# ND versus Jim Cook



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

This an older article and I wondered if anybody had current info on the lawsuit? What got me wondering was the anti-hunting sentiment that pulled the land acquisition money from the NDGF budget. If Cook wins what are the consequences?

March 2007
(AP) Bismarck, N.D. North Dakota's anti-corporate farming law was put in place 75 years ago to protect the state's agricultural heritage. But a Minnesota businessman and his group say the law is unconstitutional, outdated and does nothing to protect the ducks.

The state on Thursday asked Southeast District Judge James Bekken to force James Cook to give up about 1,800 acres of property in Cavalier, Griggs and Ward counties.

The state says Cook, through his nonprofit Crosslands Inc., bought three parcels of land without government approval, the most recent in 2003 and 2004. The state sued two years ago after Cook ignored Gov. John Hoeven's order to get rid of the land.

The 68-year-old Minneapolis precious-metal dealer said he purchased his first property in North Dakota in 1980, "for the purposes of preserving wildlife and wetlands."

Cook, who grew up in Fargo, said the state is not doing enough to protect prime waterfowl habitat.

"We're wanting to win this for wildlife," Cook said Sunday.

The number of nonprofit groups allowed to buy land in North Dakota is limited under state law. The law, added to the state's ban on corporate farming in 1985, also requires government approval for land purchases, with the governor having the final approval.

Charles Carvell, an assistant state attorney general in Bismarck, said the anti-corporate farming law was passed in 1932.

"North Dakota's culture and heritage is family farms," said Carvell, who is representing the state in the case. "In 1932, the people in North Dakota felt that culture and heritage was worth protecting."

Carvell said he doesn't expect Bekken to rule on the case until late spring or early summer.

The state sued Cook in 2005, and he retaliated by filing a lawsuit in federal court challenging part of North Dakota's corporate farming ban. He argued that North Dakota is violating the U.S. Constitution's protection of interstate commerce by regulating nonprofit groups' land purchases.

A federal judge dismissed Cook's suit.

"They are making the same arguments they would have made in the federal case," Carvell said.

Rod Ustipak, managing director of Crosslands, said the group had no other option.

"The federal court ruled it was already in state court, and didn't allow us to go into federal court," Ustipak said.

Ustipak, of Brainerd, Minn., said he also manages about 5,000 acres of wildlife refuge land in Minnesota.

Cook and Ustipak said North Dakota is the only state that does not allow private landowners to sell land to whomever they want.

"It's unconstitutional," Ustipak said.

Carvell said the law is intended to stop groups from buying large tracts of farmland and taking it out of production.

"North Dakota has had this law 70 some years and it's not working," Ustipak said. "The family farm corporations now are as big as the corporations that they wanted to stop buying up all the land when the law was passed."

"In the 1930s, the whole legislature was made up of farmers," Ustipak said. "They passed laws that benefited farmers. But they didn't have the foresight to see that all the prairie would be broken up and all the wetlands drained."

Cook said he would like to continue to purchase land in North Dakota for wildlife protection.

"We don't want productive farmland," Ustipak said. "We want the roughest, rockiest, wettest land that we can find."

Carvell said it's only the second time the state's law has been challenged. In 1945, a Fargo hospital owned by a Minnesota nonprofit bought land in Cass County to lease to farmers, but the state said it was illegal.

The Minnesota corporation sued the state but lost the case in the U.S. Supreme Court, Carvell said. The Minnesota nonprofit argued that North Dakota's law violated equal protection and due process, among other things.

"They didn't raise the commerce clause, so that issue is still ripe and is still on the table," Carvell said.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Cook will not win. This law has been challenged numerous times and failed. If Cook wanted to buy and hold the land as a private citizen, there would be NO lawsuit or violation of the law. Since he wants to set it up as a nonprofit, there would be no taxes paid for road maintanence or schools in the district the land is located, thus the concerns , rightly so, of the courts. If his ulterior motive(so every dollar he "donates" to his non profit are tax deductible) were pure ,`there wouldnt be a big stink about it. It is all a calculated tax dodge under the disguise of wetland enhancement.


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

F350,

That's not true. Nonprofits must pay the property taxes just like anyone else and they do. The only one that fudges on the taxes from time to time is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when they pay "in-lieu-of" taxes. Sometimes that payment doesn't come to the full amount.

There is a concerted effort in North Dakota to restrict the sale of land to nonprofits like Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, etc. Just recently an elderly lady in Kidder County needed to sell her 600 acres to pay for rest home care. The land was up for sale for three years and finally DU made an offer at market price. She accepted. The Kidder County Commission denied the sale and a land acquisition committee in Bismark, chaired by Roger Johnson, concurred and denied the sale. The Governor also concurred.

Now, you tell me how the county or state should have the authority to deny an exchange of land between a willing seller and willing buyer - just because they want to? That is unConstitutional in my mind. It would be different if the buyer was going to build a nuclear waste dump or a prison for child molestors but neither the county, state or governor should have had a say in this sale. Johnson was quoted as saying, "There was nothing special about the land." Who made him God?

The concern is the land would be worth less with a perpetual easement attached to it. First, I doubt that. Second, the future value of the land is none of their business. Only the buyer and the seller should be concerned about that.

This same antiquated mentality is what lead to that $800,000 being removed from the Game and Fish Appropriations budget. Now we have to fight to get OUR money back from these squirrels at the capitol. I just can't get over the arrogance possessed by some leaders of this state!!


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

UNconstitutional?? Hardly. Laws are written for the good of society to keep special interest minority fringe groups from the inevitable give an inch, take a mile analogy. Treehugging slough lovers are the minority. Or pheasents forever, RMEF, Mule deer groups, National wild turkey fed, and on and on and on. Where would it end if all of these groups ( and tons more I didnt have time to list) suddenly bought out ND?? It must give you a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about it.Oh but the lazy slob hunters from the east would have a place to hunt.Lets play devils advocate, if you truly want (and some road I dont want to go down) to help the wonderful populations of ducks etc, cancel the seasons. Heck its not like catch and release fishing. They are pretty much doa when shot. That will help more than Cooks dream project. Or DU 's.

ND will always be an ag state. Our legislature and elected officials have and will see that special interest fringe groups will not impede the production of food and fiber. And you will be the first to whine when the food bill goes up when its not produced locally or nationally. Food security is what it is all about.
You bring up the G and F $800 k. Sounds good , but just to buy more land when they dont take care of what they already have, is really ridiculous at the least. Heck I think your house and backyard should be the first to be purchased and let the public use it. Its the American way. Then you can hire more government employees (USFWS) to oversee it, that will get all your du buds that cuss at Obama and cash that government work check because they too inept to make it in the private sector and give them job security. 
All in all Cook's motives are like a wolf in sheeps clothing, ie TAX DODGE!! If it was so all fired ( or DU"S) wonderful, buy it privately, and yes you can too , sell your soul to the USFWS easement program , and put it back on the market. Or hold it. Might even make a little cash from what I hear they pay. Heck I could set up my own "special" nonprofit for my farm for some some ridiculous cause that I REALLY think is important, and shelter my income for the deductions to my "special nonprofit". I might have to look into that so Curt Wells can pay down the national debt because my tax dodge scheme will work .Great idea!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

F350, I have and will always be a supporter of Ag in the state. However, much of ND laws regarding land use is very contradictory and as a result will lead to the overturn of this law or at least a portion of the law.

The purpose of the law when passed was to prevent the return of Bonanza type farms that where very prevalent in the RRV prior to the depression era. The goal was to keep large corps from owning and controlling land and to keep families on the farm as operators. Today many Farm Corp own more land than those Bonanza farms of yesteryear. The changing of the law to allow one form of Corp vs another is what is likely to sink this current law. The last challenge to the law was done prior to these changes.

Plus we see conflicts as well. On one hand you and others support the ideas of canned shooting arena as private property rights, but want to deny a seller the right of who can buy his land and limit possibly his return of investment.

I was opposed to what Cook was doing until I actually spent some time this past year looking at some of the land in question. All of the people who hunt that area benefit and with the flooding this year. Many more people who do not hunt are benefiting from his land use in storing and holding water on his land that is not draining into the Sheyenne basin. So people from his land south and east and then back north into Canada are benefiting as well.

I do believe the state realizes that they are at a cross roads and once this gets beyond the state court as this will, it will result in a wholesale change in our current laws. I think that the court in its questions to both sides is making this pretty clear. ND law will stand in regards to Cargill or similar being prevented from buying land that is Ag, but the Conservation and Non Profits are going to get a blessing especially when that land is listed as highly erodible or has large amounts of wetlands or native grasses being protected.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> You bring up the G and F $800 k. Sounds good , but just to buy more land when they don't take care of what they already have, is really ridiculous at the least.


Amen to that 350, I have a management area next to me. It's solid weeds, they removed all the tree's, worked the tillable ground black,all the top soil is on my land now) and they never mow their ditches. But as Dick Monson always says, let the professionals do it uke:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

g/o,

I trust you will do the honorable thing and take all that worthless topsoil you got and put it back on the G&F land.

Jim


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

No jhegg as usual everything went over your head. You guys are wanting the game and fish to have more land when they don't deserve to. Until they become good stewards of the land it would be senseless to let them have more.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Yes sometimes the only way to get rid of non native species of grass that have made the parcel of land non productive for wildlife is to bust it up. We have had a number of those in my home area and each and every one of them is now good nesting cover and wildlife friendly shrubs and trees have been planted on them.

Once again G/O you continue to snipe at the G&F without finding out the reasons why they are doing something.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Again Ron you continue to show your ignorance,like always you have no idea what you are talking about. It is no wonder Joel and Ed always hang up on you. They destroyed every tree on the place and have no intentions of planting anymore.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So G/O tell us what the purpose of the land is by you? Tell us what program it is under and the directives set down for that parcel in regards to conservation?

I know what they are, just wondering if you have the guts to tell the people you either do not know or show that your statement regarding the removal of the trees and work being done to re-establish the ground as native plants and grasses.

Or if you like I will set it all out and show everyone once again your comments are nothing more than sniping at the G&F!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ron, Again you are missing the point, what they have for a plan I would not know. Apparently if you know, either you contacted someone from the game and fish or that individual sent you pm instead of joining in. Regardless Ron, the land is full of noxious weeds, if I was to do that I would be fined or would have to clean it up. We have rules about mowing ditches the game and fish did not mow, in fact I mowed the ones next to me for them. Like I said until they prove to me they can take care of the land they have I see no reason to let them buy more. This my opinon, I could care less if you agreed.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Figured you had no idea as to what is taking place with the property. So instead, you take a pot shot at the G&F.

So just to be clear, the conservation plan for that piece of property is to return it to a native state. Many species of birds who are prairie nesters are hindered by trees and also non native species of grasses.

But instead of finding out what and why things where done you chose to use it as an example of why the G&F should not have anymore land when in fact they are actually doing exactly what is needed to restore this property.

So I guess once again, you try and paint people as not knowing what is going on because you live in the rural area. Here a city boy as you like to paint others, a 150 miles from you knows what is going on in your back yard and you do not!!!!!!!

Maybe people should keep that in mind when you make your claims statements regarding wildlife losses as well!!!!!!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Your informant is wrong sorry Ron. Still it doesn't excuse them from not controlling the noxious weeds on the property does it Ron? Still does not excuse them from not mowing ditches does it Ron? Still doesn't excuse them from letting precious top soil blow all winter does it Ron? Like always Ron you still don't know ****


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O plain and simple, you have a weed board,county commision and township officals. If these gross violations are occuring as you so boldly claim, I assume you have done your civic duty and brought the weed issue to the proper authority, contacted the township and had them mow the top of the road and bill the landowner.

If it is illegal as you say then by all means as a civic minded person it should be reported!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Who gives a **** if a ditch isn't mowed..... My god, you two will give each other a heart attack one day.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

If you live in or travel the country in the winter, you understand the importance of mowing ditches. Ron have you ever been on a township board or county weed board and tried to deal with the G&F, USF&W, or some of these other groups owning these lands? It's not as easy as you may think. I guess I'm not surprised to see you and Dick still think having one more piece of land to go and shoot a duck is more important than rural communities being able to have these lands in production and contributing to their economys. Do the math, these 600 acres in Kidder County will typically be able to run 60 cows or more. The average yearly imput costs on a cow are about 350$ or $21000, the sales generated by these cattle will be approximately $36000, for a total of $57000 used and generated. Take this times a low 1.5 multiplier effect in the local community and you get about $85000 that will be taken out of this community every year if these lands are taken out of production by some of these wildlife groups. If it is cropland these figures could easily be $200,000. Comparetively this would be the same as if your city of Fargo had something generating a few million dollars taken out of their economy. Many of us in these small rural communities want to keep them viable, we don't want to have to send our kids to Fargo to school, or run there to purchase everything we need. The people in these small communities also understand the value of having someone being a watchdog over these groups and individuals and how their actions will affect our livihoods and futures. The commision that makes up this reveiwal proccess has multiple use groups comprising it's makeup. When it rules in favor you and Dick call it visionary, when it rules against, you guys call it a "kangaroo court" (earlier post by Dick) You guys keep this, I want more and more land for wildlife and hunting regardless of how it is gotten up, and see where it gets you in these small communities. Ron why didn't you go and speak your point at the meeting held on these acres in Kidder County? Your comments like "everyone who hunts this area will benefit" will I'm sure go over well especially if you finish with as long as they aren't nonresidents that are helping your local economy by commercializing my wildlife. You say you are a supporter of ag, but reading your posts it seems like that stops when it starts to affect your hunting and your ethical veiws.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

gst first off most of the land in question is non productive land as was the case in GF area. It had been on the market for a long period of time with no takers. Cooks land is also very low production land and the property that G/O is referring to is a parcel of land that is enrolled in the WRP program so it is not land owned by the G&F. In fact it is land that is privately held which means the landowner is still responsible for weeds and road top mowing. The argument concerning communites is a false one since these properties are not displacing new or beginning farmers. The local coop and other fuel providers now are seeing farmers buying things in large volume. Fuel,fertilizer etc.. are being bought where they can get the best price. Which means the supplier for fuel to the local dealer sells direct to the farmer for many times a lower price.

Then lets look at the consolidation of fertilizer and grain elevators as well. It is not a quarter or section of land here and there throughout the state that is causing the small community to continue to lose population and businesses. It is the buying habits of the people in those communites.

Now in regards to your other assertion about dealing with the G&F or USFWS in regards to weed issues and such. Yes I have, you and G/O forget that I have not always lived in the city and that we still have our farm. We have a number of parcels of WPA and state management areas in our township and have had great cooperation from both agencies.

My guess is that issues of weeds is ignored by the weed boards out of self preservation and to avoid having to enforce similar complaints or issues against other landowners.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron, Of course being involved in the production side of agriculture I am aware of the many changes our industry has undertaken and because I currently reside and make my living in one of these rural communities I can tell you firsthand how ideas and attitudes such as yours are recieved by many people that live in them as well. Years ago, whenever you were "on the farm" there was a much different mentality and ideology amongst people then there is now. These agencies did not have the the kinds of people that they are dealing with now pushing for them to provide these opportunities and access thru land aquisition and regulation no matter what, like they seem to have now. You know the type I'm reffering to don't you. As a result, dealing with these agencies back then was quite different then it is now, I can assure you. The wildlife orgs. did not have these same types of people as members that care more about hunting opportunities, land aquisition, access and control thru lawsuits and regulations, then the people making their livelyhoods on these lands, as they do now, then they did back when you were "on the farm". These orgs. and agencies are not content to own and control only nonproductive land and if you think that you are simply wrong. The land in Kidder County was productive land that may very well have been impacted from remaining so if easements were applied by and or sold to these orgs. or agencies. 
I'm sure all rural communities and the businesses located in them would have a different oppinion than yours as to their fate. Simply because the local coop or fuel providers are facing new challenges then they were back when you were on the farm are you suggesting they should just close their doors on their business and their communities? Do you think these communities and businesses should simply allow these dollars to leave because things are changing? If you think "the argument concerning communities is a false one" in regards to the affect continued taking of lands out of prodution agriculture by these agencies and wildlife orgs. will have on their future, it only shows how little concern or knowledge you have in regards to these communities or this issue. I guess as long as you and Dick and other "sportsmen" like you can travel out of Fargo or Valley City for the day and shoot all the ducks you want, you apparently have very little concern as to the fate of the rural communities you are driving by.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

gst, you think that I do not spend any time in my home community or with the farmers who are friends and neighbors who are the same people sitting on the weed board, township board, school boards etc...

These are the same people who I spoke of that have stood up when people like you wanted to farm section lines, or right up to the edge of the township roads. They see what has been happening to the local businesses as farms become bigger. They are the same people who donate money to the local community to keep a café and small store open. They get it, but you don't want to hear that.

I realize not all people have the same view point, but the majority of them do not see the G&F as a threat in regards to ownership of land. Others also are wondering why people like you are dictating who they can sell their land to now that they are of retirement age.

You continue to try and paint people like me who have deep roots in my home town as being out of touch. You do not even realize Dick farms himself.

This issue of Cook is going to change a number of things in ND, and I think much of it you are not going to like. It is not going to damage the rural towns, the Corp farms operating under the pretense of family farms are doing that now. Conservation land purchases of erodible and wetland type tracts are going to be allowed I think when this is said and done by non profits. Small town ND will continue unfazed by this, but will continue to dwindle for the same reasons they have been declining for the past 70 years.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I didn't read every post, but I have to say I sure would like to see more public land in North Dakota. As we get more industries in North Dakota it will eventually move away from agriculture controlling everything. The anti corporate law was a self serving law written by farmers in the legislator. No one else can take a winter and go sit in the legislature, but that is changing slightly.
As far as taxes anyone who buys land for conservation should pay a reduced rate. As stated the tax is for services, but when no one lives on the land no services are required. They don't need roads, they don't need education for children that don't exist, they don't need any emergency services, yet the local politicians think they should get full taxes from the land. Politicians and taxes. :eyeroll: 
I also think farmers who have land in conservation acres should pay reduced taxes. That land is providing services beyond the farmers interests. As others have mentioned if it has wetlands it provides water retention, it provides improved soil conditions for the future, it provides hunting opportunities (maybe), and it takes land out of production driving commodity prices up for their neighbors. For us it drives grocery prices up, but it's a price I am willing to pay.

When landowners complaining about anyone, private or government, buying land they may be shooting themselves in the foot. When they grow old and are looking to sell they may be offered $100 more per acre by one of these conservation minded individuals or groups than their local land grabber is willing to pay. Even today's land grabber will eventually be tomorrows seller.

While preserving North Dakota's heritage sounds good on the surface I don't think it's constitutional to tell someone who they can sell to. It should be the landowners choice. A group of landowners in the legislator shouldn't be able to dictate to an individual landowner who he can sell to. there are two sides to this coin.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

*F350 Wrote*



> Treehugging slough lovers are the minority. Or pheasents forever, RMEF, Mule deer groups, National wild turkey fed, and on and on and on. Where would it end if all of these groups ( and tons more I didnt have time to list) suddenly bought out ND?


I skimmed through most of the post but not all of them. Did anyone mention that ND is the only state with this law? I dont see any other state Suddenly bought out.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron, The difference here is myself and the many rural people I speak of that have issues with these wildlife agencies and groups owning and controling more and more land ARE the people that are sitting on the weed board, township board, school board, coop board,cattlemans board, town council, church board ect.. and actually live and raise our families here, not just keep in touch and visit now and then. We've chosen to remain here and deal with the challenges that you and plainsman speak of that we face in these small communities and do something about them to keep our communities growing and thriving. Our "roots" are here because we actually do live and raise our families here not just "spend time" here.
You assume, and incorrectly so, that just because myself and others question people like your's and Dick's(whom I do know farms) need to have more and more land owned by these wildlife groups and agencies that we have no commitment to conservation. Once again you are simply wrong. Why do you think ND has the quality of wildlife and hunting we do? Because these very people that have chosen to remain in these rural communities understand the value of having these things! 
Corporate farming has been going on in ND for years, and the quaint image of the "family farm" with a few chickens, a couple of milk cows , and Pa goin out to plow the back 40 are long gone. No one knows that better than the people living in these small communities. We are dealing with these types of changes and their effects on our communities all the time. And I promise you these communities do not want more land being given or sold to orgs. and agencies that will result in as plainsman said about lowering taxes for these groups "when no one lives on the land no services are required. They don't need roads, they don't need education for children that don't exist, they don't need emergency services" Run that one by your friends on the township or school board and see what they say! Also his refence to growing old and wanting to sell to these agencies or orgs. for $100 dollars more. While this may happen in some cases, the vast majority of landowners that grow old in ND are passing this land down to the next generation, who also have chosen to remain in these rural communities, and having these orgs. paying over the productive value of the land only causes problems for far more people than it would help. Those of us who live here understand this.
Ron Statements and ideologies like these sums up in a nutshell the problem!!!!! And all one has to do is go thru many of the hundreds of posts you've written and it's clear to see your ideology is not much different. So while you live and raise your family in the city of Fargo and come out to "the farm" to visit friends and neighbors, the rest of us actually living in these hundreds of rural communities will continue to do what we need to despite of what people like yourself with these ideas think is best for us and the land. The next time you pull into someones yard to ask permission to go hunting, why don't you share some of these veiws with the landowner. I'm sure the guy that doesn't have the "family farm" to go hunting on that pulls into the yard next looking for access will be glad you did.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

gst, we can go back and forth regarding this issue. In your area maybe the view you portrait is the dominate viewpoint. It is not however universal across the state. The issue of someone living on the land is almost funny because take for example the sale of 16,000+ acres in Stutsman county in Feb did not result in anyone new living on those acres. Services needed now that new owners procured the property changed not one bit.

You spout the FB mantra regarding this and it is laughable at best.

Like I said we will see what the court decides, I think it will uphold the Corp law regarding owning land with the intent of farming it. I think they will toss the restriction regarding non profits who are buying land for the purpose of conservation out the window. SD law was upheld in large part because of the fact it targeted for profit operations, but SD does not restrict non profits from owning land for conservation purposes. The last time this law in ND was challenged that issue was not brought into play and it is this time around.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron You need to get outside the valley and get a perspective of what life in the rest of ND is like!! Contrary to what many of you in Fargo believe not everyone in the state thinks like you.

Parcels of the land in Stutsman County may very well have been used to add to an operation so that one or more family members could remain on the farm for the next generation and may indeed end up with some one living on them. And as long as that land remains in production you are correct, services needed would not change significantly. How ever what if one of these wildlife orgs decided to buy the entire 16,000 acre parcel for more than the productive or market value and put it into habitat and allow no production ag to take place, what happens to service providers then? What if these orgs. were given a reduced tax liability on this land as plainsman suggests what would be the results on the surrounding communities? Many other states have had hundreds of thousands of acres taken out of production agriculture because they allowed this to happen. Western Mt. is a prime example with what the RMEF is doing. Laughable??? Hardly!!!The FB position and that of the NDSA and I believe even FU on this issue is to put production agriculture and the families and communities that rely on it for their livelhood as well as the consumers we are feeding here and around the world before these issues or habitat preservation and hunting opportunities. All these groups understand that these things(conservation) can be achieved along side production ag, but can not be allowed to take precedence over it.

What is funny or laughable at best is someone that after growing up on a farm and moving to the "big city" to raise his family thinks they know what is best for the people in the rural communities who are still actually living there.

I'm not a lawyer so I can not tell you what the results of this lawsuit will be, but as a rancher living in one of these rural communities I can tell you what the the results will be if these orgs. and agencies are allowed to buy more and more land or are given plainsman's tax reduced or exempt status. Sportsmen looking for places to hunt will be increasingly hard pressed to find them on remaining private lands. Keep pushing these lawsuits and increased regulations and see what happens.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So gst, with the severe amount of flooding across all of ND, tell me why then are so many afraid to allow wetland easements be put in place. You know the type that would have helped many county and township roads from washing out this spring? Those according to you are needed production acres that are vital to the survival of the farmers and communites of which many cannot now get to the community from the farm because they have no road left!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thus my point in that not everyone in the farming community holds your view. Not every township has ineffective weed boards either. Thus my point regarding this current suit. The fact is that the laws intent was to protect family farms from large corp making them tenant farmers like what happened in the cotton growing areas down south. It was to prevent Bonanza farms from occurring once again and to keep people actively on the farms and in the community and state.

Since the law was relaxed and changed, it has eroded those principals even more so than before, and you are worried about a non profit or the state wildlife agency owning a parcel of land!

Your viewpoint is one of simple greed. You reduce at this point a competitive bidder on land, you promote the continuation of wetland destruction to further increase your profits with no thought of what that water does down stream and the list goes on and on.

Like I told G/O my father had a similar viewpoint until late in his life when he saw the havoc and destruction this type of thinking produced. We have taken efforts to undo what can be done on the land we own and have seen many others who especially this year realize that more grass land and wetlands would have been far more beneficial to all than what currently is taking place. Many of these people are now second or third generation and did not make the decision to ditch and drain. Many of them also where not the ones facing issues from the Garrison Diversion plan as well. Instead they are the ones seeing now year after year roads and bridges being lost to poor water and conservation plans of the past.

But we will all have to wait and see!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron Typical USF&W wetland easements are for 99 years. The "severe amount of flooding across all of ND" that you are talking about this spring is considered a once in 100 year flood. So you're saying these lands should be enrolled in a 99 year easement because of a 1 in 100 year flood??? I'm guessing the people in these communities and farms and ranches will simply use the tax dollars generated from these productive ag lands and rebuild roads and continue to use these acres for production the remaining 99 years. Also the flooding that happened this year simply would not have been contained in these easements you speak of. What you need to realize Ron is outside of the RRV there is very little tiling and draining done in the rest of the state. So your anger over this draining and ditching doesn't really hold much water so to speak outside of the RRV. I'll let you carry on that argument with other people that have chose to live in a flood plain.

Let's look at your statement "Your veiwpoint is one of simple greed" 
I am simply advocating things that most rural communities( at least the ones other than where you live) consider important, local lands not being taken out of production or from the tax base because of the long term impact it may have on their schools, businesses, families and population. You're advocating these lands be put into wildlife management so that you and Dick can have another place to shoot a duck. Whose "veiwpoint is one of simple greed"??????

I'm "worried" as you put it of orgs and agencies coming into our state and buying large tracts of land and taking them out of production and negatively affecting the local economies in these rural communities like has been done in many other states simply because people like you that live in cities like Fargo want to have one more place to shoot a duck, a pheasant, or an elk!

I applaud you for doing what ever conservation practices you desire on your own lands, and tell you you have no idea of the amounts of dollars spent on the many types of conservation we do on ours so many of your assumptions are simply wrong. However in our situation it is being done in conjunction with keeping these lands in production because we understand the value of being a part of these rural communities. Something that seems to be lacking from your living in Fargo.

Ron, if you would actually call up your friends on these township boards and ask them what they think of plans like plainsmens to give tax breaks to these orgs and agencies because of the reasons he listed. Ask them even about giving tax breaks to people that put their land into CRP (conservation) like plainsman suggested and then move out of the community to cities like Fargo taking these dollars with them. All the while getting no tax breaks on their productive lands and in actuallity being faced with having to raise them to offset the loss of revenue from these wildlife lands tax breaks to continue to maintain the services needed in their communities. Ask them if they would be concerned if a 1000 or 2000 or more acres were taken out of production in their township and had no income being generated from them to be put back into their local communities. Then honestly post the responses you get from them so we can all see. With the "roots" you claim to have to the rural communities you should be able to do this with little problems.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Well put gst. Also the point about blaming tiling for the flooding is a mute point. Everybody knows the ground freezes below tiling depth and there is NO percolation of water through tile lines, ie transfer of water during the rapid snowmelt. Common sense , the ground is froze

As for the constant railing on the Obama retoric against evil corporations, in this case farming, I challenge you to read the law. It is limited to 10 or 12 related by blood people. As for your statement on the 16 k acres by Jamestown , I will bet you 99% that was bought will be farmed / ranched will be operated by the purchaser or will be rented out to a neighbor. It wont be simply abandoned or idled , thus contributing to the tax base

Asfor your implied rapid turnover in land , sorry not the case . This is why in some instances land gets passed on for generations. The extra $100 , whoopee, I wouldnt sell my soul to the devil for that . Or any price. Greed has no place on this place.[/quote]


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

gst not sure what part of the state you are in, but the amount of draining and drain enhancement and tiling being done outside of the RRV is staggering. Like I told G/O my area of observation is not my drive to town for mail or coffee as it appears is yours.

You want to get together and take a day drive I will gladly show you close to 1000 acres of wetlands that have been drained in the last 5 years alone and many more where tile has been installed that is if we have any rural roads left to drive on from all the flooding that took place the past few years in these areas. No teeth left in Swampbuster,no state wide water board to ensure no drainage since these wetlands are no longer protected by the COE.

The issue at hand is Cook and the fact that the ND Leg has decided who can and cannot buy land. My own thought is that if we cannot legally keep G/O from coming into the state and operating under commerce clause rules it most certainly stands to reason we cannot limit who buys land in ND.

Now in regards to easements, 30 years is all that can be granted without approval and the reasons for that where the same BS you are spewing regarding this issue. Wonder why with the most wetlands ND is one of the lowest easement states in the nation? It is because of these rules! It makes more sense to preserve a wetland where you can protect it for ever or a long period of time vs the short period allowed now.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> I didn't read every post, but I have to say I sure would like to see more public land in North Dakota. As we get more industries in North Dakota it will eventually move away from agriculture controlling everything. The anti corporate law was a self serving law written by farmers in the legislator. No one else can take a winter and go sit in the legislature, but that is changing slightly.
> I just thought I would point out plainsman s anti farmer bias. Implying that farmers are responsible for this law even though everyone (except him) knows the legislative districts are drawn based on population , and gee , there are way more urban than rural districts. Oh and the " no one else comment", wow, you imply that ALL farmers take the winter off so they are possible legislative canidates. Makes me smile and knod knowing that anybody like you with a federal job connection is just too damn inept to make it in the private sector.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

F350, I knew you would enjoy that. Your sort of a fungi.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron The western 3/4 of the state of ND has little draining, mostly because of the swampbuster rules you mention. Let someone try to do more than mantain the few existing drains there were before it took effect and see what happens! Like I said you have to get outside the RRV more often, even with your cup of coffee and paper. As far as your "days drive" , that can easily be from one side of the state to the other. 1000 acres in 5 years is all you could show me!!!! Hardly what I'd consider massive amounts of land being drained!!! Besides at least 1/2 of the day would be spent rehashing your veiws on baiting I'd guess!! Once again Ron your anger about the draining and ditching doesn't hold much water outside the eastern 1/4 of the state.

So you would like to prohibit G&O from coming into our state, but take more private lands out of production to put into wildlife management areas so you can have another place to shoot a duck, and you suggest someone elses veiws are based on greed?????????????

As to the easements, we own land that has 99 year USF&W easements attached, this last fall we also recieved in the mail a pamphlet explaining the program and how you can easily have 99 year easements. So you are once again simply wrong in those regards.

As to ag communities around the state's veiwpoints, I sit on a state wide ag board with 26 board members representing all of the areas of the state. This issue is discussed each year at our annual convention and few if any of our 2700 members or board have voiced agreement with your position, and are opposed to these types of groups and agencies owning more land in this state because of the very issues I've mentioned. So I would say this position is much more common in rural; communities across the state than what you may wish to portrait. Please let us know the responses to the questions I posed from your farmer friends on these township and school boards in this rural communitiy you were from. Maybe even suggest some of them get on this site and post them themselves after reading this thread!


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

And Plainsman , you are kinda a south end of a northbound horse. This of course in response your analogy of me  . Really should expect more of MODERATORS on this board. :roll:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I believe that Plainsman's analogy of you is that of a mushroom (fungi). You have lived in the dark and have been fed a lot of BS.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So which state wide board do you sit on? Clearly that will help in determining just what we are hearing from you. Also please share with us who you partnered with in regards to the easement. I know that will also be of interest, since DU,Delta or similar groups are prohibited from having more than a 30 year easement for conservation.

You continue to pick and chose on these issues. Like I said before, come for a ride with me. I will make sure that all of these wetlands drained and tiled are west of #1 and a good portion of them west of 281.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron As all state ag groups that I am aware of have virtually the same policies regarding the issue of wildlife orgs. and agencies owning more productive ag lands and on their tax status that their thousands of statewide members from these rural communities have adopted at their annual meetings, I'm not sure what difference it would make. But I'll make a deal with you as soon as you contact these farmer friends of yours that are on these township and school boards and read them plainsmans post regarding taxes and tell them your position of needing more and more wildlife habitat and production areas so you can have another place to shoot another duck and post their responses to my questions accurately and honestly, I will tell you what board it is I am on!!! As I'm very proud of this org. and it's record and reputation, and being asked to be a part of it's leadership, I will have no problem answering your question if you'll only answer mine.

As to the easements on our lands, they were entered into back in I believe the 1940's, so we only have about another 30 some years left on them!!!. The pamphet we recieved was from I believe the USF&W and we did not pursue "partnering" in any of their programs. I'm not really following your pick and chose on these issues statement. Unless you mean not answering questions that are asked of me.

As far as your ride offer, I'll make another deal with you . If you'll spend a day riding with me in the western 3/4ths of this state. I promise to show you literally hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife mangement areas, national waterfowl refuges, waterfowl production areas, state and national parks, lands with federal wetland easements, national grasslands, national forrest service lands, state forrest lands, CRP acres, WRP acres, private lands dedicated to wildlife habitat, private rangelands entered into conservation agreements with the NRCS and numerous other conservation programs and acres I can't even think of right now that provide ongoing longterm wildlife habitat and wetlands protections. Then I'll come ride with you for a day and you can show me these 1000 acres you mentioned of draining that have destroyed all wildlife habitat. And I won't even bring up the baiting issue!!!!! You better get here early though,and bring a full thermos of coffee for the drive, I don't think we could see it all in just one day!!!!


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Swift, dont get lumped in with plainsman . Actually he fits the fungi label remarkably well.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So gst once again why are you afraid to step out into the light and tell us what the name of the statewide organization is that you are so proud of?

Is it because you are misrepresenting the Org since you are posting under a screen name to hide your identify?

Or maybe it is that your Org uses these types of tactics to avoid getting stink on them and use surrogates like you who claim anonymity behind the screen name in cyberspace.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron You really have to read these posts a little slower so you can understand what is being said. I told you I would gladly tell you this org. if YOU would only answer a couple of simple questions. I did this simply because of your past unwillingness to answer specific questions when you know the answers won't back up your statements. So as soon as we hear the responses from your farmer friends that sit on these boards I'll step right up answer your question.

As far as "misrepresenting the Org." I share mine and others comments like yours that are made on this site with our board, and some actually log on to read what is being said when some of the topics are relative to issues we deal with, so I'm not misrepresenting anything. The statements I make on this site are mine, however I try very hard to represent the positions of our org. in the best interests of our members. However if you have questions on the official positions of this org, or how my statements may relate to them, they can be answered very directly and professionally by our communications director or executive vice president.

As to the "tactics" this org. uses. We have a 77 year history of representing our industry with straightfoward, integrity, honesty, and hard work. Because of this we have become one of the most respected agriculture organizations in this state. We are a true grasroots org. where every members voice is heard, and as such our positions are developed with all members input and as such represent our industry quite well in many different arenas. We are quite proud of our history, our heritage, and commitment to our members and our industry and have no need to "hide" behind anyone or thing.

So instead of going off on these mystery tangents Ron and getting "off topic", simply answer the questions posed to you and you'll get the same in return!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

swift said:


> I believe that Plainsman's analogy of you is that of a mushroom (fungi). You have lived in the dark and have been fed a lot of BS.


Oooooh, that's good I'll have to remember it. I have heard that before, but not as fungi. Actually I was being a lot more simple. I had just seen a goofy cartoon with a carrot and a mushroom in a bar and the carrot is toasting the mushroom and saying actually your a fungi. It was one of the grandkids cartoons I think.
I guess I shouldn't have expected anyone to catch on to that. My meaning was it takes little to get some guys going and I find it kind of humorous. So fungi = fun guy. Dumb, I know.
It was an educational book for little kids and as a biologist I thought it was really funny. One of those jokes no one else gets I guess. My goof up.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Since it seems you want to hide behind a veil, I will once again say it clearly. In my home community and the townships surrounding it, the views you present do not reflect all of rural ND. Now having set on the township board, been an active member of the rural fire dept and as I said spend a good deal of time their doing things in the community from volunteer work to better the town etc.. I am reflecting the comments and attitude that for the most part I would say the majority hold. Not everyone, not every farmer, nor every township board member.

Most of them to be honest do not visit this site,nor other outdoor sites, some of them because of the lack of high speed, others simply because they do not care to partake in these debates. However, I will ask this weekend if any of them care to chime in as you wish and it will be up to them.

You on the other hand are claiming to be a representative of an Org in this state, but continue to hide which one it is?

Like FB for example who a few years back claimed to have X number of members supporting their position regarding posting of lands. Funny thing happened, in that their members where not asked their position views, but it was represented this way.

So do all of the members of your organization vote on your policy or does simply paying dues or insurance premiums constitute agreement with what the board decides?

A lot of what you claim to be and represent would be cleared up if you simply come clean!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron Since I already know what the response would be from almost every member of a township or school board, or farmer and rancher in these rural communities to these questions I'll let you off the hook. As costs of expenditures for services, road building and maintainence and spraying continue to rise, no township is going to want land taken out of production or off the tax base. As rural schools face declining enrollment, consolidation and ever increasing costs associated with every program they have, no school boards or community is going to want land taken out of production or off the tax base. As farmers and ranchers are faced with ever increasing costs to maintain their operation, and would face higher taxes on their lands if others were taken out of the tax base and lose opportunities if lands were taken out of production none will want this.

In the last few years attitudes in rural areas have undergone changes towards these wildlife orgs. and agencies as they have changed their policies and how they go about acomplishing their goals. this willingness to use lawsuits to further their agendas towards private lands does not sit favorably with most rural people. So perhaps since you have been on the township board things have changed. Since you seem to be above "hiding behind a veil" perhaps you would tell us what community and township you keep refering to and how long ago it was you were involved there.

The NDFB like almost all ag orgs. in ND is a grassroots org. in which every member has the ability to present reolutions or policy and have it voted on at it's annual convention. If these members choose not to be involved at this level. they can hardly complain as to the direction "their" org. takes and the policies it sets. Of course not every member will agree on a course so they can always make the choice to become more involved and change policy, or discontinue membership if it suits them. Whining while being a member and doing nothing is simply whining! NDFB and NDFU are unique in the fact they sell insurance and require policy holders to be members, but it still remains a choice for people to do so with the understanding of this requirement. And these people have the same opportunity and responsibility to be involved in the direction and policy of their orgs. they are paying dues to. If they choose not to then it is the people that do that set policy and determine direction.

How about this for a little fun. I will tell you that I am a member of the NDFB, the NDFU, and the NDSA. I'll give you a chance to guess which it is that I'm a board member of. The comments I've made in regards to this issue are standing policy in all three orgs. so you will have to use other clues I have given you to solve this great mystery. I'll give you the evening to figure it out before I "come clean" and lift "the veil" of secrecy. For fun try making your guess without getting on these orgs websites. Doing that would make it too easy.!!!! If anyone else wants to join Rons fun have at it!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

gst, I know who you are, what Org you represent etc... my point remains the same. So to make sure that there is no confusion, you are a coward hiding behind a screen name instead of coming into the light.

Way back when I used a screen name on this site, but changed it to my name simply because I am not afraid to face people regarding my views and positions. Others use screen names but make no bones about who they are.

By the way are any of the farmers in the field around Antler?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron if you already knew all this, why were you asking????? We could have spent all this time actually discussing this issue!! One question for you that I really would like to have you answer. Exactly how many acres of wildlife habitat and wetlands protection and conservation type acres do you want to have in the state of ND. Please give me a figure. If I happen to live in Mercer County where DU has determined there is a higher value to nesting areas should these small communities pack up and more out for the ducks and hunters like you? How many times did you go hunting last year, how many ducks did you see, how many ducks did you shoot??? How many is enough? Get on the ND DU site and see all the little red ducks spread across the state that indicate one of their projects and tell me how much more will satisfy you as enough???

"Way back when I used a screen name on this site" so should we assume just for that reason you were a coward back then? Are you saying everyone on this site with anscreen name is a coward??? My what an arrogant assumption. I can assure you that with a willingness to serve on several boards in our community over the years and to accept a position on the North Dakoata Stockmens Associations board of directors and have a willingness to speak out and represent the people that elected me, cowardice is not something that is a problem!!! If you don't want to take my word, call up one of the NDSA directors from your district and ask, Better yet send in your dues and join and come to our annual convention and have a listen. So "to make sure there is no confusion" being unfamiliar with these sites, I simply chose to use gst because like many others some of us simply aren't so arrogant as to have to have everyone know who we are.

It seems Ron the more frustrated you get when your positions are repudiated the more snide and arrogant you become. These attitudes like yours that have become increasingly more common over the last few years are what many of us out here in these areas people like you come to hunt have grow tired of dealing with. It seems as though instead of carrying on a courtious debate on the merits of an issue, you end up insulting and name calling and wasting everyones time. Kinda like in the "discussion" on baiting we had!!!

And no there isn't anyone in the field up here by Antler yet, this far north all our drains are still froze so none of the water has drained off these wetlands so we can start farming them!!! :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The key issue in all of this is really conservation. Wetland conservation is critical to all people, not just hunters which is exactly what the court is going to be looking at. Wetlands feed aquifers, act as natural filters etc.. They provide storage for water during high run off periods reducing erosion and flooding down stream and the list goes on and on.

You on the other hand try and turn this simply into hunters wanting more land, when in fact ducks and other wildlife are a bonus in what those wetlands are actually worth to all of the people.

That is what more and more people are coming to understand and something you and your organization fail to recognize. This is why I wanted you to fess up that you sit on the board of the NDSA and why your viewpoint is not one of what is good for all of the people upstream and down from wetlands, but your narrow view that these conservation efforts are based solely on us hunters wanting more places to hunt.

East of our farm is a National Wildlife Refuge that is on the list of Gov controlled lands that they are looking to drop. It is one of the best ideas I have heard regarding this property. I agree because it makes sense.

Just as many of the easements to preserve existing wetlands for the benefits that wetlands provide makes sense from carbon storage to flood control. But you miss the big picture and value they have. To you they are nothing more than a burden regarding production.

So it is clear, that as you claim, I am unaware of the views of rural ND, my guess is you are unaware of why the push to preserve wetlands and native prairie is not about hunting to most, but about the purpose and value these places have to all and we want those who have ownership of them to be compensated for preserving them.

Sounds to me that it is not my view point who is out of touch!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ron how quickly you go from insults to merits of the argument, but meanwhile you still don't answer questions asked. Please reread my last post and answer anything that was in the form of a question. I may be falling into the trap of what you are ususally guilty of, but I am going to take a chance that you are not very familiar with the conservation principals of the NDSA based on your statements. I would venture to guess you know very little about our enviromental services dept. and program that works hand in hand with the NRCS on many watershed protection projects totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. I would venture to guess you know very little about our efforts to enable producers to establish permanentt water sources away from wetlands or streams. I would venture to guess you know very little about our enviromental stewardship programs pairing with the NDG&F of which we have had regional winners advancing to the national level. I would venture to guess about the thousands of acres of conservation based grazing programs our members enter into with the NRCS and G&F and on their own. I would venture to guess you simply know far less than you presume to based of your statements you've made, or questions you apparently can't answer.

So let me get this straight You believe Jim Cook is buying these lands solely for wetlands protection and water mitigation for downstream users? You believe that Ducks Unlimited is buying these acres for wetlands protection soley for reducing erosion and flooding down stream? If that is truly the case, why aren't they buying these lands upstream from Fargo to help mitigate the flooding you have every year rather than in kiider or mercer or ward counties????

As to your NWR that THEY are looking to drop, will those acres actually be lost or simply moved to a different location in a trade in kind program. Will they be put up for sale and allowed to be productive ag lands or kept in conservation easements?

I'm glad you have finally realized as you said in your quote about yourself, "I am unaware of the veiws of rural ND" I can see where that would happen living in Fargo. So I can understand how you care soley for "the push to preserve wetlands and native prarie is not about hunting to most, but about the purpose and value these places have to all and we want those who have ownership of them to be compensated for preserving them." regardless of the negative effects on the rural communities that rely on these lands and the people that make their living from them. If this is your convaluted veiw of being "pro ag" as you claimed earlier, Ag doesn't really need your kind of help.

Please Ron if you would try to take just one post and dedicate it to answering the questions without the name calling and insults some on here might appreciate hearing your answers.

By the way if you know who I am you should know that the screen name I'm hiding behind are the initials of my name. If I was truly concerned with hiding my identity behind a "veil" not really the choice to make I'd say. I'll give you one last chance to actually answer the questions I've asked and if you can't or won't I would guess I've about said enough.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Earlier Ron said,



> Or maybe it is that your Org uses these types of tactics to avoid getting stink on them and use surrogates like you who claim anonymity behind the screen name in cyberspace
> 
> 
> > Ron, I find your use of the word "surrogates" interesting. A few years ago I was visiting with former Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage. I was asking her what is the wildlife society and national wildlife federation. She said they are "surrogates" of the federal government. I have met several of the people who work there and they are some real honest johns. Not! They are fond of telling the public they represent sportsmen. Not!!!!
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I would venture to guess you know very little about our enviromental services dept. and program that works hand in hand with the NRCS on many watershed protection projects totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. I would venture to guess you know very little about our efforts to enable producers to establish permanentt water sources away from wetlands or streams. I would venture to guess you know very little about our enviromental stewardship programs pairing with the NDG&F of which we have had regional winners advancing to the national level. I would venture to guess about the thousands of acres of conservation based grazing programs our members enter into with the NRCS and G&F and on their own. I would venture to guess you simply know far less than you presume to based of your statements you've made, or questions you apparently can't answer.


I will admit I know little about this, but I would like to. It sounds good. Would you be able to send me information. I'm always willing to learn. It sounds like you fellows are more active than I thought. I have worked with burning and grazing studies and found it very interesting. Much of my botany from NDSU is grazing management. About 15 years ago I did some grazing work and presented some biological control methods on leafy spurge to Animal Science profs at NDSU. 
If you guys are doing all that stuff I am darn excited. Thanks for any infor you can provide me with. 
When I grew up on the farm we had some land in Soil Bank. I always thought that many things that benefited agriculture could benefit wildlife and what benefited wildlife could benefit agriculture if done right. I didn't see as much conflict as some groups in society nearly tried to creat. At that time I blamed the conflict on politicians who always needed a boogie man to scare the voters.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

" I will admit I know little about this" This is the problem that many sportsmen have. They simply don't realize what the ag industry is doing on their own to promote and incorporate conservation in production agriculture. Combine this with the arrogant, seemingly know it all attitudes of people like Ron, and the spotsman tends to come up short in the eyes of a lot of people and communities that rely on these lands for their livelihood and existance.

If you have questions about the many conservation based programs the NDSA, NRCS, and the NDG&F have involving the ranching community you would be better off simply contacting them to learn more about them all. I'm sure I'd miss something.

Rons attempt to claim that what Jim Cook, DU, and other groups and individuals like this are doing is soley for flood protection, errosion prevention, and water quality ect... is either simply a misinformed statement or an outright attempt to hide his and their main priority, wildlife habitat and production and hunting opportunities. If what he claims is truly the case the area around Fargo would by far benefit the most people rather than these potholes out in rural areas such as Kidder or Mercer or Ward counties. While most of us in these rural areas have no problem with either, and commit much of our resources and many of our practices to benefit both, we understand they have to and can work hand in hand with production ag in this state, but they can't be allowed to take precedence over ag for the negative results that fall unto these rural communities. People like Ron don't seem to want to understand this and seem willing to leave those of us in the rural communities holding the empty bag for what they want to drive out of cities like Fargo and see in the country.

Plainsman,I hope you have seen the problems that will arise with allowing the kind of property tax reductions or eliminations that you mentioned earlier for these groups or individuals. It seems you may have learned that not all of us in the ag industry simply take what we want with out giving something back out of greed like Ron suggests.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman,I hope you have seen the problems that will arise with allowing the kind of property tax reductions or eliminations that you mentioned earlier for these groups or individuals. It seems you may have learned that not all of us in the ag industry simply take what we want with out giving something back out of greed


OK, now your forcing me into serious discussion. My education, experience, life, etc overlap the things we are debating. I perhaps have as much conflict flying around in my own mind as all of you post here. I'll give you a bit of my background, and you will understand the quandry I'm in here.
Grew up on a farm
Went to Bottineau School of Forestry and majored in Wildlife
Went to NDSU, didn't want to clutter my mind with history, sociology etc. so I went through the College of Agriculture rather than Arts and Science. Major in Entomology and worked with the extension service in the summer. Also majored in secondary education. Minored in educational psychology and botany. Most of my botany is range management.
Went to work for USFW and reared and released Giant Canadas
Worked on grassland classification of the Northern Great Plains. Evaluated grazing intensity and avifauna densities.
Assisted on a ten year study of burning and grazing. Accidentally stumbled across improved grazing techniques (higher income for the rancher) while trying to improve nesting habitat.
Worked in wetland ecology in Stutsman co.
Worked on wetland ecology in Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana
Looked at wetland restoration projects in all those states. FWS restoration, NRCS restoration, private restoration, etc. 
Supervised an aquatic laboratory.

OK gst, I understand that you can't grow up on the land and not care about your surroundings. There are a few land miners who do, but most have to be good stewards of the land if the expect it to support their families, and their grandchildren. There may be the big influence on treatment of the land. If you have kids your leaving it to your (anyone) less likely to abuse the land than a corporation that moves in rips, rapes, and runs. 
We have had speakers from the ag industry at prof wildlife meetings, but I have never attended something like the grazing association meetings. When the false environmentalists are complaining about grazing they fail to realize that grazing is a way to harvest the resources of land not fit for grain farming. This could get long so I will just stop here.
Oh, one more thing. Moderate grazing is better than idle land and provides a good management tool.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I just started really reading and commenting on these websites earlier this winter so I'm not really a "professional" such as people like Ron Gilmore. But I do know, and maybe this is just common sense, that if you want to accuse someone of being a coward for "hiding" behind a screen name on these sites such as Ron did in this thread, you probably in turn don't want to be "hiding" behind one yourself on another site such as hardwaterman does on Fishing Buddies. That is if you want anybody to take what you say seriously!!!


----------

