? Do you ever entertain any possibility that indeed there was some aspect of the sale that as the Govenor beleived would actually not be in the best interests of this state, or do you simply beleive that regardless of the plan or consequences of the sale, there is NO reason any nonprofit should ever be denied the ability to buy land here in our state?

Do you beleive the individual here in ND should be able to sell their land to whomever they wish? What if I wished to sell my lands to a Syrian national, or even for that matter, my neighbors to the north, a Canadian? ? State law as written prohibits these individuals from buying land here in ND. If this person wishes to purchase my land and state laws says I can not sell to him, state law has limited who I can sell my land to. Why should I be limited to whom I can sell to? If I can sell to DU, why can't I sell to a Syrian national? Perhaps someone beleives it is in the states best interests to not sell land here in ND to Syrian nationals. Or even my good neighbors the Canadians!


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, please consider the possibility that "society" here in ND has agreed with the laws that their elected representatives have put in place and maintained for 3 decades in regards to these nonprofits simply being regulated (not prohibited) in the lands they purchase as being best for ND regardless of what you might beleive.


gst, please consider that your special interest groups and the North Dakota legislature have been using the United States Constitution like toilet tissue. You want the benefits America has to offer, but you don't want the rules for yourself only everyone else should follow them.



> n be careful painting all ag folks with the same brush as GST


Not to worry Swift.



> We both know and respect many in agriculture


That's true. There are not many native North Dakota men or women far removed from the farm.



> Don't fall into his trap so he can run to his clubhouse and whine that farmers aren't respected.


I hope he does run to his clubhouse with it. His club house is FU, FB and the likes. Organizations mad with the greed not only for money, but power. There is not enough money to keep them happy. If wheat was $20 a bushel they would tell you production costs are so high they can't make a decent living. They would vote for a 60 hour work week for the working class stiff and charge him $40 for a bowl of corn flakes. When the whole free world embargoed Cuba farmers wanted to trade with them. During the cold war these farm groups wanted to trade more with Russia. Evidently loyalty to Farm Bureau is required before loyalty to America.


----------



## swift

What you fail to understand is the law doesn't get visited each year by the elected representatives.. you would have us believe that and it simply isn't true. The answer will come via an unbiased federal court. The answer has been made in several other states.

Some land purchases go through on very rare occasions. Again when was the last time DU was approved for a purchase?

Like I said Plainsman fringe extremist organizations that claim to speak for all of ND.


----------



## Plainsman

> Like I said Plainsman fringe extremist organizations that claim to speak for all of ND.


I completely agree. I love to bow hunt, but I look at North Dakota Bowhunters Association the same way. As a matter of fact I like to hunt with a longbow and compound, but within that traditional group is a bunch of bone heads with mouths way to big dumping on compound shooters. They do no service to North Dakota bow hunters. You hear them say compounds shoot like rifles and of course we all know crossbows are like 50 calibers. I don't think they have an official statement, but you hear it from their members all the time. I am always amazed that the ignorant know more than anyone else. I guess they are not hindered by experience. 
Fringe groups like Farm Bureau will continue as long as they can deceive enough people just like North Dakota Bowhunters Association. Most will use scare tactics because reality will not serve them. The sad thing is I need only think back 20 or 30 years and these groups I would have been proud to belong to. They have been hijacked by radicals.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I hope he does run to his clubhouse with it. His club house is FU, FB and the likes. Organizations mad with the greed not only for money, but power. There is not enough money to keep them happy. If wheat was $20 a bushel they would tell you production costs are so high they can't make a decent living. They would vote for a 60 hour work week for the working class stiff and charge him $40 for a bowl of corn flakes. When the whole free world embargoed Cuba farmers wanted to trade with them. During the cold war these farm groups wanted to trade more with Russia. Evidently loyalty to Farm Bureau is required before loyalty to America.


Well ron here is another candidate for you to get an "ag perspective" from as well!

No where have I suggested, insinuated, implied, the section of the anti corporate farming law regarding nonprofits owning land is addressed every legislative session. However it has been addressed a number of times thru the 3 decades it has been state law. The last time the make up of it was addressed was shown earlier in a link provided. The Senate voted to support the current makeup of the committee unanimously, and roughly 80% of the house supported it as well. The public had the opportunity to weigh in on it during testimony and by contacting their representatives regrading this law. There has also been a number of elections since, where these elelcted representatives of,the people that supported this law and and the makeupof the committee have been rel elected. I know there has been discussion regarding voting for a candidate over one single issue, but if the issue is as bad for the state and it's residents as is being made out in this thread, why would ANYONE support the representatives who support this law? Realize also that ANY citizen of this stae can approach ANY legislator and have a legislative bill introduced to address something they beleive is important each and every session. And if all else fails remember there is always the initiated measure whereby the voice of the people is heard directly with out any Ag controled politicians speaking for them . :wink: Over a 30 year period, (15 legislative sessions) if this section of the law was SO bad for ND and it's residents as some on here are portraying it to be, surely it would have been overturned by the people of ND themselves.


----------



## Plainsman

> Well ron here is another candidate for you to get an "ag perspective" from as well!


I guess my father who farmed all his life would be another candidate if he were alive today. My older brother was telling me a story about being with dad at a Saturday evening Bible study. It was the late 1940's (perhaps early 50's) and ag prices were good at the time. Much of that was because of the conflict with North Korea. One farmer at the meeting said "life is good, we have never had it this good". My dad knew why it was good and said he didn't like the blood money. The greedy didn't like his remark. I wish he was alive so I could tell him that even though I was not there I would be proud of his attitude. 
It's those greedy attitudes that have hijacked the groups like Farm Bureau which were once organizations that represented the small family farm. They still represent farmers, but unlike individuals organizations poses no conscience. In the past they put their effort into helping farmers. Today it appears they put as much effort into working against others, and that doesn't come across very well with me. Working for one groups is one thing, but working against everyone else to help one group is another animal.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It's those greedy attitudes that have hijacked the groups like Farm Bureau which were once organizations that represented the small family farm


plainsman, do you understand how these GRASSROOTS ag orgs work? To make this claim, do you know what the average size farm is of the members of the orgs you mention? Most of the members of these two orgs I know ARE the smaller family farms here in ND. The policies of these orgs are developed by their MEMBERS, NOT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ORG. Beleive me if someone in the leadership of these groups is "highjacking" them from what the members want them to be they will not be in that position long. So apparently you beleive the membership of these orgs actively engaged in production ag are all "greedy"? For someone asking wether someone else is willing to consider a differing perspective, well anyway.

At this stage, we are left to wait on the Court decision. The law has served this state well for 7 decades. And whatever the Court decides the people responsible for the future of this state will address it legislatively with input from the people that have elected them. Perhaps threads like this will be shared at that time to provide them an insight as to what a small handful of people beleive of the job they have done over the years in looking out for the state of ND. I'm sure these legislators that have supported this law and it's makeup over the years will be impressed to have been painted as nothing more than the lackeys for 3 ag groups here in the state. And people that support the position they have taken for decades being
called "ignorant", "dumbass" "greedy" "elitist" "lords" " arrogant" "extremeists" "radical" ect.... by this same handful of people.

So swift, plainsman, ron what names will you call the legislators that have voted to support these laws over the years as it is being debated in the future? Dumbass? Greedy? Arrogant? Many of whom live and raise their families in these small rural communities which you claim supporting this law is killing. If this is indeed the case, this law that requires nonprofits to go thru an approval process before purchasing land is what is killing these small towns by not allowing "outsiders" to come into their communities, why in the world would people from these communities elect people to the legislature that support this law and it's ideologies? Most of the people I know that are actively involved in the JDA's and EDC's in the communities surrounding me, (many are my good friends) are actively looking for "outsiders" to come into our communities with their families and become part of our communities and are offering incentives to do so. But hey perhaps the communities in NC ND are so much different than rural communities elsewhere.


----------



## Plainsman

> The law has served this state well for 7 decades.


No, it has served special interests and I think in conflict with the U S constitution. I want family farms to survive also, but not at the expense of the constitution. I think they should be able to follow the constitution and survive.

gst, what I am saying is that individuals have a conscience, but organizations do not. Organizations think mostly of themselves. That's greedy. Some organizations, like church organizations are not like that and their main focus is others. Special interest groups though are for themselves and that is true for farmers, teachers, hunting organizations, you name it. The problem is our legislature is loaded with farming special interests. That wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't that they expect the rest of us to lose so farming can win. If a farmer walks into Tractor Supply, or Home of Economy he doesn't pay the same taxes as other businesses do. That is special treatment at the expense of all other taxpayers who carry their share of the load and the farmer.


----------



## swift

QUESTION.....



> why in the world would people from these communities elect people to the legislature that support this law and it's ideologies? Most of the people I know that are actively involved in the JDA's and EDC's in the communities surrounding me, (many are my good friends) are actively looking for "outsiders" to come into our communities with their families and become part of outr communities and are offering incentives to do so. But hey perhaps the communities in NC ND are so much different than rural communities elsewhere.


ANSWER.....


> When I was on the economic development attitudes like GST's were commonplace. Many of the locals didn't want new businesses because they were afraid of the type of people they would attract. Some didn't want their countryside overrun with out of towners. Some didn't trust anyone that wasn't born in the county. And some knew for a fact that only those with an agricultural background could find the answer, all other ideas were cast aside. The result was dismal. The only thing that progressed in the county was the average age of the residents. The school closed, the grocery store closed, the cafe closed. The town is hanging on by a thread. But the same "community leaders" are there leading the residents in a circle, like water circles the drain before it's gone.


No need to rehash this again.

Plainsman I beleive they call that the MOB MENTALITY. Things get done in a group that rarely would be attempted by an individual. Sometimes it's good, sometimes not so good. 
I would compare these orgs to the big unions, in their infancy they fought hard for good. After that corruption set in like most entities that garner too much power.


----------



## Plainsman

> I would compare these orgs to the big unions, in their infancy they fought hard for good. After that corruption set in like most entities that garner too much power.


Very good comparison. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's time for unions to be eliminated, and groups like Farm Bureau have grown beyond their usefulness. Now they are at the point that they attempt to prey on others. They are not liberal or conservative they are social/economic predators.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> QUESTION.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why in the world would people from these communities elect people to the legislature that support this law and it's ideologies? Most of the people I know that are actively involved in the JDA's and EDC's in the communities surrounding me, (many are my good friends) are actively looking for "outsiders" to come into our communities with their families and become part of outr communities and are offering incentives to do so. But hey perhaps the communities in NC ND are so much different than rural communities elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> ANSWER.....
> 
> 
> 
> When I was on the economic development attitudes like GST's were commonplace. Many of the locals didn't want new businesses because they were afraid of the type of people they would attract. Some didn't want their countryside overrun with out of towners. Some didn't trust anyone that wasn't born in the county. And some knew for a fact that only those with an agricultural background could find the answer, all other ideas were cast aside. The result was dismal. The only thing that progressed in the county was the average age of the residents. The school closed, the grocery store closed, the cafe closed. The town is hanging on by a thread. But the same "community leaders" are there leading the residents in a circle, like water circles the drain before it's gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

So ALL 47 (100%) of the elected Senators in this state that voted in support of the current makeup of this committe involved in this nonprofit law thus supporting the process itself have the ideals you list above in your "answer"???

80% of the House Representatives of this state supported this legislation as well. Is this 80% leading their communities down the drain as well by there support of this law as written. My word, ND must be in awfully rough shape.

As I said earlier, I am sure the legislators of this state will enjoy hearing they are nothing more than hand maidens for these "greedy" "corrupt" ag groups that "prey" on others.


----------



## swift

My point was its easy to fear change. My example above was that status quo is much less scary for people. You continue to show the big problem that I outlined with small town stubborness. Whether you admit it or not this law is bad. You know it is bad as you admitted earlier. This law has done nothing for the small towns in ND. This law has done nothing for the vast majority of citizens in ND. And as you pointed out the whole state legislature supported this bad law for the sake of agriculture. When the current generation of ag producers decided to turn their backs on those very citizens that supported them for years that support is waning. One just needs to look at the self serving policies of your organizations that show total disregard for the tax payers. The legislature will not take on big Ag since big Ag is the most powerful lobby in the state. Your continued inability to accept that nonag also has a stake in what's best for the state. And just maybe we can help.

Plainsman I totally agree with you on the NDBHA.

I'm signing off for a couple weeks as I fly to Africa in the morning.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Whether you admit it or not this law is bad. You know it is bad as you admitted earlier


swift, I simply never admitted this law was bad as you claim and I imagine you know that even though you make the claim. I admitted knowing that it was likely to be challenged given recent court rulings on other states laws and that perhaps the policies of these ag groups should take that into consideration. BIG difference.



swift said:


> This law has done nothing for the small towns in ND. This law has done nothing for the vast majority of citizens in ND.


Do you have ANY proof of this



swift said:


> And as you pointed out the whole state legislature supported this bad law for the sake of agriculture


?

I have been consistant in stating the state legislature examines what is best for ALL NDan's when they consider the consequences of the laws they create. Never have I said the legislature supports this law regarding nonprofits soley for the sake of agriculture, but once again you likely knew that before you made the claim I had. That has kind of been yours and plainsmans mantra.

Exactly how would the section of this law that requires these nonprofits to keep their lands open to public hunting if there is any hunting allowed benefit agriculture?? If the intent of this law was to prevent these nonprofits from owning ANY land in this satate, why would this section of the law even be needed?


----------



## Plainsman

> swift wrote:
> This law has done nothing for the small towns in ND. This law has done nothing for the vast majority of citizens in ND.


gst wrote:


> Do you have ANY proof of this


I would like to ask do you have any proof that it did benefit North Dakota? I think both are opinion. My opinion would be it benefited some farmers who had the money to purchase land because they eliminated some of the competition. Nothing like being a count commissioner, turning down a purchase, then picking it up yourself for $100 less per acre.


----------



## gst

It probably largely is opinion as it is something that likely has no tangible way of measuring. But if one looks at the fact that a very high percentage of the legislators elected and re elected by the voters of this state have consistantly supported these laws and the process, whose job it is to look out for the best interests of the state, perhaps this weighs towards the opinion these laws HAVE been good for ND. That is unless you buy into yours and swifts theory that ALL these ELECTED legislators that have supported these laws for decades are not looking out for what is best for this state and it's residents but are merely "greedy" ag's lackeys to do whatever they are told that are still continueally elected and re elected by the duped voters of this state. . :roll:

And plainsman, how do you beleive a "county commisioner" would be re elected if they were "denying these sales only to buy the land themselves for $100 dollars less" ? Remember it is ALL the residents of a county that get to vote for their commissioners. So if the denial of these sales was such a bad thing for the residents of these counties, and particularily if the commisioner that voted to deny it did as you claim, why would they be elected by the people of the county????? It makes for a nice story, but do you have ANY actual examples of this happening???

Tell you what guys, how about we wait until the Courts ruling and when the state legislature takes up the issue then to deal with it. I have the feeling you will have plenty of opportunities to come on here at that time and comment how ag is "greedy", the orgs representing ag are "corupt, evil predators" , the leaders of rural communities are "backwards hicks leading their communities down the drain" and ALL the legislators of this state are nothing more than "incompetant lackeys" for ag interests here in ND and the voters that vote for them and against certain measures don't know what they are doing. It is clear these claims you guys have made are so true in how bad this state is doing as a result of them. :roll:

You and swift do not seem to have a very high opinion of your fellow NDans.(Well aleast in plainsmans case they are "fellow NDans) Perhaps this state and all it's residents would be better served with you and swift and ron as the heads of an oligarchy! :wink:

Just think, you could turn every little rural community into some sort of a tourist trap for some local wonder as your plan to "save" these communities, open the doors to a swarm of NR hunters with unlimited access every fall to come hunt the private preserves their corporations or nonprofits they donate millions to have bought as well as all the other public ground here in the state instead of letting the "younger generation" of residents who "do not contribute as much to their communities" hunt, and and create a "buffalo commons" void of "greedy" ag practices and organizations. And best of all, you can call anyone that disagrees with you "ignorant dumbasses and arrogant eliteists". Sounds like utopia to me!!!


----------



## swift

Im on a layover in Washington DC and took the time to read more crap spewed from the head crapper. Quit extrapolating out the descriptions of yourself to all other farmers. You should know public opinion of your sacred orgs is poor at best. I bet you can't find one place where I called farmers greedy! You cannot understand that your thinking is as convoluted as you view mine. Fact is you are a poor representation of a farmer. You (not everyone else) are a power happy elitist and anyone with reading skills can figure that out quickly. Go ahead and stick to your current game plan as far as rural economic development is is working so good now why would you ever consider another idea. I am certain nonprofits will be permitted to buy land once the case is over. I am also certain you will have another threat toward boycotting hunters like you always do in you weakly veiled way.

I will tell you that this unconstitutional law has not help small towns by looking at the huge declinein small rural towns. Since you only know about Antler tell me what was the population in Antler in 1930?

I will say you are good at throwing out the contraversial catch phrases even though none of us brought it up. Buffalo commons being an example. Go play with you cows, and buy up all the cheap land you can. Minot wont be that far to buy milk after you oil Antler. Its a shame really.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> GST, your right my idea would not sit well with many people on this site regarding looking to the NR and city dwelling outdoorsman for economic recovery/stabilization of rural towns. And I will hold the same stance that they are putting their own sacrifices ahead of the community. It is said many times that the younger local residents are entitled to have the preferential access, preferential licensing and the preference of not seeing a blue license plate because they live here. I think some of that is true.
> *BUT they typically don't have the disposable income that is needed to revitalize rural ND.
> Then one would have to ask is this BEST for the state of ND? or is pandering to the locals that hunt 60 days a year because they don't have a steady job, steady income and are likely a burden on the social services system really who you want to invest in. *


Swift given the above statement from you in response to "locals" not appreciating your plan of bringing swarms of your now fellow NR's in to hunt to save the local communities , and considering you told someone else you have never met in another thread that simply disagreed with you that you likely pay more in income tax than they make, I wouldn't get too carried away calling others arrogant elitists.

It seems as if you have an issue with anyone questioning your ideas and opinions, it surely doesn;t seem to take to long before the name calling and personal insults begin. You really do not seem very receptive to listening to any one elses "perspective" that may happen to disagree with you. Perhaps it was this type of an attitude that the "locals" didn't appreciate when you were on the EDC .



swift said:


> I will tell you that this unconstitutional law has not help small towns by looking at the huge declinein small rural towns. Since you only know about Antler tell me what was the population in Antler in 1930?


swift are you suggesting that if nonprofits like DU had just been allowed to buy land uncontroled over the last 30 years around communities such as Antler or others that the population would have remained the same as it was in 1930???? Perhaps this was the vision and foresight that these "locals" when you were on the EDC found less than realistic. Perhaps these "locals" that you looked down upon for their attitudes realize that MANY things have contributed to some rural towns shrinking while others grew outside of DU owning lands surrounding them. Things such as govt policy regarding border crossing and regulations on goods crossing borders, monetary valuation differences between one half of a communities trade area, RR service being ended, County seats being determined, ect.... really any number of community specific issues. And perhaps the "locals" simply beleived they needed someone on the EDC that understood this rather than focasing on one single issue personal agenda.

Critisize me all you wish in whatever childish manner you choose swift, for my perspectives you disagree with, but one simple fact you can not dispute is that I have CHOSEN to remain here in ND and raise my family here. I am sending my kids to the same school I attended and have involved myself in bettering the community I grew up in here in ND. I am trying to build an opportunity for my children to do the same. The community myself and my kids attend school in actually has MORE residents living in it today than it did when I went to school, but there are simply fewer children for a variety of reasons. Had you made this same choice instead of leaving this state to raise your family elsewhere, perhaps your concerns over the affects of ND law on our small communities would carry more weight. AS it is your ideals of opening up our state to your fellow swarms of NR's hunting and out of state nonprofits you likely donate money and belong to could be looked at as less concern over what benefits our rural communities,but rather what most likely benefits you, something you are quick to critisize others for.

I would guess this could go on for quite awhile, but I really don;t know what good would come of it to continue. So people that wish can take from this "debate" what they will. As I have said many times we will have to wait and see what the courts decide, I would imagine that if for some reason the law regulating the ability of nonprofits to buy land uncontroled is NOT overturned,there will be a round of people acuseing greedy ag of controling the court as well as the legislature and more claims of elitism and arrogance being thrown about. And if indeed it is overturned and the state legislature moves to deal with the consequences of the Courts decision it will unleash another roound of insults and name calling when ag groups give their "perspective".


----------



## north1

Okay, been following this thread for days-weeks. First and foremost I respect all opinions- plainsman, gst, swift, ron and others. I will offer mine as farmer who has been doing so since 1992 so a few years under my belt. Also, have served on many boards from agricultural to church so have some insight. I have come to abhore all organizations in some form or another. Whether it be farm bureau, ducks unlimitated, farmers union, pheasants forever, ND wheat commission, peta, ND oilseed council, greenpeace I could go on and on. They all began with good intentions but like all groups descend into corruption and self serving ideaology. Heck, I even have problems with organized religion. Forcing your beleifs on others has become a pet peeve of mine.
I,in the past have had no problem allowing unlimited and unmitagated hunting on my land. No posting what-so ever. The last couple years, after having 4 grain bins shot through, 2 yard lights shot out, and the family dog dispatched within 100 yards of my home have tempered my stance on allowing hunting with high powered rifles within 100 yards of my home and equipment. Still, I will not post anything within 100 yards of said property. As far as hunting waterfoul with shotgun, have at it wherever. Although, I have not had anyone ask to hunt waterfowl since I began farming. So far, I have only seeded 250 acres due to standing water(live within no drain zone prairie pothole region, one of the contols on my occupation) so duck hunting is as good as you could hope for. If you only knew how many controls are placed on my occupation you would deem me as being a servant to the state and federal government as no other could be. (Controlled to some extent of what I seed, where I seed it, how I seed it, what I use for weed and pest control, how I conrol water, how I spend the money for said efforts(bank operating loan), again could go on and on). But at least I have the ability to choose to partake in this occupation, some are delieneated even to the occupation they choose. 
To be truthful, I have no problem with conservation groups purchasing land for their own interests. No different than me trying to purchase land for my own(farming). That being said, since 1992 I have not been able to purchase any land, as most land in area is owned by landowners in large cities and out of state. A common misconception is that farmers own the land they farm but I only own 1 quarter and the other 20 are rented from individuals in Fargo, Bismarck and Denver, CO. I farm on crop share, so basically I am a peasent, but I have been blessed to chose my occupation and could do anything I want and have no complaints. Just thought I would provide a differing opinion.


----------



## duckp

North,
Very good point about Orgs.They all develop problems after a few years.Start great,soon spiral into something not so great.Like government.Too bad they don't come with 'refresh' buttons.
I hear ya on Gov't controls as well.The growing problem with our Gov't,all Gov'ts actually,is they self feed.Controls lead to more controls.I read a UBS Financial report yesterday on how 'regulation' was stifling the start up of new business's-including farming.If America wants to achieve true economic growth,not phony 'regulated'(aka temporary)growth,the report concluded 'regulatory' controls must be reduced substantially.I couldn't agree more however unlikely that is in our wimpy world today.
I think though that your point about regulations and 'controls' you have to put up with(sadly),brings us nearly full circle.The subsidy 'system' in place now,often hidden under the guise of 'national security' or some other ephemeral cover,is what mandates these controls or certainly most of them.To get the subsidies,step through the hoops required=ie,follow the controls they require.All 
'producers'(another gov't control label we are given)should think about this.We have wrapped ourselves in a blanket that stifles us.


----------



## gst

Here is a "perspective" regarding orgs. There is a significant difference in the make up and governance of different orgs. The 3 ag orgs that have been maligned in this thread are true grassroots orgs. meaning that it is the MEMEBERS themselves that develope policy, not the boards, major donors ect. One individual member can create and influence policy. I know, I have done so. If you as a farmer or rancher do not agree with the policy these orgs have or how they are representing your industry, you can change this. Not by complaining on an outdoor website, but by being at the table thru your membership. I know for a fact, one person CAN make a difference in these orgs. You do not need to donate millions to have your voice heard, and wether policy you beleive in is adopted is not dependent upon how big your check is. The leadership from these orgs comes from your neighbors, people that live next door that can be held accountable when you run into them at the parts store or coffee shop. If you do not like how something is going in these particular orgs. in how they represent your industry, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, GET INVOLVED AND CHANGE IT. That is your "refresh button".

There in lies the difference in these orgs. If these ag orgs develope policy which enough people beleive is bad for ND, it can be changed here on a local level. Either thru not being adopted into law by our local elected representatives or by the process I mentioned above of the actual members changing policy. If a group like DU comes into our state, how does the average NDan influence policy this org. has? WHEN IS THE LAST TIME MEMBERS AT A LOCAL DU BANQUET FORMULATED POLICY TO PASS ON TO THE NATIONAL ORG? The only thing passed on is the dollars raised, not how to use them. Stop and consider for a moment if DU and any other nonprofit orgs were to be allowed to buy land UNCONTROLED here in ND. DU (or any nonprofit) makes a policy no ag production can happen on these lands they now own, nor will these lands be open for public hunting.(they no longer have to please anyone other than their rich donors in order to buy this land) how will this be any better for ND than what we have know with the volantary programs DU has in place in our state? Stop and recall how much land DU OWNS and controls in Canada just to the north of us. How will the average NDan be able to influence these policies of an org like DU? Do you honestly beleive your $20 dollar membership (how ever much it is) entitles you to a say in developing this policy in this org? When is the last time a national leader of DU came from ND? How many NDans sit on the board of DU?

The members of these ag orgs that create policy live here in ND. The result of their decisions directly affect them as well as their neighbors as NDans. The leadership of groups like DU and others comes from high dollar donors from other states that simply look at ND as what they can gain from it. Honestly ask yourself how much concern the leadership of orgs like this have in wether a school or a store stays open here in our state. Do you honestly beleive they care what happens in our local communities? When is the last time you heard anyone talking about things such as this at a local DU banquet???? The term "buffalo commons" is a catch phrase, but it is not one only used by me. A few years back it was a comment used by the leadership of DU in describing how vast grasslands undisturbed by the plow and people were the best philosophy for producing ducks. This leadership went on to comment as a result of hardships farmers and ranchers in Canada were facing due to economic conditions then, the time was ripe for DU to come in with their millions of donated dollars and buy up these lands to protect these landsfor duck production. No mention in this article of concern for people staying in these communities and keeping doors open, just purchasing lands to raise more ducks. These are some of the things our representatives have to consider when they accept the responsibility of creating laws for what is best for our state.


----------



## duckp

GST,
In some Orgs,one member can make a difference.In others,hardly.If you think YOU make a difference in National FB or FU policys,you are truly delusional.

A couple for instances and then I'll stay out of this mess you've created;
1.http://deltafarmpress.com/node/53631
Tell me if you didn't want to work with Obama or didn't believe in 'comprehensive' immigration(A phony phrase to get cheap farm labor)you could change it.

2."The election of Barack Obama in November 2008 was largely seen as a win for the NFU, who had graded each of the candidates based on their policies. Obama received a perfect 100% rating, based on his support of the 2008 Farm Bill and a renewable fuel standard. On the other hand, the organization gave John McCain a grade of zero percent, in part because he was in favor of reducing subsidies for ethanol and food products."

Likewise,if you didn't support Obama 100% like NFU above,do you really think you are going to change it.

Maybe,just maybe,its time for you to get real. :bop:


----------



## duckp

By the way,it took about 2 minutes of 'searching' to find an example as to each Org.Give me 10 minutes,I'd find 20 that you hopefully couldn't or wouldn't support but that regardless you couldn't do a dam thing about as a 'member'.
Get real!


----------



## gst

Duckp the comments that "created" this whole "mess" was directed at the three STATE orgs. These state orgs maintain separate policies from the national orgs. Much like the NDWF had separate policy regarding CRP than the national org did. My comments in the previous post are referencing the ability to influence these orgs on a state level which is the most direct influence on state legislative issues of which this law being debated is. However in the case of these two ag orgs mentioned, national policy CAN be changed, but it does take a significant amount more commitment to do it. Because of the structure of these orgs, you must be involved in state leadership to be involved in Nationa policy developement. Most of the "rank and file" members simply do not have the time to make that commitment so it is critical who they send from their states to represent them. Also remember there are differing view points on a national level than there is a an individuals state level, so while policy adopted may not reflect one states wishes, it has been created thru a democratic formula. Can that be said of groups like DU??? How many people that purchase a neopreme dog vest at the local DU banquet ends up creating policy or even has a vote at any stage of policy developement as opposed to the fella that donates $1,000,000 ?

I do not agree with ALL the policies of these orgs. It is pretty common knowledge, that the two main ones FB and FU have most often directly opposing views which are tied to political ideals as well. I have stated previously I am a member of FU by default because I do business with our local Coop. Their veiws are not necessarily mine. But as they are grassroots orgs whose membership decides policy, not everyone will always agree with every policy that is created. But that does not mean here in the state orgs you do not have the opportunity to voice your concerns and have them addressed if you wish. If you do a well enough job of presenting your case, and enough people agree, indeed policy can be changed.

The org that I am most directly involved with and have the most knowledge and experience with does not have a "national" parent org. It is ENTIRELY locally (as in statewide) controled by it's members. And I can gaurantee you one individuals voice is heard and does matter and can influence policy every time our annual convention is held and policy is examined, renewed, changed or created. I have witnessed it happen every year.


----------



## gst

duckp, before you take your leave of this mess, please answer a couple questions if you would. Please take a look at this link.

http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation ... nts/ND.pdf

The question is, given the extensive VOLANTARY conservation programs DU clearly has in place in ND as shown and located on the map in this link by all the red ducks, how will allowing this org as well as ANY other nonprofit regardless of their agendas to purchase land UNCONTROLED benefit ND and it's residents more than what these VOLANTARY programs already existing with this org here in our state currently does?

Do you possibly fore see any negatives tied to overturning this law so ANY nonprofit would be able to purchase lands without going thru a regulatory process?

You and I may very well not agree on this issue or others, but I do not recall you presenting your "perspective" thru personal insults and name calling. So I am interested in hearing your perspective. Thank you in advance for your answer.


----------



## duckp

GST,
I've often sympathized with your views on landowners rights but I can't agree with your positions here.IMO those opinions aren't working and change is needed.On the other hand,it's clear you're not going to change or drop this so,as a 'producer' I've learned you can't germinate a seed in rock so why continue trying.
Have a great Memorial Day all!


----------



## gst

duckp, You are right about my not changing my position on this particular issue. And I most certainly have not continued in this discussion because I am foolish enough to beleive that the "perspective" I may bring will change the veiws or opinions of certain people on this site. But I would bet there are a few people that read these debates without commenting that may be willing to consider both "perspectives" . So the answers to those two direct questions I asked is more for these people.

I will give you my perspective on these two particular questions. DU has had a long history of developing volantary conservation programs and over the years have began to understand the need to actually work with producers in developing them. This has cause more interest from these private landowners in participating in these programs so the benefits that are created as a result are not only for conservation, the sportsmen and wildlife, but in some cases the ag producer as well. These programs have evolved because DU realizes to accomplish their goals they must work with producers here in this state. I actually have thought about participating in some of these programs myself, but have simply chosen to do them on my own instead. (planting more winter wheat, rotational once over grazing, wetlands conservation) But I simply do not beleive that much more benefit will be gained by allowing an org like this to begin to purchase land uncontroled when it will also open the door to ANY other org that may not have the ideals and agendas best suited for our states well being, than is currently being accomplished thru the volantary programs in place and that are being developed.

People may claim this ideology is "unconstitutional" . When the law was first implemented, it is likely it would have withstood a court challenge. For 7 decades no one else beleived it unconstitutional enough to challenge it. It was only after this current courts interpretations showed possibilities did Cook move forward here in ND. So would this postion been "unconstitutional" 70 years ago under THAT courts interpretation? Suddenly everyone beleives it is, if the court so decides, so be it, we will move forward from there.

Looking at the DU link I provided, one would be hard pressed to claim they do not have a significant presence here in ND. Imagine if each of those little red ducks was a quarter of land that was purchased. Now imagine if the next how ever many nonprofits used their donated millions to buy the same amount of land, and so on UNCONTROLED for the next 7 decades. At what point does land ownership by those not using it for productive purposes begin to affect the well being and economies of communities and this state? How many acres can be taken out of production in say one county before it begins to affect people in that county negatively?

As I said before, if DU is allowed to buy land uncontroled as a nonprofit, ANY other nonprofit will have to be allowed the same consideration. It is easy to type ones Constitutional purity and unwavering support of a courts interpretation on a key board, it would be more interesting to see if it holds true when some unwelcome nonprofit wishes to buy the land next to your family for their purposes and their is no means in place to regulate them.

So if you wish, do not answer the question for my benefit, but rather those who may not have as solid a stance on this issue. How can people see both sides of an issue in a debate if they don;t hear the answers to these types of questions?


----------



## Plainsman

north1 isn't it odd that those that think we owe them we have little respect for, but guys like you we wish we could do more for. I sure appreciate you giving us that perspective. I agree completely with you about organizations, even religion to a point. I got so fed up with my ultra liberal ELCA that I quit and went to a new church. What a breath of fresh air to hear the truth directly from scripture.
north1 what would you think of a federal fund not so much for grain subsidies, but as a net on years when nature just dumps on you. I would like conservation programs not just for wildlife, but for farmers to preserve land for years when they need it. When we get this much rain farmers north of Devils Lake for example could be paid a decent price to hold water if they can. It would be cheaper than the damage downstream, and a benefit for those guys nearly drown out now. I like duckp's idea of a reset button where we could all get back to appreciating and helping one another. Those that think it's owed them don't really help others and don't appreciate anything. I really appreciated your honest opinion. I know the good guys out there like you outnumber the bellyachers who dislike anyone who isn't a farmer. Thanks so much for that post.
north1 I also want you to know that the only farming I don't like is the commercialization of wildlife. Well, native wildlife anyway. I don't much care if they have game farms with pheasants, but hunting deer and elk hunting inside fences is like a pedophile thinking he is the worlds greatest lover. I don't know which is worse the guy hunting inside the fence, or the guy preying on the none thinking and crying wolf, HSUS, wolf, HSUS, wolf. It's the first step in hunting for the rich only, but many are incapable of seeing that.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> north1 I also want you to know that the only farming I don't like is the commercialization of wildlife. Well, native wildlife anyway. I don't much care if they have game farms with pheasants, but hunting deer and elk hunting inside fences is like a pedophile thinking he is the worlds greatest lover. I don't know which is worse the guy hunting inside the fence, or the guy preying on the none thinking and crying wolf, HSUS, wolf, HSUS, wolf. It's the first step in hunting for the rich only, but many are incapable of seeing that.


http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press ... 02810.html

Remember in the story about the little boy that cried wolf, the wolf did indeed show up.

Perhaps it is the "none thinking" that beleive HSUS is only concerned with banning HFH and will be content once that is acheived and not continue to try to ban ALL hunting. Oh well that was a whole nother story.


----------



## Plainsman

And here is the example I was speaking of.



> Perhaps it is the "none thinking" that beleive HSUS is only concerned with banning HFH and will be content once that is acheived and not continue to try to ban ALL hunting. Oh well that was a whole nother story.


Do you think they will not try ban all hunting either way? Beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent life down here.

Do you want to see the wolf gst? Look in a mirror. What will destroy hunting is the commercialization of wildlife. Those people will accomplish what HSUS, PETA, and all the other antihunters could only dream of. When it gets to expensive for the average Joe he will do something else. When numbers are down the politicians will pay little attention anymore. It's a lot like farms getting bigger and bigger. Bigger farms mean less farmers. When your numbers are down you will be ready for the picking. The question is once you have yours do you care?


----------



## north1

I have no "manmade" drainage so my stance cannot come from first hand knowledge but from neighbors who do. I know some hold water back from draining into the Souris River Basin until a certain date and then open the gates. One problem with this is inherant human greed. If I open this gate a week earlier, I can seed this quarter a week earlier. Would have to be oversight which I am not sure could be handled with current goverenment staff. Government programs can be alot like private organizations. They begin with good intentions but morph into something completely different in a few years, become overely bureaucratic and end up lining the pockets of those unintended while "raping" those who were originally suppose to benefit. Having said that I feel the CRP program has come as close as I have seen to its original goals(albeit it also has some problems).

I do have a very strong aberation to payed hunting. How could I accept government payments, then post land and charge for hunting any wildlife-pheasants, deer, ducks, whatever. Very wrong. I have a relative who participated in a canned elk hunt and said it was the most aggregious, immoral thing he had ever witnessed. Granted I feed and house wildlife yearround but they are in some respects mobile and neighbors also incur their fair share of the problems it incurrs. I don't ranch(have cattle) so this is a whole different can of worms and can cause allot more problems.

To be quite honest I would not shed a tear if government payments were eliminated. Everyone on an equal playing field. Let the chips fall where they may and if I cannot compete that is "natural" selection and I would find another occupation. Have a feeling the playing field will always be skewed, however, and the good guy often finishes last. In crop share situation the landlords also collect this payment and do not share my view. Not sucking up to any particular side, just stating my true-honest thoughts.


----------



## Plainsman

> Government programs can be alot like private organizations. They begin with good intentions but morph into something completely different in a few years, become overely bureaucratic and end up lining the pockets of those unintended while "raping" those who were originally suppose to benefit.


I have this gut wrenching feeling that this may be what is happening to our entire nation. It has just accelerated in the past two years. The fools that think the working stiff can pay while they kick back, and those who think they have little now will soon have nothing. We are on the fast track to a third world country. I guess I should save this type of comment for the political form.


----------



## shaug

GST,

I went to the HSUS link you provided and found several errors.

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press ... 02810.html

Here is a paragragh:



> Neither the HSLF nor HSUS played any role in writing or qualifying Measure 2, but both groups support the measure. The measure was advanced by rank-and-file hunters in North Dakota, operating behind North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, which gathered nearly 14,000 signatures of voters to qualify the petition for the November ballot. A number of other major hunting organizations, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, support Measure 2. The four hunters featured in the ad are not affiliated with the group of sportsmen who qualified the petition, but they are avid hunters and North Dakota residents, and they also wanted to speak out on the subject.


Played no role in qualifying measure two??????? Yes they did by collecting thousands of signatures.

A number of other "major" hunting organizations??????????? Could someone please name one. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation was not a supporter. Read it here:

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/NewsRe ... _Farms.htm

There was four hunters in the video but when the ads first came out saying paid for by the Humane Society Legislative Fund the fourth person rebelled because he was not informed early on that this video was shot for and paid by the HSUS. The other three were Craig Schmidt, Tennelle Kruze from Minot and her husband. Tennelle is the neice of Karen Thunshell of Minot. Karen is the lead citizens co-ordinater for the HSUS in North Dakota. Also she is very involved in the anti-horse slaughter issue. Saying they were not affiliated with the group of sportsmen who qualified the petition is also not true. HSUS members in ND collected a lot of signatures and without their help the fair chase committee would not have reached the minimum amout of signatures needed.

What the Humane Society posted on the website is a spinning untruth. It's slick because how are it's readers to know what the truth is. Plainsman does the same thing here. Trades old lies for new.

Plainsman wrote,



> I also want you to know that the only farming I don't like is the commercialization of wildlife. Well, native wildlife anyway. I don't much care if they have game farms with pheasants, but hunting deer and elk hunting inside fences is like a pedophile thinking he is the worlds greatest lover. I don't know which is worse the guy hunting inside the fence, or the guy preying on the none thinking and crying wolf, HSUS, wolf, HSUS, wolf. It's the first step in hunting for the rich only, but many are incapable of seeing that.


Plainsman, your buddy swift is on his way to go hunting in Africa right now. Somewhere in these threads recently he said he is going to a high fence game farm. I think you just called him a rich guy pedophile taking a world sex tour???? I don't think he will be offended though. Too busy counting his money. Swift likes his charter fishing, laptops, cell phones, guides and outfitters in far off lands but when he comes back to the Dakotas he wants free access, small farms with that old farmer out there on a Minneapolis Moline, bib overhalls and a corn cob pipe.

Anyway Plainsman, why not just cut through the chase. The organizations you belong to want to curtail, slow down, shut down the human exploitation of the earths resources. The HSUS wants to curtail, slow down, shut down the human exploitation of all animals. Domestic or wild. Bruce, the organizations you belong to pretend they don't know anyone from HSUS. A clever ruse. 
Their people hate your people and your people hate their people. Wink Wink
Everyone else, who just want to live and let live are constantly being dragged into these tug of wars to their own detriment.

But what is written here matters little because this web-forum is dying faster than a small town.


----------



## bioman

Shaug, based on this comment, you have crossed the line. Just so you know, slander has a very broad legal definition:



> I think you just called him a rich guy pedophile taking a world sex tour????


slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications.


----------



## Plainsman

> Anyway Plainsman, why not just cut through the chase. The organizations you belong to want to curtail, slow down, shut down the human exploitation of the earths resources.


Speaking of untruth, I don't belong to Hunters For Fair Chase, Wildlife Society, Wildlife Federation, Elk Foundation, etc. I don't have membership in anything other than religious organizations. I think that falls under bearing false witness doesn't it shaug?


----------



## shaug

Bio wrote,



> Shaug, based on this comment, you have crossed the line. Just so you know, slander has a very broad legal definition:
> 
> I think you just called him a rich guy pedophile taking a world sex tour????


Bio, do you see all the question marks at the end of the sentence. I was asking Plainsman if that is what he meant in all that he posts.


----------



## Plainsman

> Bio, do you see all the question marks at the end of the sentence. I was asking Plainsman if that is what he meant in all that he posts.


Sure you were. I suppose you missed third grade english class too, and don't understand I didn't call anyone names I simply made a comparison. If you really didn't understand your the most unintelligent person I have spoken with. Sort of like gst pretending to be insulted when I asked if his son made money raising pheasants. That's not a bad question, but gst decided to go for the sympathy anyway. I know your an intelligent person shaug so what you and gst spew I would classify as intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I didn't call anyone names I simply made a comparison


plainsman, why make such a juvenile "comparison" to begin with?



Plainsman said:


> Sort of like gst pretending to be insulted when I asked if his son made money raising pheasants.


And if you wish to be intellectually "honest" please recall you did not "ask" wether my son made any money raising pheasants, you "insinuated" that was why he was doing it. BIG difference.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Speaking of untruth, I don't belong to Hunters For Fair Chase, Wildlife Society, Wildlife Federation, Elk Foundation, etc. I don't have membership in anything other than religious organizations.


Plausible Denial


----------



## Plainsman

Maybe I did insinuate he made money doing it. After all the apple does not fall far from the tree right? gst follow the money. Everything you promote puts money first. I'll bet dollars to dimes your kids make a buck off the pheasant. Why else would you be willing to cheat your neighbors out of perpetual easement payments simply so you can have your way. Don't thump your proud chest for me. Now you can cry for everyone again.

Why did I make the comparison? Because I had to make a comparison as ludicrous as possible to make a comparison to a shooter inside a fence calling himself a hunter. The juvenile comparison is the pen shooter calling himself a hunter. To compare himself or herself to a hunter insults all the rest of us.



> Plausible Denial


No fact. I suppose if I did belong I could show you proof of membership, but you feel safe because the negative can not be proved. However, I'll lay my integrity on the line here and tell you I do not belong to any of those. So the untruth is coming from you, not me. Your just finding a more polite way to call people a liar which gst did outright. You two are simply destructive people when you can't have your way. Neither post on any form but this one where you come as trouble makers. It would be much like an animal rights person on the deer hunting form, or a hunter on a PETA site. Do you have anything to contribute or is this all self centered?


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't call anyone names I simply made a comparison
> 
> 
> 
> plainsman, why make such a juvenile "comparison" to begin with?
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like gst pretending to be insulted when I asked if his son made money raising pheasants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you wish to be intellectually "honest" please recall you did not "ask" wether my son made any money raising pheasants, you "insinuated" that was why he was doing it. BIG difference.
Click to expand...

When you're in a sandbox with juveniles that have an agenda, it's hard not to throw sand back. oke:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> When you're in a sandbox with juveniles that have an agenda, it's hard not to throw sand back.


Plainsman wrote: 
"Maybe I did insinuate he made money doing it. After all the apple does not fall far from the tree right? gst follow the money. Everything you promote puts money first. I'll bet dollars to dimes your kids make a buck off the pheasant. Why else would you be willing to cheat your neighbors out of perpetual easement payments simply so you can have your way. Don't thump your proud chest for me. Now you can cry for everyone again." end quote

Bruce, 
I have 10,000 dimes to bet. So perhaps it is time to as they say "put up or shut up". :wink:

Spentwings, I know what you mean, but despite being called an "ignorant dumbass", "greedy", "arrogant" "eliteist" "whiney" a "bully" ect.... and having had people make multiple accusations that once confronted they were not able to back up, and even having people make admitted insinuations and accusations about my family yet once again, all for simply sharing an "ag perspective" of which I was asked to give, I have tried to remain above it. As you said it is hard, but I try! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> So perhaps it is time to as they say "put up or shut up".


As far as I am concerned you already proved my point twice. I am so happy you came back, because you prove the points I never could.

1. Cut your neighbor off from the larger payment of perpetual easement so you can force people into what you want. (The dollar is worth more to you than your neighbor).

2. Deny your neighbor the right to sell to whoever they want so you can insure your family that land prices will not go up.

We once had a sermon on how so many people in America make the dollar their God. Then the same people will shake their head and ask "what is happening to society". You can make a living without shafting your neighbor or anyone else. Work hard.

Edit: Oh, ya, I forgot. :wink: :wink: :wink:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're in a sandbox with juveniles that have an agenda, it's hard not to throw sand back.
> 
> 
> 
> Spentwings, I know what you mean, but despite being called an "ignorant dumbass", "greedy", "arrogant" "eliteist" "whiney" a "bully" ect.... and having had people make multiple accusations that once confronted they were not able to back up, and even having people make admitted insinuations and accusations about my family yet once again, all for simply sharing an "ag perspective" of which I was asked to give, I have tried to remain above it. As you said it is hard, but I try! :wink:
Click to expand...

 :lol: 
Not quite what I had in mind, but glad you could use it.
Let's face it, there's been so many cats in this box there's no place left to dig.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> *Not quite what I had in mind*, but glad you could use it.
> Let's face it, there's been so many cats in this box there's no place left to dig.


Spentwings, I kinda realized that. 

But there in lies the trouble with this site. A debate about a serious issue that could very well have a lasting impact on our state goes from getting FACTS out on the table to personal crap once again. The people running this site as well as the moderators are seemingly content to let it happen. There is a noticable difference between this site and the states other outdoors site FBO in what is left to run rampant. It shows in peoples posts that are on both sites.

I like to debate issues. I do not like people making disingenuous, untrue statements about what I and many of my friends do for a living and an industry that is a large part of this states history. I do my best to keep things factual and provide links to show where my information comes from whenever I can. Straight forward, honest and mostly courteous. And yet simply because a small handfull of people do not agree with a "perspective" given, it inevitably turns personal. I wonder if I claimed people in ag beleive the sky is blue if there would not be three people argueing ag only beleives this because they are greedy, and it is self serving to beleive the sky is blue, and to claim the sky is blue is running roughshod over others, and I think I am an elitist and everyone should bow down to me simply because I beleive the sky is blue I think quite a few people other than myself have come to expect this on this site. But as it is not "my" site, people can run it as they see fit. If they wish it to be a "clubhouse" where you have to think the same to be involved so be it, but if they wish it to be a place where differing "perspectives" can be heard without all the "your momma wears army boots" crap, theres a long way to go in cleaning it up.

There was comments about how many orgs ad other things start out good and then evolve into something much different, perhaps this site is similar in nature. Perhaps the same people "moderating" this site for so long have evolved it into something different than what it was originally intended to be, or perhaps not and it was originally intended to allow a few individuals to jump all over others simply for posting something they do not agree with.

When I first got on this site, plainsman and I had a number of "private" conversations regarding my commitment to conservation in how we run our operation. He was eager to share his ideals of conservation and programs he had been a part of with me as a rancher. He complimented my commitment to conservation and wildlife a number of times in these PM's. His comments in those PMs were quite different than what has been posted publically here. And now look at his comments. So why the change? I'm still doing all the things I was complimented for plus even more. He has never met me or visited our operation to personally gain any more knowledge about myself or our operation now than he had when I first got on this site, the only thing that has changed is he now knows I do not have the same ideals as him over a handful of issues, HFH being the main one . And so all the things he once privately complimented me on doing in our operation to benefit conservation and wildlife have now been replaced with accusations of greed and self centered ideals. I get people will have different ideals, I don;t expect everyone to agreee with mine. But do not make disingenuous claims you can not back up and juvenile personal accusations about someone you have NEVER met simply because you do not agree with some of their "perspectives".

Just my "perspective" :wink:


----------



## spentwings

I think you know gst I'm partisan and although pro-property rights, tend to be more than a little anti-ag 
which you probably feel is a contradiction. :wink:

Personally, I've always felt debating an issue a total waste of time but also understand a lot of guys like the sparing 
and it may even persuade some lurkers.

You've made some good points about civility however,,, no question this thread got out of control.


----------



## Plainsman

> So why the change?


There is no change. I still complement you on the conservation practices that you say you do. I do not complement you and resist the efforts of any to tell people they can not have perpetual easements or who they can sell their land to. Do you think your perfect or something? Everyone is going to have good and bad points. If your doing the conservation practices you tell me about I commend you. That does not mean I will accept everything you do. Even if the majority of the things you do are right I will oppose a wrong.



> this site


Now there is an example I will call you on. That is nothing but sour grapes. I see it as trying to destroy the sandbox if you can't have your way. That is extremely poor gst. You talk about civility, but you do not follow it. How many times have you been disrespectful and called me a liar? We do have rules, but in the hot topics things slide a little bit. Maybe we all need to decide where that stops. A good place for that to stop is within each of us. Perhaps you should practice what you preach and no one will call you names. 
I will not call you names gst, but when you get greedy you can bet I will call you on it. For example what drives you to tell anyone else if they can or can not sign a perpetual easement? What's your motive? Answer those questions please, and be honest with yourself.

gst, I do feel bad when people get a lot of grief, however, sometimes they bring it onto themselves. We all like to see an ag perspective, but sometimes people don't like that perspective. Sometimes an attitude comes through in the words that change that perspective. I am guilty of one thing, and that is keeping you going and I think exhibiting a perspective that is not beneficial to the ag community. That is part my fault and a lot yours. I do not put the words into your mouth that tic people off, but I know I lead you on. That isn't nice of me to do, but sometimes it's the only way to bring out true attitudes. 
I am sorry if your offended, but those two things I listed above I truly see as very greedy, and in the words of others elitist. I would be lying if I said otherwise. I know you want to support agriculture, but the more you talk the less I like it. Sorry.

Your right about my interest in grazing. I see it as a good management tool on public land and am not one of those that want to kick all the cows off. Some days I have been there, but it's only when a rancher tries to run us off public land. Those guys need a serious class in public relations. Anyway, as dumb as they act sometimes I will continue to support grazing. I will not support them getting more control of the grazing on public land because they would abuse it. I walked a lot of the Great Plains for work and one thing I noticed is the land was always treated with more respect on the private side of the fence. I think the problem was they wanted to get every spear of grass off the public land. Then they complain it isn't as good as theirs after they are the family that have grazed it for 50 years. That said I still support grazing on public land, but controlled by those who know carry capacity. Yes, yes, I know ranchers understand carry capacity and they practice it on their land, but not on public land. Even with all those problems I still support grazing. I hope you begin to understand that I am supporting or opposing practices and not people.
Now please don't crap in the hand that is held out to your again, with a dumb statement about glad to see you backing off.


----------



## spentwings

I *really* like you Plainsman,,,, but have to admit I like gst too.
When it comes to jokes (or debates :rollin: ) however, I've always liked one liners.
With all other issues aside, credibility is what counts. You have it and gst is suspect in my *biased *opinion. k:


----------



## gst

Plainsman, I sent you a pm of your response to a conversation we had when I first got on this site. Please read it and "honestly" ask yourself why the change in attitude. Perhaps you would even like to share it publically on here?

As to calling someone a liar. At the start, I tried being polite and simply stated people were being disingenuous. These people continued to tell these whoppers and so eventually a spade is called a spade. I do not know what your bible study considers a lie. But to me a lie is when someone says something they know for a fact is not true. If you want an honest answer, answer this, how many times have you made a statement regarding me personally that I have asked you to please show where I said or made the claim you stated I did that you were not able to back up your claim with an example because what you claimed simply was not true. If a statement someone makes intentionally is not true, what else is it????

How many times have you made claims regarding agriculture that simply were not true and continued to argue your point even after it was proven false? (recall the 90% of the budget claim and ag is second only to defense claim ect...) All I have ever asked is that within these debates even if you do not agree with a perspective and even if you don;t approve of ag, even if you do not like the person sharing the perspective, simply be factual and honest in the claims you make and back them up with links to show where your information you are sharing comes from. THAT should not be too much to expect.

Nor should it be too much to expect that if someone provides a perspective in a factual direct manner that even if you do not agree with that perspective, the simple fact it was done in a factual direct manner deserves a degree of respect. 
As to my perspectives on easements, ownership of land, property rights, ect.....it is largely for future generations not myself that these ideals are for. It is a "perspective" that wether you choose to beleive it or not is widely held by those in ag as well. And for the most part, the elected representatives of ALL the people of this state who are charged with looking out for the best interests of ALL these NDans largely agrees with most of my perspectives, (or I largely agree with theirs, would'nt want to come of as being so arrogant to beleive the legislature is simply listening to me !  )

If all I was concerned with was how good the hunting would be for me or my kids 50 years down the road, I perhaps would have the same ideals as some on here, But I understand even as much as hunting means to me, it is a recreational activity that needs to be kept in balance with everything else. I can not expect someone else to run their operations they provide for their families with to satisfy my demands of what I expect for me and my kids or my friends when I go hunting. That is why developing volantary conservation programs that work WITH ag to benefit for EVERYONE that are attractive to ag rather than antagonistic to me is the best possible solution.

Some people that have NEVER met me and know little about me wish to paint me as an arrogant eliteist who cares little for his neighbors and others and has an anti sportsmen agenda. That is certainly their perogative. But to make assumptions about people based on a few internet postings to this degree to me simply is an example of poor judgement and a willingness to cast the first stone.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> I *really* like you Plainsman,,,, but have to admit I like gst too.
> When it comes to jokes (or debates :rollin: ) however, I've always liked one liners.
> With all other issues aside, credibility is what counts. You have it and gst is suspect in my *biased *opinion. k:


Apparently making statements that are backed up with links to where the information comes from provides less credibility than simply winging it with wild claims that are often times proven wrong by actual factual information provided by others in attached links . Perhaps I have simply had it all wrong as to how one remains "credibile" on these internet sites!!! 

As to worrying about what someone on an internet site such as this thinks of my credibility? I reserve that concern regarding my credibility for those people that actually have met and know me. And I sleep well at nite knowing amoungst those people mine is intact. Except perhaps for a hunting or fishing tale or two now and then! :wink:


----------



## spentwings

No question gst,,, I'm a biased dork and unlike some on this site (both sides), freely admit it.  
Actually, I'd like to meet both you and Plainsman in person,,,. no doubt it'd be a positive experience. :beer:


----------



## gst

spentwings, I have readily admitted on here that as a rancher/farmer, not only am I biased towards ag, but the "ag" groups I belong to are biased towards "ag" as well. I know that is shocking and is hard for some to comprehend, but hey that is the way the world works. 

If you ever get up into the Antler area, let me know, I'll show you around some of the things a few of us have done to keep our little community of Antler alive and kickin. Some of them are pretty cool. There is always a cold beer at the Shack and you might even be impressed with the antler chandalier a couple of us built. And no one made a dime doing it! :wink: Damn, stop to think of it, that is one less dime I have to bet plainsman!


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, I sent you a pm of your response to a conversation we had when I first got on this site. Please read it and "honestly" ask yourself why the change in attitude.


I do remember that PM, and I still agree that ag and hunters need each other. I still agree that you had some good points at the time I sent you that PM. I just strongly disagree on a couple now. I don't think there has been much of a change in what I support, but perhaps it will take a while for trust to build after much dishonesty in the high fence debate. I guess I find high fence so repugnant that I now have a hard time accepting agriculture if they support that. It's like guilt through association I guess.



> As to calling someone a liar. At the start, I tried being polite and simply stated people were being disingenuous. These people continued to tell these whoppers and so eventually a spade is called a spade. I do not know what your bible study considers a lie. But to me a lie is when someone says something they know for a fact is not true


People rely on different data. For example I don't believe some of your references. It doesn't mean I think your a liar.



> how many times have you made a statement regarding me personally that I have asked you to please show where I said or made the claim you stated I did that you were not able to back up your claim with an example because what you claimed simply was not true.





> Your right I did mix you up with one of the elk growers. Then a year later I mixed you up again. I think it was a statement or someting DG said that I attributed to you.
> 
> How many times have you made claims regarding agriculture that simply were not true and continued to argue your point even after it was proven false?


That's your opinion I think they are correct.

(


> recall the 90% of the budget claim and ag is second only to defense claim ect...)


Yes, do you recall I clarified what I was trying to say?



> Nor should it be too much to expect that if someone provides a perspective in a factual direct manner that even if you do not agree with that perspective, the simple fact it was done in a factual direct manner deserves a degree of respect.


Well, you and I disagree on what is factual. It's that simple.



> back them up with links to show where your information you are sharing comes from. THAT should not be too much to expect.


Actually it is to much to ask-----sometimes. Some of the things I posted I gave no reference to because during the high fence debate people were trying some nasty backdoor things to hurt others. I am not going to post references to publications by scientists that are still employed. Since people on the internet don't know each other it's best to play it safe. Some don't care about the truth if it doesn't support their bias, and will destroy anyone or anything to have their way. I know it's a matter of a lack of trust on my part.


----------



## Plainsman

> you might even be impressed with the antler chandalier a couple of us built. And no one made a dime doing it! Damn, stop to think of it, that is one less dime I have to bet plainsman!


What do you mean that wasn't anymore conservation than me building our own kitchen cabinets.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I do remember that PM, and I still agree that ag and hunters need each other. I still agree that you had some good points at the time I sent you that PM. I just strongly disagree on a couple now. I don't think there has been much of a change in what I support, but perhaps it will take a while for trust to build after much dishonesty in the high fence debate. I guess I find high fence so repugnant that I now have a hard time accepting agriculture if they support that. It's like guilt through association I guess.


Plainsman recall what you said about sharing an "ag perspective" in that PM? It seems as long as it is a "perspective" you agree with it, you like it being shared, but if you do not agree with it, it is dishonest, greedy, self serving ect.... and you do not want to hear it presented on this site.

Here are one of those please show me's I was talking about earlier. Please show by posting it in context and in it's entirety where I was "dishonest" in any debate HFH, easements or any other. The HFH issue was presented to the voters of this state just as the sponsors wished. The people of this state had their say just as the sponsors wanted. GET OVER IT.



Plainsman said:


> Your right I did mix you up with one of the elk growers. Then a year later I mixed you up again. I think it was a statement or someting DG said that I attributed to you.





Plainsman said:


> Yes, do you recall I clarified what I was trying to say?


plainsman, it seems you spend a fair bit of time "clarifying" what you say.



Plainsman said:


> Now please don't crap in the hand that is held out to your again, with a dumb statement about glad to see you backing off.


plainsman, as far as "crapping in the hand that is held out", I have come to see that it is held out with "crap" already in it. So please do not be offended if I do not take it. Simply put up your dollars to my dimes and be done. Perhaps spentwings would hold the bet for us!


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman recall what you said about sharing an "ag perspective" in that PM? It seems as long as it is a "perspective" you agree with it, you like it being shared


That's one of the most foolish statements I have read. Because I would like a perspective do you think I will agree with them all? Come on get real. Sure I like the ones I agree with, but I reserve the right to refute those I disagree with. I hope you don't think that because I encourage you to share a perspective that you should be able to run amuck with no one else allowed to share their opinion of your opinion.



> plainsman, it seems you spend a fair bit of time "clarifying" what you say.


Yes I do, and you will too at my age. To try grab every mistake and make it look dishonest makes me loose respect for you gst. I think that is about the last straw I have for giving you any benefit of the doubt. You will take any shot you can get. I also don't approve of those habits. Live with it.



> plainsman, as far as "crapping in the hand that is held out", I have come to see that it is held out with "crap" already in it. So please do not be offended if I do not take it. Simply put up your dollars to my dimes and be done. Perhaps spentwings would hold the bet for us!


With that attitude gst, I have no time left for your bias opinions. I see them driven by greed. Live with that. I think you have shown us your stripes. I doubt anyone would agree to letting you make this your personal soap box with no opposition.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman recall what you said about sharing an "ag perspective" in that PM? It seems as long as it is a "perspective" you agree with it, you like it being shared
> 
> That's one of the most foolish statements I have read.


plainsman, this is an example of what I am talking about. Include the entire statement and it is substantially less "foolish"



gst said:


> Plainsman recall what you said about sharing an "ag perspective" in that PM? It seems as long as it is a "perspective" you agree with it, you like it being shared, *but if you do not agree with it, it is dishonest, greedy, self serving ect.... and you do not want to hear it presented on this site.[/*quote]
> 
> As for "destroying the sand box" , stop and look in the mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is an example I will call you on. That is nothing but sour grapes. I see it as trying to destroy the sandbox if you can't have your way. That is extremely poor gst. You talk about civility, but you do not follow it. How many times have you been disrespectful and called me a liar? We do have rules, but in the hot topics things slide a little bit.* Maybe we all need to decide where that stops. A good place for that to stop is within each of us.[/*quote].
> 
> As a moderator of this "sandbox" perhaps you should lead by example.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I did insinuate he made money doing it. After all the apple does not fall far from the tree right? gst follow the money. Everything you promote puts money first. I'll bet dollars to dimes your kids make a buck off the pheasant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You have made it very clear with statements like this, how "far" you yourself will slide. Even after being informed this is a 16 year old young man raising pheasants in conjunction with our local independant pheasant club (Mouse River Loop Pheasants) for his FFA project you make this juvenile snide comment in regards to him. As an FFA project he has kept track of total birds he has started with, death loss, total birds released, where and when they have been released and his expenses. There has not been one single dime made off this project. So if indeed you wish to "put your money where your mouth is" back up your spouting off. I have 10,000 dimes so put up your dollars or at the very least have the backbone to apologize to a young man that is simply giving a little back because of how much he likes to hunt and enjoy the outdoors. He started this project at age 13, and has so far released about 700 birds back into the wild. What were YOU doing to give a little back at 13?

Perhaps at your next bible study you should look "within" yourself an take stock of where you have gotten that you will now make insinuations towards a fine young man you have never once met or even talked with.

A "fine" example indeed of what this "sand box" is all about.


----------



## Plainsman

> Perhaps at your next bible study you should look "within" yourself an take stock of where you have gotten that you will now make insinuations towards a fine young man you have never once met or even talked with.


Don't you think you have worn that false sympathy whine out yet?

You complain about personal then make it even more so. Please don't post anything inflammatory just to get me to bite. I don't care to wrestle in the mud with you. We will both get dirty, but you will be the only one happy. It's happened in the past that when someone can not force their opinion on others they do a kamikaze and flip out, just to do as much damage as they can as they go away.

I still support grazing, and farming. I am still interested in the subjects we talked about. I'm just not interested in discussing them with anyone, anyone, anyone (get it I'm not making it personal) anyone that can't keep it on subject when reminded to.


----------



## gst

I can understand how you would much rather have the fact that as a moderator on this site you felt it appropriate to make juvenile insinuations about someones family members simply because you disagree with him, be dropped and forgotten. But such childish behavior from a person accepting the responsibility of "moderating" this site is likely why people beleive what they do about this site.

So I take it you are content to have maligned a young man you have never met or spoken with in any form? What a fine example of good Christian humanity, I'm sure your bible study group would be proud. I could give two ****s what you think of me personally not ever having met me, but when you do not have the backbone to make a simple apology for running your mouth about a 16 year old young man you have never had the pleasure of meeting that is likely doing more to give back to wildlife than you ever dreamed of at that age, simply because you have a "willie" over his old mans "perspectives" it speaks volumes as to who you are.

If that is how "credibility" is measured on this site, I'm glad I do not measure up.


----------



## Bad Dog

I know this doesn't have much to do with Cook, but discussions do evolve. I had mentioned this before in another discussion. This is from today's news.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43262400/ns ... ork_times/


----------



## Plainsman

Very interesting Bad Dog. Here is a taste for those that don't read the whole thing:



> As the surging waters of the Mississippi pass downstream, they leave behind flooded towns and inundated lives and carry forward a brew of farm chemicals and waste that this year - given record flooding - is expected to result in the largest dead zone ever in the Gulf of Mexico.
> Dead zones have been occurring in the gulf since the 1970s, and studies show that the main culprits are nitrogen and phosphorous from crop fertilizers and animal manure in river runoff. They settle in at the mouth of the gulf and fertilize algae, which prospers and eventually starves other living things of oxygen.


Of course then the fox in the hen house makes this statement:


> Don Parish, senior director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group, says behind that policy is the faulty assumption that farmers fertilize too much or too casually.


I think Farm Bureau of all those organizations is the most anti environmental. It's hard to know if they are the least caring about others or simply the most ignorant. It would be my guess they are in first place on both counts.


----------



## shaug

Very interesting Bad Dog. Here is a taste for those that don't read the whole thing:



> The United States Geological Survey has found that nine states along the Mississippi contribute 75 percent of the nitrogen and phosphorous. The survey found that corn and soybean crops were the largest contributors to the nitrogen in the runoff, and manure was a large contributor to the amount of phosphorous.


The USGS didn't say a word about the run off from these flooded towns concerning lawn fertilizers, lawn chemicals that go down the storm drains. They didn't report the sludge and human waste from these cities when water rips through them. HMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!

Plainsman used to work for the USGS. Got to love this lopsided reporting. We're from the federal government and we are here to help.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I'm just not interested in discussing them with anyone, anyone, anyone (get it I'm not making it personal) anyone that can't keep it on subject when reminded to.


plainsman, as a moderator, if you are going to lead by example and chastize someone for not staying "on subject", it works much better if the very next post you make, you do not go "off topic".  Is this thread about the anti corporate lawsuit from Cook Waterfowl or drainage? :roll:

Another "taste" from the article in it's entirety.

Don Parish, senior director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group, says behind that policy is the faulty assumption that farmers fertilize too much or too casually. Since 1980, he said, farmers have increased corn yields by 80 percent *while at the same time reducing their nitrate use by 4 percent through precision farming.[/b]

Yet another "taste" from the article.

Mr. Vilsack said that farmers had come a long way toward understanding their effect on ecosystems downstream and that what they needed were government incentives and creation of private markets - where, for example, farmers who do a lot of conservation could receive payments from farmers who do not - to help them improve environmental safeguards while they also keep food production high

And one last "taste" fom the article, note the very first sentence and it's appropriateness in this forum for certain people.

"A lot of folks are basing criticism and concerns on the way agriculture was, not the way it is now," Mr. Vilsack said in a phone interview. "We as a nation have an expansive appetite for inexpensive food. To produce more, you have to turn to strategies like chemicals and pesticides."

Recall someones authoratative claim farmers do not no till corn? Recall conversations about this nations "inexpensive food policies and someones references to things that happened 30 years ago? Perhaps this nations AG SECRETARY's "perspective will be more accepted. :wink:

plainsman if we are back on this topic, given the state wide and regional flooding issues happening, when can we expect to see your state wide letter to the editor claiming agriculture is the "cause" for all the flooding that is affecting NDans this spring. I know this question is "off subject" but if the moderator himself takes the thread "off subject" what's a guy to do? :wink:*


----------



## Plainsman

It is off subject, and I found that Bad Dog had it on here and on subject in the tile thread so that is where I will go with it. I'll talk about the "big" nitrate reduction there.

My only point was to show what a bunch of bull droppings the guy from Farm Burea was shoveling. They always have excuses for their pollution, and they always have contrary statistics.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> . I'm just not interested in discussing them with anyone, anyone, anyone (get it I'm not making it personal) anyone that can't keep it on subject when reminded to.





Plainsman said:


> It is off subject, and I found that Bad Dog had it on here and on subject in the tile thread so that is where I will go with it. I'll talk about the "big" nitrate reduction there.


plainsman, there you go "clarifying" again! :wink:


----------



## spentwings

You know gst... this thread hasn't been on topic for quite awhile.
Whether I like how this debate (?) went is immaterial.
You blame the site and moderator, but truth be told, on most sites if you piss the moderator off, 
even remotely,,,you're cut off at the knees.
I hear a lot of complaining from you about NoDak, but still you haven't been banned. :-? 
It's probably because you *are* an ag voice,,,count your blessings.
And let's be honest, if I bucked this site/moderator like you have,,, I'd be long gone.


----------



## spentwings

And just a preemptive followup ...this site ain't a democracy gst.
You aren't even a supporting member nor am I. But even if we were, it wouldn't change anything. 
BL,,,you or me with similar anti-site behavior????,,,,I'd be the first shown the door.


----------



## Plainsman

Spentwings I take extra grief because I am involved in the debate. However, I see the anti-site thing as strong arm tactics and trying to destroy to silence. I would be seen as petty if I boot people for giving me static while involved in debate, but your right about the anti-site rhetoric. I will not tolerate much more of that. I consider it a form of vandalism.


----------



## gst

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=91213

spentwings I understand this is a privately owned site and the people in charge can make any kind of rules ect... they wish. I have mentioned several times I enjoy debating issues. Courteously. Factually. Directly. I respect differing opinions (may not agree with them) if they are given in the same manner. I have NEVER called anyone an ignorant dumbass on this site. I have NEVER made a snide insinuation about someones kids or family on this site. I have NEVER made claims about an individual in a debate that are simply not true nor that I have not backed up when asked to.

Go back thru and see how many times I have asked someone to "please show" where something they claim was said or done and they have not done so because they can not because THE CLAIM THEY HAVE MADE SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. Yet the very person that does this the most is now threatening to kick me off his site.

When the people that own this site allow the people that moderate to carry on in this manner themselves, it is reflective of the site itself.

So plainsman, go ahead, kick me off the site, delete this post. It would likely be much easier than looking in the mirror and asking the question of yourself what have I as a moderator contributed to the fact that others seem to think this site is dying or becoming more and more negative. (see the above link)

plainsman has made it pretty clear what he thinks of people that "commercialize" wildlife.

Plainsman wrote,
I also want you to know that the only farming I don't like is the commercialization of wildlife. Well, native wildlife anyway. I don't much care if they have game farms with pheasants, but hunting deer and elk hunting inside fences is like a pedophile thinking he is the worlds greatest lover. I don't know which is worse the guy hunting inside the fence, or the guy preying on the none thinking and crying wolf, HSUS, wolf, HSUS, wolf. It's the first step in hunting for the rich only, but many are incapable of seeing that. End quote.

plainsman doesn't like some of the "perspectives" I have. So what does he do? Makes an admitted "insinuation" about my son "commercializing" the pheasants he raises as a FFA project by making "georges" off them. Putting him in the same catagory as he lists above. When he is backed into a corner after again repeating the same insinuation and even making a bet about it, what does he do? Offer an apology to a young man he has never met? Step up and take the bet he made? Hardly, he threatens to kick the kids old man off the site for "destroying" it.

So if you are going to kick me off ("silence" a "perspective" you do not agree with)so be it. It will simply be one more indicator of what others think this site has become. (see the above link)



Plainsman said:


> However, I see the anti-site thing as strong arm tactics and trying to destroy to silence. I would be seen as petty if I boot people for giving me static while involved in debate, but your right about the anti-site rhetoric. I will not tolerate much more of that.


So much for the staunch defense of the Constitution. Apparently a persons right to free speach does not carry over to this site! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

You have the freedom of speech gst, but you don't have the freedom to vandalize. I think you plan to go, but you would like to destroy the sandbox before you leave. That way he can have someone come on and say he got kicked off because of his view. No gst I would never kick anyone off because of their view. We have had soldiers die to protect that freedom, and they risk their lives today. They don't risk their lives to protect slashing tires, dumping sugar in a gas tank, or trying to destroy anything that belongs to another to "get even". So knock that stuff off. I didn't send you that last PM just for fun.
You can like commercialization of wildlife if you want, but I don't. Do I have the freedom to say that? Things appear to be a one way street for you gst. You can't force people to agree with you. That may work for the local sheep, but not many when your outside your small area. 
Now, I am not interested in this topic, and I am not interested in getting personal with you. It's way off subject when you simply attack people and the site. You will not make anyone look bad by crying victim and falling on your sword because I have been more than patient with you. As spentwings so correctly put it I have let you slide, and I have done it so people know I am not bias towards the farming community only some ag practices.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You have the freedom of speech gst, but you don't have the freedom to vandalize.


So please show EXACTLY how I have "vandalized"? It certainly appears the "freedom of speach" is limited to certain peoples veiws of what they wish to hear or not have others hear.

So if someone makes a claim about someone that is not true and they can not back up with any sort of proof when asked to because they KNOW the statement they made simply is not true, is that "vandalizing" that persons reputation? How about when someone calls someone that clearly, factually and directly voices their "perspective" an "ignorant dumbass", is that "destroying" someones reputation? Or is it an opinion simply like those shared as to what may be influencing what people think of this site???



Plainsman said:


> No gst I would never kick anyone off because of their view.


So why would I be kicked off then?? My "veiw" is that when moderators on this site behave in the manner you have in the past few debates starting with the HFH issue, it reflects badly on this site and keeps a portion of other people from joining in discussions and that may very well be a part of why others have asked "is this forum is dying" . Call that "vandalizing", destroying" ect... but it is simply "my veiw".



Plainsman said:


> You will not make anyone look bad by crying victim and falling on your sword because I have been more than patient with you.


plainsman, "I" am not the victim when you make snide insinuations towards my son whom you now know is not 40 ( recall your "clarifying" about that? ) :roll: . I have came on this site of my own free will and can more than handle what some windbag wishes to spout off about. But you choose to malign (recall your comments regarding those that "commercialize" wildlife) a fine young man that is giving back more than you likely ever dreamed of doing at that age incorrectly for "commercializing" raising and releasing pheasants that he does not receive a dime for doing, as an FFA project , and you do not have the backbone or common courteousy and decency to admit you crossed a line and were wrong in doing so and make a simple sincere apology to whom it matters (not me). If someone like you chooses to kick me off this site simply because "you" will not "tolerate" something, it would matter very little to me. You sir have shown your stripe. I would lay your "dollars to dimes" you would also not have the backbone to say directly in person what you have hiding behind your screen. THAT is simply "my veiw".

Plainsman I "have been more than patient with you " waiting for you to make an apology for your snide little incorrect insinuations regarding my son. So kick me off or apologize and quit your "whining" about "vandalizing" , "destroying" ect. and deal with someone actually calling you on your BS claims.


----------



## Plainsman

> I would lay your "dollars to dimes" you would also not have the backbone to say directly in person what you have hiding behind your screen.


I would tell you a lot more in person.

I see you got all bent out of shape about pheasants again. Didn't I say I didn't care about non native species and used pheasants as an example. Around here when we think of imported species we don't think of the things people in Texas may think of. We don't have fallow deer, we don't have gemsbok etc. If your honest there is only one thing we would think of. It appears your simply angry because I don't like the commercialization of wildlife, and I see those that do it in a very bad light.

So your son raises pheasants. So I asked how much he makes at it. Big deal isn't it gst?

Trying to undermine the site and damage it is what I consider vandalism gst. Now that you know I am sure you will understand and leave the site out of the argument. The only reason you complain about the site is to try damage me. Anyone with half a brain can see the ploy. It's sort of like holding the site hostage. Do as I say or I hurt the site. No more of that. 
Since you will not relent nor heed my warnings and are uncontrollable I have no choice but to lock this thread. If another moderator things it should remain they can reopen it. Do not carry this subject over to another thread gst. Enough is enough.


----------

