# Talk to a farmer



## Plainsman

We debate here but it appears little is accomplished. I would encourage each of you to talk to a farmer that is a personal acquaintances that you trust.

Do you remember one of the reasons landowners give against the High Fence initiative? They said it would be in the courts for years and cost the state money. Last night I had the opportunity to talk with a couple of farmers, that I have known since 1987, about the North Dakota Farm Bureau proposed constitutional amendment. I asked them what it was all about. I didn't have to dig any deeper than that. The first said the main goal was drainage. The second said if they can pass the amendment it will put state clout and state money behind them to fight the drainage laws.

Anyway guys get out there and talk to some farmers you know. Specifically someone who's word you can trust. I don't think we will get the truth from TV, radio, newspapers, or NDFB representatives. This one will require that we dig a bit.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Anyway guys get out there and talk to some farmers you know. Specifically someone who's word you can trust. *I don't think we will get the truth from TV, radio, newspapers, or NDFB representatives*. This one will require that we dig a bit.


.And for sure not from Nodak Outdoor "super moderators". :roll: You really just can not help yourself can you plainsman. So is this merely another "opinion" that you can not substantiate??? Throw a little more mud and hope some sticks eh plainsman. You truly are a peice of work.

plainsman if you are going to accuse others of not telling the "truth", perhaps you should go back an address any of the "stories"/"opinions"/mistruthes you have been responsible for telling on your site. You know the old feedlot and pesticide use
claims. Or simply how about addressing factually the question asked regarding the wording already in our constitution that may very well give the legislative body the power to prevent the claims you make from happening. Would you like THAT particular "truth" to be told????

I realize this is your site to do with what you wish, but please do not come on here speaking of the "truth" and accusing others of not telling it. :eyeroll:

Credibility


----------



## KurtR

I talked to a farmer last night gave him a bottle of jack and some deer jerkey for hunting his land. Sat for a few hours bs'ed he is even going to leave a few food plots next year buy the shelter belts. Do we have all these same issues in SD as ND? We might and i just dont hear or know about it.


----------



## gst

Kurt, we really do not have all the "issues" here in ND some try to present either. :roll:

We have some of the greatest hunting and hunting opportunities of any state in the nation and for the most part great landowner/sportsmen relationships, but to hear some tell it on here, ND is merely a barren plain of drained waterless border to border acres plowed black void of any and all wildlfie and hunting opportunities over ran by those evil NR's whom the "greedy" landowner's only concern for is "making georges" off of thru row after row of HFH enclosures and guiding operations. :roll:

Of course there are "issues", but often times as we have seen in regards to this NDFB measure, some wish to make "fearmongering" claims of "boogiemenn" that they can not factually substantiate to make these "issues" larger than they really are.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

You are going to have to provide the names of the two gentlemen farmers. It is not that I don't trust you, it's just that I don't trust you. I'll need to verify if these gentlemen actually exist. Heck, as much as any of us know about them, they could be the founders of the "north dakota grazing association."


----------



## swift

Isn't that a persPlainsman,

You are going to have to provide the names of the two gentlemen farmers. It is not that I don't trust you, it's just that I don't trust you. I'll need to verify if these gentlemen actually exist. Heck, as much as any of us know about them, they could be the founders of the "north dakota grazing association."onal attack? Lock this thread too.


----------



## shaug

Swift,

On the thread that is now locked you called me a Gordan Kahl wanneebe.

Let me tell you what I think of that situation. When the feds went looking for Gordan, they showed up at his house. He wasn't home but they didn't know that. Too afraid to approach the house they shot it at a distance many times. They almost sawed it in half. Not wanting any witnesses to this event they then shot all the pigs........so that they couldn't squeal.


----------



## 6162rk

don't let happen to you what has happened to your neighbors southeast of north dakota. i heard of this years ago. from what i understand is both dakotas are under stricter drainage rules than minesota, etc. we have been told (a fact) that we could not hunt land in the spring conservation season until the dakotas could drain like neighboring states. it's not just about waterfowl habitat. it's also about downstream as well as aquafer water quality. and yes there are some farmers (great friends of mine) that will tell you the whole story.


----------



## gst

by Plainsman » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:40 am 
I agree with you gst, and per your request I will lock it for you. 
Hopefully other threads will contain more thought provoking ideas.

by swift » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:52 am 
Plainsman, You know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. Debating GST and Shaug is insanity. GST is a child and Shaug is a Gordon Kahl wanna be. Both are too [b]supid [/b]to understand your previous employer was the government which paid you for the work you did. They see their govt checks in the same light as yours. Just add them both to the ignore list and let the insanity start to heal



swift said:


> Isn't that a persPlainsman,
> 
> You are going to have to provide the names of the two gentlemen farmers. It is not that I don't trust you, it's just that I don't trust you. I'll need to verify if these gentlemen actually exist. Heck, as much as any of us know about them, they could be the founders of the "north dakota grazing association."onal attack? Lock this thread too.


We now have the "thought provoking idea" going on here of trying to figure out what is a "personal attack" from a person who indeed seems to know how to make one albeit bad spelling! :wink: :roll:

My these theads have a wealth of valuable discussion/ "stories" /"opinions" designed to get the "truth" out there regarding agriculture issues. :roll:

Hey swift is that an "opinion" , or is it a "story"?? 

Nice job of moderating. Oh and plainsman, both shaug and I are "farmers", so people ARE doing what your thread asks. See how helpful we are!!!


----------



## swift

insanity.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug I would never give the names of those farmers because I would worry unscrupulous folks may call and harass them. You can tell the type of person who would do that. They want names, who they work for, address, any information they can get that may help stab the guys in the back. No, you can not have their names.



> Let me tell you what I think of that situation. When the feds went looking for Gordan, they showed up at his house. He wasn't home but they didn't know that. Too afraid to approach the house they shot it at a distance many times. They almost sawed it in half.


It kind of looks like you want to verify Swifts hypothesis. :wink:

I noticed in one thread (here or fracing on Fishingbuddy) a person advocated doing completely away with the EPA. That would help with the drainage and many other 18th century ag practices. I look at the EPA sort of like unions. A good idea that has gone to far. We still need them, but we need them to be a little more reasonable. I was happy to see them display good reason on the oil well fracing issue. They have decided not to step in and stop it. That's very reasonable. We need to know more. We also need to know more about the drainage issue and how it relates to NDFB and their "wish list". A poor economy is not an excuse to go back to the 18th century.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Will be asking some of my farmer friends their thoughts over the Christmas holidays. Got some perspective in Oct but most had not really thought to much about it with the fall harvest going on. They will have had time to look and research it now.

I did not really comment to much on it, because I believe the wording is poor and to vague leaving it open to exactly what Plainsman points out. I think that this is going to pit neighbor against neighbor more than anything if drainage and tiling are the biggest reasons!

Because right now there is not a farmer without water issues!


----------



## gst

Ron regardlesss of the differences in "opinions" we have had in the past, you do occassionally discuss issues with a degree of credibility. So how can anyone address what this measure will or will not do without addressing the questiopn that I posed early on in this debate.

_*Article I Sec 21.

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote

Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening*_.

Perhaps you would care to do what plainmsn and swift have not and instead of just spouting more rhetoric they can not substantiate, factually answer this question if you can.

People indeed should know the truth about things they are being asked to potentially vote on. I took that position in the HF measure and I will again in this measure. What people like plainsman, longshot and others spouted off in the HF measure about no connections or talks with HSUS were ultimately proven to be so much bull**** when it was admitted in Dakota Country that yes indeed there had been dialogue, and HSUS WAS told to go ahead and run their ads here in our state by "sportsmen" sponsoring that measure. So if the same people are making claims once again regarding this measure, please forgive me if they are being held to a higher standard of proof to back up their claims this go around. the very sportsmen that the claims by those like plainsman are being targeted at thru these outdoor websites are the very sportsmen that were lied to regarding the nations number 1 anti hunting org being involved BY "SPORTSMEN" here in ND last time around. They need to remember that.

So until someone can FACTUALLY answer this question, how can these same people that claimed to support what was ultimately found to be a lie once before regarding an initiated measure "insinuate" any factual basis to their claims/"opinions" .


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Shaug I would never give the names of those farmers because I would worry unscrupulous folks may call and harass them. You can tell the type of person who would do that. They want names, who they work for, address, any information they can get that may help stab the guys in the back. No, you can not have their names.


Isn;t that convienient for your "stories". You always seem to have some sort of an "excuse" plainsman. :roll:

Then perhaps you shouldn;t be posting these "stories" and expect people to accept them as credible given the track record you have established. You know, the fellas from Billings, the multiple ranchers and various guns while hunting in the badlands, and any number of PM converstaions with people that "asked" you to share information publically they sent to you in private.

Okay lets see how this story deal works.

[b_][i
I was down hunting in SD this fall and got talking with a couple of fellas that had a run in with a Federal Biologist on the border over some wetlands they had mitigated to drain a few years back. They said this fella kept claiming he was into long range shooting and that he could "pick them off" at 1000 yards and had a big black rifle with a big black scope and was waving it around at them. They said he claimed he worked with some Federal agency or Institute up here in south central ND. They were kinda worried he would go postal. They said he kept mumbling something about salamanders and hands in taxpayers pockets._ [/i][/b]

My, telling these stories is easier than I thought if you aren;t concerned about remaining factual and keeping any credibility! :wink:

Oh and for the record, the above "story" was merely that a "story: and they really do have no place in a debate where fact and truth are the goal if you are not willing to substantiate your "source".


----------



## Plainsman

> Isn;t that convienient for your "stories". You always seem to have some sort of an "excuse" plainsman.


No, it makes it kind of tough, but I have to decide if I want to relay the information or not. I knew before I posted that someone would ask their name, but I also knew I would not give it. I offer this information in good faith. I also knew it would leave me open to personal attack again. You don't like personal, but your the first person every time to take that below the belt road. It's ok though it says more about you than me. I will continue, so the rules you set don't mean anything to me. Lets see how well both of us can stay away from the personal things.

Ron, glad you will be talking with people. That's what I have done, and that's what I am asking others to do. We all have a few farmers that are friends that we can talk to. I have not visited with my brother for some time, but I'll have to call and ask him what he thinks about it. Our parents belonged to NDFB and Farmers Union. As a matter of fact dad worked for the Farmers Union after we sold the farm. Farmers Union is a little to liberal for me, but they are much more reasonable than NDFB. Being conservative doesn't have to mean being radical.

Your right about the water causing conflicts between people including farmer against farmer. North of Jamestown there are some very high tensions between farmers. From just north of Jamestown to Carrington and Courtney there has been very heavy rains this summer. Most of the land has been drained, but now the big wetlands they drained to are expanding and flooding land that never would have flooded. Much like Devils Lake.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening


plainsamn when you are "talking" with these farmers, after you share your "opinions" which we have heard on here, be sure to ask them the question I have posed you refuse to find the answer to. And when you come back here and post your "stories" of their responses (minus their name I'm sure), be sure to include what they think of your "opinions" after being shown the wording already existing in our constitution.

I am going to be at a meeting this next Weds. in which a NDFB rep will be presenting and discussing this measure. They will be asked this very question along with the other portion of this article and section i have mentioned. After getting this response I hope to do a little research into what this section of our constitution actually does provide regarding this proposed FB measure. It will be interesting to see what is heard and found.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You don't like personal, but your the first person every time to take that below the belt road.


plainsman, perhaps you should go back and check the chronology of some previous threads. But then again as you allow swifts rants without chastising him for becoming "personal" as well as your very own, perhaps you honestly beleive that someone else is to blame all the time. Lets see. a "story" for everything and "He started it" Hmm!!! 

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743&start=0

scroll down thru this post and see just where in it this little personal tidbit came in.

_by gst » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:18 am

swift wrote:
Just how many times can a policy statement use the words Tax Exemption before they get across they want to be a ward of the state? Or is it they want to be the kings of the country and let the peasants pay their way?

I didn't see your policy regarding halting farm programs in the FB's communist manifest? *Just like you to try to twist the topic in your first post*
gst wrote: And so it begins! maybe plainsman should just lock this thread right from the start!!! _

and a short while later: 
*by Plainsman » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:19 pm

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

Perhaps you should have just locked that thread when I suggested it!!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman previously stated:


> Lets see how well both of us can stay away from the personal things.


Lets give it a shot.


----------



## gst

plainsman, it really is pretty simple, all you have to do is refrain from making claims or telling "stories" you can not substantiate as factual about how I make my living, in agriculture. Thru out ALL this dialogue I have given you that courteousy regarding your occupation, please return the favor and "hot topics" can go back to threads bashing NRs' and G&Os.

Oh and maybe refrain from insinuating things about my kids making "georges" off commercializing wildlife because as you claimed the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree". :wink:  Oh yeah, that was back when you were still claiming I have a HFH operation. :roll: Although my son has shot up to be almost 6 foot over the summer, so perhaps he is about your "own" size now. 

So I promise if you can do these couple of what should be simple things I will try my best to keep from getting "personal" in the NEXT thread you guys start about the NDFB and this measure. :wink:


----------



## gst

Oh and almost forgot, please try not to make any of those claims about what I have stated somewhere that I have to ask the old "please show me" that you have never once substantiated what you claimed by actually showing where I stated what you claimed I had.

Okay I thinks thats everything!


----------



## gst

Aside from all the "tail twisting".



gst said:


> gst wrote:
> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening


In all seriousness, this question is indeed asked in a nonpersonal, unbiased manner designed to get a factual response meant to get the truth about what this measure will and will not be able to do given the wording already in our constitution.

Until an answer is found outlining what the powers the legislative assembly will hold if this measure should pass given this wording, ANYTHING posted on here by ANYONE is merely speculation.

It may very well take a response from the State AG's office regarding constitutional amendments and legislative powers granted within the constitution already.


----------



## shaug

Letter to the editor Dickinson Press,

http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/event/ ... p/Opinion/

Everybody wants to eat steaks, roast, hamburgers, pork chops, pork roasts, chicken, turkey, duck, goose, etc. But they don't want to have to see or smell the byproducts that go with them (manure, etc.)

Everybody likes to eat bread, rolls, donuts, macaroni, noodles etc. but don't want to see or smell the byproducts, dust, etc. that it takes to produce it.

The producer (myself included) would like nothing better than not to have to haul manure or have to put up with the smell of raising these birds and animals. Although they say that a recent study showed that those people who work around these odors are more resistant to diseases than others who don't. (Interesting food for thought.)

Also, not having to put up with the dust from growing and harvesting grain crops and not getting our hands dirty for any reason.

Now the oil industry has come to North Dakota big time and there are certain problems connected with it! Beat-up roads, undesirable smells, increased population, housing shortages, etc.

The point is: everything we enjoy or take for granted in this life has a downside often very undesirable. That is the way that it has been from the beginning of time and will be until this world ends. Mankind has learned over time how to deal with and adapt to these downsides.

The answer is not found with some federal government agency such as the Environmental Protection Agency.

Groups such as these are often made up of left-wing radicals whose sole purpose is to control everybody else just for the sake controlling them, with or without having any knowledge of a situation. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to discover that a lot of these extremists believe that milk, meat, bread, etc. are made somewhere in a factory and don't come from a farm. Who knows what they believe when it comes to oil and gas.

I commend our state leadership for wanting to keep the feds out and develop our own guidelines when it comes to oil and gas production here in North Dakota. (Yes, I'm praising our state government for once). Gov. Jack Dalrymple is right on the money.

Another way to control our own destiny is to sign and help circulate the Freedom to Farm Act. This is a proposed constitutional amendment started by the North Dakota Farm Bureau to force animal rights and environmentalist extremist groups to take a hike when it comes to trying to pass laws here in North Dakota, that would restrict or terminate any agricultural practice necessary to grow food for the nation and the world.

Sensible rules and guidelines will only come from the bottom up. Never, never the top down. Think about it!

Ralph Muecke, Gladstone


----------



## shaug

Plainsman keeps trying to fearmonger about drainage and such. Create division. He thoughts are not even close and his voice will be drowned out when the general public reads articles such as this in the coming months .

If this doesn't make you want to sign the petition&#8230;
Posted on November 22, 2011 | Leave a comment 
The following news release was issued by the Animal Agriculture Alliance last week&#8230;

November 17, 2011 - About 300 activists representing the animal rights, environmental, and public health movements converged in Arlington, VA on October 27-29 for the first-ever "Conference to End Factory Farming". More than 25 speakers attempted to gain the attention of decision makers in Washington, D.C. with sessions titled "The Hidden Costs of Factory Farming," "Inside the Industry," and "Building Coalitions for Change." The goal of the event? To create synergy between competing activist campaigns and frame their extreme goal of eliminating today's animal agriculture industry as a mainstream effort.

The event was co-hosted by Farm Sanctuary and the ASPCA and sponsored by a wide variety of extremist organizations and companies including the Humane Society of the United States, Mercy for Animals, Compassion Over Killing, A Well Fed World, Compassion in World Farming, E: The Environmental Magazine, Discovery's TreeHugger, and Whole Foods Market.

Many speakers revealed just how out of step with American values during their presentations. For example, Holly Cheever, of HSUS' Veterinary Medical Association Leadership Council said that "slaughterhouses are a kind of Auschwitz." This equating of human suffering with agricultural practices not only diminishes the horrors inflicted on the victims of the Holocaust, but is a sentiment commonly expressed by PETA and other extremist groups. Jonathan Balcome, author of Pleasurable Kingdom and a former HSUS and PETA employee, referred to the the push for animal rights as comparable to "African colonialism, slavery, women's rights, and the civil rights movement". Many of the extremists seemed to realize that while their beliefs are not mainstream, they could still seek to influence the public through emotional appeals. As speaker Nick Cooney of The Humane League put it: "revolution is not a question of virtue, but of effectiveness."

Notably, the single presenter who suggested compromise to target large-scale producers rather than eliminating animal agriculture in entirety, Dr. John Ikerd of the University of Missouri, was met with ridicule from the audience and fellow presenters. HSUS Senior Director of Farm Animal Protection Paul Shapiro responded to Ikerd by saying that "combating factory farming and promoting veganism are not exclusive concepts".

Promoting veganism - and as speaker Mark Bekoff claimed, sharing the idea that meat is a "who" rather than a "what" - was a main goal of the meeting. Farm Sanctuary President Gene Baur elaborated on this ambition during a pre-conference media interview, saying: "But at the end of the day, it's not necessary to eat any animal products. We'll continue to hold up the vegan ideal, but we will also support and encourage any steps that move away from the industrial factory-farming model."

The activists discussed tactics to intimidate farmers and ranchers using litigation and legislation while promoting the "factory farm" stereotype to the public. Nathan Runkle, Director of Mercy for Animals, indicated that undercover videos represent the "lifeblood" of the organization. Speaker David Wolfson, a partner with the Milbank Tweed law firm and professor at NYU's school of law, said that providing pro bono work to activist groups is one of the most important things lawyers can do to help the movement. He also elaborated on the legal strategy used during California's Proposition 2 campaign, saying that "if a farmer came out in criticism of the ballot initiative, they would be subject to undercover investigation and sued".


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, it really is pretty simple, all you have to do is refrain from making claims or telling "stories


That's not going to happen. Yes, it's about agriculture, but that doesn't make it about you unless your the one implementing bad ag practices. Have I not put farmers on the same level as everyone else? I said they are like teachers, police, biologists etc there are good ones and there are a few bad eggs. For that reason you should watch biologists, and have some you know so they can't snow you. I'll watch farmers, but not just farmers. As a matter of fact I normally pay little attention until things come up like what the NDFB wants.

Not in the mood for much more tonight. A good friend of mine who farms died at 5:00am this morning. It is his son I was taking hunting this fall. Forty one years old is to young to leave this world. Sorry, I can't think about much more right now.


----------



## shaug

Hello Ron Gilmore,

This is off subject, but is your brother still head of the ND chapter of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation? Thought you might like this video. The president of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is in it.

www.cryingwolfmovie.com

Not sure if the link is completely right, but if you google it, it will come up. The movie is a trailor and I don't think it is going to be on the net much longer.

It is kind of long and it starts out slow. But it gets interesting about mid way through.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> plainsman, it really is pretty simple, all you have to do is refrain from making claims or telling "stories
> 
> That's not going to happen. Yes, it's about agriculture, but that doesn't make it about you unless your the one implementing bad ag practices.





gst said:


> plainsman, it really is pretty simple, all you have to do is refrain from making claims or telling "stories" .


*you can not substantiate as factual about how I make my living, in agriculture*

plainsman, you forgot the most important part that I have emboldened and underlined. By all means tell your stories and make your claims. Simply hold them to a standard of fact and truth and if you are not able to maintain that simple degree of credibility, well you have seen the result it inevitably falls into.

As a moderator on this site one would beleive it important to you to uphold the reputation of this site. 
What will it be, one of honest factual dialogue or one of "stories" and "opinions" that can not be substantiated.

NOWHERE have I ever "insinuated" or claimed as you have stated I have that agriculture does not indeed maintain the same degree of issues like ANY and EVERY other industry. But that fact alone does not give you the right to malign all of agriculture with claims you can not substantiate. If you truly do support agriculture and those that make their livings from it as you claim, etend them the courteousy of maintaining a factual dialogue of claims you can indeed substantiate when asked in the issues that indeed affect the livelyhood of ALL in agriculture. One would think that not too much to ask.

So here today you talk of us both not making things personal, great idea, and at the same time lets both pledge to not make claims we can not substantiate with fact when debating these issues. I will, how about you.

If you are not willing to make this pledge of fact and truthfulness, you may as well go ahead and lock this thread as well.


----------



## KurtR

From the sounds of this best thing i did was move back to SD from ND. Landowners and hunters hate each other, all the slews are drained, fracing is poluting all the water sources, there are no deer or pheasants. Along with no land to hunt because people who own it dont let people run all over. G&F issues to many license and the greedy 12 year olds shoot to many mule deer and any thing that is left will be eaten by the lions and yotes. Well at least you can shoot muskrats we have to trap them. Holly hell you guys need to meet beat the hell out of each other have a beer or some thing. This is worse than old married couple fighting. No one is going to change anyones opinion on the internet, it took me a while to come to that conclusion with random people and as well as everyone knows each other in the agg vs enviromentelist forum you would think that would have sunk in.

Oh and the crying wolf movie is great, going to idaho next year to kill some wolves. The last thing the dakotas need is wolves especially you guys with only having like 7 deer left in the state.


----------



## shaug

Kurt,

Glad you liked the movie. Idaho is in a predator pit. Shoot more than one. There has been sightings of wolves in ND. Don't tell Plainsman though. He and his federal friends at Defenders of Wildlife will want to manage them.


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Kurt,
> 
> Glad you liked the movie. Idaho is in a predator pit. Shoot more than one. There has been sightings of wolves in ND. Don't tell Plainsman though. He and his federal friends at Defenders of Wildlife will want to manage them.


I would like to see them shot to about ten percent of what they have now. The only reason the animal rights people like them is that they eat everything we can hunt. They don't care about wildlife like they claim, they simply hate us.



> So here today you talk of us both not making things personal, great idea, and at the same time lets both pledge to not make claims we can not substantiate with fact when debating these issues. I will, how about you.


How do you substantiate an idea? Devils Lake is flooding because of more rain than normal, but it would be less than half as bad if not for all the drainage. Water causes flooding right? Now when I have said these things before you want them substantiated. It should be common sense once it's pointed out. I'll rely on the intelligence of the reader rather than waste my time looking for articles for you. You post references you see as proof, but they are not. Proof would require imperical data. Since neither of us have access to library services neither of us have real proof. Both of us have opinion, and you post other peoples opinions as proof. I hope this explanation of where I stand will be sufficient for others. I know it isn't for you gst, but I gave up trying to satisfy you. I answered one question three times and you keep asking it. Now you will want to know what question. You create busy work. You look for it. :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> I would like to see them shot to about ten percent of what they have now. The only reason the animal rights people like them is that they eat everything we can hunt. They don't care about wildlife like they claim, they simply hate us.


Are you saying that the federal workers at the Dept. of the Interior hate hunters??????????


----------



## Bad Dog

Plainsman - Thank you for posting this. [quoteLast night I had the opportunity to talk with a couple of farmers, that I have known since 1987, about the North Dakota Farm Bureau proposed constitutional amendment. I asked them what it was all about. I didn't have to dig any deeper than that. The first said the main goal was drainage. The second said if they can pass the amendment it will put state clout and state money behind them to fight the drainage laws. ][/quote]

I too have asked a few of my rancher/farmer neighbors/friends and their opinion is the same.

Interesting.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug said:


> Plainsman said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see them shot to about ten percent of what they have now. The only reason the animal rights people like them is that they eat everything we can hunt. They don't care about wildlife like they claim, they simply hate us.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the federal workers at the Dept. of the Interior hate hunters??????????
Click to expand...

He may not, but from my dealings with some of them I would say yes to that question.

gst, I am not going to comment on this issue until after I have spoken with the farmers I mentioned plain and simple. I stand by my comments that I think the wording is to vague and allows for to much open end interpretation that is going to cause issues between neighbors especially over water issues. Nothing has changed in that regard.


----------



## Plainsman

Good for you Ron, that's all this post is about. I'm asking people to talk with farmers they know, rather than listening to radio, TV, or people on the internet.


----------



## gst

Kurt, no one is trying to change any ones mind that is part of this dicussion. I indeed know better. All that is being done is to hold people acountable for the "claims" they make to be something they can substantiate with fact. One would think that really should not be too much to ask, but yet some are uwilling to agree keep fact and truth as the basis of their dialogue in these discussions. As we in animal agriculture as well as sportsmen have seen, that is a favorite tactic of the groups that wish to end what we do. Make claims that are NOT based on fact or truth hoping the public will not bother to find the truth. Stop and think of the numbers of times you have read some bull**** that PETA or another group has "claimed" about hunting that simply is not true. Unfortunately these people that do this do not care about the "truth" being known, only the "claims" they make that can help THEIR agendas.

Bad Dog, You started a dialogue on another thread that plainsman once again locked. Would you care to answer the question I asked about the govt retaining the ability to change the terms of the PERPETUAL easements in this Dakota Grasslands Conservation Program after it has been entered into by the landowner? Perahps when you are talking with these farmers you could ask them what they think of that.

Ron, please answer this one question if you would. Do you think the answer to the following question is relevant and important to this discussion? 
*gst wrote:
Article I Sec 21.

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote

Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening*

. I have asked this question because I beleive in the importance of keeping the ability to pass regulatory law in the hands of the elected representatives of this state and this question will likely get the truth out about this measure and what powers it will or will not take from these elected representatives of the people of ND. And isn;t that what we all wish is for the truth to be known about what this measure will do????? .

So when you guys are talking with your farmer friends, please be sure to mention this wording already in our constitution and include that in your discussion as to what this measure may or may not do.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Good for you Ron, that's all this post is about. I'm asking people to talk with farmers they know, rather than listening to radio, TV, or *people on the internet.[/*quote]
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We debate here but it appears little is accomplished. I would encourage each of you to talk to a farmer that is a personal acquaintances that you trust.
> 
> Do you remember one of the reasons landowners give against the High Fence initiative? They said it would be in the courts for years and cost the state money. Last night I had the opportunity to talk with a couple of farmers, that I have known since 1987, about the North Dakota Farm Bureau proposed constitutional amendment.* I asked them what it was all about. I didn't have to dig any deeper than that. The first said the main goal was drainage. The second said if they can pass the amendment it will put state clout and state money behind them to fight the drainage laws. *
> Anyway guys get out there and talk to some farmers you know. *Specifically someone who's word you can trust. I don't think we will get the truth from TV, radio, newspapers, or NDFB representatives. This one will require that we dig a bit.[/*quote]
> 
> So plainsman does this include ALL the people o the internt??? If you truly beleive what you posted, please do not come back here posting more stories of what you claim these farmers you talk to tell you. Have them come on here and post in their own words what they beleive. I guarantee you I could go out and talk with 50 farmers that would ALL beleive this measure is the greatest thing since sliced bread. What good is coming back here and posting that going to do???
> 
> This will ultimately come down to an interpreatation of constitutional wording. If you truly wish to get to the truth about what this measure will do simply find the answer to the question I have asked several times regarding the wording in our constitution. That is if you are indeed wishing to have the truth known.
Click to expand...


----------



## huntin1

Hey gst, shaug, et. al.

The sky is blue, unless it's cloudy then it's kinda grey.

Sorry for the thread drift plainsman, delete if you're so inclined.

huntin1


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, if this was simply an intiated measure then the wording you post would matter. It is not! It is a change to our state constitution and the wording is not binding to the current proposed law. So it is not something you can crow about as a safe guard no matter how you would want to.Think I am wrong, my opinion is that of a Constitutional lawyer that has looked at this proposed legislation that I hunt with.

I have anwsered, and will not get into your game regarding anything else so do not bother asking or re-asking the same question in a different word make up that you do so well!


----------



## RogerK

gst said:


> Ron regardlesss of the differences in "opinions" we have had in the past, you do occassionally discuss issues with a degree of credibility. So how can anyone address what this measure will or will not do without addressing the questiopn that I posed early on in this debate.
> 
> _*Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> You left off part of the section, specifically: nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
> be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
> citizens.
> 
> I'd say farmers are a class of citizen.*_


----------



## gst

RogerK said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron regardlesss of the differences in "opinions" we have had in the past, you do occassionally discuss issues with a degree of credibility. So how can anyone address what this measure will or will not do without addressing the questiopn that I posed early on in this debate.
> 
> _*Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> You left off part of the section, specifically: nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
> be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
> citizens.
> 
> I'd say farmers are a class of citizen.*_
Click to expand...

_*

Roger K, that part WAS included and that WAS the second of 2 qestions I asked way back when in the discussion regarding this measure. You will need to go back into one of the other NDFB threads to find it.*_


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> gst, if this was simply an intiated measure then the wording you post would matter. It is not! It is a change to our state constitution and the wording is not binding to the current proposed law. So it is not something you can crow about as a safe guard no matter how you would want to.Think I am wrong, my opinion is that of a Constitutional lawyer that has looked at this *proposed legislation* that I hunt with.
> 
> I have anwsered, and will not get into your game regarding anything else so do not bother asking or re-asking the same question in a different word make up that you do so well!


Ron I appreciate you at the very least addressing the question although as an answer there are some points not quite clear. As I said I asked as I do not know the answer, so it will be interesting if your "Constitutional" lawyer does indeed know what he is talking about. I do not know if you merely mispoke above, but this is not "proposed legislation". Our Constitution and the wording within it is a seperate entity from our Century Code wherein "proposed legislation" is entered as law thru the legislature. There in lies the difference between an initiated measure such as the HF one where by the rules of implementation that are spelled out for how laws entered into our Century Code take precidence and this initiated amendment. If you recall that was a bit of the debate over the HFH measure. There were some people if I recall that had incorrect notions and made claims regarding how that measure would have been implemented into law within our Centruy Code and what it would have over ruled as well had it passed that were contrary to the state AG's office. Perhaps Roger K could fill you in on that if you do not remember.

As this is a proposed amendment to our Constitution, one would beleive that already established wording herein held in our Constitution "would matter" even more so than if this was simply an initiated measure for "proposed legislation" designed to be enrolled in our Century Code. Perhaps you could ask your friend to come on here and give his legal opinion himself as you seem to have a little misunderstanding of the difference between the State's Constitution and the Century Code. Often times things are "mispoken" while repeating what someone else says? That is why in a court of law were facts matter, "heresay" is not allowed.

As I stated, at some point there will likely be an "opinion" given from the ND AG's office regarding this very question and at that time people will be able to make what claims they wish, until then ANY claims as to what this measure will do are as said speculation at best. And even then as mentioned prior, this may indeed ultimarely end up in the courts to be decided.


----------



## shaug

Ron Gilmore, did you ever check out that www.cryingwolfmovie.com?



> shaug wrote:
> Plainsman said,
> 
> I would like to see them shot to about ten percent of what they have now. The only reason the animal rights people like them is that they eat everything we can hunt. They don't care about wildlife like they claim, they simply hate us.
> 
> Are you saying that the federal workers at the Dept. of the Interior hate hunters??????????
> 
> He may not, but from my dealings with some of them I would say yes to that question.


Ron, in that movie Jim Beers is talking about the $60 million that was ripped off from the Pit/Robertson Act to fund wolf restoration. As everyone knows it is The Defenders of Wildlife that is leading the charge to save wolves from hunting. All over this web-forum you can find Plainsman referring (in so many words) to the defenders of wildlife as half cracks, kooks and crazies.
What most people do not realize is that the managers and lever pullers at defenders came from The Dept. of the Interior. They were once federal employees just like Plainsman.

Check out their employee resumes at Defenders:

http://www.defenders.org/about_us/staff ... _clark.php

Jamie Rappaport Clark 
President and CEO



> Jamie came to Defenders after a 20-year career in conservation with the federal government, mostly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In recognition of her accomplishments and national leadership in this field, President Bill Clinton appointed her as director of the Service in 1997,


http://www.defenders.org/about_us/staff ... _barry.php

Donald Barry 
Executive Vice President



> Don has 35 years of experience working on wildlife and public land management conservation issues as a senior government official and in the non-profit community. He spent more than 19 years at the Interior Department, having served as the Chief Counsel for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and as the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, overseeing the programs and policies of the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.


http://www.defenders.org/about_us/staff ... ardahl.php

Jeff Aardahl 
California Representative



> Jeff retired from Federal service in 2005 after a 30+ year career as wildlife biologist, environmental coordinator, and natural and cultural resources staff supervisor. After finishing military service with the Army, he began his career in 1974 working for the Bureau of Land Management in the California Desert Planning Program.


Ron Gilmore, I only listed three but their staff list is long, much of it the same. These persons used to work for the people of the United States. They are retired now and draw a pension from the people of the United States. These people know the ins and outs of how government works. That is why they are so successful at sueing the government, and/or know how to submit multiple endangered species requests to the point were they over load the government staff. Somebody diverted $60 million in Pit/Robertson to wolf restoration durring the Clinton Administration. It wasn't some dumb radical anti org that pulled it off.

Wolves, spotted owls, prairie dogs, pine bark beetles, forest fires, black footed ferrets etc. There is so much federal mismanagement out there it is pathetic. The non-governmental non-profit organizations that pound the drums and pretend they represent sportsmen are pond scum. Persons who steal from the public purse are no better than those who corrupt the public trust. They steal from both.

Contrary to what some people write here, "Farm Bureau is not the enemy."


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug percentage wise in total dollars, how does that compare to the dollars stolen from sportsmen in ND via FB,FU,SA succesful lobby efforts. IT PALES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So go down that road if you want, but it is not a pretty one!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> shaug percentage wise in total dollars, how does that compare to the dollars stolen from sportsmen in ND via FB,FU,SA succesful lobby efforts. IT PALES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> So go down that road if you want, but it is not a pretty one!


Ron, you can substantiate these dollar amounts and how they were "stolen"??? We already have enough people making claims and telling secondhand stories they can not substantiate because of their admitted "willies" over these ag orgs. It appears you may be joining their ranks.

On another outdoor site (FBO) you made claims of threats towards the G&F to block funding during the testimonies given last legislative session from these very same ag groups. I informed you that if as you claimed these threats were made was fact, there would be proof of them as all testimony is recorded and avalible on the legislative website and asked you to provide copies of the testimonies where these threats were made to substantiate the claims you made on FBO. You did not.

I beleive indeed the factual truth should be given of ANYTHING the people are being asked to vote on. It is why I argued as extensively as I did during the HFH debates. Now it appears many of the same players are involved in making the same unsubstantiated type claims here once again. Unsubstantiated claims and "stories" do not measure up to truth.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, I will take back the comment of a threat! They did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO IT WAS NOT A THREAT IT WAS AN ACTUAL ACT!!!!!!!!!!!

NEXT~


----------



## gst

Ron, perhaps after you provide the proof of what monies were stolen from sportsmen by these ag groups, you can provide what funding was cut from the G&F last legislative session by them as well.

Do you need to be reminded of the claim you made on FBO??? Are you now backpedaling away from what you posted on that site?

Credibility

Truth


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst you are right, I need to correct the term threatened. THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO AND TOOK THE MONEY ANYWAY EVEN AFTER THE G&F CONCEDED TO ISSUE MORE TAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO INSTEAD OF THREATEN I SHOULD HAVE SAID TOOK OUR LICENSE DOLLARS TO FUND AG RELATED ISSUES THAT IN REAL TIME WHERE BEING DEALT WITH BY MOTHER NATURE AND OUR LICENSE DOLLARS ALREADY!!

So to make it clear, they did threaten and then followed through with the threat even after the threatened party conceded!

Pretty crappy no matter how you look at it!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> gst you are right, I need to correct the term threatened. THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO AND TOOK THE MONEY ANYWAY EVEN AFTER THE G&F CONCEDED TO ISSUE MORE TAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> * I SHOULD HAVE SAID TOOK OUR LICENSE DOLLARS TO FUND AG RELATED ISSUES*
> SO INSTEAD OF THREATEN THAT IN REAL TIME WHERE BEING DEALT WITH BY MOTHER NATURE AND OUR LICENSE DOLLARS ALREADY!!
> 
> So to make it clear, they did threaten and then followed through with the threat even after the threatened party conceded!
> 
> Pretty crappy no matter how you look at it!


Ron so to be perfaectly clear here, you are claiming these orgs "took" "license dollars". Exactly how did this happen? Did the G&F have to write a check out of their "license dollars" receipts?

Ron you will forgve me if I ask you to be a little more specific as to how and when this was done. As you claim it happened during the last legislative session, you should be able to provide the bill and subsequent law that "took" these "license dollars" as you claimed and what "ag related issues" were funded by it.

Ron here is your claim from FBO: 
Quote "_Ah! gst, you do not like it when facts get in your way regarding farm groups being what they are! I know that there where some very shocked and uninformed farmers and landowners and members of these organizations that where upset to find out that these groups *testified in favor of the bill*. 
Roger stood up in front of God and country and admitted the G&F where threatened with funding cuts if they did not issue more deer tags and that the named groups where the ringleaders of the threats!" _end quote

Ron prior to this statement, you were very specific in naming FU, FB and the SA as the orgs that "testified" and "threatened" the G&F. As a director on the SA I would be interested in proof of any testimony of any of our people representing us in the legislative session "threatening" anything. Please provide the proof to back up your claims by providing a copy of this testimony.

You have been very specific that there was testimony and a bill and you claim now this "bill" "took" "license dollars" and spent them "on ag related issues". Claims this specific should be relatively easy to substantiate. Please do.

What threats?
What bill ?
What license dollars?
What ag related issues?

Truth

Credibility


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst enough of the BS from you. The very bill you mentioned that you where impressed with the G&F coming to the table is one. In regards to the threats, as I stated they where followed through with. So cry all you want but it is what it is! Maybe next time the sportsman and sportsman groups will be a bit more collective in sticking some of this BS legislation back into the proverbial pie hole of these groups when it comes to issues like this!

But go ahead and post up more questions or spin as they say, I am done with this issue and will comment upon the Right to Farm issue after the holidays! And do not assume or attempt to say that since I am not responding that somehow what I have stated is wrong! It is not! I am just not going to play your game!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> gst enough of the BS from you. The very bill you mentioned that you where impressed with the G&F coming to the table is one. In regards to the threats, as I stated they where followed through with. So cry all you want but it is what it is! Maybe next time the sportsman and sportsman groups will be a bit more collective in sticking some of this BS legislation back into the proverbial pie hole of these groups when it comes to issues like this!
> 
> But go ahead and post up more questions or spin as they say, I am done with this issue and will comment upon the Right to Farm issue after the holidays! And do not assume or attempt to say that since I am not responding that somehow what I have stated is wrong! It is not! I am just not going to play your game!


So ron your response to being asked to substantiate claims of theft of "license dollars" and "threats" to members of a state govt agency is simply "I said so" and you think anyone is going to hold that credible?????

You made VERY specific claims. You can easily substantiate what you claimed if it is true within the recored testimonies on the legislative website. One of these specific claims was that the SA was one of the groups that "threatened" and "stole" License monies" and "spent it on ag related issues".

As you are aware ron I am on the board of the SA. We are kept VERY well informed as to specific dialogue that occurs duing these testimonies and meetings on the hill during the legislative session. I can assure you that our executive director is one of the most respected lobbiests on the hill and her intergirty is UNQUESTIONABLE. And for you to make such claims is nothing more than childish blatantly biased unsubstantiated slander. This bill you speak of was a MUTUAL cooperative effort on behalf of the SA WITH the G&F dept's volantary involvement. NO "license dollars" were "stolen" as a result of this bill and used for "ag related issues" If you do not beleive so ask Terry Stienwand himself and have him come on here and state otherwise if it was not. If indeed that is the "official" position of the G&F as a result of these claims you state Roger Rostveldt made at an advisory meeting they indeed will be followed up on. This thread WILL be sent to the G&F and your claims will be asked to be verified by them.

Show where these "license dollars" were "stole" 
Show where they were used for "ag related issues"
Show where these "threats" were made

If you can not they will be looked at with what credibility they deserve and you have left.


----------



## shaug

Ron Gilmore,

It seems you have an anger management problem. I simply asked you if you viewed www.cryingwolfmovie.com, if you listened to David Allens (president RMEF) comments and if your brother Rod is still president of the RMEF North Dakota Chapter.

For some reason you found it neccessary to take off on a rant about how ND Farm Orgs steal from NDG/F. Ok, let's talk about that. The people of ND make the laws and hire the G/F to enforce those laws. The NDG/F gets close to $60 million every bienium or $30 million per year. They do not deficit spend and that is a good thing. Unlike many states G/F departments they operate in the black and that is a good thing. Every penny has to be accounted for and that is a good thing. There are many people watching as it is the duty of every citizen including farm orgs and that is a good thing. In ND we have kept the process simple and have kept the reins of power in the peoples hands with checks and balances.

At the federal level we have the Dept. of the Interior. The people make the laws and the DOI is supposed to enforce them. Anyhow, that is the way things are supposed to work but it would seem now that we have situation where the tail is wagging the dog. Federal spending is out of control and some states are getting sucked into a mindset that is foreign to sportsmens interests.

Eastmans is a respected sport hunting magazine and they wrote a very good article about what in the heck is going on in other states and why we should not follow.

http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/outdoorsman41.pdf

It's a very good read and once you start you won't stop. Unless you don't get it. Warning, please do not blow right passed that website and refuse to read it. The Idaho officials at G/F blindly followed the agenda set forth by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) located in Washington DC.

Ron, you can read it there how sportsmens license monies were used to lobby for more federal money. It is unlawful to use federal money to lobby for more federal money but it is lawful to use sportsmens license money to lobby for more federal money. How pathetic is that and they are using all that money to wreck hunting as we know it.

Just say no to federal money, just say no to federal spending. How hard can that be? Harder than you think, because the ones who promote these agendas live among us.

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) list of members

http://www.teaming.com/about/

Now cross check that list of members with a list of Non-govermental orgs at our NDG/F.

http://www.gf.nd.gov/links/

Ron Gilmore, plainsman likes to say that the wildlife society is made up of professionals, the wildlife federation is made up of conservation minded sportsmen and that the legislature (our elected representatives by the people) cannot be trusted. Plainsman says farm organizations cannot be trusted. So who than should we place our trust in?

The American Fish and Wildlife Association is always scheming ways to get even more money from the US General Treasury and then they use it to ruin hunting. Those who steal from the public purse are no better than those who corrupt the public trust. These orgs that belong to the AFWA do both.

Hey Ron, when you are reading that Eastmans site:

http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/outdoorsman41.pdf

do one thing for me. Now remember, Lloyd Jones is a director for the USFWS and he is wildlife society. He used to be fond of saying, "eighty-five percent of the people do not hunt and they will determine the future of hunting." Remember, it's a theme.

Ron Gilmore, There are no farm organizations stealing money from sportsmen or sportsmens license monies. There are pretend conservation and sportsmens organizations stealing millions and you just can't get your head around it.

Another theme is LAND LAND WE NEED MORE LAND. The AFWA has several orgs there like The Nature Conservancy, DU, Izack Walton League etc. who are constantly trying to figure out ways to get taxpayer money from the US General Fund to purchase land. Doesn't the US Government already own enough land? Doesn't the US Government already have enough debt? The National Wildlife Federation is part of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. LAND LAND WE NEED MORE LAND. The North Dakota wildlife federation is probably going to have their annual meeting in again January. The real sportsmen of ND should go there and kick those guys right in the nuts. "There, how is that for a couple of acres?"


----------



## gst

As has been my mantra all thruout these debates, factual information is much more important than "stories" and "opinions"

I emailed the NDG&F dept as I said with a link to this thread and one on FBO with the specific posts high hilited where Ron had made rather specific claims. I got an email response back and a follow up phone call from Roger Rostevelt with the NDG&F Dept. The phone call was a very pleasant, candid straight forward conversation. I will not post second hand on here what Rogers comments were. I will however suggest that prior to making any more claims and defending the ones already made as "fact" Ron may perhaps wish to contact the NDG&F Dept and talk directly with Roger as should anyone else that believes these claims.

The word "radical" has been bantered about on this site by a handful of people quite often. Stop and take a look at the accusations, "stories" inuendo "opinions" and claims this small group of people have made in getting their ideals across. Claims of "threats, "stolen monies" "greed at it's darkest, "lords of the land" "rip rape and run" "hands in the taxpayers pockets" ect.....
Radical??????? perhaps indeed this small handful that beleive THEY know whats best for the sporstmen of ND know abit about "radicalism". :roll:

The fact is here in ND agriculture, wildlife and hunting opportunities coexist very well. They have for decades and will continue to DESPITE the efforts of these "radical" elements. The vast majority of ND sportsmen know this as do the people they have elected to represent them in the legislature just as most engaged in agriculture know as well. This small handful of people that carry on with the firebrand rhetoric on this site often claim the legislature does not listen. Perhaps it is time they stopped and considered why.

Credibility

So indeed go out and talk with a farmer. And in doing so suggest that he come on this site and read what some beleiveing to be the "voice" of the ND sportsman have said about agriculture and the grassroots orgs and producer members that represent it. Then be sure to have a follow up conversation with that same farmer. I wonder how many ND sportsmen would be to embarassed to do so.


----------



## Plainsman

You can't expect to get a good answer from the Game and Fish because they fear for their job. Look at the questions you guys ask. For example who worked together, what's the name of the farmer you talk to etc. We all know that if a Game and Fish person was candid with us and we said anything you guys would be looking for ways to end their job. That is simply the MO of our ag organizations.



> The fact is here in ND agriculture, wildlife and hunting opportunities coexist very well. They have for decades and will continue to DESPITE the efforts of these "radical" elements
Click to expand...

That is simply another way of saying "stay calm, let the poison work". Here is my prediction. Hunting will become more and more a sport of the rich. That will cause hunter numbers to fall more each year. Numbers are political clout and in the end the bunny huggers will win. They will win because many ag organizations think the wildlife belongs to them. They know better, that's why they say "we don't charge for wildlife we charge for access". In the end it will have the same result. The sad thing is farmers could not exist without the taxpayer/consumer which includes the hunter. Face it agriculture is a socialist program. It's a way of redistribution of wealth. Understand I am not complaining, I am just facing facts. Your hands are in the taxpayers pockets. Who do you think pays for all your ag programs. Do you think Obama pics it from his stash, or from a money tree?

I'm not bothered by the ag program, and I am not bothered by my taxes paying for it. I'm bothered by those who don't appreciate it and expect more and more from others. I am bothered by those who think we owe them every time we turn around. I don't begrudge anyone a good life, but I do get tired of people looking for sympathy that make four times what I do. I do get tired of those who plunder the environment and think we should shut up and let them. You take a tax dollar and you should be ready for public input to your profession. NDFB wants their cake and eat it too, and that's why I oppose many of their ideas. I agree with far more than I disagree with, but I reserve the right to disagree.

Farmers/landowners are simply people like all the rest of us. No better, no worse, but some disagree with that. Mostly I see people thinking they are better. Most of us don't look down on others, but in the same vein we don't like anyone looking down on us either. No one likes to be a sucker, and gst that is what you want us to be.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> That is simply another way of saying "stay calm, let the poison work". Here is my prediction. Hunting will become more and more a sport of the rich. That will cause hunter numbers to fall more each year. Numbers are political clout and in the end the bunny huggers will win. They will win because many ag organizations think the wildlife belongs to them. They know better, that's why they say "we don't charge for wildlife we charge for access". In the end it will have the same result. The sad thing is farmers could not exist without the taxpayer/consumer which includes the hunter. Face it agriculture is a socialist program. It's a way of redistribution of wealth. Understand I am not complaining, I am just facing facts. Your hands are in the taxpayers pockets. Who do you think pays for all your ag programs? Do you think Obama picks it from his stash, or from a money tree?
> 
> I'm not bothered by the ag program, and I am not bothered by my taxes paying for it. I'm bothered by those who don't appreciate it and expect more and more from others. I am bothered by those who think we owe them every time we turn around. I don't begrudge anyone a good life, but I do get tired of people looking for sympathy that make four times what I do. I do get tired of those who plunder the environment and think we should shut up and let them. You take a tax dollar and you should be ready for public input to your profession. NDFB wants their cake and eat it too, and that's why I oppose many of their ideas. I agree with far more than I disagree with, but I reserve the right to disagree.
> 
> Farmers/landowners are simply people like all the rest of us. No better, no worse, but some disagree with that. Mostly I see people thinking they are better. Most of us don't look down on others, but in the same vein we don't like anyone looking down on us either. No one likes to be a sucker, and gst that is what you want us to be.


That right there is one big word salad!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You can't expect to get a good answer from the Game and Fish because they fear for their job.


plainsman, always a conspiracy isn't there, the G&F, the legislature, ect..... Ron simply made claims that he could not substantiate and no one in the G&F will substantiate them either. Hell Roger said there were other guys from Nodak Outdoors there that have not substantiated Rons claims.



Plainsman said:


> The sad thing is farmers could not exist without the taxpayer/consumer which includes the hunter.


plainsman, we can "exist" without the taxpayer, the consumer not so much. How many taxpayer/consumers could exist without the farmer? In a global population expected to reach 9 billion in a few years?



Plainsman said:


> I'm not bothered by the ag program, and I am not bothered by my taxes paying for it. I'm bothered by those who don't appreciate it and expect more and more from others. I am bothered by those who think we owe them every time we turn around.


plainsman, thank you for the couple of pennies on the dollar you pay in taxes that goes to ag subsidies. Hopefully you "appreciate" the return on this "investment" every time you go to the grocery store.



Plainsman said:


> NDFB wants their cake and eat it too, and that's why I oppose many of their ideas


Actually plainsman NDFB does not want their "cake", they want govt out of agriculture, no subsidies and private insurance. So please have your facts correct. It is easly done on the link to their policies you guys like to post. Some might beleive that having control over what agriculture does without haveing to give anything to do so would be considered "having ones cake and eating it too" literally. So plainsman along with the removal of govt subsidies should we then also remove govt regulatory powers as well? Remember there are contracts that are signed to participate and receive govt subsidies that regulate the ability to drain and break ones own private properties. And before you answer do a little research into what constitutes a "takings" by the govt.

So lets see what are you actually getting for those couple of pennies of each dollar you pay in taxes?? Cheap, safe,readily avalible food,more wetlands, more grasslands,,,, I'm starting to think maybe I should be "bothered" by people who do not appreciate what THEY have. :wink:



Plainsman said:


> Farmers/landowners are simply people like all the rest of us. No better, no worse, but some disagree with that.


So plainsman who is "disagreeing "with that? And before you make your claims, please remember you will be asked to substantiate them and do so without "making it personal". :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> The fact is here in ND agriculture, wildlife and hunting opportunities coexist very well. They have for decades and will continue to DESPITE the efforts of these "radical" elements


You jump to conclusions for a reason. The reason is character assassination. You don't care if one tells the truth, only that you can make others think they do not.  You say you don't like when things become personal, but I just watched you make a personal attack on Ron. That's your method of operation, but you scream when someone says anything about you. Play by the same rules and others will treat you the same.



> plainsman, we can "exist" without the taxpayer, the consumer not so much. How many taxpayer/consumers could exist without the farmer? In a global population expected to reach 9 billion in a few years?


I don't think you can. How long could the consumer exist? A long long time, because it isn't the farmer that produces but rather the land. We could all go back 100 years and raise most of our own food. I have friends that do, and rarely need anything from the grocery store.



> Actually plainsman NDFB does not want their "cake", they want govt out of agriculture, no subsidies and private insurance. So please have your facts correct. It is easly done on the link to their policies you guys like to post. Some might beleive that having control over what agriculture does without haveing to give anything to do so would be considered "having ones cake and eating it too" literally. So plainsman along with the removal of govt subsidies should we then also remove govt regulatory powers as well? Remember there are contracts that are signed to participate and receive govt subsidies that regulate the ability to drain and break ones own private properties. And before you answer do a little research into what constitutes a "takings" by the govt.
Click to expand...

I could go along with that as long as the people of Devils Lake have the right to go to court, track down every drain north of them, and become the new owners of all that land. You can drain, but a law that says you can not drain onto anyone else would make everything work. Drain, but not a drop off your property. The ground is yours, the grain is yours, the grass is yours, and so is all of the water. As for the taking you just mentioned signing a contract. Don't want the regulation don't take the bait. Remember you can make it without those tax dollars. :wink:



> So plainsman who is "disagreeing "with that? And before you make your claims, please remember you will be asked to substantiate them and do so without "making it personal".


Ask me to substantiate, then tie my hands. Let me ask a question, do you think you and other farmers are better than anyone? I don't think I am. I know there are many people that do think they are better than anyone. Some are farmers, some are teachers, some are biologists like I was. I think you find those people in all professions. Words mean things. You asked me to substantiate that some think they are better. What does that mean? Very simple it means you don't think there are any farmers that think they are better. That in itself is a superiority complex. So ask yourself, do I really need to substantiate that claim?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You say you don't like when things become personal, but I just watched you make a personal attack on Ron.


plainsman, if pointing out when someone is lying is "making it personal" it will happen quite often on this site. As I said, contact Roger directly at the G&F yourself.



Plainsman said:


> I don't think you can. How long could the consumer exist? A long long time, because it isn't the farmer that produces but rather the land. I have friends that do, and rarely need anything from the grocery store.


*We could all go back 100 years and raise most of our own food.*

plainsman, exactly how much on average does a farmer receive in subsidies/acre?

you are suggesting that the population here in the US alone could be self sustaianble??? Please stick to reality when debating an issues, it is much more credible.

*I'm curious plainsman, whose lands do you beleive this population could do this on??? * Please answer this one question.



Plainsman said:


> Ask me to substantiate, then tie my hands. Let me ask a question, do you think you and other farmers are better than anyone? I don't think I am. I know there are many people that do think they are better than anyone. Some are farmers, some are teachers, some are biologists like I was. I think you find those people in all professions. Words mean things. You asked me to substantiate that some think they are better. What does that mean? Very simple it means you don't think there are any farmers that think they*do I really need to substantiate that claim* are better. That in itself is a superiority complex. So ask yourself, ?


plainsman, yes you do, and it really is quite simple. Go back and show any post where I have "claimed" "insinuated" or had the "opinion" that a farmer, ANY farmer is any better than anyone else as you have claimed.


----------



## Plainsman

I think when inteligent people read out debate they will understand that when someone is asked to substantiate something it means they currently don't believe it. You want me to substantiate :



> Plainsman wrote:Farmers/landowners are simply people like all the rest of us. No better, no worse, but some disagree with that.


So plainsman who is "disagreeing "with that? And before you make your claims, please remember you will be asked to substantiate them and do so without "making it personal".

So this means you do not believe the statement I wrote that Farmers/landowners are simply people like all the rest of us. No better, no worse, but some disagree. Perhaps your not saying they are better, perhaps your saying no one disagrees. That is highly unlikely. Take 100 people and with today's self esteem I will guarantee you someone thinks they are better. Either way is foolish thinking.



> you are suggesting that the population here in the US alone could be self sustaianble??? Please stick to reality when debating an issues, it is much more credible.
> 
> I'm curious plainsman, whose lands do you beleive this population could do this on??? Please answer this one question


.

Your land, because before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission the nation would rise up against you and your rights would evaporate. You would be lucky if you could escape before they hung you. I think we would see more rural people again, and more small farms, and new farmers on the land. However, that is a very radical thing, but has happened in other countries. Russian citizens owned no land for years. The closer reality is we would throw out all the current ag protection laws and begin to import. You can be replaced one way or another. Now, before you try make everyone think I am radical and promoting such an idea I am not. I'm simply saying get over yourself, because when you ask who's land you are trying to hold us hostage. You are threatening. I sure wish I could be so important. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

I see no regulations were brought up again. I was reading about silver carp on another thread. Guess what?



> Those commercial fish farms in Ark, Miss, etc, were the ones who fought to get this exotic fish introduced.


Different than the wheat farmer we are familiar with, but ag needs to be careful like everyone else. Look at leafy spurge for example. Our spurge came with brome grass (_Bromus inermis_) seed from the Ukraine area. Seed cleaning techniques were not good enough when they brought that seed in and leafy spurge came with it. In Nebraska the college sent seed home with a number of grad students (personal communication at leafy spurge symposium in Minneapolis) with directions to plant two acres and estimate the tons per acre. The counties those students were from are still the most infected today. I have seen estimates as high as $40 million per year to control spurge in North Dakota. I released and watched three species of _Apthona_ mostly _Aphthona nigriscutis_ for biological control. It worked well in the greenhouses in Rome, has worked in Canada and looks real promising here. The point is mistakes are expensive, and money is spent not just for wildlife as some think, but for agriculture itself. Regulations are not made for punishment, or to hinder, but rather in everyone's interest. The idea that NDFB doesn't like regulations is biologically, agricultural, economically, and socially irresponsible.

Talk to a farmer you know and trust.


----------



## mn_fowler

Talk to a farmer you know and trust.[/quote]

A handful of farmers one knows and trusts hardly seems an acceptable sample size to be creating such an argument over.


----------



## Plainsman

mn_fowler said:


> Talk to a farmer you know and trust.


A handful of farmers one knows and trusts hardly seems an acceptable sample size to be creating such an argument over.[/quote]

It's like politics. You hear a thousand stories, but one you hear from a trusted friend who knows what is going on is better than a thousand pundits. I have about a dozen farmers who are good friends. Unfortunately I am going to a funeral for one in about five minutes. Another fell off a ladder two days ago and is in the hospital with multiple breaks to his femur. Maybe I'm a jinks.


----------



## carolwhit

shaug said:


> Ron Gilmore, did you ever check out that http://www.cryingwolfmovie.com?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaug wrote:
> Plainsman said,
> 
> I would like to see them shot to about ten percent of what they have now. The only reason the animal rights people like them is that they eat everything we can hunt. They don't care about wildlife like they claim, they simply hate us.
> 
> Are you saying that the federal workers at the Dept. of the Interior hate hunters??????????
> 
> He may not, but from my dealings with some of them I would say yes to that question.
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, in that movie Jim Beers is talking about the $60 million that was ripped off from the Pit/Robertson Act to fund wolf restoration. As everyone knows it is The Defenders of Wildlife that is leading the charge to save wolves from hunting. All over this web-forum you can find Plainsman referring (in so many words) to the defenders of wildlife as half cracks, kooks and crazies.
> What most people do not realize is that the managers and lever pullers at defenders came from The Dept. of the Interior. They were once federal employees just like Plainsman.
> 
> Check out their employee resumes at Defenders:
> 
> http://www.defenders.org/about_us/staff ... _clark.php
> 
> Jamie Rappaport Clark
> President and CEO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jamie came to Defenders after a 20-year career in conservation with the federal government, mostly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In recognition of her accomplishments and national leadership in this field, President Bill Clinton appointed her as director of the Service in 1997,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.defenders.org/about_us/staff ... _barry.php
> 
> Donald Barry
> Executive Vice President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don has 35 years of experience working on wildlife and public land management conservation issues as a senior government official and in the non-profit community. He spent more than 19 years at the Interior Department, having served as the Chief Counsel for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and as the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, overseeing the programs and policies of the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.defenders.org/about_us/staff ... ardahl.php
> 
> Jeff Aardahl
> California Representative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff retired from Federal service in 2005 after a 30+ year career as wildlife biologist, environmental coordinator, and natural and cultural resources staff supervisor. After finishing military service with the Army, he began his career in 1974 working for the Bureau of Land Management in the California Desert Planning Program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ron Gilmore, I only listed three but their staff list is long, much of it the same. These persons used to work for the people of the United States. They are retired now and draw a pension from the people of the United States. These people know the ins and outs of how government works. That is why they are so successful at sueing the government, and/or know how to submit multiple endangered species requests to the point were they over load the government staff. Somebody diverted $60 million in Pit/Robertson to wolf restoration durring the Clinton Administration. It wasn't some dumb radical anti org that pulled it off.
> 
> Wolves, spotted owls, prairie dogs, pine bark beetles, forest fires, black footed ferrets etc. There is so much federal mismanagement out there it is pathetic. The non-governmental non-profit organizations that pound the drums and pretend they represent sportsmen are pond scum. Persons who steal from the public purse are no better than those who corrupt the public trust. They steal from both.
> 
> Contrary to what some people write here, "Farm Bureau is not the enemy."
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for the quotes and links. I really found them very informative.


----------



## Plainsman

carolwhit, I will check those out also.

Please understand on the issues between sportsmen, farmers, and defenders of wildlife I will stand with you and resist defenders of wildlife with every fiber of my being. I know the type of people you speak of. Every one (well, that I am aware of) came to power under a liberal administration. People should keep that in mind at the voting booth. During my career I watched the mentality change. In 1971 most biologists were hunters. Universities give us the emotional Hollywood mentality of people who have a cause. I know some of my fellow workers from the past will be displeased with what I say, but the truth remains the truth. Unfortunately unity is not found in the truth, but the truth divides. The only thing that gives me hope is that these people are still a minority in government. The problem is they rise to the top in liberal administrations.

Here is a problem carol. Politics works like a pendulum. It swings from radical position to radical position. In the past it has been relatively stable within the United States. In the past 50 years it has begin to swing more radically. We have never been this far left. I don't like it now, but I worry it will swing to far right. It must swing right for this nation to survive, but it must not swing so far that it decreases our standard of living. Example: The EPA is now to powerful and to intrusive into the lives of the American people. However, there are some that want to do away with the EPA completely. There is an old cliche my mother often used that fits this situation, and it is "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". Good things taken to extreme are no longer good things. The EPA and our unions both fit that description. I'm sorry, but I see the NDFB as radical and wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Edit: Carol, it's good to have new blood in this discussion. Please don't go away. It doesn't always have to be debate, it can be simply discussion. I don't want to debate you as much as I would like to simply talk with you. Currently many of us have offended each other to much to have simple dialogue.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So this means you do not believe the statement I wrote that Farmers/landowners are simply people like all the rest of us. No better, no worse, but some disagree. Perhaps your not saying they are better, perhaps your saying no one disagrees. That is highly unlikely. Take 100 people and with today's self esteem I will guarantee you someone thinks they are better. Either way is foolish thinking.


Plainsman, please do not make me post the definition of "insinuation" here regarding your intent of "some disagree". I think most "intelligent people" understand what was insinuated. What I have said previously in this dialogue more than once, is that agriculture is like ANY other profession, occupation, industry. "Intelligent people" will readily understand that to mean that agriculture like any other occupation has all means of people involved. This has little to do with substantiating the factuality of the claims you have made regarding this measure. Yes indeed there are people who will try to beat the rules, there always will be wether this amendment passes or not. But the fact remains that you have not proven that this amendment will over ride the ability of the state or Federal govt to continue to regulate ag to prevent the very claims you have made from happening. Please understand, in making such a claim, if you wish to have it be considered credible, you must substantate factually, not by "opinion", how by rule of law this will happen considering it is the rule of law that now empowers these forms of govt to regulate agriculture, and will continue to allow them to regulate agriculture even if this amendment were to pass.

You made very specific claims as to what this measure will do, what is being asked is to substantite FACTUALLY, not by "opinion", how this will happen. My "opinion" is the wording of our states constitution that I have shared numerous times will allow our elected legislative body to continue to pass and implement what ever laws they deem necessary to continue to regulate agriculture. Now explain to me why everyone should not simply just accept my "opinion" as fact without substantiating how this will happen?


----------



## Plainsman

My "opinion" is the wording of our states constitution that I have shared numerous times will allow our elected legislative body to continue to pass and implement what ever laws they deem necessary to continue to regulate agriculture. Now explain to me why everyone should not simply just accept my "opinion" as fact without substantiating how this will happen?

You have not substantiated it. You simply posted some things from our constitution that in "your opinion" will prevent what I fear may happen. You think you have substantiated things, but you have not. It's your opinion, and like you said people can believe your opinion or mine. Yours is all opinion, and so is mine. We both form our opinions over years, often many years. It is formed by personal contact with others, TV news, radio commentary, popular articles, and scientific articles. We each must determine if we give any of them credibility, and which ones. Your articles from popular publications mean no more than your opinion, your neighbors opinion, or my opinion.

One idiot can reference another idiot, but they are both still idiots. My angle is that I post what I think and hope that people will see it as logical conclusions. You do what you want.

Lets look at one of my fears. I think there will be increased draining. I think some will use the amendment as protection against drain laws. How do I think it is logical? I don't have a number or a percentage of farmers that cheat the system now and drain illegally. However, since you agree they do cheat lets move to a logical conclusion. If one percent cheat now do you think this amendment may encourage another one percent? I don't know what the percentage will be, but I am very sure there will be some encourage to try drain illegally when they would not have without this amendment.

Since this amendment says no laws may be made against modern farm practices lets take at what is possible. Lets say a new very destructive way to drain comes about. Say they plant explosives in the center of a pond and blow a hole 100 feet deep, but only two feet wide using explosives in a pvc pipe lowered after drilling. Something like that would put pollutants into the aquifer that we drink from. However, how could we stop them since this is a new farming practice and no laws can be made against it? Likely? Perhaps not this exact scenario, but very likely something. This is simply a logical unbiased prediction.

Talk to a farmer you know and trust.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> That is simply another way of saying "stay calm, let the poison work". Here is my prediction. Hunting will become more and more a sport of the rich. That will cause hunter numbers to fall more each year.


Plainsman, you read that nonsense from books written by Posewitz and Geist. Beyond Fair Chase "the bible of hunting ethics" it is like a religion to some of you guys.



> They will win because many ag organizations think the wildlife belongs to them. They know better, that's why they say "we don't charge for wildlife we charge for access". In the end it will have the same result. The sad thing is farmers could not exist without the taxpayer/consumer which includes the hunter.


Plainsman, when you knock on the door and the answer is always the same, no you cannot hunt, did you ever think maybe people in general just don't like your personality?



> Face it agriculture is a socialist program. It's a way of redistribution of wealth. Understand I am not complaining, I am just facing facts.


It is a "fact" that agriculture is a socialist program???????????



> Your hands are in the taxpayers pockets. Who do you think pays for all your ag programs. Do you think Obama pics it from his stash, or from a money tree?


Many programs are subsidized and the money comes out of the taxpayers pockets. In fact the wildlife society, wildlife federation, nature conservancy, Izack Walton League etc. are preparing for a Washington DC fly-in.

http://www.teaming.com/2012_fly_in_even ... n_home.htm

They are going to beggar our Congressmen for $95 million to protect species before they become endangered. Plainsman, Is ND sending a delegation? Maybe Mike McEnroe maybe indsport?

http://www.teaming.com/pdf/FY12%20Final ... atures.pdf

I see Rep. Jim Moran is sponsoring this. He is all for conservation so he must be a hunter right. No, he is one of the biggest anti-Second Amendment Congressmen in DC.

I see there is a total of 93 Senators and Representatives signed on to this giveaway of taxpayers money. Mostly Democrats.

http://www.teaming.com/pdf/DCL%20Signer ... 20FY12.pdf

None from North Dakota. We finally have the right people in office. The 3 amigos always signed onto this. Dorgan even sponsored it in 2005. Everybody liked Dorgan. He brought home the bacon by the pork barrel full.

There are only 12 Republicans signed onto the States Wildlife Grants Giveaway. One is Don Young of Alaska. He is tight with Ducks Unlimited so I suppose they whisper alot of sweet nothings into his ears. Another is Mike Crapo of Idaho. You would think that as bad of shape as Idaho's Game and Fish Dept. is in that somebody would have figured it out by now. Federal money comes with strings attached.

http://graywolfnews.com/pdf/outdoorsman41.pdf

So exactly what are we getting or receiving for all the taxpayers monies that have been spent.

http://www.teaming.com/pdf/Wildlife_Act ... tories.pdf



> From Vision to On-the-Ground Action
> North Dakota Comprehensive
> Wildlife Conservation Strategy
> 
> The North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy is a
> habitat-based approach to conserving all types of fish and wildlife
> including rare, declining, common, nongame and game species. Twenty-one
> focus areas represent unique natural community types rare to North Dakota
> and habitats especially crucial to species of conservation priority. The key to
> ensuring long-term survival of these resources in North Dakota is to maintain
> diverse grasslands, wetlands, woodlands, rivers and streams.
> 
> Proactive Efforts that Benefi t
> Wildlife and People
> Removing Invasive Trees in
> Grassland, Wetland and
> Riparian Habitats
> 
> Restoring habitat is a key priority in the
> North Dakota Comprehensive Wildlife
> Conservation Strategy. Russian olive is
> a non-native tree known for invading
> riparian areas, grasslands, and wetlands,
> where it crowds out
> cottonwoods and willows
> and reduces the number
> of grassland-dependent
> birds - including eight
> priority species. To
> enhance habitat for
> these and other wildlife
> species, and to restore
> riparian and grassland
> habitat to a more natural
> state, the North Dakota
> Game and Fish Department is removing
> Russian olive and other unwanted woody
> vegetation from key wildlife management
> areas. Such proactive efforts will benefi t
> the birds and other wildlife that depend
> upon these areas, conserving them
> before they become rare and more
> costly to protect.
> 
> Working with Partners to Bring Back
> Wildlife and Natural Areas
> Conserving Rare Mammals
> in North Dakota
> 
> The North Dakota conservation strategy
> recommends filling data gaps to establish
> baseline information on little-known
> animals. Hunted and trapped nearly to
> extinction in the 1900s, river otters are
> thought to be re-colonizing portions
> of North Dakota, yet
> no formal research
> had been conducted
> to evaluate otters and
> other rare mammals like
> the fisher and Eastern
> spotted skunk. Since
> 2006, researchers from
> Frostburg State University
> have worked closely
> with state, federal, local
> agencies and landowners
> and have found otters throughout much
> of eastern North Dakota. Although fi shers
> and spotted skunks were rarely seen,
> researchers discovered another mammal
> long thought gone - the American
> marten, which seems to be established
> throughout the Turtle Mountains. This
> information will help better manage
> these rare species so they do not become
> endangered.
> 
> Gathering Information to Take Action
> Studying the Long-billed
> Curlew in Southwestern
> North Dakota
> 
> The North Dakota conservation strategy
> places a high priority on the longbilled
> curlew because of its declining
> numbers. The long-billed curlew is
> the largest shorebird in North America
> with a distinctive 8-inch, down-curved
> bill. The curlew was once found
> throughout the Great Plains; however,
> human infl uences on the landscape are
> destroying its habitat and shrinking its
> range. Understanding its population size
> and distribution is critically important to
> conservationists, managers and biologists
> concerned with widespread alteration
> and loss of its habitat. Recent surveys
> revealed that a small population exists in
> the southwestern part of the state. Survey
> routes have been designated so biologists
> can monitor the curlew over the longterm.
> Information from this research
> will provide cost effective monitoring
> recommendations to help conserve this
> graceful bird for future generations of
> North Dakotans.


Well, that certainly was a lot about nothing. So how much did the taxpayers shell out to subsidize this? According to their figures it looks like ND got almost $4 million in seven years.

http://www.teaming.com/Copy%20of%20SWG% ... istory.pdf

Plainsman said,



> carolwhit, I will check those out also.
> 
> Please understand on the issues between sportsmen, farmers, and defenders of wildlife I will stand with you and resist defenders of wildlife with every fiber of my being. I know the type of people you speak of.


Plainsman, check it out below, The Defenders of Wildlife and The Wildlife Society, The National Wildlife Federation, USFWS all worked together to create the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Giveaway. You sir are the type of people you speak of.

http://www.teaming.com/swg_anniversary/



> The 10 Year Anniversary Celebration of State and Tribal Wildlife Grants was made possible thanks to the dedicated work of planning committee members including:
> 
> Connecticut Department of
> Environmental Protection, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, New Hampshire Fish & Game Department, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Defenders of Wildlife, Missouri Conservation Federation, National Wildlife Federation, The Wildlife Society


Plainsman, another thing about Rep. Jim Moran. Here he is in a video with all the other slugs trying to get their hands in the taxpayers pockets.

http://www.iwla.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/196/pid/196

Here is the real Rep. Jim Moran. It is a list.

http://debsnews.com/channel_number_97564

Just say no to federal spending. I read in the Field and Stream Magazine that conservation orgs are gearing up to defend conservation programs that are contained in the Farm Bill. Cuts for everybody else, just don't cut my subsidy.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> My "opinion" is the wording of our states constitution that I have shared numerous times will allow our elected legislative body to continue to pass and implement what ever laws they deem necessary to continue to regulate agriculture. Now explain to me why everyone should not simply just accept my "opinion" as fact without substantiating how this will happen?





Plainsman said:


> You have not substantiated it. You simply posted some things from our constitution that in "your opinion" will prevent what I fear may happen. *You think you have substantiated things, but you have not.[/*quote]
> 
> Plainsman the underlined statement is simply once again not true. I have repeatedly asked this as a question, so how can I "think" I have substantiated it. You seem to have missed the point that in sharing this "example" of an opinion, I asked you why should people beleive this opinion any more than the ones you share of what this measure will do. You in turn claimed that as it is merely an "opinion" that has not been substantiated it is not necessarily true.
> 
> That is EXACTLY why I have asked you to substantiate the claims you have made if indeed you are interested in ghetting the "truth" out there regarding this measure. It is becoming clear that you are not and are simply sharing more "opinions" and stories.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, you read that nonsense from books written by Posewitz and Geist. Beyond Fair Chase "the bible of hunting ethics" it is like a religion to some of you guys.


Don't know Posewitz and have never read Geist.



> Plainsman, when you knock on the door and the answer is always the same, no you cannot hunt, did you ever think maybe people in general just don't like your personality?


#2 I believe in mutual respect, and don't have that much for those who have little or none.



> It is a "fact" that agriculture is a socialist program???????????


Yes. When you take from one group and give to another it's redistribution of wealth. As a conservative that goes against my grain, but I want the money to get to the farmer. If I pay at the grocery store many will share that, but perhaps not the farmer. I know it goes against my political persuasion, but I should be able to have at least an opinion about where my tax dollars go.



> Many programs are subsidized and the money comes out of the taxpayers pockets.


That's true, and I think we may be in agreement, but you like to argue. Some ag subsidies are worth it some are not. Some like the humanities for the arts appears simply to be supporting perverts.

In fact the wildlife society, wildlife federation, nature conservancy, Izack Walton League etc. are preparing for a Washington DC fly-in.
Well, you got that wrong. I think your hatred for any government what so ever clouds your vision. Also, your hatred of anything environmental. Your not sitting at home making a pipe bomb for the EPA are you?



> They are going to beggar our Congressmen for $95 million to protect species before they become endangered. Plainsman, Is ND sending a delegation? Maybe Mike McEnroe maybe indsport?


I don't know anything about that. Some of those endangered species should get funding, some are simply dreams in liberal heads. To bad reasonable people are not in charge and not the ultra liberal on one hand and the environmental haters like you on the other.



> I see Rep. Jim Moran is sponsoring this. He is all for conservation so he must be a hunter right. No, he is one of the biggest anti-Second Amendment Congressmen in DC.


That makes me very suspicious and I start to fall towards your side of the debate. Do you care about that, or are you going to bash me even when I agree because you see this as a whiz match to be won at any cost? I'm more interested in the truth so tell me more about Jim Moran and where he falls in this endangered species and second amendment war.



> I see there is a total of 93 Senators and Representatives signed on to this giveaway of taxpayers money. Mostly Democrats.


In the past republicans were not anti environmental. However, to set themselves apart from the democrats they have often worshiped at the foot of the dollar. I don't think the democrats in reality are that interested in the environment either. They just understand that the vast majority of Americans are so they pretend to be to hurt conservatives.



> None from North Dakota. We finally have the right people in office. The 3 amigos always signed onto this. Dorgan even sponsored it in 2005. Everybody liked Dorgan. He brought home the bacon by the pork barrel full.


If you have read anything I have wrote politically you know I agree with you. I hope you don't twist this some way so we are on opposite teams on this one.



> There are only 12 Republicans signed onto the States Wildlife Grants Giveaway. One is Don Young of Alaska. He is tight with Ducks Unlimited so I suppose they whisper alot of sweet nothings into his ears. Another is Mike Crapo of Idaho. You would think that as bad of shape as Idaho's Game and Fish Dept. is in that somebody would have figured it out by now. Federal money comes with strings attached.


Hmmmm, ever hear me say that? :wink:



> Plainsman, check it out, The Defenders of Wildlife and The Wildlife Society, The National Wildlife Federation, USFWS all worked together to create the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Giveaway. You sir are the type of people you speak of.


and just when I thought you were beginning to understand English. What did I just say above? Do you think every biologist is the same? Have you ever read anything I have written about global warming? Statements like the bold are simply efforts to get others to hate who you hate. Low blow even for you. Now you know the answer to #2. I guess you can forget that other information I asked for since you want this all one way. I would have thought that on a subject where we had like thoughts you would be pleased. I'm disppointed shaug. I don't understand your type of behavior.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Lets look at one of my fears. I think there will be increased draining. I think some will use the amendment as protection against drain laws. How do I think it is logical? I don't have a number or a percentage of farmers that cheat the system now and drain illegally. However, since you agree they do cheat lets move to a logical conclusion. If one percent cheat now do you think this amendment may encourage another one percent? I don't know what the percentage will be, but I am very sure there will be some encourage to try drain illegally when they would not have without this amendment.
> 
> Since this amendment says no laws may be made against modern farm practices lets take at what is possible. Lets say a new very destructive way to drain comes about. Say they plant explosives in the center of a pond and blow a hole 100 feet deep, but only two feet wide using explosives in a pvc pipe lowered after drilling. Something like that would put pollutants into the aquifer that we drink from. However, how could we stop them since this is a new farming practice and no laws can be made against it? Likely? Perhaps not this exact scenario, but very likely something. This is simply a logical unbiased prediction.


So plainsman, would this be an example of the "fear mongering" you accuse others of????

Perhaps before sharing your "fear mongering " "opinions" you should learn a little more about the laws and regulations that govern this sort of activity.

Please plainsman, before making any more of these "claims" get the actual facts as to what this measure will allow as the wording exists in our states constitution which allows the state legislature ultimate control in creating and implementing laws and regulations. That is if you are truly intereseted as you claimed in getting the "truth" about this measure.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Low blow even for you.





Plainsman said:


> I think your hatred for any government what so ever clouds your vision. Also, your hatred of anything environmental. Your not sitting at home making a pipe bomb for the EPA are you?


I thought we were keeping this "nonpersonal"??? :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

:homer:


> Plainsman the underlined statement is simply once again not true. I have repeatedly asked this as a question, so how can I "think" I have substantiated it.


Stop the earth I want to get off this crazy ride. :homer: You simply don't get it gst. I'm not talking about you substantiating what I say, I'm talking about you thinking you have substantiated what you say. 
Answering your questions is simply busy work and I think you know the answers you just want people looking all day and wasting time. I could spend a whole week answering your silly questions. I should get even and tell you to count your toes.

One thing remains and that is the topic

Talk to a farmer you know and trust.  No debate required other than the bull to keep people distracted. In the end the whole thing comes down to talk to a farmer you know and trust.

Edit:


> Please plainsman, before making any more of these "claims" get the actual facts as to what this measure will allow as the wording exists in our states constitution which allows the state legislature ultimate control in creating and implementing laws and regulations. That is if you are truly intereseted as you claimed in getting the "truth" about this measure.


It's not a measure it's much more, it's a constitutional amendment. It's a constitutional amendment so nebulous that no one really knows what can or can not be done after it passes.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst wrotelainsman, we can "exist" without the taxpayer, the consumer not so much. How many taxpayer/consumers could exist without the farmer? In a global population expected to reach 9 billion in a few years?
> 
> Plainsman wrote:I don't think you can. How long could the consumer exist? A long long time, because it isn't the farmer that produces but rather the land. We could all go back 100 years and raise most of our own food. I have friends that do, and rarely need anything from the grocery store.





gst said:


> I'm curious plainsman, whose lands do you beleive this population could do this on???





Plainsman said:


> *Your land, because before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission the nation would rise up against you and your rights would evaporate.* You would be lucky if you could escape before they hung you. I think we would see more rural people again, and more small farms, and new farmers on the land. However, that is a very radical thing, but has happened in other countries.


Plainsman from now on when you type "farmers have their hands in the taxpayers pockets" slamming agriculture and it's producers as you quite frequently do, (and before once again claiming to "support ag, stop and consider your "holding the nation hostage" comments) please stop and realize that in your own words you just explained why this country has had the "food security program" it has.

Would you care to explain your "before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission" comment?


----------



## Plainsman

gst stated:



> Would you care to explain your "before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission" comment?
Click to expand...

gst had previously stated:


> gst wrote:I'm curious plainsman, whose lands do you beleive this population could do this on???


I talked about people raising their own food. You said whose lands do you believe this population could do this on? In other words not yours and go starve. I don't have to I have enough land to support my family. Then there is my oldest son who has enough to support many families, my brothers farm, my cousins, in laws, friends. I guess you will have to starve a lot of people before you get to the one you really want to starve. :wink:

Go back and read what I wrote. Also, when someone doesn't answer your question do you really think it's going to do any good to keep asking? The really strange one I don't understand is when someone does answer your question you keep on asking it. I think you like to ask questions to create busy work so people give up. That's mostly why I don't answer the questions you keep asking. I know I can't convince you and I'm not trying. I think your beyond reasoning with, but I hope others understand the points I am trying to get across. Does it eat you because your so important and I liked talking with Carol? :rollin: She didn't get personal and I respect that. I enjoyed it. Are you going to let her talk to me again?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Stop the earth I want to get off this crazy ride. You simply don't get it gst. I'm not talking about you substantiating what I say, I'm talking about you thinking you have substantiated what you say.





Plainsman said:


> Answering your questions is simply busy work and I think you know the answers you just want people looking all day and wasting time. I could spend a whole week answering your silly questions. I should get even and tell you to count your toes.


So plainsman, explain how if I have asked this "question" (as you seem to admit that it is) as to what this particular wording in our constitution will do, and having readily admitted to not factually knowing the factual answer myself, exactly how do I think I have substantiated anything.

I have merely suggested that an answer to this question will allow the TRUTH regarding this measure to be known. 
Article I Sec 21.

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote

Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening.

If you are indeed concerned in getting the "TRUTH" out about this measure plainsman, one would think you would want to know the factual answer to this question prior to giving any more "opinions" that may indeed end up not being "true" regarding this measure. After all, you have already admitted you knew the one claim you made that this measure will allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water woudl wash the manure away was in fact not true because even when making this claim, you admitted knowing the Fedderal regulatory athourity would prevent this from happening.

My "opinion" here is you are afraid the truth in the factual answer to the question I have asked will indeed be that regardless of this measure the elected legislative body will still retain the power to regulate ag to prevent the claims you made from happening. And then how would you go about vilifying this measure, the ag org sponsoring it, and the thousands of producer members of this ag org and the orgs supporting it. What fearmongering claims would be left then?

TRUTH 
CREDIBILTY


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I talked about people raising their own food. You said whose lands do you believe this population could do this on? In other words not yours and go starve. I don't have to I have enough land to support my family.


Plainsman, you stated the consumer could live without the farmer, I asked how, you said by growing their own food. I asked where would they do this? How does that translate into "go starve". The question was asked to get to the very point you made yourself about why this country has the food security policies it has regarding production agriculture. You made the point with this answer.



Plainsman said:


> Your land, because before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission the nation would rise up against you and your rights would evaporate. You would be lucky if you could escape before they hung you.


The very "rights" this country was founded on. .

So plainsman, here is yet one more. "Please show me" where I insinuated "starving" anyone? :roll:



Plainsman said:


> I guess you will have to starve a lot of people before you get to the one you really want to starve.
> 
> Go back and read what I wrote. Also, when someone doesn't answer your question do you really think it's going to do any good to keep asking? The really strange one I don't understand is when someone does answer your question you keep on asking it. I think you like to ask questions to create busy work so people give up. That's mostly why I don't answer the questions you keep asking. I know I can't convince you and I'm not trying. I think your beyond reasoning with, but I hope others understand the points I am trying to get across. Does it eat you because your so important and I liked talking with Carol? She didn't get personal and I respect that. I enjoyed it. Are you going to let her talk to me again?


So much for that "nonpersonal" idea. :roll:

Plainsman wrote: "Since there is no discussion left and only personal attack I will again lock it"
Seems like it has come full circle once again.


----------



## Plainsman

> I asked how





> I asked where





> How does that translate





> The question was asked





> why





> "Please show me"





> So plainsman, explain how





> Will this wording





> Fedderal regulatory


Velly velly good. :wink:



> how would you go about





> What fearmongering


Oooooh my gosh. :rollin:

Talk to a farmer you know and trust


----------



## gst

There in lies the difference beteen you and I in these debates plainsman. One person asks questions to try and find out factual answers, the other tells stories, makes claims and shares opinions he can not substantiate all the while claiming to want to get the "truth" known.



gst said:


> I have merely suggested that an answer to this question will allow the TRUTH regarding this measure to be known.
> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> *No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening.*
> 
> *If you are indeed concerned in getting the "TRUTH" out about this measure plainsman, one would think you would want to know the factual answer to this question prior to giving any more "opinions" that may indeed end up not being "true" regarding this measure.* After all, you have already admitted you knew the one claim you made that this measure will allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water woudl wash the manure away was in fact not true because even when making this claim, you admitted knowing the Fedderal regulatory athourity would prevent this from happening.
> 
> My "opinion" here is you are afraid the truth in the factual answer to the question I have asked will indeed be that regardless of this measure the elected legislative body will still retain the power to regulate ag to prevent the claims you made from happening. And then how would you go about vilifying this measure, the ag org sponsoring it, and the thousands of producer members of this ag org and the orgs supporting it. What fearmongering claims would be left then?


So indeed talk with a farmer you may know, tell them what claims plainsman has made about this measure, ask them if they know the answer to the above question. And before accepting the claims made on sites like this, ask yourself why are they made, to factually get the truth known regardng this measure, or because someone has an admitted willie over an ag org. and it's thousands of producer members. Find out the truth about this measure and what it will really do.

CREDIBILITY
TRUTH
FACT


----------



## Plainsman

> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly


I"ll humor you and answer that question for the second or third time. I forget because I answer the same questions for you so many times.

Having the ability and doing it are two different things. We have always had an environmental unfriendly legislature. Perhaps because it is only those who can afford to get away so much of a year. Very rich business men who have others to run their business, grain farmers who don't need to be around in the winter, retired people which means old enough to never had any environmental education. Now before you make the mistake of thinking I am a wacko environmentalist I'm not. I don't buy global warming and the bull droppings that go along with it.

Now that stage is set so ask yourself do you really think our legislature would repeal an amendment like this in an agricultural state? Look how fast our oil is being developed. Very few safeguards in place. Visions of dollars dance in their heads this Christmas and blind them to anything else. We have an old fashioned legislature that uses the dollar as a measurement of quality of life. They handle our money very well and it's not surprising because it is about all they value. Our legislature will never get in the way of something that gives an extra dollar to a single farmer. Not going to happen. Therefore you quote means next to nothing. Just like all the things you imagine you have substantiated. You don't substantiate anything. Evidently you don't understand what the word means, and you certainly don't understand what an opinion is.

However, your goal isn't to solve anything, but simply throw up a smoke screen so no one else can see what is happening in our state and how one sided things are. We can only hope that one day there will be a backlash against the greed. Since your an officer for the Stockmens Association are you here in official capacity?


----------



## leadfed

Plainsman said:


> I asked how
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked where
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that translate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was asked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Please show me"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So plainsman, explain how
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will this wording
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fedderal regulatory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Velly velly good. :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how would you go about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What fearmongering
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooh my gosh. :rollin:
> 
> Talk to a farmer you know and trust
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :rollin: :lol: :lol:

Thats classic gabe for ya! Farmers/ranchers with gst's ideology are just as, if not more of, a threat to the hunter than HSUS, PETA, etc. I know a lot of em and they would even be weirded out by his comments. What a radical psycho.haha

It seems as if he feels he should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the nation because he is a provider of food. Give me a break. uke:


----------



## Plainsman

That type of mentality certainly sees themselves as royalty and the rest of us as peasants. They are more of a threat to hunting than all of the anti hunting crowd. Unless you have $10,000 to grease their palm. You pay me to hunt or else. You support all agriculture programs or else. You support all agriculture related legislation or else. Carol was half right. NDFB isn't the enemy. Not the enemy of agriculture, but they set themselves up as the enemy of the average person. Example: what right does a landowner have to drain when it destroys someones livelihood and very home downstream. When will these people be held liable for damages. The farmers along Devils Lake want damages. Go to your neighbor upstream. The American people are not responsible for your home going underwater, it's your friendly neighbor upstream from you. The guy that feeds the world but shafts his neighbor.

I think this amendment is just a way of asking you to help them do more.


----------



## indsport

Since gst seems so adamant about the question "No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote

Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening."

I will take a swing answering the question.

First, as I read it, the legislative assembly can pass any law but any law can also be repealed. So on the face of it, the answer to gst's question is yes but how does that question relate directly to the proposed farming amendment if it passes?

However, but and I mean a big BUT there are some things that can go wrong if the farming amendment is passed.

Let's assume the following example: a farmer wants to put a feedlot in the river bottom but due to state regulation is prevented from doing so. The farmer (or a farm group) could sue the regulatory agency to rescind the regulation because it violates the farming amendment in the constitution and a court could rule in the farmers favor because of the wording of the amendment (too broad in my personal opinion) and essentially void any regulation of farming passed by the legislature.

Second, the legislature could repeal any law pertaining to regulation of any agricultural practice and say they took that action because of the farming amendment. When or if the court would have to decide the question, a court could rule in the legislature's favor because of the wording of the amendment.

Third, and relating to the existing law, would the amendment be ruled by the courts that it gives "special privileges and immunities" to specifically to farming?

In essence, the amendment, to some, provides an avenue for unrestricted farming of any kind, regardless of the consequences to any others and would allow the legislature to repeal a considerable number of laws and regulations restricting farming. From the farmer's viewpoint, it prevents groups like HSUS and PETA from forcing through the courts or any other actions from restricting what has traditional farming practices. (BTW, I oppose much of the extremist positions of HSUS or PETA mostly because of their inane stance on hunting and trapping [and why I supported the hunting and fishing amendment to the constitution] and further having been born and raised on a farm, much of what they oppose makes no sense to a working family farm). However, I restate my original objections to the proposed amendment. The language is too broad.

Back to your regularly scheduled food fight between gst, plainsman and shaug. And no, I will not reply.


----------



## Plainsman

indsport, there was a big stink when I mentioned feed lots on river bottoms. A few years ago I know some people had to monitor a wetland south of Fergus Falls because a big pig farm went in and everything drained to a local lake. That local lake was a place where some hot shots from Minneapolis duck hunted. No surprise money came fast to check things out. The pig operation was shut down.

Just ten years ago a large turkey farm moved in North of Wahpeton. They built turkey barns right in wetlands they filled. Wetlands that drained to the Red River. Federal Attorneys asked for information. The turkey farm was closed down.

Now I have not seen feed lots where cattle by the thousands are fattened for slaughter on the river banks, but it's still not a big surprise to see 200 cattle being fed in the winter time along the river, and in the flood plain. I think a couple of us should rent a small plane, take a camera, and make a few passes around Antler, North Dakota. There has to be some reason that was a sore spot. :wink:

Say, by the way, is there a way to get a list of members of the Stockmens Association?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman, with you it is all about the play on words.



> Don't know Posewitz and have never read Geist.


Translation; you have met Geist and never read Posewitz.



> Yes. When you take from one group and give to another it's redistribution of wealth. As a conservative that goes against my grain, but I want the money to get to the farmer. If I pay at the grocery store many will share that, but perhaps not the farmer. I know it goes against my political persuasion, but I should be able to have at least an opinion about where my tax dollars go.


How do you feel about Sen. Kent Conrads "Open Fields Program?" It cost the taxpayers $50 million to subsidize hunting. It purchased access for hunters using taxpayer monies. It was in the 2008 Farm Bill. It is not OK in your world to have some rich shlubb purchase access, but it is OK to let the taxpayers purchase access. HMMM



> That's true, and I think we may be in agreement, but you like to argue. Some ag subsidies are worth it some are not. Some like the humanities for the arts appears simply to be supporting perverts.


I hear you about Congress supporting some programs that are not worth it. That conservationist of the year Rep. Jim Moran supports the National Endowment for the Arts. Find it here:

http://debsnews.com/channel_number_97564

On page two I said,



> Many programs are subsidized and the money comes out of the taxpayers pockets. In fact the wildlife society, wildlife federation, nature conservancy, Izack Walton League etc. are preparing for a Washington DC fly-in.


Plainsman answered,



> Well, you got that wrong. I think your hatred for any government what so ever clouds your vision. Also, your hatred of anything environmental. Your not sitting at home making a pipe bomb for the EPA are you?


No you got it wrong.

http://www.teaming.com/2012_fly_in_even ... n_home.htm



> 2012 Teaming With Wildlife Fly-In
> February 28-29, 2012
> Washington DC
> 
> 2012 Teaming With Wildlife Fly-in. Next Year's Fly-In will be held February 28th-29th, 2012 in Washington DC. The purpose of the annual Fly-In is to communicate the importance of the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program to members of Congress and their staffs. The Fly-In includes training, opportunities to meet with congressional members and/or their staffs, coalition and congressional receptions and awards.


Plainsman, There is indeed going to be a fly-in and they are going to beggar the peoples elected representatives for some of that US General Treasury cash.

Plainsman wrote,



> Hmmmm, ever hear me say that?
> 
> Plainsman, check it out, The Defenders of Wildlife and The Wildlife Society, The National Wildlife Federation, USFWS all worked together to create the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Giveaway. You sir are the type of people you speak of.
> 
> and just when I thought you were beginning to understand English. What did I just say above? Do you think every biologist is the same? Have you ever read anything I have written about global warming? Statements like the bold are simply efforts to get others to hate who you hate. Low blow even for you. Now you know the answer to #2. I guess you can forget that other information I asked for since you want this all one way. I would have thought that on a subject where we had like thoughts you would be pleased. I'm disppointed shaug. I don't understand your type of behavior.


Plainsman, you pretend the people working at these environmental orgs do not know each other do not communicate or work together. It is right there in front of you. The radicals at Defenders of Wildlife worked together with USFWS, The Wildlife Society, The National Wildlife Federation and others to create the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Giveaway. This giveaway of federal money has to stop it cannot continue. No matter how much these pretend conservation orgs cry, our elected representatives in DC need to stop.

indsport wrote,



> In essence, the amendment, to some, provides an avenue for unrestricted farming of any kind, regardless of the consequences to any others and would allow the legislature to repeal a considerable number of laws and regulations restricting farming. From the farmer's viewpoint, it prevents groups like HSUS and PETA from forcing through the courts or any other actions from restricting what has traditional farming practices. (BTW, I oppose much of the extremist positions of HSUS or PETA mostly because of their inane stance on hunting and trapping [and why I supported the hunting and fishing amendment to the constitution] and further having been born and raised on a farm, much of what they oppose makes no sense to a working family farm). However, I restate my original objections to the proposed amendment. The language is too broad.
> 
> Back to your regularly scheduled food fight between gst, plainsman and shaug. And no, I will not reply.


indsport, so let me understand this, you supported a constitutional amendment for hunting and fishing because you oppose extremist positions by HSUS and PETA. But you will not support Farm Bureaus measure even though farmers/ranchers face the very same extremist positions? Hunting and trapping continued on as before. Farming/ranching will continue on as before. This amendment would be the first of its kind in the US. If it stops the extremists at the border, than it will save everyone a lot of heartburn in the future. One more thing indsport, where did you work with Plainsman?


----------



## Plainsman

> Translation; you have met Geist and never read Posewitz.


I was sort of a keep my nose to the grindstone type. I didn't have a big enough ego to try run with the hot shots. Your translation is off. The name Posewitz only strikes a dull note with me, and I seen Geist once at a meeting at the Seven Seas in Mandan. I listened to his speech and my take was he was simply against the commercialization of wildlife and the European model of wildlife management. He prefers the management system we have in the United States. He certainly isn't an animal rights activist since in one of his classes in Canada he requires his students to kill and butcher an animal as part of a biology class. You will not see that happen around here.



> How do you feel about Sen. Kent Conrads "Open Fields Program?" It cost the taxpayers $50 million to subsidize hunting.


Who go the money? It was just another scam to make hunters think he was for them while giving more money to farmers.



> I hear you about Congress supporting some programs that are not worth it. That conservationist of the year Rep. Jim Moran supports the National Endowment for the Arts. Find it here:


 I think you have to be an idiot or a pervert to support National Endowment for the Arts. A guy won one year for having a cross in a quart jar filled with his urine. Ya, art. Art my behind.



> Many programs are subsidized and the money comes out of the taxpayers pockets. In fact the wildlife society, wildlife federation, nature conservancy, Izack Walton League etc. are preparing for a Washington DC fly-in.


I am not familiar with all of the organizations, but I know the wildlife society is private. Years ago I belonged and the only money they had was membership. As for the wildlife federation I am not aware of them getting money from the government. I know they can apply and get money for shooting ranges etc. Many small towns in North Dakota have a wildlife club who's parent group is the wildlife federation. I'm not up to speed on the others so I really can't say anything. I think those going to that fly in that belong to the Wildlife Society are going to have to go on their own dime.



> Plainsman, There is indeed going to be a fly-in and they are going to beggar the peoples elected representatives for some of that US General Treasury cash.





> Plainsman, you pretend the people working at these environmental orgs do not know each other do not communicate or work together. It is right there in front of you. The radicals at Defenders of Wildlife worked together with USFWS, The Wildlife Society, The National Wildlife Federation and others to create the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Giveaway. This giveaway of federal money has to stop it cannot continue. No matter how much these pretend conservation orgs cry, our elected representatives in DC need to stop.


In our current economy many things are going to have to take a back seat, including things like this. That's just reality because the government purse is empty. We have to get rid of Obama because he would print more money for things like this. We all have to tighten our belt, not just the other guy.
The second paragraph above isn't fully correct. I know you see these organizations often together, but my experience is they are there trying to put pressure on the USFW. Unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We need to do something besides complain about that.



> Plainsman, check it out, The Defenders of Wildlife and The Wildlife Society, The National Wildlife Federation, USFWS all worked together to create the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Giveaway. You sir are the type of people you speak of.


Shaug the disappointing thing is when you make some sense and I agree and try talk with you then you make a dumb a$$ statement like the above embolden. Read some of what I write in the political form and then come back and talk to me. In this context it's backstabbing the person who agrees with you.

Hey I just noticed indsport gave a link to the budget of some of those groups you talked about. The only federal money was grants, but the sticker is if qualified you could have applied for those same grants.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now that stage is set so ask yourself do you really think our legislature would repeal an amendment like this in an agricultural state? Look how fast our oil is being developed. Very few safeguards in place. Visions of dollars dance in their heads this Christmas and blind them to anything else. We have an old fashioned legislature that uses the dollar as a measurement of quality of life. They handle our money very well and it's not surprising because it is about all they value. Our legislature will never get in the way of something that gives an extra dollar to a single farmer. Not going to happen. Therefore you quote means next to nothing. Just like all the things you imagine you have substantiated. You don't substantiate anything. Evidently you don't understand what the word means, and you certainly don't understand what an opinion is.


palinsamn you seem to be confused once again. The constitutional wording I have repeatedly asked about has nothing to do with giving the legislature the ability to repeal the amendment. It is about the ability of the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL ND CITIZENS to continue to regulate ag for the best interests of these citizens they represent. Plain and simple. You wish to make a boogie man out of the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITIZENS OF ND simply because they do not always do what you wish. Yet how are they re elected? Could it just possibly be that the demands you are placing do not fit with what the majority of voters beleive? And yet you still claim some great conspiracy within the legislative body. Simply because YOUR veiws are not followed. And as was asked earlier in regards to the quote I have placed here repeatedly, "please show me" where I have claimed to have "substantiated" anything rather than simply asking a question to which the factual answer you continueally duck.

Credibility, Fact, Truth


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> Since gst seems so adamant about the question "No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening."
> 
> I will take a swing answering the question.
> 
> First, as I read it, the legislative assembly can pass any law but any law can also be repealed. So on the face of it, the answer to gst's question is yes but how does that question relate directly to the proposed farming amendment if it passes?
> 
> However, but and I mean a big BUT there are some things that can go wrong if the farming amendment is passed.
> 
> Let's assume the following example: a farmer wants to put a feedlot in the river bottom but due to state regulation is prevented from doing so. The farmer (or a farm group) could sue the regulatory agency to rescind the regulation because it violates the farming amendment in the constitution and a court could rule in the farmers favor because of the wording of the amendment (too broad in my personal opinion) and essentially void any regulation of farming passed by the legislature.
> 
> Second, the legislature could repeal any law pertaining to regulation of any agricultural practice and say they took that action because of the farming amendment. When or if the court would have to decide the question, a court could rule in the legislature's favor because of the wording of the amendment.
> 
> Third, and relating to the existing law, would the amendment be ruled by the courts that it gives "special privileges and immunities" to specifically to farming?
> 
> In essence, the amendment, to some, provides an avenue for unrestricted farming of any kind, regardless of the consequences to any others and would allow the legislature to repeal a considerable number of laws and regulations restricting farming. From the farmer's viewpoint, it prevents groups like HSUS and PETA from forcing through the courts or any other actions from restricting what has traditional farming practices. (BTW, I oppose much of the extremist positions of HSUS or PETA mostly because of their inane stance on hunting and trapping [and why I supported the hunting and fishing amendment to the constitution] and further having been born and raised on a farm, much of what they oppose makes no sense to a working family farm). However, I restate my original objections to the proposed amendment. The language is too broad.
> 
> Back to your regularly scheduled food fight between gst, plainsman and shaug. And no, I will not reply.


indsport, what I am "adamant about is factual truth getting out regarding this measure, not "opinion" and "stories" and unsubstantiated "claims". As I admitted I have no constitutional law back ground and that is why I have ASKED this question. I would guess that your scenario is possible, but, and this is a big BUT, you have overlooked, just as plainsman did, the Federal regulations that will prevent these scenarios and claims being made from happening that can not be over ruled by a state court and no, a state law can not be used to overturn a Federal law. Please realize that the current laws that prevent these abuses from agriculture that plainsman is using to fear monger support for his calims are indeed Federal laws that will not be affected by this state constitutional amendment. I agreed right from the start that this measure likely will end up in a court of law for a number of reasons. But the FACT remains, the Federal regulations that prevent the claims plainsman makes from happening will NOT be affected by this measure and subsequent amendment.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> indsport, there was a big stink when I mentioned feed lots on river bottoms. A few years ago I know some people had to monitor a wetland south of Fergus Falls because a big pig farm went in and everything drained to a local lake. That local lake was a place where some hot shots from Minneapolis duck hunted. No surprise money came fast to check things out. The pig operation was shut down.
> 
> Just ten years ago a large turkey farm moved in North of Wahpeton. They built turkey barns right in wetlands they filled. Wetlands that drained to the Red River. Federal Attorneys asked for information. The turkey farm was closed down.
> 
> Now I have not seen feed lots where cattle by the thousands are fattened for slaughter on the river banks, but it's still not a big surprise to see 200 cattle being fed in the winter time along the river, and in the flood plain. I think a couple of us should rent a small plane, take a camera, and make a few passes around Antler, North Dakota. There has to be some reason that was a sore spot. :wink:
> 
> Say, by the way, is there a way to get a list of members of the Stockmens Association?


plainsman, it seems as if the examples you give are indeed an example of the Federal regulations preventing the claims you have made from happening. :-?

As to your flight plan threat, the NDSA has an Enviromental Assesment person to come out and do on site inspections to make sure your operation is in FACT in compliance with all state regulations according to State Health Dept.guidelines as well as those regulations from the Federal EPA. It is part of the service we provide our members and even nonmembers so that they can indeed be in compliance and aware of the regulations that govern their operations. Many people have taken advantage of this service. :wink: You see dispite your claims that only go to show how little you know about these ag groups, we as an Association are in fact proactive in complying with these enviromental safeguards and regulations. We even team up with the NDG&F each year to give out an Enviromental Stewardship award to the winner out of several applicants for their commitment to conservation practices in their operations. I am proud of our Associations work to promote enviromental stewardship in our operations and when some loudmouth with no clue pulls crap out of his *** he can not substantiate regarding these things, yes it does "hit a sore spot". You have zero knowledge of these things and yet you do not let that stop you from making claims you can not substantiate. :roll:

CREDIBILITY

You sir have none.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> There in lies the difference beteen you and I in these debates plainsman. One person asks questions to try and find out factual answers, the other tells stories, makes claims and shares opinions he can not substantiate all the while claiming to want to get the "truth" known.
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have merely suggested that an answer to this question will allow the TRUTH regarding this measure to be known.
> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> *No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening.*
> 
> *If you are indeed concerned in getting the "TRUTH" out about this measure plainsman, one would think you would want to know the factual answer to this question prior to giving any more "opinions" that may indeed end up not being "true" regarding this measure.* After all, you have already admitted you knew the one claim you made that this measure will allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water woudl wash the manure away was in fact not true because even when making this claim, you admitted knowing the Fedderal regulatory athourity would prevent this from happening.
> 
> My "opinion" here is you are afraid the truth in the factual answer to the question I have asked will indeed be that regardless of this measure the elected legislative body will still retain the power to regulate ag to prevent the claims you made from happening. And then how would you go about vilifying this measure, the ag org sponsoring it, and the thousands of producer members of this ag org and the orgs supporting it. What fearmongering claims would be left then?
> 
> 
> 
> So indeed talk with a farmer you may know, tell them what claims plainsman has made about this measure, ask them if they know the answer to the above question. And before accepting the claims made on sites like this, ask yourself why are they made, to factually get the truth known regardng this measure, or because someone has an admitted willie over an ag org. and it's thousands of producer members. Find out the truth about this measure and what it will really do.
> 
> CREDIBILITY
> TRUTH
> FACT
Click to expand...


----------



## Plainsman

> As to your flight plan threat, the NDSA has an Enviromental Assesment person to come out and do on site inspections to make sure your operation is in FACT in compliance with all state regulations according to State Health Dept.guidelines as well as those regulations from the Federal EPA.


Isn't that a perfect example of the fox in charge of the hen house. Would this guy ever report you? Seriously, would he?

The amendment is to broad. It's not leaving a door slightly ajar for a would be violator, it's leaving the door at least half open. Tell me gst do you think it will encourage some people to try push for less regulation, and why not? If you don't think so can you substantiate that? Neither of us can, but if you expect it from me then you should be able to do so.

The fact is gst neither of us can prove anything one way or another. We have to go back to our life experiences and make predictions from those experiences. My experience is one wetland violation after another. Especially north of Devils Lake. I have had the weed board in my yard (1 1/2 acre native), and to stupid to know the difference between rare wild species (_Cypripedium calceolus) _and leafy spurge. The weed board guy for Stutsman county lost is behind over that one. He sprayed so heavy in my hard that he killed everything right up against my well. Then the State Health Department refuses to tell me if there is Tordon in my well. Are they not supposed to be protecting us? My guess is if there was no Tordon they would have told me so. I think they refused to tell me because there was Tordon. I think this amendment would make things like this happen much more often.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> I was sort of a keep my nose to the grindstone type. I didn't have a big enough ego to try run with the hot shots. Your translation is off. The name Posewitz only strikes a dull note with me, and I seen Geist once at a meeting at the Seven Seas in Mandan. I listened to his speech and my take was he was simply against the commercialization of wildlife and the European model of wildlife management.


You are always talking about kings of Europe and how we don't want that. You're on the same page as Geist. Cut from the same cloth.



> I think those going to that fly in that belong to the Wildlife Society are going to have to go on their own dime.


They better be. It is unlawful to use federal money to lobby for more federal money.



> The second paragraph above isn't fully correct. I know you see these organizations often together, but my experience is they are there trying to put pressure on the USFW. Unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We need to do something besides complain about that.


Yes these environmental non-profit non-governmental orgs do cooperate/coordinate with each other. Many of there employees came from the same place. The Dept. of the Interior. The Republicans right now are talking about downsizing government. They are talking about laying off a bunch of federal employees. That would be a good start. We now have more federal employees in this country than people working in manufacturing. They vote as a block. They are getting more and more unionized. The wildlife society claims it has 10,000 biologists, ecologists and wildlife managers. That is a lot of letter writers and people lobbying our elected representatives to fund their pet projects. We need a Governor Scott Walker type elected for president to bust this strangle hold.

Right now Director for the USFWS Dan Ashe and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar are out stumping for conservation. They are fearmongering that our elected lawmakers are proposing cuts to funding that would decimate key conservation initiatives while doing very little to impact deficit.

I guess it could be argued by anyone that their pet project does little to impact the deficit. The deficit is the deficit. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Plainsman said,



> Shaug the disappointing thing is when you make some sense and I agree and try talk with you then you make a dumb a$$ statement like the above embolden.


It isn't any more or any less dumbass then the statement you made to me.



> Your not sitting at home making a pipe bomb for the EPA are you?


What in the heck was that? You have this federal fantasy that there are people out to get you. Threatening you with Super Blackhawks and stuff. That kind of thing isn't my style. I would never ring your doorbell, lay down a pipe bomb and run. I may ring your doorbell and ask you to sign the Farm Bureau Measure. When I get your signature, I am going to post it. Ka-Boom lots of smoke.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst wrote:As to your flight plan threat, the NDSA has an Enviromental Assesment person to come out and do on site inspections to make sure your operation is in FACT in compliance with all state regulations according to State Health Dept.guidelines as well as those regulations from the Federal EPA.
> 
> plainsman wrote: Isn't that a perfect example of the fox in charge of the hen house. Would this guy ever report you? Seriously, would he?


plainsman, once again you are confused and simply do not understand the point being made.

The Enviromental Services director makes ranch visits to determine if there are any violations occuring and then works with the producer to begin coming into compliance by changing what must be changed to do so. So as you see this program is designed to increase producers awareness of the regulations we face and to help us make management practices to be within the guidelines set by state and Federal regulations. It has been a VERY successful PROACTIVE program.

Perhaps with your mentality you do not understand the intent of this program. But then that is simply to often the case. Do not let something such as factual dialogue get in the way of a fear mongering claim.



Plainsman said:


> *The fact is gst neither of us can prove anything one way or another*.


Then why do you make claims as too what this measure will do??? This statement indicates in fact you do not care about the TRUTH being told regarding this measure, merely what you beleive will cause people to oppose it. Please remember here plainsman it is YOU that have made claims that need to be proven if you wish them to have credibility. Remember you will be asked to "please show" where I have made any claims requiring proof regarding this measure. *From the beginning my involvement in this dialogue has been to hold you accountable for making claims you now admit you can not prove*.

Credibility, fact and truth.


----------



## gst

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

plainsman this is the "claim" that you have been asked to substantiate/prove all thruoughout this dialogue that you have now admitted you can not prove.



Plainsman said:


> The fact is gst neither of us can prove anything one way or another.


Simply answer this one question. If this measure passes, will there remain regulations that will prevent this from happening in place that are not affected by our state constitution?

Yes or No?

Remember now, this is indeed something that can be proven.

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

> Then why do you make claims as too what this measure will do??? This statement indicates in fact you do not care about the TRUTH being told regarding this measure, merely what you beleive will cause people to oppose it.


There is no way to get to positive proof. All we can do is look at things that have happened in the past, our experience, and make our best judgement calls. When have you ever seen protection that was not exploited? It always is exploited.



> Please remember here plainsman it is YOU that have made claims that need to be proven if you wish them to have credibility.


No, I don't have to prove it. All I have to do is appeal to reasonable people. Trigger their experiences and what they know. If they stop and think I'm sure many will agree with me.



> Remember you will be asked to "please show" where I have made any claims requiring proof regarding this measure.


When we debate you often post an article that you have seen as something that substantiates (your favorite word) your position. They do not. You could be Nancy Pelosi in pants because what your asking here is for us to pass the amendment to find out what is in it and what will happen. You may want to trust our politicians I do not. How many of you out there trust politicians?



> From the beginning my involvement in this dialogue has been to hold you accountable for making claims you now admit you can not prove.


I have never said I can prove them. They are predictions, and I am very sure those predictions will come true. Your going to just have to live with the fact that everyone has opinions. If this amendment passes I am confident that time will bear out my predictions. Feel free to make some of your own. Oh, wait, you do that. Telling me I am wrong is an opinion in itself. Please talk to someone who can explain these things to you. Your going off the deep end because people do the same thing you do, and you don't even know it.



> Remember now, this is indeed something that can be proven.


Only to the satisfaction of someone logically challenged. Our federal constitution is ignored every day. It has been recently violated by our very president. Or are you totally devoid of any reality.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Simply answer this one question. If this measure passes, will there remain regulations that will prevent this from happening in place that are not affected by our state constitution?
> 
> Yes or No?


gst wrote: Remember now, this is indeed something that can be proven.



Plainsman said:


> Only to the satisfaction of someone logically challenged. Our federal constitution is ignored every day. It has been recently violated by our very president. Or are you totally devoid of any reality.


plainsman, are you suggesting the regulations put forth by Federal agencies that would prevent the claims you made from happening can not be proven to any one that is not "logically challenged"? Are you suggesting that you are smarter than someone that is "logically challenged"?

plainsman, but don't you recall admitting you knew this to be fact even as you made the claims as to what this measure would do? Would you like me to post where you admitted knowing this??? These regulations that you admitted earlier knowing would prevent your claims from happening are not in our "constitution", they are the laws of the land. I would bet even someone that was "logically challenged" would know what making a claim you later admit knowing was not true would be called.

Talk your way around the fact you have admitted you can not prove the claims you have made are factual. Talk your way around the fact you have admitted knowing that even as you made these claims you knew the Federal regulations in place would prevent them from happening. Talk your way around why you do not wish the truth to be known regarding this measure, only these fear mongering claims you make to garner support for the willie you have over these ag orgs. and their thousands of member producers that support this measure because of people like you and your friends that beleive production agriculture should capitulate to YOUR demands. No different than what HSUS or any other anti ag group does. Plainsman, you wish to know why this measure was introduced, take a look in the mirror and around at your elitist friends that sponsored as did you the measure to ban an animal agriculture enterprise here in the state that have admitted to inviting groups you claim you would stand against to join them. (Remember HSUS and the Dakota Country article)

Perhaps that is why you are argueing so adamantly against this measure and continueing the process of making claims you can not substantiate. You became so used to claiming there was no connection between the ND Hunters for Fair Chase and the HSUS, you have forgotten the difference between truth and a lie. What would happen to any future plans for another run at the captive cervid industry if this measure passes? What "opinion" have you been known to share in the past as to what you think of these operations? Yes indeed, I think even the most "logically challenged" person can indeed figure out where you are coming from on this measure.



Plainsman said:


> No, I don't have to prove it. All I have to do is appeal to reasonable people. Trigger their experiences and what they know.


You wish people to beleive your "opinion" suddenly now on this topic?, Perhaps they should look at your track record of "opinions" that there was no connection between this group you were once a part of , ND Hunters for Fair Chase and HSUS and let THOSE "opinions" "trigger their experiences" . How did THAT "opinion" pan out? :wink:

Look in the mirror plainsman and you will see why this measure was introduced.

Credibility


----------



## gst

palinsman, a quote you made earlier in this thread.



Plainsman said:


> Please understand on the issues between sportsmen, farmers, and defenders of wildlife I will stand with you and resist defenders of wildlife with every fiber of my being. quote]
> 
> plainsman, when people had "opinions" of collusion between the nations largest anti hunting/anti animal agriculture org in the nations, and your fellow ND Hunters for Fair Chase members how did you "resist with every fiber of my being" on this issue "between sportsmen, farmers" and HSUS?
> 
> When your fellow sponsors of the HFH measure engaged in dialogue with the nations largest anti hunting, anti animal agriculture organization HSUS (as they admitted to doing in that Dakota Country article) how exactly did you "resist with every fiber of your being"???
> 
> When you admitted having heard these communications had happened, how did you "resist" "with every fiber in my body"?
> 
> Did you write letters to the editor condemning their actions?
> 
> Did you come on this site and chastise them publically for doing so?
> 
> Did you vote against the measure based on these lies denying these communications between these groups happened?
> 
> Exactly how did you resist" this with "every fiber of my being"?
> 
> Perhaps these are the "experiences" people should base their acceptance of what you "claim" on.


----------



## Plainsman

> When your fellow sponsors of the HFH measure engaged in dialogue with the nations largest anti hunting, anti animal agriculture organization HSUS (as they admitted to doing in that Dakota Country article) how exactly did you "resist with every fiber of your being"???


A choice had to be made. I stand with sportsmen. Shooting an animal in a fence isn't sport. People that do it are not sportsmen. Most farmers are not high fence shooting grounds. You notice they dont call them their hunting patures, they call them the kill pasture. No hunting involved. But that's over.

Your careless with the reputation of others which is an indication your very self centered. Your also dishonest gst. You asked me about:


> Simply answer this one question. If this measure passes, will there remain regulations that will prevent this from happening in place that are not affected by our state constitution?


You notice you were talking about our state constitution. Well when we have two conflicting things in our state constitution how am I to be sure the right one will win? 
Then you switch what your talking about:


> plainsman, are you suggesting the regulations put forth by Federal agencies


Then you insinuate I lie about it. Bait and switch. gst I would never call you a liar like your so free to call everyone else. Did you ever get a call from the Game and Fish. If you did you owe Ron an apology if your man enough to do it.

Remember how stupid I was supposed to be because I didn't know people were no till planting corn. Well I never seen it this fall. I have a friend (who just passed away) and he had thousands of acres of corn. There is capability to do no till, but he didn't know anyone who did. No farmer that I talked to knows anyone who does it. You use every cheap shot you can gst.


----------



## Csquared

WOW! No one loves a debate more than me, but I find that every thread that's ultimately dominated by gst gives me a headache.  I know nothing about this issue, and probably care even less (but don't know since I don't know), but I tried to force myself to read through all these biased pages of personal attacks to learn more and decide what's good or bad....but I didn't learn anything other than the common theme to ALL threads gst participates in.

If you can't substantiate your point with affidavits, photos, signed gov't documents, videotaped confessions, original surveillance footage and verified DNA samples....you simply should not be allowed to speak.

.....unless you're on HIS side.

I don't know what you did to whizz him off, Plainsman, but it obviously goes much deeper than this thread, or even Nodak Outdoors.

But I'm gonna leave this topic to others so I can deal with IL land issues, where land only good for growing trees (and huge deer) sells for $7000 or more an acre and the people who own it are as popular as a prom queen...and oftentimes twice as *****y :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman, so you are saying your "resistance" with every fiber of my being" to the nations largest antihunting/antianimal agriculture org. was to side with the VERY PEOPLE THAT HOPPED INTO BED WITH THIS GROUP TO ATTEMPT TO GET THEIR AGENDAS PUSHED THRU?



Plainsman said:


> A choice had to be made. I stand with sportsmen.


And you wonder why people in agriculture beleive a measure like this is needed? As I said plainsman, look in the mirror why this measure was even considered.

Plainsman you seem confused here yet once again. I am simpl;y talking about there being regualtions in place to prevent the claims you make from happening. You ducked answering that simple direct question plainsman. If this measure were to pass at the state level, are there Federal regulations in place to prevent what you claim from happening?

Yes or no? And yes there are regulations on record that can indeed be "proven" that will help you with your answer to this question if indeed you do care about the truth being told.



Plainsman said:


> Did you ever get a call from the Game and Fish. If you did you owe Ron an apology if your man enough to do it.


Once again plainsman you seem confused. I did in fact have a very pleasant phone conversation with Roger Rostvelt from the Game and Fish. that I alluded to earlier in the dialogue. And simply suggested prior to Ron or anyone else making claims such as G&F employees claiming "threats" were made or "license dollars stolen" and "used to fund ag related issues" perhaps they had again better talk with Roger at the G&F. :wink:


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> I don't know what you did to whizz him off, Plainsman, but it obviously goes much deeper than this thread, or even Nodak Outdoors


I simply do not care for people making unfactual claims they can not substantiate rearding how I make my living in agriculture. Refrain from doing that one simple thing and you are free to make whatever "opinions" you wish. :wink:

Perhaps plainsman can simply answer this one question and this can all be settled. Are there Federal regulations in place that will prevent what he claims from happening regardless of this measure?

Yes or no?


----------



## Csquared

> I simply do not care for people making unfactual claims they can not substantiate


Oh, trust me...we ALL got that! 

But the problem is I'm not seeing your side provide any more "substantiation" than the standard set by the others. And it all started (I believe) by one suggesting others actually talk to the source directly instead of basing their decision on condensed media versions. What could be wrong with that?

Another common theme I've noticed here with your threads, gst, is you object to the suggestion others investigate and explore the topic in question, and then form their own conclusions. Instead, you use this forum...and THOUSANDS of words to try to explain why YOUR IDEA is the right one...or at least that the one(s) opposing you have no credibility becasue they don't have the proper credentials to validate their views. What is it that scares you about people using their own mind? Is it the fact you (landowner/farmer) are outnumbered to such a staggering degree?

I don't mean to be harsh or negative, gst, but it seems such a waste to me. You're obviously a smart guy, and your perspective on this should ADD to the discussion, but yet every thread I've read of your's turns negative and personal at some point, and I (and I would imagine others) end up believing your side must be wrong. You have a chance to change that here, but it isn't happening.

At least not for me. :wink:


----------



## gst

Csquared, I know it would be tough to do for anyone without a vested interest in the dialogue, but if you go back thru the 3 or 4 threads that OTHER people than myself have started about this measure, you will find one common theme to my comments. Do not make claims you can not factually substantiate if indeed you wish the truth to be known about something.

In this thread I have encouraged people to "talk to a farmer" and simply ask them the same QUESTION I have asked wether the wording already contained in our constitution will prevent what plainsman claims will happen if this measure passes.

In a perfect world everyone that casts a vote would put the effort into researching and finding the factual truth on their own regarding what they are asked to vote on. The reality in todays world is 10 second sound bytes and fear mongering claims more often than not sway a voter that does not invest the time to form their own "opinion", groups like HSUS know that and rather than maintaining factual dialogue make claims and inuendos they can not factually back upand it appears others are following their tactics. Groups such as Handgun Control Inc practice these type tactics as well. Do you beleive groups such as this should be held to a level of factual thruth when debating your "right" to buy a hand gun or should their "opinions" be what voters hear and use to make their decisions???

You would be hard pressed to suggest that I have not consistantly ASKED on this site that these 10 second sound bytes and fear mongering claims simply be verified with some sort of fact if the person making them is indeed concern as they claim with the TRUTH being told about what people are being asked to vote on. That is all most every thread about this measure has started out being asked to do. Apparently on this site, factual truth has no business in a discussion about issues people will be asked to vote on.

*C squared, one quesion if you would please answer. Do you beleive the laws that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth? 

I have REPEATEDLY said, in any number of different threads, if people like plainsman, swift, ron gilmore ect... would simply stop making claims regarding agriculture they can not substantiate as fact I would have little reason to be on this site,* particularily one relating to the creation of law and regulation. And yet every thread regarding agriculture on this site ends up with these same type of "opinions"/claims/"stories" being made and the same people making them.

One would think people like yourself, and others would certainly encourage them to refrain from making these fear mongering claims they can not substantiate simply for that end result! :wink:


----------



## Csquared

This is what started this....



> Anyway guys get out there and talk to some farmers you know. Specifically someone who's word you can trust. I don't think we will get the truth from TV, radio, newspapers, or NDFB representatives. This one will require that we dig a bit.


and this was your immediate response....



> .And for sure not from Nodak Outdoor "super moderators". You really just can not help yourself can you plainsman. So is this merely another "opinion" that you can not substantiate??? Throw a little more mud and hope some sticks eh plainsman. You truly are a peice of work


You can try to spin your actions anyway you'd like but I think anyone who can read can see your tactics very clearly. My post above merely suggests you use your time here to gain support by providing facts of your own instead of negative, personal attacks on those who dare to ask questions you apparently aren't comfortable being discussed.



> I have REPEATEDLY said, in any number of different threads, if people like plainsman, swift, ron gilmore ect... would simply stop making claims regarding agriculture they can not substantiate as fact I would have little reason to be on this site,


Do you really think you're going to change anyone's mind by trying to convince them those three men are stupid? Is that your reason for being on this site? I must admit I had my suspicions, but am a bit surprised to see it in print. :wink:


----------



## indsport

Thanks cSquared. I too, was puzzled. My most recent post addressed the gst question about the North Dakota constitution and then saw gst ask Plainsman again what is another separate question about federal regulation. Will federal regulations restrict or stop prohibited acts if the farm amendment is passed? The answer to that is yes in law, no in practice and back to the courts we go. Here is why. Consider the following two examples (a lot more examples available). The most recent is the PROPOSED EPA regulation of mercury from coal fired power plants which is very similar to the original arguments regulating any emissions from power plants. Federal government proposes or starts enforcement of a federal law and the state objects either by attorney general statement or filing suit. it goes to the courts to be fought out as a state's rights issue. NDFB position in 2011 "We support pulling all funding for EPA's enforcement of Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Program, as well as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)." Second example; wetlands. Whether isolated wetlands are subject to state or federal laws is back in the courts (again) where state law conflicts with federal. IMHO, Plainsman's concerns are correct because one cannot be sure that federal laws will be followed, let alone enforced, and further, given the current legislature, administration and attorney general, they have already shown by their actions they will oppose federal laws and the enforcement of federal laws. The short answer to gst's question to plainsman is yes in law and no in practice because the state has shown they will intervene.

To keep Shaug happy, read my first post on the amendment and you will get your answer to your question, I do not oppose the farm amendment based on its intent. I oppose it because of its ambiguous language. The hunting and fishing amendment that passes was unambiguous. That is why I supported the constitution amendment for hunting and not the farm amendment.

For clarification about HFH, I knew all the sponsors of the initiative for HFH and the very first time I heard that HSUS came calling to help with the petition drive or during the campaign , I immediately (within a few hours) advised them to send HSUS a simple statement and publicize it. NO HE77 NO, we don't want anything to do with you. My advice, sadly, was not taken.

Back to the regularly scheduled ***** session.


----------



## Plainsman

> For clarification about HFH, I knew all the sponsors of the initiative for HFH and the very first time I heard that HSUS came calling to help with the petition drive or during the campaign , I immediately (within a few hours) advised them to send HSUS a simple statement and publicize it. NO HE77 NO, we don't want anything to do with you. My advice, sadly, was not taken.


indsport, you will notice I didn't sponsor the bill the second time. One reason was the HSUS (after I was able to confirm it for myself) the second reason was, if they ask a person to sponsor a bill they should also ask that person for input. I suppose that is a little egotistical, but it's also common courtesy. Still, less than intelligent people try link me to HSUS. They do so because they want to ram through junk like this amendment.

At one time gst said he didn't know if he could support the amendment as written. You better go back and read fast, because he will edit that and call me a liar again. For a guy who doesn't know if he is for the amendment he sure puts up a stink. I don't know about you, but that's insanity to me.

Oh, indsport. gst may argue with you now, but at one time he admited a lot.



> Re: ndfb amendment
> 
> by gst » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:40 am
> 
> indsport, all that is asked is that people do not make claims regarding how I make my living thru agriculture that are not factual or true. I beleive that is a simple courteousy to extend someone.
> 
> Debate the measure all one wishes, simply refrain from allowing juvenile personal biases to cloud the truth of what is posted as plainsman has done.
> 
> I do not disagree with your beleif that this will indeed create opportunities for legal challenges. As I said, I personally beleive this measure was poorly worded not only in regards to current Constituional language, but also legal and judicial ruling aspects as well as simply garnering support.
> But hey no one asked for my input!


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> This is what started this....


Csquared, perhaps you missed these:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95023
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94741
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95235

You also seemed to miss a question that goes to the very heart of this debate.



gst said:


> *C squared, one quesion if you would please answer. Do you beleive the laws that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth?*


*

Perhaps you would care to answer this question this time if you would please.



Csquared said:



You can try to spin your actions anyway you'd like but I think anyone who can read can see your tactics very clearly. My post above merely suggests you use your time here to gain support by providing facts of your own instead of negative, personal attacks on those who dare to ask questions you apparently aren't comfortable being discussed.

Click to expand...

C squared, there is a distinct differance between people "asking questions" and making claims they can not substantiate. I am quite "comfortable" discussing agriculture as long as those involved make claims regarding it they can substantiate. So C squared, would you care to answer an unbiased question directed at the entire reason why this dialogue takes place regarding these ag issues or perhaps you are not "comfortable" enough discussing it?



gst said:



C squared, one quesion if you would please answer. Do you beleive the laws that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth? 

Click to expand...



Or perhaps "opinons", inuendo and insinusation are a better foundation for the laws that govern us.*


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> Thanks cSquared. I too, was puzzled. My most recent post addressed the gst question about the North Dakota constitution and then saw gst ask Plainsman again what is another separate question about federal regulation. Will federal regulations restrict or stop prohibited acts if the farm amendment is passed? The answer to that is yes in law, no in practice and back to the courts we go.


indsport, please then explain why in plainsmans very own examples of the hog farm and turkey farms that were in violation of the regulatory law governing them they were shut down if "in practice" these regulations are not enforced? Plainsman made a very specific example of this amendment allowing feedlots to be built on riverbottoms to allow the water to wash away the manure. Can you give a specific example of whereby this would be allowed under Federal regulatory law? Please give examples of where an operation was found to be in violation and not either shut down or required to come into compliance if you are going to claim these regulations are not carried out in practice.

Please understand there are indeed instances of these regulatory laws being challenged in court and yet still they stand on this specific claim plainsman has made. So why would this state constitutional amendment do what has not been accomplished to this point. And please understand this amendment and discussion is specifically about agriculture, energy has nothing to do with this amendment or this debate. If you are going to claim this WILL happen, please at the very least give examples of where and when it has prior any where in this country.

indspor, perhaps YOU would care to address this one simple unbiased question.



gst said:


> one quesion if you would please answer. Do you beleive the laws that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth?


And perhaps after you have answered that you would address the question asked earlier if the Federal govt should be able to change the parameters and rules of a perpetual easement after it has been entered into?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *indsport, you will notice I didn't sponsor the bill the second time. One reason was the HSUS (after I was able to confirm it for myself*)


So plainsamn now that you have admitteed to knowing there was indeed a connection beween HSUS and NDH for FC *PRIOR* to the second measure attempt being done, can you explain exactly when and how you began "resisting" "with every fiber of my being" this admitted and "confirmed" collusion between these two groups regarding something that affected both sportsmen and farmers and ranchers here in ND?

Perhaps we can look to your repeated denials of this collusion through out the debate over the second measure attempt and use our "experiences" from those repeated denials even though you now admitt to knowing it did indeed happen, as a basis to judge your credibility on the claims you make rgarding this measure.

Please remember you have admitted that it was not someones "opinion" this happened, you in your own words, "confirmed for myself" that indeed this had happened.

So what efforts did you make to set the record straight? What "claims" did you make in response to others "opinions" that HSUS would involve themselves in this measure? What accusations did you make towards those that claimed there was in FACT a connection with HSUS?

Indeed perhaps we should draw on our "experiences" to base our judgement of the credibility of your claims. Perhaps we shold go back and examine some of this "resistance" and the "claims" you had made.

The question was asked in that debate and I pose it once more here pehaps you would care to answer it this time. Do you beleive the laws and regulation that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Re: ndfb amendment
> 
> by gst » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:40 am
> 
> indsport, all that is asked is that people do not make claims regarding how I make my living thru agriculture that are not factual or true. I beleive that is a simple courteousy to extend someone.
> 
> Debate the measure all one wishes, simply refrain from allowing juvenile personal biases to cloud the truth of what is posted as plainsman has done.
> 
> I do not disagree with your beleif that this will indeed create opportunities for legal challenges. As I said, I personally beleive this measure was poorly worded not only in regards to current Constituional language, but also legal and judicial ruling aspects as well as simply garnering support.
> But hey no one asked for my input!


And for the record, my earlier statements regarding this measure still stand. However I do as does indsport support the intent of this measure. So we will support getting it on the ballot and hopefully those debating a possible change to our constiutution will stick to provable fact in debating sometn=hing of such importance. And indeed wish to get the "truth" regarding this measure out instead of unsubstantiated "opinions" Perhaps the "opinions" should be left to the ND State Attourney Generals office regarding the existing wording of our Constitution and how it will affect the ability of the legislature to continue to regulate agriculture regardless of this amendment. :wink:


----------



## shaug

indsport wrote,



> Thanks cSquared. I too, was puzzled. My most recent post addressed the gst question about the North Dakota constitution and then saw gst ask Plainsman again what is another separate question about federal regulation. Will federal regulations restrict or stop prohibited acts if the farm amendment is passed? The answer to that is yes in law, no in practice and back to the courts we go. Here is why. Consider the following two examples (a lot more examples available). The most recent is the PROPOSED EPA regulation of mercury from coal fired power plants which is very similar to the original arguments regulating any emissions from power plants. Federal government proposes or starts enforcement of a federal law and the state objects either by attorney general statement or filing suit. it goes to the courts to be fought out as a state's rights issue. NDFB position in 2011 "We support pulling all funding for EPA's enforcement of Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Program, as well as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)." Second example; wetlands. Whether isolated wetlands are subject to state or federal laws is back in the courts (again) where state law conflicts with federal. IMHO, Plainsman's concerns are correct because one cannot be sure that federal laws will be followed, let alone enforced, and further, given the current legislature, administration and attorney general, they have already shown by their actions they will oppose federal laws and the enforcement of federal laws


indsport, the two examples you used, coal fired power plants and wetlands are mining and agriculture. New wealth can only be created on this earth in two areas. Mining and agriculture. You said you have a lot more examples available and I'm sure they would be against mining and agriculture. Is it your desire to control resources? Is it your desire to control use? Is it your desire to control consumption? Or is it your desire to control those who produce wealth?

Yesterdays old communists are todays new greens.



> The short answer to gst's question to plainsman is yes in law and no in practice because the state has shown they will intervene.


Indsport, you said in an earlier thread that you worked with Plainsman. Were you a federal employee too?



> For clarification about HFH, I knew all the sponsors of the initiative for HFH and the very first time I heard that HSUS came calling to help with the petition drive or during the campaign , I immediately (within a few hours) advised them to send HSUS a simple statement and publicize it. NO HE77 NO, we don't want anything to do with you. My advice, sadly, was not taken.


insport, your post certainly begs the question, "what did you know and when did you know it?"

Plainsman wrote,



> A choice had to be made. I stand with sportsmen. Shooting an animal in a fence isn't sport. People that do it are not sportsmen. Most farmers are not high fence shooting grounds. You notice they dont call them their hunting patures, they call them the kill pasture. No hunting involved. But that's over.


Plainsman, the sportsmen made a choice, they didn't stand with you or your little group. It is hunting. The people have spoken.

Plainsman, you like to say in so many words that the people at Defenders of Wildlife are kooks, crazies and half-cracks. That there is no collusion between DoW and other non-profit non-governmental orgs. That there is no collusion between DoW and the Dept. of the Interior. Even though the head staff at Defenders is mostly made up of former federal employees from the DOI we should not be concerned because you say they are just simply rogue elements. We have nothing to worry about because you say,



> "Please understand on the issues between sportsmen, farmers, and defenders of wildlife I will stand with you and resist defenders of wildlife with every fiber of my being."


Plainsman, Do you remember a video posted here some years ago, www.themeatrix2.com? That video came from the Defenders of Wildlife website. It was a very extreme anti agriculture clip. The were a few more made, two and half etc. What if the Defenders of Wildlife made several more clips like it and the Humane Society gave them millions to feed it to the public? What if an unsuspecting public believed some of that nonsense. It could create turmoil in markets. Unstability in commerce. Uncertainty in production. A cow is like a walking mini factory. If the consumer stops eating beef because of fearmongering for six months and the ranchers get rid of their cows and then the consumer starts eating beef again because the fears were unfounded it is not easy to put the factory right back on line. It takes years to rebuild the herd or factory. And that is "if" the producer even wants to get right back in there when there is no consistancy.

However, farmer/ranchers are not to worry because they have Plainsman at their back.



> "Please understand on the issues between sportsmen, farmers, and defenders of wildlife I will stand with you and resist defenders of wildlife with every fiber of my being."


Farmers and ranchers of North Dakota do not need this FB amendment because they have the members of Nodakoutdoors at their back defending them against animal rights advocates and environmentalists, right?

Plainsman and his little group here at nodak would never partner with Defenders of Wildlife or the HSUS right?



> "Please understand on the issues between sportsmen, farmers, and defenders of wildlife I will stand with you and resist defenders of wildlife with every fiber of my being."


Plainsman, remember, the meatrix.com came from the Defenders of Wildlife website some years ago. It would appear someone from this website (nodakoutdoors) liked that video clip and posted it here. Another thought it was a great infomercial.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3234



> Hog Farm Cartoon--Must See
> by MTPheas » Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:40 am
> 
> http://www.themeatrix.com/MTPheas
> guest
> 
> What a Great well done Infomercial


That great infomercial was posted here back in 2003. It would seem that Dick Monson, Plainsman, Swift, indsport and a handful of others have been busy for more than a few years now. Can they be counted on to support agriculture when the non-profit, non-governmental type animal rightys and ecco shlubbs come to ND and want to pass laws over-regulating agriculture and mining?
Not hardly.

It is a very small percentage of the population but it would appear that the ag/miner haters live among us. The people who work and produce the food/fuel/fiber of this nation have a right in America also. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

We need Farm Bureaus measure to ensure stability, commerce, certainty and consistancy.

If the outspoken pretend hunters here on nodak were put in charge of things for just one day, there would be no bread or electricity in less than 24 hours.


----------



## Plainsman

> If the outspoken pretend hunters here on nodak were put in charge of things for just one day, there would be no bread or electricity in less than 24 hours.


You missed your Prozac this morning didn't you? I'm glad you talk like that. If you didn't someone might take you serious. People have started to speak up and your response is to leave the reason reservation. Keep it up please. No bread or electricity in 24 hours? Ya, that's realistic. That is the way NDFB thinks isn't it? I rest my case. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:



> Plainsman and his little group here at nodak would never partner with Defenders of Wildlife or the HSUS right?


You have that right. I never would. It's sort of like the NDFB amendment. gst said he didn't like the way it was written, but no one asked him. Same here, no one asked me. I didn't believe anyone would do that, so didn't believe it until one of the sponsors told me. It doesn't look like indsport would either. I still wonder how that happened because of the three or four people I knew in that first bunch of sponsors they all have an intense dislike for HSUS. You guys talk about fear mongering, but you keep going back to that. No good points and one must resort to the boogieman.

Like I said talk to a farmer you know and trust. Why does that scare you so much?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You guys talk about fear mongering, but you keep going back to that. No good points and one must resort to the boogieman.


plainsman, that is exactly what STARTED this whole debate. Your quotes:

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am 
_
"I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame."

"I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen."_
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

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

We don't need a back door to get around reasonable policies on ag. We don't need uncontrolled drainage, we don't need uncontrolled pesticide use, we don't need uncontrolled agriculture."_

plainsman, if you can not substantiate these claims fatually as you have been asked to, how are these statements anything more than the "fear mongering" boogieman tactics you accuse others of?

Plainsman, it does not scare me at all that you wish people to "talk with a farmer". Indeed people should "talk to a farmer" and maybe even a rancher or two regarding this measure. Share with them the link shaug had referencing the meatrix video bashing hog producers! Better yet, down load the video on their smart phone and play it for the rancher that has maybe not seen it!

Then make sure that farmer or rancher knows that a handful of "sportsmen" that frequent this site actually invited the nations largest anti animal agriculture organization (that sponsor groups that make these videos) into the state and asked for their help in passing a measure aimed at a small section of animal agriculture here in ND.

When talking with these farmers and ranchers they should share your "fear mongering" claims posted above and then ask them the questions that have been posed as to how these claims will come to fruition given the Federal regulatory authority. Ask them if the existing wording in our constitution will continue to allow the legislature to create and affect laws that will prevent these "fear mongering " claims from happening. I would indeed encourage everyone to talk to a farmer or rancher in regards to this measure, perhaps several different farmers rather than simply getting your "information" from people on sites like this, that have as shaug has shown in his link to a thread from the past, a clear cut history of "supporting ag" in a very peculiar manner.

Perhaps people should print a page of highlights of your comments such as "rip, rape and run", "hands in the taxpayers pockets" "greed at its darkest" you have made in any number of threads about these very farmers you now wish people to talk to to share with them. :wink:

So yes indeed plainsman, that is a GREAT idea, people should talk to a farmer or rancher, perhaps they may even run into one that is a member of NDFB or one of these other ag orgs. They do not have the horns and tail and pitchfork plainsman and others make them out to have so they just may be harder to distinguish from any other farmer or rancher than one thinks! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, that is exactly what STARTED this whole debate. Your quotes:


This thread is about talking to farmers. You want to lead it away from that. However, as others have pointed out you took it off course. I am not going to waste my time reading beyond that point in your post. Others have explained it as have I. You simply don't have the capacity to understand. One not to bright and another left the reason reservation.

Talke to a farmer you know and trust. 



> Shaug December 12, 2011
> If the outspoken pretend hunters here on nodak were put in charge of things for just one day, there would be no bread or electricity in less than 24 hours.


----------



## gst

palinsamn you once again seem confused, I am not trying to "lead it away from that", I am actually encouraging people to talk with farmers and ranchers regarding this measure rather than getting their "facts" from a site like this. It is a GREAT idea for people to talk with those that make their living in the agriculture community regarding this measure rather than a small handful of people on a site like this. We should have simply encourgaed them to do so long ago and left it at that.



gst said:


> Plainsman, it does not scare me at all that you wish people to "talk with a farmer". Indeed people should "talk to a farmer" and maybe even a rancher or two regarding this measure. Share with them the link shaug had referencing the meatrix video bashing hog producers! Better yet, down load the video on their smart phone and play it for the rancher that has maybe not seen it!
> 
> Then make sure that farmer or rancher knows that a handful of "sportsmen" that frequent this site actually invited the nations largest anti animal agriculture organization (that sponsor groups that make these videos) into the state and asked for their help in passing a measure aimed at a small section of animal agriculture here in ND.
> 
> When talking with these farmers and ranchers they should share your "fear mongering" claims posted above and then ask them the questions that have been posed as to how these claims will come to fruition given the Federal regulatory authority. Ask them if the existing wording in our constitution will continue to allow the legislature to create and affect laws that will prevent these "fear mongering " claims from happening. I would indeed encourage everyone to talk to a farmer or rancher in regards to this measure, perhaps several different farmers rather than simply getting your "information" from people on sites like this, that have as shaug has shown in his link to a thread from the past, a clear cut history of "supporting ag" in a very peculiar manner.
> 
> Perhaps people should print a page of highlights of your comments such as "rip, rape and run", "hands in the taxpayers pockets" "greed at its darkest" you have made in any number of threads about these very farmers you now wish people to talk to to share with them.
> 
> So yes indeed plainsman, that is a GREAT idea, people should talk to a farmer or rancher, perhaps they may even run into one that is a member of NDFB or one of these other ag orgs. They do not have the horns and tail and pitchfork plainsman and others make them out to have so they just may be harder to distinguish from any other farmer or rancher than one thinks!


Yes indeed please talk with a farmer or rancher about this measure rather than getting your "facts" from the likes of those on a site like this. And when you do, ask the questions posed about this measure, share the comments and claims made regarding this measure and agriculture by those on this site opposed to this measure and other "modern ag practices" , print out these comments made on this site by those claiming to "support" agriculture and share them with that farmer or rancher as you discuss this measure. Yes indeed "talk to a farmer". :wink:


----------



## Csquared

> We should have simply encourgaed them to do so long ago and left it at that.


Plainsman did....3 pages (long) ago.

Now we'll all wait and see if you can even heed your _OWN_ advice


----------



## gst

Csquared, once again you seemed all the previous dialogue people other than myself have started regarding this measure. Perhaps this encouragement simply shoud have been made prior to making all these claims we are discussing! :wink:


gst said:


> Csquared said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what started this....
> 
> 
> 
> Csquared, perhaps you missed these:
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95023
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94741
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95235
> 
> You also seemed to miss a question that goes to the very heart of this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *C squared, one quesion if you would please answer. Do you beleive the laws that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Perhaps you would care to answer this question this time if you would please.
> 
> Or perhaps "opinons", inuendo and insinusation are a better foundation for the laws that govern us.*
Click to expand...

*

Say while you're on here perhaps you would care to address this one question? :wink:*


----------



## Csquared

gst, I'm typing real slow for you....I said in my first post I don't have a horse in this race. In fact, this was my second sentence...



> I know nothing about this issue, and probably care even less (but don't know since I don't know),


Yet you still choose to single me out, I suppose to also be discredited for somehow daring to stand between you and your goal of omnipotent control of any and all ag related issues discussed on this site. If you think that's been lost on anyone here you're frankly not giving other readers the respect they deserve.

My only purpose for posting was to try to remind what started all this...a simple suggestion that readers contact people directly affected by the legislation in question...people whom THEY trust...and then form their own opinion. A very simple, mundane, non-confrontational suggestion that resulted in this immediate response from you...


> .And for sure not from Nodak Outdoor "super moderators". You really just can not help yourself can you plainsman. So is this merely another "opinion" that you can not substantiate??? Throw a little more mud and hope some sticks eh plainsman. You truly are a peice of work


.

I read the original post over again looking for that "unsubstantiated opinion" that appeared to fire you up, but still haven't found it.

If your goal is equitable credibility, perhaps you could start by explaining to all who, like myself, cannot understand why you use countless historical events totally unrelated to this thread or topic in question (note all links posted by you above are from other threads) to badger someone for reasons that obviously exist but the rest of us are not privy to. This thread is nearing the completion of it's third page and you just now posted a re-worded sentence from Plainsman's original post....



> It is a GREAT idea for people to talk with those that make their living in the agriculture community regarding this measure rather than a small handful of people on a site like this. We should have simply encourgaed them to do so long ago and left it at that.


So we ultimately see you agree with the post that 3 pages earlier seemed to have your blood pressure elevated.

And you say YOU'RE confused?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Csquared, perhaps you missed these:
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95023
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94741
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95235


Okay Csquared, I will as well "type real slow". These links were provided for you so that you scould indeed see that this dialogue regarding this measure was started quite abit before this particular thread by people other than myself. You have came on here and "singled me out" to make a "suggestion" in which you seemed to be confused exactly where the start of the debate over this issue began. So please, take the time to read the links provided, perhaps you will indeed find the "unsubstantiated opinion" regarding the claims plainsman made concerning feedlots, pesticides ect....



Csquared said:


> If your goal is equitable credibility, perhaps you could start by explaining to all who, like myself, cannot understand why you use countless historical events totally unrelated to this thread or topic in question (note all links posted by you above are from other threads) to badger someone for reasons that obviously exist but the rest of us are not privy to. This thread is nearing the completion of it's third page and you just now posted a re-worded sentence from Plainsman's original post....


C squared if you can not distinguish that these "historical events" or the links I provided are not directly related to this topic and issue, perhaps it is you that are confused as well.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> My only purpose for posting was to try to remind what started all this...a simple suggestion that readers contact people directly affected by the legislation in question...people whom THEY trust...and then form their own opinion. A very simple, mundane, non-confrontational suggestion that resulted in this immediate response from you...
> 
> .And for sure not from Nodak Outdoor "super moderators". You really just can not help yourself can you plainsman. So is this merely another "opinion" that you can not substantiate??? Throw a little more mud and hope some sticks eh plainsman. You truly are a peice of work


Csquared, it seems you pick and choose what you wish to read. so perhaps we should indeed look at even more of what plainsman initially wrote. Recall this portion of this "simple suggestion" that was a part of the comments at the start of this thread?

plainsman wrote: Anyway guys get out there and talk to some farmers you know. *Specifically someone who's word you can trust. I don't think we will get the truth from TV, radio, newspapers, or [b]NDFB representatives*. [/b]

Now Csquared, please note the emboldened and underlined statement if you would. It seems as if plainsman was not simply suggesting people "talk to a farmer" but that a "representative of NDFB" could not be counted on to tell the "truth". Now Csquared, given the numerous claims he has made that he has in fact admitted to knowing were wrong, (now you will have to follow along in one of those links I provided for you to reference this) and has not yet "substantiated" as true or factual outside of claiming "opinion" status, that this little tidbit acusing NDFB "representatives" of lying was a bit well hypocritical. Perhaps you beleive people like plainsamn should have the ability to call others liars on here and not be held accountable for the claims he has made?

Hopefully that was typed slow enough that you can realize this "discussion" has roots and background far before this "simple suggestion" in this one thread was made and that if looked at in it's entiriety, this "suggestion" is not so "simple" and innocent as you would like to beleive. :wink:


----------



## gst

Csquared, now that we have hopefully worked our way thru that slow enough to grasp that this related dialogue goes beyond this one single thread, perhaps you would like to address the one unbiased question I posed earlier.

Do you beleive the laws that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth?


----------



## Csquared

> Now Csquared, please note the emboldened and underlined statement if you would. It seems as if plainsman was not simply suggesting people "talk to a farmer" but that a "representative of NDFB" could not be counted on to tell the "truth


".

Was duly noted. Perhaps you failed to realize no one was faulting you for excluding Nodak moderators either.



> .And for sure not from Nodak Outdoor "super moderators".


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am
> 
> "I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame."
> 
> "I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen."
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm
> 
> "The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people *They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal*with no regard. . There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else".
> 
> We don't need a back door to get around reasonable policies on ag. We don't need uncontrolled drainage, we don't need uncontrolled pesticide use, we don't need uncontrolled agriculture."


Csquared, above are some specific claims plainsman has made regarding this measure. He has simply been asked to substantiate how this measure will in FACT allow these things to happen. (growing things that are now illegal???Perhaps I should order my poppy seed now!! :wink: ) He to this point has not. Please note the date on these claims, they are from the threads in the link I provided you. I do realize they are abit "historical" but the fact remains in 4 monthes time he has not tried to find any factual information to substantiate these "opinions" but rather simply continues to make them. So yes indeed rather than listening to these unsubstantiated claims that in fact will be prevented by Federal regulations regardless of the outcome of this measure, people should talk with those that make their living in agriculture regarding this measure. (I'm sure the DEA would have a bit to say about "raising things that are now illegal"!  ) But hey I might be wrong there, so maybe even asked these farmers and ranchers if they beleive this measure would allow them to raise "illegal" crops such as heroin or grow marajuana as plainsman's "opinion" insinuates??? :roll:


----------



## Csquared

Did he make em in this thread?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> You missed your Prozac this morning didn't you? I'm glad you talk like that. If you didn't someone might take you serious. People have started to speak up and your response is to leave the reason reservation. Keep it up please. No bread or electricity in 24 hours? Ya, that's realistic. That is the way NDFB thinks isn't it? I rest my case.


Plainsman, I'm so glad I could amuse you today. But I do not believe you are so ignorant as to miss my point. You and your handful rule this web-forum but should not be in charge of much else.



> You have that right. I never would. It's sort of like the NDFB amendment. gst said he didn't like the way it was written, but no one asked him. Same here, no one asked me. I didn't believe anyone would do that, so didn't believe it until one of the sponsors told me. It doesn't look like indsport would either. I still wonder how that happened because of the three or four people I knew in that first bunch of sponsors they all have an intense dislike for HSUS. You guys talk about fear mongering, but you keep going back to that. No good points and one must resort to the boogieman.


Plainsman, The whole HSUS thing is a foregone conclusion. Mike McEnroe (retired federal biologist and lobbyist for the wildlife society) and Dick Monson (sponser of the HFI) admitted to the sordid affair in Dakota Country Rag Mag. The article came out in July 2011. The FB ballot petition came out August 2011. For every action there is a reaction.

Plainsman said,



> Like I said talk to a farmer you know and trust. Why does that scare you so much?


Oh yes, the power of one.

Plainsman said,



> This thread is about talking to farmers. You want to lead it away from that. However, as others have pointed out you took it off course. I am not going to waste my time reading beyond that point in your post. Others have explained it as have I. You simply don't have the capacity to understand. One not to bright and another left the reason reservation.


Plainsman, supermod and thread police. What you wrote earlier pertained how?



> Your land, because before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission the nation would rise up against you and your rights would evaporate. You would be lucky if you could escape before they hung you. I think we would see more rural people again, and more small farms, and new farmers on the land. However, that is a very radical thing, but has happened in other countries. Russian citizens owned no land for years. The closer reality is we would throw out all the current ag protection laws and begin to import. You can be replaced one way or another. Now, before you try make everyone think I am radical and promoting such an idea I am not.


Plainsman, even though you put the disclaimer on the end, I do believe this is what you really think. Maybe you missed your calling. In 1905 Russia was the largest exporter of grain and other commodities. In 1905 Vladimir Illich Ulyanov and Lev Bronstein tried the first Russian revolution. They were imprisoned but later released. Releasing them turned out to be one of the biggest blunders of the world. They met some people who financed their return durring WW1. They changed their names to Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. By 1921 the red revolution was failing because Lenins army was running out of food. The white army was well fed by the "landowners." Lenin appealed to the governments of the world for help. He promised many concessions. Lenin got the neccessary supplies to feed his army. In just six years Russia went from the largest exporter of food to an importer. When Stalin took over he remembered the farmers who fed the white army. He sent his minions to kill the greedy kuluks. They really believed what they did was justified. They believed they were going to share the natural resources and lands of Russia. It was going to be a working mans paradise. Lenin had a term for these persons. "Useful idiots."


----------



## Plainsman

> If the outspoken pretend hunters here on nodak were put in charge of things for just one day, there would be no bread or electricity in less than 24 hours.


No, I actually think you believe that.



> Your land, because before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission the nation would rise up against you and your rights would evaporate. You would be lucky if you could escape before they hung you. I think we would see more rural people again, and more small farms, and new farmers on the land. However, that is a very radical thing, but has happened in other countries. Russian citizens owned no land for years. The closer reality is we would throw out all the current ag protection laws and begin to import. You can be replaced one way or another. Now, before you try make everyone think I am radical and promoting such an idea I am not.


I will tell you why I put the disclaimer at the end. I put it there because dishonest people will try to twist what I say. I put it there because that is what I meant. You have to do those things now days, because there is always someone looking for the cheap shot.

You guys get more radical every time you think I'm not going to come back and play with you. I'm not worried about the Russians half as much as you Shaug. I don't know why you flip out over : talk to a farmer you know and trust. That's what this thread was about. Common courtesy is stick to a subject. If you want the subject to be different the right thing to do is start another thread. Two of you turn every thread into HSUS. I would guess because NDFB is just as dangerous to the future of hunting and you don't want people to know that.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Did he make em in this thread?


Are you suggesting simply because they were not made in THIS thread, they are not relevant to the discussion of the NDFB amendment, which "this thread" is about?

Please do not be so slow as to beleive what is stated in another thread regarding the same topic has no relevance in this thread. Or any others that may be started regarding this measure after this one is locked as well! :wink:

The ENTIRE point of my engaging in this discussion from the start is that people should be accountable for the claims they make, particularily when it comes to the creation of law.

By the way Csquared, you seem to be ducking answering a simple "unbiased" question. It is a bit different than before, so please consider it if you would.

Do you beleive the the processes that create the laws that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman, it does not scare me at all that you wish people to "talk with a farmer". Indeed people should "talk to a farmer" and maybe even a rancher or two regarding this measure. Share with them the link shaug had referencing the meatrix video bashing hog producers! Better yet, down load the video on their smart phone and play it for the rancher that has maybe not seen it!
> 
> Then make sure that farmer or rancher knows that a handful of "sportsmen" that frequent this site actually invited the nations largest anti animal agriculture organization (that sponsor groups that make these videos) into the state and asked for their help in passing a measure aimed at a small section of animal agriculture here in ND.
> 
> When talking with these farmers and ranchers they should share your "fear mongering" claims posted above and then ask them the questions that have been posed as to how these claims will come to fruition given the Federal regulatory authority. Ask them if the existing wording in our constitution will continue to allow the legislature to create and affect laws that will prevent these "fear mongering " claims from happening. I would indeed encourage everyone to talk to a farmer or rancher in regards to this measure, perhaps several different farmers rather than simply getting your "information" from people on sites like this, that have as shaug has shown in his link to a thread from the past, a clear cut history of "supporting ag" in a very peculiar manner.
> 
> Perhaps people should print a page of highlights of your comments such as "rip, rape and run", "hands in the taxpayers pockets" "greed at its darkest" you have made in any number of threads about these very farmers you now wish people to talk to to share with them.


plainsamn you just do not seem to get, you and people like you are largely responsible for why this measure has been introduced. So continue to make the claims you have (you know, about how this measure will allow farmers to grow illegal substances). It will be interesting to hear farmers and ranchers replies to these "opinions".

Hey, by the way did you happen to run that particular claim you made past those couple of farmers you mention in the first post in this thread?  Why don;t you go back and "talk to a farmer" and be sure to let us know what their response was to these specific claims you make about "raisng things that are illegal now" ! :wink:

Ya Csquared, you are probably right, all those claims made in other threads probably have nothing to do with this one. :roll:


----------



## Csquared

> Are you suggesting simply because they were not made in THIS thread, they are not relevant to the discussion of the NDFB amendment, which "this thread" is about?


I'm not suggesting anything. Others can fill in the blanks wherever they wish, but you've filled in most of them already. You acknowledged earlier that you agree with the original post, and now you've acknowledged that the 3 pages of badgering you engaged in had nothing to do with this thread. You've clearly admitted you have an axe to grind with Plainsman and are following him into other threads. Now you want to somehow discredit me for detailing your tactics.

And the thread simply suggested people talk to farmers before making up their minds. You brought the rest into it. I'm guessing the thread you were "discussing" it in didn't go so well for you, and perhaps was locked....and you weren't done yet. Am I close?



> By the way Csquared, you seem to be ducking answering a simple "unbiased" question. It is a bit different than before, so please consider it if you would.
> Do you beleive the the processes that create the laws that govern us should be based on provable fact and truth


How many times is that, gst? Four times that you asked me a question that has absolutely nothing to do with my posts? But I'll tell you what. Since your answers are the only ones that seem to matter to you why don't you go ahead and answer it for me. Then explain to the rest of us why you're asking it. Or better yet, start a new thread with it and see if you get any takers :shake:


----------



## gst

Csquared, you seem to overlook things of relevance. Perhaps if plainsman had simply suggested people talk to a farmer and left it at that this thread could have been done long ago. But you seem to be overlooking the "claims" he made along with that suggestion.



gst said:


> plainsman wrote: Anyway guys get out there and talk to some farmers you know. Specifically someone who's word you can trust.* I don't think we will get the truth from TV, radio, newspapers, or **NDFB representatives.*


I guess you simply beleive that people like plainsman should be able to come on this site and malign others without being held accountable for the claims they make as well.

ALL that has been asked thu out ALL these threads is that people stick to making "claims" they can factually substantiate. 
When it comes to which caliber is the best for shooting a deer at 1000 yards, hey, go ahead give your "opinion", but when it comes to the creation of law or someones occupation, I simply believe a higher standard of FACT should accompany ones comments. Perhaps the people in charge of this site or yourself do not beleive that necessary, it is apparent their "super moderator" does not. It has been stated as long as he is going to make these claims he can not substantiate regarding agriculture and the producer members of these ag orgs he maligns he and anyone that does will be held accountable.

So Csquared, who do you think those ndfb reps that plainsman claims will lie about this measure are??? ???? They are the very farmers who are members and *representatives* of this grass roots ag org. So on one hand he is maligning farmers calling them liars, at the same time telling people to "talk" to them. :roll:

So had plainsman been able to simply suggest talking with a farmer would be a good idea, it would have been one thing. But par for the course he had to make the comment about this ag org. and it's thousands of producer members/farmers and ranchers here in ND insinuating they will all lie about this measure and so here we are. So if you are going to come on this thread and chastise someone, perhaps you're looking in the wrong corner. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You guys get more radical every time you think I'm not going to come back and play with you. I'm not worried about the Russians half as much as you Shaug. I don't know why you flip out over : talk to a farmer you know and trust. That's what this thread was about. Common courtesy is stick to a subject. If you want the subject to be different the right thing to do is start another thread. Two of you turn every thread into HSUS. I would guess because NDFB is just as dangerous to the future of hunting and you don't want people to know that.


plainsamn, please do not lecture others on "common courteousy". One would think that it would be "common courteousy" to not make claims about someones occupation unless you can factually substantiate them.

As far as "radical"???? The statement at the end of your above quote wouldn't be considered to be "radical" is it?? Perhaps if a group of ND "sportsmen, your friends at NDH for FC, had not invited the nations largest anti hunting/anti animal agriculture organization into this state during their last attempt to ban a form of animal agriculture here in ND, there would be no relevance to mentioning it. But given the fact this very thing is what jump started this measure, you will be hard pressed to keep the mention of HSUS out of the converstaion.

Hey I get that you would like to not have to realize that indeed YOUR friends were involved in communications with this anti hunting group and invited them into our state to further their personal agenda,( I mean as a hunter, it must be a very proud moment to look back upon) but it is a FACT you can not deny or excuse or sweep under the table, and the very reason this debate over this measure exists.

So indeed talk with a farmer or rancher you trust, ask them what they think of a group of NDans bringing in orgs like HSUS to help further their agendas. Ask if they beleive a measure like this will help prevent these orgs from furthering their anti agriculture agendas here in ND. Download the Meatrix video shaug provided a link to and share it with a rancher or farmer then ask that farmer or rancher if these orgs are what they want here in ND determining the regulations governing ag. "Radical",,, indeed ask a farmer or rancher what they think of these orgs and their tactics that were INVITED into our state by a group of ND sportsmen to "help" influence people and create law. :roll:

plainsman, glad you thought of this "talk to a farmer" idea! :wink: .


----------



## Plainsman

> When it comes to which caliber is the best for shooting a deer at 1000 yards, hey, go ahead give your "opinion",


So am I maligning Hornady when I say Bergers are better for long range? I guess a farm business is different than a bullet business, a powder business, a rifle business, a scope business. Your special gst and we love you.



> I don't think we will get the truth from TV, radio, newspapers, or NDFB representatives.


Are you angry about the TV comment, the newspaper comment, or the NDFB comment? If a democrat introduces something and there could be something negative about it would you ask his best friend or a republican. When it comes to the debate on fraking when retrieving oil would you ask an oil company or a geologist. Your to touchy and think your to special. Get over yourself. It's your profession, big deal. I take hits all the time about mine. Sometimes people are right. Have you ever seen me go off the deep end because people don't believe global warming scientists? No, I don't believe them either.

Why should we believe you would follow ag rules. You don't follow rules on this site. You run your mouth off about things in PM, you have a potty mouth that your mother should have washed out more often, and you highjack one thread after another. You have no respect for rules, or anyone who isn't a farmer. They say doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity. I would fall into that category too, if it wasn't for I'm relying on you acting insane.

All I ask is that people don't judge all farmers by you and shaug. Shaug in his last couple of posts begin to voice the same opinions as Posse Comitatus. It gets better all the time. If you don't want people to think these things then don't act and say things that support it. I took precautions so no one could twist my words. Yet Shaug jumped right on them and twisted them anyway. As conservative as I am (some in the political form accuse me of being ultraconservative) Shaug would like people to believe I advocate communism. He doesn't understand that when he does that he shoots himself in the credibility foot with anyone who reads what I write politically.


----------



## gst

quote="Plainsman"]Common courtesy is stick to a subject.[/quote]



Plainsman said:


> Why should we believe you would follow ag rules. You don't follow rules on this site. You run your mouth off about things in PM, you have a potty mouth that your mother should have washed out more often, and you highjack one thread after another. You have no respect for rules, or anyone who isn't a farmer. They say doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity. I would fall into that category too, if it wasn't for I'm relying on you acting insane.


plainsman, what exactly is the "subject" of this thread about?  C squared, I thought we were supposed to be talking about talking to a farmer? 

gst wrote:"When it comes to which caliber is the best for shooting a deer at 1000 yards, hey, go ahead give your "opinion",

plainsman wrote:"So am I maligning Hornady when I say Bergers are better for long range? I guess a farm business is different than a bullet business, a powder business, a rifle business, a scope business. Your special gst and we love you."

jeesh plainsman thanks for the love man, but if you follow along, I gave the examples of "calibers" not ammunition companies for your opinion. You would be "maligning Hornaday" if you were to claim the only reason they are in the ammunition business is because of greed and they are only in it to "rip, rape, and run" ect.... or if you were to claim if someone were to shoot Hornaday bullets it is only a matter of time until their rifle blows up as a result of their (Hornadays) greed and irresponsible practices. All without any sort of proof to back up your claims. Follow along here now??? Next time I can type slower as Csquared says! 

Csquared asked:"I don't know what you did to whizz him off, Plainsman, but it obviously goes much deeper than this thread, or even Nodak Outdoors"

It appears someone is "whizzed off"  But hey, lets not "get personal" and simply stick to the "subject ok? :roll:



gst said:


> Perhaps if a group of ND "sportsmen, your friends at NDH for FC, had not invited the nations largest anti hunting/anti animal agriculture organization into this state during their last attempt to ban a form of animal agriculture here in ND, there would be no relevance to mentioning it. But given the fact this very thing is what jump started this measure, you will be hard pressed to keep the mention of HSUS out of the converstaion.
> 
> Hey I get that you would like to not have to realize that indeed YOUR friends were involved in communications with this anti hunting group and invited them into our state to further their personal agenda,( I mean as a hunter, it must be a very proud moment to look back upon) but it is a FACT you can not deny or excuse or sweep under the table, and the very reason this debate over this measure exists.
> 
> So indeed talk with a farmer or rancher you trust, ask them what they think of a group of NDans bringing in orgs like HSUS to help further their agendas. Ask if they beleive a measure like this will help prevent these orgs from furthering their anti agriculture agendas here in ND. Download the Meatrix video shaug provided a link to and share it with a rancher or farmer then ask that farmer or rancher if these orgs are what they want here in ND determining the regulations governing ag. "Radical",,, indeed ask a farmer or rancher what they think of these orgs and their tactics that were INVITED into our state by a group of ND sportsmen to "help" influence people and create law.


Indeed as plainsamn suggested talk with a farmer or rancher about this measure, share the ideologies presented by a handful of people on this site such as the link to the thread bashing hog producers here in ND then ask these farmers and ranchers if indeed they beleive having the likes of these people and groups like HSUS creating the laws that govern agriculture. After all , many of the people that sponsored and invited these anti groups into our state to further their agenda are on this site maligning agriculture orgs and the producer members they represent. So as you "talk to a farmer" make sure they get on this site and check out the comments some on here make regarding agriculture.



gst said:


> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am
> 
> "I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame."
> 
> "I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen."
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm
> 
> "The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else".
> 
> We don't need a back door to get around reasonable policies on ag. We don't need uncontrolled drainage, we don't need uncontrolled pesticide use, we don't need uncontrolled agriculture."


Yes indeed talk with a farmer or rancher and share these comments made by a moderator on this site regarding what he claims this measure will do. Be sure to mention they will suddenly have the ability to grow all those "illegal" things in your conversation as plainsamn claims !! :wink:

Credibility?????? :roll: Radical??? :wink:


----------



## gst

> Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm
> 
> "The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. *They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. *There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else".





Plainsman said:


> He doesn't understand that when he does that he shoots himself in the credibility foot


Bang! :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> All I ask is that people don't judge all farmers by you and shaug. Shaug in his last couple of posts begin to voice the same opinions as Posse Comitatus. It gets better all the time. If you don't want people to think these things then don't act and say things that support it. I took precautions so no one could twist my words. Yet Shaug jumped right on them and twisted them anyway. As conservative as I am (some in the political form accuse me of being ultraconservative) Shaug would like people to believe I advocate communism


The Posse Comatatus Act prohibits the fed/gov from housing troops in a persons house. Kind of off topic again. I didn't come right out and say you advocate communism. Here is the story you wrote:



> Your land, because before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission the nation would rise up against you and your rights would evaporate. You would be lucky if you could escape before they hung you. I think we would see more rural people again, and more small farms, and new farmers on the land. However, that is a very radical thing, but has happened in other countries. Russian citizens owned no land for years. The closer reality is we would throw out all the current ag protection laws and begin to import. You can be replaced one way or another. Now, before you try make everyone think I am radical and promoting such an idea I am not.


First sentence: Your land, because before you hold the nation hostage and try to starve them into submission the nation would rise up against you and your rights would evaporate.

Plainsman, Do you really believe red october was about downtrodden masses raising up against exploiting bosses and landowners?

Second sentence: You would be lucky if you could escape before they hung you.

Plainsman, you're a disturbed man.

Third sentence: I think we would see more rural people again, and more small farms, and new farmers on the land.

Plainsman, after they killed all the greedy kuluks, how would you replace the people needed to work the land? Would you line up a bunch and start dictating every third person is a shoemaker, then a factory worker then a farmer? In Russia they started collectives. The "new" farmers they put on the land didn't have that old teacher called experiance. The people starved.

Fourth sentence: However, that is a very radical thing, but has happened in other countries.

Plainsman, Yes these are some radical thoughts you have. Name some other countries. Or is it that you like Russias model best?

Fifth sentence: Russian citizens owned no land for years.

Plainsman, all land became property of the state. Russia is a very large country. They had a Czar or one dictator a thousand miles away and they traded him for a thousand little dictators a mile away.

Sixth sentence: The closer reality is we would throw out all the current ag protection laws and begin to import.

Plainsman, Russia was the largest exporter of food prior to WW1. The natural resources of Russia did not peter out. The ground did not fail to produce. Communism is a failure. Importing food is a really bad idea.

Seventh sentence: You can be replaced one way or another.

Plainsman, with an attitude like that, I now believe you when you say that you have been threatened by people toting Super Blackhawks and stuff.

Eight sentence: Now, before you try make everyone think I am radical and promoting such an idea I am not.

Plainsman, your disclaimer not to be thought of as a radical isn't cuttin' it. You wrote it. It is a reflection of what you are thinking.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, your disclaimer not to be thought of as a radical isn't cuttin' it. You wrote it. It is a reflection of what you


I was simply pointing out that in the past history on this earth radical things have happened when one group starve another group into submission. Don't you think that's correct? Being aware of something doesn't mean you promote it. That would be a scary thought.



> The Posse Comatatus Act


No, no, not the Act, the people that shot federal agents at Medina, North Dakota. They don't believe in any form of law enforcement beyond the county Sheriff. Of course they shot a deputy too, but he lived. They don't want federal regulations, but they cash their subsidy checks fast. Your hatred of federal makes you sound like them.



> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> For other uses, see Posse comitatus (disambiguation).
> 
> The Posse Comitatus (from the Latin phrase meaning "force of the county") is a loosely organized far right social movement that opposes the United States federal government and believes in localism. There is no single national group, and local units are autonomous.
> 
> Posse charters were issued in 1969 in Portland, Oregon, by Henry Lamont Beach, "a retired dry cleaner and one-time member of the Silver Shirts, a Nazi-inspired organization that was established in America after Hitler took power in Germany" [Corcoran].[1] William Potter Gale has been described by one expert as the founder of the movement.[2]
> 
> Posse members believe that there is no legitimate form of government above that of the county level and no higher law authority than the county sheriff.[citation needed] If the sheriff refuses to carry out the will of the county's citizens:
> 
> ...he shall be removed by the Posse to the most populated intersection of streets in the township and at high noon be hung by the neck, the body remaining until sundown as an example to those who would subvert the law.[3][4]
> 
> Many Posse members practice survivalism and played a role in the formation of the armed citizens' militias in the 1990s. The Posse Comitatus pioneered the use of false liens and other paper terrorism.[5]


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I was simply pointing out that in the past history on this earth radical things have happened when one group starve another group into submission. Don't you think that's correct? Being aware of something doesn't mean you promote it. That would be a scary thought.


So what value then does this statement have in this subject discussion?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that in the past history on this earth radical things have happened when one group starve another group into submission. Don't you think that's correct? Being aware of something doesn't mean you promote it. That would be a scary thought.
> 
> 
> 
> So what value then does this statement have in this subject discussion?
Click to expand...

Gst, I swear you should be diagnosed one taco short of a combination plate....otherwise known as "insane". If there is one person who should be charged guilty of posting statements that don't have any value other than to muddle facts its you. Now I know you're going to come back with a question asking, "well show me where leadfed". Don't bother, you will just have to take my word on that one cause we all know its true and I bet you do to. However, that is your only way to form a rebuttle.

I'll say it again. Farmer/ranchers with your mentality and ideology are so much more of a threat to the hunter/sportsman than all those crazy anit gun, peta freaks combined.

And whats with all the smiley faces and crap? If I didn't see your "touching" interview on the NDSA website I'd swear you were a teenage girl.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, what exactly is the "subject" of this thread about? C squared, I thought we were supposed to be talking about talking to a farmer?


Fair enough. I thought I may have that chance today, but nope. I spent most of the day in Bismarck. You can only spend so much time in Scheals before you get bored or go broke. Then you sit around the mall and talk with people. Unfortunately I went to the car for a while, and fell asleep. 

Then it was time to go to the grandkids Christmas party. Speaking of which Merry Christmas to everyone. I better say that again on the political thread since this one perhaps doesn't get much coverage.

I have talked to about eight or nine guys, but none belong to the FB. Most of them actually don't know much about it (the amendment). The most common thought is it is preparing for the new push on tile in North Dakota. Most of the people I have run into belong to Farmers Union. I have relatives that belong to Farmers Union and Stockmans Association. I think I will go home and do some coyote hunting and talk with them.

For something positive: for you guys that don't know Ron on here he farms. He has a wetland he could easily drain, but he doesn't because it would flood his neighbor. God grant that we could all have neighbors like Ron. Ron, I have never met you, but all I hear is good things. If your ever in Jamestown I have to buy you lunch.

leadfed, your not the guy I talked to at Cabela's in Billings, Montana are you? You know, I was the guy back in the ATV department looking for that synthetic rope for my ATV winch.


----------



## leadfed

Nope that wasn't me. Haven't been in Billings for over 2 years. That must have just been another guy who thinks logically about topics like this.


----------



## Csquared

> For something positive: for you guys that don't know Ron on here he farms. He has a wetland he could easily drain, but he doesn't because it would flood his neighbor. God grant that we could all have neighbors like Ron.


Since we're no longer held to the thread topic I offer this for consideration. Plainsman shows one example of fair and reasonable treatment of others with Ron above. The type of treatment I would assume most (if not all) landowners would prefer non-landowners felt they could expect from ALL landowners. Expectations that most certainly could affect the way most (if not all) non-landowners weighed-in on proposed legislation that might leave questionable federal intervention as the only defense against unscrupulous landowners' (who lack Ron's convictions) misuse of any potential, underlying powers that may or may not be provided by the legislation.

I don't know the numbers but I would imagine landowners are outnumbered by non-landowners by a wide margin, and that creates a voter disparity that I would expect landowners to be well aware of anytime the public has a chance to affect the way landowners can pursue their livelihood.

With that in mind, I'm curous if all the landowners here (or those even more directly involved in NODAK ag politics) are comfortable with people like gst using formats such as this to represent the industry, and to set the bar for the level of fair and reasonable treatment voters can expect if they grant more authority to the landowners?

And what about the non-landowners on here? Using tactics displayed here as an example, how comfortable are you that, when given a choice, landowners such as gst will put what's right ahead of personal gain? And that's not a statement, it's a question. A question it seems many may have a chance to answer at the polls, whether directly, or indirectly, and gritting your teeth and slamming your fist on the table with a "not while I'm here" attitude, while mandatory for your ancestors' success, might not be as beneficial on the current political front.

But I could be wrong. Afterall, I thought this thread was simply a suggestion for all voters to discuss the issue with the ones they trust they most before making a decision


----------



## gst

Jeesh you guys, I thought we weren't supposed to make things "personal" on here??? 

I tell you what Csquared, when you are asking the question about what land owners think of my comments, ask them what they think of the following threads as well.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95235
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94741
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=90505
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94385
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=89313
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=91110
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=90214
This ine is a good one right from the tittle viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79433 @&$%# farmers :wink: 
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=65469
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40782
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3234

These are a handful of threads full of farmer friendly comments from this site, feel free to post any of the ones complimenting those in agriculture for the job they do from here as well so it is not just a one sided affair.


----------



## Plainsman

> These are a handful of threads full of farmer friendly comments from this site, feel free to post any of the ones complimenting those in agriculture for the job they do from here as well so it is not just a one sided affair.


Actually I have complemented you a few times. Some on here and some in PM's. Mostly you ridicule me for honest opinion. I complemented Ron because I wanted people to know there were excellent landowners out there that we should respect and support. I have never met Ron, but appreciate him immensely. The same with you until you posted things on another outdoor site about sending me proof about Fair Chase and HSUS. You didn't send me anything one way or another. I wish I had known what was going on behind my back sooner. If you did have proof I wish you had sent it.

I judge landowners like I judge everyone else. Individually one at a time. Even with groups I don't like I still judge them individually one at a time. Anything else is prejudice. These debates are not about all farmers, but If the shoe fits wear it. You told me what a conservationist you are, therefore these things I say should not bother you. Hmmmm

csquared had an excellent idea. Lets leave it at talk to a farmer you know and trust and you start a topic you want to talk about. It's evident you have a lot to say, so perhaps you should do it the proper way.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The same with you until you posted things on another outdoor site about sending me proof about Fair Chase and HSUS. You didn't send me anything one way or another. I wish I had known what was going on behind my back sooner. If you did have proof I wish you had sent it


plainsamn once again it seems you are confused, I have never claimed what you state on another outdoor site. If I have indeed please show me where it was written. As you know on that other site you can not "edit" your posts after 30 minutes so if it was written there will be proof for you to provide.

As to the "compliments" yes indeed you did "compliment" me on my commitment ot conservation, and held that pleasant veiwpoint right up until I took an opposing stance on the HH issue. And you wonder why I beleive a measure like this is something worth considering. As to the threads I have posted, please show me an equitable number on this site that are related to agriulture that do not contain the amount of derogatory comments that these do.

All that has EVER been asked on this site is that when discussing someones occuaption, do not make claims you can not substantatie wuth fact, and in debating the creation of law to maintain a basis of FACT and truth. Any thread that that has been suggested regarding agriculture has ultimately turned into the personal juvenile crap this one has as well. So as there is no "worthwhile discussion" happening further you may as well lock this one as well.

As I said, indeed talk with farmers and ranchers you know and trust. Be honest enough in the discussion to mention the veiws of some on this site, print and share some of the comments that have been made by a small group of people on here, share the Meatrix video some on here thought well done with a rancher, ask that farmer or ranchr if they wish to have orgs like HSUS and other more locally grown groups dictating regulatory law based off their personal agnedas. Have an honest open dialogue and see what they say.

Oh and be sure to mention the fact that some have claimed this measure will allow them to grow all kinds of things that are now illegal. Perhaps Hefty Seeds will have an introductory deal on marajuana seed after this measure passes! :wink:


----------



## huntin1

Hey, when are you guys going to ask Csquared and leadfed if they work for the Federal Government? oke:

Inquiring minds wanna know. :laugh:

huntin1


----------



## KurtR

what i want to know is how wet do people get pissing in the wind this long


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsamn once again it seems you are confused, I have never claimed what you state on another outdoor site. If I have indeed please show me where it was written. As you know on that other site you can not "edit" your posts after 30 minutes so if it was written there will be proof for you to provide.


No, I am not confused. I rarely ever go to that site even though I joined OOOOH, maybe 2003. I was contacted and told about your comments. If they are not there it is simply because you have already edited them out. I seen them, I remember them, and I went to that site and corrected you. I got a PM from one of their members. I will not share the name, but I will share the message since he is from fishingbuddy. Ha, I don't have to the thread was listed in the PM. Good, it would take a while to get permission to post the PM.



> by Plainsman on 02/03/2010 7:06 PM | Reply #73 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
> Plainsman ONLINE!
> Joined: 06/19/2003
> Location: ND
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst Said:
> Sportsman, go on the other outdoor website ndoutdoors and contact a person that uses the id plainsman. He was a sponsor for the last HF initiative, he is not this time. Ask him directly why and if any of the sponsors of the last initiative were in contact with HSUS in regards to helping gather signatures in an attempt to further this agenda. If ANYONE does not think HSUS wil be involved in this thru some behind the scenes participation, they are too completely blinded by their own personal agendas to stop and realize what type of org. HSUS is and how far they will go to accomplish their agendas.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I received a PM that people were speaking for me on this site. It's been about a years since I was told I would be sent proof of that. I have not seen it yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Now the only other thing I am going to say is I had a good afternoon. Our church combined Bible studies and we had a get together potluck. Anyway, I sat with a few farmer friends and I brought up the NDFB amendment. No, gst I didn't mention all of the things you asked. I wanted unadulterated opinion. I'm just going to say these are guys I know and trust. After talking with them I am less upset with NDFB. Now gst if there is a brain bouncing around in there this is a good place to leave it. You are the one that makes me distrust them. You and shaug are the reason I have so much distrust. You twist what I say, you call me a liar, and the above should prove I didn't lie about what I said. I have more PM's than I thought I did. You poisoned the well gst, so don't cry.

Gst please notice the date I joined fishingbuddy. You may want to notice I am not that knew so no I am not going to get off, and I don't think it's your site. You told me how polite they were and that you didn't have any conflicts over there. Ha, those guys hit you harder than I do. Nice try.

I promise other farmers on here I will try my hardest not to let gst turn me from supporting you. Perhaps you can explain some things to me in PM's and help me keep a positive attitude. If so thank you very much.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

If you will notice in the pm GST was talking to a fella psuedo-named sportsman. His name is Michael R. from Jamestown. He was thrown off of fishingbuddy for being an idiot. He then moved over to the Bismarck Tribune Forums and people there had to get ugly with him. He is/was a police officer in Jamestown and he likes to ride shotgun with Huntin1 eating doughnuts. :laugh:


----------



## LT

> Postby Plainsman » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:03 pm
> 
> Indsport Stated: For clarification about HFH, I knew all the sponsors of the initiative for HFH and the very first time I heard that HSUS came calling to help with the petition drive or during the campaign , I immediately (within a few hours) advised them to send HSUS a simple statement and publicize it. NO HE77 NO, we don't want anything to do with you. My advice, sadly, was not taken.
> 
> indsport, you will notice I didn't sponsor the bill the second time. One reason was the HSUS (after I was able to confirm it for myself) the second reason was, if they ask a person to sponsor a bill they should also ask that person for input. I suppose that is a little egotistical, but it's also common courtesy. Still, less than intelligent people try link me to HSUS. They do so because they want to ram through junk like this amendment.


Plainsman, you posted the above basically admitting that you knew HSUS was involved the first go round, but yet you are still upset that gst revealed that you PM'd him during the second go round that you knew this and that is why you were not involved the second time. *Why does this upset you so???* Is it because you did not want the elk/deer growers to know so you could continue to tell everyone it was not the case? Is it because you did not want people to know you were connected with people that contacted HSUS? Is it because you kept telling us any time we mentioned HSUS involvement in the second go round that we were basically trying to use them as a boogieman? Did you lie? Do you feel guilty? If so, maybe you should go to church some more.


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> If you will notice in the pm GST was talking to a fella psuedo-named sportsman. His name is Michael R. from Jamestown. He was thrown off of fishingbuddy for being an idiot. He then moved over to the Bismarck Tribune Forums and people there had to get ugly with him. He is/was a police officer in Jamestown and he likes to ride shotgun with Huntin1 eating doughnuts. :laugh:


Shaug, you reading comprehension is astounding. Please notice:


> uses the id plainsman


 It doesn't make any difference who he was talking to the subject was who he was talking about. Sheees, I have to explain everything.



> Why does this upset you so???


For one thing he said he understood confidentiality and would never do such a thing. The other reason is I would just as soon not have been as involved in the debate as I was. However, as soon as some idiots tried to link me personally with HSUS I did get into the debate. I had told myself I didn't want to get involved, but people like you drug me into it.

So now why don't we all go talk to farmers and some of you on here stop giving landowners a black eye. You would be surprised what I don't like. I don't like some of you making landowners look like self centered, wildlife/government hating, Posse Comitatus types. I respect 95% of farmers/ranchers and only have conflict with the extremely bad. As a matter of fact a few are my best friends. That's why I came away from lunch today with a much better view of NDFB, but I'll bet you guys don't like that.

Plainsman said:


> After talking with them I am less upset with NDFB. Now gst if there is a brain bouncing around in there this is a good place to leave it.


I guess we know now don't we? I noticed gst stayed away from this. My congratulations. Maybe he really does care about farmer image. I know two that hate more than they care. Or you could not stand that I was less bothered by NDFB and you need me as your boogieman to frighten others. Ya, that's it. Find someone, insult them, start every argument possible, then cry foul. Your not posting intellectually anymore, your simply posting your hate.

Thanks gst for not coming back like these two. I do encourage you to start some posts your interested in. Perhaps start a positive one. You once sent me a PM about how the NDSA was doing conservation things. Start there. I would like to think you could do that. All this negativity is reflecting on good landowners. Some may blame me for that, but as I have stated many times they are like everyone else, and it's the bad ones willing to do anything for a buck that scare me. If this amendment had been a little more specific I told people on here I would have signed their petition. If it was non destructive of course. Specifically stating that they would drain every wetland in North Dakota would not get my signature. I mean specific and reasonable. I had to put that in as a disclaimer, but unfortunately some people don't respect disclaimers. I hope your not one of them.


----------



## gst

]


Plainsman said:


> The same with you until you posted things on another outdoor site about sending me proof about Fair Chase and HSUS. You didn't send me anything one way or another. I wish I had known what was going on behind my back sooner. If you did have proof I wish you had sent it.


plainsman, in this statement you specifically say I was going to send you "proof about Fair Chase and HSUS".

I asked you to "please show me" where that was done.

Now instead of claiming it was me that told you I would send you proof, you are claiming someone else told you about my comments. 


Plainsman said:


> I was contacted and told about your comments.


You admit it was done on FBO, you admit you are not on there very often. 


Plainsman said:


> I rarely ever go to that site even though I joined OOOOH, maybe 2003


On FBO once something is posted after 30 minutes it can not be "edited out".


Plainsman said:


> If they are not there it is simply because you have already edited them out


I asked you to "please show me" where this claim of having proof you now make was made and you claim you saw the claim, went to the site and corrected me. 


Plainsman said:


> I seen them, I remember them, and I went to that site and corrected you.


Then in the PM reply you share you state that these claims had been made a year prior and you had yet to see proof.


Plainsman said:


> Plainsman said:
> I received a PM that people were speaking for me on this site. It's been about a years since I was told I would be sent proof of that. I have not seen it yet[/quote
> 
> Now plainsman, here is were you lost me in the proof. If you are not on that site very often as you admit, and yet you claim you "seen" this claim that you make that I had proof and would send it to you, how could I have then "edited out " and removed this claim you say I made when after 30 minutes you can not do that on FBO?? Particularily since you claim this was going on behind your back, if that was indeed the case, how could you have "seen it" and yet I have "edited it out"? Your "time line" does not wuite add up here plainsman.
> 
> Now before you claim you just by coinsidence happened to be on this site and saw this claim you say I made, please realize that you state that someone else PMed you that this claim had been made and that it had been "going on behind my back" . So now you wish people to beleive that all this happened within this one half hour time frame when it actually could have been "edited out" , and instead of simply quoting this claim in your reply on FBO when you "seen" it, so that it was locked into this thread forever, you waited for a years time to reply to it and wish you would have known about it "going on behind your baclk".? ????
> 
> So what is it plainsman, was it going on behind your back as you claim? Or did you "seen it" as you claim?
> 
> What actually happened is people on FBO were indeed questioning how I knew that someone from HSUS had been in contact with the sponsors of the measure. I simply told this person that went by the name "sportsman" to go to this site and contact you to hear it straight from the horses mouth as they say. So indeed plainsman you are confused. Perhaps you would be better off simply admitting that rather than continueing to stick to your "story" of me telling you I had "proof" of some sort. You know EXACTLY where this "proof" existed.
> 
> And now before you begin chastising me for "sharing" what was in a PM on another site, please realize I did not say what was in the PM only that they were only to contact you to verify what was stated as fact. By the way that is exactly what was in what you posted.
> 
> gst Said:
> "Sportsman, go on the other outdoor website ndoutdoors and contact a person that uses the id plainsman. He was a sponsor for the last HF initiative, he is not this time. Ask him directly why and if any of the sponsors of the last initiative were in contact with HSUS in regards to helping gather signatures in an attempt to further this agenda". end quote
> 
> And plainsman, please realize that you have just shared what was in a PM on one site on this site. Apparently your rules of privacy do not overlap sites, so please do not expect the same in return.
> 
> And please realize this "proof" that was told to be verified by contacting you was once again admitted to by yourself on this site that in fact you knew this communication between these two orgs had happened prior to the second attempt of this measure taking place.
> 
> So now given your claims thru out the HFH debates denying this collusion between HSUS and NDH for FC existed, how then should we consider what you claim to be credible now that you have admitted to knowing otherwise? After all the "truth" finally was admitted to that in fact desp[ite yours and others claims there was indeed collusion between HSUS and NDH for FC during the HFH Measure Two attempt.
> 
> Please realize it is only "crying wolf" if the wolf does not show up! The Dakota Country article not only admitted that the wolf showed up, but instead of having to huff and puff and bloooow the house down, he was invited in, right thru the back door!!! :wink:
> 
> So why do those in ag believe this NDFB measure is necessary???


----------



## Plainsman

> And plainsman, please realize that you have just shared what was in a PM on one site on this site. Apparently your rules of privacy do not overlap sites, so please do not expect the same in return.


No, I didn't share a PM. I said I was PMed information. Then I quoted from fishingbuddy. Until I have permission I will keep my mouth shut about the rest. Sometimes it takes a heck of a lot of work to find these things.

Your right about the 1/2 hour on fishingbuddy. I do apologize for not understanding. I thought that you had to wait an hour before you could edit. I had that backwards. I'm wrong, and I admit it. I got the wrong idea about editing when you had to make that apology that day and said your computer submited before you were ready. I thought that you couldn't edit until one half hour. Your also right about the proof thing. I think it was on here you got chewed out for posting information from a PM. I'm a little computer illiterate, but when my PM thing was full I started saving them on Word. At least the old nodak format would get full. I don't know about now, I have nine pages backed up. I should delete, but it doesn't come up and tell us what percentage full it is anymore. I don't think it does anyway, I have not given it that much attention.

Anyway, I think I forgot the point, but I don't disagree with you on things because of your opposition to the Fair Chase initiative. I disagree because of the way you go about debate. You run in circles until I'm dizzy. You make claims that are outrageous. You never start threads you simply hijack other people's threads. I would not be as offended if you respected rules. You have been extremely pampered on this site, but don't appreciate it. You complain about personal, but that's where you take it. I think your method is to be as exacerbating as possible in hopes people will loose their temper. That will never happen.

People normally respect the person who starts the thread. If you start a thread you have much more control on the direction it will go because most people will respect your wishes. I will not act like you ---- promise. Neither will 99% of the other people on here. Try it, you'll like it.

Edit: wow it still does tell me percentage of full in the PM's. I have to delete tonight or I am not going to get anymore.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You make claims that are outrageous. You never start threads you simply hijack other people's threads


plainsamn, I have no wish to start threads on this site. I have made it VERY clear, I would not even be on this site if people like yourself and others would simply not do what you just accused me of. MAKING CLAIMS THAT ARE OUTRAGEOUS in regards to how I make my living in agriculture as do thousands of people here in this state.

Where is your proof that this measure will allow farmers to grow illegal things???

Where is your proof that this measure will allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can carry away the manure despite Federal regulations preventing that???

Where is your proof this measure will allow farmers to spry pesticides how ever they wish rather than complying with Federal regulations?

All "opinions" that you have made.

Unless you can prove these claims as I asked waaaayyyy back when, they are nothing more than "claims that are outrageous".

Stop and think for just one moment what YOUR response would be if I came on this site and gave the "opinion:" That Tiger salamanders have nothing to do with determining the health of a wetland ecosystem and Federal biologists that make traps and do research just have their "hands in the taxpayers pockets" and this is a perfect example of "greed at it's darkest" and those that do are nothing more than "arrogant elitists".

Now just what do you suppose YOUR response would be to that??? Honestly answer that please.

Do you suppose I would be asked to substantiate my "outrageous claim"?

Do you suppose I would be held accountable for my "outrageous claim"??

I am not about to get into a discussion about who pokes who in the eye first, I really do not care.

ALL that has EVER been asked is to stick to factual truth you can prove when discussing someones occupation and the creation of law here in ND. I really do not think that should be too hard of a thing to do.


----------



## shaug

The fella named sportsman was booted from FBO for inappropriate language and conduct. His very last post was extremely bad. It would have been great fun to reproduce it but it appears FBO has dumped his whole profile.

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/user_sportsman


----------



## Plainsman

> Now just what do you suppose YOUR response would be to that??? Honestly answer that please.


I suppose I would try to convince you otherwise. If you didn't believe I suppose I would become frustrated. However, I don't think I would burn bridges and call people liars. I would understand that your entitled to an opinion even though I don't like it. I don't think I would make it a personal attack. At least I sure would try not to. I understand that would be hard to do especially if the other guy called me a liar also.

Shaug wrote:


> The fella named sportsman was booted from FBO for inappropriate language and conduct. His very last post was extremely bad. It would have been great fun to reproduce it but it appears FBO has dumped his whole profile.


I never did see that, but I understand. We have had a couple here that way. One guy was always at my back in the political form. I mean he supported me whole hog when liberals attacked me. Then on the high fence thing he lost his mind. I think it was the only time I ever disagreed with him. First disagreement, and he was more angry with me than the liberals he hated. No one is going to agree 100% of the time.
Here is where I am now confused. When I said I had a good time this afternoon and need to rethink what I think of NDFB a couple of you got even more angry. I don't understand that. I ask myself do I serve a purpose for you to be the enemy? Do you need someone to be the enemy? What's with the anger when I moved that direction? I said at the beginning talk to farmers you know and trust. Today I did that and was surprised to find that I have less anger with NDFB. Why is it that angers you? I'm asking an honest question now, so please treat it as such. 
I have told you that I agree with most of what NDFB stands for, I just disagree with things that I fear may open doors I don't want open. If they don't want those doors open I wish they had worded that amendment better. gst you said you don't like how it's worded, but will support it. I would like to support it, but the wording scares me away. I think it's going to scare many people. Lets use the high fence thing and look at it in a different light. Many feared animal rights people would try take it further. Now I look at this amendment and I fear radicals will try take it further. We are both acting the same, but you don't understand even after going through the same thing. Think about it.


----------



## gst

plaisnman, the reason I have repeatedly asked the question about the wording in our constitution and have repeatedly asked you to substantiatte these claims you have made is that if you did the research to do so you might just learn a little regarding your claims you have made as it appears you may have by talking with these farmer friends of yours about the NDFB.

Those of us in agriculture know everything is not perfect in ag and yes indeed there are "greedy" people in agriculture just as there are in any industry/occupation. NO ONE has ever denied that. But that simple fact does not give you the right to take liberty with the truth and make claims as you have that you can not substantiate. Yes I know all about "opinions". But as I said in the case of someones occupation that they make theirs and their FAMILIES livihood from, and in my "opinion" the creation of law, factual proof should be the basis of debate rather than "opinion" and rhetoric.

That is why I asked the question no one has yet answered, do you beleive the creation of law should be based on a standard of provable fact?

That is ALL that has been asked. Try that simple common courteousy and see what happens


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Lets use the high fence thing and look at it in a different light. Many feared animal rights people would try take it further. Now I look at this amendment and I fear radicals will try take it further. We are both acting the same, but you don't understand even after going through the same thing. Think about it.


There is a distinct difference. In the case of this amendment, there are FEDERAL laws and regulations that will not allow it to be taken further. That is FACT, not opinion. Any time they have been challenged they have been upheld.

In the case of the HFH measure in fact the Federal courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of these "radicals" and their agendas time and again.

Plainsman I do not dismiss your knowledge of biological interests. It is what you did for a living. Please do not dismiss my knowledge of these orgs and their agendas and actions to end ALL animal ag. I spend a fair bit of time educating myself to their workings interconnections and accomplishments of their agendas. And it is tied directly to how I make my living. IT IS NOT FEARMONGERING. Any more than the repeated suggestion I made in the HFH debate that before the end of the HFH measure HSUS would become involved.

THAT is the PRIMARY focas of this measure. It is being done because of actions that have taken place in other states with these animal rights activists. Like I said early on, the purist Constitutionalist in me questions wether this is the proper place for this to happen, but the reality is our activist society and activist judicial rulings perhaps have changed why and what should be more clearly defined as "rights" within this living document.

Personally I beleive a "truth in the creation of law" statute would have been a better route to go. When you sign on as a sponsor of an initiated measure you take an oath to remain truthful when advocating for your measure. If you are proven to have lied while advocating for the creation of law your measure is disqualified from the ballot. Perhaps people would stop and think alittle more before spouting off rhetoric, and people could actually base their vote on fact and truth rather than who has the most money to buy 30 second ads telling one lie after another.

Agriculture CAN stand on its own if the "truth" is told regarding how we produce the consumers food. And agriculture DOES tell its story and in doing so provides the truth about where and how the consumers food is produced. And we are proactively working to continue to better the process and methods used. But tell me this, do you honestly think orgs like HSUS will tell the "truth" or use inflamatory rhetoric designed to sway the emotions and vote? Please consider that instead of greed and busting regulations that those in ag beleive in the necessity of this measure as they have witnessed the results in other states in what these groups have accomplished. Take the time to watch that Meatrix video in the link provided and ask yourself is this the way the farmers and rancher I know here in ND produce the food I consume? Ask yourself what target audience is this cartoon video design for???

So indeed as was suggested talk with a farmer or rancher regarding this measure. Have an honest open dialogue and consider ALL the possibilites before making your decision regarding this measure.


----------



## Plainsman

> But as I said in the case of someones occupation that they make theirs and their FAMILIES livihood from, and in my "opinion" the creation of law, factual proof should be the basis of debate rather than "opinion" and rhetoric.


Hey, it happens to me all of the time. I have a cousin that went ballistic on me because he didn't get his deer license and didn't think they should be able to turn down landowners. I tried to explain that I didn't work for the state. He said it didn't make any difference we all work together. Heck, I don't even know the people Shaug keeps bringing up. Oh, I know who they are because I seen them at the Wildlife Society meetings. I went to those because my performance standards said I had to remain current with research. Well, those meetings were for presenting research some of which was published, and some which had not been published yet. So, you could not get more current.



> Plainsman I do not dismiss your knowledge of biological interests. It is what you did for a living.


Thank you, but if you want to question biology, and biologists have at it. I do it myself. If something is being done wrong there are no sacred cows. I am ticked at the global warming people, both those two scientists that give the rest of us a black eye, and the politicians who try to use it as a club. Sure I take it serious, I take many things serious, but I'm not going off the deep end until they prove it. There are no perfect groups of people out there. Not yours, and I no for certain not mine. It's tough to live with, but we need to face those facts.



> There is a distinct difference. In the case of this amendment, there are FEDERAL laws and regulations that will not allow it to be taken further. That is FACT, not opinion.


See, now that is where we disagree. I will agree their are federal regulations aimed at control. I am sure your also aware they are challenged every year. One of the farmers I talked to yesterday is sure some will violate regulations and try hide behind the amendment, but he is also sure they will not succeed. He is sure it will lead to the courts to challenge regulations, and it will cost us money, but he thinks it's worth it to protect farming. It was a calm lay it all out discussion, because we trusted each other. We talked about wetland easements. Well, that's off subject, sorry.



> Please do not dismiss my knowledge of these orgs and their agendas and actions to end ALL animal ag.


I don't dismiss that, and I agree with you. I also agree that steps need to be taken. The NDFB has the right idea, but they worded it badly. It should not say no laws may be made against modern agriculture. The farmer I talked with yesterday said " I wouldn't worry, if someone does something bad enough they will always find ways to control them". Perhaps, but perhaps not. It's worrysome. NDFB could have done a much better job. I'm surprised they didn't because that was one of the complaints about the High Fence initiative. One of the points that I at first had some agreement with, but people went so nuts over it I ended up defending it.

Oh, back to this for a moment: Oh oh, I went to get my coffee and forgot my point. Oh, well.



> THAT is the PRIMARY focas of this measure. It is being done because of actions that have taken place in other states with these animal rights activists. Like I said early on, the purist Constitutionalist in me questions wether this is the proper place for this to happen, but the reality is our activist society and activist judicial rulings perhaps have changed why and what should be more clearly defined as "rights" within this living document.


I hope you ment living document in a humorous way? I'm sure you did. I understand this paragraph completely. Like I once said word this a little different and I will sign the petition. Word it very well, and I will vote for it. As it stands it's bad, and could provide cover for those few always willing to cheat. It's to bad, that the few make life miserable for the rest. It happens to all of us. I can't tell you the number of times people are ticked at government people because some idiot ticked them off.



> Personally I beleive a "truth in the creation of law" statute would have been a better route to go. When you sign on as a sponsor of an initiated measure you take an oath to remain truthful when advocating for your measure. If you are proven to have lied while advocating for the creation of law your measure is disqualified from the ballot. Perhaps people would stop and think alittle more before spouting off rhetoric, and people could actually base their vote on fact and truth rather than who has the most money to buy 30 second ads telling one lie after another.


I hope you don't make me regret this later, but I have to tell you the truth. I agree with you.



> So indeed as was suggested talk with a farmer or rancher regarding this measure. Have an honest open dialogue and consider ALL the possibilites before making your decision regarding this measure.


This is a nice dream. I hope the alarm does't go off to soon. :thumb:


----------



## KurtR

If i didnt know any better i think we might have had a break through.


----------



## Plainsman

> But tell me this, do you honestly think orgs like HSUS will tell the "truth


OK I was off to early Bible study so didn't address this. My answer, they will tell the truth when it benefits them, but if it doesn't benefit them I wouldn't count on it. They run on emotion not logic, and I'm afraid they think the end justifies the means so they don't see a lie as immoral.

gst asks this question regarding a cartoon called the meatrix:


> Ask yourself what target audience is this cartoon video design for???


It was to foolish for me to watch more than a minute. It was designed to reach the touchy feely that think with their heart rather than their brain. I couldn't take it serious, so I couldn't take you guys serious using it. However, I suppose there are those that brain dead, so I will take you serious.

So if this passes, and I think it will, how do we control those rotten apples in the barrel? Here is the problem I see. I am extremely pleased with this statement:


> Those of us in agriculture know everything is not perfect in ag and yes indeed there are "greedy" people in agriculture just as there are in any industry/occupation.


That statement alone takes away some of my fears about this amendment. You see, if you could not admit this then I would fear that any new ag practice coming up farmers would defend no matter how bad. From my perspective it looks often like they stick together no matter what. Now, with this idea if good farmers, who truely are stewards of the land, have the guts to stand up and say something is bad when it is --------well, half my fears evaporate.

I wish there was time for the NDFB to rewrite some wording into their proposal. Make it clear that there is no malicious intent and I'll collect signatures for you.


----------



## gst

plainsman, that video is aimed at our youth. It is a favorite tactic of these orgs to target young people that do not yet have the experience and knowledge to distinguish between rhetoric and fact. We in agriculture deal with this over and over again and again and spend a great deal of time and avalible resources combating these type things.

I have told you of the programs and efforts supporting and promoting conservation and stewardship that at least one of these ag groups that I am most involved with engages in on more than one occassion. Check out our Enviromental Stewardship award we partner with the G&F on. We are very proud of this program as well as the Enviromental Services program we run on our ownn providing information and processes for producers to build and implement programs into their operations that are working WITH agencies like NRCS to establish operations that run well within the regulatory guidelines set forth. As an org, we are not alone in doing so. But as normal the media does not put stories like that on the front page, it is the fella that violates regulations that ends up there. Here are links to the two programs I mentioned. 
http://www.ndstockmen.org/?id=80&page=E ... ship+Award
http://www.ndstockmen.org/?id=55

I had the opportunity to talk with a representative of NDFB regarding this measure last week and voice my wish that they had involved input from more ag orgs to have possibly gotten a better written measure as well as ground level involvement and support rather than coming after the fact looking for it. That as they say is water under the bridge and as this is already filed can not be changed. So what is weighed is the wether the value of the measure outweighs perceived flaws in the wording. Those of us in ag know that indeed there are other regulatory measures just as your farmer friend alluded to that can and WILL be used to address violations. So we know that the regulations we now operate under WILL remain even if this measure passes. Can it be used to argue a court case??? Maybe so. Will it be successful, as nothing has yet been able to overturn these regulatory Federal laws from the state level, likely not. So most ag orgs while maybe wishing the wording could have been different, will support this as they realize it's importance and understand that if this fails the likelyhood of accomplish anything after that will be nearly impossible. Once again,* ALL that is being asked is that in this attempt to create an amendment to our state Constitution is that FACTUAL conversation be held. I beleive we owe that to not only this document, but the people it serves.*



KurtR said:


> If i didnt know any better i think we might have had a break through.


Hopefully you are right, and the next time an ag related topic comes up there will be less inflamatory rhetoric from the same names and more straight forward factual dilaogue. And if that indeed can happen, then all the juvenile back and forth was worth it.


----------



## Plainsman

> Hopefully you are right, and the next time an ag related topic comes up there will be less inflamatory rhetoric from the same names and more straight forward factual dilaogue. And if that indeed can happen, then all the juvenile back and forth was worth it.


I agree, but those "stories" I have told you are true. However, I do realize that I simply run into some bad apples that were poor representatives of their fellow farmers and ranchers. The big problem is this: how do we treat the good people well, while containing the idiots? We take chances, or we don't. The other problem is the animal rights people. When it comes down to it there is no question who to support.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

I see you are over on FBO debating some crazy person named nalle who is against horse slaughter.

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/nd_official ... ly?app_p=2

Good Job!!!! Finally, we are bringing you back to the right side of the fence.


----------



## Plainsman

> Good Job!!!! Finally, we are bringing you back to the right side of the fence.


Thank you. We have only had one big disagreement. I got shot down in the voting booth, but that's ok. I didn't think it was getting done right, and I was afraid Obama would get in. With that initiative passed at the same time an idiot became president perhaps would have encouraged radicals like HSUS and PETA.

Yes, that lady gave herself away with the political correct term "companion animal".


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

Have you been watching that thread on FBO?

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/nd_official ... ly?app_p=3

Here is the Bis article

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/a ... z1gYYpx62f

Anti-horse slaughter group forms in N.D.
Story Discussion Anti-horse slaughter group forms in N.D. 
Posted: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:18 pm | (17) Comments

Font Size: Default font size Larger font size An anti-horse slaughter group has formed in North Dakota.

The North Dakota Anti Horse Slaughter Coalition is being led by Jane Marum, the group's president.

Other officers are Stephanie Merrill, vice president, Sandy Kobs, secretary-treasurer and board member Karen Thunshelle.

In a release, the coalition said its goal is to provide information about horse slaughter and the consumption of horse meat.

"The coalition is aggressively debating this issue ... trying to keep horse slaughter and sale of horse meat for human consumption out of North Dakota now and in the future," the release read.

The North Dakota Anti Horse Slaughter Coalition website is: www.ndantihorseslaughtercoalition.org or email [email protected].

Plainsman, I went to their website:

www.ndantihorseslaughtercoalition.org

Plainsman, That Karen Thunshelle and her girlfriends are very good at making a website. You guys at fair chase should have utilized her services instead of the first website that fair chase obtained illegally from the National Wildlife Federation.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, That Karen Thunshelle and her girlfriends are very good at making a website. You guys at fair chase should have utilized her services instead of the first website that fair chase obtained illegally from the National Wildlife Federation.
> shaugguest Posts: 203Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:55 pm


Yes, I did see that. I understand that Karen Thunshelle is that person from the Minot area that either contacted Roger, or Roger contacted her. I know there was contact, but I still don't know exactly how it happened and perhaps never will. It appears everyone has a different story. 
I didn't look at their website. Not interested. I can about guess without looking. Is it really worth the ulcer?

There you go with the you guys again. Did we have a website the first time? If we did ya, us guys. If they only had it the second time, don't throw me in with them. Anyway, how do you know they obtained it illegally? I'm not sure the National Wildlife Federation would have supported it since many are farmers. They maybe did I don't know. About all I did was debate on nodak. My heart was more into arguing with guys I thought were full of bull droppings than it was in getting the initiative passed. Like that mauser guy on fishingbuddy that just said something about me sponsoring the measure both times, or something like that. Guys like that could make me argue against the initiative if he was for it. The guy has such a bur under his saddle that he keeps making jabs even when we agree on the subject. He just can't get over the fact his mouth got him booted here.

My view on the wild horses is:
They have been here for a while, but they are not native
They are destroying the habitat for native species
I think (not sure) that cow taste better than horse
I know dogs like horse
Shoot about 80% and if we have to worry about people like wild horse Anne in Phoenix shoot most of them so we don't have to argue again. Wouldn't want to do that, but it's better than putting up with idiots.
Oh, well lets have a nice pony ribeye then decide who gets them, the French, the dogs, or us.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I didn't look at their website. Not interested. I can about guess without looking. Is it really worth the ulcer?





Plainsman said:


> Please understand on the issues between sportsmen, farmers, and defenders of wildlife I will stand with you and resist defenders of wildlife with every fiber of my being. quote]
> 
> "not interested" "Is it really worth the ulcer", If this is an example of "resisting" "with every fiber of my being"???
> 
> Perhaps agriculture can not simply sit back and depend on others to "resist" that much when you have no "skin in the game" as they say.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't look at their website. Not interested. I can about guess without looking. Is it really worth the ulcer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please understand on the issues between sportsmen, farmers, and defenders of wildlife I will stand with you and resist defenders of wildlife with every fiber of my being. quote]
> 
> "not interested" "Is it really worth the ulcer", If this is an example of "resisting" "with every fiber of my being"???
> 
> Perhaps agriculture can not simply sit back and depend on others to "resist" that much when you have no "skin in the game" as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

gst, you don't understand. I don't need to look because I know these animal rights groups. I don't need to look, because beyond all doubt I will support agriculture over animal rights. I don't need to look, because I know where I stand on the issue between animal rights and horse slaughter. Their caring about horses comes from false assumptions. Is it more humane to kill an old animal, or let it suffer arthritic pan, no teeth, and cold winters? It doesn't require debate with them, and it doesn't require you to debate me. On this issue we have no disagreement, and I don't wish to debate someone I agree with. I see your position as the most reasonable. I am sure animal rights people will say things that make me believe that even more. Now is a time to be careful that we don't say things that change peoples minds. I hope you agree with me that it isn't the best idea to debate with people who already agree with you. Hint! :thumb:

That is what mauser is doing over on fishingbuddy. Taking cheap shots even though he knows he agrees with me. That is not only vindictive it's extremely unintelligent. In the past I agreed with him 99.9% of the time on this site as Gohon. One disagreement and he went off the deep end. No one agreed with him more often than I, yet he is willing to back stab me over one issue. The poor old man is blinded by revenge. May God forgive the poor old fool, I do.


----------



## gst

plainsman, you seemed to miss the point. I am not "debating" with you or suggesting you do disagree with my position on this issue, simply poiinting out that the ambivilance of being "not interested" does not correlate to "resisting with every fiber of my being". And hey I understand that. As I said when you have no skin in the game (how has not being able to sell a horse for slaughter affected you?) it is easy to simply be "not interested".

The point is when those of us that make our livings in animal agriculture and ARE affected by these types of things suggest perhaps they are real and are affecting agriculture, dismissing them as "fear mongering" and "crying wolf" does not fit with "resisting with every fiber of my being" very well either.

So plainsman, if this is the extent of your "resistance", stating your "not interested" , perhaps you can begin to see why those of us in agriculture, particularily animal agriculture support the ideology behind the measure being presented rather than simply relying on the "every fiber of my being" support. :wink:

And like I sid, I get why this is not a big issue to you and you are "not interested", but please do not dismiss the fact it is for a great number of people making their livlihood in animal agriculture here in ND.


----------



## KurtR

If i didnt know any better i would think you two are an old married couple.


----------



## swift

Kurt it's just the way GST rolls. He has a subject that he an Plainsman agree on 100% but he has to dictate to plainsman how he should be supporting the cause. Next will be a post that he doesn't support ag because he wont look at the website the bunny huggers have going. I will pretty much guarentee this will make a full circle to the HFI topic again because that is the way this rerun program always ends.

While I agree the horse huggers are crazy, it is nice to see someone stand up for what they believe without the reward of a dollar bill as their motivation.

Let the bashing begin.


----------



## leadfed

Gst you my friend are an idiot. You are doing way more to hurt your cause on this site than you are to help it. Go away to some ag site and spew your bull**** rhetoric. I saw you on the NDSA prancing around like you were some big shot rancher when in fact your just a blow hard who could afford to loose a few 70lbs. Ranchers/farmers for the most part do not think like you.

Oh hell, i guess you can say whatever you want. Anyone in their right mind should be able to tell where your sole interest lies even though you are posting on a HUNTING web site.


----------



## gst

KurtR said:


> If i didnt know any better i would think you two are an old married couple.


  Ya sometimes my wife even says that about these "discussions"!

All that is being done is to suggest that individuals whose livlihoods actually depend on animal agriculture may indeed have a defferent perspective and priority on things like this NDFB measure than those that have "no skin in the game".

I realize that most people understand that, but there are those that are too biased towards these ag groups and their thousands of producer members to stop and consider a different veiwpoint.

And I suppose that in these cases, the "willie" is so pronounced that even a simple suggestion of considering others perspectives will go unacknowledged. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> "not interested" does not correlate to "resisting


You still don't get it. Your always looking for the worst gst. Not interested in looking at an animal rights website does not correlate in not being interested in how they can hurt hunting/agriculture. You see gst I have always looked at hunters and farmers as allies. That's my big problem when people don't appreciate things. That's my big problem with pay hunting. I don't want hunters to think they don't owe farmers. I also don't want farmers to think they don't owe hunters. I want us to stay allies in the war with animal rights that is sure to come. Just make sure neither of us have an Achilles heel when this war comes.

gst, I'll be there when the fireworks start against the horse slaughter. Will you be there for the hunters?



> And I suppose that in these cases, the "willie" is so pronounced that even a simple suggestion of considering others perspectives will go unacknowledged.


It's not going to go unacknowledged gst. It could create animosity if you keep it up after you have agreement. The wise thing is to let it lay. Why kick a dog when it's wagging it's tail? The wise thing to do is alert people when there is action to be taken. At this point what action is there we can take?


----------



## gst

palinsamn, you simply do not understand the point that is being made.



Plainsman said:


> gst, I'll be there when the fireworks start against the horse slaughter


The point being made is that those of us that make our livlihoods in animal agriculture know that the "fireworks" have already started against horse slaughter long ago and that these orgs were successful in accomplishing their agendas. And where was everyone then??? Please note I can go back thru any number of threads and repost where you have refered to this as fear mongering and crying wolf. Even agriculture itself sat back and thought that can never happen when this agenda first go going. Just because of this legislative action it does not mean that anyone is going to invest their monies in a slaughter facility when they do not know for certain ether there is a future in it or not. THAT is why these orgs are doing exactly what is being done here in ND just as Wayne Pacell promised they would in that article I coppied for you earlier in this discussion. Remember the one where they promised to oppose anyone in Nebraska or Oklahoma that beleived they could start a facility???

What you don't get is I don't expect you to understand this issue to the depth that those whose livlihood is dependant on animal agriculture do. I understand why you may be "not interested", I get that. What is being asked here in regards to this measure even by those considering "talking to a farmer" is that those of us in production animal agriculture will likely have a different veiwpoint regarding things such as this measure and to not dismiss these veiws and the actions of these anti orgs as has been done before in discussing this issue on this site.

In other words plainsman, claims of HSUS impacting animal agriculture here in ND are NOT fear mongering and crying wolf as you have suggested in the past. They are real, they have happened, and will continue to happen and impact particularily animal agriculture here in ND. That is ALL that is being suggested. While those of us involved in animal agriculture "appreciate" your "resistance" we know that the level of commitment (fiber of my being) from those not dependant on this for their livlihood will likely not be as strong as what is needed to deal with these orgs. THAT is the basis for this NDFB meausre in a nutshell. If you or swift or others wish to make more out of it than that, that is entirely your choice.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *The wise thing to do is alert people when there is action to be taken*. At this point what action is there we can take?


THAT is exactly what is being attempted by this measure. And yet how was that represented at the very start of this discussion 4 monthes ago by yourself and the people that are opposed to this measure at that time????

That is the point that is being made here. Your understanding of the importance and purpose of something like this measure in an effort to "take action" went down the path of antagonistic claims and statements rather than simply accepting an explaination that indeed the basis of this measure did not lay in doing an end run aroud regulation but rather protecting the ability to engage in what are currently accepted methods of raising animals in agriculture in a humane and responsible manner and that the threat to impact this is indeed real and active. It appears that perhaps your conversation with a friend that is a farmer may have now opened your eyes to this a little. Great.

So you wish to know what action can indeed be taken??? Help get this measure on the ballot and when discussing it with others, make sure it is done in a factual manner. :wink: I'm sure there is a petition you can sign!


----------



## Plainsman

> If you or swift or others wish to make more out of it than that, that is entirely your choice.


No, not really.

Plainsman stated:


> Not interested in looking at an animal rights website does not correlate in not being interested in how they can hurt hunting/agriculture.


gst responded:


> I understand why you may be "not interested", I get that.


What can I say?

We both agree this amendment is to broad. You will support it anyway, I would need simple assurances or better wording to support it. Like I said, to bad they didn't have time to reword it. They took to big of a bite. They should have spelled it out in a more narrow context that would not have lead to fears in the non ag population. I hope it fails, and they come out with a better one next election that will pass. If it's to late to change, does that mean it's to late to start another differently worded amendment? Start another one and let this one die. Fill signatures for the second proposal and let the other one simply fail for lack of signatures. If they are not willing to do that then they have more of an agenda than they are telling us.

I agree with the horse slaughter, I have less animosity towards NDFB, but I don't support their amendment. It creates distrust for me.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I would need simple assurances or better wording to support it


The "assurances" that indeed there are Federal regulations in place that will prevent the "opinions" you had from happening were given. That is FACT. It can not be denied that they exist and will still regulate agriculture regardless of this state amendment.

What more "assurances" are needed?


----------



## Plainsman




----------



## gst

plainsman, it was a simple question. 
\
You said you could support this measure if you had "assurances". As stated, "assurances" that Federal regulations would remian in place even if this measure passes that will prevent what your opinion claimed would happen have been given and you can not deny they exist and will continue to regulatre agriculture.

You were "assured" that the basis for this measure is to proactively deal with the anti animal agriculture groups actions and agendas which you have been given distinct actual examples off that are happening as we speak as well as being acomplished in other states.

So what further assurances would you need to support this measure as you said?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You still don't get it. Your always looking for the worst gst


What I am looking for plainsman is the truth. You said you needed "assurances" before you could support this measure, I have simply asked what those assurances would have to be. If you are indeed interested in supporting agriculture against these anti orgs., it should be a fairly simple direct question.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

Last night I visited with Randall O'Toole from the Cato Insistute. He read Farm Bureaus measure and said that the state of Oregon where he resides already has a similar Constitutional Amendment. It works swell.

Plainsman, you pretend you don't know anybody, nobody knows you, didn't hear anything or see anything. And then you flip something out there like Wild Horse Annie. Her real name is Velma Johnston. It is quite a story.

http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/w ... ustang.pdf

This website featured article is long but for anyone trying to get their head around horse slaughter it is all right there. The ranchers of Nevada, the US Army mounts, grass, water, emotions, cattle numbers etc. The service that the ranchers and cowboys used to provide for "free" before the Horse and Burro Act of 1971, those duties have now been taken over by the public or the Dept. of the Interior. At great cost over 34,000 horses have been rounded up, fed and cared for at short term corrals and long term pastures. In fiscal year 2009 the BLM spent $50 million. Just think, free enterprize, or the cowboys used to wrangle feral horses and it cost the taxpayers nothing.

That government which governs least governs best.


----------



## Plainsman

> And then you flip something out there like Wild Horse Annie. Her real name is Velma Johnston. It is quite a story.


 :rollin: :rollin: idiots impress me so I remember them.  
Have you ever heard that a sign of old age is when you can remember 20 years ago better than you can remember last week? That's me.  That joke isn't as funny now as it was 20 years ago. Neither is the one that says: "if I had known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself".

Anyway, no one has screwed up the environment in the south west more than Wild Horse Annie. She thinks she is compassionate, I think she is a fool. Often those who think with their heart rather than their brain don't create solutions, they create further problems. She is a perfect example.

I'm not the guy you have to convince, but it's good you followed up because other people who have never heard of her need to know about her.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Often those who think with their heart rather than their brain don't create solutions, they create further problems. She is a perfect example.


Fair chase isn't a law. It is more of an emotional thing. Would it be fair to say it also would/could create further problems?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I would need simple assurances or better wording to support it.


plainsamn, in all seriousness I would like for you to support this measure as you claimed you could if you simply had some "assurances". If you would simply state what assurances you would need other than the ones that have been given reassuring you that indeed Federal regulations will remain if this measure passes tht will continue to regulate agriculture and prevent the concerns you had initialy in this discussion from happening perhaps they could be given and you could indeed show your support for agriculture by signing shaugs petition to get this measure on the ballot.

So what other assurances would you need to support this measure?


----------



## Plainsman

> Fair chase isn't a law. It is more of an emotional thing. Would it be fair to say it also would/could create further problems?


I would rather have seen this through control of hunting, and not landowners. That would have let raising cervides continue, ship out of state etc. I think those things that require permits or license are not rights, but rather privileges like a drivers license. 
Maybe you can help me out on this. What happens if they discover CWD in a North Dakota herd?



> I would like for you to support this measure


I would like to, but can't.



> So what other assurances would you need to support this measure?


I would like the amendment to say something like: This amendment is to protect farmers/ranchers engaged in contemporary livestock rearing. There is no intent to skirt current regulations, and as new animal husbandry practices evolve additional regulations may be introduced by our legislature with the recommendation of the state health department and secretary of agriculture.

Lets face it the lettuce munchers are not going after your mistreatment of corn cobs. I do agree that you need protection from animal rights type people. However, farmers and ranchers need a wider spectrum of support also, and a more narrowly focused amendment would build trust.

I noticed last night in the republican debates Huntsman made a point that America has a trust deficit. I agree, we don't trust our president, we don't trust congress, we (well, I don't) trust our legislature, and we don't trust many organizations. For example do you trust HSUS. I want to trust NDFB, but they need to do something to help me out. I don't know how many people feel that way, but I can't be the only one.

So how does that mistrust come about? It comes about when members trying to win debate make false statements. Remember old Gohon? He is still spewing how I was in bed with HSUS. Since I have explained things and he sticks to it I consider the man simply vindictive and without integrity. I would not trust him with anything. Argue, debate, get frustrated, but stick to reality because on other issues you may need support. Try to win at all costs by demonizing the opposition and trust is gone. Those people will not expect the truth from you on other issues. Both sides may need each other in the future, but if the can't trust each other they will not support each other.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> 
> If i didnt know any better i would think you two are an old married couple.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya sometimes my wife even says that about these "discussions"!
> 
> All that is being done is to suggest that individuals whose livlihoods actually depend on animal agriculture may indeed have a defferent perspective and priority on things like this NDFB measure than those that have "no skin in the game".
> 
> I realize that most people understand that, but there are those that are too biased towards these ag groups and their thousands of producer members to stop and consider a different veiwpoint.
> 
> And I suppose that in these cases, the "willie" is so pronounced that even a simple suggestion of considering others perspectives will go unacknowledged. :wink:
Click to expand...

Do the members of the NDFU have any skin in the game? I believe you called the NDFU members socialists and discredited them for their policy and the way they support agriculture. Seems youre guilty of what you preach GST. No big suprise.

Again, What will the amendment accomplish when you continually point out that the constitution will not allow it to be?

One more thing.... Please stop lieing by saying I do not support ag producers. I do not support many of the NDFB's policies and published beliefs. Ag producers are individuals which, by in large, deserve and receive my support. The NDFB is an organization that does not deserve or receive my support. Much like non ag orgs I don't agree with lets say your favorite DU, I do not support DU, I do support waterfowl hunters as individuals. So please stop trying to drive a wedge between sportsman and ag producers by manipulation of the facts. I do not support the NAACP but do support civil rights for all people regardless of color. I don't support the ACLU for the same reason. Because I do not support these organizations it doesn't mean I don't stand for or believe in the individuals that make up their members.

Can you and your buddy Shaug figure that out for once and all?


----------



## gst

by swift » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:41 pm

I don't see the difference. Between the to both have to do with landowner rights. *I don't want a large hog operation in the Pembina hills either. And I think they should be stopped.* I also don't want Outfitters leasing all the land in the state either. With the HOGS we look at what is best for everyone involved which says don't allow them to be built. With the Outfitters we should ask the same question and let the people of the state vote on whether they should be permitted to do buisness or not. It's the same thing HOG farms will desicrate the air and land and Outfitters desicrate tradition and values.

by swift » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:24 pm

Wig, my post above went wrong. I was saying you say you will support our government if the situation was right in your mind. *Your from another state and lucky for us we don't need your support.*

I'll simply let swifts own words speak for themselves given where he resides.


----------



## swift

Thats precious GST two posts that don't say anything against ag producers and written 7 years ago. Whats your saying CREDIBILITY? You have none here just as Leadhed pointed out.

Are you man enough to answer the question why, me not supporting the NDFB is akin to not supporting ag producers but you bad mouthing the NDFU is not? Double standard? YES but then again that is your way.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I would need simple assurances or better wording to support it


gst wrote:"I would like for you to support this measure"



Plainsman said:


> I would like to, but can't.


So now despite claiming if you were given "assurances" you could support this measure, you are now claiming you can not. Wow I have to admit, I never saw that one coming. :roll:

Plainsman make all the claims you wish. (Such as wanting to keep things from gettin "personal") They will be given the credibility they deserve. In chastising one person for making things " personal", please explain how lead fed and swifts posts contributed alot to the subject in your eyes I'm sure. Nice job of objectively "moderating" :roll:

As always this has yet once again deteriorated into what it always does. So plainsman now that this has yet once again gone down the path most other threads have are you going to lock this one as well. :wink:

Credibility. Luckily most in ag realize it is simply a small vocal minority of sportsmen on a second rate outdoor site that have these "radiucal" veiws. And before you chastise me for bad mouthing the site, tell me how many times have you guys mouthed of on FBO the way you do over here?

Credibility.

It's funny how ones "claims" affect ones "credibility".


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Thats precious GST two posts that don't say anything against ag producers and written 7 years ago. Whats your saying CREDIBILITY? You have none here just as Leadhed pointed out.
> 
> Are you man enough to answer the question why, me not supporting the NDFB is akin to not supporting ag producers but you bad mouthing the NDFU is not? Double standard? YES but then again that is your way.


Easy there swift, you might blow a gasket! 

I simply found it curious that you chastised someone for their position being irrelevant as they were not a ND resident. Where exactly do you reside swift?

As to NDFU, as far as I know they have not yet decided as an org. wether they will support this measure or not. It will indeed be interesting to see if their political opposition to NDFB will overide their willingness to support this measure.

As to your question swift it is obvious that indeed you "support" ag producers, particularily the hog producers. :roll: So when the NDFU were in favor of opening CRP to emergency haying and grazing, did you support their policy and their thousands of producer members that create it??? Your many statements on this clearly shows your support of ranchers as well. Yes indeed swift agriculture is lucky to have the "support" you give it. :roll:

How did you phrase it, when someone else questioned your veiws? "Your from another state and lucky for us we don't need your support"! :wink:

Hey swift, aren't you suppose to be ignoring me???  :wink:


----------



## swift

FBO is run by a know it all kid that bows to you and yours. It's nice to have the lone moderator in your pocket isn't it?

Whats wrong GST can't come up with the answer to my simple question? Your the king of questions but as always no answers.

Now run to Tim and tattle on me. He lost his creditability a long time ago.

I'm glad to see youre as predictable as ever I knew you couldn't take Plainsman's word for standing with you. I knew you would have to poison that well too. Because that's what you do poison each topic you join then take it to your buddies and use it to poison relations with landowners. Your no man GST your a 14 year old girl that can't see the forest for the trees due to the hormones raging in your body. Maybe you will grow up some day and figure it out.



> I simply found it curious that you chastised someone for their position being irrelevant as they were not a ND resident. Where exactly do you reside swift?


At that time I lived in WIlliston, ND GST. But like always take posts out of context and twist them. Also I'm 7 years older and wiser and realize ND is not an island.


----------



## Plainsman

> So now despite claiming if you were given "assurances" you could support this measure, you are now claiming you can not. Wow I have to admit, I never saw that one coming.


I explained why I can't, because the assurances I outlined are not there. I do want to support an amendment something like this. I don't know if it will accomplish anything other than clutter our constitution, but if it makes farmers feel better I want to support something. Not this as it is written.

Hey gst, I have not gone personal at all. I tried to explain because you asked and asked, and asked, so I told you the truth as plane as I could and without any smart remarks. Why do you go off the deep end as soon as someone doesn't agree with you entirely? When I am calm about something and not antagonizing you it's you who make it personal and go on an attack. Look at csquare. He simply asked a few questions and in a couple of posts you were on the attack.

We found something we agree on when we talked about the horse slaughter, but it came back to the antagonizing again fast. Why? Everything was calm and left at talk with a farmer, but it had to come back to this again? Your going to create more enemies than allies.

I don't believe it's to late for the NDFB to change things. All they have to do is let this amendment die and write a new one. then go out and collect for whatever you like.

I hope shaug doesn't follow you down this path. We need some farmers like my friend at church that we can all talk with. Someone who we trust to tell us what is happening. When someone goes bonehead stubborn I don't trust them, but I can't speak for others. Maybe Ron is going to be the only one we can listen to. I wish g/o would still comment once in a while. We gave each other a hard time, but towards the end I think we learned enough about each other to respect each other. Once I found he guided on his own land, provided housing and meals, didn't lease up the whole neighborhood I had a different view of him. There is a lot of give and take, but gst your all take and no give. By the way, I'm not knocking you I offered that opinion as constructive criticism not to anger you or get under your skin. I hope your capable of taking it that way. :thumb:


----------



## swift

> I simply found it curious that you chastised someone for their position being irrelevant as they were not a ND resident.


Read the post again and read it a little slower. I told Wig we don't need his governmental support as he lives out of state. I cannot influence ND governmental folks anymore as I live 40 miles south of the border. I understand that but I can and do support the businesses, farmers, and citizens in North Dakota. Can you see the difference?

How did you stand on the hog issue in the Pembina area back in 04? For or against?


----------



## swift

> I'm not knocking you I offered that opinion as constructive criticism not to anger you or get under your skin. I hope your capable of taking it that way.


Not a chance!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Csquared

Plainsman, I thought you were slipping. I missed this for a couple days and as I was catching up I was a bit disappointed because it was looking as if you were bending, if not bowing to gst's relentless pursuit of having everything his way.

However, I now see it was a stroke of sheer brilliance, because as the rest saw the "discussion" ending, gst found it impossible to muster even a tinge of graciousness in "victory", instead tirelessly searching for new angles to fuel a new diatribe.........EXACTLY as you knew he would.

GENIUS..... PURE GENIUS!! :beer:

How anyone can view ANY of his posts as anything other than inflammatory, disrespectful attempts to "even a score" after this enlightening expose' is totally beyond me :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman, if you learned one lesson from the HFH measure it should have been this, if this NDFB measure were now left to "die" as you wish to be rewritten, it would NEVER gain the traction needed to pass no matter how it was written or even if it had the "support" of every fiber of your being the second time around. The simple fact is you said you could support this measure if you were given assurances and I simply asked what those "assurances" would need to be. You have never answered what they would have to be. I think any objective person knows why.

I do not know how much clearer that can be.

Csquared, I am typing this slowly so you can follow along. It is only an honest claim if plainsman would indeed state what "assurances" it would take for him to be able to support this measure. Or perhaps you consider someone making a claim and then backpedaling from it credible and honest. I am actually more concerned with the truth than a gracious "victory".

Plainsman,if you truly do wish to support agriculture as you claim, simply provide what "assurances" you would need AS YOU STATED and perhaps they can be given. Unless you state what they are we will never know will we. As to the other juvenile personal drivel being bantered about, I am glad to see that as a moderator you have taken it upon yourself to hold people accountable to your "non personal" standard so this site can maintain the stellar reputation it has earned. :wink:

I know the contributions by swift, csquared and others have contributed greatly to the "truth" about this measure being told! :wink: You wish to maintain a degree of credibility as a moderator supposedly being in control of this site??? It seems pretty clear as to what direction you are willing to let this site and these threads go.

So for those wishing to talk to a farmer or rancher regarding this measure indeed do. And while your at it provide a copy of this site and these links for them to read and witness firsthand the "support" being given to agriculture by a handful of "radical" sporstmen. :wink:

Plaihsman you do indeed have a chance to show your support instead of merely claiming it by doing nothing more than listing these "assurances" you stated you would need to support this meausre. 
But please realize, I really do not expect you to list what these "assurances" you claim you need to be, as an honest truthful dialoge would be too much to expect on a site like this.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> FBO is run by a know it all kid that bows to you and yours. *It's nice to have the lone moderator in your pocket* isn't it?


 As opposed to one that chastises one individual for making things "personal" all the while allowing the juvenile posts "you and yours" contribute that apparently do not meet this "standard" of "making things personal".  :eyeroll:

Indeed it is hard to see why one could consider credibility to be lacking on this site. :-?

 But hey, that MUST be why that site has three times the traffic, comments and participants as what this quality site ran by unbiased, truth seeking individuals has. :roll: :wink:

Apparently it is this sister sites goal to be so biased and juvenile that everyone goes over to FBO!

GENIUS, PURE GENIUS :beer:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Jeesh you guys, I thought we weren't supposed to make things "personal" on here???
> 
> I tell you what Csquared, when you are asking the question about what land owners think of my comments, ask them what they think of the following threads as well.
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=95235
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94741
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=90505
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=94385
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=89313
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=91110
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=90214
> This ine is a good one right from the tittle viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79433 @&$%# farmers :wink:
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=65469
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40782
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3234
> 
> These are a handful of threads full of farmer friendly comments from this site, feel free to post any of the ones complimenting those in agriculture for the job they do from here as well so it is not just a one sided affair.


And when you talk to that farmer or rancher, or maybe even a hog producer, :wink: ,make sure you share this top ten of bash a farmer threads with them. Say did any of you guys ever find any of those "farmer friendly I support agriculture" threads on here to off set these?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> FBO is run by a know it all kid that bows to you and yours. It's nice to have the lone moderator in your pocket isn't it?
> Now run to Tim and tattle on me. *He lost his creditability a long time ago*


Swift if we are talking moderators credibility here, what kind of credibility does one have that says one thing then later says another that contradicts what he said before?



Plainsman said:


> I would rather have seen this through control of hunting, and not landowners. ship out of st*That would have let raising cervides continue,*ate etc.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=31964
by Plainsman » Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:06 pm

*I say get rid of every game farm out there. It is prostitution of our natural resources.* If the game is owned by the state how did these people get _breading stock_ to begin with? Through some corrupt politicians or by other illegal means I would think. Native wildlife is endangered by many who are irresponsible, and violate health standards.

by Plainsman » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:14 pm 
Look at it this way. It is societies responsibility to set those limits. Do you think they should be able to raise Whooping cranes, _Peregrin falkons_, etc. Wildlife belongs to the state, and there was no right to these animals to begin with. Society controls many things, and this is no different. The only argument as you say is where do you draw the line. That is the debate. 
*Personally I would shut down every game farm.*

by Plainsman » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:17 pm 
Odd, I haven't seen any of those facts of yours. Many well known scientists (forget the guys name in Canada) have published about this very subject, but sixth grade educated game farmers continue to challenge them.

Perhaps plainsman is not as willing to "support" this measure and agriculture as he claims even if given "assurances" for a reason??? . Old habits are hard to let go of. "corrrupt politicians" or "illegal means" "sixth grade educated game farmers"?????? I guess making claims one can not substantiates and blaming the elected representatives of the state and thinking one is smarter than others (at least those sixth graders) :wink: (know it all) goes back farther than one thinks. Yes indeed a fine example of "credibility" right up there with claiming to want to support this measure if given assurances than backpedaling away when asked simply to state what assurances would be necessary.

truth
honesty
credibility

swift says this always comes back to the HFH deal? Funny how those argueing against this measure are the whose who of the HFH measure supporters. Hell even Roger K put his 2 cents in earlier!!  Go figure. Some little voice in the back of my head says these folks don;t care if the "people have spoken" and still wish to push their agendas onto everyone else and this measure would make that much harder to do. 

How could I have not figured that out earlier!!! :roll: Now that I have it clearly is a case of: GENIUS...... PURE GENIUS :wink:

Truth 
Honesty
Credibility


----------



## gst

Hey, I wonder if any of those "sixth grade educated game farmers" know how to spell "breading stock" or "Peregrin falkons"?? 

Heck, everyone mispells stuff, ( I think I might have mispelled mispell :-?  ), but like I told swift a while back, if you are going to claim superior intellect over someone else, at least get the spelling right when you do so, it is much more "credible". :wink:


----------



## gst

Anyway, you guys carry on here, I'm going dancing this evening with my wife and friends at the Stockmans Ball. I'll have the opportunity to talk with lots of farmers and ranchers there, might even suggest they come on this site just to see what kind of "support" for agriculture there is out there! 

Who knows, maybe I'll even lose a couple of pounds dancing the nite away! :wink:


----------



## Csquared

Tear it up, buddy!

Good thing your wife is going...... :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Anyway, you guys carry on here, I'm going dancing this evening with my wife and friends at the Stockmans Ball.


Really, I didn't know stockman had balls. :wink:

Seriously gst, I put aside our past and treated you very well. I understand the problems with animal rights and horse slaughter. I answered your question and indicated the kind of assurances I would need because what you offered gave me no assurance. I was very sincere about wanting to sign that petition if there was assurances. Simply because csquare thought I led you down the rosy path doesn't mean I was not sincere.

You noticed I asked shaug what happens in North Dakota if they find CWD in a cervid herd. That answer makes a lot of difference in what I think of this amendment. I worry about that, because the state health department will not tell me if they found Tordon in my well. It's my well, don't I have a right to know. It looks like politicians must threaten our state employees or they would tell me. If they find CWD in North Dakota in a cervid ranch will we ever know?

Mostly I have problems with things that make hunting more and more expensive. As prices increase numbers of hunters will shrink. When numbers are very low groups like HSUS will end our hunting. When hunters who feel appreciative towards landowners are gone support will be gone and HSUS will end many ag practices. I'm trying to keep those two groups together, and you guys are trying to drive them apart. How many hunters will be in the field if you want $500/day to hunt your pheasants?

I'm serious I would like to sign that petition, but because I will not at the current time you go off the deep end. Loosing your temper when people are being kind to you isn't real good public relations. I am very disappointed that you strike out when you meet even a little resistence.

I'm still willing to sign that petition with some assurances. I'm still willing to talk to reasonable people. A year ago we left the ELCA and joined another church. There are many more farmers in this new church and I have to say I have total trust in their word. Two farmers keep trying to talk me into joining the Gideons. I man do that, but my point is these guys have given me the trust I needed to listen to them. I have softened my view some of NDFB members, but the organization itself is so narrowly focused that they show little consideration of others. Perhaps they could show a little good faith and sit down to talk with people other than farmers. After all we are all neighbors and live with what our neighbors do next door.



> Heck, everyone mispells stuff, ( I think I might have mispelled mispell ), but like I told swift a while back, if you are going to claim superior intellect over someone else, at least get the spelling right when you do so, it is much more "credible".


I see there was a whole thread on that over on fishiingbuddy. Why do liberals always think they are intellectually superior and when they have no logical argument they resort to insult. I never could get that, but on the political form it's always a liberal that does it. Always. Anyway, it's not like we we are writing a dissertation for publication. It's the content and ideas that are important, but hey why write perfect if people don't understand what you write anyway?


----------



## Csquared

> Really, I didn't know stockman had balls.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> We found something we agree on when we talked about the horse slaughter, but it came back to the antagonizing again fast. Why? Everything was calm and left at talk with a farmer, but it had to come back to this again? Your going to create more enemies than allies.


Not really. You plainsman dismiss their websites their material their opinions. The anti's are dead serious and all the effort you can muster is to name call them on a dying web-forum. They are kooks, crazies and half-cracks not to be taken serious. Well...............nobody can hear you. I'm out there collecting signatures.



> I don't believe it's to late for the NDFB to change things. All they have to do is let this amendment die and write a new one. then go out and collect for whatever you like.


Randall O'Toole a lawyer with the Cato Institute says the measure looks good to him.



> I hope shaug doesn't follow you down this path. We need some farmers like my friend at church that we can all talk with. Someone who we trust to tell us what is happening. When someone goes bonehead stubborn I don't trust them, but I can't speak for others. Maybe Ron is going to be the only one we can listen to. I wish g/o would still comment once in a while.


I have already chosen my path, thank you very much. Thursday night I was at the Land Owners Association meeting. I had my petition with. They all signed. I talked to g/o on the phone the other day. He doesn't post anymore because he thinks you Plainsman have completely surrounded yourself with "SUPID" people.



> You noticed I asked shaug what happens in North Dakota if they find CWD in a cervid herd. That answer makes a lot of difference in what I think of this amendment. I worry about that, because the state health department will not tell me if they found Tordon in my well. It's my well, don't I have a right to know. It looks like politicians must threaten our state employees or they would tell me. If they find CWD in North Dakota in a cervid ranch will we ever know?


I can remember when President George Bush durring his State of the Union Address (can't remember the year) paid lip service to CWD. $50 million bucks was thrown at it. That money is gone and there probably isn't going to be much more funding. My guess is CWD will be put on the back burner in the future. All it takes is EHD or blue tongue to become the new horrible disease. This year ND had one CWD case but thousands of deer fell to EHD. Blue tongue is spread by a midge. The virus does not survive over winter in the midge itself. They do not know but there has to be a host out there where the virus is surviving the winter to reinfest next years midge crop. All the midge program needs is funding.

First the government will assign blame. Once blame has been assigned, goverment will then act, which usually translates into addressing far more than the actual problem. Interestingly, the industry put under new regulations often will be supportive because it understands that change is inevitable. In the process, it will win concessions that, in effect, raises barriers to entry, thus making the additional costs bearable.

The result is that government gains power and the consumer will end up paying greatly for what amounts to being a negligible reduction in risk.

The CWd fear is almost over as the federal funding is just about dry.


----------



## Plainsman

> I can remember when President George Bush durring his State of the Union Address (can't remember the year) paid lip service to CWD. $50 million bucks was thrown at it. That money is gone and there probably isn't going to be much more funding.


Yes, that is much like the money we received from tobacco. That money was supposed to be for health care, because tobacco caused so many health problems. As soon as it got to North Dakota I think it went to education and the Devils Lake pumping station. I can't remember exactly, but money went to Devils Lake for something.



> Not really. You plainsman dismiss their websites their material their opinions. The anti's are dead serious and all the effort you can muster is to name call them on a dying web-forum. They are kooks, crazies and half-cracks not to be taken serious. Well...............nobody can hear you.


You don't understand what I am saying. Yes, I call them crazies, but that doesn't mean I don't take the danger serious, I do. simply because they are crackpots doesn't mean they can't do you damage. I think you guys take this wrong on purpose. No one can be so language inept. You and gst should advertise yourselves as professional whiners for rent.



> He doesn't post anymore because he thinks you Plainsman have completely surrounded yourself with "SUPID" people.


Aaaaaah, it's only you and gst trying to surround us. Swift, Csquared, indsport, I etc are just circling the waggons. Kind of makes me feel like my grandfather back in the days when he wore this coat:









Everything has to be 100% your way doesn't it guys. Shaug and gst have shown us they have no room for negotiation. It's their way or your the enemy to be bad mouthed and destroyed. Did you guys ever share your sandbox as children. Is North Dakota "your sandbox" now and non of us born and raised here get to share it?

Sorry, to keep you happy there is no place for me to move back to. This has been my families home since 1872.


----------



## Csquared

Is the power out in North Dakota today ????????


----------



## Plainsman

Well, I am in hopes that they understand that when I say I support agriculture I am serious, but you don't have to support absolutely everything they do. I support the state Game and Fish, but I'm not foolish enough to think everything they do is perfect. I don't try to justify the many mistakes government makes simply because I worked for them. Sure, I wouldn't do it because everyone knows they make mistakes, but the same can be said of any other group including farmers. Facing reality isn't being against something. Winning at any cost is not winning. Not unless your Charlie Scheen.


----------



## shaug

csqured wrote,



> Is the power out in North Dakota today ????????


No, the power is on. The naturalists have not shut down the industrialists as far as I know.

Plainsman said his grandfather came here in 1872, shot the last buffalo in ND and then made a coat out of it. I can't decide if Plainsman should be nominated for Conservationist of the Year or if he and his grandpa should be called a dirty name.


----------



## Plainsman

> I can't decide if Plainsman should be nominated for Conservationist of the Year or if he and his grandpa should be called a dirty name.


Yes, you have brought that up before. I'm just trying to keep you from making the same mistakes my grandfather made. Really. Back in those days they didn't know any better. Today they should, but that darn dollar is a strong influence. I guess I don't blame then for that if they don't hurt anyone else. Still, I think there are ways to accomplish both a strong agricultural economy and a socially responsible one at the same time, and not hurt farmers.

When I was very young on the farm we had our land in soil bank for seven years. After looking at the way our fields improved I was convinced I would rather pay for conservation practices that support prices on grain.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I'm serious I would like to sign that petition, but because I will not at the current time you go off the deep end. Loosing your temper when people are being kind to you isn't real good public relations.


palinsamn, please do not thing I have "lost my temper" over a debate on an outdoor site such as this.



Plainsman said:


> I'm still willing to sign that petition with some assurances.


Plainsman perhaps I merely missed where you listed what those "assurances" would need to be. In regards to the "opinions" you made early on in this debate, you can not deny that the Federal regulations exist that will prevent those claims from happening. Those "assurances" have been made, and the Federal regulatory laws exist to back them up. So if you would simply state what "assurances" you would need as you say you do once again to be able to sign this petition. Perhaps they can indeed be given and you can help support getting this measure on the ballot.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You don't understand what I am saying. Yes, I call them crazies, but that doesn't mean I don't take the danger serious, I do. simply because they are crackpots doesn't mean they can't do you damage. I think you guys take this wrong on purpose.


Plainsman, given the number of times you have refered to someone talking about the threat HSUS and orgs like them pose to animal agriculture as "fear mongering" and "crying wolf" perhaps it is hard to take seriously your claims you in fact understand what those of us who make our living from animal agriculture know to be a real fact and issue. This measure"s intent is to provide a means to proactively block their "crackpot" agendas. So please if there are assurances you need to support it, simply state what they are and perhaps they can be addressed.

Oh and the inagural Stockmans Ball was a grand success attended by 250 people. It raised well over $20,000 dollars to be put into the NDSF for youth scholarships.

Didn't encounter anyone dressed quite like Csquareds video, the dancing styles of polkas and jitterbugs and two steps were quite abit different as well and yes indeed I am VERY lucky to have had the pleasure of my wife accompanying me to this grand event, I enjoy spending time with her imensely. :wink:

And indeed it was refreshing to converse with people a bit more mature in their abilities to discuss issues, but sadly now it's back to the real world of discussing things on the internet where people beleive the obsurity of a computer screen makes them smarter and more mature than what they post shows them to be. :wink: And bravely they post things they would not have the "balls" to say face to face. :roll: But then again, perhaps I am wrong, maybe they would be as juvenile a jackass to say things personally they post on sites like this. Apparently these childish comments are encouraged by the moderators on this site by their refusal to address them as they are made. But then again, perhaps I am wrong. Maybe these posts do show a maturity level this site strives to maintain. :roll:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Yes, you have brought that up before. I'm just trying to keep you from making the same mistakes my grandfather made. Really. Back in those days they didn't know any better. Today they should, but that darn dollar is a strong influence.


Yep that darn dollar. Do you ever think about those old naturalists from years ago? John Muir, John Burroughs, George Bird Grinnell, C. Hart Merriam, Grove Karl Gilbert, and Edward Curtis. Do you ever think about where your old heros got the funding to travel, write and study nature without an income. They got it from the industrialists. So what kind of plan do the naturalists and the industrialists have for the rest of us to keep us from making the same mistakes as your grandfather?

www.wildlife.org/wg/steadystate/

Economic growth precludes wildlife conservation
By Mike Larson, Chair, TWS Working Group for the Steady State Economy
The fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation may be the greatest obstacle to achieving excellence in wildlife stewardship. Currently, economic growth enjoys unquestioned supremacy as a policy goal at all levels of government. However, TWS issued a technical review recognizing the fundamental conflict (Trauger et al. 2003) and during 2004 adopted a position on economic growth. This article is intended to provide a brief synopsis of the fundamental conflict, address a couple potential concerns about the steady state economy, and ask for your help in resolving the fundamental conflict.
Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. Nationally, Gross Domestic Product is an index of the size of the economy, which is a function of human population size and the per capita rate of resource consumption. All sectors of the economy require the consumption of finite natural resources. As more resources are allocated to the human economy, fewer remain in the economy of nature. Our economy grows, therefore, at the competitive exclusion of wildlife in the aggregate. Furthermore, the laws of physics dictate that perpetual economic growth is an oxymoron.

We cannot rely on technology to resolve the conflict. Technology, including substituting rare resources with more common ones, has the potential to mitigate the fundamental conflict but only to the extent that it increases the efficiency of resource use without contributing to increases in the rate of resource use. Unfortunately, new technology that makes it to the market, when coupled with the goal of economic growth, invariably serves to accelerate resource consumption (Czech 2003).
The only alternatives to economic growth are a declining economy (i.e., recession) and a steady state economy (SSE), which consists of mildly fluctuating human population size and per capita resource use that do not change in magnitude over the long term. Since the mid-1800s renowned economists from John Stuart Mill to Herman Daly have advocated a SSE, described how society would function under a SSE, and provided ideas about how to transition to a SSE. Under a SSE overall wealth and the size of economic markets (e.g., Nasdaq) would be constant but capitalism could still operate as people and business firms compete, resulting in relative economic winners and losers. For example, the wildlife profession could grow under a SSE but only at the expense of a less sustainable economic sector, such as automobile racing.
Please learn more about macroeconomics, the fundamental conflict, and the SSE. Discuss them with your colleagues and friends. Consider becoming a member of TWS's Working Group for the Steady State Economy (WGSSE), whose mission is to address the fundamental conflict by discussing it with peers, policy makers, and the general public and by promoting a SSE as a feasible and positive alternative to the growth paradigm. The WGSSE also advocates a stronger policy position on economic growth by TWS. You can find literature citations and additional information at our web site (http:www.wildlife.org/wg/steadystate)


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> For example, the wildlife profession could grow under a SSE but only at the expense of a less sustainable economic sector, such as automobile racing.


Apparently these TWS fellas aren't NASCAR fans!


----------



## shaug

Yes, a person would think they would be huge fans, considering in NASCAR they only make left turns.


----------



## Plainsman

> simply state what they are and perhaps they can be addressed.


Are you out of your mind? Did you not read the post where I did that. You know the one where you were all ticked off because I didn't accept your assurances.

gst stated:


> So what other assurances would you need to support this measure?


Plainsman stated:


> I would like the amendment to say something like: This amendment is to protect farmers/ranchers engaged in contemporary livestock rearing. There is no intent to skirt current regulations, and as new animal husbandry practices evolve additional regulations may be introduced by our legislature with the recommendation of the state health department and secretary of agriculture.
> 
> Lets face it the lettuce munchers are not going after your mistreatment of corn cobs. I do agree that you need protection from animal rights type people. However, farmers and ranchers need a wider spectrum of support also, and a more narrowly focused amendment would build trust.


So there are my assurances. They would have to be in the amendment. Since I stated that in response to your question you should have understood that.

gst stated:


> It is only an honest claim if plainsman would indeed state what "assurances" it would take for him to be able to support this measure


 gst:


> simply provide what "assurances" you would need





> Unless you state what they are we will never know will we.


gst:


> Plaihsman you do indeed have a chance to show your support instead of merely claiming it by doing nothing more than listing these "assurances" you stated you would need to support this meausre.


gst:


> But please realize, I really do not expect you to list what these "assurances" you claim you need to be, as an honest truthful dialoge would be too much to expect on a site like this.


gst:


> Perhaps plainsman is not as willing to "support" this measure and agriculture as he claims even if given "assurances"


gst:
So if you would simply state what "assurances"

You have called into question the honesty of people, the integrity of people, etc. You call us childish, but you play this childish game where you end your posts with the below quote:


> Truth
> Honesty
> Credibility


Now if you look at the above where you got your answer and how many times you have asked it since can I question your intelligence? Anyone coming on may not go back and read where I answered that. So your hopes are you think new people will think I will not answer you. Is that your display of truth, honesty, and credibility? You cry about personal things, but your the one that leads that attack as soon as you can not have your way. Go back and read posts gst. Every question that anyone has taken seriously has been answered. If alzheimer's is your problem I apologize for jumping to other conclusions.

Hey, what was that post you had to apologize for over on FBO, I didn't see it.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman stated:
> 
> I would like the amendment to say something like: This amendment is to protect farmers/ranchers engaged in contemporary livestock rearing. _There is no intent to skirt current regulations, and as new animal husbandry practices evolve additional regulations may be introduced by our legislature with the recommendation of the state health department and secretary of agriculture._
> Lets face it the lettuce munchers are not going after your mistreatment of corn cobs. I do agree that you need protection from animal rights type people. However, farmers and ranchers need a wider spectrum of support also, and a more narrowly focused amendment would build trust.


Thanks for reposting what "assurances" you would need. The wording simply can not be changed after it has been approved by the Secretary of States office. *As a sponsor of a previous measure it would have been your responsibility to understand the parameters under which these measures are presented so one would think you already knew that*. If that was your intent to require "assurances" you already KNEW could not be given prior to making your claim you would support this measure, one could consider that to be a bit disingenuous at best. How ever if that was NOT your intent but merely another instance of "alzhiemers" and you truly wish to support this measure lets address what assurances you say you would need so you can sign this petition that I have italisized them above, if that is not the assurances please share the proper ones.

This measure CAN NOT "skirt" current legislation. Any existing regulations either Federal or state will remain. Either in the states Centruty Code or with the regulatory authorities such as the Federal govt, state health dept, board of animal health, state vets office, ect.......Please understand these regulations that are in FACT already inplace WILL remain.

As I have pointed out in a question form, the current exsisting wording in our state constitution which is designed as a cover all allowing the elected legislative body to create and implement regulatory law thru the legislative session and grant that regulatory authority to the appropriate agency will in FACT remain even if this measure passes. If you chose not to beleive me, ask the State AG's office. There is a reason I asked you to find the answer to this question yourself thru out this discussion. By doing so the "assurances" you state you need will have been given.

So plainsman as they say the ball is in your court. If indeed you truly wish to support this measure and by doing so support agriculture itself here in ND, all you have to do is either accept what assurances have been given to address your concerns or find them out yourself and post the answers to indeed get the truth out regarding this measure and aleviate your concerns so you can sign this petition. Personally I wish you would verify them on your own. If you are willing to accept the assurances given on here, I'm sure shaug would allow you to sign his petition. If not, please let us know on this site when you have gotten the assurances yourself by contacting the appropriate people who can factually answer your questions so that we can identify someone with a petition for you to sign.


----------



## Plainsman

> The wording simply can not be changed


I know that. Start another one. Let this one die.



> This measure CAN NOT "skirt" current legislation.


Keep in mind the same group (NDFB) that started this petition and wrote this amendment call for all regulations to be dropped. If that happens where is the control you speak of? On another site people have advocated doing away completely with the EPA. No EPA, no regulations, but we have your personal guarantee this amendment would not be abused? Not good enough for me.


----------



## gst

Truth: stating one wishes to have the truth and fact be known about this measure and yet not taking the appropriate steps to do so.

Credibility: not posting a claim that this measure will do something one later admits to knowing it will not.

Honesty: making a claim you wish to support something if the wording is changed, all the while knowing by law the wording cn not be changed.

plainsman, I guess those are examples of what I would find to fall short of those three words. If they have happened in the discussion regarding this measure please understand that is the basis for including them at the bottom of my posts. If they have not, please accept my apology.



Plainsman said:


> Now if you look at the above where you got your answer and how many times you have asked it since can I question your intelligence? Anyone coming on may not go back and read where I answered that. So your hopes are you think new people will think I will not answer you. Is that your display of truth, honesty, and credibility? You cry about personal things, but your the one that leads that attack as soon as you can not have your way. Go back and read posts gst. Every question that anyone has taken seriously has been answered. If alzheimer's is your problem I apologize for jumping to other conclusions.
> 
> Hey, what was that post you had to apologize for over on FBO, I didn't see it.


I do not recall HAVING to apologize for anything that was posted on FBO. If you can find where that was said and what the apology was, *please post it on here*. Remember now, posts on FBO can not be edited after 30 minutes so it indeed should be there for you to repost here. If you do not provide this proof to your claim, perhaps people may have the assumption you are making unfounded insinuations hoping others will get a mistaken idea much as you accuse others of doing. And to do so without actual proof such as a quote of where I "had to apologize" will likely hurt how people veiw ones:

Truth 
Honesty
and Credibility. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Keep in mind the same group (NDFB) that started this petition and wrote this amendment call for all regulations to be dropped. If that happens where is the control you speak of? On another site people have advocated doing away completely with the EPA. No EPA, no regulations, but we have your personal guarantee this amendment would not be abused? Not good enough for me.


plainsman have I not REPEATEDLY suggested thru out this discussion that you contact the appropriate people yourself who in fact CAN give you the assurances regarding the concerns you have over this measure? You can not deny that has not been asked.

If you are indeed truly concerned with getting to the "truth" about this measure and having it known, one would beleive you to be eager to contact someone you trust that could indeed get a "assurance" from the ND Attourney Generals office regarding the scope and powers of this constitutional amendment measure.

Truth
Honesty
Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

> Credibility: not posting a claim that this measure will do something one later admits to knowing it will not.


That didn't happen in reasonable minds. That only happened in your one sided way of not thinking. What I said was we are currently protected, but that I didn't think that would last long. You see gst I think into the future further than one week.

The reason I don't think it will last long I have stated above. Perhaps not clear enough for you to understand, but did you see where I mentioned NDFB doesn't want regulations? Have you seen people calling for completely disbanning the EPA? No regulations and no EPA and where would our protection from this amendment come from? Connect the dots.

The only good assurance is a more narrowly worded amendment. I suspect they left that door wide open for a reason. I also suspect you know that. Assurance means just that gst, something that can make you sure there will be no abuse with this amendment. Nothing you have posted suggests even close to assurance. The attorney generals office can only tell me what would happen today. I think I have a better idea of what tomorrow will bring.

gst what have you ever done to support sportsmen and women? Yes, I know your son raises pheasants for free, but he does it for a private club. Do you belong to that club? Does your son hunt at that club? Have you ever done anything for none private sporting groups? You want a lot, but I am kind of interested to know if this is a one way street. It looks like it to me.

Your on a hunting and fishing website badmouthing anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you don't get complete agreement you attack their integrity, their honesty, and get very personal. With a slight retaliation you whine your being picked on and things shouldn't get personal. You know how we wait for a Muslim to step forward and tell us the radicals are not the average Muslim? I'm waiting for the average farmers to step forward and tell us you don't represent them. How many hunters go to an ag website and inflame them? Your not here to help gst, your here to shaft us some more. Your here to sucker the few that you can to support something that destroys the sport they love. Your like a felon in a police station trying to turn policeman against policeman. One bad apple trying to rot the pie.


----------



## swift

Just ban him already. It's obvious he has nothing to give to a sportsman devoted website. He has fostered an ag vs hunter fight for the years he has been here. His demand for truth is a joke. There is no truth when something doesn't exist.

GST is a virus on this site and FBO with nothing to give but long diatribes of idiocy. You described him and his approach perfectly above and since he has been a member for so many years with hundreds of posts that only inflame and cause grief he should not be permitted here any longer.

That's my true, factual, and creditable opinion of the person. (I almost typed man but thought better of it)


----------



## Plainsman

I see he got on you on the FBO thread about horse slaughter. I could not understand why since you were not on any of those many pages. I think he just wants to carry his feud everywhere. I agree with them, and so do you on the horse slaughter brought up in this thread, but he hijacked it anyway. Very few are disagreeing on that thread. As a matter of fact poor manners have been shown to those who disagree. To suggest that the person (lady actually) has oral sex with a horse while she plays her Banjo was without class. Surprised, not me. You were targeted for destruction even though you were not in the conversation. It was a feud just like with hillbillies.

It's a shame too, because it was an opportunity to inform people that use their hearts before their brain. We just made one more enemy against the horse slaughter. We had a chance and the radicals just want one side against another squaring off. I know the 21st century is to much to ask, but I wish we could drag some people into the 19th.

I don't know about you swift, but I think it's time to go to the NDFB and tell them we have one of their members dumping on sportsmen on an outdoor site. They need to know that for every non farmer one of them convinces there are some of their members souring a dozen others. I had a lot better attitude before encountering the closed minds on the hot topics.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Credibility: not posting a claim that this measure will do something one later admits to knowing it will not.
> That didn't happen in reasonable minds. That only happened in your one sided way of not thinking. What I said was we are currently protected, but that I didn't think that would last long. You see gst I think into the future further than one week.


So apparently claiming this measure will do all the things you later admitted knowing the Federal regulations will prevent does not fall under my discription? Think ahead more than a week? You can not even think ahead far enough to address the question regarding the constitutional wording that will allow the legislature to continue to maintain the ability to regulate ag regardless of this measure. Even swift can understand that.

Do you honestly think that even if the EPA is disbanded that this country will allow the claims you have made to happen without some sort of regulatory agency and rules??? Please get real and do not think the people that MAY be reading what you post are "supid". :roll:

The fact is there will ALWAYS be a Federal regulatory agency of some sort, perhaps just not the radical one that has allowed itself to be overly influenced to the point of radicalism. When is the last time an oil refinery was built here in the US? Why?


----------



## swift

why was the EPA formed? Because all the rules were being followed right.

If farmers/ranchers will not be able to benefit from this amendment why does it need to be there? Simple answer. Followed by how will they benefit if they have to continue to follow any regulations that are brought forth from the feds or the state government?

Assure me almighty GST.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst what have you ever done to support sportsmen and women? Yes, I know your son raises pheasants for free, but he does it for a private club. Do you belong to that club? Does your son hunt at that club? Have you ever done anything for none private sporting groups? You want a lot, but I am kind of interested to know if this is a one way street. It looks like it to me


plainsman once again you are showing your juvenile childish atitude. I explained in very clear terms the last time you made accusations of my son "commercializing" wildlife by getting "georges" for the pheasants he raises in conjunction with our locl club that it is NOT a hunting club. There is not one "george" "thin dime" or even a "red cent" exchanged for hunting. It is simply a number of sportsmen of which I am one as well as many other farmers that invest their own time and money to raise, purchase and release pheasants in our area. But you simply can not believe that without trying to make more out of it that what it is. Your claims regarding this club are as "credible" as the claims you made that I own and operate a HFH operation during that debate.

The only "hunting": that is done at "that club" is one Sunday each fall they have an open shoot at our gun club where people also bring their dogs and birds are planted and flushed by the dog handlers with a young person having the opportunity many do not to shoot a pheasant and experience hunting with dogs. As I said this costs these kids or their parents NOTHING.

You ask what have I done for sportsmen and women, the efforts teaching archery where literally a couple of hundred kids have been introduced and followed thru with the sport of archery likely has done nothing for "sportemen and women here in ND. :roll: The numerous kids and other adults including military folks that have came and hunted from stands we have built or pheasants we have raised have probably returned more to me than them so perhaps in your eyes that would not count. And not one single dime has EVER been exchanged. How many thousands of dollars have YOU spent in the last ten years creating habitat to benefit wildlife that ultimately benefits sportsmen and women? If you wish to make this persoanal once again, step up and list YOUR contributions to the sprortsmen and women of ND. How many miles of tree rows, have you planted and invested your time growing? I do not need to come on a site like this and list my contributions, they are done quietly without expectation of acknowledgement. And in return I do not expect to be questioned by some juvenile "super moderator" that has likely not invested a fraction of the time and money into wildlife and hunting that has benefited others. But then perhaps that simple courteousy should not be expected on a site like this moderated by people of the stripe that are. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Your on a hunting and fishing website badmouthing anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you don't get complete agreement you attack their integrity, their honesty, and get very personal. With a slight retaliation you whine your being picked on and things shouldn't get personal. You know how we wait for a Muslim to step forward and tell us the radicals are not the average Muslim? I'm waiting for the average farmers to step forward and tell us you don't represent them. How many hunters go to an ag website and inflame them? Your not here to help gst, your here to shaft us some more. Your here to sucker the few that you can to support something that destroys the sport they love. Your like a felon in a police station trying to turn policeman against policeman. One bad apple trying to rot the pie.


plainsamn I am very well aware this IS a hunting and fishing website. And yet how many "average" hunters or fishermen are stepping forward and supporting your claims and "opinions" and accusations on this outdoors site? One would think there would be hundreds??? Yet it remains merely the few "radicals" that "circle the wagons" every ag thread that is posted on this site all the while claiming how much they "suupport ag" . Why do you suppose that is??? It is because most of ND sportsmen and women realize agriculture and hunting coexist very well and both segments get along quite nicely. The majority of sportsmen beleive the elected representatives are doing a pretty good job and that is why they are re elected. Only the few radical beleive the legislature is an ag based conspiracy looking to screw the sportsman every chance they get.

But hey plainsman way to stick with your "nonpersonal" pledge. :wink: :eyeroll:


----------



## bioman

This is absolutely positively priceless, seems Ol' Gabe has an _*OPINION*_ on everything from the oil and gas industry to the federal clean water act. You sir are a blowhard that has ZERO credibility...

http://www.cattlementocattlemen.org/vid ... 7083344001


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I see he got on you on the FBO thread about horse slaughter. I could not understand why since you were not on any of those many pages. I think he just wants to carry his feud everywhere


plainsman, didn't I read a post you made on FBO indicating you like "sarcastic humor"? I simply thought that as swift had been educated to the formula to determine how much of his tax dollar went to farm subsidies he would have been a good source for nalle to draw upon and be set start as to what she receives every time she goes to the grocery store! After all it was swit himself on FBO that adamantly claimed the reason we have low cost food here in the US is NOT because of the producers, but as a result of govt subsidies. What better person to set this nalle straight on what these dollars provide? :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Very few are disagreeing on that thread. As a matter of fact poor manners have been shown to those who disagree. To suggest that the person (lady actually) has oral sex with a horse while she plays her Banjo was without class. Surprised, not me. You were targeted for destruction even though you were not in the conversation. It was a feud just like with hillbillies.


Plainsman, you would not be attempting to insinuate I made the comments about "oral sex with a horse while she plays banjo" would you???? If you are, perhaps you can provide that post along with the one you insinuate I "had" to apologize for something on that site as well. If you can not provide either, your credibility will once again be brought into question.

If indeed you are, perhaps you can provide that post as well as the one where you claim I "had" to apologize for something as well?

*Instead of having anyone wait for you to provide these posts, how about you simply admit you can not because they do not exist.
Just as your claim I own and operate a hfh operation, these claims are only so much juvenile bull****. Others may call them what ever they wish, but the fact remains they simply are not truthful. If indeed they are, please show us where.*

Indeed it appears that as a "super moderator" who claims to wish people stick to the topic and not become personal, you have once again accomplished keeping these threads from becoming "personal". Apparently you do not mind when a chosen few "circle the wagons" on your site. You are truly a unbiased "super moderator"whose primary goal is getting the "truth" about this measure told. :eyeroll: :wink:

So indeed, talk with a farmer or rancher and share this informative thread as well as any number of other ag related threads with them. See if they notice the same names reoccuring in each as they "support" agriculture with their insightful mature posts. Surely as vocal and staunch supporters of agriculture as these few have proven themselves to be, they will proudly share these online conversations with the farmers and ranchers they talk with.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Hey, I wonder if any of those "sixth grade educated game farmers" know how to spell "breading stock" or "Peregrin falkons"??
> 
> Heck, everyone mispells stuff, ( I think I might have mispelled mispell :-?  ), but like I told swift a while back, if you are going to claim superior intellect over someone else, at least get the spelling right when you do so, it is much more "credible". :wink:


Further gst stated:


> you post are "supid





> Plainsman, you would not be attempting to insinuate I made the comments about "oral sex with a horse while she plays banjo" would you????


No, I am not, but out side ( I agreed remember) did get that crude. You and your friends made me ashamed to be with you.

gst smoothly asks:


> If you are, perhaps you can provide that post


The administration evidently made a wise decision and removed the entire thread, but you already knew that or you would not have asked for me to post it. I think there are people on this site who seen it. Chime in guys.

gst stated:


> If indeed you are, perhaps you can provide that post as well as the one where you claim I "had" to apologize for something as well?


I'll look for that. I don't remember the subject, but it's the one where you tried to blame it on your computer.



> plainsman, didn't I read a post you made on FBO indicating you like "sarcastic humor"? I simply thought that as swift had been educated to the formula to determine how much of his tax dollar went to farm subsidies he would have been a good source for nalle


Oh, sorry. Sometimes I confuse that sarcastic humor with poor manners. It's especially hard since you display both. I would think you would be in a better mood since your pampered more on this site than anyone ever has been.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> gst smoothly asks:
> 
> If you are, perhaps you can provide that post
> 
> The administration evidently made a wise decision and removed the entire thread, but you already knew that or you would not have asked for me to post it. I think there are people on this site who seen it. Chime in guys.


Really, it still works for me as it did when I went to check if gst actually said what you implied he stated, as I did not believe he would say that, and of course he did not, but you knew that.

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/nd_official ... ly?app_p=4


----------



## Plainsman

Thanks for posting that LT, I could not find it. At least this shows that thread and language existed doesn't it. Thank you very much, and here I thought you didn't like me. :wink: Maybe you would consider finding that one where gst tries to blame his bad post on his computer. 
Notice I said:


> As a matter of fact poor manners have been shown to those who disagree. To suggest that the person (lady actually) has oral sex with a horse while she plays her Banjo was without class.


Poor manners by a number of people and you will notice I said I wish I had not been part of it. Of course I didn't go nearly as far. I tried to explain habitat damage etc.

I have been told by gst that he doesn't have any problems over there, only here. Of course it's my fault. People should read the whole thead. They will find I agree with gst on that thread. Not once did I bad mouth him. He left that up to his friend mauser. Even when I agree they just can't take it. You did notice shaugs post on here right.



> Plainsman,
> 
> I see you are over on FBO debating some crazy person named nalle who is against horse slaughter.
> 
> http://www.fishingbuddy.com/nd_official ... ly?app_p=2
> 
> Good Job!!!! Finally, we are bringing you back to the right side of the fence.


Hey, there is the site listed. I didn't think of looking back to Shaugs post.

Anyway, gst I'm happy everyone loves you on FBO. Even this guy who had never posted on the thread:



> GST, Leave me out of your idiotic mudslinging posts. I have no reason to enter into this debate. Nalle is misguided and a bit of a nut but atleast she stands for something she believes in without having a dollar sign as her motivation. Even though I don't agree with any of her ideas, she exhibits more character than you ever do.


It would appear that talking to a farmer isn't a good idea. Is that what I should get out of all the debate?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst wrote:
> Hey, I wonder if any of those "sixth grade educated game farmers" know how to spell "breading stock" or "Peregrin falkons"??
> 
> Heck, everyone mispells stuff, ( I think I might have mispelled mispell ), but like I told swift a while back, if you are going to claim superior intellect over someone else, at least get the spelling right when you do so, it is much more "credible".
> 
> Further gst stated:
> 
> you post are "supid


palisnamn, you may appreciate "sarcastic humor" as you stated on FBO, but apparently you have a had time identifying it. The mispelling of "stupid" was a sarcastic reference to swift making that claim earlier while being abit challenged on his spelling while calling someone "supid"  .

Keep up man, it is hard to maintain "sarcastic humor" if you don;t! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman, you would not be attempting to insinuate I made the comments about "oral sex with a horse while she plays banjo" would you????
> No, I am not, but out side ( I agreed remember) did get that crude. You and your friends made me ashamed to be with you.


So plainsman, what was the intent of this post ?



Plainsman said:


> I see he got on you on the FBO thread about horse slaughter. I could not understand why since you were not on any of those many pages. I think he just wants to carry his feud everywhere. I agree with them, and so do you on the horse slaughter brought up in this thread, but he hijacked it anyway. Very few are disagreeing on that thread. *As a matter of fact poor manners have been shown to those who disagree. To suggest that the person (lady actually) has oral sex with a horse while she plays her Banjo was without class. Surprised, not me. You were targeted for destruction even though you were not in the conversation. *It was a feud just like with hillbillies.


Either you do not have a very good handle on writing the English language in a clear manner that people will not misunderstand, or well, perhaps we know what this statement was meant to have people beleive.



Plainsman said:


> gst stated:
> 
> If indeed you are, perhaps you can provide that post as well as the one where you claim I "had" to apologize for something as well?
> I'll look for that. I don't remember the subject, but it's the one where you tried to blame it on your computer.


plainsman, now remember when you are looking that you claimed I "had" to apologize.



Plainsman said:


> Hey, what was that post you had to apologize for over on FBO, I didn't see it.


So please when you provide this proof remember it is tied to yet another insinuattion that you have made that will be required to substantiate!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I don't know about you swift, but I think it's time to go to the NDFB and tell them we have one of their members dumping on sportsmen on an outdoor site. They need to know that for every non farmer one of them convinces there are some of their members souring a dozen others. I had a lot better attitude before encountering the closed minds on the hot topics.


palisnamn, by all means please send the NDFB an email with links to all the threads discussing their proposed amendment measure relating to agriculture on this "outdoor" site. . Then post the reply you get back from them on this site. That is if indeed they even waste the time to reply to such mature, articulate individuals. :wink:

Heck while your at it, share the other agriculture based threads I have highlighted from this hunting and fishing website as well. I'm sure NDFB will be impressed with all the support from this handful of "sportsmen" regarding these ag issues on this outdoor site. Perhaps some of the statements regarding other legislative issues as well!! 

Perhaps they can take a few tidbits from them to share with legislators next session!! 

Hey I just thought of something, what if NDFB has already been on this site and read some of the ramblings and rhetoric on here and that played a role in why this measure was started? Holy crap plainsman, just think you and your wagon circle just could be a large part of why this debate even exists!!! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Oh, sorry. Sometimes I confuse that sarcastic humor with poor manners. It's especially hard since you display both. I would think you would be in a better mood since your pampered more on this site than anyone ever has been.


palinsman, some people would consider making insinuations and claims towards someone and their family members they can not prove simpl;y because they are not true "poor manners".

Some might consider a moderator on a site such as this chastising one person for "getting personal" while allowing his friends free rein for the type of mature comments they have shared and even going so far as to defend it by dismissing it as "circling the wagons" "poor manners" .

Some might even consider someone making claims regarding how someone else makes their livlihood that they can not substantiate as true and factual , "poor manners".

Some one might even consider an individual making claims about another that are simply not true even though the person making the claims has been told they are not "poor manners.

But hey perhaps you have indeed substantiated all those claims made towards me personally in any number of threads you posted and were politely asked to "please show me" and I have missed it. If so, stating you have not proven all these claims you have been asked to would indeed be "poor manners" and if you truly have factually substantiated all these personal insinuations and claims as asked to I sincerely apologize. So if indeed you have substantiated all these personal claims you have made, once again "please show me" and I will indeed apologize for my "poor manners".

If not, you most surely would be one to know what "poor manners" truely are. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

The reason for the post was to show people that you had opponents on other sites also, and things were not all roses as you imply when you knock this site. Since LT was able to find that horse slaughter thread I am sure I will figure out which one you apologized for your post. You know, the one where you said your computer submit before you were ready or something like that.

The other point is so that people understand your going to outdoor sites and trying to pit sportsmen against sportsmen while tring to gain support for things that shaft them.

Who was that guy leadfed that said he watched you at the stockmen's association. I suspect he was on to something. Do you officially represent any of the organizations on this site?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Anyway, gst I'm happy everyone loves you on FBO. Even this guy who had never posted on the thread:
> 
> GST, Leave me out of your idiotic mudslinging posts. I have no reason to enter into this debate. Nalle is misguided and a bit of a nut but atleast she stands for something she believes in without having a dollar sign as her motivation. Even though I don't agree with any of her ideas, she exhibits more character than you ever do.


palinsamn you forgot to include who "this guy" was.  
Is it the same guy that posts so eloquently and maturely on this site as well even dispite his spelling issues with the word "stupid"! :wink:

In fact there are those on FBO that as well do not agree with my ideals and comments, but that is to be expected on most any debate with most anyone. That in fact is why "debates" occur, differences of "opinion" :wink: Credibility occurs when these "opinions" are substantiated when asked to be in the debate with fact.

The difference between the two sites lies herein. FBO has a moderator that while allowing more juvenile posts than what possibly should be allowed to have worthwhile debates, he is willing to call a spade a spade when it is necessary whomever is out of line and will chastise everyone equally rather than allowing certain people to "circle the wagons" without reproach or even go as far as suggesting someone is justified while crossing a line of common courteousy. Nodak on the other hand has a moderator that engages in making personal insinuations and accusations he will not nor can not substantiate when asked to and while chastizing one person for crossing an imaginary line he sets that he himself crosses without regards, also allows a certain chosen few free rein to say what they will without reproach.

palinsamn you get upset when you are accused of not being truthful. If indeed you have taken the time and effort and know for a fact what you post is factual and honest and truthful, there really would be no need to get upset as EVERYONE would realize what you have posted is infact the truth beyond any reproach. So before your next Bible study, take a moment and look in the mirror. Ask that person looking back at you wether they have ever made an insinuation or accusation on this site they knew not to be true. Give that person looking back at you in the mirror the courteousy of an honest answer. If you can not do this one simple thing, realize as you sit in your Bible study that in fact you have been less than honest with not only others but yourself as well.

So yes indeed it IS a good idea to talk with a farmer or rancher regarding this measure. You will likely get a more truthful and honest answer there than from most on here.


----------



## gst

The question. 


gst said:


> So plainsman, what was the intent of this post ?
> Plainsman wrote:
> I see he got on you on the FBO thread about horse slaughter. I could not understand why since you were not on any of those many pages. I think he just wants to carry his feud everywhere. I agree with them, and so do you on the horse slaughter brought up in this thread, but he hijacked it anyway. Very few are disagreeing on that thread. *As a matter of fact poor manners have been shown to those who disagree. To suggest that the person (lady actually) has oral sex with a horse while she plays her Banjo was without class. Surprised, not me. *You were targeted for destruction even though you were not in the conversation. It was a feud just like with hillbillies.


plainsman response:



Plainsman said:


> The reason for the post was to show people that you had opponents on other sites also, and things were not all roses as you imply when you knock this site.


So plainsamn exactly how does what is emboldened and underlined and how it was stated show that I "had opponents on other sites also"? From what you wrote in that entire statement it would appear that NO ONE was in opposition? Yet you now claim your "intent" was to show I had opponents on other sites????

Be honest enough to admit you threw it out there in the manner you did hoping someone would beleive that I had made this type of a statement. You got called on it and are now backpedaling to cover your ***.

Credibility

Perhaps I do need to apologize for twisting some peoples tail just a bit, but given the standard you as a moderator have allowed others on this site, I thought simply suggesting swift share his veiws he stated earlier on that site that these govt subsidy payments nalle mentioned were in deed the reason why she could buy cheap tofu rather than a good ribeye. So swift I do indeed apologize for dragging you into the debate on FBO. From now on I will simply address people like nalles misconceptions without your help.


----------



## gst

Anyway, as this back and forth is "adding nothing worthwhile to the debate of the topic" and as a result likely soon be locked, I will simply suggest that indeed people should talk to a farmer or rancher regarding this measure as was suggested and get their veiwpoint and take on this measure. Educate yourself to the measure being presented that you are asked to vote on rather than relying on others such as those on this site soley for your information. Our form of govt was founded on the premise of an informed and involved electorate. Please indeed talk with a farmer or rancher and learn perhaps another perspective from what you have read on here.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Anyway, as this back and forth is "adding nothing worthwhile to the debate of the topic" and as a result likely soon be locked, I will simply suggest that indeed people should talk to a farmer or rancher regarding this measure as was suggested and get their veiwpoint and take on this measure. Educate yourself to the measure being presented that you are asked to vote on rather than relying on others such as those on this site soley for your information. Our form of govt was founded on the premise of an informed and involved electorate. Please indeed talk with a farmer or rancher and learn perhaps another perspective from what you have read on here.


 :thumb: ditto


> From now on I will simply address people like nalles misconceptions without your help.


I'll just add some so people get the idea what was going on:

She did have misconceptions didn't she? Did you see her phrase "companion animal"? That's a dead giveaway to an animal rights person. I do wish others (not you) had not been so crude. I am afraid the chased her off before we could try reason with her. As I said which is more compassionate, doing in an old horse, or allowing it to suffer arthritis, starvation from bad teeth, and long cold winters. If she wants to heat a barn and hand feed an old horse I applaud her, but people with many working animals just don't have the time. I like horses, I really do, but life is tough, and letting them die slow is not compassionate. I was with you all the way on that one gst.


----------



## KurtR

I was one of the crude people but some times i just cant help my self with idiots the likes of her. Was just home for xmas and my mom who is horse lover and likes wolves we got into to this discusion and when said and done understood why animals need to be managed, but she also grew up eating more wild game than anything else and understands the science behind it all. She still does not want the wolf rug i was going to get for her next xmas


----------



## Plainsman

I completely understand your frustration kurt. I suppose I am fooling myself thinking we can change the minds of people like nalle, but I like to give it a shot as my first response. They run on emotion rather than reason. Nalle about made me see red, but I didn't just bite my tongue, I about chewed it off to keep from saying what I would like to.

You may have been a little crude Kurt, but your honesty about things outshines that. I have people who think I make my decisions about people by where they stood on the high fence debate. If memory serves me you didn't agree, but you were never abusive about that. All that behind us I complement you on your honesty. Have a great day.

Later


----------



## gst

Little if anything is gained by discussing issues with people like nalle. But even less is gained when done so in the manner plainsman initialy critisized then now dismisses.

Plainsman wrote:
As a matter of fact poor manners have been shown to those who disagree. To suggest that the person (lady actually) has oral sex with a horse while she plays her Banjo *was without class*. Surprised, not me.



Plainsman said:


> I completely understand your frustration kurt.You may have been a little crude Kurt, but your honesty about things outshines that.


FACTUAL, TRUTHFUL and CREDIBLE statements that can be substantiated when asked are what ultimately serve one best when debating an issue.


----------



## Plainsman

We all stumble once in a while gst. Your a potty mouth on here most of the time. I noticed the post this morning on FBO that if you did that there you would be removed permanently. When one ownes up to things it's much easier to forget their mistakes. You on the other hand are constantly looking for ways to undermine people. That was your only purpose for your last post and many of your posts. I express to Kurt that I hold nothing against him and you jump on it. I don't hold anything against you either gst, but I will make you look at yourself. The only problem is I have seen nothing that suggest a conscience. The only reason I keep you taking is the old cliche "give them enough rope and they will hang themselves".

Once again gst you have shown us your vindictive small man attitude. I complement Kurt on his honesty. What are you looking for?

See below. I sent him a message telling him good job.



> Sure has been a lot of recent "sh&t", "b$%tch" and crap like that. So please people, knock it off. Post with some classy grammar because there are all ages reading this. I don't have time to go through and treat you all like 10 year-olds.
> 
> Right now I wish I could write a script that would reach a ruler out and whack you all that post with words like that in the face. Or a bottle of dawn to jump out of the screen squirting a gallon of soap in your mouth.
> 
> If you are shallow minded use a thesaurus if for some reason you must have such a verb, adjective or noun that is often left for bar talk.
> 
> Thank you. And this is a warning. If it continues, I will just pull your username. I don't have the time to be lenient anymore.
> 
> AND PLEASE PEOPLE...USE THE FLAG FEATURE TO REPORT SUCH GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Merry Christmas,
> 
> XXX


----------



## swift

> Little if anything is gained by discussing issues with people like nalle. But even less is gained when done so in the manner plainsman initialy critisized then now dismisses.


Dismiss him from the site. Let him be a Martyr to his very small circle of friends. Show one time he positively affected this site in the years he has been starting fights, demeaning people, or just plain acting like equine anus.


----------



## KurtR

gst said:


> Little if anything is gained by discussing issues with people like nalle. But even less is gained when done so in the manner plainsman initialy critisized then now dismisses.
> 
> Plainsman wrote:
> As a matter of fact poor manners have been shown to those who disagree. To suggest that the person (lady actually) has oral sex with a horse while she plays her Banjo *was without class*. Surprised, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely understand your frustration kurt.You may have been a little crude Kurt, but your honesty about things outshines that.
> 
> 
> 
> FACTUAL, TRUTHFUL and CREDIBLE statements that can be substantiated when asked are what ultimately serve one best when debating an issue.
Click to expand...

I am not about to get in this bs(or am i) and most the times agree with what you think once you cut through the way you spin crap like a lifetime polatician. i also agree with plainsman sometimes to, kinda play the field to benifit me i guess. pretty sure she brought up the banjo any way and what she does behind high fences is her deal property rights and all. Here is a novel thought you will not change any ones opinion on the inter web no matter how hard or how much you want to it is maybe a 1 in 5bazillion chance and i fail to relize that to some times. If some one wants to take shots at me i will fire right back and maybe some times it might be a little "unclassy" i dont say anything i would not say in person. But in the end we cant all be the Ron Burgandy of talk forums like you "stay classy gst".

Now back to the regulary scheduled program of fighting between people who agree on more than they really know but just need a nemesis. Every one need a joker if they are going to be batman saving the world i guess.


----------



## swift

You're going to get on GST's naughty list Kurt. Like me, plainsman, bioman, leadman, wing...ect. Well maybe his sleigh will be a little lighter this year.

Nice post by the way. We don't always agree but we sure do on this one.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *You may have been a little crude Kurt, but your honesty about things outshines that. *I have people who think I make my decisions about people by where they stood on the high fence debate. If memory serves me you didn't agree, but you were never abusive about that. All that behind us I complement you on your honesty.


palinsamn, For some reason your public complimenting reply above didn't translate into the condemnation that was implied earlier. So apparently this was a private message "telling him good job"???????????? I have to admit you have lost me here, is the below apparent private message sent telling someone "good job" for what exactly???



Plainsman said:


> See below. I sent him a message telling him good job.
> 
> Sure has been a lot of recent "sh&t", "b$%tch" and crap like that. So please people, knock it off. Post with some classy grammar because there are all ages reading this. I don't have time to go through and treat you all like 10 year-olds.
> 
> Right now I wish I could write a script that would reach a ruler out and whack you all that post with words like that in the face. Or a bottle of dawn to jump out of the screen squirting a gallon of soap in your mouth.
> 
> If you are shallow minded use a thesaurus if for some reason you must have such a verb, adjective or noun that is often left for bar talk.
> 
> Thank you. And this is a warning. If it continues, I will just pull your username. I don't have the time to be lenient anymore.
> 
> AND PLEASE PEOPLE...USE THE FLAG FEATURE TO REPORT SUCH GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Merry Christmas,


----------



## zogman

Wrong site/wrong guy GST. That quote was from Tim on FBO :rollin:

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/posting_pra ... lease_read


----------



## shaug

Bioman wrote,



> This is absolutely positively priceless, seems Ol' Gabe has an OPINION on everything from the oil and gas industry to the federal clean water act. You sir are a blowhard that has ZERO credibility...
> 
> http://www.cattlementocattlemen.org/vid ... 7083344001


Thanks bio for posting that link. I have never met Gabe but would like to. It was a very well done clip. Farmers and ranchers are now finding there voice using social media. For years swift and bad dog types have been saying why don't you farmers spend a bunch and tell your story. Reach out to the public. Years ago that would have cost a pile advertizing. Like beef, it's what's for dinner. Millions. Today social media is inexpensive and the public is viewing. (Except here) Gabe is gittin' after it while you guys sit here and pound your keyboards day in day out. Psh!!!!

Zogman wrote,



> Wrong site/wrong guy GST. That quote was from Tim on FBO
> 
> http://www.fishingbuddy.com/posting_pra ... lease_read


Zoggy, sometimes Plainsman gets way ahead of himself. I couldn't figure it out either. One breath he is talking about something he read on FBO and the next he is talking about a pm to Kurt.

PS, I thought what Kurt said over on FBO was funny. But can also understand why FBO deleted it.


----------



## KurtR

I did not get a pm message from any one. I said that what i said may have been out of line. Now plainsman said he understood where I was coming from. Now was that a compliment i dont know, is it worth gst having a whole dialog on it probally not. I do not agree with my freinds should i just bite my lip? Nope i wont if they or any one does not like it or me guess what i am who i am if you dont like it see ya. I am not a good sugar coat it things will be roses and rainbows. If you say some thing i feel stupid i will probally let you know and i expect the same from others. I am a big boy that has thick skin. Very rarely have i had a second thought about any argument or discourse online. I dont agree with swift all the time but if he was stuck in a snow bank i would help him out with out second thought. It got heated over the high fence but i would help any of those guys out to. I am sorry if what i said was that offensive it kept people from getting sleep, never mind i am not. If every one had the same personality life would be friken ( im sorry) boring. there is no need to post tims message from fb anymore i read it, i will follow his rules as it is his web site and have no issue with his rules. Probally wrote it as i said a swear word(my bad) in the smelt post if you want to link that here to you can. So nalle if you are listening i am sorry for demeaning your horses like that they are only animals that know no better. Any way this is entertaining me while it is a slow day at work with out it kind of boring acctually. I am off to practice my FACTUAL, TRUTHFUL and CREDIBLE discorse.



gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You may have been a little crude Kurt, but your honesty about things outshines that. *I have people who think I make my decisions about people by where they stood on the high fence debate. If memory serves me you didn't agree, but you were never abusive about that. All that behind us I complement you on your honesty.
> 
> 
> 
> palinsamn, For some reason your public complimenting reply above didn't translate into the condemnation that was implied earlier. So apparently this was a private message "telling him good job"???????????? I have to admit you have lost me here, is the below apparent private message sent telling someone "good job" for what exactly???
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> See below. I sent him a message telling him good job.
> 
> Sure has been a lot of recent "sh&t", "b$%tch" and crap like that. So please people, knock it off. Post with some classy grammar because there are all ages reading this. I don't have time to go through and treat you all like 10 year-olds.
> 
> Right now I wish I could write a script that would reach a ruler out and whack you all that post with words like that in the face. Or a bottle of dawn to jump out of the screen squirting a gallon of soap in your mouth.
> 
> If you are shallow minded use a thesaurus if for some reason you must have such a verb, adjective or noun that is often left for bar talk.
> 
> Thank you. And this is a warning. If it continues, I will just pull your username. I don't have the time to be lenient anymore.
> 
> AND PLEASE PEOPLE...USE THE FLAG FEATURE TO REPORT SUCH GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Merry Christmas,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Plainsman

Kurt :thumb: Yup, I'll pull you out if I find you stuck too, and share my last cookies. Merry Christmas to you and God bless.

Kurt we may not have agreed on some things, but I thank you for not taking the low road and trying to link me personally with HSUS. Some even admitted that on FBO, but continued to try do that here. I thank you that you didn't try make me the enemy and separate me from the hunters and fisherman I have the utmost respect for. Your an honorable man.


----------



## gst

Kurt, it was pointed out and if anyone disagrees I'd be surprised, that little is to be gained in talking with the type nalle is. So what is left is to possibly influence others that just might read what someone else writes.

So honestly and objectively what do you think would be given more credibility by someone that has not yet made up their mind regarding horse slaughter. Someone telling another person to go blow a horse or clearly, factually pointing out issues and consequences that someone like nalle convieniently leaves out of the discussion?

Hey I get where you are coming from with the comment, but in trying to influence others ideals, that type of rhetoric accomplishes little other than getting people that already feel as you do possibly amused if you like that type of comment. And the reality is these "other" people are who will ultimately be the ones deciding these issues. THAT and THAT alone was the point being made.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Kurt we may not have agreed on some things, but I thank you for not taking the low road and trying to link me personally with HSUS. Some even admitted that on FBO, but continued to try do that here. .


Plainsman, if you are trying to insinuate I have ever linked you personally to HSUS you will once again have to "please show me where" this was done or admitted to. Perhaps you can kill two birds in one stone and get this covered the same time you show where I "had" to apologize on FBO as you claimed.


----------



## Csquared

7 pages of grotesque trainwreck carnage that started with....



> Anyway guys get out there and talk to some farmers you know. Specifically someone who's word you can trust.


Now we watch as EVERYTHING posted is deemed uncredible unless accompanied by pasted posts from OTHER SITES, and confessions of guilt are instantly turned into ammunition to attempt to shoot holes in the credibility of the moderator.....the same moderator who grants that same shooter FAR MORE latitude than all but a select few here believe he deserves.... latitude that consistently remains unapppreciated.

Absolutely insane how anyone can be so totally devoid of shame, and of limits to the depths they will reach, in a futile attempt to get even a small amount of mud to stick to those who dare to disagree with him.

If you can reach it, gst, you should spank your own behind. And I say that just in case, in your current state, you might be inclined to insinuate I might be referring to Plainsman above.

But to the others, I have an idea. Don't lock this thread. Let's just silently watch and see how long gst continues to talk to himself.

And to Kurt, I think I read this correctly. And if so I'm wondering how many caught it. It's CLASSIC! 



> So nalle if you are listening i am sorry for demeaning your horses like that they are only animals that know no better.


----------



## KurtR

GST you are right and i know that is not going to do any good to convince the fence sitters.Being a fishing and hunting site i was assuming most where not animal fanatics but can be copy and pasted easily all over. my political correctness went out the window that day. But as much as you want to think how you argue on here helps your cause for fence sitters it is almost one long run on sentence of nonsense. While when board i take the time to wade through the majority of horse manure(pc) alot dont and see you as an bullheaded know it all that thinks only your way is the right way. Entertaining as it was at times it has gotten to that "really again" point. i am guessing if there was a nodak/fb debate on all issues more would be figured out in person than has been resolved here in the last 3 plus years. I write this as i hum kumby ya (sp) lets just hug it out guys. With that i have 1 simple question for you GST

1. which is better prime rib or baby back ribs in the smoker, i need to make some thing christmas eve?

ps. Csquared it was a complely inocent observation :wink:


----------



## Csquared

> ps. Csquared it was a complely inocent observation


You call it what you want. I'm calling it a classic, in yo face beat down...with a smile. The best kind :thumb:


----------



## gst

Kurt, Prime rib all the way. If you caught it there were some good recipes on FBO a little while ago. We enjoy a good prime rib for Christmas as well. :beer:

A couple of others have suggested that they have the impression I beleive I am a "know it all" I beleive one was swift if I recall.  Most are the handful of people that have made such non personal comments lately here in this last thread.  My response has always been the same, hard to "know it all" when you learn something new every day.

Kurt if you wade back thru the horse manure, you will see that within this debate over this measure, in a number of threads I have consistantly asked a couple of questions hopeing someone would find the actual factual answer in regards to what this measure will actually accomplish and the legislature will actually still be able to do. One could argue this is hardly the behavior of a "know it all" to admit not "knowing it all" and asking others for answers is it???

I guess my veiw of what a "know it all" would be is more along the lines of someone that makes claims and gives "opinions" and demands others simply take his word and "opinion" rather than factually substantiating his claims/opinions when asked. And then become personal and angry when his veiws are questioned rather than just blindly accepted. But hey who knows, that may be way off base and after all it is only my "opinion" :wink: .

Like I have said numerous times in this thread, indeed talk with a farmer or rancher about this measure. Be sure to have them check out the "support" agriculture and the producer member orgs are getting on this site somewhere in the conversation. Some of the comments are a little short of "go preform oral sex on your horse" but I do not know if they will really be looked at as the "support" of agriculture some on here claim thenm to be. :roll:


----------



## gst

Hey just had a thought and I'll admit right up front this is nothing but a bit of tail twisting here. 

Isn't everyone always giving me heck about asking all these questions on here? I'm wondering, wouldn't a "know it all" beleive he "knew it all" and not have to ask all these questions? :-? Oops, there is another one of those questions, heck actually it is 2 questions, man I knew even less than I thought!!!  Darn I hate not "knowing it all" and having to keep asking these questions.  Would someone that does "know it all" care to answer these questions ?? :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Hey just had a thought and I'll admit right up front this is nothing but a bit of tail twisting here.
> 
> Isn't everyone always giving me heck about asking all these questions on here? I'm wondering, wouldn't a "know it all" beleive he "knew it all" and not have to ask all these questions? :-? Oops, there is another one of those questions, heck actually it is 2 questions, man I knew even less than I thought!!!  Darn I hate not "knowing it all" and having to keep asking these questions.  Would someone that does "know it all" care to answer these questions ?? :wink:


Your questions suck, thats why you have to ask so many. They are also always asked in one of the most arrogant manners I have ever seen. You only ask questions that you think you have the answer for and accompany most of them with those stupid *** smilie faces to further solidify your arrogance. I've read the whole form and have concluded that you have no bend in any subject. Plain and simply, if it does not bennefit you or your profession it is just not going to work. Thats a hell of a way to live buddy....but hey for each their own.

I actually agree with swift. I think we should just rid the site of this a hole. He is part of the fungus, along with all the other crazies, eating away at the core of the hunting/sportsman philosophy.

Another thing I find funny is how often this almighty "rancher" is on the damn computer.lol Must be nice....I want his job!

Just a post from the peanut gallery. commence as before. "   :lol:  " "" "" ' "" ""  

Had to throw some quotes and smilie faces in there so super rancher could comprehend.


----------



## gst

thanks for answering those questions leadfed! for some reason I knew there would bew someone on here that would jump in. :wink:

Indeed many questions are asked with the intent of disproving a claim or "opinion" and most times people do not appreciate having their claims or opinions disproved so I can indeed see where some would think these questions "suck". Perhaps that is why so many go unanswered. You know like all those "please show me" questions. :wink:

And when it comes to holding people accountable for the claims they make regarding agriculture you are most ceratinly right, I have no bend in my position. That position is that when these claims are made the person making them should be able to factually substantiate them when asked.

You guys wish that I would not be on this site? I have told you guys many times how to accomplish that. Simply do not make claims that are not true or factual relating to agriculture and I would have no reason to be on this site. It's pretty simple and yet some of you guys don;t seem to be able to do it.

Hey, I'm not on here for the mature insightful dialogue!


----------



## KurtR

Wow i never thought my comment about the horse being taken advantage of would have ever been conveyed into some thing aginst ag producers. I have not spoken one word aginst this ammendment or any thing aginst producers ever that i remember. Now i am not out with my picket signs marching in support and blindly supporting things with out reasearching(nodak is not a reseach tool i use). When i have a question about rifles and such this is one place to get some good answers. Other stuff there is no in between it is either black and white with no comprimise at all. If i need to know what is best for ag only this is the place, if i need to know what is best for conservation this is the place. To find out what is best for ag and conservation working together hand in hand for the beterment (is that a word) of all i would rather talk to real people than get my info from the inter web. There is underhanded male pheasant suckers in all trades and seems if some just dont want to admit that both sides need to be kept some where in the middle. In all reality ag producers have it pretty good come start dealing with msha and the sorts and they would bring you to tears with the regulations i deal with on a daily basis. When a field is being plowed how many feet is the max distance you are allowed to have a porta potty from your field? Here is another one when hauling on gravel roads what kind of dust controll is used? So dont feel like you are the only one that they are trying to regulate out of buisness


----------



## swift

> Hey, I'm not on here for the mature insightful dialogue!


That's obvious. You haven't given any in all your years of posting. Think of the end of this thread as an intervention. Folks are coming together to try to get you to see you're a pompous jackass. And maybe you will look in the mirror and realize that. Then you and your life can be a more productive member of society. (OK the sky is purple my world too) I'ts pretty hard for a Zebra to change its stripes.


----------



## shaug

Kurtr wrote,



> Other stuff there is no in between it is either black and white with no comprimise at all. If i need to know what is best for ag only this is the place, if i need to know what is best for conservation this is the place. To find out what is best for ag and conservation working together hand in hand for the beterment (is that a word) of all i would rather talk to real people than get my info from the inter web.


Kurt, My brother-in-law used to work for the NRCS. He said relationships between farmers/ranchers, the natural resource managers who work for the government and anybody interested in conservation were very good. Nothing strained. I have asked him to read some of this. He said he never saw anything like this at the Natural Resources Conservation Service in all the decades he worked there. Plainsman and his entourage, are extremists. They represent no one nor should they.


----------



## swift

shaug said:


> Kurtr wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other stuff there is no in between it is either black and white with no comprimise at all. If i need to know what is best for ag only this is the place, if i need to know what is best for conservation this is the place. To find out what is best for ag and conservation working together hand in hand for the beterment (is that a word) of all i would rather talk to real people than get my info from the inter web.
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt, My brother-in-law used to work for the NRCS. He said relationships between farmers/ranchers, the natural resource managers who work for the government and anybody interested in conservation were very good. Nothing strained. I have asked him to read some of this. He said he never saw anything like this at the Natural Resources Conservation Service in all the decades he worked there. Plainsman and his entourage, are extremists. They represent no one nor should they.
Click to expand...

You see Shaug we don't claim to represent anyone. Just one man with an opinion. Your NDFB does claim to represent a large group of people even though one only needs to buy their insurance to be a member. The NDFB is an extremist organization with a voice in the state legislature and a direct voice to the governor. Which is more dangerous us individuals or your organization with political ties? Call me or Plainsman what you want but we are not politically connected. We are not a threat. Your NDFB is.


----------



## KurtR

shaug said:


> Kurtr wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other stuff there is no in between it is either black and white with no comprimise at all. If i need to know what is best for ag only this is the place, if i need to know what is best for conservation this is the place. To find out what is best for ag and conservation working together hand in hand for the beterment (is that a word) of all i would rather talk to real people than get my info from the inter web.
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt, My brother-in-law used to work for the NRCS. He said relationships between farmers/ranchers, the natural resource managers who work for the government and anybody interested in conservation were very good. Nothing strained. I have asked him to read some of this. He said he never saw anything like this at the Natural Resources Conservation Service in all the decades he worked there. Plainsman and his entourage, are extremists. They represent no one nor should they.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what i was pointing out. Talk to people other than the hard liners. We only have 2 ends of the spectrum on here and that is fine it makes for some entertaining banter but other than that not much more. Is everything ag under fire and in danger as much as gst makes it sound? Are the grasslands and slews all going to be gone because of ag like some make it sound. I dont think so, i think there is some pretty sound people on either side working to make this all work better each day. I really think if there was a face to face all these guys agree on more than they really think alot of stuff is misread or whatever after being quoted 5 million times and stuff brought up from the dead. I think it is pretty evident there are "extrmists" from both sides here but hell going through life with out really believing in some thing would be boring. Which means we are not going to agree with or like what every one else believes but that is one good thing about the good ol USA


----------



## spentwings

Right on!
Anyone not in the mix that's followed these threads has probably come to the conclusion by now 
that this isn't a them vs us scenario. 
Definitely not a civil war,,,more like a cat and dog fight.


----------



## swift

Spentwings, Your absolutely right.

I have no problems with ag producers. My disdain is personal with GST and my personal dislike of the policies of the NDFB. Which Shaug seems to champion. I'm glad people can see through GST's charade that we are anti-ag; when really I'm anti GST and NDFB.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Spentwings, Your absolutely right.
> *My disdain is personal with GST *
> I have no problems with ag producers. and my personal dislike of the policies of the NDFB. Which Shaug seems to champion. I'm glad people can see through GST's charade that we are anti-ag; when really I'm anti GST and NDFB.


Jeesh swift, I am glad you put that out there in black and white, I would have NEVER figured that out without you saying it. 

You guys really do get your nose bent out of shape when people come in your sandbox and do not just sit back and let you run the show and say what you wish don't you! 

But now that you have admitted that your entire reason for posting on here is nothing more than a personal dislike, I am sure as a credible unbiased "super moderator" plainsman will indeed be chastising you publically on here for making things personal on his site. :wink:

Kurt, the ONLY thing that I have ever asked on this site is to simply not post anything regarding how I make my living in agriculture that can not be substantiated as fact. If you have an "opinon" great, provide some kind of proof to get people to give some credibility to what you say. If people would simply refrain from doing so as I have REPEATEDLY said I would have NO reason to be on this site.

It really is pretty simple actually, if people like swift and leadled and oters wish me to be off this site, simply step up and hold those accountable for making claims that not only can they not substantiate but are flat out bull dropings when they are made on this site.

But as you have seen by the admission by swift, that decorum of factual truth in these debates is a far second to bashing and org and an individual on this site. And Plainsman as a "super moderator not only sits back and allows it to happen, but participates in it as well.

Kurt ALL that I have ever said regarding your comment was in discussing these issues, that type verbage usually does not garner much support for ones position. That observation was indeed something you agreed with so wherein is the problem with my response to your comments??

Now I do not know what your response would be if people continueally maligned whow you make your livlihood with claims that simply are not turu, but I just do not appreciate it. Perhaps I do need to realize with the likes of some posting on here this is but a second rate outdoor site that few if any base their "opinions" regarding these issues on. Even plainsman admitted that his comments on here may very well be of little relavance. So perhaps I should simply realize this site and its little wagon circle of posters has little relavance in these issues. Swift claims they have NO legislative influence as individuals?? He actually does not realize just how much influence some of the comments made on here have had when presented to legislators on certain issues. :wink:

So once again at the risk of being repetitious, :wink: all that has to be done is for the people who are on this site to step up and hold those people accountable that make claims they can not factually substantiate regarding agricutlure. So lets see who on here is willing to be a "martyr" in their own ranks and simply tell people to stop making these claims they can not factually substantiate regarding agriculture to acheive the end result of me not being on this site.


----------



## KurtR

I will give you a fact. I have ag producers calling trying to milk some money out of my company about every day. We had a guy that said that we got his cows dusty hauling on a road wanted some kind of reimbersement. Or the ones that blame us for ruining county roads as they run grossly over weight. We hold no grudges just go fix it because in the end we know that ag producers get a big break compared to our company ag is big buisness that is how it works in this part of the country. Is it fair nope just the way it has played out. Between the epa,msha,ocha, and all the other govt regulation i deal with on a daily basis just be glad you only have to worry about nodak/fb. We deal with more fingers in the pudding than you can imagine.


----------



## swift

Typical BS from the guy knee deep in it all day. Keep showing your true colors. That of a know it all landlord that sits atop his personal manure pile and looks down on the commoners. The secret is out. Now your hearing it from many more than just me. How many people have to say it for you to believe it? How many until you look in the mirror and say "yep I have been a jerk?

I get to interact with many people and personalities everyday. Yours is truely special. Some would call it pathological. Even that of a sociopath with narcassistic tendancies. Thats what makes the world go around. If we were all alike it would be really boring out there. I suspect your choice of vocation is more compatible with your personality since you dont have to interact with other humans very often.



> But now that you have admitted that your entire reason for posting on here is nothing more than a personal dislike,


 Where did I say that? I want facts. All I want is for some on here to quite posting things they cannot substantiate.

Since we have never met. It would seem reasonable to figure out my dislike for you is entirely from the posts you put on this and FB. It's your approach to topics, your demeaning personality and your manipulation that surely would make any women proud. It's nice to see others finally see it too.

Kurt, Youre treading on thin ice calling GST out like that. You certainly cannot be serious that you or anybody can have it any tougher than he does.


----------



## swift

> If people would simply refrain from doing so as I have REPEATEDLY said I would have NO reason to be on this site.





> But as you have seen by the admission by swift, that decorum of factual truth in these debates is a far second to bashing and org and an individual on this site.





> Kurt, the ONLY thing that I have ever asked on this site is to simply not post anything regarding how I make my living in agriculture that can not be substantiated as fact.


How many times did I post quoted resolutions and policies from the NDFB policy book? C'mon I want an actual number. Isn't pasteing the actual policies fact enough? Not for you, you made it personal by saying I had a Willie for the NDFB. FACT is I don't like their policies and typed them out and explained why I don't like them. You couldn't deal with that and turned personal. Once again your the problem, not me.

How can you sit there and lay claim that I dislike the NDFB based on a "willie". You and Shaug repeatedly dismissed those policies as something that would never happen, things that are "just resolutions" You never once proved with facts that those policies were not being lobbied for. You chose to use the word "willie" to placate the subject and dismiss the very legitimate concerns of mine and others on here. You call that bashing I call that educating yourself. Your responses to those legitimate concerns as having a "willie" solidified my personal dislike for your postings and your holier than thou attitude. You see as I said before I never met you so you successfully ruined your credibility with your own words. Lets see if your "willie" for me or Plainsman or the many others that called you out for what you are actually subsides. I doubt it.


----------



## gst

kurt, as has been mentioned a number of times before in agriculture just as in ANY occupation, (even the medical field) there are whiney jackwagons. Hey, it's life. Perhaps I should realize it and just accept that through out the years on this site, the same people have been making the same claims bashing agriculture in it;s many forms and yet their claims most times are given the degree of credibility they earn by those who are elected by the people to look out for the best interests of the ENTIRE states population as well as this countries.

As to the "breaks" agriculture gets indeed there are. Our govt determined long ago they were going to maintain some control over agriculture and food production in this country as a means of national security. But if you stop and look around, there are any number of industries and companies that receive rather large "breaks" on an individual basis as well as agriculture. Quite a few have made the news in the last while.

Perhaps your industry should sponsor an initiated measure to get a constitutional amendment to protect it from those people demanding things from your industry and perhaps trying to introduce legislation thru initiated measures forcing you to quit using gravel roads because of excessive dust particles ect..... and then all the constitutional experts on Nodak can begin making claims what this measure will allow and cause and claim you're only trying to end ALL regulations and it is a result of pure greed and nothing else when in fact they can not substantiate these claims they make about your business/industry on here. Then when you actually ask them to substantiate them and point out where some of the claims are simply not true, they can begin to make the type of posts we have seen from a few wagon circlers on here! :wink:

So yet once again, indeed talk with a farmer or rancher yourself regarding this measure, ask them to take the time to go to this site and if they will, read thru some of the threads regarding this measure and others such as the links that were provided pertaining to agriculture on this site. It is likely one of the best things you could do for this measure!!


----------



## KurtR

Is there a way to write some thing to protect my industry from fed govt regulations and idiots, that seems to be the real pain in the ***.


----------



## swift

GST has claimed the amendment will have to follow all federal and state laws regarding ag production currently on the books and in the future laws that are passed. But somehow claims this amendment will protect farming from the boogieman down the road. I can't see it at all. The constitutional amendment that was passed securing the right to hunt and fish doesn't give anybody the actual right to do it. Get behind on child support or get arrested for domestic violence and try to excercise your right to buy a hunting license. They are both feel good items cluttering the states constitution. If it really isn't going to protect your livlihood from the perceived bad guys then why go to the expense and time to try to pass it? Use that money to keep the allies you have.


----------



## shaug

Swift said,



> But somehow claims this amendment will protect farming from the boogieman down the road. I can't see it at all. The constitutional amendment that was passed securing the right to hunt and fish doesn't give anybody the actual right to do it.


You have your meaningless amendment, now let us have ours. Who knows, maybe the Farm Bureau Measure will have teeth. Before it can be placed in the Constitution it has to go before our elected representatives. Maybe that is what you guys are most afraid of?

Swift wrote,



> If it really isn't going to protect your livlihood from the perceived bad guys then why go to the expense and time to try to pass it? Use that money to keep the allies you have.


Swift, you have been on this nodak site for many years railing against the agriculturalist and pasturage industries. Now you want to give advice???????? Let the people decide.


----------



## swift

Sounds like a 6 year old kid. He got one why cant I have one?

Answer the question Shaug... What will the amendment do for the ag industry in ND? And if their are any real protections how can they not be abused.

And once again I don't rail against ag I rail against loud mouths that have a superiority complex and preach to me as I am beneath them. Educate me Shaug and answer the question.


----------



## gst

KurtR said:


> Is there a way to write some thing to protect my industry from fed govt regulations and idiots, that seems to be the real pain in the a$$.


Holy crap Kurt, you must not realize what you have just said on here????? 

It will be interesting to see how many people jump all over you making suggestions of you not wanting to be regulated. Perhaps there will even be claims that whatever you do will be worse than the Gulf Oil spill in enviromental disasters if you get out of following regulations. Or that it is just pure unadulterated greed that drives you to want to be free of regulations. :roll: Surely someone on here will have more "opinions" regarding whatever you do for your livlihood and why you wish to be "protected" from regulations and idiots. 

Or perhaps these claims and accusations are merely saved for agriculture on this site!


----------



## gst

swift said:


> by swift » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:21 am
> GST has claimed the amendment will have to follow all federal and state laws regarding ag production currently on the books and in the future laws that are passed. But somehow claims this amendment will protect farming from the boogieman down the road.


Swift have you forgotten the two direct questions regarding wording already in our constitution I asked early on in this debate? ALL that I have asked is that factual truth be the basis for discussion of this measure. If you wish I can go back and show you were I have ASKED these two questions.

NO ONE, even those claiming to wish the truth be known about this measure have given a factual answer. Why is that???



swift said:


> Sounds like a 6 year old kid. He got one why cant I have one?
> 
> Answer the question Shaug... What will the amendment do for the ag industry in ND? And if their are any real protections how can they not be abused.
> 
> And once again I don't rail against ag I rail against loud mouths that have a superiority complex and preach to me as I am beneath them. Educate me Shaug and answer the question.


Perhaps the type of "superiority complex" that would cause someone to claim someone else is "supid" :wink:

What we "rail against" is people not making factual truthful claims about agriculture and this ag based measure. Refrain from doing so, keep others from doing so and I PROMISE there is NOTHING else on this site that would keep me here!! If this was done there would be no need for a "batman" to hang around all the other "jokers" on this site!!  Perhaps that is why no one wishes to step up and hold others accountable on this site, secretly they NEED someone on here they can vent their "mature" personal posts on. :wink: 

Actually I am begging for others on this site to step up and hold people accountable to maintaining a standard of fact and truth that can be substantiated when talking of subjects that affect peoples livlihood wether that be agriculture, the medical "profession" retired Federal workers or whatever Kurt does. One would think a site like this would support maintaining a factual truthful standard and hold its moderators to doing so.

So swift are you in favor of maintaining a factual truthful standard when discussing someones occupation?

Do you beleive someone should be held accountable for not following this simple standard factual truthful dialogue some would beleive a standard of common courteousy?

Anyone??


----------



## swift

The part you can't seem to get through your thick skull is...there are NO FACTS on either side of this amendment. There are only speculation and opinions. This amendment doesn't even have any facts you can take from it. The only real fact is 1. nobody knows the extent of protection or abuse is that will be a result of this amendment. 2. When you don't have anything to say you clammer for facts in an attempt to discredit other peoples concerns and opinions. It is the OPINION of you and the NDFB that some boogieman will come in and try to take away your livlihood. You base that OPINION on other areas of the country and previous legislative attempts in ND. I have the OPINION that there is a risk for widespread abuse of this "right" and base it on the already illegal abuse that is reported regarding ag every year. Your OPINION is no better or worse than mine. But the FACT remains, there are no facts on your side or mine. That is where you come off as arrogant and all knowing.

I tried to spell it out for you in simple terms. I have no doubt you won't get it, mostly because you don't want to get it.

You preached that you gave Plainsman "assurances" but you did not. You gave your opinion as to why there might not be abuse of the amendment. You berated him over your "assurances" not perceiving that you actually didn't give him squat. Then when he tried very nicely to explain why it was not "assurances" you attacked him and cried ag bashing. You need to grow up, shut up and listen once in a while.

Poor picked on cattleman and farmer GST life must be tough having to be the voice of thousands of ag producers in the state. It seems if what is typed on this site was that offensive to the majority of ag producers they would wade in and defend their occupation. Truth be told, many do read this forum and look at the "Ag bashing" for what it is. Bashing a loud mouth guy that claims to be the "batman" of thier industry that they wish would go away. Now go back and cut an paste your response and find a few more emoticons to get your Factual answers from a mythical situation.


----------



## KurtR

Regulations are needed but having to have porta pottys less than a certain feet or a fine that would by you about 10 calves is rediculious. Load limits are in place for a reason and needed to maintain some sort of roads i just wish they meant the same for all. We need common sense regulation and enforcement of saids regs but any thing that gets the govt involved in it does not operate that way. If we had the freedom to get away with half the stuff farmers and such do the bottom line would look alot better. I dont hold resentment or want them to feel my pain either because it would put alot of people out of farming and that is not good for anyone. So in what ways do you think swift,plainsman or any of the other people that disagree with exactly what you say going to shut you down? Please no quotes just a short to the point answer would be great.


----------



## gst

KurtR said:


> We need common sense regulation and enforcement of saids regs but any thing that gets the govt involved in it does not operate that way.


Kurt, I know you asked for no quotes, but this one in particular is EXACTLY what I beleive as well. I have said this same thing on this very site and yet people have made the leap because of personal issues over simply holding them accountable for claims they make that are not factulal that I want ALL regulations eliminated. That simply is not true. As you said when the govt gets involved seldom are things made better, why? because of the mentality of those that are within govt and influencing govt in how these agencies are ran and what kinds of ideologies the people in charge have. Some of those people are willing to make statements that simply are not factual to further agendas.

Despite what they may think, I do NOT beleive people like plainsman, swift, ect... are going to "shut me down" in and of themselves. At least in the eyes of the people in charge of creating law here in the state, the type rhetoric brought to the table by these types of people does not gain much traction. But when they attempt to influence others with statements that are not factually accurate or true, eventually at some point down the road it does begin to impact what we do in a manner that is NOT a common sense aproach to regulation as more "regular folk" begin to possibly beleive that they read if the facts are not there to counter these "claims" . Therein lies my purpose in holding them accountable to a factual standard when making these claims. If people beleive holding a discussion to factual and truthful basis is out of line, I really could care less for those peoples "opinions".

So all that is being asked is to simply remain FACTUAL in making ones claims. And if you wish to share an "opinion" if you can not substantiate the opinion with fact, understand the credibility behind the "opinion" comes into play.

The reason you have to have porta potties a certain distance is that at some point someone was convinced that this is a necessity. You and I know it is not, but at some point somewhere people had "opinions" made "claims" ect... that convinced someone that this was necessary. So as they say, "words matter", I simply think we ultimately end up with better "common sense" regulations if the dialogue leading up to their creation is based on fact and truth.

It may not have been short,  but hopefully it was to the point. :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> The part you can't seem to get through your thick skull is...there are NO FACTS on either side of this amendment.


Actually swift when it comes to the comments made regarding this amendment there are indeed certain "facts" that are relevant. The FACT is that there are Federal regulations that regardless of this measures passage will NOT "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure" as was claimed. Even after being taken to task for making this unfactual claim the person who made it admitted he knew these Federal regs would in fact prevent what he claimed from happening. Had he not been taken to task for making this claim how many people would have known it was simply not true?


----------



## KurtR

Gst that explanation was easy and understandable. You have to remeber some times the outsiders reading this will just say hell with it when the really fine detail stuff gets in the way of big pictures. Its like talking to the computer nerd he talks mega bites killa wats its sounds good but looses my attention real fast.


----------



## bioman

One of my favorites from the North Dakota Stockmen's Association propaganda err web page. Gabe, aka Mr. No BS Only 
Facts, please expound on this resolution, especially since the Federal Clean Water Act was established to protect the health and welfare of both humans and wildlife. Do the clowns including you on the executive committees actually believe the stuff you write??? How does this benefit sportsmen and ranchers for that matter?

WETLANDS - 10 (AP)

WHEREAS, the federal government's current policy on wetlands affects the use, value and private property rights on millions of acres of privately owned agricultural land; and

_*WHEREAS, the federal government's official method of defining wetlands is gravely flawed and leads to wetlands delineation of ranch and farm land which should not be considered wetlands; and*_ 
WHEREAS, cattle grazing is a beneficial maintenance use of wet areas and thereby protects natural wetland values; and

_*WHEREAS, surface inundation exists for a significant portion of the growing season of every year under normal precipitation.*_ 
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA opposes any federal wetlands regulatory authority over all man-made wet areas.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the NDSA pursue changes to benefit the livestock industry in the federal wetlands policy.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part you can't seem to get through your thick skull is...there are NO FACTS on either side of this amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually swift when it comes to the comments made regarding this amendment there are indeed certain "facts" that are relevant. The FACT is that there are Federal regulations that regardless of this measures passage will NOT "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure" as was claimed. Even after being taken to task for making this unfactual claim the person who made it admitted he knew these Federal regs would in fact prevent what he claimed from happening. Had he not been taken to task for making this claim how many people would have known it was simply not true?
Click to expand...

Enlighten me gst. I really don't know but can you currently have a feed lot on a riverbottom? If so, do you think it should be legal to have a feed lot on a river bottom where all the manure can be washed into the watershed?


----------



## bioman

Hey Leadfed, I am sure Mr. Gabe Thompson aka Captain Blowhard, will answer in due time. However, in the near term, the NDSA propaganda web page provides this hint on confined feed lots and compliance with the federal Clean Water Act:

_CLEAN WATER - 11 (AP)

WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that clean water is essential to the health and well-being of the nation; and
__*WHEREAS, federal regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and animal feeding operations (AFOs) may force unnecessary and costly restrictions on animal agriculture; and*_

_WHEREAS, voluntary, incentive-based conservation is a proven, effective method.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA supports a voluntary, incentive-based and locally controlled approach to clean water._

Hey Gabe, question for you:

Do you believe that your members and executive committee should write resolutions that are based on FACTS. Or should an organization be able to make all kinds of falsely stated and inaccurate resolutions that aren't based on facts or science? Your web page resolutions are nothing more than unfettered propaganda. They would make the infamous Baghdad Bob blush.

Quote:


> "So all that is being asked is to simply remain FACTUAL in making ones claims. And if you wish to share an "opinion" if you can not substantiate the opinion with fact, understand the credibility behind the "opinion" comes into play."


----------



## Csquared

Swift and Bioman...great posts. Looking forward to the forthcoming response(s). But I believe the philosopher who long ago said that reasoning with the unreasonable is like going under water with a torch in search of a drowning man was spot-on! I tried in two different threads to point out to gst, subtly and not so subtly, that his tactics made him look silly and disingenuous, but to no avail. I am of the opinion there is no reasoning with him. He's hellbent on settling a score at virtually any cost, and the amount of times high fence has been mentioned in this thread about forming one's own opinion about pending ag regs should be ample proof to illustrate that.

So I offer this....Shipping would be expensive so I'll send you a dollar to buy your own. Consider it my Christmas present...









When you purchase your block, bring it home and place it near your computer. Then in the future when you are inclined to participate in a gst dominated thread, instead of typing, drop to your knees and repeatedly bang your head against the concrete block.

The results should be nearly identicle to trying to force any reason into one of his posts. :wink:


----------



## leadfed

bioman said:


> Hey Leadfed, I am sure Mr. Gabe Thompson aka Captain Blowhard, will answer in due time. However, in the near term, the NDSA propaganda web page provides this hint on confined feed lots and compliance with the federal Clean Water Act:
> 
> _CLEAN WATER - 11 (AP)
> 
> WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that clean water is essential to the health and well-being of the nation; and
> __*WHEREAS, federal regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and animal feeding operations (AFOs) may force unnecessary and costly restrictions on animal agriculture; and*_
> 
> _WHEREAS, voluntary, incentive-based conservation is a proven, effective method.
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA supports a voluntary, incentive-based and locally controlled approach to clean water._
> 
> Hey Gabe, question for you:
> 
> Do you believe that your members and executive committee should write resolutions that are based on FACTS. Or should an organization be able to make all kinds of falsely stated and inaccurate resolutions that aren't based on facts or science? Your web page resolutions are nothing more than unfettered propaganda. They would make the infamous Baghdad Bob blush.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> "So all that is being asked is to simply remain FACTUAL in making ones claims. And if you wish to share an "opinion" if you can not substantiate the opinion with fact, understand the credibility behind the "opinion" comes into play."
Click to expand...

Hahaha....I see how it works/words. So baisically we (meaning NDSA) think water is important and further yet clean water is important....BUT, we (meaning the stockmen) should be allowed to determine what is considered clean. lol Man sounds like gabe the old super rancher wrote that one up himself dunnit?


----------



## gst

tell you what guys, if you are sharp enough to turn on your computors, type some words on a key board and hit enter as you must be to post the enlightened non personal comments you have contributed to this discussion so far, you are also able to find where in the verbage in the Clean Water Act as well as the EPA regulatory requirements as well as the ND State Health Dept regulations regarding the quetions you pose of the resolutions you mention. It is not rocket science that you guys are less concerned with answers than personal bashing. If you had been concerned with truthful factual answers regarding this measure the answers for the following questions would have been given when they were asked earlier in the dialogue. It is hard to expect answers to your questions when you refuse to provide any yourselves.

So lets go back to the start of this whole debate. Answer theses questions if you will please this go around.

Will this measure if passed allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure as claimed, or do Federal regs prevent this?

Will this measure if passed allow pesticides to be used irresponsibly outside of the labeled requirements as claimed or do Federal regs prevent this?

Do you beleive that factual truth should be a standard of debating the creation of law?

Pretty simple straight forward questions that have been asked prior in this debate and yet have not received an answer. Lets see if anyone will give it a whirl this go.


----------



## gst

kurt, it appears we have a smattering of examples of the type of mentality that has required the specific distance for your porta potties! :wink:


----------



## KurtR

I understand that the fed laws will protect form what has been said. So why is this amendment needed if it is supercided by all the feds laws? i am not being smart but wondering if all the time and effort is worth it if it means nothing more can be done than is being done now. Does it protect from future federal regulations is that the intent of it?


----------



## gst

Kurt it is the question I asked way back when as well given the current wording in our Constitution that has been printed numerous times in this discussion. I really do not know the answer, admitted as much and that is why the question was asked eons ago. ( hard to beleive coming from a "know it all") 

It has been explained to me that this state measure can not overturn current nor prevent future Federal regulations. It was also explained to me that the intent of this measure is primarily due to the initiated measure process that is able to be used to create law with no accountability for truthful dialogue or recourse for the claims these anti orgs make in attempting to create law in this manner.

Regardless of what some supporters of the HFH initiative wish people to believe, it is indeed a large part of why this measure exists. Orgs such as HSUS have been successful in using the initiated measure to accomplish their agendas in other states that allow it to be used to create law, and this is a proactive attempt to prevent that from happening here in ND.

Like I sid earlier I would have rather seen a "truth in the creation of law" statute in the ND Century Code that held people sponsoring measures to held to a standard of truth when advocating for their measure, but that has yet to happen.

Do you ever stop to wonder why the people making claims against this measure and attacking personally the people wishing to get the truth out regarding this measure on this site were some of the loudest supporters of the past HFH measure? Like I said earlier even Roger K. chimed in a while back! :-? Hmmm.


----------



## leadfed

Hey ga....er I mean super rancher. Do you think it is ok to have a feedlot in an area where it is determined that their **** and everything else will be washed INTO the watershed not "washed away" as you put it. Now I'm not being completely ignorant and one sided as you so I'll explain what I'm talking about a little more. I'm not talking about wintering a few hundred cows on a river bottom. I don't see a problem with that. I'm talking about a comercial feed lot. Even you have to agree that just doesn't seem fair to the people downstream.....or do ya? Therein lies the question "good" fella. I mean, how would you feel if your kids were swimming in a creek downstream of a 1000 head feed lot where their waste was free to enter the creek?

:-? Maybe I shouldn't have made the question so dang confusing for ya? Figured I'd use an emoticon in there too to make you feel a little more comfortable.


----------



## leadfed

I still don't get why you ask questions that you already know the answer to? To me thats arrogant and shows a superiority complex but oh well we've already touched on that. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make em drink I guess. No, what you are really doing is using a few specific topics brought up on here to divert attention to the main point.....the farm measure.

I have a question. Is this it in its fullness?

"The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."

Baisically what that says to me is that what is in effect as far as regulations go at this point is here to stay. HOWEVER, there will be absolutely no further regulations set against the farmer/rancher from here on out. I mean doesn't that measure sound extremely broad to you gabe? It says that no one can touch you and what or how you decide to farm/ranch from now on.

I don't know maybe I'm not reading it right. I do know one thing. I'm glad I got caught up in this forum because I would have probably signed the damn thing a few weeks ago if I hadn't seen you posting on here defending it like it was the declaration of independence.


----------



## gst

leadfed, the simplest advice I can give you is contact the ND State Health Dept as well as the Federal EPA to see for yourself what requirements and regulations govern where and how feedlots can be built. It is a relatively simple thing to find these on this very computer you type these insightful well articulated comments, but I would guess, by now anyone that truly wished to know the answers to these questions and others posed has already done so and the others simply do not wish to know as it does not further their positions.

As to what this measure will ultimately have the power to do, recall if you will the questions I asked concerning the wording already contained in our state constituion that places the ultimate power to legislate regulatory law in the hands of the elected representatives of the people, the state legislature, I can repost it if needed, but by now if you had followed along you should know the verbage I refer to.

As to asking questions I already know the answers to are you refering to these?



gst said:


> Will this measure if passed allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure as claimed, or do Federal regs prevent this?
> 
> Will this measure if passed allow pesticides to be used irresponsibly outside of the labeled requirements as claimed or do Federal regs prevent this?
> 
> Do you beleive that factual truth should be a standard of debating the creation of law?


If so it is because the very reason I entered into this debate was these claims were being made when in fact the Federal regulatory laws will prevent them from happening. So if indeed one beleives these claims are not true, I am in agreement with you.

As there is little value to continueing down this path from the examples posted showing there will be little relevant value of continued dialogue regarding this measure, and as kurt is indeed right that often continueing to point out the fine details such as fact and truthful dialogue get in the way of the big pictures, and it is clear there are those here that like pictures, all I will suggest is indeed talk with a farmer or rancher regarding this measure, have them read the posts on this site, it could very well be the best support this measure could be given.


----------



## leadfed

OK lets try this again :wink:

[what you are really doing is using a few specific topics brought up on here to divert attention to the main point.....the farm measure.

I have a question. Is this it in its fullness?

"The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."

Baisically what that says to me is that what is in effect as far as regulations go at this point is here to stay. HOWEVER, there will be absolutely no further regulations set against the farmer/rancher from here on out. I mean doesn't that measure sound extremely broad to you gabe? It says that no one can touch you and what or how you decide to farm/ranch from now on.

quote]

Right?


----------



## gst

Yes that is the wording of the measure. As to the answer to your other question,

At the risk of being repititious,  lets try this again. Find the FACTUAL answer to this question I asked WAY back in this discussion, and you will have the answer to yours.

gst wrote:
I have merely suggested that an answer to this question will allow the TRUTH regarding this measure to be known. 
Article I Sec 21.

*No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/*quote
_
Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening._

In case you are not aware, the emboldened, underlined wording above exists in our states constitution already. The italisized, underlined wording is the question I posed at the start of this debate in an effort to get to the TRUTH about what this measure will indeed have the power to do in relationship to the powers granted the legislative body already in our Constitution.

I stand by the beleive (opionion) that this existing constitutional wording will ultimately retain the power of the elected representatives of this state to create, impose and maintain regulatory law as it was represented to me.

If this is indeed the case I suppose one can argue the value of such an amendment similar to the value of the "right" to hunt amendment as well. But please keep from making unfactual claims as to what this measure will do as has been done by suggesting it will over ride Federal regulatory authority and law.

IO really do not know how much more truthfully I can answer your question.


----------



## swift

> You have your meaningless amendment, now let us have ours. Who knows, maybe the Farm Bureau Measure will have teeth. Before it can be placed in the Constitution it has to go before our elected representatives. Maybe that is what you guys are most afraid of?


Shaug I'm glad you finally admitted you have the ag vs sportsman agenda that has been so obvious in your posts.

GST, Answer my questions (with answers not more questions) then I will attempt to answer yours. I see whenever I try in a non-attacking way you seem to just ignore them. Try to answer my question as to what are facts and what are not. Again IF THIS AMENDMENT HAD ANY FACTS TO IT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE AN OPINION ON IT WHEN IT PASSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Shaug I'm glad you finally admitted you have the ag vs sportsman agenda that has been so obvious in your posts.


Do not try to twist my words around your axle. You said that the Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment is meaningless. You said this Farm Bureau measure will not stop the things farmers/ranchers fear from HSUS and PETA so therefore it is meaningless. If in your opinion both consitutional amendments are meaningless than what in the he77 is all the fuss about.



> Again IF THIS AMENDMENT HAD ANY FACTS TO IT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE AN OPINION ON IT WHEN IT PASSES


The AG cannot and or will not give an opinion on it until it is passed. When it passes he "will" and that is just standard procedure. If you are that adamant about it, you have the right to force an opinion from the Attorney Generals Office. Get enough legislators together and they can do just that. Here is a suggestion. Tell the Senators and Representatives to read this forum as all your arguments against this measure are already laid out right here. Psh!!!

Swift, there are even more legal avenues available to you and your small group here on Nodak. When the signatures are collected the state does an impact study. I do not remember the official term. I can remember durring fair chase two, state leaders came together to determine or decipher the code the meaning or meanings of the wording of the fair chase measure. After the meeeting it was put in the papers that they didn't know exactly what it meant but it did mean something. WOW.
Swift, maybe if the state has a meeting like that one for this FB measure you can go there and dictate to the state officials what you think the ground rules should be.

And there is still one more avenue available to you, when this measure passes, it will have to go before the legislature before it is inserted into the States Constitution. You will need to go to the Capitol. The hearings are a very formal place. You can testify. You can't tell lies, you can't use your psuedo name swift, you can't hurl insults, and you cannot wear a bag over your head to hide your identity.


----------



## bioman

Hey Gabe Thompson aka Captain Blowhard and King of the Non-Answer: Answer the following question:

Do you believe that factual truth should be a standard required for passage of a resolution by the North Dakota Stockmen's Association?

Or is your little fraternity held to a different standard?


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> Do you ever stop to wonder why the people making claims against this measure and attacking personally the people wishing to get the truth out regarding this measure on this site were some of the loudest supporters of the past HFH measure? Like I said earlier even Roger K. chimed in a while back! Hmmm.


Actually what I've noticed even more is that the people posting here in support of this amendment are also those who personally attacked the people who supported the HFH measure. :-? HMMM

huntin1


----------



## swift

> The AG cannot and or will not give an opinion on it until it is passed. When it passes he "will" and that is just standard procedure


That is exactly my point. GST keeps calling for truths and facts when in all reality there are none.



> If in your opinion both consitutional amendments are meaningless than what in the he77 is all the fuss about.


As stated before there is NO reason to clutter the state constitution with meaningless crap. All that can come of this is negative by virtue of abuses based on a constitutional amendment.


----------



## gst

shaug, do you know if indeed you have to be a ND resident to testify? :wink:

bio man, if you can please show me what is not factual truth in a resolution this assoc. has and can provide the proof as to why it is not factual truth, I most certainly will work to address it at our next annual convention.

huntin 1 if you are going to make claims of "personal attacks", *given the standard that apparently is not considered "personal attacks" by the moderators on this site as one reads these threads*, you should probably accompany your claim with direct examples.

swift, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but I really am not interested in your "answers" or much else you have to say as long as you can refrain from making claims regarding agriculture that simply are not true.

Please talk with a farmer or rancher, show them the comments on this site regarding this measure, those who support this measure will likely thank you for doing so.


----------



## Csquared




----------



## huntin1

gst, pretty sure you are aware of the search function, you apparently have more time on your hands than I do, have at it. :wink:

huntin1


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Yes that is the wording of the measure. As to the answer to your other question,
> 
> At the risk of being repititious,  lets try this again. Find the FACTUAL answer to this question I asked WAY back in this discussion, and you will have the answer to yours.
> 
> gst wrote:
> I have merely suggested that an answer to this question will allow the TRUTH regarding this measure to be known.
> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> *No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/*quote
> _
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening._
> 
> In case you are not aware, the emboldened, underlined wording above exists in our states constitution already. The italisized, underlined wording is the question I posed at the start of this debate in an effort to get to the TRUTH about what this measure will indeed have the power to do in relationship to the powers granted the legislative body already in our Constitution.
> 
> I stand by the beleive (opionion) that this existing constitutional wording will ultimately retain the power of the elected representatives of this state to create, impose and maintain regulatory law as it was represented to me.
> 
> If this is indeed the case I suppose one can argue the value of such an amendment similar to the value of the "right" to hunt amendment as well. But please keep from making unfactual claims as to what this measure will do as has been done by suggesting it will over ride Federal regulatory authority and law.
> 
> IO really do not know how much more truthfully I can answer your question.


Ok, I read it. Read it again and then one more time. I see where you are going. NOW, you tell me one thing. Don't dodge the question either. Just answer it. If you want to ask me a question do it AFTER you answer mine....please.

Here we go. You read what you posted to me above.......done? Now tell me why in sam hell even propose this measure if it doesn't do anything, according to you that is? Also, why don't you enlighten us all with what this measure is actually supposed to do?

Thanks


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> That is exactly my point. GST keeps calling for truths and facts when in all reality there are none.


I believe what gst dislikes the most is persons posting untruths and unfacts.



> As stated before there is NO reason to clutter the state constitution with meaningless crap. All that can come of this is negative by virtue of abuses based on a constitutional amendment.


Swift, the very last amendment to the ND State Constitution defines marriage as that between a man and a women. Do you agree, disagree or do you think that amendment is meaningless crap clutter?

gst wrote,



> shaug, do you know if indeed you have to be a ND resident to testify?


I don't know. That certainly would create a dilema for swift. He cannot testify, cannot vote and is pretty much powerless to stop it. That is if he truly lives in South Dakota. A person can never be too sure about such things. He is "swift" on a dying web-forum that the general public does not read. This measure is going to pass. Before this measure is inserted into the state constitution it has to go before the legislature. That is when Plainsman, Swift, Bad Dog, leadinbed and their small group should go down to the capitol and make their last stand. I wouldn't miss it for the world.


----------



## swift

GST I challenge you to post one item that I said on this topic that is untrutjfil or unfactial. I can save you some time there is none. The fact is you dont want my answers because they cannot be disproved by you.

All I want from GST is something truthful and factual. All I get is opinion and spin.


----------



## gst

leadfed, obviously if I knew the answer to YOUR question, I would not have had to ask mine???

As it has been explained to me this measure is meant to stop orgs like HSUS from outside our state starting initiated measures in this state as they have successfully done in others. Hence the mention of the HFH measure as this was a wake up call when HSUS indeed did join the measure. I have said in the past, even those in the livestock industry sat back and thought they would never get horse slaughter ended here in the US. Yet look what happened.

So there are those that beleive we should be more proactive in protecting our livestock industries here in ND. As it has been explained to me, this measure will indeed do that while continueing to allow the legislature the ability to create and implement regulatory laws as the citizens of ND wish them.

Swift I do not beleive I have ever accused you specifically of making unfactual statements in this dialogue.

I simply am not interested in your comments as they are based on a personal dislike as you stated rather than one of contributing value to the discussion.

Csquared, your link perhaps explains some of your posts!! :wink: Feel free to leave the discussion any time you wish, although we will all miss your mature, nonpersonal contributions to the debate :wink: .

From FBO:
plainsman wrote, quote:"Fritz, we often disagree, but on this one I am in agreement with you and Gutshot. Even about Dokken who also posts on nodakoutoors and never agrees with me. He is an outdoor sort of guy. I was sponsored the fair chase initiative the fist time, but did not the second time. I don't like HSUS, and for a long time would not believe anyone contacted them. First I didn't believe it then I did, then I didn't again. I was not even going to get into that debate last time until someone posted something that was not true. That always gets my dander up." end quote

I know what you mean plainsman, it always gets my "dander" up too!! :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> All I want from GST is something truthful and factual. All I get is opinion and spin


How about the simple "fact" that started this whole debate.

This measure WILL NOT allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure nor allow for pesticide use outside of what is approved as claimed here at the start of this dialogue, as FEDERAL REGULATIONS WILL PREVENT THIS AS WELL AS EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS.

That sir is FACT. Don't beleive me? If this measure passes invest your equity to start a feedlot and see what regulations you must comply with. Heck, still don;t beleive me?? Call the EPA and as them their "opinion" wether this amendment will allow these calims to happen. Remember when THAT suggestion was made and the statement was made someone would indeed call the EPA??? Had this FACT simply been accepted and acknowledged way back when, this discussion could have been done pages ago.

Anyway I enjoy a good debate, some times even what happens on here  , so Merry Christmas everybody, remember the reason for the season


----------



## swift

gst said:


> shaug, do you know if indeed you have to be a ND resident to testify? :wink:
> 
> bio man, if you can please show me what is not factual truth in a resolution this assoc. has and can provide the proof as to why it is not factual truth, I most certainly will work to address it at our next annual convention.
> 
> huntin 1 if you are going to make claims of "personal attacks", *given the standard that apparently is not considered "personal attacks" by the moderators on this site as one reads these threads*, you should probably accompany your claim with direct examples.
> 
> *swift, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but I really am not interested in your "answers" or much else you have to say as long as you can refrain from making claims regarding agriculture that simply are not true.*
> 
> Please talk with a farmer or rancher, show them the comments on this site regarding this measure, those who support this measure will likely thank you for doing so.


Let me refresh your memory. It's seems you attack so much with the same nonsense you can't remember the last time you did it.


----------



## Plainsman

> How about the simple "fact" that started this whole debate.


That is not what this thread started out as. The fact is it got here because your a man without any manners.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> swift, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but I really am not interested in your "answers" or much else you have to say as long as you can refrain from making claims regarding agriculture that simply are not true.


Seems as if the good tidings of the Holidays are over! 

swift, I am assuming this is the statement you are refering to? If you take the time to comprehend it, there is no accusation of making statements regarding agriculture that are not true directed towards you indicating you have made them, only the simple direct statement that unless indeed you do make these type claims I really have no interest in conversing with you. Had you not made it perfectly clear your comments result because of a personal bias there could possibly be some value to them to the conversation, but as you clearly pointed out, that is not the case and I simply would rather not waste my time with a conversation based soley on personal hatred.

So once again swift, as long as you can refrain from making claims regarding how I make my living in agriculture that are not true or factual, I simply have no reason to continue a dialogue with you. And I must admit, I really do hope we have no reason to engage in any sort of dialogue. :wink:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Seems as if the good tidings of the Holidays are over!





Plainsman said:


> How about the simple "fact" that started this whole debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what this thread started out as. The fact is it got here because your a man without any manners.
Click to expand...

plainsamn, one question if you would. What type "manners" is it to make claims regarding ones occupation that are not true? :wink:

plainsamn, you may wish to ignore the fact that you made these claims regarding this measure (feedlots and pestcide use) by only focasing on this one particular thread, but I am looking at the entire *debate* regarding this measure. (as mentioned in the above quote) Please do not try to slip away from the FACT you made these claims that simply can not be proven as true, while in FACT,there exists a number of other Federal and state regulations that will indeed make these claims false that you can not deny.

If you recall, you even admitted to this FACT once you were pressured into doing so. But had someone not held you accountable for your initial claims, would you have ever admitted they were not facual?

Any way, so much for that "gracious out" you menetioned earlier, I guess the holidays are over. :-?

Indeed as has been suggested, talk with a farmer or rancher regarding this measure. Inform YOURSELF as best you can on what you are being asked to support, and do NOT rely on sites such as this for your "factual" information, it has been made perfectly clear that is NOT a standard required to post claims on here :wink: .


----------



## Plainsman

> What type "manners


The type that you don't drag every thread in the direction you want it to go. Nearly every thread turns into the same argument. When people stop responding on one thread you just turn another thread into the same argument to continue. Even the ones I locked you started the same debate in other threads. It is extremely poor manners to keep hijacking other threads that other people start, by injecting the subject you want to talk about. That's the way internet manners works. I guess you think your important enough to ignore any and all rules. Your simply seen as a bully who can not tolerate not having your way. Sometime someone had to tell you. I'm forgetful, so I suppose you have already been told more than once.


----------



## gst

plainsamn, as you frequently admit how "forgetful" you are, I will simply remind you yet once again that all that is required from you to not even have me on this site is to simply refrain from making comments against agriculture that you can not sbstantiate with fact or even "credible" opinion.

As to changing the thread topic, in the political forum, you took a thread SPECIFICALLY about corn ethanol subsidies and renewable energy and turned it into one on WHEAT subsidies and managed to get a snipe in there at farmers yet once again.

So if you do wish to not have to deal with the accountability of your "misguided" statements regarding agriculture, simply do not make them and I would have little reason to be on a site such as this. As the saying goes plainsman, the ball is in your court.


----------



## spentwings

Cow pies at dawn,,,and even with brews for seconds, wouldn't quell your angst for each other.
Pretty pathetic. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

> As to changing the thread topic, in the political forum, you took a thread SPECIFICALLY about corn ethanol subsidies and renewable energy and turned it into one on WHEAT subsidies and managed to get a snipe in there at farmers yet once again.


 The book I was reading used wheat as an example of subsidized grain. One should be able to fill in corn or any other subsidized product for what the author used.



> I will simply remind you yet once again that all that is required from you


If we followed rules established by every self appointed little king we would not be able to discuss anything.

Spent, switch to something stronger. :thumb:


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> Spent, switch to something stronger. :thumb:[/quote
> OK! But whiskey makes me antagonistic.
Click to expand...


----------



## Plainsman

spentwings said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spent, switch to something stronger. :thumb:[/quote
> OK! But whiskey makes me antagonistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This I have to watch. 8) Have a pint before you post again and you may fit right in. 

Your right of course. I simply refuse to bury my opinions because some joker says I have to or else. As you may notice a self appointed dictator has the same affect on me as whiskey does on you. :thumb:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Cow pies at dawn,,,and even with brews for seconds, wouldn't quell your angst for each other.
> Pretty pathetic. :eyeroll:


spent, I have made it very clear that my "angst" would be "quelled simply by people like plainsman refraining from making claims regarding how I make my living in agriculture they can not substantiate. He most certaily can indeed have "opinions" but when those "opinions are claims such as he made regarding what this measure concerning feedlots and pesticide usage will do, they indeed will need to be substantiated for them to have ANY degree of credibility. And when these "opinions" are proven to be unfactual, pehaps the ability to say "I was simply wrong" would go a long ways.

Stop and think about it a minute. As many times as I have said I would have no reason to be on this site if he and a small handful of others woud simply do this one thing, how would I dare post on here if they would only do this one simple courteousy.
One would think this a significant incentive for some on here to hold those accountable when they go down the road these threads so often do regarding agriculture.

Recall the one thread titled " #%$^@#!# farmers" from awhile back? Where was the moderator stepping up suggesting this title was out of line??? Where was he to lock this thread whose very title started out bashing farmers? If someone does not step up and hold people making claims and statements such as these accountble on this site WHO WILL??? IT IS CLEAR THE MODERATORS ON THIS SITE WILL NOT.

From FBO:
plainsman wrote, quote:"Fritz, we often disagree, but on this one I am in agreement with you and Gutshot. Even about Dokken who also posts on nodakoutoors and never agrees with me. He is an outdoor sort of guy. I was sponsored the fair chase initiative the fist time, but did not the second time. I don't like HSUS, and for a long time would not believe anyone contacted them. First I didn't believe it then I did, then I didn't again._* I was not even going to get into that debate last time until someone posted something that was not true. That always gets my dander up." *_end quote

I know what you mean plainsman, it always gets my "dander" up too!!

As I said, the ball is in plainsmans court, give it a whirl, perhaps for New Years he can resolve to discontinue making claims such as he did regarding this measure and the feedlots and pesticides that simply are not true. Beleive me, I would enjoy not having to take him to task everytime he "supports" agriculture in this manner.


----------



## Plainsman

Try holding your breath gst. Did you see the posts above where the NDSA says they should determine what is clean water? How would they do that? Do they realy think they have someone qualified to do that? Please don't tell me they are qualified.

I have watched for years cattle wintered in the floodplain along the Sheyenne river. I doubt it's different on other rivers. My brothers farm follows along the river. A quarter mile wide strip of flat land along the river is flooded about a foot or two deep every spring. Also about 1/2 of the land is wooded. A neighbor wanted to rent the south 80 to winter his cattle. Yup, right where the river floods to one or two feet deep every spring. It's not something that would happen, it's still happening. I see it every winter. This bill would ensure no one could do anything about it. I think someone needs to fly those rivers this winter when there is some snow on the ground. Wouldn't it be nice if they seen these threads.  I volunteer to guide. 

I think the only thing this bill will do is create roadblocks and slow down court cases when the few violators in the mix use it as a perceived shield. Perceived in their eyes whether or not it's real. Of course the NDFB wants regulations dropped. Some on FBO wants to do away completely with the EPA. Who would enforce those regulations that gst keeps quoting. Gst, you simply want us to shut up while you and yours dump in our lap.

It looks like the corn subsidy is going away. That will take some hands out of the taxpayers pocket. It will also make us more energy dependent since this energy consuming practice will be brought back in line by the free market. More food will also be available. I hear we feed the world, but that's bogus because they are willing to turn food into fuel.

Since we both say talk to a farmer, but then you inject bs gst, then I guess I'll have to give some more of my opinions. My opinion is you want us to shut up while you plunder the government coffers. I think the people putting money into those coffers should be allowed an opinion. I hope my opinion will pull the mask off those I think rob us. It's time for someone to tell folks what is really going on. These opinions come from being a North Dakota citizen all my life (63 years) and seeing two groups. Those who pay, and those who take.


----------



## Csquared

> all that is required from you to not even have me on this site is


....is a simple push of Plainsman's computer key. And the simple fact that hasn't happened yet has gone totally unappreciated by a few, and is anxiously awaited by the rest :wink:


----------



## Csquared

Help me out here...do I have a computer monitor issue? For a year or so I have been thinking his screen name was "G"st, but I'm thinking it might actually be "Q" st.

That would answer a lot of qst's....and make a lot of sense


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I don't like HSUS, and for a long time would not believe anyone contacted them. First I didn't believe it then I did, then I didn't again. I was not even going to get into that debate last time until someone posted something that was not true. That always gets my dander up."


Plainsman, I enjoy your storytelling more when the story is much bigger. OK, someone said something in a debate that you feel isn't/wasn't true. We don't have a lot to go on here. To make your story legit, we are going to need a name and the actual (untrue) statement.

Plainsman said,



> My opinion is you want us to shut up while you plunder the government coffers. I think the people putting money into those coffers should be allowed an opinion. I hope my opinion will pull the mask off those I think rob us. It's time for someone to tell folks what is really going on. These opinions come from being a North Dakota citizen all my life (63 years) and seeing two groups. Those who pay, and those who take.


You want to pull the mask off and tell people what is really going on?????? You hide behind a mask called Plainsman on a dying web-forum that the general public doesn't read. Sorry, but you have a lot of ground to cover. You will need to go before the legislature and/or townhalls etc. to get your message out. Wherever the general public is congregrating. On this forum you pound your shoe on the podium like Nikita Kruschev. The people have become weary of the fearmongering. (We are being robbed, they have their hands in our pockets, greed at its darkest.) In all your (63 years) you have finally come to the conclusion that there are just two groups, those who pay and those who take!!!! Plainsman, your thinking is only "two" dimensional.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug there is a group of you guys who have come to hunting and fishing forms simply to cloud any issues and try to drive a wedge while you push things through like the new NDFB amendment. Then some have the audacity to set artificial rules. How arrogant can one get?

Talk to a farmer turned into how many pages? It could have stopped right about the first post, but we know that couldn't happen with the tag team twins around right? If you notice it recommended talking to a farmer, and I mentioned that I talked to two who thought it was mostly about drainage. Somehow someone turned it into much more again. Now who would have done that?


----------



## KurtR

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like HSUS, and for a long time would not believe anyone contacted them. First I didn't believe it then I did, then I didn't again. I was not even going to get into that debate last time until someone posted something that was not true. That always gets my dander up."
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, I enjoy your storytelling more when the story is much bigger. OK, someone said something in a debate that you feel isn't/wasn't true. We don't have a lot to go on here. To make your story legit, we are going to need a name and the actual (untrue) statement.
> 
> Plainsman said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is you want us to shut up while you plunder the government coffers. I think the people putting money into those coffers should be allowed an opinion. I hope my opinion will pull the mask off those I think rob us. It's time for someone to tell folks what is really going on. These opinions come from being a North Dakota citizen all my life (63 years) and seeing two groups. Those who pay, and those who take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to pull the mask off and tell people what is really going on?????? You hide behind a mask called Plainsman on a dying web-forum that the general public doesn't read. Sorry, but you have a lot of ground to cover. You will need to go before the legislature and/or townhalls etc. to get your message out. Wherever the general public is congregrating. On this forum you pound your shoe on the podium like Nikita Kruschev. The people have become weary of the fearmongering. (We are being robbed, they have their hands in our pockets, greed at its darkest.) In all your (63 years) you have finally come to the conclusion that there are just two groups, those who pay and those who take!!!! Plainsman, your thinking is only "two" dimensional.
Click to expand...

Isnt that the guy the hulkster used to fight back in day along with the Iron shiek, i hated those guys when i was 8. At least me and my freinds had productive arguments when we were 8. RIP Junk Yard Dog


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Shaug there is a group of you guys who have *come to hunting and fishing forms simply to cloud any issues* and try to drive a wedge while you push things through like the new NDFB amendment. Then some have the audacity to set artificial rules. How arrogant can one get?


There has been mentioned a few times this is a "hunting and fishing forum" and that we as agriculturalists should not be voicing our veiws regarding the comments made about agriculture by a select few on here becuase of it. Tell me this plainsamn, if this is ideed a hunting and fishing site, why is agriculture even being talked about on here then??? Please show a thread regarding agriculture that either shaug or I starting.

As a moderator plainsman, what did you think about a thread that was titled #$%@^&$#! farmers???

Apparently the moderators on this site beleive that there should be allowed threads bashing farmers right from the very title and yet those very same farmers should not be on this hunting and fishing site voicing their "opinions". Apparently voicing an alternative "opinion" to the super moderator is veiwed as "clouding the issue"  . Some might just veiw that as an arrogant elitist lord of the website "opinion"!!! 

plainsman one simple question, will this amendment over ride Federal and state regulations and "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure" as you claimed. Yes or No.


----------



## gst

Kurt, Wahoo McDaniels would have kicked all their butts! :thumb:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cow pies at dawn,,,and even with brews for seconds, wouldn't quell your angst for each other.
> Pretty pathetic. :eyeroll:
> 
> 
> 
> spent, I have made it very clear that my "angst" would be "quelled simply by people like plainsman refraining from making claims regarding how I make my living in agriculture they can not substantiate. He most certaily can indeed have "opinions" but when those "opinions are claims such as he made regarding what this measure concerning feedlots and pesticide usage will do, they indeed will need to be substantiated for them to have ANY degree of credibility. And when these "opinions" are proven to be unfactual, pehaps the ability to say "I was simply wrong" would go a long ways.
Click to expand...

My dear gst and plains
OK. In plainer words,,, you're the two main antagonists in a feud of the minority.
10's of threads and 100's of posts from now isn't going to change a thing.
That's why it's so ridiculous. :beer:


----------



## gst

spent, I have realized long ago, plainsman will continue to make claims regarding agriculture that he can not factually substantiate because they simply are not true. I will not change his mind on this nor he mine on the fact there is a need even on " hunting and fishing site" to not allow this to go unaddressed.

So spent one question if you would, are you passionate enough about your occupation to speak up if someone on this site was malinging it with statements that were not true or would you set back and allow it to happen?

I guess I expect someone who accepts the title of "moderator" on a site like this to understand there is the added responsibility that goes along with that of setting an example of not posting "opinions" that are not factual or true. This measure will NOT "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water washed away the manure" as plainsman claimed it would. He has admitted he knows Federaland state regualtions will prevent this, and yet he still defends his claim as the truth rather than simply apologizing for making a claim that is not true.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Cow pies at dawn,,,and even with brews for seconds, wouldn't quell your angst for each other.
> Pretty pathetic. :eyeroll:


Spent, I have a better idea. Plainsamn and I each bring a hundred dollars and meet you at the ND State Health Dept., or the ND office of the EPA, you can hold the money. You ask the following question to those in charge: will this constitutional amendment "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure". If the answer is no, I get the 200 Georges, if the answer is yes plainsamn does! :wink: The winner buys beer.


----------



## spentwings

I've said in open forum a long time ago that a moderator should be above the fray.
But I also think plains is tolerant and fair. Maybe to tolerant ,,,at least in my case.
So plains maligns agriculture and you malign sportsmen by your derogatory remarks about NODAk?
Tons of neg rhetoric that boils down to angst among a few. 
I'm pro-ag to a point and neither you or plains have changed that. oke:


----------



## shaug

kurtr wrote,



> Isnt that the guy the hulkster used to fight back in day along with the Iron shiek, i hated those guys when i was 8. At least me and my freinds had productive arguments when we were 8. RIP Junk Yard Dog


Nikita Kruschev was the dictator of Russia after Stalin died. He came to the United Nations buildling in New York. Durring a speech the members of other countries were not taking him serious, so he took his shoe off and pounded on the podium screaming, "we will bury you, we will bury you."

It took a few years but the United Soviet Socialist Republic is no more. It caved in under its own weight. When I was eight we used to get a magazine in school called the weekly reader talking about world events and mostly the cold war. Looking back on it anyone can now realize it was pure propaganda. However, back in the 60's, we all believed the fear that the Russians were coming.


----------



## zogman

GST said: "As a moderator plainsman, what did you think about a thread that was titled #$%@^&$#! farmers??? "

GST, I remeber that thread and I think it was not on this site, but on FBO.


----------



## KurtR

No it was here some one was mad about dead shelter belts being removed.

And coco beware and jimmy superfly snuka were the ultimate tag team


----------



## Plainsman

> I'm pro-ag to a point and neither you or plains have changed that.


Not to worry spent I don't want to change that. I consider myself pro ag also, but I recognize they have some bad apples, and bad practices, and therefore regulations are required to keep them in control.



> So spent one question if you would, are you passionate enough about your occupation to speak up if someone on this site was malinging it with statements that were not true or would you set back and allow it to happen?


I'm passionate enough about mine, but I am also realistic enough to know that some idiots in government have been so arrogant that the popular joke is "I'm from the government and I am here to help you". I am realistic enough to see the irony of that statement. I am not angry with the people who say that, I am ashamed of the people who make that statement real in our minds.

When can we agree on simply "talk to a farmer" then shut our mouth and leave it at that? Not really a question, more of a hint.

I think your problem gst is that you have become to accustomed to being kissed up to. Some of us don't do that. Some of us have real relationships with farmers. You expect a kiss up and then you run into me. LIfe's a *****. I struggle every time I read your posts not to become anti ag. It's a fight that I keep winning by telling myself that most are appreciative of others. I don't know you, but you come off as one of those unappreciative that need watching. I don't run into many that start telling me how they feed the world and I can't live without them. My intention isn't to get personal with you it's simply that I have a low tolerance for arrogance.


----------



## swift

Again gst can't see the forest for the trees. He continually posts about the select few that malign agriculture on this site. What he can't see is its just him and Shaug against six or more that don't appreciate his dictator like personality. GST you are the select few not us. How egocentric must you be to be called an elitist so many times on here and FBO by so many people before you finally think maybe I am an elitist? What you should do is clean your own room before you start complaining about everyone elsewhere room.


----------



## leadfed

Plainsman you hit the nail on the head again....too bad you couldn't hit gst on the head.  I am pro ag and always have been. Hell I own cows myself. Gst is making it hard to be pro ag however. Oh well all I guess all I have to do is go talk to a few rancher/farmers around here and I get a better idea of what "normal" people are thinking. You can never let one group no matter who it is get too much "power" so to say. Now that is exactly what gst wants. His attitude of himself is so grandiose that he believes he has the answer to LITTERALLY everything. He continually belittles anyone who has an outlook different than him. He will of course deny this because he really has no concept of how big of an arrogant idiot he really is. I'm sure someone versed in the field of psychiatrics could identify the term to explain this behavior after reading but a few of his posts but hey why hammer on specifics.lol

Gabe I was checking out your subsidy pmts the other day. Yours and your old man's I'm guessing. Not a bad check you have gotten over the years is it?lol Where is mine?  I guess I will just continue to pay a lot of taxes so you can keep getting those checks.

As far as this shaug guy....he seems to me just like a gst mini-me so I don't feel it necessary to process any of his :spam: I do think it is funny how he calls people out about hiding behind screen names and then does it himself.


----------



## Plainsman

On a positive note I am very pleased to talk with fellows like leadfed. Not many of us in North Dakota are far removed from the farm. I would say about 70% of my relatives are farmers. Some belong to the North Dakota Stockman's Association (I think their brand is registered through them). Many belong to the Farmers Union. Some work for Farmers Union. My parents when alive belonged to NDFB.

The statement about the brand will perhaps employ a private investigator for a month. :rollin:

Anyway, leadfed I am pleased that you have posted. People need to hear from farmers like you who we can appreciate, respect, and learn from. I find it very easy to talk with people who view themselves as one of us. I find it hard to talk with those who speak down to me from their throne. Have a great day leadfed.


----------



## leadfed

You too plainsman. It actually kind of ****** me off that I have developed this stance. I just can't handle the all knowing thought process that consumes gst's mind. He is the smartest man on the planet and if you don't think so......well just ask him.lol

His hypocrisy shows no boundries. This is evident in his support of this measure. I would think that if anyone couldn't tell exactly what a measure is supposed to do by reading it a few times that it might be a little too vague....don't ya think? I mean come on gst...you can't even tell me what the hell its supposed to do besides "protect you from hsus, peta and the likes" (which I am all for by the way). If thats the sole purpose why not word it as so? If you included the names of these anti-orgs in the measure itself it would surely pass with flying colors. However, I feel there are some definate hidden agendas in it and can only hope that someone esle notices it and amends it to be more specific and not put all the trump cards in one hand so to say.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> I mean come on gst...you can't even tell me what the hell its supposed to do besides "protect you from hsus, peta and the likes" (which I am all for by the way). If thats the sole purpose why not word it as so? *If you included the names of these anti-orgs in the measure itself it would surely pass with flying *colors


So leadfed, I take it you are serious in the above emboldened, underlined statement? You wish the Constitution to be listed with specific names? Perhaps we should list specific names of possible threats for every other constitutional protection as well! :roll: Take the time to actually talk with someone that understands constitutional wording and perhaps you can see why this measure was worded in the manner it was. The simplistic veiw is to merely claim the boogieman exists around every corner. The reality of why this measure is worded in the manner it is is a bit more encompassing as are all constitutional amendments.



leadfed said:


> Hell I own cows myself.


*Leadfed, as a rancher who should then know a little about the regulations governing what you do, please answer this one question. Will this measure "allow for feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water carries away the manure*"?

Perhaps you wish to throw your $100 dollars in on the bet as well!


----------



## gst

Opinions
by Plainsman » Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:11 pm

_ I was gone for a while today, but I noticed a thread had to be removed. We all have political opinions. Sometimes our emotions get a little hot. However, as sportsmen I would guess if we met each other we would enjoy each others company. Keep in mind it's never worth burning a bridge, especially one that may lead to new friends.

You fellows know I am conservative, but some of my best friends are liberal. Yes, it is often frustrating, but I would guess I frustrate them as much as they frustrate me.

*So lets debate our political views, fight our fights, but keep the nasty personal jabs out of it*. There are many enemies to freedom around the world. Some may indeed be in Washington D. C., but I have no doubt there are none on this site.

I can't speak for everyone, but those of you who walk afield with gun or bow this fall are worth more to me than all the politicians in Washington. I don't want to put a damper on your debate, just a damper on the personal comments.

My personal feeling is everyone is entitled to an opinion. As I have said before I don't care if your liberal, conservative, male, female, Christian, Muslim, or green and pink doted hermaphrodite gay Martian. I enjoy every post, even the ones that frustrate me. Deep thought would never come if we all agreed. In that light lets give everyone's ideas serious consideration. We need not agree, but give them thought, and give posters respect. Thanks_.

Apparently plainsamn is only concerned with this in the political forum. :wink: So what this has all boiled down to is I simply have the "opinion" his "opinion" of what this measure will do is not factual. There exists Federal and state regulations to substantiate my "opinion" and plainsamn though asked to has provided nothing factual to give a degree of credibility to his "opinion". His response is that these alternative "opinions" are simply "clouding the issue". Given what he wrote above in the political forum one would think he would welcome these outside thoughts! 

As this will likely never be resolved on this site, indeed talk with a farmer or rancher and as suggested share with them this site and the comments made on this measure. Take the time to inform yourself on something as important as an amendment to our state constitution involving agriculture rather than simply listening to the "opinions" this "hunting and fishing" site provides.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> So lets debate our political views, fight our fights, but keep the nasty personal jabs out of it





leadfed said:


> If you included the names


Perhaps plainsman should "include the names" of the people his "rules" applies to as a moderator!


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean come on gst...you can't even tell me what the hell its supposed to do besides "protect you from hsus, peta and the likes" (which I am all for by the way). If thats the sole purpose why not word it as so? *If you included the names of these anti-orgs in the measure itself it would surely pass with flying *colors
> 
> 
> 
> So leadfed, I take it you are serious in the above emboldened, underlined statement? You wish the Constitution to be listed with specific names? Perhaps we should list specific names of possible threats for every other constitutional protection as well! :roll: Take the time to actually talk with someone that understands constitutional wording and perhaps you can see why this measure was worded in the manner it was. The simplistic veiw is to merely claim the boogieman exists around every corner. The reality of why this measure is worded in the manner it is is a bit more encompassing as are all constitutional amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell I own cows myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Leadfed, as a rancher who should then know a little about the regulations governing what you do, please answer this one question. Will this measure "allow for feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water carries away the manure*"?
> 
> Perhaps you wish to throw your $100 dollars in on the bet as well!
Click to expand...

Oh hell gst, no **** you can't put actual names in the measure. However you can't be so damn broad in a measure so as to make yourself invisible to any regulation from here on out. Worded as is gst, this measure will give you too much power. It says that from this point on there will never be any more regulation imposed on the farmer rancher. Further more it says that we as ranchers/farmers know more than every one else so baisically leave us alone to do what ever we want to with our land. Bull**** I say. You might do the right thing all of the time like you think you do but as a whole people have to be governed or they will take advantage of a situation. Look at how redily you accept subsidy pmt! You know they aren't right and you say you don't need em but you sure collect em don't you. Humans need to be govered to a point or they will screw **** up. This measure gives you and yours (and me included) too damn much room to roam.

One other question. I want you to show me a study or some literature that shows whereall the manure from a feedlot on a river bottom is washed away and not deposited like you claim.


----------



## Plainsman

It would appear they apply to everyone but you gst. You have tried to impose your personal rules. I never have. The only one that starts the personal jabs is you, and when three times as many people jump back on you then you cry fowl. Your bringing these things on yourself because you think rules apply to everyone but you. Like others have pointed out, you cry about the minority on here and that's you.

We talk about the farm program and poor practices because they affect the outdoor lifestyle of many people. Some of the things you do affect people like those flooding in Devils Lake. Some of the things you do affect water quality of people downstream who drink the water. Valley City faces flooding and poor water quality. Agriculture covers the vast majority of North Dakota land. What would you expect us to talk about? We talk about many things that affect our outdoor experience and our outdoor recreation.

This starts out talking about bad practices and bad groups. They exist in your field of trade. Get over it. I can not say how this affects everyone, but I can say that it makes me struggle to support agriculture. If all were like you I would call my senators right now and tell them to dump the entire ag program. I'm afraid if leadfed had not come along I may have done just that. A number of people have done a good job of public relations on here and that would include Ron, leadfed, and some who are not farmers themselves. I have seen swift say good things about agriculture. You gst have drug them in the mud and continue to make them all look like greedy slobs in my book. Thank God I can see through your bs and still respect 90% of the farmers out there. Your not promoting agriculture, your a legend in your own mind.

So cry about me all you want gst. All I can say to others is do not judge me only by what I say, but also judge me by those who oppose me. Sorry no cowardly little wink.

I feel bad about being so abrasively honest, but I say this for the other farmers out there who don't think they are royalty. We know you guys and we still support you. I thank you for not judging me by a few bad apples who represent my profession, and I will not judge you by a few bad apples who represent your profession. We will not let the arrogance and disrespect of a few scew our image of all. It would be nice if some of you could pm some of us and give us tips on how we can support agriculture. With our nation in such economic trouble things are going to be bad for all of us. We need our heads together to come through the tough times ahead. I don't know what to do. I know some regulations are petty and need to go. Which ones? We can't give them all up because it would be to destructive. Which ones really need to go? If you don't want to tell me on open forms tell me in a PM. I would be very thankful for that help.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> One other question. I want you to show me a study or some literature that shows whereall the manure from a feedlot on a river bottom is washed away and not deposited like you claim.


please realize it is not my claim but rather plainsamns, MY claim is simply given the existingFederal and state regulations that this measure will not "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water washes away the manure" as plainsman claims.

leadfed, do you beleive plainsmans claim to be true?



leadfed said:


> Worded as is gst, this measure will give you too much power. It says that from this point on there will never be any more regulation imposed on the farmer rancher


Article I Sec 21.

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote

Leadfed, did this above wording also not exist in the Constitution, perhaps I would agree with yours and plainsmans claims as what this measureand subsequent amendment would do. But as you see this wording is indeed VERY specific and ultimately gives the legislative assembly who are elected by the PEOPLE of ND the power to create and impose regulatory law as they see fit. As it was explained to me, this is a "core" principal of the constitution in where it is written. This will take presedences over what you and plainsman claim will happen with this measure. THAT is why I asked the question WAAAAYYY back when in this discussion.


----------



## Plainsman

NDFB left hand wants to do away with regulations
NDFB right hand wants an amendment that says no new laws may be created towards agriculture

Sure looks like they are working from both ends so they can simply run rampant and uncontrolled. Winter feed lots, pesticides, drainage, etc. Some individual farmers need to be watched closer than they are now.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It would appear they apply to everyone but you gst. You have tried to impose your personal rules.* I never have*. *The only one that starts the personal jabs is you*, and when three times as many people jump back on you then you cry fowl. Your bringing these things on yourself because you think rules apply to everyone but you. Like others have pointed out, you cry about the minority on here and that's you.


plainsamn wrote: "_So lets debate our political views, fight our fights, but keep the nasty personal jabs out of it"_

indeed plainsman it is clear you have only tried imposing your "personal rules on one individual while allowing others to disregard them.

From the very first comment in this thread by plainsman:
Anyway guys get out there and talk to some farmers you know. Specifically someone who's word you can trust.* I don't think we will get the truth from TV, radio, newspapers, or NDFB representatives*

plainsman, you do know that shaug is a "representative of NDFB" carrying a petition do you not? Would this statement be considered a "personal jab" calling all NDFB representatives including shaug a liar? If you are going to speak to who poked who in the eye first, perhaps you should be a little more honest in what your own words represent. Back pedal all you wish, but it is clear what insinuation you put forth with this statement.

As a moderator chastizing one individual for "personal comments" while blatantly allowing others to exhibit the type of personal rhetoric you have and even excusing it within this thread without comment and even engaging in it yourself only show the lack of credibility you exhibit as a moderator given your "personal rules you put forth as a moderator in the politics forum. Either the rules "apply" to all equally including yourself as moderator or they apply to no one and your "whining" about them only shows your personal bias. At the very least swift was upfront and direct in admitting it.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> NDFB left hand wants to do away with regulations
> NDFB right hand wants an amendment that says no new laws may be created towards agriculture
> 
> Sure looks like they are working from both ends so they can simply run rampant and uncontrolled. Winter feed lots, pesticides, drainage, etc. *Some individual farmers need to be watched closer than they are now.*




non personal indeed :roll:

plainsman once again you make a statement that simply is not true, the enlarged statement you make is NOT what this measure says.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> NDFB left hand wants to do away with regulations
> NDFB right hand wants an amendment that says no new laws may be created towards agriculture
> 
> Sure looks like they are working from both ends so they can simply run rampant and uncontrolled. Winter feed lots, pesticides, drainage, etc. *Some individual farmers need to be watched closer than they are now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> non personal indeed :roll:
> 
> plainsman once again you make a statement that simply is not true, the enlarged statement you make is NOT what this measure says.
Click to expand...

What does it say then?


----------



## swift

GST, Have you ever wondered why it became personal with me? Here is why. Whenever I or anyone else questioned GST he extrapolated it out to bashing ag producers. That is how he works. I pasted several potentially dangerous policies and resolutions made by the NDFB he extrapolated that out to having a willie against the organization and by companionship all ag producers. The only way I could get him to quit making such unfactual and untruthful extrapolations was to personally attack him. It seems to have worked but don't anybody tell him because he still thinks he is in charge of my opinions. Now he cries of the personal attacks that he has brought on himself. Again I'm sure he will deny he has done that but we all know the truth. GST is the most untruthful, unfactual person on this site. He is just a troll with an agenda.


----------



## Plainsman

I will never back peddle as you suggest when it comes to organizations. Organizations are not individuals and I don't care who or how many people ridicule and organization. I think NDFB is radical. I think their thought process comes from a couple of centuries back. Their environmental thought processes are primitive or non existent.

gst, do you support the NDFB call for the elimination of regulations?
gst, do you support the NDFB amendment?
gst, do you support grain price supports even with no regulations?

If it doesn't say no laws may be made hindering modern agriculture practices post it up again.

No regulations + no laws = environmental disaster. 
What do they call that again when they take wealth from one group and redistribute it to another?. Free market? no no not free market. Capitalism? no no not capitalism. Hmmm now what was that again.

You know I supported grain price supports right up to a couple of days ago. Then I purchased a book called "Politics - According to the Bible". My desire is to follow those ideals. Price support does not. As a matter of fact they say it is not humanitarian at all and people suffer because of it. It says the taxpayer is paying, and no matter if farmers get a crop or not they don't care that much because they get paid anyway. Don't believe it? Buy the book.

I do believe some frivilous regulations should be removed to free up the farmers. The problem is I am unsure of which ones. I hope some farmers PM me and tell me. They should also tell me how I can help remove those frivilous regulations that hinder them.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> NDFB right hand wants an amendment that *says no new laws may be created towards agriculture*





Plainsman said:


> If it doesn't say *no laws may be made hindering modern agriculture practices *post it up again.


These two statements are NOT one in the same, so which one would you like to go with plainsman.



Plainsman said:


> gst, do you support the NDFB call for the elimination of regulations?


plaisnamn I have said before and you know this for a fact that I beleive agriculture just like ANY industry needs regulations. I have said that these regulations must be common sense workable ones that are not based on personal agendas and radical beleifs. So draw your own conclusion as to my support of this.



Plainsman said:


> gst, do you support the NDFB amendment?


plainsman, you know I have stated before that while I do not think the wording of this resolution is a good as it could have been, given the existing wording in our constitution that allows the legislature the over riding ability to create and implement regulatory law, coupled with the fact this measure will not overide current regulatory law, the intent of this measure to prevent radical orgs from implementing regulatory law here in ND thru the use of the initiated measure as we saw attempted in the last election, does get my support.



Plainsman said:


> gst, do you support grain price supports even with no regulations?


plainsamn I have stated numerous times I personally would like to see gov out of agriculture in a fair and equitable manner concerning "price supports" period.

So plainsamn now that I have directly answered your three questions to the best of my ability, would you please answer just one of mine.

Will this measure and the subsequent constituional amendment if it passes and is adopted "allow for feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure," or the misuse of pesticides, or the ability to plant and grow things that are inllegal now"* given the existing state and Federal regulations that prevent these very specific claims from happening.* as well as the wording in our state constitution that SPECIFICALLY gives the legislative body the power to create and implement law abve all other claims or means.

A simple yes it will , no it will not would be fine


----------



## leadfed

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> NDFB left hand wants to do away with regulations
> NDFB right hand wants an amendment that says no new laws may be created towards agriculture
> 
> Sure looks like they are working from both ends so they can simply run rampant and uncontrolled. Winter feed lots, pesticides, drainage, etc. *Some individual farmers need to be watched closer than they are now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> non personal indeed :roll:
> 
> plainsman once again you make a statement that simply is not true, the enlarged statement you make is NOT what this measure says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it say then?
Click to expand...

Ummmm....so what does it say? Oh and by the way all the manure doesn't get washed away like you are claiming.


----------



## bioman

Here is an excerpt of what the boogieman has to say about _*documented environmental and health impacts from confined animal feeding operations*_. You can read more at this link:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/ca ... g_rule.pdf

B. Environmental and Human Health Impacts of CAFOs 
Despite more than 35 years of regulating CAFOs, reports of water quality impacts from large animal feeding operations persist. At the time of the 2003 CAFO rulemaking, the Agency received estimates from USDA indicating that livestock operations where animals are confined produce more than 300 million tons of manure annually. 68 FR 7180. On the basis of that figure, EPA estimated that animals raised in confinement generate more than three times the amount of raw waste than the amount of waste that is generated by humans in the United States. Id. For the 2003 CAFO rulemaking, EPA estimated that CAFOs collectively produce 60 percent of all manure generated by farms that confine animals. Id.

Pollutants from manure, litter, and process wastewater can affect human health and the environment. Whether from poultry, cattle, or swine, the manure, litter and process wastewater contains substantial amounts of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium), pathogens, heavy metals, and smaller amounts of other elements and pharmaceuticals. This manure, litter, and process wastewater commonly is applied to crops associated with CAFO operations or transferred off site. Where over-applied or applied before precipitation events, excess nutrients can flow off of agricultural fields, causing harmful aquatic plant growth, commonly referred to as ''algal blooms,'' which can cause fish kills and contribute to ''dead zones.'' In addition, algal blooms often release toxins that are harmful to human health.

To improve the Agency's ability to estimate ecological and human risk for chemical and microbial contaminants that enter water resources, EPA is continuing research to evaluate the effect of CAFOs on surface and ground water quality. Effective control of pathogens originating in livestock manure or poultry litter could improve human and ecosystem health through reductions in waterborne disease organisms and chemicals. More than 40 diseases found in manure can be transferred to humans, including causative agents for Salmonellosis, Tuberculosis, Leptospirosis, infantile diarrheal disease, Q-Fever, Trichinosis, and Giardiasis. Exposure to waterborne pathogen contaminants can result from both recreational use of affected surface water (accidental ingestion of contaminated water and dermal contact during swimming) and from ingestion of drinking water derived from either contaminated surface water or groundwater. JoAnn Burkholder, et al., Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality, 115 Env't Health Perspectives 310 (2007).
Heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead, manganese, and nickel are commonly found in CAFO manure, litter, and process wastewater. Some heavy metals, such as copper and zinc, are essential nutrients for animal growth-especially for cattle, swine and poultry. However, farm animals excrete excess heavy metals in their manure, which in turn is spread as fertilizer, causing potential runoff problems.


----------



## bioman

So with those facts provided by the boogieman, does anybody have a clue why the North Dakota Farm Bureau and North Dakota Stockmen's Association would propose these resolutions or offer that amendment:

Environmental Protection & Regulation 504
We oppose the new EPA regulations on pesticide applications. --ID#: 1507/11
We oppose any compliance and/or permit that require individual disclosure of personal identity, location of property or ownership of equipment. --ID#: 1526/11
We support pulling all funding for EPA's enforcement of Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Program, as well as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). --ID#: 1437/11

CLEAN WATER - 11 (AP)
WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that clean water is essential to the health and well-being of the nation; and

WHEREAS, federal regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and animal feeding operations (AFOs) may force unnecessary and costly restrictions on animal agriculture; and

WHEREAS, voluntary, incentive-based conservation is a proven, effective method.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA supports a voluntary, incentive-based and locally controlled approach to clean water


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Oh and by the way all the manure doesn't get washed away like you are claiming.


leadfed one fella misrepresenting people on here is enough. Please show were I have ever made the claim manure is washed away as you state. You have to follow along a little closer here to fully understand. That claim is attributed to plainsamn way back in the discussion on this measure.

So bioman given the concerns the EPA has regarding feedlots that you posted, do you beleive this measure will over ride their regulatory authority and "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure"?

Lead fed, now that is a quote of a statement plainsamn made, NOT my claim.

bioman, do you beleive there should be CAFO's?


----------



## gst

bioman, the intent of a resolution is the "therefore be it resolved".



bioman said:


> CLEAN WATER - 11 (AP)
> WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that clean water is essential to the health and well-being of the nation; and
> 
> WHEREAS, federal regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and animal feeding operations (AFOs) may force unnecessary and costly restrictions on animal agriculture; and
> 
> WHEREAS, voluntary, incentive-based conservation is a proven, effective method.
> 
> THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA supports a voluntary, incentive-based and locally controlled approach to clean water


So explain to me where in this resolution the NDSA is against "clean water" or a "controlled" aproach to acheiving it? The fact is the NDSA's Enviromental Services program works very closely with the NRCS as well as the State Health Dept. and the state division of the EPA to ensure these CAFO"S are within the regulatory requirements. Perhaps you do not have this system in place in Co., but here in ND it is a very successful program.

bioman, do you beleive CAFO's should exist?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and by the way all the manure doesn't get washed away like you are claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed one fella misrepresenting people on here is enough. Please show were I have ever made the claim manure is washed away as you state. You have to follow along a little closer here to fully understand. That claim is attributed to plainsamn way back in the discussion on this measure.
> 
> So bioman given the concerns the EPA has regarding feedlots that you posted, do you beleive this measure will over ride their regulatory authority and "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure"?
> 
> Lead fed, now that is a quote of a statement plainsamn made, NOT my claim.
> 
> bioman, do you beleive there should be CAFO's?
Click to expand...

Ok ok so I will correct plainsman first.lol. Not all the manure is "washed away". There, now when quoting his mistake you can now say "where the manure is washed into the watershed".

You still haven't answered exactly "what" this measure "says" though. Maybe its just too vague for you to answer that question? Kinda like it is too vague for us to accept it in the terms its in. Its a terribly written measure....face it. Gives radicals like yourself way too much room to roam.


----------



## swift

> So explain to me where in this resolution the NDSA is against "clean water" or a "controlled" aproach to acheiving it? The fact is the NDSA's Enviromental Services program works very closely with the NRCS as well as the State Health Dept. and the state division of the EPA to ensure these CAFO"S are within the regulatory requirements. Perhaps you do not have this system in place in Co., but here in ND it is a very successful program.


Fox gaurding the hen house. This resolution is just that a resolution. It is not law you cannot factually claim that in ND it is a very successful program when the EPA is still in charge. Nice try spinmaster but your fairytale is just that. Work with NRCS and State Dept of Health but in the end you answer to the EPA. The NDSA already has too much control in the regulatory market as it is. And with boardmembers like GST they cannot be trusted.


----------



## Csquared

Is this the correct verbiage of the pending amendment?



> "The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."


Is there more, or is that it in it's entirety?

This verbiage is in the ND State Constitution, which not only allows, but MANDATES the state legislative branch to write laws that uphold all provisions contained in the constitution, which would include the above if added....



> The legislative assembly shall enact all laws necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this constitution. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, no local or special laws may be enacted, nor may the legisaltive assembly indirectly enact special or local laws by the partial repeal of a general law but laws repealing local or special laws may be enacted


So by infering all is well after passage by saying the legislature (or the people) can add or change laws to limit the scope of the amendment is misleading, at best. You're saying the state legislature can write laws that supercede the state constitution, but the quote above CLEARLY explains otherwise. The words* NO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED WHICH ABRIDGES THE RIGHT.....TO EMPLOY* very clearly means _THEIR_ (farmers/ranchers) discretion....no other entity's.

So to answer the million dollar question (or was that just how many he asked)...YES. Feedlots could be built in low lying areas to potentially infiltrate the water supply, because the amendment clearly allows for *NO LAWS* to be written to prevent it. And if we are expected to rely on fed laws to supercede and protect the water, I would remind all of the current administration's decision to ignore the fed defense of marriage act (the first example that came to mind). And if that can be done, what fed laws are immune from that sort of ignorance?

I SINCERELY hope someone explains there is much more to this proposed amendment than what I have posted above, becasue if that's it I can't believe it's even being considered


----------



## leadfed

Csquared said:


> Is this the correct verbiage of the pending amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."
> 
> 
> 
> Is there more, or is that it in it's entirety?
> 
> This verbiage is in the ND State Constitution, which not only allows, but MANDATES the state legislative branch to write laws that uphold all provisions contained in the constitution, which would include the above if added....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The legislative assembly shall enact all laws necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this constitution. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, no local or special laws may be enacted, nor may the legisaltive assembly indirectly enact special or local laws by the partial repeal of a general law but laws repealing local or special laws may be enacted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well put!!!
> 
> So by infering all is well after passage by saying the legislature (or the people) can add or change laws to limit the scope of the amendment is misleading, at best. You're saying the state legislature can write laws that supercede the state constitution, but the quote above CLEARLY explains otherwise. The words* NO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED WHICH ABRIDGES THE RIGHT.....TO EMPLOY* very clearly means _THEIR_ (farmers/ranchers) discretion....no other entity's.
> 
> So to answer the million dollar question (or was that just how many he asked)...YES. Feedlots could be built in low lying areas to potentially infiltrate the water supply, because the amendment clearly allows for *NO LAWS* to be written to prevent it. And if we are expected to rely on fed laws to supercede and protect the water, I would remind all of the current administration's decision to ignore the fed defense of marriage act (the first example that came to mind). And if that can be done, what fed laws are immune from that sort of ignorance?
> 
> I SINCERELY hope someone explains there is much more to this proposed amendment than what I have posted above, becasue if that's it I can't believe it's even being considered
Click to expand...


----------



## shaug

Spentwings wrote,



> So plains maligns agriculture and you malign sportsmen by your derogatory remarks about NODAk?


I believe it is important for sportsmen to have a site for the exchange of hunting info and general ribbing of each other. I do not malign sportsmen. I am one. I belong to The United Sportsmen of ND some other sportsmens orgs and I also belong to a few Ag organizations. Plainsmans rhetoric and wild claims made here are not the general consensus of the population "out there."

I would and have in the past invited these gentlemen to come to the capitol, a public forum or an AG Coalition meeting. Each time they have declined. Maybe it is because they are most comfortable here on Nodak. Plainsman is the moderator dictating the rules. "Out there" the rules of engagement change.

Plainsman says he talked to a farmer or two and they thought this measure had something to do with tiling. I don't believe that for a second. In my travels collecting signatures I have talked to over two hundred people and everyone signed. Everyone is in agreement that we already have enough regulations and all the rule-making demands made by radicals needs to stop before every business in America is over regulated to death.

Swift said,



> GST, Have you ever wondered why it became personal with me? Here is why. Whenever I or anyone else questioned GST he extrapolated it out to bashing ag producers. That is how he works. I pasted several potentially dangerous policies and resolutions made by the NDFB he extrapolated that out to having a willie against the organization and by companionship all ag producers. The only way I could get him to quit making such unfactual and untruthful extrapolations was to personally attack him. It seems to have worked but don't anybody tell him because he still thinks he is in charge of my opinions. Now he cries of the personal attacks that he has brought on himself. Again I'm sure he will deny he has done that but we all know the truth. GST is the most untruthful, unfactual person on this site. He is just a troll with an agenda.


Swift, for seven or eight years you have been on this site agitating against ag, landowners and ag organizations. Finally someone comes along and challenges your sick claims and you fall apart. What you wrote above is just pathetic.


----------



## Plainsman

I think the general consensus, local spinmasters not included, is that the poor wording leaves the door wide open for abuse. What Csquare quoted is the entire amendment as far as I can find. gst at one time said it was to broadly worded. He says we need regulations. He says he is a conservationist. He supports the amendment. Do you buy any of the aforementioned once you learn he supports the amendment? Me neither.

It's becoming more and more clear that NDFB is radical. We have PETA and HSUS on one side of us, and a farm group just as radical on the other side of us. One is a group of radical preservationist animal rights, and the other is a group that puts a dollar ahead of their fellow man. Through organizations like NDFB they dictate to people. I see we are now dictated to that we must burn ethanol in our vehicles because we are not to be given a choice at the pumps. Who do you think had the biggest impact getting that through, environmentalists or corn farmers? I'll bet on corn farmers.

Everyone here has said they support farming. We simply don't support all ag practices. I don't think the tantrums will change anyone's mind. Well, that's not entirely right. Some may have changed their mind and think NDFB members need to be watched much closer than the average farmer. I guess that's a given.



> Whenever I or anyone else questioned GST he extrapolated it out to bashing ag producers.


That is entirely correct, and it's the reason a thread that would last one page goes for ten pages. A couple of people trying to jam their ideas down everyone else's throat. gst, shaug, I don't think you will get a state constitutional amendment that requires everyone to agree with you. Live with it.


----------



## Csquared

> I don't think the tantrums will change anyone's mind. Well, that's not entirely right. Some may have changed their mind and think NDFB members need to be watched much closer than the average farmer


Describes me to a "T". I didn't give a fyin fluck about this subject matter until gst showed his arse. I now find myself feeling I owe leadfed a huge apology for starting to think he was just another egotistical, narcissistic, rude, obnoxious, no reading ability, shameless, childish lunatic fringe ND land baron I thought was being represented here. You can imagine my relief to realize he was nothing of the sort.

So take it for what it's worth, but to a guy from Il who has nothing to gain and almost nothing to lose on this issue, what I watched here DEFINITELY turned me against ND landowners. The NDSA would be well served to allow more PC individuals to promote their well being, from my very humble perspective.

Shaug wrote:


> GST, Have you ever wondered why it became personal with me? Here is why. Whenever I or anyone else questioned GST he extrapolated it out to bashing ag producers. That is how he works. I pasted several potentially dangerous policies and resolutions made by the NDFB he extrapolated that out to having a willie against the organization and by companionship all ag producers. The only way I could get him to quit making such unfactual and untruthful extrapolations was to personally attack him. It seems to have worked but don't anybody tell him because he still thinks he is in charge of my opinions. Now he cries of the personal attacks that he has brought on himself. Again I'm sure he will deny he has done that but we all know the truth. GST is the most untruthful, unfactual person on this site. He is just a troll with an agenda.
> 
> Swift, for seven or eight years you have been on this site agitating against ag, landowners and ag organizations. Finally someone comes along and challenges your sick claims and you fall apart. What you wrote above is just pathetic.


I don't know...sounds pretty "spot-on" to me :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst at one time said it was to broadly worded


plainsman please show me where I have EVER stated this measure is "to *broadly* worded" This time for once actually show where this was stated as you claim. If you can not it will be simply one more claim you have made that is not true.



Csquared said:


> The legislative assembly shall enact all laws necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this constitution. *Except as otherwise provided in this constitution*, no local or special laws may be enacted, nor may the legisaltive assembly indirectly enact special or local laws by the partial repeal of a general law but laws repealing local or special laws may be enacted


C squared, you forgot to address a bit of verbage in your analysis. I underlined and emboldened it for you.

"Otherwise provided in this constitution" is this verbage below that must be considered in your analysis.

Article I Sec 21.

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;

It seems as if everyone just wishes to overlook this section of our constitution and what it enables the legislative body to do to try and further their claims. These words are included in our constituion for a purpose.

Article 1 Sec 21 of the constitution provides the legislative assembly, the law making branch of state govt elected by the people of this state (residents of ND unlike the HSUS folks that came in during the last initiated measure) to maintain the ultimate authority in what can be created as law here in ND. EVEN IF THE HFH MEASURE HAD PASSED INTO LAW, IT HAD TO BE ACCEPTED AS LAW BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PRIOR TO BECOMING CODE IN THE NDCC AS WILL THIS MEASURE PRIOR TO BECOMING AN AMENDMENT AS ILL ANY SUBSEQUENT LAW ATTEMPTING TO OVERTURN EXISTING LAW. Stop and actually read this section for just a moment and try to comprehend what it actually means and does. If someone tries to pass a law saying feedlots can not be regulated and are "immune" from regulation as a result of this amendment, this prior wording in article 1 setion 21 prevents that from happening as it is "otherwise provided in this constitution". However if someone tries to pass a law mandating no feedlots (CAFO's) can be operated in ND even if they are in compliance of all regulations, this amendment will allow the legislative body the means to deny that law if they so wish. Does anyone beleive the framers of the state constituiton were so foolish as to not have the ultimate power to create law and prevent "immunities" form occuring held within the legislative body of this state WHOM THE CITIZENS ELECT???

If you wish to know the true value of what this measure will do for agriculture above and beyond what is already held by the legislative body, I can not give an "opinion" on that because I simply do not know. That was stated WAAAYY back in the discussion regarding this amendment. As was the second half of Article 1 Sec. 21 that was asked if this measure as written is in conflict with regarding the granting of "special priveledges". I have simply maintained tht fact and truth be the basis of discussion regarding something as important as a constitutional amendment, one would tink that not too much to expect, and the fact is there will remain regulations on both the state and federal level that will prevent the claims made on here by a select few from happening even if this measure is passed. If you do not beleive me ask the agencies that carry forth these regulatory powers. plainsman did you ever make that call to the EPA???

This discussion has become even more worthless than most others on here. Go ahead and continue to bash ag orgs, their producer members and individuals that simply hold you accountable for your unfounded claims all the while claiming to "support ag" . Perhaps that is why shaug has yet to find anyone refusing to sign his petition. For the rest of anyone left reading this juvenile personal crap, indeed talk to a farmer or rancher, inform yourselves rather than rely on the "claims" made on here. Share this site and these ag related threads with the farmers and ranchers you talk with. See what they then have to say about wether they beleive this measure should be supported.

bioman, do you beleive CAFO's should exist?


----------



## gst

CLEAN WATER - 11 (AP)
WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that clean water is essential to the health and well-being of the nation; and

WHEREAS, federal regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and animal feeding operations (AFOs) may force unnecessary and costly restrictions on animal agriculture; and

WHEREAS, voluntary, incentive-based conservation is a proven, effective method.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA supports a voluntary, incentive-based and locally controlled approach to clean water



swift said:


> So explain to me where in this resolution the NDSA is against "clean water" or a "controlled" aproach to acheiving it? The fact is the NDSA's Enviromental Services program works very closely with the NRCS as well as the State Health Dept. and the state division of the EPA to ensure these CAFO"S are within the regulatory requirements. Perhaps you do not have this system in place in Co., but here in ND it is a very successful program.
> 
> 
> 
> Fox gaurding the hen house. This resolution is just that a resolution. It is not law you cannot factually claim that in ND it is a very successful program when the EPA is still in charge. Nice try spinmaster but your fairytale is just that. Work with NRCS and State Dept of Health but in the end you answer to the EPA. The NDSA already has too much control in the regulatory market as it is. And with boardmembers like GST they cannot be trusted.
Click to expand...

swift your admitted personal bias is clouding your abiltiy to reason. Please explain how the NDSA has too much control in the regulatory market as you claim?? Are you suggesting the State Health Dept and other state regulatory authorities are powerless here in ND to regulate agriculture? Are you suggesting the EPA powers to regulate do not include the ranching industry here in ND because of the NDSA?????

You do understand the program I am stating is successful is one that ensures all feedlots built are in compliance with all state and Federal regulations so the claims plainsman makes can not happen??? The resolution is indeed not law, no one suggested it was. So what really does it impact??? The purpose of this resolution is the NDSA simply beleives that state, county, and township forms of govt are the best source for regulating what happens within our state rather than the often times heavy hand of the Federal govt in any number of arenas. The reality remains the Federal govt will never be taken completely out of the regulatory picture. This resolution simply is designed to somewhat hold it in check in principal. Even plainsman admits there are in some instances too radical regulations, that is what this resolution acknowledges as well.

As to the "success" of this program, perhaps you should talk with the NRCS offices that have been involved as well as the State Health Dept and get their "opinions".

Oh and swift, have you ever dealt with the State Health Dept in the area of feedlot regulation??? The "fox" has little to say in the matter!

biooman do youbeleive CAFO's should exist?


----------



## swift

> plainsman please show me where I have EVER stated this measure is "to broadly worded" This time for once actually show where this was stated as you claim. If you can not it will be simply one more claim you have made that is not true.





> *GST says on August 18, 2011 at 9:16am*
> 
> So here it is, hold on to your hats, it really can't be, swift and plainsman have told us otherwise, but as this measure is written, I do not know wether I would sign it or not. Even as a rancher that is directly involved in issues that have included anti animal ag orgs wanting to put me out of business and knowing firsthand the issues we face as an industry from these groups, I still understand the need to have REASONABLE regulations on agriculture as does any other industry. To me unless it is explained different, *this measure is TOO vaguely worded and could be looked at in a manner that will generate to many questions for it too be supported so ultimately what good will it do?*


Don't waste the time looking Plainsman, I did it for you.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> was to broadly worded.





swift said:


> TOO *vaguely* worded


indeed I am sure it will be looked at as splitting hairs by the "wagon circlers" on here, but the difference in the meaning of these two words in regards to this discussion is relavent as to the context of the ENTIRE statement that accompanies them. .

I suggested this measure was too "vauely" written as to be able to gather the necessary support.

Plainsman suggested I claimed it was to "broadly" written in that it will allow the claims he has made to happen in which it will not.

You see words written do infact mean rather specific things in the context of how they are writtn. Perhaps if people were less blindly bias they would actually take a look at the words written in ourconstitution in Art. 1 Sec 21 and realize just why they are there. They are mean to "broadly", not "vaguely" give the legislative assembly the fianl say in the creation of law here in this state.


----------



## swift

> and could be looked at in a manner that will generate to many questions for it too be supported so ultimately what good will it do?


 HA HA HA HA HA HA

Nice try buddy. In the past when you were proven wrong you manned up and admitted it. I guess the manning up side of you is gone too.

Does anybody else see a difference in the two statements? Anyone even mini GST, shaug?

Thats what I thought more spin with his own words.

Hey, GST you forgot to mention who sets the Federal regs the state and NDSA is so good at following? Could it be the agency your trying to get rid of?


----------



## gst

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by gst » Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:16 am

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

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

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

I still indeed have questions as to what benefit tis will ultimately give agriculture. As it has been explained to me since Aug 18th, it will primarily deal with the initiated measure formation of law in giving some sort of protection against groups like HSUS coming into our state with their agendas as we did in fact see happen no so long ago. JUST AS DID THE HUNTING AMENDMENT.Also since Aug 18th there have been assurances given by people knowing the facts much more so than us on here that indeed this measure will NOT "allow feedlots to b built on river bottoms so the water washes away the manure, irresponsible use of pesicides, or farmers to grow things that are illegal". So in fact some of the concerns that I mention that needed to be addressed outside of this forum have been. And like I have suggested along with plainsman, that is wherepeople are likely best served informing themselves and getting what reassurances they need regarding this measure, outside this forum.

Throw in the "we "support" agriculture as long as it capitulates to our demands" attitudes of some on this sight and comments from people like bioman regarding CAFO's, I beleive even if this measure is not writtenexactly as how I would have liked it to be, it is not that bad of an idea!!! So like I have repeatedly said, talk with a farmer or rancher regarding this measure, inform yourselves, and be sure to show that farmer or rancher this site and these threads, I'm sure the measure supporters will thank you. :wink:

Oh, and for the "record" here on Noak Outdoors, I did in fact sign this petition in November as a result of talking with people who do NOT make claims they can not factually substantiate I respect and trust and that are just a little less biased towards the Ag org and it's producer members sponsoring this measure . Contrary to plainsmans claims, in his very first post in this thread, they are not all liars. :wink:


----------



## Csquared

What do ND people call it when one ignores the part of a document that doesn't support their case while using selected portions of the same document to base their argument?

In IL we call that cherry pickin :wink:


----------



## gst

swift, I still stand by my statement this measure is too "vaguely" written *to be able to garner the widespread support it will need to pass with the general public.* I still stand by my statement as a result of this wording these "claims"made by those with an admitted "willie" against this ag org., even though the makers have not facually substantiated them, will indeed have to be addressed and that will increase the difficulty in garnering support as this measure is written. And I also still stand by my statement that this measure is NOT too "broadly" worded to actually allow the claims plainsman has made to occur.

Article I Sec 21.

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly

swift, do you beleive this wording in our constitution gives the legislative assembly the power to continue to create and pass regulatory law dispite this measures amendment?

swift, do you beleive plainsmans usage of the term "broadly" is his statement of what he claimed I stated was meant to address the concerns of garnering support for this measure I voiced when I used the word "vaguely" or rather an insinuation of what it would allow based on his previous claims?

With a slight understanding of the english vocabulary that is not clouded by an admitted personal "willie" , perhaps you could see the difference in the context of how the two different words were used and their implied intent. But as such with your clear demonstartion of keeping this discussion personal rather than actully discussing the amendment to any value, as I said earlier your "willie" is clouding your ability to reason.

It does appear there has been a turn of the discussion away from the amendment itself and towards a more personal dialogue aimed at a couple of people that simply have pointed out a differing veiwpoit than a select group on this site. Perhaps this is because of the inability to prove the claims some have made on here to substantiate them as asked, they beleive the focas can be changed by attacking the people simply asking these claims to be substatiated.

Of course I must quantify this as merely being my opinion! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Swift, thanks. I'm just not accustomed to dealing with people like this. I say something, they often go back and edit than say "show me". Good news though. I got an email and a guy is trying to get it through my old brain how to find archived posts on the internet. He says he can find the one where gst is explaining his sympathy for the people flooding in Fargo.

I need to learn how to use the computer better. Found this too:
One person was angry because someone called them a Gordon Kahl wanneebe. Look at the quote below. First name basis, and it would appear sympathetic to Kahl, oh I mean Gordon. Now how do you generate sympathy for someone who kills innocent people? Radical? I think so. Kahl murdered people. Now if you can't wrap your mind around this pretend Kahl killed your father, mother, or good friend. You are an enforcement officer and approach his house. You have his wife in custody so you know she is not in the house. You give him a chance to give up. What would you do next? I don't believe they nearly cut the house in half. Come on get real. My point is they say things like this as representatives of NDFB, but we are to believe NDFB isn't radical?



> On the thread that is now locked you called me a Gordan Kahl wanneebe.
> 
> Let me tell you what I think of that situation. When the feds went looking for Gordan, they showed up at his house. He wasn't home but they didn't know that. Too afraid to approach the house they shot it at a distance many times. They almost sawed it in half.


I think vague is good enough to get the point across.

Synonyms:



> ambiguous, amorphous, amphibological, bewildering, bleary, blurred, cloudy, dark, dim, doubtful, dreamlike, dubious, enigmatic, equivocal, faint, fuzzy, generalized, hazy, ill-defined, impalpable, imprecise, indefinite, indeterminate, indistinct, inexplicable, lax, loose, misunderstood, muddy, nebulous, obscure, perplexing, problematic, puzzling, questionable, shadowy, superficial, tenebrous, uncertain, unclear, undetermined, unexplicit, unintelligible, unknown, unsettled, unspecified, unsure


----------



## leadfed

gst said
swift, do you beleive plainsmans usage of the term "broadly" is his statement of what he claimed I stated was meant to address the concerns of garnering support for this measure I voiced when I used the word "vaguely" or rather an insinuation of what it would allow based on his previous claims?

Are you kidding me gabe?!?!? Hahahaha Now you are telling us how to interpret the terms "Vaguely" and "Broadly"! Yep, im sure of it....your crazy.lol You still haven't answered my question of what this measure actually "SAYS". I really don't expect an answer but it would be interesting none the less.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> What do ND people call it when one ignores the part of a document that doesn't support their case while using selected portions of the same document to base their argument?
> 
> In IL we call that cherry pickin :wink:


So we are not accused of "cherry pickin" here in ND, here is Article 1 Section 21 of the ND State Consitution in it's entirety.

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

Now Csquared, all the way from Il, so you are not accused of "cherry pikin" from the ND State Constitution what "supports your case" while ignoring that which does not, what do you beleive this language in the very fisrt article, the declaration of rights, says as it relates to the claims plainsman has made regarding this amendment?

In plain simple wording, does this section of the constitution give the legislative assembly the power to control what laws or immunities from these laws are granted?

So Csquared you reside in Il, bioman is from Co and swift is from SD. Three of the most vocal opponents of this measure in this dialogue are from out of state, plainsman is a past sponsor of an initiated measure that ultimately eventually WELCOMED the nations leading anti hunting/anti animal ag org into our state in an attempt to create law affecting NDans, one must ask what indeed is the basis behind their opposition of this measure? FACT? TRUTH?

They have been asked to contact and talk with people who could factually address the claims being disputed in this discussion yet who has done so? The small group of people on this site can run their wagons in a circle as long as they wish distracting from the FACT and TRUTH regarding this measure, it does not take a great deal of thought to understand why.

So indeed, talk with a farmer or rancher, point out this site and it's thread full of outside ND influences and past initiated measure sponsors and supporters against what is an approved animal agriculture defined enterprise here in ND and their comments regarding this measure in an number of threads relating to agriculture on this "hunting and fishing site" .


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> gst said
> swift, do you beleive plainsmans usage of the term "broadly" is his statement of what he claimed I stated was meant to address the concerns of garnering support for this measure I voiced when I used the word "vaguely" or rather an insinuation of what it would allow based on his previous claims?
> 
> Are you kidding me gabe?!?!? Hahahaha Now you are telling us how to interpret the terms "Vaguely" and "Broadly"! Yep, im sure of it....your crazy.lol You still haven't answered my question of what this measure actually "SAYS". I really don't expect an answer but it would be interesting none the less.


 lead fed, it is quite simple, it is called "context" I used the term "vaguely" in voicing concerns as to how this measure would be supported, plainsamn used the term "broadly" in attempting to create concerns so this measure will be opposed.

Supported, opposed, two very differing contexts.

Individual words do in fact have different meaning in the English language especialy when veiwed in "context" .

broadly
Variant of broad

broad definition

adjective

1.of large extent from side to side; wide
2.having great extent or expanse; spacious: broad prairies
3.extending all about; clear; open; full: broad daylight
4.easy to understand; not subtle; obvious: a broad hint
5.strongly marked: said of dialects or accents
6.coarse or ribald: a broad joke
7.tolerant; liberal: to take a broad view of a matter
*8.wide in range; not limited: a broad variety, a broad education*
9.main or general; not detailed: in broad outline
10.Phonet. pronounced with the tongue held low and flat in the mouth; open, esp. as the (ä) of father
adverb

in a broad manner; widely

vaguely
See in Thesaurus
Variant of vague

vague definition

adjective vaguer, vaguest
ted
1.*not clearly, precisely, or definitely expressed or stated*
2.indefinite in shape, form, or character; hazily or indistinctly seen or sensed
3.not sharp, certain, or precise in thought, feeling, or expression: vague in his answers, a vague hope
4.not precisely determined or known; uncertain

context
Listen See in ThesaurusSee in a sentence
(noun)*Context means the words that surround another word and impact its meaning or the setting in which something occurs.*

noun

1.the parts of a sentence, paragraph, discourse, etc. immediately next to or surrounding a specified word or passage and determining its exact meaning: to quote a remark out of context
2.the whole situation, background, or environment relevant to a particular event, personality, creation, etc.

leadfed, please note the underlined emboldened definitions that CLEARLY define the differences in "context" of how these two different words were used in the two different statements made by myself and plainsman.

Hopefully this "helps" you better "interpret" what was stated and the "context" differnce between them.


----------



## bioman

Just so Gabe Thompson Jr. can't accuse me of not being factual in my response; from Webster's dictionary: Believe = verb (used without object): 
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. 
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to. 
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person). 
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border. 
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

Here is what I believe Gabe Thompson Jr., elected district 6 representative of the North Dakota Cattlemen's Association:
I believe you are an arrogant, egocentric, crass internet forum blowhard and know-it-all.
I believe in the scientific method.
I believe the agricultural industry has been responsible for the highest loss of wetlands in the United States.
I believe in natural selection and the theory of evolution. 
I believe the agricultural industry is one of the biggest sources of point source and pesticide pollution into watersheds in the United States.
I believe the act of hunting and fishing elicits an instinctual response in the human body that results in the appreciation of other living things and nature, passion, camaraderie, and conservation.
I believe the agricultural industry is one of the biggest causes of land fragmentation.
I believe in the law of supply and demand, and therefore capitalism.
I believe the agricultural industry is one of the largest causes in the loss of biodiversity.
I believe Milton Friedman and Michael Faraday are two people I admire most.
I believe those individuals that receive tax payer funded subsidies from state and federal governments and then rail against state and federal regulations and policies are malevolent cowards.
I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe all industries including agriculture are required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations and policies. 
I believe in a lot things, and those are a very select few.

But to answer your question: "do I believe CAFOs should exist?" 
I believe every owner and operator of a CAFO is explicitly and ethically required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and policies, just like every other industry in the United States. If those CAFO owners and operators are ethical and comply with all applicable regulations and policies, pay their fare share of taxes, and derive a profit, that is the risk and reward of capitalism and they have every right to exist.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> gst said
> swift, do you beleive plainsmans usage of the term "broadly" is his statement of what he claimed I stated was meant to address the concerns of garnering support for this measure I voiced when I used the word "vaguely" or rather an insinuation of what it would allow based on his previous claims?
> 
> Are you kidding me gabe?!?!? Hahahaha Now you are telling us how to interpret the terms "Vaguely" and "Broadly"! Yep, im sure of it....your crazy.lol You still haven't answered my question of what this measure actually "SAYS". I really don't expect an answer but it would be interesting none the less.
> 
> 
> 
> lead fed, it is quite simple, it is called "context" I used the term "vaguely" in voicing concerns as to how this measure would be supported, plainsamn used the term "broadly" in attempting to create concerns so this measure will be opposed.
> 
> Supported, opposed, to vey differing contexts. Individual words do in fact have different meaning in the English language especialy when veiwed in "context" .
> 
> broadly
> Variant of broad
> 
> broad definition
> 
> adjective
> 
> 1.of large extent from side to side; wide
> 2.having great extent or expanse; spacious: broad prairies
> 3.extending all about; clear; open; full: broad daylight
> 4.easy to understand; not subtle; obvious: a broad hint
> 5.strongly marked: said of dialects or accents
> 6.coarse or ribald: a broad joke
> 7.tolerant; liberal: to take a broad view of a matter
> *8.wide in range; not limited: a broad variety, a broad education*
> 9.main or general; not detailed: in broad outline
> 10.Phonet. pronounced with the tongue held low and flat in the mouth; open, esp. as the (ä) of father
> adverb
> 
> in a broad manner; widely
> 
> vaguely
> See in Thesaurus
> Variant of vague
> 
> vague definition
> 
> adjective vaguer, vaguest
> ted
> 1.*not clearly, precisely, or definitely expressed or stated*
> 2.indefinite in shape, form, or character; hazily or indistinctly seen or sensed
> 3.not sharp, certain, or precise in thought, feeling, or expression: vague in his answers, a vague hope
> 4.not precisely determined or known; uncertain
> 
> leadfed, please note the underlined emboldened definitions that CLEARLY define the differences in"context" of how these two different words were used in the two different statements made by myself and plainsman.
> 
> Hopefully this "helps" you better "interpret" what was stated and the "context" differnce between them.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm so sorry gabe. I forgot how damn smart you were. Sorry for ever questioning your intelligence. .lol. My god you are a tool.

Oh yea, what exactly does thi s measure say? I asked you , csquared asked you. So what is it bud? The only way you could respond before is to attack 3 different people on this forum by "baisically" saying they were out of staters so what they said didn't matter....nice move by the way.lol

You just don't really have a leg to stand on in this battle gabe. You look like a fool and the only person who can't see that is you!


----------



## gst

bioman said:


> But to answer your question: "do I believe CAFOs should exist?"
> I believe every owner and operator of a CAFO is explicitly and ethically required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and policies, just like every other industry in the United States. If those CAFO owners and operators are ethical and comply with all applicable regulations and policies, pay their fare share of taxes, and derive a profit, that is the risk and reward of capitalism and they have every right to exist.


Hey thanks for the direct answe to the question, this very thing is EXACTLY what the NDSA's Enviromental Services Program works with the NRCS and state and Federal agencies to ensure happens.

So I "beleive" you would support this program and Association if you actually knew a little more bout it!


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Oh I'm so sorry gabe. I forgot how damn smart you were. Sorry for ever questioning your intelligence. .lol. My god you are a tool.


leadfed, I keep telling you I'm not as smart or know as much as what you give me credit for. I had to look up the definitions to post for you so you could perhaps better understand the meaning of "context" in how particular words are used.



leadfed said:


> Oh yea, what exactly does thi s measure say? I asked you , csquared asked you. So what is it bud? The only way you could respond before is to attack 3 different people on this forum by "baisically" saying they were out of staters so what they said didn't matter....nice move by the way.lol


The measure has been posted a number of times so it should be easy to read what the measure states.

I do not beleive I stated what these three individuals that reside in other states say doesn;t matter as you claim. (in fact it is my "opinion" what they say does indeed matter, I'm sure the supporters of this measure hope they will say more :wink: ) It was merely pointed out that they are not in fact residents of the state this amendment will be entered into in "context" of why their "opinions" would be relevant in supporting this measure as this measure specifically was created in the intent to prevent out of state interests from entering this state to impose their agendas thru the initiated measure process, as was unquestionably demonstrated in the last general election.


----------



## swift

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


GST, You do realize this says nothing about the measure execpt that it can be changed, revoked by the legislature. It says nothing about protecting current laws on the books, or anything of the like. Your use of the context of this section is again a mistruth. Big suprise that you would try to twist the words in the states constitution to hide an obvious fact. You do it all the time.


----------



## swift

> In plain simple wording, does this section of the constitution give the legislative assembly the power to control what laws or immunities from these laws are granted?


NO! it does not. In plain simple wording it protects the rights of the legislature to remove the amendment in whole or part and to have the amendment apply equally to all citizens of the state.

It really doesn't say any of what you are claiming. But, hey, I'm the one you say can't comprehend reading.

The rope is getting tighter GST, just keep pulling and you will hang yourself.


----------



## Plainsman

gst I'm interested to know if Gordon Kahl was a NDFB member. I would also be interested to know how many Posse Comitatus are members of the NDFB. Is there somewhere a list of members we can request. I want to know more. I would like to cross reference the list of members with Homeland Security. No, I am not being a jerk, I want to know. I think they are radical to the point that a few are dangerous. It would appear that a federal law enforcement officers life is worth less than the siding on Gordon Kahls home. I didn't take it this serious until I got that quote again.

I guess you guys will be doing an afternoon of editing, but it's to late for that.

If some of you are good on the computer lets look into old Kahl, NDFB, Posse Comitatus etc.



> This from Wickipedia:
> Following his parole from prison, Kahl became active in the "township" movement, an early version of the "sovereign citizenship" belief which later became well known because of the Montana Freemen standoff. This movement sought to form parallel courts and governments purportedly based on English Common Law, and to withdraw recognition of the U.S. federal government. Township movement supporters as well as the Posse Comitatus attempted to organize among farmers in the American Midwest during the early 1980s farm crisis.


This guy couldn't get to town fast enough to cash the check that came from your pocket, but he was willing to kill not to pay his. Nice guy right?


----------



## Plainsman

Found this opinion while searching:



> 95% make sense? More like 95% come from the late Gordon Kahl and his Posse Comitatus!
> 
> Any farmer/rancher who thinks the U.S. government and taxpayers have a bigger stake in how they run their business as opposed to any other is sorely mistaken. Perhaps they should try owning a different business, just for a little while, to see if they like the gov't rules and regs in that industry any better.
> 
> Do ya really think farming and ranching are the only enterprises that receive gov't oversight?
> 
> Sounds to me like FB wants a little anarchy to go with their dose of me me me.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Section 21. No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
> be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
> citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> GST, You do realize this says nothing about the measure execpt that it can be changed, revoked by the legislature. It says nothing about protecting current laws on the books, or anything of the like. Your use of the context of this section is again a mistruth. Big suprise that you would try to twist the words in the states constitution to hide an obvious fact. You do it all the time.
Click to expand...

swift, if this wording in the constitution does give the legislative assembly the powers you suggest, isn't it then also true they would have the power to create and implement law preventing the claims plainsman made from happening regardless of this measure and subsequent amendment?

swift I asked this question way back when to get a factual answer. Since then I have had it expained to me by a couple of people I place more faith in their "interpretation" of the onstitutional powers granted by this article than what you may understand. Please do not be offended by my acceptance of their "interpretation" over yours. It is why I suggest others to gain their own information they beleive factual rather than relying on what is posted on here in determining their position on this measure.

Don't sell the framers of the constitution short in what they envisioned could happen and the provisions they placed in this constitution to prevent the very thing you guys are attempting to use to fearmonger opposition to this amendment.


----------



## Plainsman

> Since then I have had it expained to me by a couple of people I place more faith in


Can we have their names? If you don't give them to us it isn't true you know. :wink:


----------



## Csquared

Gst, are you saying sec 21 of article 1 grants the legislature the authority to re-write the state constitution?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst I'm interested to know if Gordon Kahl was a NDFB member. I would also be interested to know how many Posse Comitatus are members of the NDFB


 :roll:

One thing we do know for certain as fact, one of the most vocal opponents making claims against this measure on tis site he has not substantiated when asked to was indeed a sponsor of an initiated measure at one point along with others that eventually talked with and welcomed the nations largest anti hunting/anti animal agriculture org into our state in an attempt to create law banning a legally defined animal agriculture industry. That FACT can not be denied. Luckily we had a Constitutional amendment protecting the "right" to hunt and fish to prevent this group from attacking hunting and possibly as a result keep them out of our state, perhaps there would be value to having one protecting agriculture in the very same manner as well. :wink:

plainsman, do you beleive there are possibly those that would still welcome a ban on these animal agriculture enterprises as legally defined in our state?

What are your personal veiws of these captive cervid operations as you have stated on here previously?

Perhaps these comments would give some insight as a former sponsor of an initiated measure why you are adamantly opposed to this measure. You make accusations as to others motives in their positions regarding this measure, (greed, rip, rape, run ect) as a former sponsor of the original initiated measure to end captive cervid operations, would this measure help or hinder any further attempts to ban these legally deined animal ag operations?

What possible motives could you and others you know be harboring in your opposition to this amendment?

Do you beleive these orgs. and their supporters here in ND would target other animal ag enterprises as well thru the initiated measure process?

Just a few questions for you to answer honestly if you would plainsamn.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Since then I have had it expained to me by a couple of people I place more faith in
> 
> 
> 
> Can we have their names? If you don't give them to us it isn't true you know. :wink:
Click to expand...

plasinam perhaps you can first tell us the names of the people that have substantaited your claims regarding what this measure will do. Also perhaps the name of the person you talk with when you make that phone call to the EPA! :wink:

Perhaps everyone involved in this discussion would like to share their name and where they are from and what their occupation is?

I'll start, Gabe Thompson Jr., Antler ND, farmer/rancher

I beleive in the value of this amendment as there are well organized groups with access to hundreds of millions of dollars that have specifically and sucessfully targeted animal agriculture industries in other state that have the initiated measure process to impose their radical veiws of ending ANY and ALL forms of animal agriculture. The very largest and most successful of the anti animal ag orgs was in fact invited into this state by a small handful of individuals that sponsored an initiated measure designed to end the approved and legally defined animal ag industry of raising captive cervids. These orgs and their supporters have demonstrated their willingness to make any claim regardless of fact or truth in furthering their agendas to create law targeting other animal ag industries as well.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Gst, are you saying sec 21 of article 1 grants the legislature the authority to re-write the state constitution?


No.

I am saying it has been presented to me by people I trust more so than the constitutional experts on here on Nodak outdoors that it will allow the legislative assembly the power to deny the creation and implementation of law ie...(immuning feedlots from being regulated here in ND, or farmers to grow poppies for heroin as has been inferred) according to the determination of the legislative assembly the people elect.

That is why I suggest people talk with those outside this "hunting and fishing site" to get their own determination of what this measure will ultimately do. Do not take my word for it, nor palinsamns, leadfed, swift, shaugs, bioman,Csquareds or even roger k"s :wink: ect...

Inform oneself. In doing so please talk with a farmer or rancher as has been suggested time and again on here. In passing, share this site with them and the comments made in numerous threads "supporting " agriculture. Perhaps even go so far as to talk with your legislator and share this site and the comments made on here with them. I am sure they will be happy to read those comments on here claiming they are merely tools and patsies of ND agiculture and do not have the abiltiy to legislate based on their own convictions and those of the people they represent. Get their "opinion" of wether they will be hamstringed by this measure in their ability to create and implement regulatory law as is being claimed.


----------



## LT

Interesting we have those on this site that believe this amendment _will allow farmers to farm without restrictions. That it will be the biggest environmental disaster that we have ever seen in the last 50 years, and yes they think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.

They think that maybe someone wants to grow poppies.

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

Then you have extremists who think that this amendment will give farmers the "legal right to torture animals."

_These euphemisms obscure the truth about what animal agriculture actually is: unmitigated cruelty, misery and death. The text of the amendment could more accurately read:

"The right of farmers and ranchers to slit the throats of animals so they choke on their own blood. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ 'rape racks' to forcibly impregnate cows, tear their babies away shortly after birth, kill the baby for veal and milk the mother to death for dairy products."
_
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/constitutio ... imals.html


----------



## spentwings

bioman said:


> Just so Gabe Thompson Jr. can't accuse me of not being factual in my response; from Webster's dictionary: Believe = verb (used without object):
> 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
> 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
> 3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
> 4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
> 5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
> 
> Here is what I believe Gabe Thompson Jr., elected district 6 representative of the North Dakota Cattlemen's Association:
> I believe you are an arrogant, egocentric, crass internet forum blowhard and know-it-all.
> I believe in the scientific method.
> I believe the agricultural industry has been responsible for the highest loss of wetlands in the United States.
> I believe in natural selection and the theory of evolution.
> I believe the agricultural industry is one of the biggest sources of point source and pesticide pollution into watersheds in the United States.
> I believe the act of hunting and fishing elicits an instinctual response in the human body that results in the appreciation of other living things and nature, passion, camaraderie, and conservation.
> I believe the agricultural industry is one of the biggest causes of land fragmentation.
> I believe in the law of supply and demand, and therefore capitalism.
> I believe the agricultural industry is one of the largest causes in the loss of biodiversity.
> I believe Milton Friedman and Michael Faraday are two people I admire most.
> I believe those individuals that receive tax payer funded subsidies from state and federal governments and then rail against state and federal regulations and policies are malevolent cowards.
> I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> I believe all industries including agriculture are required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations and policies.
> I believe in a lot things, and those are a very select few.
> 
> But to answer your question: "do I believe CAFOs should exist?"
> I believe every owner and operator of a CAFO is explicitly and ethically required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and policies, just like every other industry in the United States. If those CAFO owners and operators are ethical and comply with all applicable regulations and policies, pay their fare share of taxes, and derive a profit, that is the risk and reward of capitalism and they have every right to exist.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you probably also believe taking the wolf off the endangered list and giving the States control options is a travesty.


----------



## Plainsman

> plasinam perhaps you can first tell us the names of the people that have substantaited your claims


I really didn't expect to get any names from you. I just thought it was hilarious because you always ask for names. I would never give out names, because I don't want them getting harassing phone calls all hours of the night.

I did get the humor out of it that I wanted. I could tell, because when you loose it you can't spell plainsman. Sometimes it's plainsam, plansam, and this time plasinam. :rollin:



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you probably also believe taking the wolf off the endangered list and giving the States control options is a travesty.


Spent, ask me, me me me     I want to shoot them. :thumb:

Seriously though because most of the land is in agriculture it is agriculture that has destroyed most of the wetlands. The vast majority actually. No gst I'm not going to substantiate it I'll just let rational people think about it and they will see why it's true. Since 90+% of the land in North Dakota is private and that is nearly all agriculture what is the IQ required to understand that the wetlands have been destroyed by that industry?


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> gst I'm interested to know if Gordon Kahl was a NDFB member. I would also be interested to know how many Posse Comitatus are members of the NDFB. Is there somewhere a list of members we can request. I want to know more. I would like to cross reference the list of members with Homeland Security. No, I am not being a jerk, I want to know. I think they are radical to the point that a few are dangerous. It would appear that a federal law enforcement officers life is worth less than the siding on Gordon Kahls home. I didn't take it this serious until I got that quote again.
> 
> I guess you guys will be doing an afternoon of editing, but it's to late for that.
> 
> If some of you are good on the computer lets look into old Kahl, NDFB, Posse Comitatus etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This from Wickipedia:
> Following his parole from prison, Kahl became active in the "township" movement, an early version of the "sovereign citizenship" belief which later became well known because of the Montana Freemen standoff. This movement sought to form parallel courts and governments purportedly based on English Common Law, and to withdraw recognition of the U.S. federal government. Township movement supporters as well as the Posse Comitatus attempted to organize among farmers in the American Midwest during the early 1980s farm crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> This guy couldn't get to town fast enough to cash the check that came from your pocket, but he was willing to kill not to pay his. Nice guy right?
Click to expand...

Have you stopped in the watering hole at Medina lately and asked about Gordon? Not only will you get the free peanuts
taken away,,,no one will talk to you.
Since you have a fixation on Gordon plains,,,you might find 'Bitter Harvest' by James Corcoran interesting,,,at least I did.
http://www.amazon.com/Bitter-Harvest-Go ... r=1-1-spel


----------



## Plainsman

Actually spent I knew most of the people involved. I bought the book "It's all about Power" by Darrell Graf and Steve Schnabel just to hear their side of the story. I was called in the morning after the shooting by local state crime bureau to do aerial photography of all vehicles still in position. I know every detail of it. I also know the people in North Dakota still involved. These people didn't go away, they just pulled their head down for a while. They work more behind the scene now.

Like I said we have radicals on both the left and right of us spent. That's not paranoid either, they are here and as nuts as ever. They hate all government, but especially the EPA. I just thought it interesting that we have groups like this, and now other groups with overlapping goals.


----------



## spentwings

Well...I hate the EPA too,,,at least Obama's EPA.
No question Gordon was a nut case which unfortunately spilled over to his son.
But to put the NDFB in that mix is a conspiracy theorist's stretch.


----------



## KurtR

I belive i can fly


----------



## Plainsman

spentwings said:


> Well...I hate the EPA too,,,at least Obama's EPA.
> No question Gordon was a nut case which unfortunately spilled over to his son.
> But to put the NDFB in that mix is a conspiracy theorist's stretch.


Oh, I don't think they work together at all. However, I do think that those who are members of the Posse are perhaps members of NDFB because NDFB works towards some of those same goals.

On another site a person wants to EPA gone altogether. Now I agree with you about Obama's EPA. Government agencies unfortunately change a lot from one presidential administration to another. They have to because the president picks the head of agencies like EPA. Obama of course will pick the radical environmentalists. 
I think everyone is an environmentalist to a point. I don't think you will find anyone who wants dirty water or dirty air. However, when some can make a dollar and it's someone else water that gets dirty ----- well they need regulations. So I don't like the EPA as it is, but we sure do need to keep it. What we need to do is hold them down so power doesn't go to their head and they use it as a hammer rather than an agency to protect the welfare of the people of the United States.

My curiosity was simply aroused because some on here clearly hate government. They specifically hate EPA. NDFB proposes getting rid of all ag regulations, while at the same time asking for the constitutional amendment. That is so ludicrous it makes a persons wonder just how radical are they? Granted they are not the go out and shoot a fed type group, but I think they have a few goofy tunes in their membership.


----------



## spentwings

KurtR said:


> I belive i can fly


Strange...never had that sensation with alcohol,,,mescaline maybe,,,maybe you should cut back on the lefse?


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...I hate the EPA too,,,at least Obama's EPA.
> No question Gordon was a nut case which unfortunately spilled over to his son.
> But to put the NDFB in that mix is a conspiracy theorist's stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> My curiosity was simply aroused because some on here clearly hate government. They specifically hate EPA. NDFB proposes getting rid of all ag regulations, while at the same time asking for the constitutional amendment. That is so ludicrous it makes a persons wonder just how radical are they? Granted they are not the go out and shoot a fed type group, but I think they have a few goofy tunes in their membership.
Click to expand...

God knows there's been a lot of adjectives to describe gst. The best way to describe some of your beliefs, in my opinion of course, is 
McCarthyism,,,in other words a conspiratist incarnate.
To equate any of this with the Posse is again,,, really a stretch.
Having said that and in all fairness,,,please describe me anyway you want. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

No problem your entitled to an opinion. However, I don't think it's lefse that's the hallucinogen it's luuuuutefisssk. 

I should not make a comparison of ideals or ways in which they operate. However, as with the EPA they have the same radical goals, and that is to do away with it completely. In that light I think NDFB may attract some looney tunes. At the same time when I am debating with liberals in the political form I would guess there are some loony tunes reading and never commenting that are cheering for me. It's not so much that I accuse NDFB of being like the Posse, it's that I think some are hiding in their membership role. Understand that I don't blame NDFB this is beyond their control, but if they get radical they will attract this type. 
Speaking of the political form often I have told people that on a scale of one to ten with liberal being a one I considered myself a seven to eight. I thought I was being very honest with myself. After spending some time in the hot topics I have come to the reality that I may be a five. There are radicals both directions. I thought I leaned right significantly, but holy mackerel I can't hold a candle to guys like Shuag. I always wondered why some liberals thought conservatives were radical, but I'm getting educated. Shaug thinks I am a communist.



> Yesterdays old communists are todays new greens.





> Plainsman, even though you put the disclaimer on the end, I do believe this is what you really think. Maybe you missed your calling. In 1905 Russia was the largest exporter of grain and other commodities. In 1905 Vladimir Illich Ulyanov and Lev Bronstein tried the first Russian revolution. They were imprisoned but later released. Releasing them turned out to be one of the biggest blunders of the world. They met some people who financed their return durring WW1. They changed their names to Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. By 1921 the red revolution was failing because Lenins army was running out of food. The white army was well fed by the "landowners." Lenin appealed to the governments of the world for help. He promised many concessions. Lenin got the neccessary supplies to feed his army. In just six years Russia went from the largest exporter of food to an importer. When Stalin took over he remembered the farmers who fed the white army. He sent his minions to kill the greedy kuluks. They really believed what they did was justified. They believed they were going to share the natural resources and lands of Russia. It was going to be a working mans paradise. Lenin had a term for these persons. "Useful idiots."


Gordon Kahl: http://www.taoslandandfilm.com/CHRONOLOGY.html


> +	Went to College, dropped out because teacher was a
> communist.


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> No problem your entitled to an opinion. However, I don't think it's lefse that's the hallucinogen it's luuuuutefisssk.
> 
> I should not make a comparison of ideals or ways in which they operate. However, as with the EPA they have the same radical goals, and that is to do away with it completely. In that light I think NDFB may attract some looney tunes. At the same time when I am debating with liberals in the political form I would guess there are some loony tunes reading and never commenting that are cheering for me. It's not so much that I accuse NDFB of being like the Posse, it's that I think some are hiding in their membership role. Understand that I don't blame NDFB this is beyond their control, but if they get radical they will attract this type.
> Speaking of the political form often I have told people that on a scale of one to ten with liberal being a one I considered myself a seven to eight. I thought I was being very honest with myself. After spending some time in the hot topics I have come to the reality that I may be a five.


Come on plains,,,is that the best you can do? Some Gordons may be hiding in the NDFB?
Yeah maybe,,, but radicalism and conspiracism ain't the same dog.


----------



## Plainsman

I don't think there is any conspiracy. Not at all, no way. They just agree on some of the radical things.


----------



## spentwings

And I'll agree gst is a radical,,,an incarnate of radicalism. :lol:


----------



## gst

KurtR said:


> I belive i can fly


Blue Duck beleived he could as well!! 



spentwings said:


> And I'll agree gst is a radical,,,an incarnate of radicalism. :lol:


You guys on this site sure get your shorts in a bunch when people don't simply accept the Nodak line and question ones claims! 



Plainsman said:


> I don't think there is any conspiracy. Not at all, no way. They just agree on some of the radical things.


But yet there is some grand conspriracy to eliminate all regulations with this measure so agriculture and anyone that disagrees with your claims can "rip, rape, and run". :roll:



Plainsman said:


> I did get the humor out of it that I wanted. I could tell, because when you loose it you can't spell plainsman


Apparently it does not take much to amuse you plainsman, didn't "loose it", just dealing with a broken thumb and index finger from a ranch rodeo this summer.

Probably should have gone to a doc and got em fixed, but you know how uppity those medical "professionals" can be sometimes if you get the wrong one! Anyway, it makes for some interesting typing. End up editing quite a bit to fix spelling!  Perhaps it would just be simpler for me to type Bruce, hey it is! :wink:

Oh well happy New Year everyone, and spent maybe take it easy on the mescaline tommorrow night, there's not much snow for a soft landing!


----------



## swift

Your finger and your thumb should be reminders that you don't know everything and just maybe you could benefit by asking for and taking anothers opinion and advice. Next time you want to discredit my profession think of the fingers that don't work because you shunned a real professional.


----------



## swift

Oh! and Happy New Year.

Spent while I agree with your arguement regarding the posse, Look at the NDFBs policies of tax exemption and removal of ag from the federal coffers and it starts to sound like maybe.......


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I belive i can fly
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Duck beleived he could as well!!
> 
> 
> 
> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'll agree gst is a radical,,,an incarnate of radicalism. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys on this site sure get your shorts in a bunch when people don't simply accept the Nodak line and question ones claims!
Click to expand...

You guys on this site? And the NODAK line?
So do you really want to alienate me a well gst?
So many jerks on this thread, including me, and so little time. :laugh:


----------



## spentwings

swift said:


> Oh! and Happy New Year.
> 
> Spent while I agree with your arguement regarding the posse, Look at the NDFBs policies of tax exemption and removal of ag from the federal coffers and it starts to sound like maybe.......


I just don't buy it swift. The right to hunt,,,the right to farm,,,one passed, one pending,,,both BS.
Ain't no Posse here,,,just agendas and in the NDFB's case,,,greed.


----------



## Plainsman

> Apparently it does not take much to amuse you plainsman, didn't "loose it", just dealing with a broken thumb and index finger from a ranch rodeo this summer.


Catch them in the banjo strings? 



> Spent while I agree with your arguement regarding the posse, Look at the NDFBs policies of tax exemption and removal of ag from the federal coffers and it starts to sound like maybe.......


They are around here. As far as NDFB it's kind of like not all democrats are liberal, but all liberals are democrat. It's not something I will hold against NDFB other than they have some of the same goals.



> ,,,just agendas and in the NDFB's case,,,greed.


Bingo, now that I do hold against them. It's kind of arrogant of them to expect us to kiss up at the same time they are dumping on us.

Same here guys, I wish you all a Happy and Prosperous new year. gst, hope that thumb and finger gets better.


----------



## Csquared

This can very simply be summed up now that gst has acknowledged his argument is without merit....

gst wrote:


> So we are not accused of "cherry pickin" here in ND, here is Article 1 Section 21 of the ND State Consitution in it's entirety.
> 
> Section 21. No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
> be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
> citizens.
> 
> Now Csquared, all the way from Il, so you are not accused of "cherry pikin" from the ND State Constitution what "supports your case" while ignoring that which does not, what do you beleive this language in the very fisrt article, the declaration of rights, says as it relates to the claims plainsman has made regarding this amendment?
> 
> In plain simple wording, does this section of the constitution give the legislative assembly the power to control what laws or immunities from these laws are granted?
> 
> So Csquared you reside in Il, bioman is from Co and swift is from SD. Three of the most vocal opponents of this measure in this dialogue are from out of state, plainsman is a past sponsor of an initiated measure that ultimately eventually WELCOMED the nations leading anti hunting/anti animal ag org into our state in an attempt to create law affecting NDans, one must ask what indeed is the basis behind their opposition of this measure? FACT? TRUTH?


I asked this:


> Csquared wrote:
> Gst, are you saying sec 21 of article 1 grants the legislature the authority to re-write the state constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> gst answered:
> 
> No.
> 
> I am saying it has been presented to me by people I trust more so than the constitutional experts on here on Nodak outdoors that it will allow the legislative assembly the power to deny the creation and implementation of law ie...(immuning feedlots from being regulated here in ND, or farmers to grow poppies for heroin as has been inferred) according to the determination of the legislative assembly the people elect
Click to expand...

.

Whomever these people are who have presented you with info should get on here because you're obviously over your head on this when it comes to constitutional law. That isn't the first time you used that type of response to a question you didn't know the answer to.

I believe you are correct that sect. 21 does NOT give the legislature the authority to change the state constitution. DIRECTLY OPPOSITE of what you have said all along to quell fears of the amendment giving ranchers too much free reign. You keep talking as if the proposed legislation is just another law. It is NOT. If passed, it becomes part of the state constitution, and will be protected exactly as the rest of the document it becomes part of, and the constitution can only be changed BY THE PEOPLE....the legislature can only write laws. But they can NOT write laws the constitution expressly prohibits, and if this measure is passed the constitution would then expressly prohibit any laws to be written that "abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ...."

Now let's talk about sec 20 of Article 1...immediately before the one we now know is moot, at least for the purposes of this discussion. Sec 20 clearly states...."To guard against transgressions of the higher powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate."

Inviolate's a pretty big word there...you might wanna look it up. And I don't mean big as in complicated...I mean big in meaning.

And since Article 1 is your bill of rights, I wonder if we could expect the amendment, if passed,to be added as sec 25 (the last two were added in the general provisons article), right after 24, which states..."The provisions of this constitution are mandatory and prohibitory unless, by express words, they are declared to be otherwise."

So why don't you get in touch with "your people" and have them come on here and explain how we are all worried about nothing because they know a special way the legislature can write any laws the public thinks are necessary to keep rogue ranchers in check on an "as needed" basis. One interesting point to note, the recently added "right to hunt" amendment includes the verbiage "...will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law..."

Is it purely coincidence those words are missing in the one we're talking about now?


----------



## shaug

It would seem there are now several arm-chair generals on this site who have the wording of this measure plum figured out.

csquared wrote,



> So by infering all is well after passage by saying the legislature (or the people) can add or change laws to limit the scope of the amendment is misleading, at best. You're saying the state legislature can write laws that supercede the state constitution, but the quote above CLEARLY explains otherwise. The words NO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED WHICH ABRIDGES THE RIGHT.....TO EMPLOY very clearly means THEIR (farmers/ranchers) discretion....no other entity's.


When the signatures for this measure are collected the state will do an impact study... There will be meetings by our elected officials and state persons. When the measure is passed the Attorney Generals Office will be involved and our elected legislators.
They can water it down to become a law of no effect. Or they can give it teeth. I don't know if there will be hearings on it before it goes into the constitution. My guess is they will go back to Farm Bureau and all the other ag orgs that more likely are going to support it, and then ask, "WHAT IS YOUR INTENT?" If they reply, "we want to repeal regulations so we can build feedlots on river beds," then the legislators are going to say, "it took a bill to create laws so you can't, it will take a bill saying you can." The intent of this measure doesn't remove good laws already on the books. Plainsmans fears are unfounded.

The intent of the measure is to prevent radicals from trying to pass more laws that are onerous and burdensome to the working man who is just trying to make his livelyhood of the land. However, that is just my opinion.

The oppondents of this measure have several avenues available to them if they wish to defeat it.

No.1 Spend a bunch of money spreading the word why this measure has no merit. The newspapers love the economic development.
No.2 Force the attorney general to give an opinion. Get enough legislators together and you can request it. Afterall, these opinions given here do not count by comparison. But be warned, you may not like his opinion? After he makes his recommendation it will be posted in the papers. One more thing. When those legislators find out this group is made up of largely the same people involved in the fair chase intitiative, I don't think you will find any takers. Maybe Rep. Lyle Hanson, he likes to carry water for the ND Wildlife Federation and wildlife society.
No.3 If the legislature has hearings and allows testimony before the measure is placed, be there. Just don't wear a bag over your head to hide your identity, no name calling, no Gordan Kahl or grassy knoll theories, no telling the legislators how much you hate gst and how bad you want to drive him from the issue. To sum it up, the rules of engagement will be much different then here on nodak.
No.4 There is one other avenue I forgot to mention earlier. You can challenge it in court.

Government and its laws are made by those who show up. I doubt Plainsman and company will show. But it does seem some out of state groups are taking notice of NDFBs measure.

LT wrote,

http://www.care2.com/causes/constitutio ... imals.html

Here is a big question mark. Will HSUS come into the state two weeks before the elections in Nov 2012 and spend $150,000 dollars "again" to defeat this measure? Plainsman will have egg on his face times two.

The possiblity of the Humane Society of the United States coming here to defeat this measure is very real. This measure could set a precedence for every state to defeat their tactics.


----------



## Csquared

LT wrote:


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


LT, using substantiated facts and constitutional law, how do you guarantee none of this will happen if the amendment is passed?


----------



## shaug

csquared,

I just read your post above. I am not going to ask my people to come on here. It seems you have it all figured out. Get your people together and force an opinion from the attorney general. You can't miss. :lost:


----------



## Csquared

> The intent of the measure is to prevent radicals from trying to pass more laws that are onerous and burdensome to the working man who is just trying to make his livelyhood of the land. However, that is just my opinion


.

shaug, I doubt anyone will argue that. And I also doubt any here object to that.

You and I have no history, so maybe you can show me a side I never saw from gst. Can you "man up" and acknowledge this issue has two sides? One side that you've mentioned above....a sensible idea that few would object to...

...and the other side which is a HORRIBLY worded, carte blanche permission slip for ranchers to have everything their way?

Like I said last night, I had zero interest in this at first, but I do now, and it would be nice to have a discussion of the issue sans the smoke screens and hate-filled responses fueled by last year's fishingbuddy posts.

This measure, as written, is an absolute trainwreck, and if passed would most certainly be mired, ultimately, in court for DECADES...and everyone involved has to know that. They also know the importance of the measure being in the form of a constitutional amendment, yet this entire discussion has tried to paint it as just another mundane piece of legislation that can easily be "fine tuned" in the near future.

All while having "credibility" and "facts" as the key words of engagement


----------



## Csquared

Shaug wrote:



> The intent of this measure doesn't remove good laws already on the books.


But a constitutional amendment, as the measure is written, WOULD.....right, shaug?

And who decides which are "good" laws?


----------



## gst

C squared, would you post your constitutional law diploma for us? I am serious, if indeed you have one it would give some credibility to your claims and it would be an interesting point to ask others about.

Otherwise shaug summed up pretty well how this will work.



Csquared said:


> LT wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> They think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc., an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> LT, using substantiated facts and constitutional law, how do you guarantee none of this will happen if the amendment is passed?
Click to expand...

Csquared, using these same criteria, how do you guarantee these claims "WILL happen if the amendment passes?????

For Christ sakes call the EPA and ask them if these things will be allowed to happen or not instead of theorizing, hypothisizing analysizing ect.... This has been suggested how long ago and yet who of you has done so? Why? Are you afraid of the answer?



shaug said:


> csquared,
> 
> I just read your post above. I am not going to ask my people to come on here. It seems you have it all figured out. Get your people together and force an opinion from the attorney general. You can't miss. :lost:


There it is, I mentioned it earlier in the discussion, have at it fellas, If you have good enough relationships with your elected representatives work withthem to have this done.



Csquared said:


> Like I said last night, I had zero interest in this at first, but I do now, and it would be nice to have a discussion of the issue sans the smoke screens and hate-filled responses fueled by last year's fishingbuddy posts.


C squared perhaps you could"man up" and show some examples of these "hate filled responses" and who is making them! :wink: You aren't still peeved over the HFH debates are you???? 

I actually was trying to have a "discussion" by merely asking plainsman to substantiate with fact how his claims would occur given the existing state and Federal regulations preventing them? NO ONE has yet done so in how many pages of dialogue. I guess indeed it is a "radical" idea to ask that claims such as these be substantiated with fact. :roll:

C squared, what is your connection to ND if I may ask. I mean swift used to live here, maybe he has a desire to move back here, I can understand his interest, where does your connection here lie?

Like I said Csquared post up a copy of your constitutional law degree and you may actually be given some credibility.

So Csquare one question, please answer it if you would as you seem to wish people to accept your anylysis of our state regulatory and constitutional law. Given the state and federal regulatory laws that now exist will this measure "allow feedlots to be built on river bottoms so the water can wash away the manure"? Yes or no?

Do you or ANYONE else on here actually beleive the Federal govt will ever back away from regulatory law preventing manure from being dumped right into rivers??? Christ almighty man even if the EPA was disbanded over nite, the Federal Clean Water Act will still exist. You would be in violation of any number of Federal laws. You want to take on the Federal govt???? Look what it got Gordon Kahl! :wink: :roll:


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Shaug wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of this measure doesn't remove good laws already on the books.
> 
> 
> 
> But a constitutional amendment, as the measure is written, WOULD.....right, shaug?
> 
> And who decides which are "good" laws?
Click to expand...

Prove factually where this measure will over ride existing law. Unless you do, your claims are no more credible than anyone elses.

Who decides what are "good laws" ? Initially the legislative assembly that are elected by the people of ND. Ultimatlely if challenged the Judicial system. So how many judges do you beleive will "allow feedlots to be built on riverbottoms so the water can wash away the manure"?

How many different means of preventing these claims from happening do you guys need? :roll:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> gst I'm interested to know if Gordon Kahl was a NDFB member. I would also be interested to know how many Posse Comitatus are members of the NDFB
> 
> 
> 
> :roll:
> 
> One thing we do know for certain as fact, one of the most vocal opponents making claims against this measure on tis site he has not substantiated when asked to was indeed a sponsor of an initiated measure at one point along with others that eventually talked with and welcomed the nations largest anti hunting/anti animal agriculture org into our state in an attempt to create law banning a legally defined animal agriculture industry. That FACT can not be denied. Luckily we had a Constitutional amendment protecting the "right" to hunt and fish to prevent this group from attacking hunting and possibly as a result keep them out of our state, perhaps there would be value to having one protecting agriculture in the very same manner as well. :wink:
> 
> plainsman, do you beleive there are possibly those that would still welcome a ban on these animal agriculture enterprises as legally defined in our state?
> 
> What are your personal veiws of these captive cervid operations as you have stated on here previously?
> 
> Perhaps these comments would give some insight as a former sponsor of an initiated measure why you are adamantly opposed to this measure. You make accusations as to others motives in their positions regarding this measure, (greed, rip, rape, run ect) as a former sponsor of the original initiated measure to end captive cervid operations, would this measure help or hinder any further attempts to ban these legally deined animal ag operations?
> 
> What possible motives could you and others you know be harboring in your opposition to this amendment?
> 
> Do you beleive these orgs. and their supporters here in ND would target other animal ag enterprises as well thru the initiated measure process?
> 
> Just a few questions for you to answer honestly if you would plainsamn.
Click to expand...

plainsman, perhaps I missed your answers?


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Do you or ANYONE else on here actually beleive the Federal govt will ever back away from regulatory law preventing manure from being dumped right into rivers??? Christ almighty man even if the EPA was disbanded over nite, the Federal Clean Water Act will still exist. You would be in violation of any number of Federal laws. You want to take on the Federal govt???? Look what it got Gordon Kahl! :wink: :roll:


Of course not,,,, but It wouldn't be to hard to believe that regs could be weakened to the point that accidental discharges of manure into waterways became a lot more common.
So much smoke and mirrors in this thread, I don't know whether to manure or go blind.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I belive i can fly
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Duck beleived he could as well!!
> 
> 
> 
> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'll agree gst is a radical,,,an incarnate of radicalism. :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys on this site sure get your shorts in a bunch when people don't simply accept the Nodak line and question ones claims!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys on this site? And the NODAK line?
> So do you really want to alienate me a well gst?
> So many jerks on this thread, including me, and so little time. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Spent, before you get too "alienated",the comment only applies to you if it applies to you. If you don;t get your tail bent out of shape when someone merely asks for a claim that was made to be substantiated, than it would obviously not apply to you. And note, the  at the end , indicates a comment made light heartedly!

Hey spent, as no one else wishes to answer this question perhaps you would give it a whirl, I'm kinda curious to hear someones direct answer. Given the Federal regulations thru the EPA, Clean Water Act, and numerous other Federal agencies regulatory powers ect... , do you beleive this measure will trump state legislative powers, state agency powers, state and Federal Judicial rulings as well as Federal agency powers and end up to "allow feedlots to be built on riverbottoms so the water can wash away the manure, irresponsible pesticide use, or the ability to grow things that are now illegal" perhaps poppies for heroin???

I mean to me thinking all these different means of preventing these claims from happening all of a sudden dissappearing as a result of this measure and the people of this state as well as this nation suddenly allowing manure to be dumped directly into rivers or farmers to grow poppies for heroin or marajuana for the drug trade or palnes to spray pesticides where they would drift onto a school grounds here in ND is perhaps "radical" thinking??? I don't know, perhaps thinking this is "radical" thinking is "radical" thinking and you are indeed right branding someone you have never personally met a "radical". :wink:

Hey while your answering a couple of questions, would you consider that perhaps a former sponsor of an initiated measure designed to end the raising of captive cervids here in ND would possibly look at this measure as a threat to the ability to attempt to do the same once again somewhere in the future and as a result oppose it in the same manner the measure he helped sponsor was pursued with accusations and claims that were not substantiated??

Naw, never mind, that likely has nothing to do with the opposition some on here would have could it???


----------



## spentwings

I've never been one for details so let me ask you,,,what's the purpose of the measure gst if not to circumvent?
As for being radical,,,I think you're all radical,,,I may be the only middle of the roader here. k:

_Hey while your answering a couple of questions, would you consider that perhaps a former sponsor of an initiated measure designed to end the raising of captive cervids here in ND would possibly look at this measure as a threat to the ability to attempt to do the same once again somewhere in the future and as a result oppose it in the same manner the measure he helped sponsor was pursued with accusations and claims that were not substantiated?? _

I don't know...sounds pretty devious to me but then,,,who knows the workings of the human heart or hate.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you or ANYONE else on here actually beleive the Federal govt will ever back away from regulatory law preventing manure from being dumped right into rivers??? Christ almighty man even if the EPA was disbanded over nite, the Federal Clean Water Act will still exist. You would be in violation of any number of Federal laws. You want to take on the Federal govt???? Look what it got Gordon Kahl! :wink: :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not,,,, but It wouldn't be to hard to believe that regs could be weakened to the point that accidental discharges of manure into waterways became a lot more common.
> So much smoke and mirrors in this thread, I don't know whether to manure or go blind.
Click to expand...

Spent, in order for that to happen, this state constituional amendment would have to over ride numerous Federal regulatory agencies and laws. How will that happen? Smoke and mirrors is right. I simply from the start of this discussion asked for the claims behind one particular section of this "smoke and mirrors" to be factually established how it would happen given all the venues and regulatory powers preventing it now. So far NO ONE has done so.

Just out of curiousity, how many people in this discussion have ever sat across a table from the folks at the state health dept or the EPA folks here in ND that moniter and regulate these feedlots we are speaking of? How many have been involved in the start up of a feedlot here in ND? How many actually know the requirements and regulations one has to follow both from the state and Federal level? Any one?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> I've never been one for details so let me ask you,,,what's the purpose of the measure gst if not to circumvent?


As has been stated before, as it has been presented to me this measure if passed here in ND with our initiated measure process will prevent outside orgs from coming into our state with an agenda to end or severely limit animal agriculture thru this initiated measure process. The FACT is this HAS happened successfully in other states with the initiated measure process. The FACT is this HAS been attempted here in ND. These FACTS can not be denied and are the catalyst behind this measure.

It has been suggested, if you wish your claims to be proven one way or another, get your representatives to ask the States AG for his official opinion. (I'd bet someone there actually HAS a Constitutional law degree)! Call or better yet email the EPA and ask them what this measure will do from their veiw point in regard to the claims made here. (I'm sure someone there is a regulatory authority)!

Or stay on this site and make juvenile personal attacks and claims that are not substantiated. Which do you think lends itself to better credibility. Spent, hows that for a "radical" idea!!


----------



## gst

It seems if you are a bit of a nite owl here so please consider the following spent. 


spentwings said:


> gst wrote:
> Do you or ANYONE else on here actually beleive the Federal govt will ever back away from regulatory law preventing manure from being dumped right into rivers??? Christ almighty man even if the EPA was disbanded over nite, the Federal Clean Water Act will still exist. You would be in violation of any number of Federal laws. You want to take on the Federal govt???? Look what it got Gordon Kahl!
> 
> spentwings wrote:
> Of course not,,,,


Then perhaps the next question is this if you would be so kind as to answer it.



gst said:


> Hey spent, as no one else wishes to answer this question perhaps you would give it a whirl, I'm kinda curious to hear someones direct answer. Given the Federal regulations thru the EPA, Clean Water Act, and numerous other Federal agencies regulatory powers ect... , do you beleive this measure will trump state legislative powers, state agency powers, state and Federal Judicial rulings as well as Federal agency powers and end up to "allow feedlots to be built on riverbottoms so the water can wash away the manure, irresponsible pesticide use, or the ability to grow things that are now illegal" perhaps poppies for heroin???


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been one for details so let me ask you,,,what's the purpose of the measure gst if not to circumvent?
> 
> 
> 
> As has been stated before, as it has been presented to me this measure if passed here in ND with our initiated measure process will prevent outside orgs from coming into our state with an agenda to end or severely limit animal agriculture thru this initiated measure process. The FACT is this HAS happened successfully in other states with the initiated measure process. The FACT is this HAS been attempted here in ND. These FACTS can not be denied and are the catalyst behind this measure.
> 
> It has been suggested, if you wish your claims to be proven one way or another, get your representatives to ask the States AG for his official opinion. (I'd bet someone there actually HAS a Constitutional law degree)! Call or better yet email the EPA and ask them what this measure will do from their veiw point in regard to the claims made here. (I'm sure someone there is a regulatory authority)!
> 
> Or stay on this site and make juvenile personal attacks and claims that are not substantiated. Which do you think lends itself to better credibility. Spent, hows that for a "radical" idea!!
Click to expand...

Sparing with me is like taking on 100 lbs of naivety.
I should probably read the measure huh?
If in fact what you say is true,,, I may have been duped by my aversion to detail into thinking it was much more.
Like when I was so called brainwashed for voting against measure #2.


----------



## shaug

Spent wrote,



> Like when I was so called brainwashed for voting against measure #2.


Thank you for voting NO on Measure Two in fall of 2010. You sir are a great American.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Now back to the original thread intent. I did talk to a farmer, in fact a good number of them. Since not everyone held the exact view nor opinions but some things about this issue where consistent.

First most liked the *idea*,some had no idea it was even being floated around. Those that knew are split over support because of a variety of reasons. Some simply because of who is sponsoring it. Others who see it as a path to infringe and overstep reach of existing property rights. Tiling being the NUMBER ONE CONCERN! Along with that many see it as an attempt to keep exotic animals in the state or to have an opening to expand them.

%The most overwhelming response which ran very high into the 75% range was that the current offered amendment was to vague! This was clear because of the concerns they have with it. Like the idea, but not the draft before us!

Now gst, like other things you can and will try and snipe away at this, but to be blunt kiss off! I think the amendment is to vague. Most people I spoke with over the holdiay period and they consist of farmers and landowners by a wide majority feel the same way. To early to judge support for it, but it is clear that many have deep reservations about the current petition being passed about.

Tiling, drainage,sewage,liability removal for intentional acts of stupidity regarding a host of things.

All in all if the vote where held today in that area, it would fail 40-60 or possibly even by a larger amount. A lot of unknown and distrust of this by the very people it is suppose to be protecting! The best line was from a retired farmer who was fishing.


> Vague by intent my ***! Back in my youth something like this would have been laughed away because it was so vague! You make something like this for a reason that you do not want known. Typlical farm organization BS!


Oh and gst, not going to play your question crap so do not assume anything by a non response!


----------



## indsport

I just returned to the state from a wonderful family and friends trip to see relatives and particularly my grand daughter and see nothing much has changed in the discussion. Prior to leaving, I, too, talked to my neighbors out here (I actually live in the country and they are all farmers around me) and the response was a problem with the wording of the amendment. 100% (including myself) support the idea of keeping groups like HSUS and PETA from affecting agriculture in North Dakota, but well over 80% think the amendment, as written, is pretty much useless, too vague and will result in endless legal challenges costing unnecessary time and money. Shaug and gst, don't bother asking your repetitive questions, you already got my answers in my previous posts.


----------



## Plainsman

> 100% (including myself) support the idea of keeping groups like HSUS and PETA from affecting agriculture in North Dakota, but well over 80% think the amendment, as written, is pretty much useless, too vague and will result in endless legal challenges costing unnecessary time and money.


Same experience here indsport. The first two farmers I talked to and mentioned in the very beginning said tile and drain. I also agree with you about HSUS and PETA. Even if it involves the cervids. However, I don't like the no new laws, because if disease begins to spread into our wild herds I want the offending herd destroyed. 
The animal rights groups are not after you for cruelty to pumpkins so spell out what gst and shaug says this is about and we can all support it. If not then don't lie to us and tell us it's not about tile and drain, and more. Vague is purposeful and deceptive, and indicates dishonesty with the public.

I remember the constant complaint that the measure #2 was to vague so people should not support it. What's different now?


----------



## huntin1

When people write vague ambiguous proposals such as this they are hiding the true intent behind the proposal. If they wrote what was truly intended it would not go anywhere.

If something such as this were in effect before the ban on DDT, would it have been banned? Banning it surely affected the way in which farmers did their job.

Problems and issues with newly developed technologies can't always be foreseen. Would this prevent the banning of practices accepted now, but later were found to be harmful? Something to be considered.

Of course this is my opinion.

Huntin1


----------



## spentwings

_*The amendment has two sentences. The first says "the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state."

The second sentence reads: "No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."*_

Is this all there is?
There's got to be more right!
At first glance it seems benign enough.
But looking at it again, how could anyone make an informed decision about this amendment.
Reason enough for me not to support it.


----------



## KurtR

Happy new years eve everyone. Take a breath as 2012 is going to be a great hot topics year with it being election time and all. :beer:


----------



## Csquared

> C squared, would you post your constitutional law diploma for us? I am serious, if indeed you have one it would give some credibility to your claims and it would be an interesting point to ask others about


Nope...and I'm serious, too.

And what would be the "point" of me showing anything about myself? I'm the guy at the back of the room with nothing at stake, merely asking questions so that others don't have to. There are two reasons why what you or anyone else thinks of me doesn't matter. The least of which is I simply couldn't care any less. But the main reason is my perceived credibility or IQ level is of absolutely no relevance to my ability, or standing, to ask questions. And pasting pertinent text, verbatim, from your state's constitution takes at best a 8th grade reading skill level and a second grade level in computer skills.

I guess you'll just have to try to take me at my word that I've got those two covered.

Lest we forget how gst and shaug came to be involved in this, it is Plansman's thread, and they invited themselves, apparently as resident "experts" on the subject. So it is perfectly fair for us to look to them for specific answers pertaining to the measure. Hence my questions.

Let's also remember the lengths gst has gone in this thread alone to DEMAND no opinions are allowed...only substantiated facts. Here are just a few:



> Report this postReply with quoteRe: Talk to a farmer
> by gst » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:27 pm
> 
> As has been my mantra all thruout these debates, factual information is much more important than "stories" and "opinions"
> 
> And before you make your claims, please remember you will be asked to substantiate them and do so without "making it personal".
> 
> We already have enough people making claims and telling secondhand stories they can not substantiate
> 
> I beleive indeed the factual truth should be given of ANYTHING the people are being asked to vote on.


But when asked directly to explain why our fears of ineffective legislative control of farmers was unfounded, he countered with.. "it has been presented to me by people that I trust....that it will allow the legislative assembly the power to deny the creation and implementation of law...."

Inadmissible hearsay, starkly in defiance of his own "substantiated facts" guideline. Not to mention fall-on-the-floor funny that he chose to use the constitutional power that would be granted to the measure if passed as his explanation of legislative powers to LIMIT the scope of the amendment. For those of you bored to tears and might have missed it, the legislative assembly having the "power to deny the creation and implementaion of law" should sound a lot like the second part of the measure that says "...no law shall be enacted..." So we're still waiting for the substantiated facts of how the general assembly will have the authority to legislate limits against a constitutional amendment that states no law can be written.


----------



## shaug

csquared wrote,



> You and I have no history, so maybe you can show me a side I never saw from gst. Can you "man up" and acknowledge this issue has two sides? One side that you've mentioned above....a sensible idea that few would object to...
> 
> ...and the other side which is a HORRIBLY worded, carte blanche permission slip for ranchers to have everything their way?
> 
> This measure, as written, is an absolute trainwreck, and if passed would most certainly be mired, ultimately, in court for DECADES...and everyone involved has to know that. They also know the importance of the measure being in the form of a constitutional amendment, yet this entire discussion has tried to paint it as just another mundane piece of legislation that can easily be "fine tuned" in the near future.


I am not going to make any acknowledements, conclusions, give a big opinion or make future predictions. When the Attorney General has spoken he will trump any opinions made by anyone here. Therefore I cannot give you a pat answer.

When Farm Bureau drafted this measure they more than likely had some good legal advice. All these pages and pages posted here seem like deja vu all over again. Didn't we go through this very same scenerio durring the fair chase folly? The ND Elk Growers were told that Attorney Paul Germolous drafted the language of measure two. The argument wax and waned trying to decipher the code. It is in this thread,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51137&p=405437#p405437

csquared, at the very bottom of the thread Dick Monson gave that "pat" answer that you been looking for:



> DG, then you have nothing to worry about. You get what you pay for in legal work.


csquared, You have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Csquared

One thing I can absolutely agree with you on...I'm a thousand miles away, so aside from my aversion to BS this doesn't affect me in the least.

Shaug, I believe you are comparing a legislative bill to a constitutional amendment


> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51137&p=405437#p405437


If I'm wrong, by all means correct me. I'd say that was apples to oranges but it's more like apples to THE ENTIRE ORANGE INDUSTRY!

I don't believe for a second you and gst are slow enough to actually miss that. It is my opinion you are intentionally trying to mislead people to believe the measure can easily be amended AFTER it becomes part of the constitution.

Have you read your constitution? It starts out with WE THE PEOPLE. YOU DO get that...right? The legislature makes laws that govern the populace, and as such those laws are always subject to change virtually the same way they were written...by the elected representatives of THE PEOPLE. The constitution is written BY THE PEOPLE, and it governs THE GOVERNMENT....Not the people. HUGE difference. The legislature tells THE PEOPLE what they can and can't do, but the constitution sets the parameters of what the government can do...and most importantly...can NOT do. And adding verbiage to the constitution that forbids any laws to be written to regulate how farmers and ranchers apply their trade should scare the heck out of everyone.....maybe even those a thousand miles away.

All I can say is THE PEOPLE of North Dakota better think long and hard before taking ag regulation out of the hands of the general assembly, because once lost it may be difficult to get back.

Could be part of the reason the ag industry is pushing so hard for it, but that's just my opinion, and we know that's not allowed.

Or you could make all the fears go away by posting substantiated facts of how the general assembly can alter the constitution without a vote by THE PEOPLE.


----------



## bioman

> Just out of curiousity, how many people in this discussion have ever sat across a table from the folks at the state health dept or the EPA folks here in ND that moniter and regulate these feedlots we are speaking of? How many have been involved in the start up of a feedlot here in ND? How many actually know the requirements and regulations one has to follow both from the state and Federal level? Any one?


Gabe, I am an EXPERT on the Clean Water Act. It is simply what I do. I have literally permitted every type of industrial project under the Clean Water Act EXCEPT a confined feed lot. And before that is dismissed as contrary, I have permitted point source discharges for refineries, construction sites, pipelines, municipal waste water facilities, construction projects, coal plants, and natural gas plants.

Pursuant to the 40 Code of Federal Regulations, a point source is defined as:

For purposes of the Clean Water Act, "Point Source" means any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill, leachate collection system, vessel or other floating craft from _*which pollutants are or may be discharged.*_ This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agriculture storm water runoff.

So to answer your question about feedlots in river bottoms, a CAFO is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The permit literally and figuratively controls water pollution by regulating that point source (i.e., the CAFO) that MAY or WILL discharge pollutants into jurisdictional waters of the United States (Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act). In every essence of the definition, that CAFO will discharge to a watershed. Therefore, it could be theoretically built in a river bottom if the effluents are able to meet any and all established pollutant threshold criteria. Where are the majority of coal power plants built in North Dakota???


----------



## bioman

> C squared, would you post your constitutional law diploma for us? I am serious, if indeed you have one it would give some credibility to your claims and it would be an interesting point to ask others about.


A lawyer does not get a constitutional law diploma. A lawyer becomes a constitutional legal scholar by the study and teachings of that legal subject matter/enterprise. And isn't it literally ironic that your supposed conversation with supposed legal scholar is the FACTUAL INTREPRETATION on the matter. However, when questioned, you have the audacity to ask for Csquared "constitutional law diploma." Gabe Thompon, you are simply a clown disguised as a moron.:eyeroll:


----------



## Csquared

Bioman, you're a much more patient man than I :wink:

But in his defense, what choice did he have? To paraphrase Jim Carey in "Liar. Liar", to answer with the truth would be devastaing to his case ! 

:beer:


----------



## bioman

Shaug, my man, you had better get your facts straight if you are out collecting signatures for a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. A ballot measure and a constitutional amendment are TWO completely different things and as Csquared pointed out, not even in the same realm of government.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/N ... ment_(2012)

A constitutional amendment is a formal change to the text of the written constitution of a nation or state. Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure that is more stringent than that required of ordinary legislation. A referendum to amend the constitution may also be triggered in some jurisdictions by popular initiative.


----------



## gst

bioman, beleive me I fully understand the reqirements to build a feedlot.  And yes you are correst if all the pertinant testing impact requirements and containment systems are met a feed lot could be built in a river bottom. But, and this is a quite large BUT,* But will the Clean Water Act allow the river to be used to "wash away the maure" as Bruces claims state?????? *

Please give your "expert" opinion of wether the EPA or various other Federal regulatory laws such as the Clean Water Act would allow this to happen.


----------



## bioman

The technical and expert answer to your question is yes, in the event of a discharge some level of "manure" aka pollutants via the effluent would indeed be washed away downstream :thumb:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> he amendment has two sentences. The first says "the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state."
> 
> The second sentence reads: "No law shall be enacted which *abridges* the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices."


abridge
Definition
a·bridge[ ə bríj ]To hear the pronunciation, install SilverlightTRANSITIVE VERB 
1. shorten something: to shorten a text, e.g. by cutting or summarizing it
"abridged for television" 
2. cut something short: to reduce something in scope or extent
"trying to abridge First Amendment rights" 
3. restrict somebody's rights: to deprive somebody of rights or privileges ( archaic )

So in context of the English language, please show exactly what wording in this measure would prevent the legislative assembly from passing laws to "regulate" "modern" agriculture, livestock production, and ranching practices as long as these practices were allowed to continue with these regulations ?

As long as the Feedlot was allowed to be built and operated under the regulatory law the legislature sets forth governing "modern livestock production and ranching practices" how would that be in violation of this amendment?

The employment of agricultural technology has not been abridged. Technology has been used to comply with federal and state regs.

The employment of modern livestock production has not been abridged. The feedlot is operational and functioning.

The employement of modern ranching practices has not been abridged. Ranchers have been allowed to feed out their animals in a feedlot.

Please realize, "modern livestock production and ranching practices" do NOT include the claims plainsman has made as they are illegal. So by spelling out specifically the use of "modern" TWICE in this measure, they have specifically allowed these vetures to be held to the same regulatory laws they are held to now in "modern" times. Words like these mean things fellas, if you do not beleive so ask a lawyer or a judge!

So bioman, as an "expert" on the Clean Water Act, do "modern" livestock production methods allow for manure to be washed into rivers and pesticides to be spray irresponsibly, or illegal things to be grown as has been suggested on here? 
Csqured, anyone?


----------



## shaug

bio said,



> Shaug, my man, you had better get your facts straight if you are out collecting signatures for a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. A ballot measure and a constitutional amendment are TWO completely different things and as Csquared pointed out, not even in the same realm of government.


ND Century Code

http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/sta ... -code.html

ND State Constitution

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

I did not claim they are one and the same. I made a simple comparison. Lawyers were hired to write both. Signatures are to be collected and there is much debate about the wording of either. They are vague, they are worded poorly etc. It's deja vu all over again. It would seem the same fair chase group that was involve in measure two is at it again opposing Farm Bureaus measure.

If all you arm-chair generals think the wording is too vague too poorly worded and has no merit because the lawyers screwed up, than its should be as Dick Monson said,



> then you have nothing to worry about. You get what you pay for in legal work.


----------



## gst

]


bioman said:


> Gabe, I am an EXPERT on the Clean Water Act. It is simply what I do. I have literally permitted every type of industrial project under the Clean Water Act *EXCEPT a confined feed lot*.





gst said:


> bioman, beleive me I fully understand the reqirements to build a feedlot. And yes you are correct if all the pertinant testing impact requirements and containment systems are met a feed lot could be built in a river bottom. But, and this is a quite large BUT, But will the Clean Water Act *allow the river to be used to "wash away the maure"* as Bruces claims state??????





bioman said:


> The technical and expert answer to your question is yes, *in the event of a discharge some level of "manure" aka pollutants via the effluent would indeed be washed away downstream* :thumb:



So bioman as an "expert" on the Clean Water Act that has NEVER been involved with permitting a feedlot, you are claiming as an "expert" with an "expert answer" that the Clean Water Act WILL allow a river to be used to wash away manure from within a feedlot or the containment systems required to be built and maintained to be permitted as plainsman has claimed if this measure passes???

I do not want to make assumptions here so I am trying to have you be very specific in answering a very specific claim plainsman has made that I beleive will not be allowed to happen under the Clean Water Act which you claim to be an expert on.

Okay fellas now remember when I asked if any of you have sat across a table from these fellas that are involved in the regulatory aspect of building a feedlot? Take a look at the "expert answer" given by one of these very people (other than the fact he has never been involved in permitting a feedlot) Really look at his answer that I have underlined and then ask yourself do you really beleive someone like this who is in charge of implementing the Federal regulatory laws that deal with the claims plainsman makes will allow rivers to wash away manure out of feedlots, irresponsible use of pesticidesor things to be grown that are illegal now"??? 

Riiiigghhttt!

Now explain how this measure will trump the Clean WAter Act, the EPA, or any number of other Federal regulatory rules and agencies that prevent the claims plainsman has made.


----------



## gst

bioman, in permitting a feedlot to be built, what are the requirements for the containment system?


----------



## bioman

Nice try loser, but you can't change the question because you didn't like my answer. An NPDES PERMIT allows for a certain level of effluent to be discharged. I am stepping out for the night, so I will pick up this discussion tomorrow. Gabe, I will give you credit, you are a big time sore loser.


----------



## gst

bioman said:


> Nice try loser, but you can't change the question because you didn't like my answer. An NPDES PERMIT allows for a certain level of effluent to be discharged. I am stepping out for the night, so I will pick up this discussion tomorrow. Gabe, I will give you credit, you are a big time sore loser.


Csquared, would this be one of those "hate filled responses" you mentioned earlier??? 

plainsman, this wouldn't be one of those "getting personal" deals you claim not to want on this site as a moderator would it??  :wink: Just trying to see what the boundries are!! 

bioman, it would be pretty hard to argue my "question" has not been the same for quite a few pages of a number of different threads. Will the Clean Water Act allow for rivers to be used to wash away manure from feedlots if this measure passes as plainsamn claimed would happen?

Bioman, I simply think as an "expert" if you shared the requirements for pemitting a feedlot in their entirety as it applies to the Clean Water Act, it would be a relatively pertinant part of this discussion. So what exactly what are the requirements of a containment system to be permited to build a feedlot under this Act ?

As you "step out" tonite, stay away from the mescaline, spent says it makes you "beleive" you can fly! 

Steppin out myself, so Happy New Year, and be safe everyone!


----------



## bioman

los·er    [loo-zer] Show IPA

noun 
1. a person, team, nation, etc., that loses: The visiting team was the loser in the series.

2. Informal . a. a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor or, especially, a felony: a two-time loser.

b. a person who has failed at a particular activity: a loser at marriage.

_*c. someone or something that is marked by consistently or thoroughly bad quality, performance, etc.: Don't bother to see that film, it's a real loser.

3. Slang . a misfit, especially someone who has never or seldom been successful at a job, personal relationship, etc. *_

I anxiously await your sensational rebuttal


----------



## bioman

Gabe, every single person that has ever viewed or participated in a thread where you have posted have all come to the same conclusion, you are an arrogant, egocentric, crass human being. More importantly, you have a very juvenile and imbecile habit of conveniently changing the question when the respondent out answers you. Therefore, I am not going to answer any more of your ever changing questions that fit both your biases and idiocy. But I am going to ask you three questions:

1.) Are CAFOs a contributing source of pollutants into watersheds? Yes or No?
2.) Do these pollutants improve or degrade the watersheds water quality? Yes or No?
3.) Do you have a constitutional law degree (Sorry couldn't resist that one)? :beer:


----------



## huntin1

gst, since you are so fond of questions, how about answering this one. Shaug can help you if you like.

If this amendment is passed will it prevent the legislature from enacting a law that prohibits a modern farming practice that is accepted now, but is found to be dangerous or harmful at some point in the future?

A yes or no will do.

Edited to add: No I don't have a degree in constitutional law. Both my BA and MS are in criminal justice, but I did have 3 semesters of constitutional law while pursuing those degrees. That's about 45 weeks of classroom study. You?

Oh, and I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. 

Huntin1


----------



## shaug

Bioman said,



> Where are the majority of coal power plants built in North Dakota???


Of course they are built close to a water source as they need water to create steam. They are heavily regulated but maybe you don't think they are regulated hard enough. Is your concern the environment or do you have an ulterior motive?

Good morning Ryan,

https://picasaweb.google.com/ctgilfoy/W ... 6350599986

You're kind of a sawed off little runt.

As a project manager at CH2M HILL would you care to elaborate on what duties you perform there.

http://www.americantowns.com/wy/cheyenn ... ing-201612

Would you like to see the total demise of coal mines so that the business your in can thrive? Let me ask you this. If you were on a life support machine for about a week or two, what would rather have that life support machine hooked up to, a coal fired generating station or a windmill?


----------



## Csquared

Nice post, 1...... How many of these       came to mind when you saw gst had pasted the actual definition of abridge, yet still asked this question...



> So in context of the English language, please show exactly what wording in this measure would prevent the legislative assembly from passing laws to "regulate" "modern" agriculture, livestock production, and ranching practices as long as these practices were allowed to continue with these regulations ?


Probably sums up rather well why this post is 12 pages long, yet except for his questions, hasn't changed much at all.

But due to the length, it should be clear to all by now that a thread started as a suggestion for voters to do their own research prior to forming their opinion has morphed into a fact _hiding _mission by the ones who stand to gain the most (short term) by the passage of the measure.


----------



## Csquared

> Report this postReply with quoteRe: Talk to a farmer
> by shaug » Sun Jan 01, 2012 11:21 am
> 
> Bioman said,
> 
> Where are the majority of coal power plants built in North Dakota???
> 
> Of course they are built close to a water source as they need water to create steam. They are heavily regulated but maybe you don't think they are regulated hard enough. Is your concern the environment or do you have an ulterior motive?
> 
> Good morning Ryan,
> 
> https://picasaweb.google.com/ctgilfoy/W ... 6350599986
> 
> You're kind of a sawed off little runt.
> 
> As a project manager at CH2M HILL would you care to elaborate on what duties you perform there.
> 
> http://www.americantowns.com/wy/cheyenn ... ing-201612
> 
> Would you like to see the total demise of coal mines so that the business your in can thrive? Let me ask you this. If you were on a life support machine for about a week or two, what would rather have that life support machine hooked up to, a coal fired generating station or a windmill?


Now you're gonna do it too, shaug? Attack the messenger, since you can no longer argue the message? This has *NOTHING* to do with who's asking the questions. Explain your stance , with substantiated facts, of how a constitutional amendment can be "altered" by the general assembly and I would expect most, if not all, of us will shut up.


----------



## gst

bioman, this was the claim made by plainsman that will happen if this measure passes.

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

I have steadfastly (that means not changing) held that the Federal regulations in a number of agencies as well as the Clean Water Act wouldpreventthat from happening.

You claimed you were an "expert" on the Clean Water Act so I asked for a simple answer to this question. Will the Clean Water Act prevent plainsmans claims from happening if this measure passes? Most would tell you this is a quesion I have also maintained in a steadfast manner (meaning not changing) thru out this discussion as well.

I then asked as an expert on the Clean Water Act and the permitting process required by it, if you would share the complete requirements that must be followd in order for a feedlot to be permitted under the Clean Water Act.

I may be mistaken, but I do not beleive you have "answered" either of these two questions. Why? I beleive the answers would be pertinant to this discussion.


----------



## Csquared

> I may be mistaken, but I do not beleive you have "answered" either of these two questions.


I believe huntin1 has one for you above that you haven't answered either



> If this amendment is passed will it prevent the legislature from enacting a law that prohibits a modern farming practice that is accepted now, but is found to be dangerous or harmful at some point in the future?


----------



## gst

huntin1 said:


> gst, since you are so fond of questions, how about answering this one. Shaug can help you if you like.
> 
> If this amendment is passed will it prevent the legislature from enacting a law that prohibits a modern farming practice that is accepted now, but is found to be dangerous or harmful at some point in the future?
> 
> A yes or no will do.
> 
> Edited to add: No I don't have a degree in constitutional law. Both my BA and MS are in criminal justice, but I did have 3 semesters of constitutional law while pursuing those degrees. That's about 45 weeks of classroom study. You?
> 
> Oh, and I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
> 
> Huntin1


 Huntin one, as I said at the very start of this discussion when I first asked the questions about art. 1 sec 21of our constitution, I am no constitutional law expert. The comments I have shared are what others whom I trust and respect in their knowledge of constitutional law have shared with me in discussion regarding this meausre. As plainsamn said in his first post in this thread, it will take a little digging on our own to get to the "truth" regarding this measure. So with the understanding of the admission I made early on, I can not give you a factual answer in a simple yes or no form without asking someone else who knows far more than I in these matters. I would GUESS, as I said before in this discussion, that this could be a question that would be decided by the courts as is the end result of many constitutional amendments.

Now having given your credientials on constitutional law, pehaps you could answer wether your scenario would fall under an "individual or group of individuals" being given "special priveledges" or immunities that is specifically prohibited in our constitution uder Art. 1 Sec. 21 and therefore be unable to be exempt from having regulations imposed.

Perhaps as you have offered up your credentials as a qualifying standard for giving an opinion, you would care to answer this question as well.

If this measure is successful and this amendment entered into our constitution, would it be substantially more difficult for a group such as North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase and their partner the HSUS to take another run at banning captive cervid operations here in ND?

Perhaps you could also answer what percentage of the most vocal opponants to this measure were involved in or supporters of the last attempt to do this?


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Now you're gonna do it too, shaug? *Attack the messenger*, since you can no longer argue the message? This has NOTHING to do with who's asking the questions.


 

Csquared, given some of the comments you have made on here, this might qualify as the most hypocritical statement of the young New Year. :roll:

C squared wrote: "_Describes me to a "T". I didn't give a fyin fluck about this subject matter until gst showed his arse. I now find myself feeling I owe leadfed a huge apology for starting to think he was just another egotistical, narcissistic, rude, obnoxious, no reading ability, shameless, childish lunatic fringe ND land baron I thought was being represented here. You can imagine my relief to realize he was nothing of the sort_.

_So take it for what it's worth, but to a guy from Il who has nothing to gain and almost nothing to lose on this issue, what I watched here DEFINITELY turned me against ND landowners_."end quote

As an Illinois resident that will be "almost" unaffected by this state constitutional amendment, what is your purpose in this discussion if not to "attack the messenger"?


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> I would GUESS, as I said before in this discussion, that this could be a question that would be decided by the courts as is the end result of many constitutional amendments.


And my answer to both of your questions is basically the same. This is something that would be decided on a level way above my pay grade. I am neither a lawyer or a judge.

But if this measure is, as was alluded to earlier, a retribution by NDFB for the right to hunt measure, the question then becomes: Why is the NDFB wasting our time and money on a measure that appears to be nothing more than a school yard payback?

Example:


shaug said:


> *You have your meaningless amendment, now let us have ours.* Who knows, maybe the Farm Bureau Measure will have teeth. Before it can be placed in the Constitution it has to go before our elected representatives. Maybe that is what you guys are most afraid of?


(bold added by me)

Made in response to:



swift said:


> But somehow claims this amendment will protect farming from the boogieman down the road. I can't see it at all. The constitutional amendment that was passed securing the right to hunt and fish doesn't give anybody the actual right to do it.


Why not concentrate on something that really means something?

huntin1


----------



## Csquared

gst wrote:


> As an Illinois resident that will be "almost" unaffected by this state constitutional amendment, what is your purpose in this discussion if not to "attack the messenger"?


I've answered many times....



> Like I said last night, I had zero interest in this at first, but I do now,





> I'm a thousand miles away, so aside from my aversion to BS this doesn't affect me in the least.





> adding verbiage to the constitution that forbids any laws to be written to regulate how farmers and ranchers apply their trade should scare the heck out of everyone.....maybe even those a thousand miles away.


There's a few of them for you. But your choice to deflect attention from the facts of this measure that you don't want brought to the surface by attacking and discrediting those who dare to press you and shaug is not lost on anyone who reads your one-sided posts. Call me whatever you want. It simply doesn't matter to me, anyone who reads this, OR ANYONE WHO WILL VOTE ON IT how I am viewed on this site. Myself, Bioman, huntin1, leadfed, indsport, spentwings. swift, Ron Gilmore, Plainsman, etc. are simply asking questions that you JUST NOW are finally acknowledging you can't answer in a way that supports your case, and in some cases directly contradicts statements you made early on in this thread.



> gst wrote:
> I have merely suggested that an answer to this question will allow the TRUTH regarding this measure to be known.
> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening.
> 
> In case you are not aware, the emboldened, underlined wording above exists in our states constitution already. The italisized, underlined wording is the question I posed at the start of this debate in an effort to get to the TRUTH about what this measure will indeed have the power to do in relationship to the powers granted the legislative body already in our Constitution.
> 
> I stand by the beleive (opionion) that this existing constitutional wording will ultimately retain the power of the elected representatives of this state to create, impose and maintain regulatory law as it was represented to me.
> 
> If this is indeed the case I suppose one can argue the value of such an amendment similar to the value of the "right" to hunt amendment as well.


We could literally spend a week correcting all your misrepresentations posted in this thread alone, but for now simply note you said it was your opinion earlier that sec 21 of Article 1 allowed the legislature to amend the constitution. You later told me flatly it did not, and you now acknowledge to huntin 1 that you really don't know. For now allow me to point to two words in sec 21 of Article 1 that make your explanation suspect.... "privileges" and "immunities". Anyone who has a slightly better grasp of law in general than yourself will quickly notice those two things are "granted" by the government in various ways. But a RIGHT...the very thing addressed in the pending measure, is God given. Your constitution uses the phrase "We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty..." That is only one of several reasons why sec 21 will not "trump" sec 20, or the new measure,as written.....like your case so desperately needs voters to believe.

But you also said on Dec 2 here that you were to attend a meeting on Wed, Dec 7 that would put you in the company of those who could explain the secret tactics that could be employed by the general assembly to alter a constitution which clearly is set up to be changed ONLY by THE PEOPLE.

I haven't noticed a report on that meeting. How'd it go ?

Oh, and the right to hunt amendment you mentioned...sec 27...it contains the verbiage "will be...managed by law...". That gives the legislature the power to limit the right sec 27 is protecting. Something conveniently lacking in the pending measure.

And gst, why have all of your posts been edited?


----------



## Bad Dog

Bioman, amen brother.


> Gabe, every single person that has ever viewed or participated in a thread where you have posted have all come to the same conclusion, you are an arrogant, egocentric, crass human being. More importantly, you have a very juvenile and imbecile habit of conveniently changing the question when the respondent out answers you. Therefore, I am not going to answer any more of your ever changing questions that fit both your biases and idiocy.


I have asked gst a couple of times in efforts to assist the ranching community and it always came back to not time, no money, and no answer. I truely believe and have put my heart into making sure that ranching stays an effective part of the ND landscape and gst and shaug have done nothing but nothing. If they truely wanted to work toegther then they would. But actions speak louder than words (spoken or typed)>


----------



## Plainsman

> And gst, why have all of your posts been edited?


So he can conveniently say "show me where I said that", and then call me a liar. Once you call me a liar gst, don't tell me anything someone says about you is personal. Your the biggest violator on here and far beyond the rules. Like all bullies your proud of violating the rules and getting away with it. I personally think your plan is to keep going in circles to frustrate people to the point of saying something out of line so you can complain about them. I'm sure of it.

An example would be calling him on the no till corn as a common practice. I talked with many corn farmers this fall, one who has more than 5,000 acres into corn. He says with expensive equipment it would be possible, but he knows no one who does it. That's not common. Now my guess is gst will want me to waste hours looking for that. He want say it's not true he will imply it by saying "please show me where I said that". I think we all remember the mileage he made for over a month giving me static about being stupid because I was unaware of this common practice.

The amendment wouldn't be that dangerous if it was not for the fact that at the same time NDFB wants this amendment they also want all regulations removed. Some on other sites have voiced their wishes for the EPA to be gone completely. So who would enforce the regulations gst speaks of? What regulations will remain? The dishonesty here is they don't wish to answer questions like that when I have asked, and now huntin1 has asked the same.

Governments job is to secure liberty for it's citizens. Another job is to protect it's citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. We who do not farm have the right to be protected from those who would endanger our health. The NDFB evidently thinks their freedom to farm for greed precedes our freedom of health and even life. Those who support this amendment do so at the peril of fellow Americans. When did government decide your profit is worth more than our life? I think it takes a very bad person to support this amendment. May God have mercy on the greedy yet deliver us from them.

Many post ago I said NDFB wants regulations removed. gst responded with:


> This simply is not true. This measure will not "do away with regulations on agriculture". When you make this claim plainsman you are lying.
> And when you do so in a manner that includes lying about agriculture I will continue to point out your lies.
> I tell you what plainsman, dislike NDFB all you wish, point out the policies you disagree with to whomever you wish, simply stop short of lying and making false claims you can not factually prove or substantiate and you can do whatever you wish without my having to involve myself ith this site any more.


And when you do so in a manner that includes lying about agriculture I will continue to point out your lies.
However since that time people have posted just that thing from the NDFB web page. They do want regulations removed.


----------



## Plainsman

lol I run across this.

Plainsman wrote:


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


gst responded:


> Bull****.


Now we are told it's to vague, but it's to late to change it. So guys was I right the first time or what? oke: So now I say there is no question about there being hidden agendas.


----------



## Csquared

The hidden agenda is not quite so hidden anymore, and in addition to what you've detailed above there's 13 pages of flip-flop and dodged questions right here that should show that very clearly by now. I honestly tried to stay out but grew a bit tired of their repeated attempts to equate a constitutional amendment with legislative powers that could be "tweaked" on an as needed basis...all thinly disguised as ambiquous verbiage that they have no control over and cannot change :shake:

I hope I didn't overstep the bounds of my non-resident status here, Plainsman. And if I offended anyone other than shaug and gst in the process, please accept my sincere apology.

Gonna go watch the Cowboys get their azzes handed to em now.

HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!!!!!!


----------



## shaug

Huntin1 wrote,



> But if this measure is, as was alluded to earlier, a retribution by NDFB for the right to hunt measure, the question then becomes: Why is the NDFB wasting our time and money on a measure that appears to be nothing more than a school yard payback?


Is that what you think, retributation, school yard payback? In Sept. 2010, I went to a large meeting of commodity groups. I explained to the them that the elk and deer growers need help concerning measure two and election day Nov.2, 2010. They listened but said we are just not seeing the HSUS connection. On the surface it looked to them like a fight between fair chase hunters and the cervid ranchers. I told them that this group isn't made up of your everday sportsman. Seven sponsors are/were federal employees, eleven came from this board and two are local humane society. I told them fair chase has no money, and will try to do their advertizing through letters to the editor. The elk growers can run with them letter for letter. That will be a zero sum game. I told them that the Humane Society of the United States will come into ND with a bag full of money. The ag commodity groups decided to stand down. After all the propondants of the measure swore on their mothers grave and to God that there was no financial aid coming from HSUS. They lied. And then the Humane Society Legislative Fund ran those ads. Everything changed overnight. A sleeping giant awakened. Everything that I predicted would happen did. Mike McEnroe (retired federal biologist and lobbyist for the wildlfie society) and Dick Monson finally admitted in July 2011 Dakota Country rag mag that they were the ones who made the decision to take that money from HSUS.

Hunt, this isn't retribution. Farm Bureau wasn't even interested in the fair chase initiative. There is much HSUS activity and trouble in other states. Measure Two was a wake up call to ND Commodity groups in ND. This Farm Bureau measure will spur our legislature into action.



> Why not concentrate on something that really means something?


Hunt1, it will mean something.

The idea of needing to protect the right to farm seems a little silly, at first blush. After all, isn't that part of our property rights? If you own land, and you think you can farm and and produce a crop, isn't that your right? It's a sad sign of the times that this is no longer the presumption, and must be "spelled out in law."


----------



## huntin1

Ok, I'm a little confused.

swift says,


swift said:


> But somehow claims this amendment will protect farming from the boogieman down the road. I can't see it at all. The constitutional amendment that was passed securing the right to hunt and fish doesn't give anybody the actual right to do it.


To which you respond,


shaug said:


> You have your meaningless amendment, now let us have ours. Who knows, maybe the Farm Bureau Measure will have teeth. Before it can be placed in the Constitution it has to go before our elected representatives. Maybe that is what you guys are most afraid of?


I see nothing in either one of these comments that speaks to the fair chase initiative or anything having to do with it.

The words are yours, "You have your meaningless amendment, now let us have ours." sounds like retribution to me, or the petty payback you see when grade-schoolers argue.

My opinion of course, others may see it differently.



shaug said:


> Hunt1, it will mean something.
> 
> The idea of needing to protect the right to farm seems a little silly, at first blush. After all, isn't that part of our property rights? If you own land, and you think you can farm and and produce a crop, isn't that your right? It's a sad sign of the times that this is no longer the presumption, and must be "spelled out in law."


So what exactly will it mean? That you can farm as you see fit with no regulation governing what you do? Hey, that would make my job so much easier too. Who needs the 4th Amendment, i should be able to search wherever and whenever I want. And what about the 14th, who needs due process, if the cops arrest you you must be guilty. Miranda? who the heck is that?

Regulations are there for a reason. Honest hardworking farmers will do the right thing, often without regulation. But, there will always be those, in every profession, who will take short cuts regardless of the harm they may cause. These guys are the reason that regulations exist and are necessary, to farmers, to cops, to oil workers, whomever.

This proposed amendment is a joke. It is a waste of our legislatures time and therefore a waste of our money.

Again, my opinion, others will see things differently.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

> Is that what you think, retributation, school yard payback?


The way you and gst keep bringing up the fair chase certainly makes it look that way to me also shaug. In all seriousness, and not trying to be abrasive it does look that way.



> I told them that this group isn't made up of your everday sportsman. Seven sponsors are/were federal employees, eleven came from this board and two are local humane society.


So what is the point if seven were federal employees and eleven came from this board? Does that make it any less from real sporstsmen? Since when were two from the local humane society? Do you mean HSUS again? That's not true. Do you mean the plane jane humane society that takes care of dogs and cats? I was not aware of that either. I don't like the animal rights type people, but I have nothing against people who wish to treat animals humanely, as in use enough gun, and take purposeful shots that don't wound. Now if you just take part of that sentence and post elsewhere that will be dishonest. I have had that done to me before. Now you know where the distrust comes from.

I didn't know many people on that first years fair chase committee. One I knew well, and two others I knew from presentations they gave at professional societies. Those were all hunters. The first year I gathered some signatures, but at my table I had hunting pictures of myself. I didn't say much to people on way or another. I would rather this had been done another way through a hunting regulation rather than dealing with ranching.

So you see shaug when I sit here at my keyboard and see things I know are not true trust is gone. You asked what people said untrue things that set me off and got me into the debate last time. You wanted names. Perhaps the above could serve as that example. Dishonest? I don't know, maybe just careless. Maybe just such a hatred of government that you think they are all bad.

I was not a typical federal employee shaug. I am conservative, and that certainly was not typical in my circle. As a matter of fact it made me a real oddball. Being Christian in science also made me out of place. I share many of your values shaug, but you painted me in a different light to the public. If you crap on everyone, even those much like you, where will that leave you in the end? I shoot to 1000 yards to make hunting more challenging. I hunt with a bow to make hunting more challenging. I hunt blackpower, and am considering a flintlock to make hunting more challenging. I supported the fair chase measure the first time because I find shooting an animal without a chance against my values. I didn't support it the second time because I didn't think it was being done right, and I dislike HSUS and high fence about the same.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> So what is the point if seven were federal employees and eleven came from this board? Does that make it any less from real sporstsmen?


It sure as heck does in my book when you welcome help from HSUS and even go as far as telling us we were just using HSUS as the boogieman.

Plainsman Stated:


> The first year I gathered some signatures, but at my table I had hunting pictures of myself. I didn't say much to people on way or another.


Interesting that you can remember gathering signatures, when you cannot remember signing the petition yourself.

Plainsman Stated:


> And gst, why have all of your posts been edited?
> 
> So he can conveniently say "show me where I said that", and then call me a liar. Once you call me a liar gst, don't tell me anything someone says about you is personal. Your the biggest violator on here and far beyond the rules. Like all bullies your proud of violating the rules and getting away with it. I personally think your plan is to keep going in circles to frustrate people to the point of saying something out of line so you can complain about them. I'm sure of it.


Maybe I am missing something here, but when I look back at gst's posts, not ALL of them have been edited and the ones that are edited are usually within a 1/2 hour of posting. You would think plainsman if indeed he was trying to cover his tracks so he could call you a liar as you say, he would actually be editing things out a day to a couple of days later. As a "super" moderator are you just trying to stir the pot?


----------



## Plainsman

> Interesting that you can remember gathering signatures, when you cannot remember signing the petition yourself.


I remember signing the first year because I was involved the first year. I often wonder if I am forgetful or your just screwed up. I'm sure you will have another story. Disappearing posts and rabbits again.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:



> I remember signing the first year because I was involved the first year. I often wonder if I am forgetful or your just screwed up. I'm sure you will have another story. Disappearing posts and rabbits again.


Here is what you stated previously when I asked if you if you signed for your wife, as your signature and wife's signature looked the same and had been flagged by the attorneys for the elk growers as the same:

Plainsman stated: _I never asked my wife to sign it and I don't think she ever did. 
_
I then stated: _I did not say she signed, I said you signed for her, or maybe that was another lady you signed for right under your name._

I also then told you: _P.S. I found the signatures. Is your wife Sheryl? If so, the handwriting looks the same, very neat, and it was actually flagged as the same handwriting by the attorneys._

You then stated: _LT, *good send me those signatures*.

*Still I am interested to see those signatures. I know my memory is not the greatest, but to tell the truth I can't remember signing the petition myself. I really want to see those signatures.
*
_

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743&start=480

So did you sign for your wife?


----------



## gst

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

Will the Clean Water Act, the Federal regulatory agency EPA and or any number of other Federal agencies and regulations prevent these claims plainsman made fom happening? Yes or no.

"I beleive" anyone that does not believe they will prevent these claims from happening should invest their own equity in building a feedlot on a river bottom, and find out! :wink: You will not get the chance to have the spring flood carry the manure away as there will be no manure as you will not be permitted to operate and there will be no cattle in your feedlot.

plainsman, perhaps you are a better typer than I and do not have to "edit" your posts for spelling corrections. Remember now you accused me of editing posts on FBO and deleting things as you have here and your claim there simply was not true as post there can not be edited after 30 minutes. Remember you did not realize that fact when you made your accusation there. Perhaps as a super moderator if this is of a concern to you, you could have this site set up th same way.



Csquared said:


> but for now simply note you said it was your opinion earlier that sec 21 of Article 1 allowed the legislature to amend the constitution


C squared, perhaps I may be wrong, and if I am I'm sure you will provide were I made the statement, but I do not beleive I have ever stated Article 1 Section 21 of our Constitution gave the legislative assembly the power to amend our constitution. It is my opinion after talking with people much more qualified than anyone on this site as of yet, that this section of our constitution allows the legislative assembly to continue to create and implement regulatory law regardless of this amendment.

There is quite a little difference in those two statements.

My entire involvement in this discussion was to ask plainsman to substantiate the claims he has made regarding this amendment and how they will happen given the various agencies and regulatory law that will remain and continue to prevent them. NO ONE has addressed these simple questions.


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> Bioman, amen brother.
> 
> 
> 
> Gabe, every single person that has ever viewed or participated in a thread where you have posted have all come to the same conclusion, you are an arrogant, egocentric, crass human being. More importantly, you have a very juvenile and imbecile habit of conveniently changing the question when the respondent out answers you. Therefore, I am not going to answer any more of your ever changing questions that fit both your biases and idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> *I have asked gst a couple of times in efforts to assist the ranching community and it always came back to not time, no money, and no answer.* I truely believe and have put my heart into making sure that ranching stays an effective part of the ND landscape and gst and shaug have done nothing but nothing. If they truely wanted to work toegther then they would. But actions speak louder than words (spoken or typed)>
Click to expand...

Bad dog, do recall a PM conversation you and I had titled "rift"?


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> *I have asked gst a couple of times in efforts to assist the ranching community and it always came back to not time, no money, and no answer*. *I truely believe and have put my heart into making sure that ranching stays an effective part of the ND landscape and gst and shaug have done nothing but nothing*. If they truely wanted to work toegther then they would. But actions speak louder than words (spoken or typed)>


Bad dog, this is one of my PM responses to your question as to what you could do to help insure ranching stays part of the landscape and why a "rift" exists betwen ag and wildlife groups from may 3 of this year.

May 03, 2011
_bad dog, by simply talking with these young ranchers in your area directly or by contacting the NDSA director in your area, you can likely identify more young ranchers in your area. These individuals themselves would be able to much more directly share the issues they are facing thn I can probably relate. A LARGE part of the reason the pp;olicies that are developed by the members of the ranching industry that are involved in the NDSA is directed at insuring there are opportunities for the next generations to do exactly what you wish, have an opportunity to be stewards of these grass lands thru the production of cattle on them. It is a pretty simple straight forward goal and policy.

As to your earlier question wondering why a "rift" exists, it is becasue a few vocal sportsmen are allowed to speak out in the manner of what you have seen on this site. These sites are often looked at as the "voice" of the ND sportsman. When comments like what have been made on here are allowed to dominate these discussions without other sportsmen weighing in, people veiw these comments as the attitudes of more than just a few. Not everyone is expected to agree, but if you truly wish to do somethig in regards to this rift, speak out in courteous factual manners and hold your fellow sportsmwen acountable to do the same. Very little gets accomplished when the people sitting at the table make it personal by making untrue claims and resort to calling others "dumbasses"

Why do you think the ranching community is so willing to work with groups like the NRCS to develope conservation programs but yet so unwilling to work with various sportsmen groups that in some cases have similar conservation programs? It is because of the attitudes shown on sites like this by these very sportsmen that champion these groups and are members of them. Changing this begins with sportsmen themselves. Allow groups like DU and the Nature Conservancy to continue doing what they have (reselling lands ect..) and allow sportsmen to defensd them in the manner that has been shown on this site, and you will likely never get the ranching community to involve themselves in any dealings or be supportive of any policy these orgs and individuals have. L:ike I said, we don;t have to always agree, but respect and trust is earned by both sides, inform yourself to what the NDSA is about and determine if they and their members are a group wothy of your respect and trust and wether your goals are compatable with theirs of allowing future generations to be stewards of the lands they are entrusted with in making a living raising their families on them. If you are truly serious about approaching your goals with an open mind, I would welcome you to join me at our next annual convention in Bismarck in Sept to see a little more what this org is about_ End quote

Note back before this measure and thread even came out I was suggesting one "talk with a young rancher" ! :wink:

Bad dog what was your response to being invited to join me at our annual convention in an effort to "work together"? If you wish I can post a couple more of my responses to questions you asked in that PM conversation. As plainsman said earlier it is not against any rules to share ones own comments from PM's.

So spent would you beleive this response I gave Bad dog one of a "radical" nature? Simply two people talking without all the juvenile crap. Radical indeed.


----------



## shaug

Huntin1,

Maybe you think my comment was juvenile:



> You have your meaningless amendment, now let us have ours. Who knows, maybe the Farm Bureau Measure will have teeth. Before it can be placed in the Constitution it has to go before our elected representatives. Maybe that is what you guys are most afraid of?


Sometimes a person gets down on swifts level. For many years swift has been on here and FBO telling the elk ranchers to quit fighting so hard. Let it go to a vote. (HFI) Let the people decide. What are those elk ranchers so afraid of? In all the back and forth my questions is, "what are you guys so afraid of?" After awhile swift can kind of grind on a guy.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog wrote,



> I truely believe and have put my heart into making sure that ranching stays an effective part of the ND landscape and gst and shaug have done nothing but nothing. If they truely wanted to work toegther then they would. But actions speak louder than words (spoken or typed)>


Some time ago you said you were buying small bundles of meat from a local farmer. You pick up or he delivers. It is illegal to sell raw meat off of the farm or haul it around in an uncertified vehicle. Either your farmer friend is violating the law or you misspoke. By pointing out the obvious, that doesn't make me a bad person.


----------



## Plainsman

LT your simply throwing mud. Which year we are talking about makes a lot of difference. Even though the first year was longer ago I remember it better because I was involved. The second time around I only remember debating on here. I know your ticked and looking for every avenue to even the score so to speak. Much like Shaug asked huntin1 if he thought this was just retribution. Your out simply to try do damage. Same with your stories about not knowing why your brother was booted. You know. Then there are your disappearing posts. I can't follow your twisted thoughts.

LT do you have anything constructive to add to this thread or is it just going to be more of your whining an accusations?

huntin1 wrote:


> Ok, I'm a little confused.


That's their method of operation. Spin in circles until you loose track of what the heck is going on and say something wrong. Unfortunately every year makes that easier for them. It's like that part of our constitution gst keeps posting that says the legislature can change things or the EPA has regulations. Well if the regulations go away or the EPA goes away what then? He will answer that, but it will not stop him from asking that same question 20 times on five different threads. Then there is LT who asks me questions I know nothing about.

Oh, ya and you noticed gst didn't address the bull droppings he shoveled about no till corn. He held me up like a fool because I didn't realize it was a "common practice". All the while reality being no one does it. Confusing, you bet. Simply look at how this thead started and where gst took it. Then there is LT who lurks and waits for an opening. I only hope it's as obvious to everyone else. It certainly has nothing to do with talking to a farmer. It's a three or four year old whiz match that he or she whatever it is can't get over.

It would be great if people could simply post what farmers are telling them. Much like Ron has done. That way we can all get an idea of what the farmers are thinking. I would also be interested to hear what people here are hearing from the general public.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Oh, ya and you noticed gst didn't address the bull droppings he shoveled about no till corn. He held me up like a fool because I didn't realize it was a "common practice". All the while reality being no one does it


plainsman, perhpas you can talk with Csquared about no till corn in Ill. Corn is not a primary crop here in ND quite yet. Take a look around the country and see what is happening in no till corn production. Take a look at the planters that Deere is producing. Do you honestly beleive a company like that would invest th research, developement, and manufacturing dollars into the no till planting units they produce if there was not a demand? Call your local dealer and see how many planters they have sold that are not set up for no till planting.

If you are basing your veiws on this on one last single year, indeed given the wet conditions there was more tilling done to open the land to dry it out but to claim no till planting is not expanding and becoming "common" only shows how little you understand "modern farming practices" .


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> LT your simply throwing mud. Which year we are talking about makes a lot of difference. Even though the first year was longer ago I remember it better because I was involved. The second time around I only remember debating on here. I know your ticked and looking for every avenue to even the score so to speak.


Plainsman, the signatures I was talking about were from the FIRST go round. Interesting that you would never have asked me that when we had this conversation initially. You just stated that you did not remember signing. So did you sign for your wife?

I did not bring up the disappearing posts, but since you brought that up again interesting that now you are alluding to it all being in my head but yet here is what you had to say awhile back: *You stated: * _Hmmmm, I could have sworn a couple of your recent posts were missing last night, but they are there this morning. Maybe I was just trying to do to many things to fast last night. Sorry to confuse you. Now to unconfuse myself. Some days I like those compasses that have a little bubble in them. They don't always tell you which way is north, but they will tell you which way is up. _ * I Stated:* _But I thought that you thought the disappearing posts were all in my "head" and I was just making up stories_ *And you then stated:* _No, I didn't think it was all in your head, but it upset me that you thought I would do that without an explanation. When I remove or edit anything I always leave my name on the post and the reason I made any changes._

I did not bring up my brother being booted, but since you brought that up as well. He did nothing wrong. He was booted from this site and Fishing Buddy and Fishing Buddy did reinstate him as they could not figure out why he was booted, but for some reason he was never reinstated here and never given any reason as to why he was booted.

Plainsman Stated:


> Disappearing posts and rabbits again.


Rabbits???? Do you mean like "bunny" ranches which is what some called cervid farms on here the first go round. Do you remember the pm you sent me a day after the use of this term on here? Either you were intentionally playing with me or you have really weird timing. :shake:

And yes by all means, talk to a farmer, but not one of those "bunny" ranchers.


----------



## Plainsman

I don't remember the term bunny ranch. I was thinking more in the terms of being pulled out of a hat.

Your right I do forget many things. So what makes all these little jabs so valuable to you. Like I said to huntin1 he isn't the only one getting confused.

LT what is your current goal? Is it get even, or do you have an interest in the NDFB amendment?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I don't remember the term bunny ranch. I was thinking more in the terms of being pulled out of a hat.
> 
> Your right I do forget many things. So what makes all these little jabs so valuable to you. Like I said to huntin1 he isn't the only one getting confused.
> 
> LT what is your current goal? Is it get even, or do you have an interest in the NDFB amendment?


Not speakingfor LT, but perhaps the interest is in preventing another group of ND hunters from inviting a group like HSUS into ND to ban captive cervid ranching or any other animal ag enterprise.

plainsman, perhaps you are getting "forgetful". While making all those claims of what this measure would "prevent" and "allow" , you convieniently forgot to mention that it would prevent people like yourself and the others that attempted twice in the past from banning things like this.

plainsman, ever come up with the proof to substantiate your claim from back then that I owned and ran a HFH operation?

So what would YOU call making a claim like that which simply is not true?

Any way as suggested, indeed talk with a farmer or rancher about this measure, Share with them the posts in these ag related threads from a handful of people on here. Find your own answers rather than relying on ANYONES comments on this site. Inform yourself and choose to sign or not.

.


----------



## Plainsman

gst I have shared your opinion with other farmers. Most don't say a lot. One said you were a poor representative of NDFB. Another said you poorly represented farmers. This works both ways you know. Most who I talk to want to disassociate themselves from you and shaug. I was however very surprised that the farmers were more upset with your attitude than those in the general public. I don't understand that.

So positive or negative what are these people telling you.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> So spent would you believe this response I gave Bad dog one of a "radical" nature? Simply two people talking without all the juvenile crap. Radical indeed.


So why not carry on the same way in open forum?
I'll tell you why,,,it ain't about radicalism, rationalism vs.empiricism, debating, or even spinning.
*Once again*,,,it comes across as an almost pathological antagonism between a few on both sides. 
But then,,, I'm not without sin either.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog wrote,



> I have asked gst a couple of times in efforts to assist the ranching community and it always came back to not time, no money, and no answer. I truely believe and have put my heart into making sure that ranching stays an effective part of the ND landscape and gst and shaug have done nothing but nothing. If they truely wanted to work toegther then they would. But actions speak louder than words (spoken or typed)>


You are the one who came on here attacking Farm Bureau for not doing enough to support your pet project called (CSA) Community Supported Agriculture. I don't believe FB is doing anything to stand in your way either. A few years ago it was legal to sell meat in Fargo ND from state inspected plants but unlawful to sell that very same meat across the border to persons in Moorhead MN. In order to sell meat into MN it would have to go through a federal plant. Think about it, state inspected meat was good enough for our citizens but not across any border. That regulation has since been repealed. It was commonsense legislation but in Plainsmans eyes he will scream Farm Bureau wants no regulations.

Bad Dog, if you want to promote your CSA's, if you want to purchase raw meat fresh off the farm, then start at the ND State Meat Inspection Department, talk to your local farm organizations, your legislator. Change the law. These people are lions. Your other option is to pound on your keyboard exchanging really poor ideas with Plainsman and his hyenas.


----------



## spentwings

:eyeroll: 
Have fun little men,,,I'm done with you!


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> So why not carry on the same way in open forum?


I would most certainly like to. On FBO for some reason it seems much easier too! Even swift, ron and plainsman are abit more "cordial" on this different site! 



spentwings said:


> Once again,,,it comes across as an almost pathological antagonism between a few on both sides.


Spent, if you go WAAAYYYY back to the very beginning of the discussion on this thread a claim was made by plainsman. I think by now everyone knows what this claim was. A QUESTION was asked at the time if wording in our Constittution would continue to allow the legislative assembly to create and implement regulatory law that would prevent these claims from happening.

It was pointed out that there does and will continue to be Federal agencies and regulations that will in FACT prevent these claims from happening. Instead of accepting that as fact and admitting these claims would indeed not be allowed to occur, plainsman has continued with the support of a few to perpetuate a mistruth. If anyone does not beleive this to be a mistruth answer one simple question.

Wiil the Federal Clean Water Act and EPA permitting requirements requireing containment systems, manure management plans, Pestcide labeling, application regulations, application licensing ect... prevent feedlots from being built on river biottoms so spring floods carry away the manure, irresponsible pesticide use, and the growing of things that are now illegal?

Who here has factually addressed and answered this question?????

Now given the FACT that a small number of people have chosen to simply perpetuate these claims rather than dealing with the fact mentioned above, or bother to find FACTUAL answers to get to the actual TRUTH, yes there is an "antagonism" that does occur. Particularily when one has "claimed" to want the "truth" to be known regarding this measure, and yet continues to avoid finding it by asking some simple questions of those that could set the record straight.

It has been suggested that the ND State Attorney Generals office be called and an official "opinion" begiven to settle the discussion about the wording of this measure. It has been suggested the EPA or other agencies be called to get an "official" asnwer wether these claims would be allowed to happen to get to the "truth" about this measure. Who here has done so since these claims were made back in August???

It has been suggested that when debating something as significant as creating a constitutional amendment or state law that factual truth be the basis of the discussion. Radical ideas I know.

Spent from my stand point, the "antagonism" is not toward an individual personality, it is towards the seemingly perpetual willingness by a very small number of people to simply overlook the factual truth when commenting on agriculture, how I make my living, on this "hunting and fishin" website.

Perhaps you recall a promise that has been made repeatedly. Simply stick to factual statements that one can substantiate when debating issues relating to agriculture and I would have NO reason to be on this site. One would think these small handful of people making the juvenile personal comments calling for me to be removed from this site would wlecome and hold others to those simple standards. Perhaps they would simply rather have me booted than have to conform to these simple courteousies.

Anyway, little remains to be said that has not already been done to point out certain facts that remain that will prevent the claims made from happening. So as the thread says, indeed talk with a farmer or rancher, share the comments and threads on this site with them.

Radical ideas indeed.


----------



## swift

Gst, your such a bore. Can you come up witn a different tag line. Truth and fact has been stated and you choose to overlook them to go back to an extreme example from 12the pages ago.

I find it amusing that by your own words your pet org is lobbying to remove the EPA from regulating In ND. And then use the EPA in another arguement.


----------



## spentwings

The other side was right about one thing gst,,,you are a windbag.


----------



## swift

> Sometimes a person gets down on swifts level. For many years swift has been on here and FBO telling the elk ranchers to quit fighting so hard. Let it go to a vote. (HFI) Let the people decide. What are those elk ranchers so afraid of? In all the back and forth my questions is, "what are you guys so afraid of?" After awhile swift can kind of grind on a guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Shaug your an idiot. I never supported the HFI. I repeatedly asked for the elk ranchers and all ranchers to not sink to the level of Roger Kaseman and his buddies. I truely believed it was a private property right. I posted that many times. To say I supported the HFI in any way is just plain false. I did fight your and GST's attempt to disallow the legislative process as it is every persons right to be part of the legislative process. Now if you can pull your head out of GST's backside and look at things through your own eyes you will see I am not the boogieman. I don't agree with many of your pet organizations policies and beliefs so in you eyes I'm the jerk. Thats fine I have broad shoulders.
> 
> I hope you will notice that NONE of us opposed to this poorly written amendment has argued the NDFB's right to bring it about.
> 
> Shaug, listen to some of the concerns being posted. Take them to your almighty farm bureau and address them. A news release explaining just how this amendment will protect farming and ranching without opening a gate for serious enviormental abuses would be very nice. I guess you understand that yours and GSTs credibility is shot here. So maybe GST can get one of "his guys" to make the explanation.
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Gst, your such a bore. Can you come up witn a different tag line. Truth and fact has been stated and you choose to overlook them to go back to an extreme example from 12the pages ago.





gst said:


> Wiil the Federal Clean Water Act and EPA permitting requirements requireing containment systems, manure management plans, Pestcide labeling, application regulations, application licensing ect... prevent feedlots from being built on river biottoms so spring floods carry away the manure, irresponsible pesticide use, and the growing of things that are now illegal?





swift said:


> I guess you understand that yours and GSTs credibility is shot here


swift thanks for your concern about my "credibility" here on this site. wether it was 12 pages ago or 1, plainsman and others are still defending these claims so if you would to judge your credibility, simply answer this one question.



gst said:


> Wiil the Federal Clean Water Act and EPA permitting requirements requireing containment systems, manure management plans, Pestcide labeling, application regulations, application licensing ect... prevent feedlots from being built on river biottoms so spring floods carry away the manure, irresponsible pesticide use, and the growing of things that are now illegal


Anyone????

If no one will answer one simple question, there remains just one to ask. Why?

Given the fact this "here" you speak of is a second rate website that has been refered to by others as "dying" the fact my "credibility" may be in poor standing with a select small group of people that have a history of making juvenile personal statements rather than debating facts maters very little to me.



swift said:


> Take them to your almighty farm bureau and address them. A news release explaining just how this amendment will protect farming and ranching without opening a gate for serious enviormental abuses would be very nice


They have been, and it is now up to the NDFB to address them when they see fit as I am done on this site until some other outlandish untrue claim is made against agriculture.

Which shouldn't be too long.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Shaug, listen to some of the concerns being posted. Take them to your almighty farm bureau and address them. A news release explaining just how this amendment will protect farming and ranching without opening a gate for serious enviormental abuses would be very nice. I guess you understand that yours and GSTs credibility is shot here. So maybe GST can get one of "his guys" to make the explanation.


Swift, here is one press release from FB.

http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2011/11/nd ... to-farm-2/

Now I'll expect a counterpoint news release from you on television telling the viewers why you think the almighty Farm Bureau wrote a bad measure. It is that simple. Get your message out there.


----------



## KurtR

If this is a small second rate dying web site why does everyone get so pissy like it is the iowa cacus or some thing? At least with the hf issue there where distinct differences with this i dont know what the hell is going on after 13 pages of bickering and some serious cut and paste skills that by far out weigh mine.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Wiil the Federal Clean Water Act and EPA permitting requirements requireing containment systems, manure management plans, Pestcide labeling, application regulations, application licensing ect... prevent feedlots from being built on river biottoms so spring floods carry away the manure, irresponsible pesticide use, and the growing of things that are now illegal


_"Anyone????

If no one will answer one simple question, there remains just one to ask. Why?" _

I'm not as ignorant as I may sound gst.
It's called promoting your agenda one step, one chip, at a time.
凌迟 Death, or at least weakening of regulations, by a thousand cuts,,,one cut at a time.


----------



## swift

> Swift, here is one press release from FB.
> 
> http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2011/11/nd ... to-farm-2/
> 
> Now I'll expect a counterpoint news release from you on television telling the viewers why you think the almighty Farm Bureau wrote a bad measure. It is that simple. Get your message out there.


That was a fun little diddy that pretty much summarized the whole problem with this...

Eric did not say how it would protect farmers and ranchers. 
The venue was national media which as you and GST has said many times people from out of state should have no bearing on this.
The questions asked were feel good questions that did not really have anything to do with the topic. C'mon oil is "sexy" give me a break.

What I did gather out of that nonsense is the farmers of America are losing the battle of public perception. Here a national media guy actually says farming is going away in ND because oil is taking over. That is a perfect example of why the farmers of the state need to reconnect with their neighbors and the citizens of the country to educate where food comes from. That there are still hard working men and women out there working the ground and providing food. The alienation of the non-farming community by big Ag is starting to show in the perceptions of those distanced from the farms. The NDFB mission seems to be alienation of the nonagriculturalists through their heavy handed, my way or the highway policies.

This release was really a slap in the face to ag producers in North Dakota. The host basically told you; you wont be needed in the future. This should have been a wake up call to all ag orgs that a change in public perception through education is very much needed.


----------



## Plainsman

You know what swift? You and I are more pro family farm than either shaug or gst.

gst, you said no till corn was a common practice. You evidently know nothing about it. Play with your cows, but don't try to represent the grain farmer.


----------



## LT

Swift Stated:


> What I did gather out of that nonsense is the farmers of America are losing the battle of public perception. Here a national media guy actually says farming is going away in ND because oil is taking over. That is a perfect example of why the farmers of the state need to reconnect with their neighbors and the citizens of the country to educate where food comes from. That there are still hard working men and women out there working the ground and providing food. The alienation of the non-farming community by big Ag is starting to show in the perceptions of those distanced from the farms. The NDFB mission seems to be alienation of the nonagriculturalists through their heavy handed, my way or the highway policies.


How much money will all this education cost and at the expense of who? The small farmer? You really believe it is big AG and what you think is NDFB's heavy hand, my way or the highway policies that is turning public perception? I do not believe that most of the general public have a clue about NDFB and their polices or even care!! Or is it realistically that more and more people are not involved with ag, that the small farmer is a thing of the past (no money in it/as opposed to just getting a "REAL" job like in the oil field) and so less and less people are involved with ag?

What amount of education is it going to take when you have people that believe farming is a legal right to torture animals?

http://www.care2.com/causes/constitutio ... imals.html

So what is alienating people from hunting? Why are there less and less hunters in the world? Does the hunting community also need to run ads to educate the nonhunting public? And why is it okay to have a constitutional amendment in our state to protect hunting but not ag?


----------



## swift

How will the right to farm amendment protect farmers and ranchers?

IF there are protections will they allow for protected abuse by some?

IF someone would answer these questions with facts, I wouldn't need to comment on this topic anymore.

How much money will all this education cost and at the expense of who? The small farmer? You really believe it is big AG and what you think is NDFB's heavy hand, my way or the highway policies that is turning public perception? I do not believe that most of the general public have a clue about NDFB and their polices or even care!! Or is it realistically that more and more people are not involved with ag, that the small farmer is a thing of the past (no money in it/as opposed to just getting a "REAL" job) and so less and less people are involved with ag? 
*Surely with ag being a $30billion industry in ND alone some money could be found to pay for it.*

What amount of education is it going to take when you have people that believe farming is a legal right to torture animals? *You don't target those people. Target the naive and ignorant that think potatoes come from a grocery store instead of a field.*

http://www.care2.com/causes/constitutio ... imals.html

So what is alienating people from hunting? *expense is 1st. Expense of equiptment, access, licensing fees ect.*Why are there less and less hunters in the world? Does the hunting community also need to run ads to educate the nonhunting public?*Absolutely and they do. But we could do more.* And why is it okay to have a constitutional amendment in our state to protect hunting but not ag? *It is not okay to have the constitution littered with crap like the right to hunt amendment. That has been said from the very first post. That amendment should not have been brought forth it is a toothless feel good amendment. The NSSF does quite a bit of community education which is why hunters are being used to reduce problem deer herds in metro areas like New York, Philadelphia, and many other big areas.*


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:



> You know what swift? You and I are more pro family farm than either shaug or gst.


REALLY plainsman, I remember an initiative that you were a sponsor of that would have taken my family farm where I grew up and now owned by my brother and put them out of business!!!!

P.S. Did you sign for your wife?


----------



## LT

Swift Stated:


> Surely with ag being a $30billion industry in ND alone some money could be found to pay for it.


Swift I believe there is already money spent on education, but how much more? When would it be enough? It is easier to appeal to people's emotions, "poor little animals." We saw that in the fair chase initiative!!


----------



## swift

Watch the clip LT, ND ag is being trivialized by the host. IF you or the others can't understand that is your real enemy, your in for a rude awakening. Obviously what is being spent isn't working so a change should be looked at. I do support agriculture. I do not support those that have an elitist gimme attitude that the NDFB seems to convey. I gave accolades to the NDFU only to be told by GST that the NDFU is a "socialistic organization". There are public perception problems of ND agriculture that is obvious. I don't know why the most vocal "advocates" shouldn't shoulder some of the blame. And work to fix the problem, unless they believe they are above the public and the publics perception doesn't really matter.


----------



## gst

swift, agriculture IS telling our story in proactive ways. Every ag commodity out there has a check off whose dollars are used in promotion and "telling our story". As a member of the ND Beef Commission I can tell you first hand we in fact do work very hard using producer dollars to "tell our story". You may not see them being spent in ND or SD as much because outside of this little site, the vast majority of people still understand agriculture and support it. The dollars are being targeted exactly where you suggest, people that havea multigenerational disconnect from agriculture. Between the varoous commodity groups there are literally millions of producer dollars being spent each year to "tell our story".

Here is a link to one of the more successful recent COOPERATIVE efforts between several diffeerent commodity and agriculture orgs.

http://www.fooddialogues.com/

I personally know some of the people involved in this. They are good dedicated folks teling our story. But yet there are those who accuse them of being "greedy" and trying to "spin" what we do in agriculture simply because they have a different agenda. You see groups ike HSUS,PETA are easy to spot. They come right out and state what their agendas are. Everyone knows. I don't agree with them, I think they are wacked, but I do respect their direct commitment to voicing what their agendas are of stopping any and all animal agriculture and hunting.

On this site you have people involved in the debate over this measure that are not so openly honest. Thy wish to paint agriculture as the problem when in fact their opposition to this measure is tied to the fact it will prevent them from ever accomplishing a personal agenda of ending cervid ranching here in ND. Not one of the opponanents of this measure that have been so vocal on this site have "manned up" and admitted that. Do not beleive this is a part of the "dialogue??? Simply go back and search some of the most vocal ones attacking on this subject veiws and comments on the HFH measure.

So here is one more question for someone to answer if they indeed wish the "truth" to b knownabout this measure and why a small handful of people on this site are so opposed to it.

Will this measure if successfully passed and implemented into our constitution prevent a measure like the last HFH one from ever being successful in the attempt to ban captive cervid ranches?

Answer this and a light will be shone onto why this is being so vocally opposed on this site. People are not as "supid" as some on here beleive, they can see the obvious. And some on here bleive them to be pretty "supid". Just check out Csquareds "explanation" and plainsmans acceptance of it for his "fying fluck" "potty mouth" comment in the political forum and the corn ethanol thread. :roll:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> So here is one more question for someone to answer.
> 
> Will this measure if successfully passed and implemented into our constitution prevent a measure like the last HFH one from ever being successful in the attempt to ban captive cervid ranches?
> 
> Answer this and a light will be shone onto why this is being so vocally opposed on this site.


Well it's so *unspecific *who the hell knows!
Smoke and mirrors,,,one chip at a time.


----------



## swift

> I personally know some of the people involved in this. Theyare good dedicated folks teling our story. But yet their are those who acuse them of being "greedy" and trying to "spin" what we do in agriculture simply because they have a different agenda. You see groups ike HSUS,PETA are easy to spot. They come right out andstate what their agendas are. Everyone knows. I don't agree with them, I hik they are wacked, ut I do respect their direct commitment tovoicing what their agendas are of stopping any and all animal agriculture and hunting.


Well the guy interviewing Eric A must not have been educated. Keep your head in the sand while your world loses more and more support.

Give up on the HFI boogieman. It was defeated as it should have been. Quit looking over your shoulder and start looking at the future.

You seem to forget the sportsman of America were your biggest allies. Policies like NO MORE PUBLIC LAND, and CAPS on PLOTS, the sportsman of the country are feeling taken advantage of. You can spin this however you wish but the fact remains Ag is loosing support because of their own elitism. Your own words..."Ag orgs advocate for ag" (without considering the non ag impact) is a direct example of elitism.



> Will this measure if successfully passed and implemented into our constitution prevent a measure like the last HFH one from ever being successful in the attempt to ban captive cervid ranches?


Probably not. Any state law or federal law will supercede this. I suspect a law to forbid the use of the word "hunt" or description of "hunting" with regards to high fence operations would effectively put HF "hunting" out of business. with or without this amendment.

teach Joquim, and Tommy and Jennifer in Philly why ag is important instead of demonizing the folks that support you.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Well it's so specific who the hell knows!
> Smoke and mirrors,,,one chip at a time.


spent, if indeed that is the arguement, why not simply do as was asked WAAAAAYYYYYY back at the beginning of this discussion and substantiate factually how this measure will prevent agriculture from being regulated at the state level in the manner that was claimed it would ?

Even you have stated this measure will not prevent Federal regulations from existing, so all that is being requested is before someone makes claims as to what this measure will do here in our state from a regulatory aspect is to simply, factually, and credibly establish the process of how this will happen.

EVERYONE, has merely brought opinions to the table. NO ONE has sent an email to the State Health Dpt and shared the email and response or contacted the EPA ect.... in the same manner or any other means of substantiating the claims that have been made. So once again I ask why?

AFTER making these claims, plainsamn calimed to want the "truth" to be known about this measure, but what has he done to factually provide it?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> You can spin this however you wish but the fact remains Ag is loosing support because of their own elitism. Your own words..."Ag orgs advocate for ag" (without considering the non ag impact) is a direct example of elitism.


So swift how then would you "spin" someone demanding ag capitulate to THEIR beleifs because of how it may affect their recreational activities?



gst said:


> Will this measure if successfully passed and implemented into our constitution prevent a measure like the last HFH one from ever being successful in the attempt to ban captive cervid ranches?





swift said:


> Probably not. *Any state law or federal law will supercede this[/b]..*


*

So why then will state regulatory law not superceede this measure as well?

The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law that negatively impacts "modern agriculture practices" thru the initiated measure process whereby outside influences can come into our state to further "radical" agendas, AS WE SAW UNQUESTIONABLY DEMONSTRATED IN THE LAST HFH MEASURE, NOT to prevent ag from being regulated by the elected representatives of the people of ND.*


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's so specific who the hell knows!
> Smoke and mirrors,,,one chip at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE, has merely brought opinions to the table. NO ONE has sent an email to the State Health Dpt and shared the email and response or contacted the EPA ect.... in the same manner or any other means of substantiating the claims that have been made. So once again I ask why?
Click to expand...

On the contrary,,,you're wrong,,, I've threatened to commit seppuku on the Capital Steps if this measure passes.
The overwhelming response was "go ahead".
It's all :bs: with agendas on both sides. But you gst,,, are special.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Give up on the HFI boogieman. It was defeated as it should have been. Quit looking over your shoulder and start looking at the future.


swift it is one of the catalysts for the existance of this measure.

Have you ever heard the expression, : Those not willing to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it?

Read the comments posted by the supporters of the HFH measure as to what they "learned" from this last failed attempt in the threads imediately following it's defeat.

Those few vocal supporters on this site of the HFH initiated measure indeed know what this current measure is intended to prevent. They indeed know it will make their agendas to end captive cervid ranching that much more difficult. Given the FACT they would go so far as to invite the nations largest ani hunting org into this state to accomplish this agenda, it is not a great leap to beleive they would "spin" stories and claims to prevent this measure from succeding and ending their agenda.

swift, outside of yourself, how many of the most vocal opponents of this measure were not also the most vocal supporters of the HFH initiative on this site?


----------



## huntin1

I really didn't want to get into the HFH thing again, but I suspect I am one of the people gst is referring to. And he would be wrong.

I don't care if any one wants to buy an elk herd (deer, buffalo, whatever) turn it loose in their pasture and charge people several thousand dollars to come kill one. I am however against calling it "the hunt of a lifetime" as many of these operations do. Call it what it is, harvesting a captive animal, and mark the antlers in some permanent manner so that some yahoo in Chicago can't try to enter it in a record book.

These are my areas of concern, nothing else.

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

> The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law


That's enough to be against this amendment. Combine that with the wish to eliminate regulations. Combine that with the wish to eliminate the EPA. What's that leave you with? No control and out of control. Disagree? Look up the word control.

Huntin1 that's sort of my complaint to. It's the unsportsmanship that reflects on the rest of us hunters. That's why I would rather have seen this as a measure controling hunters and not farmers. I have more respect for road hunters. I only hope the state officials are honest enough to deal with disease when (not if) it happens.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's so specific who the hell knows!
> Smoke and mirrors,,,one chip at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE, has merely brought opinions to the table. NO ONE has sent an email to the State Health Dpt and shared the email and response or contacted the EPA ect.... in the same manner or any other means of substantiating the claims that have been made. So once again I ask why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary,,,you're wrong,,, I've threatened to commit seppuku on the Capital Steps if this measure passes.
> The overwhelming response was "go a head".
> It's all :bs: with agendas on both sides. But you gst,,, are special.
Click to expand...

So spent what woudl the result be to shaugs LT's and my arguements on here if the opponanents of this measure went and gota "oficial" opinion from the State AG's ofice? What would be the effect of an Email fromthe EPA stating their beleif this state 
measure would indeed trump their powers and that of the Clean Water Act? What wouldbe the net result of a FACTUALrather than opion based dialogue supporting theseclaimsbeing made???

It would be the same as committing "seppuku" in the arguements upportingthis measure. So why then has no one bothered to take the time and effort to do so rather than just blowing smoke and polishing mirrors?



spentwings said:


> one chip at a time.


spent you are aware that this very ideology is what HSUS professes will accomplish their ultimate goal of ending ALL animals agriculture as well as ALL forms of hunting do you not. One chip at a time, one small vicory at a time. Keeping a state from passing a constitutional amendment making their agendas harder to accomplish is a victory for them as well as their cohorts right here in ND known as the NDH for FC, "one chip at a time". :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law
> 
> 
> 
> That's enough to be against this amendment. Combine that with the wish to eliminate regulations. Combine that with the wish to eliminate the EPA. What's that leave you with? No control and out of control. Disagree? Look up the word control.
Click to expand...

Plainsman, you took that comment a little out of "context". The definition for which was provided earlier.



gst said:


> The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law *that negatively impacts "modern agriculture practices" thru the initiated measure process whereby outside influences can come into our state to further "radical" agendas, AS WE SAW UNQUESTIONABLY DEMONSTRATED IN THE LAST HFH MEASURE, NOT to prevent ag from being regulated by the elected representatives of the people of ND*.


But then again as a former sponsor of this attempt to ban captive cervid ranching thru the initiated measure process I can see why you did not want the last part included ! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

It's not out of contest at all, it is the context. 


> The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law


Is the intent to stop the creation of law? Yes. Specifically any related to agriculture. That's even more prejudice. It sets agriculture above all else. Would it inhibit laws against hunters? No. Would it inhibit laws against oil drilling practices? No. Would it inhibit laws against anyone other than agriculture? No. Only agriculture could have no laws created against it. Very far reaching. Over reaching I think.



> But then again as a former sponsor of this attempt to ban captive cervid ranching thru the initiated measure process I can see why you did not want the last part included !


Former being a key word here. Further, by your own words you told the whole world on here and FBO why I didn't do it the second time. Further, you were right. Still further this amendment would provide no protection for the way I would like to see the control on high fence shooting.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> [
> 
> 
> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> one chip at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> spent you are aware that this very ideology is what HSUS professes will accomplish their ultimate goal of ending ALL animals agriculture as well as ALL forms of hunting do you not. One chip at a time, one small vicory at a time. Keeping a state from passing a constitutional amendment making their agendas harder to accomplish is a victory for them as well as their cohorts right here in ND known as the NDH for FC, "one chip at a time". :wink:
Click to expand...

But of course,,,you're unfortunately all the same. I guess that includes NODAK,,,at least in your opinion.
Kill them, make the amedment more specific,,, but don't use their tactics. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2010/08/th ... f-farming/

plainsman, take the time to actually read this article with out assuming it is looking for sypathy or aknowledgement, but simply as someones veiw on agriculture and the changes and challenges we are facing that is not making his living form ag.

Yes indeed we need to proactively tell our story in a positive manner and it is being done.

But we also need to confront people and orgs when they intentionally misrepresent what agriculture is as well. It is why I have suggested that FACT be the basis of these discussions rather than "opinions". It is why I have pointed out that there are those with their OWN agendas that carry on in this manner, even here on an outdoor hunting and fishing site in ND.

Try to distance yourself as far as you wish, the fact remains you were once a sponsor of an measure that would have effectively ended cervid ranching here in ND.

As Mike says in his comments he understands peoples ideologies, but they need to be place in the bigger "context" of what consequences may result. The fact that you may have the "right" to ban cervid ranching here in ND because of your personal agenda also means that HSUS has the "right" to work ban other animal ag industries as well. A large number of people here in ND do not beleive this is in the best interests of ND and it's citizens. Wether this meaasure was worded in a manner that will allow them to support it will remain to be seen.


----------



## gst

The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law that negatively impacts and bans "modern agriculture practices" thru the initiated measure process whereby outside influences can come into our state to further "radical" agendas, AS WE SAW UNQUESTIONABLY DEMONSTRATED IN THE LAST HFH MEASURE, NOT to prevent ag from being regulated by the elected representatives of the people of ND thru the legislative process.

So plainsman, should ther be something in place to prevent the creation of law that results in a $1200 dollar fine for a bent rung on the bottom step of a grain ladder?

I'm not suggesting this measure does that, only that there are those laws that will swing a pendelum far too far and there needs to be a means to prevent this from happening.


----------



## spentwings

Verbosity,,,it kills a book for me. 
Like I said gst,,,you're special.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Verbosity,,,it kills a book for me.
> Like I said gst,,,you're special.


Thanks!!


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verbosity,,,it kills a book for me.
> Like I said gst,,,you're special.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!!
Click to expand...

Well and good,,,but when are you going to send me some fresh cow liver?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst said:


> The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law that negatively impacts and bans "modern agriculture practices" thru the initiated measure process whereby outside influences can come into our state to further "radical" agendas, AS WE SAW UNQUESTIONABLY DEMONSTRATED IN THE LAST HFH MEASURE, NOT to prevent ag from being regulated by the elected representatives of the people of ND thru the legislative process.
> 
> So plainsman, should ther be something in place to prevent the creation of law that results in a $1200 dollar fine for a bent rung on the bottom step of a grain ladder?
> 
> I'm not suggesting this measure does that, only that there are those laws that will swing a pendelum far too far and there needs to be a means to prevent this from happening.


gst this is just more hyperbole from you! If that bent rung leads to the death of a person who is hired to use that equipment then the fine is appropriate and likely not high enough! Poor choice of using a direct safety violation to bolster your position.

The fact remains that many of the people who you claim are being defended by this are not sure the wording is proper to do so without causing a major conflicts, from water drainage to waste disposal! Not my words, but the reflection of what people had to say. Many support the ideal but not so much this bill!


----------



## gst

ron, the reference to the rung on the ladder was directly from Mikes comments from the link I provided not mine. So what do you suppose the likelyhood of someone being killed is falling off the BOTTOM rung of a ladder! :-?

I do not have an issue with people having concerns with this measure or any other. As I have repeatedly stated people SHOULD take the time to be informed when voting on things such as this. Indeed, be concened, but if you are going to come on a website such as this and make claims as to what an amendment to our constitution or a law being created will do aswas done by plainsman, I simply beleive you should be held to a standard of provable factual truth. That was ALL that was ever aksed was merely to substantiate how the claims plainsman would occur. And given the fact fewe and fewer people actually take the time to inform themselves and simply rely on a blurp they ay hearor read, it is important that these "blurps" be held to a level of fact and turth IMHO.

If plainsman wishes to give his "opinion" on which caliber, rifle set up and load works best for shooting 1000 yards, hey I'm all ears, would be foolish not to be. But giving an opinion on that and what a law or constitutional amendment will do is a little different and I beleive should require a bit more back ground based on fact and proof.

"radical" ideas I know.



spentwings said:


> Well and good,,,but when are you going to send me some fresh cow liver?


Spent, ALWAYS looking for someone that likes liver when we butcher. Next time we butcher I'll let you know and perhaps you can come up and meet this greedy, evil, "lord of the land" in person!

I'll have to check all the Federal and state regulatios to make sure I can gift it to you without being in violation though!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Problem gst is that we cannot and do not have anyone willing to answer the concerns that surround this and you and shaug certainly have not!

Like it or not, all anyone has is opinions including you and shaug, not facts regarding this! I spoke with Eric on some of these and he dodged them like everyone else? I am not alone in what people THINK may happen with this! If those that THINK things negative will happen, and they do not get answers, what then?

So instead of trying to snipe everything why don't you enlist the sponsors to address the concerns! Instead of the continued avoidance of them.

And the ladder comment was hyperbole period! It was designed and spoken to imply something that is not!


----------



## Plainsman

Ron, you are absolutely correct. A number of times it has been pointed out that there are no facts, and one opinion is as valid as another. I have backed off a ways where facts can be established and simply ask people to form their own opinions from there. Here are the facts that I think one must base their opinion on.
1. The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law that negatively impacts "modern agriculture practices"

The question one must ask is "does this include future modern practices that we have no way of knowing what their impacts will be? With this wording there is only one answer and that is YES.

2. NDFB wants regulations eliminated

What affect does this have. Well, the regulations proponents say would protect us would no longer exist. So that leaves the door wide open under the wording of the amendment.

3. Many in NDFB are calling for the total elimination of the EPA

The EPA is often referred to in the context that it will protect us. If the EPA no longer exists it can not protect us.

My opinion is there are no controls with the combination of things the NDFB wants. The things I listed that are possibilities are indeed very real possibilities given the above scenario. A scenario all on the table and constructed by one organization the NDFB. The scenario constructed by the NDFB could lead to anything you want to imagine, because anything is possible without any control, and some (which is to many) will take advantage of the above scenario.


----------



## swift

> swift, outside of yourself, how many of the most vocal opponents of this measure were not also the most vocal supporters of the HFH initiative on this site?


I guess the same question can be put back to you. How many opposed to the HFI are advocating for this amendment. Atleast there is one opposed to HFI that is also opposed to this amendment.

GST, I am still waiting for my questions to be answered with truths and facts.

How will this amendment protect farmers and ranchers?

If it does in fact provide protection will that protection allow for abuse by some?

Realize too that Article 1,that you have quit citing since I explained you were misinterpeting it, will not allow another citizens constitutional rights to be squashed by any amendment. Citizens have a constitutional right to intiate measures. So your opinion that this amendment will block intiated measures is plain wrong. Again.


----------



## Plainsman

I read the article you asked me to read gst. I will address a few points.



> today's farms are more efficient than ever


This man films dirty jobs, and is not a farmer. He certainly doesn't know the difference in productive and efficient. We have discussed this before, but let me reiterate. American farmers are very productive, but they are some of the least efficient in the world. More fertilizer, larger farms that require less manpower and more mechanization, more mechanization and more fertilizer mean more energy input. We are improving compared to years ago, yet we are not efficient.



> I was wrong about that, and I've been wrong about a great many things ever since.


In his article he had some very good points that I agree with, and some major mistakes like the efficiency of the American farmer, so yes he is also wrong again.



> And foresees a time when our country imports more food than it ships out


Why is that? I think it's because part of farming has become farming the system and not the land. We have environmentalists that are not smart enough to know that ethanol is a energy loosing program. The farmer does it for profit which is extracted involuntarily from the American taxpayer. It's a prime example of redistribution of wealth. It's also proof that we are not concerned with food because if we were we would not turn food into energy loss. The American taxpayer looses multiple times. He pays a tax that is given to someone to drive our energy needs even higher, and out grocery prices higher yet. We pay April 15, and every time we fill out gas tank, and go to the grocery store. Ethanol removes the argument about feeding the world, or even making America energy independent. Corn subsidies for ethanol starve a hungry world and make America more energy dependent.



> He points to the confusion around the "free-range" issue, and the power of groups like The Humane Society


 Later he gets it right, but he needs to make a differentiation between the Humane Society and the Humane Society of the United States or he will turn more people against farming.



> But what's more important than eating?


It's terribly hypocritical to ask that question as long as we use corn for ethanol.



> And who embodies Work more than The American Farmer?


That's terribly arrogant. That makes it sound like the American farmer works harder than most people. Work is work. How about the construction worker, the state employee working on our highways, the commercial fisherman, the crab fishermen in Alaska who risk their lives? We all know the American farmer works hard, but be careful with the wording less someone thinks you demean their hard work.



> If Chad's right, U.S. animal agriculture is under siege, and we're well on our way to getting our eggs from China and our beef from Brazil. Perhaps this would please The Humane Society. Perhaps PETA would like to see those items removed from menu's altogether


We may well be getting our eggs from China and our beef from Brazil, but not all the fault is animal rights groups. I agree that the animal rights groups are a problem. I agree that farmers, and we who are associated with them need to do something. Many of us on here are more than ready to support you, but don't whiz down our leg while asking for support. The fault is with animal rights groups, some farmers, and some people who represent farmers. Demanding support never works. It's like demanding respect. It's the first sign that a person can not earn respect so they must demand it. Of course they never really get it.

Yes we sportsmen need to improve our image, and so do the farmers. What I see more and more of is an anger towards farmers. I was going to give you an example of why, but we know some would just call it another story. So I guess you will have to figure it out on your own. I will tell you that the problem for many is listening to people complain who have much more than they do. I'll give you a hint. If your talking to a man who has lost his job, and has been on unemployment for a year, don't sit in your new Escalade and tell him how tough you have it because selling your calves is getting in the way of your families trip to Jamaica for two weeks. It's hard to tell if it was complaining or bragging. It isn't good PR.


----------



## Csquared

Ron and Planisman, you guys are right about facts. You don't know ALL the facts concerning how much the measure will affect current and future laws because you don't know the actual verbiage that will be adopted. What we do know, and I think we can all agree on this, is that it will NOT become part of your constitution *as currently written*. That would be a colossal nightmare, and I can't believe anyone would allow that to happen. But as currently written, there's only one way to read it...exactly as you've just touched on.

But If I could say one more thing concerning the uncertainty about ...


> The intent of this measure is to stop the creation of law


You can answer any and all questions surrounding the scope of that sentence by answering only one question....

How do THE PEOPLE prevent the creation of *ANY *law against *ANY* specific category or activity? They spell it out in the constitution that it's off limits to the general assembly, and since it's part of the constitution it can only be altered or changed by THE PEOPLE, not by any law from the legislature.

NO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED WHICH ABRIDGES THE RIGHT.....TO EMPLOY

There's absolutely nothing complicated about that, people.

The right to hunt amendment in your constitution includes the phrase... *"...and managed by law and regulation for the public good."*

Add that phrase to the pending measure and I would expect public resistance would disappear almost overnight. :wink:


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> So instead of trying to snipe everything why don't you enlist the sponsors to address the concerns! Instead of the continued avoidance of them.


Ron, this in fact was done when a NDFB rep met with us at our NDSA meeting. These concerns as well as others were shared with them at that time. Everyone seems to want to paint the picture farmers and these orgs want NO regulations. What do you think prevents someone from "irresonsibly" spraying a herbicide on their wheat that would kill 40 acres of my sunflowers beside? What do you think keeps someone from draining onto someone else land, what keeps someone from building a feedlot that will run off into someone elses water supply??? I mean come on be abit realistic here. It was explainedto the NDFB rep that indeed these concerns will HAVE to be addressed in a manner that leaves no room for "opinions".

I have indeed ASKED questions same as anyone else regarding what this will do at the state level even on tis site. What is undeniable FACT is that Federal regulations ad the agencies in charge of carrying them out will indeed prevent the claims plainsman made from happening. If you do not beleive me as suggested, email the EPA or any numbe of other Federal agencies.

If you wish to argue how the ladder rung comment was used, you will have to take that up with Mike Rowe. :wink:


----------



## gst

palinsman if you wish to address facts how about the FACT federal regulations and agencies will prevent theclaims you suggested will happen if this measure passes.

Plainsman indeed anything can happen, an asteroid could hit the earth in 5 years and all this will be a moot point. Common sense dictates that NO ONE will back away fro the ability to prevent feedlots from being built intentionally to allow water to wash away manure so clean up will be easier. Common sense suggests that no onw will allow for regulation of pesticide use to be forgotten so chemicals can be sprayed how ever anyone wishes. Common sense suggests that farmers in ND will not suddenly be allowed to grow poppies for the heroin trade.

Have your concerns, expect aswers to be given. But realize making claims such as these without some sort of factual reason or proof how they will occur sounds alot like suggesting the NDFB is nothing but Posse Comitatus members. :roll:

Hell even spent thought that was a stretch!


----------



## Plainsman

> What is undeniable FACT is that Federal regulations ad the agencies in charge of carrying them out will indeed prevent the claims plainsman made from happening.


Here is a fact for you. The NDFB works against that too. The regulations and the EPA can go away. Then we are left without recourse. That is a fact. 
The regulations will last as long as one side is able to support the agency with the regulations. The EPA will be around as long as the majority of people in this nation support them. Or some organization with the money and clout can take them out. Or a new administration agrees with some special interest, or or or. I hope everyone gets the picture.

The Fish and Wildlife Service had three divisions. One was management, one was law enforcement, and the third was research. When Bill Clinton took office he didn't think they should have the research division. In the blink of an eye I was no longer Fish and Wildlife I was U. S. G. S. Things come and go. I have watched it for many years. What's here today can be gone tomorrow, and what is not here today can appear tomorrow.

The proposed amendment is to open ended. It isn't a pinhole in the dike of regulations that protect us it's a chasm. It will garner support for more regulations and the EPA.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> swift, outside of yourself, how many of the most vocal opponents of this measure were not also the most vocal supporters of the HFH initiative on this site?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the same question can be put back to you. How many opposed to the HFI are advocating for this amendment. Atleast there is one opposed to HFI that is also opposed to this amendment.
> 
> GST, I am still waiting for my questions to be answered with truths and facts.
> 
> How will this amendment protect farmers and ranchers?
> 
> If it does in fact provide protection will that protection allow for abuse by some?
> 
> Realize too that Article 1,that you have quit citing since I explained you were misinterpeting it, will not allow another citizens constitutional rights to be squashed by any amendment. Citizens have a constitutional right to intiate measures. So your opinion that this amendment will block intiated measures is plain wrong. Again.
Click to expand...

 I tell you what swift, at this point if this passes I will wait for the inevitable judges ruling rather than your constitutional law expertise or the probably official "opinion" from the State AG's office at some ppint in the near future if you don't mind. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> today's farms are more efficient than ever
> 
> This man films dirty jobs, and is not a farmer. He certainly doesn't know the difference in productive and efficient. We have discussed this before, but let me reiterate. American farmers are very productive, but they are some of the least efficient in the world. More fertilizer, larger farms that require less manpower and more mechanization, more mechanization and more fertilizer mean more energy input. We are improving compared to years ago, yet we are not efficient.


Plainsman is it ironic that you are critisizing someone else that is not a farmer for giving an "opinion" on farming?

Efficiencies can be measured in more than one form, how many people are feed by the American farmer over the "efficient" example of the fella planting rice by hand you gave earlier? How many people could be fed in this world we now live in if every farmer in the world practiced this "efficient" form of farming? How "effecient" are you if you can not complete the necessary job as you are doing it???If all we had to do was feed ourselves indeed planting by hand is the most "effecient" veiwing only frm an energy use standard. But do you really actually beleive this world can be provided the food required by plantin rice by hand???? So when veiwing this as the standard of "efficiency" rather than energy consumption, who is the most "efficient" farmer in the world?

Please do not condemn others "expertise" on farming when your resume and "experise" as a farmer is limited to growing up on one. Nor condemn all farmers because one may be so foolish as to sit in his Escalde and tell an unemployed fella about the problems of his trip to Jamacia.

What you can not deny is what Mike Rowe claims as to where this countries new wealth comes from. What you cannot deny is that the American farmer produces more food than we consume than any other nation. What you can not deny is the total amount of arrable lands is slowly decreasing as the worlds population increases. What you can not deny is agriculture will face new challenges to continueto provide enough food to feed this growing popuation. What you can not deny is there are in fact good and necessary regulations as well as those that should indeed be removed because they are excessive. What you can not deny is there are orgs that are working successfully to end animal agriculture here in the US one "cut" at a time. What you can not deny is they were invited into our state to help create law. What you cannot deny is that the food that does in fact "feed the world" does come from farms and ranches.

Plainsamn google "the food dialogues" It is a collaberative effort by multiple commodity and ag groups to address the very issues that are being brought up on here. I have talked directly with some of the people responsible for putting this together. One of the segments is titled "when did agriculture become a dirty word". It deals with the reality we in agriculture know needs to be addressed in a positive manner because of what Mike mentions in his story of the generational disconnect society has from where there food comes from. . What is mentioned is animportant part of telling our "story" also includes holding those making the "claims" against agriculture accountab;e to prove that these claims are factual. If you recall awhile back I shared the story of Dr. Frank Mitlier that held th United Nations accountable for the incorrect "opinion" they were calling fact of animal ags contribution to GHG iemmissions. Ultimately the UN admitted their "opinion" and "science" used to factually establish it was flawed and incorrect.

So given any degree of common sense,do you honestly beleive the people of this state and country are suddenly or even little by little allow manure to be washed into waterways from feedlots, allow chemicals to be used without some control, allow illegal things to be planted and grown????? Do you honestly beleive the Clean Water Act will be thrown out the window entirely and waste of any kind will again be allowed to pollute our waters? Recall the opening "where as" inthe NDSA resolution biooman shared?
*WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that clean water is essential to the health and well-being of the nation;*

Indeed this is merely a smoke screen to accomplish our goal of being able to pollute at will. Even to the point our OWN waters are polluted. :roll:

Not everything is a giant conspriracy. Sometimes a purple cow is only just a purple cow.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The Fish and Wildlife Service had three divisions. One was management, one was law enforcement, and the third was research. When Bill Clinton took office he didn't think they should have the research division. In the blink of an eye I was no longer Fish and Wildlife I was U. S. G. S. Things come and go. I have watched it for many years. What's here today can be gone tomorrow, and what is not here today can appear tomorrow


The fact you are overlooking that is relavent to this discussion is that while you may have had a new name, YOU STILL EXISTED AND DID NOT DISAPPEAR.

Just because the EPA could eventually be disbanded because it has been over run with enviromentalists that put radical agendas before sound science and this countries security does not mean that regulatory authority will not remain.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Here is a fact for you. The NDFB works against that too. The regulations and the EPA can go away. Then we are left without recourse. That is a fact.
> *The regulations will last as long as one side is able to support the agency with the regulations. The EPA will be around as long as the majority of people in this nation support them.* Or some organization with the money and clout can take them out. Or a new administration agrees with some special interest, or or or. I hope everyone gets the picture.


So plainsman what do you suppose would be happening in this country that the majority of people in this nation would allow regulatory laws controling agriculture and protecting them to be abandoned at the Federal level? Particulaily when only 2% of this countries society is involved in production agriculture?????

If you are going to claim this measure will do this please prove how it will be accomplished with fact rather than grand conspiracy suppositions.

If it does ever get to this point where all regulatory laws pertainingto agriculture have been abandoned as you are painting the picture of and wish people to beleive will happen if this measure passes, just what exactly would cause society to do this?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst farmer friend asked an interesting question of me today concerning this measure. He said what happens to existing laws on the books that would be in conflict with the state Constitution if this is adopted. Hence his question is would it not throw out all existing laws? In particular zoning laws regarding large feed lot operations excluding EPA regulations?

I do not remember seeing anything regarding grandfathering in current rules and regulations?

Are his fears correct?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Here is a fact for you. The NDFB works against that too. The regulations and the EPA can go away. Then we are left without recourse. That is a fact.
> The regulations will last as long as one side is able to support the agency with the regulations. The EPA will be around as long as the majority of people in this nation support them. Or some organization with the money and clout can take them out. Or a new administration agrees with some special interest, or or or. I hope everyone gets the picture.


Tonight I was watching the Iowa Caucus. Rick Perry said if he were to become president the first thing he would do is reduce the size of government, lay off federal employees and make huge cutbacks in regulations as these regs are killing the private sector. Of course the crowd cheered. Plainsman, the mood in this country is changing. It is the duty of government to regulate and of course regulate commerce but it is not the duty of govenment to over-regulate businesses right out of business. Plainsman, have you ever had a real job in the private sector? I mean, when you graduated from Bottineau, did you ever have a job in business or did you go straight to the federal government?

Plainsman, you have a disease sort of like an immoral leprosy, you are right about everything but your own words eat you alive. See below.

Over on FBO Plainsman wrote,

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/could_this_ ... tId=505012



> EPA is just another example of a good idea gone off the deep end. These government agencies also reflect the will of the people at the top. They create pressure on these agencies through the funding process. I would trust the EPA a lot more with a good conservative in the White House and control of the congress. I have much less trust when liberals run the show.


Plainsman, Farm Bureau has the same concerns. Are you sure that you are not a card carrying member of Farm Bureau?

Plainsman said on Nodak,



> Yes we sportsmen need to improve our image, and so do the farmers. What I see more and more of is an anger towards farmers. I was going to give you an example of why, but we know some would just call it another story. So I guess you will have to figure it out on your own.


Plainsman, please don't do that, lump yourself in with sportsmen. So which sportsmens groups do you represent? None. Which sportsmens group say, "that guy plainsman represents us?" None.

Plainman said on Nodak,



> I will tell you that the problem for many is listening to people complain who have much more than they do. I'll give you a hint. If your talking to a man who has lost his job, and has been on unemployment for a year, don't sit in your new Escalade and tell him how tough you have it because selling your calves is getting in the way of your families trip to Jamaica for two weeks. It's hard to tell if it was complaining or bragging. It isn't good PR.


Plainsman, Over on FBO you told a fella some more of that immoral leprosy,



> Headed out for a meeting at 10:00 am, then 12:00 noon, and another at 1:00pm. I hope to make it home by 2:30pm so I can take off and archery hunt for a few days before deer rifle season. Then I have four doe tags to fill.
> This year, seventeen states in the NE, then Hawaii, then a house boat in Northern Minnesota for a while, Alaksa July and August, and returned a couple of weeks ago from elk hunting and fly fishing in Montana. Headed for Florida after Christmas. January 2013 I have Uganda, Africa on the list, but your right I should get out more. I'll try catch up to you OK


Plainsman, In your own words were you bragging or complaining? Or lying? If you have the funds to do all that, than what kind of pension are you lifting off of the taxpayers? Myself, I do not drive an Escalade nor do I complain that marketing my crops is getting in the way of my family vacation to Jamaica. But all of this does give us a window into your psyche.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> The Fish and Wildlife Service had three divisions. One was management, one was law enforcement, and the third was research. When Bill Clinton took office he didn't think they should have the research division. In the blink of an eye I was no longer Fish and Wildlife I was U. S. G. S. Things come and go. I have watched it for many years. What's here today can be gone tomorrow, and what is not here today can appear tomorrow.


That is correct Bruce. You were no longer USFWS and were moved over to USGS or Nothern Prairie Wildlife "Research" Center in Jamestown ND. When George W. Bush was President his administration came dang close to closing that facility. George W is a conservative too.


----------



## gst

Ron early on in this discusson I admitted I was not a constitutional scholar when I ASKED the questions regarding the constitutional wording. The comments I have shared have been ones that have been told me by people that have much more experience than I, so I can not answer your question with any degree of fact on my own. Remember we were told in this thread at the very start to go out and ask others about this measure that were NOT NDFB reps, so that was exactly what was done!

As I said, it was relayed to NDFB that they will indeed have to address these concerns in a manner that will be accepted as fact. If you are truly concerned, do as was suggested. Talk with your elected representativs and have them request an "official" opinion from the ND state AG's office. Either that or wait for the NDFB to explain the necessary concerns.

For some reason I get the impression neither of these things will likely be enough to satisfy some regardless of what is stated.


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> Plainman said on Nodak,
> 
> I will tell you that the problem for many is listening to people complain who have much more than they do. I'll give you a hint. If your talking to a man who has lost his job, and has been on unemployment for a year, don't sit in your new Escalade and tell him how tough you have it because selling your calves is getting in the way of your families trip to Jamaica for two weeks. It's hard to tell if it was complaining or bragging. It isn't good PR.





shaug said:


> Plainsman, Over on FBO you told a fella some more of that immoral leprosy,
> 
> Headed out for a meeting at 10:00 am, then 12:00 noon, and another at 1:00pm. I hope to make it home by 2:30pm so I can take off and archery hunt for a few days before deer rifle season. Then I have four doe tags to fill.
> This year, seventeen states in the NE, then Hawaii, then a house boat in Northern Minnesota for a while, Alaksa July and August, and returned a couple of weeks ago from elk hunting and fly fishing in Montana. Headed for Florida after Christmas. January 2013 I have Uganda, Africa on the list, but your right I should get out more. I'll try catch up to you OK
> 
> Plainsman, In your own words were you bragging or complaining?


  oops.

Not quite Jamacia, but hopefuly that fella on FBO was gainfully employed for the past year! :wink: I'm sure that unemployed fella you mention could use the money you spent on your last custom rifle and scope to pay his rent for a month or two! :-?


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug I think your daughter that went to the OCCUPY is changing you rather than you changing her. It was not George Bush who changed research in wildlife to USGS it was Bill Clinton.

gst, I don't have any custom rifles. I hope to in the near future. It helps to do your own work. I plan on photographing each step and displaying that in the rifle form for people who may be interested in doing the same thing. I have been watcing a video on blue printing actions. Most gunsmiths simply sleeve an action. There is a new piece of equipment available that lets you run a hardened mandrel through the bolt raceway and align on two points forward of the action face for facing the action square with the bolt. This keeps the bolt inline with the bore, not the outside of the action. Anyway, I'll get more into that in the rifle form. As soon as my barrel shows up. You may be right that that out of work fellow could pay his rent for two weeks with the money I am putting into it. However, I'm not going to whine to him for sympathy either. If I did I would deserve a slap up side the head with a 2 X 4 for being a self centered jerk.

My travel was paid for with money from the farm. No fooling. Surprise. Your right I perhaps should not have listed all the traveling I have been doing. I feel sorry for those people on salary only. I'm not going to complain to them, rather I'll listen to their problems. My connection doesn't give me the tax shelter that a more direct connection would though. Oh, well, a person has to look at the glass as half full not half empty and appreciate what we have, not whine because someone has more. As a matter of fact the right thing to do is celebrate our neighbors blessings.

I see your upset a lot by the comments about feed lots. I hunt north of Jamestown often. I know people north of Jamestown and travel that direction often. Every Time I get about five miles north of Carrington I hold my breath. There is a feedlot there sitting right on the edge of a drainage to the James River. I don't see any evidence that they have any water settlement system before it runs into that drainage. They had a sales ring right across the road that appears to be defunct right now. If this amendment passes their cow crap tea will be floating down the James River right to the Jamestown reservoir. The kids in the area all go to school smelling like a manure pile now, we don't need to be drinking it too.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst I guess my point in asking you is that you my question is that Eric when on the radio recently would not answer it, Shaug you are in a direct pipeline you should be able to answer it?

And now for my opinion on the what if's! My understanding is that a Constitutional mandate would override any local or other state law passed including those passed by a duly elected Legislators!

This means to my understanding any township,county or city laws passed and on the books that affect farming activity would be null and void! So Joe Blow Farmer could come in beside Jamestown, or Devils Lake if permits for waste where issued and build a feed lot with no oversight or control locally. They would only be limited by EPA pollution standards.

Others brought up the issue of flood control or better yet the years in the past where dikes where built forcing water levels up on others. Again state laws currently address some of this but would be null and void if this was passed. Then the legal battles would begin with neighbor suing neighbor over water just like it once was!

Then there are the issues of mineral rights and surface rights conflicts, some have suggested that this is a back handed attempt to undo mineral rights laws in the state as well. Meaning that surface rights would trump mineral rights even though the law regarding this has been litigated. This adds a new parameter to be litigated!

What else was brought up to me over Christmas! Waste disposal was one, and there are others, but I hope you get the point gst and shaug, this measure is being looked at hard with most looking not at the positive but the actual negatives that could and would occur! Thus if passed as is, the Leg would have little if any ability to amend it and only another measure removing it would be able to do so!


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Shaug I think your daughter that went to the OCCUPY is changing you rather than you changing her. It was not George Bush who changed research in wildlife to USGS it was Bill Clinton.


Bill Clinton moved the research arm from USFWS to USGS. No federal employees lost their job. Public sector jobs and bloated government cannot keep growing while jobs in the private sector keep shrinking. As ugly as it sounds, many federal jobs must be cut. Go Ron Paul.

My daughter is very much like me. Right now she is in Thailand, expanding her horizons in a writing career. She saved her shekkles to get there.

Ron Gilmore wrote,



> What else was brought up to me over Christmas!


That is impressive. People come to you for your opinion. And you sir have been elected to what? I notice you, Plainsman and some others type much here but I never see you at the capitol or at public forums or were people meet to determine policy. It's all about control. Here your have the floor. At the capitol, you can't make claims or just spew any dang thing.

Let's take Bioman for example. He knew who gst is but was safe in the knowledge that gst had no idea who bioman is. He came out name calling, loser, moron, windbag. Posting every web-link he could find on gst like a stalker. On New Years Eve bioman said he is steppin out but couldn't wait to mix it up again New Years Day. Bright and early Bioman was at it



> Re: Talk to a farmer
> by bioman » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:58 am
> 
> Gabe, every single person that has ever viewed or participated in a thread where you have posted have all come to the same conclusion, you are an arrogant, egocentric, crass human being. More importantly, you have a very juvenile and imbecile habit of conveniently changing the question when the respondent out answers you. Therefore, I am not going to answer any more of your ever changing questions that fit both your biases and idiocy. But I am going to ask you three questions:
> 
> 1.) Are CAFOs a contributing source of pollutants into watersheds? Yes or No?
> 2.) Do these pollutants improve or degrade the watersheds water quality? Yes or No?
> 3.) Do you have a constitutional law degree (Sorry couldn't resist that one)?


Ron, do you recognize it? He was in control. He was ready to mix it up first thing New Years day. And then I posted this:



> Bioman said,
> 
> Where are the majority of coal power plants built in North Dakota???
> 
> Of course they are built close to a water source as they need water to create steam. They are heavily regulated but maybe you don't think they are regulated hard enough. Is your concern the environment or do you have an ulterior motive?
> 
> Good morning Ryan,
> 
> https://picasaweb.google.com/ctgilfoy/W ... 6350599986
> 
> You're kind of a sawed off little runt.
> 
> As a project manager at CH2M HILL would you care to elaborate on what duties you perform there.
> 
> http://www.americantowns.com/wy/cheyenn ... ing-201612
> 
> Would you like to see the total demise of coal mines so that the business your in can thrive? Let me ask you this. If you were on a life support machine for about a week or two, what would rather have that life support machine hooked up to, a coal fired generating station or a windmill?


It took Bioman out of his game. Everyone now knows who he is so the COWARD fled this discussion. He was no longer in control. There are far too many persons on this web-forum that talk tough, talk stupid or "supid". I invite them to come to the Capitol, Town Halls or public meetings where policy is being made. But they usually turn down the invite because they know when they get there they won't be in control.


----------



## spentwings

Come on shaug!
Denver veggie burgers with Bioman or fresh ND beef liver with gst by the Canuck border?
Not much of a choice,,,but suspect even plains would prefer the latter.
What are we really talking about here?
Is it environmental disaster scenarios brought on by a vague right to farm amendment
or a seething animosity between two opposing groups?,,,I suspect both.
It's the latter that fuels the fire and makes these threads so pathetic.


----------



## Csquared

I could not agree with spent's last sentence more, and it's sad because aside from tactics and levels of ability to resist personal attacks I doubt there's a thimble-full of differences between any us away from this general issue.



> any township,county or city laws passed and on the books that affect farming activity would be null and void


Ron, again for what it's worth, my personal opinion is the writers' purposeful use of the word "*enact*" will most likely make it fairly easy to explain it will _*NOT*_ eliminate pre-existing law. However, one of the clever things about the use of that word is it most likely will open the door for the NDSA to file suit to challenge existing laws in court. I would expect most to be thrown out quickly, but some could quite possibly, ultimately, force appellate judges and the ND Supreme Court to rule one way or another based on _*THEIR*_ *unbiased* interpretation of the constitution in it's then current form. It could give the NDSA...or anyone, for that matter...the ability to file suit challenging any new ag law (and quite possibly existing law) on grounds presently unavailable to them in a lot of cases......on the grounds the law is unconstitutional.

But, for me, the most interesting aspect about the use of the word "enact" is it sort of circumvents what the Heller case showed us at the Fed level a few years ago. That being you can _*limit*_ a constitutional right without taking it away. That's a huge detail, and one we will all watch various groups exploit while attacking our second amendment rights in the years ahead. So the wording here that makes it unconstitutional to "*enact laws*" is significant.

But the one question I would love to see explained here is a very simple one. Those arguing the legislature will maintain control of the amendment if adopted need voters to believe they (general assembly) will still have the ability to restrict the very rights guaranteed by the new measure in a way that will be for the good of the people. How can that possibly occur if they (general assembly) would not *ALSO RETAIN *the ability to restrict those rights in a way sponsored by the Humane Society, PETA, etc?

Either the legislature retains that power, or they don't. Simple as that. And if they do...what's the point of the amendment?

Their explanation appears to me as a classic example of having their steak...and eating it, too.

Perhaps we need a thread titled "Talk to an attorney licensed to practice law in North Dakota who isn't currently retained by or 
has been recently hired by (or has a biased interest in the agendas presented here by either side) the NDSA or NDFB" :wink:

Just a thought


----------



## gst

Ron as said, it is good to question what one is being asked to vote on, It is good to dig and inform ones self as to what you are being asked to vote on. But if you are going to come on a site like this and make "claims" as to what you are being asked to vote on will do, you should be held to a standard of factual provable truth. That is if you beleive things such as the creation of law and constitutional amendments should be based on fact and truth.

There are a number of avenues avalible to get this type of information regarding this measure. They have been mentioned in this thread. If you truly are concerned more with determining the truth to this measure rather than influencing peoples "opinions" I would suggest pursueing them rather than taking anything of value from ANY comments on here.



Plainsman said:


> My travel was paid for with money from the farm. No fooling. Surprise. Your right I perhaps should not have listed all the traveling I have been doing. I feel sorry for those people on salary only. I'm not going to complain to them, rather I'll listen to their problems. My connection doesn't give me the tax shelter that a more direct connection would though


So plainsman does this money that you get from the farm happen to come in the form of rent from a farmer? Would he be able to pay as much for rent if it were not for the "taxpayers dollars" subsidizing agriculture? "It is funny just what "pockets" these "taxpayer dollars" find their way into! Remember now you have painted the picture of farmers not being ableto survive without these govt payments in a numbe of threads so if you truly do maintain this position, you can not deny they are a critical part of what ultimately ends up in YOUR "pockets". So just perhaps, it could be looked at that a portion of these "taxpayer dollars" ultimately end up "subsidizing "your trips! :wink:

It seems you have no problem using them to fund your vacations, yet condemn others for using them to pay for say health ins or retirement pension plans. Say plainsman, where does your health ins, and pension plan dollar come from?



Plainsman said:


> Shaug I think your daughter that went to the OCCUPY is changing you rather than you changing her.


Plainsamn, why do you feel the need to bring peoples kids into the discussion? What value does that bring to the debate?


----------



## swift

GST, please answer my post above. Nothing personal nothing attacking would just like to hear what you have to say in regards to my post with truth and facts and without spin.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Come on shaug!
> Denver veggie burgers with Bioman or fresh ND beef liver with gst by the Canuck border?
> Not much of a choice,,,but suspect even plains would prefer the latter.
> *What are we really talking about here?
> Is it environmental disaster scenarios brought on by a vague right to farm amendment
> or a seething animosity between two opposing groups?,,,*I suspect both.
> It's the latter that fuels the fire and makes these threads so pathetic.


What I am and have been talking about here is posting things that can simpy be sbstantiated with fat when debating the creation of law, a constitutional amendment, or how someone makes their livlihood.

Radical ideas eh??

The fact is I wouldn;t mind frying you guys up some liver andonions up at the "shack" and discussing rifles, elk hunting, the follies of libeals ect... over a beer or possibly Pendelton. If I were to come on this site discussing how someone makes their living, I would expect tobe held to a standard of truth and provable fact, and I merely expect the same from others.

You guys do beleive somethnig as important as the creation of law or a constitutional amendment should be based on fact and truth do you not??


----------



## gst

swift if I truly beleived your ivolvement in this discussion was based on your desire to get the truth about this measure out to the public, I would put some effort into "answering" your questions. As you have made it perfectly clear as to why you are even on here earlier in this thread, you will have to forgive me for not answering your questions.

If you have questions about this measure, I would suggest pursueing the avenues suggested to find answers from someone you do not have such an admitted personal animousity towards.

But you are invited to the liver fry if you would like!


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainman said on Nodak,
> 
> I will tell you that the problem for many is listening to people complain who have much more than they do. I'll give you a hint. If your talking to a man who has lost his job, and has been on unemployment for a year, don't sit in your new Escalade and tell him how tough you have it because selling your calves is getting in the way of your families trip to Jamaica for two weeks. It's hard to tell if it was complaining or bragging. It isn't good PR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, Over on FBO you told a fella some more of that immoral leprosy,
> 
> Headed out for a meeting at 10:00 am, then 12:00 noon, and another at 1:00pm. I hope to make it home by 2:30pm so I can take off and archery hunt for a few days before deer rifle season. Then I have four doe tags to fill.
> This year, seventeen states in the NE, then Hawaii, then a house boat in Northern Minnesota for a while, Alaksa July and August, and returned a couple of weeks ago from elk hunting and fly fishing in Montana. Headed for Florida after Christmas. January 2013 I have Uganda, Africa on the list, but your right I should get out more. I'll try catch up to you OK
> 
> Plainsman, In your own words were you bragging or complaining?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oops.
> 
> Not quite Jamacia, but hopefuly that fella on FBO was gainfully employed for the past year! :wink: I'm sure that unemployed fella you mention could use the money you spent on your last custom rifle and scope to pay his rent for a month or two! :-?
Click to expand...

He could also use that one hundred and some thousand the government that you hate gave you in subsidy payments.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift if I truly beleived your ivolvement in this discussion was based on your desire to get the truth about this measure out to the public, I would put some effort into "answering" your questions. As you have made it perfectly clear as to why you are even on here earlier in this thread, you will have to forgive me for not answering your questions.
> 
> If you have questions about this measure, I would suggest pursueing the avenues suggested to find answers from someone you do not have such an admitted personal animousity towards.
> 
> But you are invited to the liver fry if you would like!


I have to call bull on this. The fact is I brought up legitimate arguements that you cannot spin or rebute. When that happens you always do the same thing. Turn tail and start requoting from many pages back. You want substantiated claims, I gave them to you and you post this crap. It speaks volumes to the lack of your character.

PS. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings I thought I was dealing with a rough and tough stockman. Not a 14 year old princess.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Ron, again for what it's worth, my personal opinion is the writers' purposeful use of the word "enact" will most likely make it fairly easy to explain it will NOT eliminate pre-existing law. However, one of the clever things about the use of that word is it most likely will open the door for the NDSA to file suit to challenge existing laws in court.


C squared in the 80 years this org has been in existance it has to my knowledge NEVER filed a lawsuit for anything. The NDSA has a successful record of respect and integrity working WITH the elected representatives of the people of ND to deal with issues and policy rather than challenging them in courts of law.



Csquared said:


> It could give the NDSA...or anyone, for that matter...the ability to file suit challenging any new ag law (and quite possibly existing law) on grounds presently unavailable to them in a lot of cases......on the grounds the law is unconstitutional.


This was a concern that was voiced as well to the NDFB when we spoke with their representative. It could indeed give these anti groups a platform here in ND, as well as open the door to an activist judicial ruling and some quesion the wisdomof such action. : *But I can gurantee you one thing for certain. The NDSA nor the NDFB WILL NOT invite HSUS into this state to help pass this measure!!![/b] :-?



Csquared said:



Perhaps we need a thread titled "Talk to an attorney licensed to practice law in North Dakota who isn't currently retained by or 
has been recently hired by (or has a biased interest in the agendas presented here by either side) the NDSA or NDFB"

Just a thought

Click to expand...

I beleive this was suggested more than once in working with ones elected representatives to get an official "opinion" from the ND AG's office regarding the concerns over this measure if I m not mistaken.

And for the record, the NDSA does not hire attorneys for measures we are not a sponsor of.*


----------



## gst

leadfed,or he simply could admit the hypocracy in his statements condemning others.

You do realize those numbers are for a 10 year period and also include ALL forms of govt payments INCLUDING various *conservation* program payments as well do you not?

Conservation programs such as CRP, tree plantings, enrolling lands in grassland, establishing water systems away from cricks, once over rotational grazing systems which promote wildlife habitat and bird nesting, ect???? Just a few of the dozens of programs designed to work with producers to promote conservation the govt funds.

Perhaps we should simply get rid of ALL these gov payments.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> swift if I truly beleived your ivolvement in this discussion was based on your desire to get the truth about this measure out to the public, I would put some effort into "answering" your questions. As you have made it perfectly clear as to why you are even on here earlier in this thread, you will have to forgive me for not answering your questions.
> 
> If you have questions about this measure, I would suggest pursueing the avenues suggested to find answers from someone you do not have such an admitted personal animousity towards.
> 
> But you are invited to the liver fry if you would like!
> 
> 
> 
> I have to call bull on this. The fact is I brought up legitimate arguements that you cannot spin or rebute. When that happens you always do the same thing. Turn tale and start requoteing from many pages back. You want substantiated claims, I gave them to you and you post this crap. It speaks volumes to the lack of your character.
> 
> PS. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings I thought I was dealing with a rough and tough stockman. Not a 14 year old princess.
Click to expand...

Re: Future of Wildlife...
by swift » Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:53 pm

swift wrote "_I'd like GST to weigh in on this article. I would get dizzy from the spin_."

No personal animousity basing your comments eh??? 

Don;t worry swiftyou are not hurtin my feelings, but I simply see little value in discussing issues with someone who has admitted their entire reason for involving themselves in the debate is personal animousity.

As I said swift if you are interested in finding out the facts regarding this measure, pursue your answer where you will get less "spin" in your opinion, rather than asking someone whom you personally dislike for their answer. :-?


----------



## swift

Well lets hear your spin on the article. Pun intended. Your own farmers are calling other farmers greedy in the article. What do you say to that?

AND can you really deny being the spin artist of the decade on this site? You really are good at it. Everybody should be good at something.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Well lets hear your spin on the article. Pun intended. Your own farmers are calling other farmers greedy in the article. What do you say to that? .


swift you say this as if it is some shocking revelation. In fact it has been readily admitted on this site that indeed some farmers just as some doctors or Physicians Assitants are "greedy" as well. Greed is not a human trait carried soley by those in ag or any other single occupation.

Some would look that anyone with say 60 acres of CRP that takes the tax payer paymnt for it and yet posts it and does not allow uncontroled access so the public can pursue their game "greedy" as well. Not me personally, but hey I don't speak for all hunters. Swift, you have some CRP don't you?


----------



## Csquared

> C squared in the 80 years this org has been in existance it has to my knowledge NEVER filed a lawsuit for anything. The NDSA has a successful record of respect and integrity working WITH the elected representatives of the people of ND to deal with issues and policy rather than challenging them in courts of law.


In those 80 years the constitution didn't give them the avenue they're asking for now. They HAD to have a close working relationship with legislators to get anything done. But depending on final form, that may or may not be as important over the next 80 years.



> This was a concern that was voiced as well to the NDFB when we spoke with their representative. It could indeed give these anti groups a platform here in ND, as well as open the door to an activist judicial ruling and some quesion the wisdomof such action.


Obviously, and possibly your greatest fear...*UNLESS* the legislature truly _*WILL* _retain the authority to limit the scope of the amendment (which I believe will not be the case if adopted as currently written). If that power is retained *THAT *will become your greatest fear, as the legislature will continue to be inundated with sickening attempts to circumvent the measure by the very groups you hate most...EXACTLY that which you claim to be trying to prevent.

But you forgot a couple questions. You didn't report the explanations by those representatives relating legislative power to the constitution. I believe the meeting was Dec 7th. Simply explain how they explained to you that the legislature will have the power to respond to the needs of the populace but *NOT HAVE THE POWER* to respond to the wishes of The Humane Society and PETA.



> And for the record, the NDSA does not hire attorneys for measures we are not a sponsor of


Who paid for the legal work to draft the current measure?


----------



## swift

So isn't that inherant greed that is in all types of people even more dangerous when there is a vague/broad constitutional amendment to rely on?

My 60 acres is not posted. Remember I live in SD where there is no open access law.

Nice jab though.

Do you care to answer my questions above since you are now talking to me again?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsamn, why do you feel the need to bring peoples kids into the discussion?


Just teasing him. He once said his daughter was at occupy. Most things shaug says makes me think he is conservative. Then when he mentioned a daughter at occupy I thought maybe I misjudged. So on FBO I think two of us teased him some. He said ya, but he was rechipping or rebooting her or something like that. So it was just a follow up. You know us conservatives if someone has a liberal bent we like to poke them for fun. oke:

Hey, shaug, a friend of mine has a daughter who is a missionary in Thailand. They have started a Christian school there. I forget what town they are in, but if your daughter wants to make contact with some Americans there I can find out for you. They are very large farmers here around Jamestown so she would be with people she would like.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Who paid for the legal work to draft the current measure?


Not the NDSA.

As to everyones other questions, you guys really need to ask people you will actually accept the answers from for these questions you have. I can relate what has been told me, but does ANYONE actually beleive it will be taken for what it is worth on this site???

Csquare, if I told you on Dec 7th we were reassured that this measure would indeed not prevent regulatory law created by the state legislature from keeping the claims plainsman made from happening would you or anyone else simply accept that and move on?? :-?

So please do not waste your time or mine asking questions of someone you will not accept the answer from and I will indeed do the same.

If you truly beleive things such as the creation of law or constitutional amendments and the discussion surrounding this be based on fact and truth, *contact the appropriate people such as the ND AG's office or the EPA or other Federal or state agencies to get answers for your concerns and questions as I and shaug have suggested.* Email them and post the questions asked as well as the answers on here.

If you do not beleive these important issues and the discussions surrounding them should be based on fact and truth, rather than personal animousity continue in the manner that has been done for numerous pages in several threads.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Why do you feel the need to bring peoples kids into the discussion?
> 
> Just teasing him. He once said his daughter was at occupy. Most things shaug says makes me think he is conservative. Then when he mentioned a daughter at occupy I thought maybe I misjudged. So on FBO I think two of us teased him some. He said ya, but he was rechipping or rebooting her or something like that. So it was just a follow up. You know us conservatives if someone has a liberal bent we like to poke them for fun.


You always have an "explanation don't you!  I have to admit, this one is better than the one you and csquared had excusing the "fying fluck" comment from being a "potty mouth" one though! 

Hey I thought the rules were to "stay on topic" of whatever the thread is, not "tease" fellas!  But hey, I don;t give a "fying fl .....", naw better not! :wink:

I hope there are no rules against teasing fellas cause I think I might have just broke them. But hey if the moderator himself does it, it can be against the rules is it?? :-?

Any way guys, as it stands there is the ND AG's office and their ability to give an unbiased opinion on this measure to address your concerns. I would suggest that may be the best avenue for you guys to go to get the truth and facts regarding this measure. So contact your local legislators and ask them to request an official "opinion" from the ND AG. My broken thumb and index finger will thank you .

Csquare, swift, bioman, you probably can't do that as the legislators form Il., SD, and Co. probably don't have much pull with the AG's office up here in ND ! 

Oops, more "teasing". I surely hope that isn;t against the rules!!!


----------



## Csquared

> Csquare, if I told you on Dec 7th we were reassured that this measure would indeed not prevent regulatory law created by the state legislature from keeping the claims plainsman made from happening would you or anyone else simply accept that and move on??


Not a chance. Not an icecube's chance more than you'd accept my answer to one of your questions if I tried using the word of a third party...and I wouldn't want it any other way. However, that wasn't what I asked. I asked you to explain to us how the representatives explained to *YOU* how the legislature will retain the power to limit the scope of the amendment for the public good but will NOT have the power to appease The Humane Society and PETA. All you're providing above is what we've already heard...no substance.

I don't want to be reassured. I want to see how they intend to pull that legal manuever off. Just tell us how they explained that to you...if they did. It's a ridiculously simple question. All you have to do is relay to me what they explained to you.



> So please do not waste your time or mine asking questions of someone you will not accept the answer from and I will indeed do the same.


I simply cannot believe you actually typed that.

Whether I agree with it or not I'll accept any answer from you that's actually an answer. I don't want to hear "trust us...we got it covered." I want to hear the representatives' legal explanation of how the general assembly can respond to certain groups, but not others, AFTER a constitutional amendment is adopted forbidding them to do that very thing. And trust me...I'll understand it...however they said it....

If they did.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> [If you do not beleive these important issues and the discussions surrounding them should be based on fact and truth, rather than personal animousity continue in the manner that has been done for numerous pages in several threads.


Facts?
It's hard to find facts and truth in a mountain of crap but I'll try.
On second thought,,,why should I bother.
Old issue animosities breed new issue animosities, more distrust, and the pathetic cycle continues. 
I've said along time ago I find you credible,,, but sadly you blew it for me with the spin, redundancy, and verbosity.
When it comes to personal attacks, name calling, etc., yeah,,, you're the least offender I'll give you that.
But when it comes to :bs:,,, let those without sin cast the first turd.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Not a chance. Not an icecube's chance


So why are you asking me?

Simply contact the NDFB directly and get the answer "straight from the horses mouth" as they say. An email correspondance is easy to cut and paste onto a site such as this in it's entirety.

If you do not beleive what the NDFB will say( big surprise) encourage your cohorts that are ND resisdents to contact their legislators and request an opinion from the ND AG's office.

Pretty simple, direct, and unbiased. (unless of course the grand ag conspiracy includes collusion by the ND Atttorney Generals office as well.)

Spent after all the pages of verbosity (I kinda like that word,but then I would guess if one is verbose he would indeed like many words!  ) it all comes down to one thing if you beleive truth and fact should be the basis for the creation of law and constitutional amendments, when you make claims regarding such shouldn;t they then in fact be factual and true? And at the very least be able to be proven as such?

I beleive quite a while back "pre verbosness" (some would argue that time frame has never existed!) , I suggested an "opinion" from the NDAG's office would be appropriate "fact" and it was dismissed as only being an "opinion" in and of itself which is indeed true, but one that comes from an unbiased source charged with maintaining the factual representation of what the "opinion" is being asked of.

So from here on perhaps these "opinions" should be left to this type of an unbiased source rather than a former sponsor or supporters, (or even opponents) of a failed attempt to ban something this measures intent is designed to prevent. :wink:

That is if in fact the intent of these people is to have the factual turth regarding this meausre be known.

I know it may be a "radical" concept to beleive the ND AG's office could give a factual unbiased "opinion" on what a constitutional amendment will allow and what it will not, but hey, that's what I going with. 

I do apologize for the "verbosity" of my comments.

Man I like that word, it''s not one that pops up in everyday conversations. spent you have impressed me. :wink:

However, in some situations occassionally "redundancy" is sometimes required.  particularily at the level such as you most often see with the juvenile "name calling "having been demonstrated on here. :roll:

But hey, at least that apparently is not against the rules of this site :wink: ! (easy there plainsamn, just teasing) :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman

> You always have an "explanation don't you! I have to admit, this one is better than the one you and csquared had excusing the "fying fluck" comment from being a "potty mouth" one though!


It wasn't excused so don't misrepresent things and whine. Many things happen behind the scene. Please understand that I don't PM an explanation to every person on the site. Can anyone imagine the bickering nightmare that would lead to? Things have been taken care of gst so don't worry your little heart. :wink:

I have a question gst. Do you know any future plans for that feedlot at Carrington?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So shaug is the one that we should be getting answers from so I will ask this of him? What affect will the measure if passed have on current laws and how and who has made that determination?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, I see in that politics thread Csquared was indeed properly flogged with verbousnesss critical of his simple, incorrectly spelled Il. family crest based phonically slanderous innuendo, so indeed it was crystal clear this such "potty mouth" language was not "excused" and will no longer be tolerated by you as moderator (except in the posts directly folowing your "explanation" in which Csquared "explained") ! :roll:  oke: (just teasing)

So if things have "been taken care of" can we use this "I don't give a fying fluck" "reference to an old Il. family crest" as a response to someone on here or not???  I missed the memo.

We ALL need to know the rules if we are to follow them! :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman

Fair enough. No it shouldn't be used. It has been taken care of through PM's. As a matter of fact it was taken care of by self flogging and apology before I had a chance to respond. I respect that. I also respect civil PM's when I send one to someone. Two things in the past few days have garnered my respect. One was a self awarness of his mistakes, and the other was swift on open form with this quote: 


> There is no one group to blame we are equally to blame for greed.


They were talking about the future of wildlife in South Dakota.

One person was wrong and knew it, which I really respect and appreciate.
Another person was aware that he had the same short comings as everyone else, and I really respect a person who can look at himself realistically. I find joy and satisfaction when I read comments like that. Tip of the hat to both men.

gst, I was happy to see you didn't take my post personally when I said farmers in America were productive not efficient. Now I will tell you I do not blame the farmer. Efficiency is improving, but the inefficiency is brought about by the need to fertilize to get the most out of the land one has. Often one has to decide if the need a herbicide or a pesticide and if the expense of those chemicals will be recovered in the harvest or not. Also, often one needs more land to stay solvent which requires more expensive machinery because labor can eat you up. It's brought about not by the farmer by themselves, but by the farmer and circumstances of the society they live in. Swifts quote fits this also.

So like I said don't worry your little heart. oke: :wink:


----------



## swift

GST, I'm still waiting for your opinion. We all know you are never without an opinion so I'd like to hear what you think of by assessment of Article 1 protecting the rights of citizens to intiate measures in spite of this amendment?

The other questions answered would be nice too      :beer:   :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe the emoticons will get you to engage in real discussion. :thumb:


----------



## Csquared

gst, I should probably be thanking you for all the additional airplay my humor has received. If it wasn't for you being so offended it would have simply slipped away almost unnoticed. I hope you can try to understand why I have a hard time believing I needed to be extra careful when sparring with someone who would say this...


> For Christ sakes call the EPA and ask them if these things will be allowed to happen or not


...and lest we forget it was in the Hot Topics forum until you moved it to the Political forum. But got to give you credit for proper use of upper case letters at least. Something I didn't do so well of.

And I'm sure your apology was also handled in a PM.

Now, back to the subject and the question from several of us you are trying to deflect attention from. How did your people explain to you that the legislature will retain the power to pass laws for the common good but will NOT be able to pass laws pushed by radical groups?



> So why are you asking me?


Because you're the one who said they explained it to you.



> I am going to be at a meeting this next Weds. in which a NDFB rep will be presenting and discussing this measure. They will be asked this very question along with the other portion of this article and section i have mentioned. After getting this response I hope to do a little research into what this section of our constitution actually does provide regarding this proposed FB measure. It will be interesting to see what is heard and found





> It has been explained to me that this state measure can not overturn current nor prevent future Federal regulations.


Don't cop out. Besides, you've been asking it since the beginning. This one to Ron is just one of maybe a dozen:



> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening.
> 
> Perhaps you would care to do what plainmsn and swift have not and instead of just spouting more rhetoric they can not substantiate, factually answer this question if you can.


Here's your chance to prove me wrong, gst. You're chance to really shine, and to pound me into the dust. I'll make it even easier for you...

It is my firm belief that *NO ONE* has explained to you that the the general assembly can maintain authority over a constitutional amendment that expressly prohibits authority of the legislature to enact laws against it *UNLESS* the very entities you claim to be seeking protection from also have access to that same authority.

There you go. Simply explain to us how your legal experts used legal precedent and/or state law to explain why I am wrong and you will have successfully tucked my tail....and I'll be the first to acknowledge it.

...but I'm not holding my breath while waiting.


----------



## gst

Remember, I was not the one starting this by making calims as to what this measure would do. 
Remember, I was asking the same questions at the start of this discussion. 
Remember,, it was suggested we "talk" with people other than NDFB reps.
Remember it was only after this that I shared what was represented to me. 
Remember the juveile personal name calling that occured. 
Remember the admission Csquared will beleive nothing, nada, not a ice cubes chance in well you know of what I share.
Remember swift claiming the only reason he responds is his personal animousity towards me. 
Remember how many questions I posed went unanswered.

And yet you guys are wondering why I have decided to quit responding to your questions? I mean come on guys you really can be that "supid" are you? :wink: (just teasing) But hey after your "fying fluck" explanantion who knows?? 

It really is a simple process. Email your elected legislative representatives with your concerns over this measure, ask them to request and opinion from the ND AG's office regarding the concerns. Post the entire email content on this site to get thefacts and truth out regarding this measure. Surely as much respect as plainsamn has for you to he can do this for you as non residents. :wink: (just teasin again)

Why is that so difficult for you guys to do?


----------



## Plainsman

I think that's the same as a surrender Csquared. :rollin:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed,or he simply could admit the hypocracy in his statements condemning others.
> 
> You do realize those numbers are for a 10 year period and also include ALL forms of govt payments INCLUDING various *conservation* program payments as well do you not?
> 
> Conservation programs such as CRP, tree plantings, enrolling lands in grassland, establishing water systems away from cricks, once over rotational grazing systems which promote wildlife habitat and bird nesting, ect???? Just a few of the dozens of programs designed to work with producers to promote conservation the govt funds.
> 
> Perhaps we should simply get rid of ALL these gov payments.


_*EVERYONE READ THIS*_ :beer: :beer:

Ya I guess you are right. $47,877 of the $333,505 you received over the last 15 years has gone to "conservation" so to speak. What exactly where those "conservation" dollars used for gabe? Crp maybe?.....did you post that crp? Conservation my ***. You and conservation go together like fart and church as they say. Oh yea, lets not forget the $68,459 that another Gabe Thompson with the same address has collected from all of us over that same period. Truth and fact?.....http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?cu ... =A07556731 and http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?cu ... =A07582007 (there ya are....id say that is substantiation)

However, that is NOT where this story ends folks. Gst are you so sure you want to "get rid" of all these subsidy programs? Think about it for awhile.......

The reason I ask is because in an Oct. 2006 article on Farmprogress.com you say this. quote, "The lack of subsidies in the farming side of the game has forced the Canadian producers to find ways to make that land economically profitable. Cattle are a
way of doing that." http://magissues.farmprogress.com/mif/M ... /mif50.pdf Substantiated enough for ya?

That quote from you sure makes it sound to me like you are pretty impressed with the subsidies WE GIVE you....not? :lol: At least if you want to be an "economically profitable" farmer that is.  I know you are talking about the canadian market but our two farming systems really cannot be that far apart in structure for you to make that comment.

I actually feel a little sorry for your train of thought. You are obviously not a content individual. You are always looking for the government and everyone who pays into it to pave your way to becoming a rich farmer/rancher. You feel superior over others and entitled to things you shouldn't be entitled to. Take for example that crooked thumb you have. Why not go get it checked by a Dr.? That to me is arrogant, stubborn and just plain stupid! You wouldn't be *****ing about it right now if you would have.

By the way Gabe. I have watched numerous ranch rodeos and have done many of those same things either goofing around on the ranches around here or working cows out in the pastures. That is a young, fit mans hobby gabe if ya know what I mean. :wink: Pretty sure you would be better off leanin that belly up against a spool at the beer gardens. oke: Just teasing. :wink:


----------



## huntin1

shaug said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> If you will notice in the pm GST was talking to a fella psuedo-named sportsman. His name is Michael R. from Jamestown. He was thrown off of fishingbuddy for being an idiot. He then moved over to the Bismarck Tribune Forums and people there had to get ugly with him. He is/was a police officer in Jamestown and he likes to ride shotgun with Huntin1 eating doughnuts. :laugh:


Somehow I missed this,way back on about page 4. Thought I should respond. Shaug, you better watch your step, I will send these guys to your house:










You'll know they are there when they drive up in this:










:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :rollin: :rollin:

Sorry, just thought it might be time for a little humor.

huntin1


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think that's the same as a surrender Csquared. :rollin:


Indeed it is plainsman.

I have surrendered to the little bit of common sense that has told me argueing with a set of juvenile idiots as shown in leadfed's last post past this point will accomplish nothing. plainsamn didn;t you mention something about a "stalker" once??? :roll: Hey how was that last post of leadfeds "on topic" and not "petty bickering"?? ?? 

Recall this admonishment in another thread you made as a "moderator" plainsamn? So just who exactly does this apply to? :wink:

_Re: 30-year-old corn ethanol subsidy nixed by Washington
by Plainsman » Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:58 am

ShineRunner don't worry about this thread going to pot. If bickering continues I will leave the post up, but delete the contents. We will stay on subject. I like the debate of ideas in this form, and will not let it become petty bickering. I am not pointing fingers, and I hope everyone agrees with me on this._

So exactly what here has not "become petty bickerig" ???? :roll:

I have surrended to the fact that as a "moderator" on here you have let your personal bias make demands against "making things personal" and then sit back and say nothing when it happens. Given the juvenile personal posts in this thread that you seem to be amused by your credibility of an unbiased moderator not wanting this on your site simply does not exist.

I have surrendered to the fact that someone that states emphatically they will not beleive anything I tell them that comes from a "third party" , 
:


Csquared said:


> Not a chance. Not an icecube's chance more than you'd accept my answer to one of your questions if I tried using the word of a third party...and I wouldn't want it any other way.


and yet continue to demand I give an answer to a question which he knows the answer came from a "third party" which he just said he will not beleive, :eyeroll: is not looking for answers, but rather is simply engageing in "petty bickering" and is so blinded by personal bias he has no realization of what he has just demanded and how idiotic it is.

I have surrendered to the fact the small group of "Radicals" on this site do not care if the creation of law or constitutional amendments are based on fact or truth. The very same ones for the most part proved that in the HFH debate and have continued it once again here. If they did they would in this case email their legislators and ask for the states highest non judicial venue to make an official "opinion" on their concerns regarding this measure. Instead this thread will simply continue from here with a few more personal comments and then die like this site seems to be. And a few people on here will wonder why a site like FBO has 2 or 3 times the traffic.

Spent, sorry for the "redundant" "verbousness" of this post, but as you can see it appears NO ONE is willing to do one simple thing to actually get to the truth regarding their concerns over this measure no matter how many times it is spelled out how it can be accomplished once and for all.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, you cherry pick from other threads out of context. To bad you missed this:


> This isn't the hot topics where nearly everything goes. You will not be allowed to sabotage these threads.


Hot topics is often bickering. Things often get hot in the political form, but I don't let it turn to bickering. Whine some where else. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. :eyeroll: so many drama princesses.

I have been watched FBO and people there think just like us.


----------



## gst

So then in other words as a moderator you are saying you have no problem with what has gone on in this thread?

Just letting people make up their own minds as to the standards this site holds itself to thru it's "supermoderators". Plainsman, what would your response be if someone had posted personal information about your Father on this website in a juvenile personal bashing thread?

What some idiot posts on here because of his personal dislike of someone he has never met is of little concern to me when it is about me, but when you guys start bringing family members that have never been on this site into things as you have done with shaugs daughter and my son in past threads and now someone else my Father, the juvenile level of this site should be addressed at some point.

But hey, that's just my "opinion"and perhaps you think it appropriate.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, you cherry pick from other threads out of context. To bad you missed this:
> This isn't the hot topics where nearly everything goes. You will not be allowed to sabotage these threads.
> 
> Hot topics is often bickering. Things often get hot in the political form, but I don't let it turn to bickering. Whine some where else. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. so many drama princesses.


So plainsamn if as you say "nearly everything goes" here in "hot topics" please show me where in any of the threads you have locked there have been the same number and level of juvenile persoonal posts there have been in this thread you seem to be encouraging?

It appears as long as the personal comments are directed at those that disagree with you , there is no problem. But when they are not threads are suddenly locked

Credibility????

Indeed I "surrender" to the juvenile nature that is allowed on this site as demonstrated in this thread.


----------



## Plainsman

I don't like some things, but who am I going to boot when I have let you get away with more. I don't like discussing these things in the open, but I don't whip myself either, so I don't open your PM's. I don't like the abuse and name calling in your PM's. If your serious and not just trying to stab me then PM another moderator. If I moderate you will cry again. I'll not be sucked into that.

As for shaugs daughter, he brought that up in one thread. No one made fun of her, or bad mouthed her, we just gave shaug a bad time about being a closet liberal. I think everyone got the humor. Most NDFB are not liberals, and I would guess shaug would take that as calling him a bad name, but understand the humor. He understood it on FBO why would he not understand it here? Oh, ya you don't like people here.

Do it the right way gst. Contact another moderator. Myself, I don't like it when people call each other by name on here, but you do. There are to many lurking nut jobs on the internet. You may have noticed I don't call people by their first or last name on here. Never do. However, when you fellows start to jab each other and one can not tell who the worst offender is what should a moderator do? I can't boot one and let you go.

Here is a problem I have run into in the past. A guy dislikes someone so much he frustrates them (political form) so much they loose it and both get booted. Then the real offender registers under another name. Some go so far as to drop their provider and get a new one. Some have run us in circles for a long time. Old Militant Tiger registered under five different names and a couple of ip addresses. Contact administration.

edit: I just seen your last post. You level more at me than anyone else, and ten times as much in the PM's. That's why I stopped reading them. Nothing but bad bad bad in the last PM's I read. I have an opinion and your PM's are liar, liar, liar and worse. Stop the drama and contact administration.


----------



## gst

As they say, plainsman, if the shoe fits. Didn't you claim I owned and ran a HFH operation??



gst said:


> Plainsman, what would your response be if someone had posted personal information about your Father on this website in a juvenile personal bashing thread?


plainsamn you didn;t answer this question.

I'm glad to see you have yet another "explanation" that continues to allow what most will see as juvenile behavior on this site. If you can show where I have posted ANYTHING that is any worse than what you have encouraged and allowed in this thread or engaged in yourself, by all means boot me off. But prior to doing so please post the infraction that hs crossed that line so it can be weighed against what you allow and seemingly encourage.

And while your at it post the comments that got the other threads locked so they can be weighed against what you have allowed in this one.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

You know I had a post complied to address gst, but then realized he is by far the best asset we have regarding this issue! So carry on gst! Those opposed to the language benefit with every post you make!


----------



## gst

Gald to help ron. :wink:


----------



## swift

wow somebodies panties are in a wad. Cant take the heat when your proven wrong I see. You have a knack for twisting what is said and extrapolating out posts to a point of complete mistruth. Then you whine when somebody gets personal? I pointed out the only way for you to quit twisting my words that clearly state I disagree and do not trust the NDFB to in your words slamming all ag producers. (paraphrasing) was to make it personal. It worked. I would like to have my questions answered but you are not willing to do that because you cannot answer them in a fashion that you make you or the amendment look good. By ducking those questions you are admitting that you have no idea how this will benefit farmers and ranchers but you like to raise cain so you do. I hope support continues for ag in the future but three different articles I read today implicated the current rate of tilling anything and everything to plant corn as greed. The accusations are being made by farmers about farmers. Once the infighting begins the fringe groups you rightly fear so much will swoop in and make your life miserable.

So continue to alienate the non-ag citizens of the state and surrounding states through poorly written amendments, poorly thought out policies and resolutions and "it's my ball I will take it home" schoolyard bullying until you are the only one out standing in your field. And if you really think the policies that I have showed to be fact by posting them on this site are not alienating the non-ag public then your not capable of looking at anything with an open mind.

And btw "supid" was a typo that you seem to have plenty of so keep clinging to it. It shows just how shallow you can be.


----------



## gst

swift you aren't still peeved over that time you suggested you were smarter than someone else and misspelled "stupid" are you!!!  I mean hey If I was a betting man, I'd bet you know how to spell stupid, but it was kinda funny you actually spelled "supid" wrong in that partiular "context".


----------



## swift

Good example of twisting words. I never claim to be smarter than ayone. If I was I wouldn't enter into these conversations.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Spent, sorry for the "redundant" "verbousness" of this post,


I understand,,, but it does reinforce the fact that manure runs down hill even though you've tried to convince me otherwise.


----------



## zogman

I think this is where this thread is going. oke: GST in disguise :laugh:

Enjoy!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

zogman in reference to these threads I have posted this before. It's time to see it again.


----------



## leadfed

Gst are you kidding me? Stalking?....really. If that is a legitimate claim I would appreciate it if you contact the local law enforcement and have them come investigate me so we can figure this out. What a bunch of bs. Everything I posted on that one post that got your panties in a knot was from one google search to find how much money we give you in subsidies.

The reason for it you ask. Well, my reason for posting that was to show everyone your lack of respect. We give, give, give and you take, take, take!....and now you want the damn constitution changed to give you free roam from here on out!!! Simple as that really. No one else on here gets subsidies, at least to your level, and then continues to push for more. More in the way of less regulation for YOU to make YOUR life easier and more "economically profitable".

Nope gst, what your problem is is that you are not able to bully anyone here and you are not getting your way so you are going to take your ball and go home like a little mad school girl. I have NO sympathy for you or your type. Like many have said on here you are an all knowing arrogant jerk with no compromise. I have seen compromise on this measure from a lot of people on here but none from you. Change the way it is worded and make it more specific to keeping anit's out of your buisness and you would be amazed at the support you would receive. But nope, you want not one piece of pie....you want the whole damn bakery!

Gst if you are going to be such a vocal proponent of these groups you have to realize that a lot of what you "preach" is going to end up public. Not only that but if I am giving you subsidy monies I have the right to know where they are going and that is why ewg.org is there. If you don't want that info public just don't put in for subsidies as you once suggested. But then again you might have to give up that "economically profitable" lifestyle :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> swift you aren't still peeved over that time you suggested you were smarter than someone else and misspelled "stupid" are you!!!  I mean hey If I was a betting man, I'd bet you know how to spell stupid, but it was kinda funny you actually spelled "supid" wrong in that partiular "context".


How about this for a constructive post gabe?lol So now we are having a spelling contest? :lol: Grasping for straws a little now aren't we?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> As they say, plainsman, if the shoe fits. Didn't you claim I owned and ran a HFH operation??
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, what would your response be if someone had posted personal information about your Father on this website in a juvenile personal bashing thread?
> 
> 
> 
> plainsamn you didn;t answer this question.
> 
> I'm glad to see you have yet another "explanation" that continues to allow what most will see as juvenile behavior on this site. If you can show where I have posted ANYTHING that is any worse than what you have encouraged and allowed in this thread or engaged in yourself, by all means boot me off. But prior to doing so please post the infraction that hs crossed that line so it can be weighed against what you allow and seemingly encourage.
> 
> And while your at it post the comments that got the other threads locked so they can be weighed against what you have allowed in this one.
Click to expand...

Once again what "personal" information did I post about your father Gabe? It is PUBLIC information! If you want to go see how much money the tax payers give your neighbors just go here and check it out. ewg.org There ya go. Besides I didn't even realize it was your father until you told us on here. Yep the undies are definetely in a tangled mess on this one aren't they gst.


----------



## gst

lead, the "stalking" comment was a little inside one for plainsamn. :wink: But I can see where it might have gone over your head. 



leadfed said:


> We give, give, give


Lead, as you like to post dollar amounts, why don;t you post exactly how much you have "given"? While your at posting dollar amounts, why don;t you share exactly how many of your OWN dollars you have spent on conservation practices as well. pslinsamn, C squared wish to tally up those dollar figures and post them? :roll:

If you are going to make claims as to what I am "taking" at least make sure you have the right person. I have no problem with you posting public information rearding myself, but when you choose to post unrelated information regarding my family members it shows how juvenile and petty you guys get. Why don't you guys share exacly who you are so we can see what everyone is getting in tax payer dollars? :wink: Pretty brave to sit behind a screen name and bash others. :wink:

Taking my ball and going home? Only until the next bullshot claims arise regarding agiculture. Remember from the very start of the HFH measue, (which deny it all you wish, but that is exactly what this goes back to) I "claimed" the HSUS would become involved. Plainsman told me they had been contacted, then denied it. ULtimately exactly what was claimed was proven true by admission from 2 sponsors in that HSUS was invivted into our state by "hunters" much like yourselves. So blinded by admitted personal bais and driven to further agendas you would make a deal with the devil to accomplish it.

The one thing this thread has provided for those that wish and had not already realized it is that the very same mentality that drove that HFH measure and the people behind it still exist and are alive and well in their agnedas and how they are willing to make disingenuous claims they can not substantiate and when asked attack the person simply expecting the dialogue surrounding the formation of law or in this case a constitutional amendment to be based on fact rather than juvenile name calling and personal bullshot. This measures intent is to prevent this from happening again and it has stirred the ranks of those old supporters. Outside of swift, (who has admitted is only involvement intis debate is one of personal animousity) what other opponanents on here were not supporters or sponsors of past HFH measures? Hey I will readily admit, the purpose I support this measures intent is to keep radical groups from attempting to ban livestock industries, you guys wish to "man up" and admit the reason you are opposing it is it will limit your ability to do so? 

Do you guys really think people do not realize what your opposition to this is all about? 

plainsman, still waiting for you to "prove" your claim I own a HFH operation! Hey what about the one where you claimed HSUS was not, well you know. 

And plainsamn, I apologize for the use of the word "bullshot" but I am sure there is some state that has the family crest of "bull" perhaps even illinois that "explains it all! :wink:

The FACT here is until someone actually gets something such as an opinion from the ND AG's office as has been suggested repeatedly, no one has "proven" any thing and the truth about what this measure will or will not do is nothing more than supposition. Given the history of the peopleivolved in this "supposition" in what previous measures woulddo, you will have to forgive me for not putting much faith in your guys "proof". 

Why is it you guys that are actually residents of ND are so reluctant to contact your legislators and ask for something from the AG's office to address your concerns regarding this measure???


----------



## swift

Does this include your own "truthful and factual" posts? Or is it only those that oppose you that post supposition?

I think I said exactly what you said many pages ago, which of course you pushed aside.

Cut and paste your opinion from the ND AG's office that will surely shut us up.


----------



## gst

lead I can understand where you would not take the time to realize a name with JR behind it as shown in your first link might actually have a father with the very same name in your eagerness to post these dollar amounts.

Your junior detective book may not have covered that! 

Now that you have been made aware of this should I expect any sort of apology for dragging n 80 year old man into the juvenile crap that is allowed to go on on this site? Probably not seeing as how a moderator drug a 16 year old kid into a debate a while back. :roll: Lucky my 80 year old Mom didn;t get any subsidies (I think :-? ) or you guys could have hit the hat trick of dragging a kid, and old man and an old lady into the childish banter! :roll:

So lead, how many taxpayer dollars have you received? Post up your name instead of hiding behind that screen. :wink: You do recall others wondering who was hiding behind that screen name during the HFH debate as well and what your purpose was. :wink:

Any way carry on in the manner you have attacking people rather than debating an issue it surely will encourage others to join these discussions on this site. And people wonder why it was asked in a thread on here if Nodak Outdoors is a "dying site".

Hey one thought I had, plainsman if this issue is so important, and you guys want the "truth" to be known about it,why haven;t you gotten on FBO ad carried on in the manner you have here? :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

swift, I was not the one on here making claims this measure will allow manure to be dumped directly into rivers, pesticides to be sprayed where school kids get their water from and heroin to be grown by ND farmers! 

Perhaps it is these people that are making these claims that should request this "opinion", that is if they honestly beleive these claims are real and wish the debate surrounding the creation of law and amending our constitution be based on credible fact.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> lead I can understand where you would not take the time to realize a name with JR behind it as shown in your first link might actually have a father with the very same name in your eagerness to post these dollar amounts.
> 
> Your junior detective book may not have covered that!
> 
> Now that you have been made aware of this should I expect any sort of apology for dragging n 80 year old man into the juvenile crap that is allowed to go on on this site? Probably not seeing as how a moderator drug a 16 year old kid into a debate a while back. :roll: Lucky my 80 year old Mom didn;t get any subsidies (I think :-? ) or you guys could have hit the hat trick of dragging a kid, and old man and an old lady into the childish banter! :roll:
> 
> So lead, how many taxpayer dollars have you received? Post up your name instead of hiding behind that screen. :wink: You do recall others wondering who was hiding behind that screen name during the HFH debate as well and what your purpose was. :wink:
> 
> Any way carry on in the manner you have attacking people rather than debating an issue it surely will encourage others to join these discussions on this site. And people wonder why it was asked in a thread on here if Nodak Outdoors is a "dying site".
> 
> Hey one thought I had, plainsman if this issue is so important, and you guys want the "truth" to be known about it,why haven;t you gotten on FBO ad carried on in the manner you have here? :eyeroll:


Well ya know bud, I kinda figured that was your old man but I know how much you like FACTS so I didn't want to assume :wink: I actually found 3 other Thompsons from anter that received subsidies totalling around $80,000 more dollars we handed out but they might not be related. :-? I'll tell you exactly what I have received in federal monies. I have received two payments of $25,000 for a total of 50K. However that is taxed so it ends up being about 35K. BTW are farm subsidies taxed? I really don't know. Anyway, I have no problem tell ing you what I get in federal pmts because I appreciate the hell our of them and will tell anyone that. I do only get them until my student loans are paid however. Now as far as what I pay in taxes.....well that there is private information gst. I will tell you it is substantially more than what I get in federal pmts. After all would you tell me what you pay in taxex? The interesting thing would be what you gross and what you pay in taxes....I am allowed to write off virtually nothing.

There you happy? Probably not because I haven't posted my real name right? Why do you want to know it? What is it going to change? The reason I don't have it on here is because don't feel its necessary for other people to know what I'm doing with my time. Simple as that. i know you will probably spin that to mean something else but it is what it is.

Anything else I can help you with sir?lol


----------



## swift

> swift, I was not the one on here making claims this measure will allow manure to be dumped directly into rivers, pesticides to be sprayed where school kids get their water from and heroin to be grown by ND farmers!
> 
> Perhaps it is these people that are making these claims that should request this "opinion", that is if they honestly beleive these claims are real and wish the debate surrounding the creation of law and amending our constitution be based on credible fact.


No, you were the one claiming it wouldn't... Suppostion is supposition isn't it?


----------



## swift

> Hey I will readily admit, the purpose I support this measures intent is to keep radical groups from attempting to ban livestock industries, you guys wish to "man up" and admit the reason you are opposing it is it will limit your ability to do so?


Here in lies the problem with GST. 15 pages of concerns that this amendment will open the door for abuse by some in ag that could cause enviromental issues. And he clings to us being radical anti ranching. I keep saying he can't see the forest for the trees.

I am manning up and admitting the reason I oppose this amendment is...

1. the recent efforts of the NDFB to "streamline" tiling permits.
2. the vague wording that will be tested by some to do as they wish without regard for their neighbors or the landscape.
3. the NDFB's and NDSA's efforts to remove the EPA and go to a Voluntary local regulatory model.

There are more but those are enough to oppose this amendment.


----------



## Plainsman

> Hey one thought I had, plainsman if this issue is so important, and you guys want the "truth" to be known about it,why haven;t you gotten on FBO ad carried on in the manner you have here?


Two reasons, you would get you rear kicked off over there. Remember the time you had to apologize right after my post? Ya, they removed it so you can say "show me", but you remember.
the other reason is people over there are taking care of your bull droppings. I don't need to.

I think the reason leadfed posted other names is easy. I know one of my relatives puts in many names. I don't know what the advantage is, but he does it for some advantage. They get some subsidies, the wife gets some subsidies, the son gets some subsidies, the daughter gets some subsidies. If you add it up over the time period they list it's over $800 thousand. I have a friend who gets over a million. NO I will not give you his name. Well, it may not hurt, you would have to go to his grave and try get answers from him now. I'm sure you would dig him up if it was to your advantage.

I did notice no one cared when my family members were drug into it. Like I said gst I don't even like names used on here, but I do know you guys are always looking for names. Like who talked to me in Billings, who indisport worked with, where did we work together. The reason you guys don't like names out there is because of the way you would use them. I don't like names from either party. There is some difference with you since you come on as a representative of the NDSA. Also, you say shaug is a representative of the NDFB. He calls others cowards because they don't use their name. Maybe he should post up since he is a public representative of the NDFB.

You constantly misrepresent me in the high fence issue.
1st year I was a sponsor
2nd year you posted on FBO that people should ask me why I didn't sponsor the second year. You were right I didn't sponsor because I didn't want to do it in a landowner control fashion. I didn't want to sponsor something I had no input into. I didn't sponsor because I didn't like HSUS involvement.
You say I admitted that HSUS was involved, then denied it. The truth is I believed they were, then I believed I was lied to, then I believed they were, then again I felt like the source had deceived me. One fellow said he would send me proof. He never did, but he told people he did. He lied about that. Yes, I vacillate back and fourth about the HSUS involvement because I kept getting mixed messages and deception.
You will not let this keep you from making the same false statements over and over though will it gst? It has been explained to you half a dozen times. When we PMed each other you understood it. Why do you not understand it now? Because the truth would not serve your purpose? Answer?

gst, now that I have defended myself from your personal attacks can we get back to the subject?

Good. This amendment is so broad it will leave the door wide open for abuse. No new laws against what? We don't even know what real bad practices are in the future, but how would we stop them. Especially if they were profitable. Even though I was at first thinking about winter feed lots on rivers when I mentioned manure in the rivers I now keep thinking about that feed lot at Carrington sitting right on that little creek going to the James river. Gst do you know if they dump directly into that creek, or do they have a holding pond? I do know that winter feeding operations go on right next to our rivers now. I don't see any feeding right on the river ice anymore like they did in the past.
Pesticides, you bet, and not only herbicides, but insecticides. I have stood beside farmers that have said "if one quart per acre will kill those bas&&^%ds then two will really do the job". It doesn't work that way, and unfortunately they are wasting their own money. I watch aircraft spray insecticides and they also wast it because farmers don't harvest cattails. When they leave the sprayer on over a one acre pond they don't waste much, but when they leave it on over a 20 acre pond they waste a lot. Yup, I did report it. I called the EPA in denver, and they told me to call the North Dakota Health Department. Speaking of the NDHD why will they not tell me what is in my well after the county weed board sprayed Tordon right on and around it. I reported that also, and they sent an investigator who took water samples. I got a letter back and the only thing they said is don't drink it because it's to high in nitrogen. Must be a feed lot close, or gst was speaking into my well. :wink:

I rented a movie for New Years Eve. I don't know what those girls gone wild movies are about, but I thought to myself if this amendment passes we can make a movie called farmers gone wild. :wink: maybe gst and shaug gone wild. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Hey I will readily admit, the purpose I support this measures intent is to keep radical groups from attempting to ban livestock industries, you guys wish to "man up" and admit the reason you are opposing it is it will limit your ability to do so


Swift he was addressing you, and when the high fence debate was going on I think you supported the landowners. Once again gst has attempted to position people in a negative light that is not true.

I doubt leadfed is a public figure so why do people want his name? Cause trouble if they can maybe? Yuuuuuper.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Hey one thought I had, plainsman if this issue is so important, and you guys want the "truth" to be known about it,why haven;t you gotten on FBO ad carried on in the manner you have here?
> Two reasons, you would get you rear kicked off over there. Remember the time you had to apologize righ*Ya, they removed it so you can say "show me", but you remember*t after my post? .


You are still going on that? Now after it was pointed out to you posts on there can not be edited after 30 minutes you are suggesting "they" removed it for me? Remembe you admitted not kowing post could not be edited after a time frame and realized you had oofed in that accusation once already. :-?

EVERYTHING is a conspiracy with you isn;t it plainsamn.  :roll:

Hey aren;t these two sites "sister" sites now? Surely as a "super moderator" you would know wether "they" removed a post at my request would you not?  :roll:

Actually plainsman if you go back a few posts you would see where I said "almost" everyone on here in opposition to the measure supported or sponsored the HFH measure. That "almost" was soley for swifts benefit. The rest of you guys, well if the shoe fits as they say! :wink:

So Bruce, you would have no problem posting what you were paid and the pension you receive from tax payers as a "public" employee? Perhaps you can list the amount of subsidies the farmer that pays you the land rent that you use to travel the world gets as well! :wink: Hey if we are throwing figures out there, they all may be relevant.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst your post is so full of bull dung it is without a doubt one of your more dishonest! 90% of the people I know have no issue with a properly worded amendment being put forward. DO YOU GET THAT A PROPERLY WORDED AMENDMENT! This is not and thus the it seems growing concern about it even within those it is suppose to be protecting seeing it for what it is. Instead of protecting many see it as possibly doing just the opposite.

Now I have no issue with you wanting to protect the livestock industry, but let me pose a question to you. MN had an outbreak of disease in the north west part of the state. Imports from that area without proper documentation where put in place by the people designated to do so. If memory serves me this is common place and when outbreaks of disease are under control or no longer a threat are not the import rules removed?

In essence this is a law created by a board empowered by the Leg to do so. Under the current wording I do not see any new regulations from that board being able to be implemented. Now as it is worded tell me what part of the Leg or board would be allowed to do so within the confines of this amendment as written?

So your neighbor could bring in infected cattle that would economically affect you negatively even though you did nothing wrong!

Show me who with legal backing can dispute this?

If you are not able, then stop the BS comments!


----------



## swift

GST, I manned up but you keep the school girl bickering with Plainsman. That doesn't seem to be manning up.

GST, do you know the difference between earning a wage and receiving a subsidy? Do you really think the two should ever be used as a close comparison? I hope not. I really wish you and shaug would quit hounding Plainsman for going to school, getting a professional degree, holding a professional job and receiving the wage and benefits for that job against him. It makes you look petty and naive to think guys with such positions as representatives to major Ag orgs could be so ignorant. It poorly reflects on those orgs that you represent.

Now find where Plainsman was paid twice for the same product by the taxpayer, or entered into a supply and demand business and received guarenteed price supports and you will have a legitimate comparison.

I can hear the gurgling while you drown under your own crap you have been flinging. There comes a time to man up and say, Hey, maybe you guys have some real concerns. We shouldn't disregard your concerns as people because they are different than ours. Maybe you guys aren't so radical. Maybe you guys really do care about the landscape, the enviornment and the farmer.

Afterall we don't have published radical agendas like those of the NDFB or NDSA. Once again look in the mirror.


----------



## gst

Ron, it is up to the discretion of the State Board of Animal Health and the State Vets Office working together to implement or discontinue, regulations pertaining to Animal disease and subsequent moving of animals across state lines. Once again, a couple of very knowledgable people addressed concerns this being one of them. As it was interpreted as long as the law not allowing animals in unless properly tested or even not at all if the quarantine states, does not "abridge" an individuals right to still buy cattle this amendment would not affect it. So say cattle from northern min. were prohibited from entering ND, as long as a producer could bring cattle in from another source point and continue his "modern ranching practice" by these means, this amendment would not affect the situation of the State Vets office and the State Board of Animal Health from doing their job. It was also pointed out that "modern ranching practices" INCLUDE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DISEASE SAFETY STANDARDS and by the very wording of this measure, than in fact no law could be implemented to "abridge" or prevent implementing these disease safety rules and regulations as a part of modern ranching practices.

Like I said, this is "third party" information so I'm sure none of you will accept it. That's fine, I really do not expect the select group of people debating this to beleive anything posted in opposition of their beliefs, but why not simply share your concerns with your legislative representatives and if they truly are an issue I would guess they would be more than willing to request the ND AG's office to address them. I mean to me if I did not trust the people have talked with and this was a great concern to me, I have to tell you I would not come on Nodak Outdoors for legal advise! 

Stop and picture it for a minute, "But your Honor, bioman,Csquared and leadfed from Nodak Outdoors said I could"!! :rollin: is what the judge would likely be doing. So why continue to pursue this here? Why not go thru the proper channels to factually address your concerns? "Radical idea isn;t it"



Ron Gilmore said:


> Show me who with legal backing can dispute this


Let me ask this. If these concerns were presented to the ND AG's office and they were addressed by that office would it satisfy your concerns?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> GST, I manned up but you keep the school girl bickering with Plainsman. That doesn't seem to be manning up.
> 
> GST, do you know the difference between earning a wage and receiving a subsidy? Do you really think the two should ever be used as a close comparison? I hope not. I really wish you and shaug would quit hounding Plainsman for going to school, getting a professional degree, holding a professional job and receiving the wage and benefits for that job against him. It makes you look petty and naive to think guys with such positions as representatives to major Ag orgs could be so ignorant. It poorly reflects on those orgs that you represent.
> 
> Now find where Plainsman was paid twice for the same product by the taxpayer, or entered into a supply and demand business and received guarenteed price supports and you will have a legitimate comparison.
> 
> I can hear the gurgling while you drown under your own crap you have been flinging.


(swift that kind of dialogue is somewhat tiring isn;t it! :wink:



swift said:


> There comes a time to man up and say, Hey, maybe you guys have some real concerns. We shouldn't disregard your concerns as people because they are different than ours.


 sift your being a bit disingenuous in suggesting anyone is dismising the fact you have concerns when in fact you have been ENCOURAGED to voice these concerns with someone who could factually address them in the ND AG's office. And yet you gys keep bringing them back here to an "hunting and fishing website" to be answered.

I am beginning to think you guys are either:
A. not very smart, (I'll stop short of calling you "supid") :wink: (just teasing now) 
B. letting your personal animousity get the better of you, or
C. just like to argue and do not care to learn the facts abou this measure. 
(just teasing)
Really guys what value is there to keep asking for answers when you will not accept them? Go to a source such as been suggested the ND AG's office and be done with it.


----------



## Plainsman

When you suggest talking to the ag office a cliche my mother used comes to mind. I'll bet those guys no which side their bread is buttered on. In other words would they ever say anything against your position. I can't get answers about spray possibly in my well from the state health department. My guess is they are hiding something. If not they sure would have been a lot smarter to give me that information rather than create the distrust. I don't think anyone in our state offices dares to say anything contrary to our ag organizations. If we said they didn't agree you would want their name right? No doubt about it. You would be on the phone so fast to one of your representatives and perhaps the guys supervisor that you would break another finger on your phone.


----------



## swift

You see GST, when you appointed yourself the ag policeman for this site you became the source. You cannot provide truth or fact other than your own supposition so you attack me and others. When you realize we are not beneath you and your answers are better than trust me and because I say so your credibility will grow. As of now you are a guy that championed a cause then when the questions got hard you bolted. Either you're being told what we are saying by your people, or you're just a quitter. You have never been a quitter before so I don't think that's it.


----------



## huntin1

The ND AG's office can't answer these questions. They deal with matters of law, current law, not what may happen in the future.

What you and the other supporters of this measure aren't getting is the harm that may be caused by having a constitutional amendment that prohibits making a law to stop farmers from employing currently accepted "modern" farming practices if those practices are later found to be harmful.

For instance, the pesticide Lorsban. The active ingrediant iin Lorsban is Chlorpyrifos and it is one of the most widely used insecticides in the U.S. Chlorpyrifos is a nero-toxin and has been linked to fetal death in animals. So in five years some scientist discovers that it also causes fetal death in humans as well. Most farmers upon learning this would likely stop using it on their own, but, since our legistature now has it's hands tied and cannot make a law against using this stuff, some farmers will still use it just because they can.

A farfetched scenario, maybe. The question remains, why do you and the NDFB insist that such a vaguely worded amendment is what ND farmers need and want?

As a police officer I have many rules and regulations that restrict the manner in which I do my job. More regulations are added yearly. And this is a good thing. Yes, my job would be so much easier if I didn't have to worry about so many regulations. But, only the naive would believe that abuses would not occur without them. and in fact, abuses did occur, that is why the regulations were created.

So, why does the NDFB, you, and the other supporters of this measure believe that ND farmers and ranchers should be allowed to conduct business without the restraint of future regulations prohibiting something that is determined to be harmful at some point in the future?

The ND AG's office cannot address this. Only the creators of this poorly worded measure can, and they refuse to do so.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

huntin1, I didn't even stop to think about that. There is no way a state or federal employee is going to stick their neck out into a political controversy. Not unless they are career suicidal. You bet gst, you had employees of what agency tell you everything was just hunky dory?

Vaguely worded. I smell a rat.


----------



## zogman

Huntin 1

Excellent Post :thumb:


----------



## Csquared

gst wrote:


> I have to tell you I would not come on Nodak Outdoors for legal advise!


So far it's obviously the only _*accurate*_ legal advice you've received.

Unless you're trying to keep the truth from us on purpose 

But it's also obvious your neighbors already got it figured out ....even without your help.

Who woulda thunk it possible? 

gst also wrote in the same post:


> Why not go thru the proper channels to factually address your concerns?


I'm sure most would agree the North Dakota State Constitution is more than factual enough.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Like I said, this is "third party" information so I'm sure none of you will accept it


We might accept it if you would name the so called third party. Generally speaking as you say this is important. Questions and concerns are one thing but you are telling me and others that this cannot and will not happen because a THIRD PARTY SAID SO!

I have stayed out of bringing up the HFH measure but one of your claims back then was that for sale slaughter of elk by those operating them could not occur. The people in charge of the measure drafting said that this was not the case!

Not going to get into the HFH issue over this, but simply pointing out your lack of consistency and double standard. I spoke with one of my Rep today about a AG opinion and as stated, until it is passed into law his only ability to comment or give an opinion is on if the wording of the document meeting Constitutional requirements. That is all that the AG can do regarding this from my duly elected Representative. Am waiting to here back from my Senator and my bet is I will hear the same thing!

He did say that the only thing they could do with this measure is establish implementation rules. They cannot and could not modify it. Only the vote of the people would be able to do that and then either through an initiated measure or Constitutional measure that would repeal it!

So pony up! Who is the legal source that you site? Because a legal source is what is needed!


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Swift he was addressing you, and when the high fence debate was going on I think you supported the landowners. Once again gst has attempted to position people in a negative light that is not true.


Plainsman, are you inferring that Swift sided with the elk and deer growers. What a crock!!! Over on FBO Swift was telling stories how the whole world is against HFH. He ripped and pasted anything he could find on the internet to prove that HFH was doomed. Then he made a misstep. He posted this below without doing his homework.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/ ... 111303.cfm

This site called organic consumers is a vegan website and upon further review it is against the human exploitation of animals by people. Swift took a pile of ribbing for being so "supid." On these web-forums Swift was one of the best assests the elk and deer growers had.

The very last amendment to the states constitution defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. We did that in this state to get ahead of the curve of what is going on in the rest of the US. The FB measure is doing the same thing. Let's get ahead of what's is coming. This amendment will spur the legislators into action.

As far as that website EWG.com is concerned, it was funded and started by David Rockefellar. That man doesn't spend a dime unless it benefits David Rockefeller. He also started the Wilderness Society.

I see Ducks Unlimited and The National Wildlife Federation haved teamed up to rip rape and run off with money from the US General Treasurey. They are starting another group called http://www.vanishingparadise.org. British Petroleum may be looking at a 7 billion dollar fine for the gulf oil spill. That money is supposed to go directly to the US Treasurey. What this is going to equate to in the end is vanishing dollars by the millions. Here is the head m-f in charge.

http://vanishingparadise.org/updates/so ... e-but-what

Contact
Land Tawney
Senior Manager for Sportsmen Leadership
National Wildlife Federation
240 N Higgins, Suite 2
Missoula, MT 59802
Office 406-541-6733 
Fax 406-721-6714
Email: here

Notice he is from Montana. Soon Obama is going to start campaigning for his second term. There is going to be a sportsmens group in Montana, just like the last time Obama ran, coming out in support of Obama called "Sportsmen for Obama." The leader of this group of hunting imposters is going to be Land Tawney. His second in command is going to be Jim Posewits. Put it in a time capsule.

Everyone here is trying to get after gst's father for accepting subsidies yet not one will have a clue when DU and NWF steal millions from the US Treasurey. Obama will get votes in MT with the help of Land Tawney and in return the NWF will get millions. It's theft.

BTW, Land Tawney and Jim Posewits used to come to the North Dakota Wildlife Federation meetings and get those guys spun up over HFH.

Plainsman says he is a conservative but is always in the wrong camp.


----------



## Csquared

> That is all that the AG can do regarding this from my duly elected Representative. Am waiting to here back from my Senator and my bet is I will hear the same thing!
> 
> He did say that the only thing they could do with this measure is establish implementation rules. They cannot and could not modify it. Only the vote of the people would be able to do that and then either through an initiated measure or Constitutional measure that would repeal it


Way to go, Ron. We've been saying that for how long? And from someone who might not have to provide proof of a law degree to have meaning. One side note is ND law actually allows for the legislature to initiate amendments, but they can only be adopted if passed by the people. A fact that shouldn't be easily lost since this whole debate is centered around a proposed measure that all involved understand full well must be voted on and passed by the people.



> We might accept it if you would name the so called third party. Generally speaking as you say this is important. Questions and concerns are one thing but you are telling me and others that this cannot and will not happen because a THIRD PARTY SAID SO!


I'm glad you brought that up. As with most everything here, gst has completely twisted the point about scoffing at 3rd party info. In my case specifically I scoffed at the _*WORD*_ of a 3rd party. I have absolutely *NO PROBLEM* with answers to questions that use info received from a 3rd party...as long as they're answers. Provide the info and readers can then verify whether or not it's accurate. But simply saying, as you've noted, that (paraphrasing) "I have been assured by people who I trust much more than anyone here that the legislature will still be able to write laws regulating the industry after this measure is adopted" is not an answer when the question was what the question was.

...and everyone knows it.


----------



## shaug

csquared wrote,



> Way to go, Ron. We've been saying that for how long? And from someone who might not have to provide proof of a law degree to have meaning. One side note is ND law actually allows for the legislature to initiate amendments, but they can only be adopted if passed by the people. A fact that shouldn't be easily lost since this whole debate is centered around a proposed measure that all involved understand full well must be voted on and passed by the people.


Way to go Ron??????? I already said that wayyyyy back when. If there is hearings and testimony at the capitol (not sure of the procedure) but if there are hearings at the capitol, I'll take a laptop along and post the going ons right here on Nodak for you guys because not one of you will take the time to bother to attend. Laws are created by those who show up. Maybe Ron Gilmore will show because he has an opinion on everything. It's funny when he calls in on Joel Hietkamps show. Joel always says, I recognize the voice and Ron I am going to have to cut you short because other people want to talk also. Funny stuff.

Wayyyyy back on page 11 I said,



> When the signatures for this measure are collected the state will do an impact study... There will be meetings by our elected officials and state persons. When the measure is passed the Attorney Generals Office will be involved and our elected legislators.
> They can water it down to become a law of no effect. Or they can give it teeth. I don't know if there will be hearings on it before it goes into the constitution. My guess is they will go back to Farm Bureau and all the other ag orgs that more likely are going to support it, and then ask, "WHAT IS YOUR INTENT?"


----------



## Csquared

> When the signatures for this measure are collected the state will do an impact study... There will be meetings by our elected officials and state persons. When the measure is passed the Attorney Generals Office will be involved and our elected legislators.
> They can water it down to become a law of no effect. Or they can give it teeth. I don't know if there will be hearings on it before it goes into the constitution. My guess is they will go back to Farm Bureau and all the other ag orgs that more likely are going to support it, and then ask, "WHAT IS YOUR INTENT


So you're saying THAT is the same as this.....



> That is all that the AG can do regarding this from my duly elected Representative. Am waiting to here back from my Senator and my bet is I will hear the same thing!
> 
> He did say that the only thing they could do with this measure is establish implementation rules. They cannot and could not modify it. Only the vote of the people would be able to do that and then either through an initiated measure or Constitutional measure that would repeal it


Let me give you a hint, shaug. "give it teeth or water it down" and "cannot and could not modify it" are about as fine an example of polar opposites as I could ever come up with.

Kinda explains why we're 16 pages into this thing.


----------



## swift

You're just wrong Shaug. I was opposed to the hFi. Even gst has said that. I did not agree with your argument that the initiative should not be allowed. I happen to believe in peoples constitutional rights.

why don't you address my questions?


----------



## shaug

csquared,

This measure was submitted to the Secretary of States Office back in August. Once the SOS Office OK's it and the collection of signatures begins the wording cannot be changed or modified durring that 12 month time frame from Agust 2011 to August 2012.
Hardly a newsflash.

Swift wrote,



> You're just wrong Shaug. I was opposed to the hFi. Stephen gst knowscan't that. I did not agree withthe your argument that the initiative should not be allowed. that is the only place l disagree why don't you address my questions


Swift, have you been drinking tonight?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Shaug you are so full of crap that it must be running onto your keyboard. You,LT,gst,claimed that the wording of the HFH amendment would prevent elk farmers from selling for slaughter to be killed in a non hunting activity on the farm. You said that the wording of the amendment made it clear that this was the case and that the Leg had no power to change that!

NOW you claim that the same body can CHANGE this one? What frigging planet do you hail from?

My Rep said today that with these they are charged simply with implementing the law as it is written, they cannot change it's INTENT! Much like the law passed that blocks non residents from state owned or leased land the first week of pheasant season. The intent was that to apply only to waterfowl, but it encompassed all game because of the wording! INTENT MEANS NOTHING!

That is why the questions poised that I noticed you have avoided answering are being asked of those who where or are directly involved with this. THAT IS YOU SHAUG!

gst can claim ignorance because the NDSA did not draft the amendment but that is not something you can do!

In regards to Joel, he does not like people that speak to him directly in a manner that shows his lack of depth. Case in point was this past week! But that is for another thread!

So to be clear, i trust my Rep to tell me how the process works since they have been in the Leg for a long time and have dealt with Constitutional Amendments being voted on and approved and added to our Constitution.


----------



## Csquared

> This measure was submitted to the Secretary of States Office back in August. Once the SOS Office OK's it and the collection of signatures begins the wording cannot be changed or modified durring that 12 month time frame from Agust 2011 to August 2012.
> Hardly a newsflash.


Ahh, but Ron's comments were clearly concerning legislative control AFTER passed, hence mention of


> Only the vote of the people would be able to do that and then either through an initiated measure or Constitutional measure that would repeal it


The word "repeal" there infers it's already been adopted. I guess the newsflash is it's just one more difference between your post and Ron's.

But if I could, I didn't want to press you when you originally posted that, but since you've brought it up again, are you saying that the Atty Gen and the general assembly can change the wording before it's adopted, but AFTER it's voted on by the people?



> When the measure is passed the Attorney Generals Office will be involved and our elected legislators.
> They can water it down to become a law of no effect. Or they can give it teeth.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> When you suggest talking to the ag office a cliche my mother used comes to mind. I'll bet those guys no which side their bread is buttered on. In other words would they ever say anything against your position. I can't get answers about spray possibly in my well from the state health department. My guess is they are hiding something. If not they sure would have been a lot smarter to give me that information rather than create the distrust. I don't think anyone in our state offices dares to say anything contrary to our ag organizations. If we said they didn't agree you would want their name right? No doubt about it. You would be on the phone so fast to one of your representatives and perhaps the guys supervisor that you would break another finger on your phone.


ALWAYS a grand conspiracy agaist you isn't there plainsamn. I'm sure it was ag's fault that your measure got voted down by the people of ND somehow as well.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Show me who with legal backing can dispute this?


You know ron , i actually think in a majority of instances I agree quit abit with what you are saying more times than not especially politcally. Sometimes you present it in an over bearing manner that sets people off, but you aren't always thinking there is a conspiracy or name calling or other juvenile crap that goes on here most times. Out of the gaggle of people on here perhaps you can objectively look at something.

The question you just asked me to do was almost exactly what started this whole mess WAAAYYYY back in Aug. You ask me to show who with legal backing can "disprove" something, back at the start of this whole deal, I merely asked plainsman to "Please show me" who with legal backing can "PROVE" the claims he made regarding this measure. Recall if you would plainsamn did not come on here suggesting he had "concerns" that perhaps this measure would prevent ag from being regulated, he made VERY SPECIFIC claims as to what would happen if this measure passes. He was merely asked as did you above to show something more than his "opinion" that this would happen as claimed by perhaps someone with "legal backing" to prove his claims. I presented a number of facts regarding Federal regulations (including links) that will indeed PREVENT his claims from happening and simply continued to ask for him to substantiate his claims he made. Roughly 40 pages of crap laer herewe are with you asking the very same type question. So if you are expecting me to honor this request, should not palinsams calims be held to the same standard?

I don't know if you place much credibility in the law degrees of those that have since posted on here to beleive they have the "legal backing" you wish to prove plainsamns claims, but the Nodak/Illinois/Colorado/SoDak Law Firm is not the first choice on my list. So ron, do you beleive the ND AG's office is someone with the "legal backing" to address your concerns.

bruce beleives they are in collusion with agriculture and are not to be trusted at any cost, :roll: what say you?

bruce I can see why perhaps with all these grand conspiracy theories you have perhaps you would have a harder time getting your elected representatives ( or as you beleive them, elected lackeys for ag) to go to bat for you. :wink:


----------



## gst

hutin one, indeed the ND AG's office CAN if requested to by someone in the legislature or state agency, give an "opinion" on what a law or constitutional amendment can do. If you recall they infact did give an "opinion" when asked to by the ND State Vets office regarding what the "future law" the HFH measure would have imposed on the State Vets office. I beleive there is a reference and copy of it on this site somewhere in the HFH thread. (unles it has been mysteriously removed never to be seen again, but hey wait I think it is on FBO as well if "they" haven't removed it there) 

Besides, what do you have to lose by sharing your concerns with your representative and ask them to pursue an answer for you with the ND AG's office. REcall as well that before this amendment would be accepted it hasto pass a process involving these very elected representaive you would be sharing your concerns with, so what better time than now to do so?


----------



## swift

Sorry Shaug but I don't drink at all. Maybe you should sober up and take some of the advice given here. Id like to see some of the lists you adamantly accuse me of. There now I sound like your mentor GST. Fact is ag especially animal ag needs political support of i've citizens so radical groups don't make life unduly hard based on emotions and beliefs. And ag needs to be regulated to protect people and ecosystems from disastrous abuses. But as written this amendment is not it. I don't know how much more clear I can be. I believe some of your fears are real. I believe there is a reason the amendment was worded so vaguely. Pull out and save the embarrassment of not doing your homework on this site come up with a well worded measure and support may flourish. .


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> I'm sure most would agree the North Dakota State Constitution is more than factual enough.


Indeed it is!!! :thumb: It is the qualifications of the "interpretation" of a few on here that perhaps falls short of the "legal backing" ron and I are looking for! :wink:

C squared perhaps you can share your "legal backing" which would qualify your statements? Anyone else? Recall if you would at the start of this whole discussion I readily admitted not being a constitutional scholar, any one else wish to "man up"?


----------



## gst

m


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> We might accept it if you would name the so called third party. Generally speaking as you say this is important. Questions and concerns are one thing but you are telling me and others that this cannot and will not happen because a THIRD PARTY SAID SO!


Ron, you are exactly right, and that is why I asked bruce way back at the beginning of this debate when he made his claims to substantiate them with some sort of "legal backing". I do not expect you to beleive a third party or my relaying it to you any more than I beleived plainsmans "opinion". Recall from the start of tis thread hen I asked the question regarding teh art 1 sec 21 I mentioned it would be interesting to hear someone "qualified" to give answer" so far no one has posted their "qualifications" ,me included! :wink: .

Answer me this if you would ron, given the juvenile name calling that has occured on this site repeatedly by a small handful of people, would you invite someone that is your friend and someone you respect on here to substantiate your position? I have NO reaosn to beleive the same treatment would not be given this person simply because I was the one connected to hi, that is how sadly juvenile this site and some on it are. Or perhaps they would deal with accusations of some grand conspiracy and of merely being an"ag lackey" and more name calling would occur. Perhaps you wish to subject your friends and collegues to ths type of juvenile crap, I do not.

So will any one accept an opinion from the ND AG's office if it can or will be given?

Ron I am trying to keep as much bull dung out of my posts as I can for you!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> I spoke with one of my Rep today about a AG opinion and as stated, until it is passed into law his only ability to comment or give an opinion is on if the wording of the document meeting Constitutional requirements. That is all that the AG can do regarding this from my duly elected Representative. Am waiting to here back from my Senator and my bet is I will hear the same thing!
> 
> He did say that the only thing they could do with this measure is establish implementation rules. They cannot and could not modify it. Only the vote of the people would be able to do that and then either through an initiated measure or Constitutional measure that would repeal it!
> 
> So pony up! Who is the legal source that you site? Because a legal source is what is needed!


 tell you what ron why don;t you "pony up" the name of this "Rep" and the lawyer you mentioned WAAYY back in one of your posts early on. :wink: 
Can you explain to me ( andI'm serious here as I do not know the answer, imagine a "no it all admitting that!!) why the ND AG's office did give the ND State Vets office an "opinion" on the HFH measure and what it would do in either requireing them or preventing them from doing?

So lets say huntin 1 is right that indeed no one can get an "opinion" out of the ND AG's office, exactly whose would anyone accept on here? And the law firm of Nodak, Ill,co,and soDak need not apply!  That is unless they post their constitutional law degree?

And hey as a matter of protocal, who should have to substantiate their claims with a "legal backing" first, the guy who originally made the one that stated this whole thing, or the one that merely asked him to substantiate those claims with some sort of "legal backing" as is apparently now expected and demanded by most on here? 

I vote for the guy who started this whole mess by claiming this measure will allow feedlots to be purposely built so to allow manure to be washed into rivers to reduce clean up, irresponsible usage of pesticides such as being sprayed in a manner that is illegal now such as over well sites where school children get their drinking water, and illegal things perhaps such as poppies and marajuna to be grown by ND farmers?

Now here it is fellas if Bruce can bring someone on here legitimately unbiased with proper "legal backing" to substantiate that if this measure passes these specific things indeed will happen as claimed, I will admit I have been wrong to question him at all on this matter.

Now remember, I'll give you a hint, there are a numbeof Federal reulaions and agencies that currently prevent these things from happening now that will have to be addressed as well!

There it is boys, as they say, put up or ..... well you know! :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> You're just wrong Shaug. I was opposed to the hFi. Even gst has said that. I did not agree with your argument that the initiative should not be allowed. I happen to believe in peoples constitutional rights.
> 
> why don't you address my questions?


 swift I do recall your "Organic Consumers" website link from FBO, if I remember right , (and maybe my memory is getting as bad as Bruces) it took a whole 2 clicks and I was on the HSUS site from there. It was kinda funny! .

Hopefully "they" haven;t removed that as well!! :wink:

Your "support" of the elk and deer ranchers was abit different than others,perhaps shaug remembers it better than I!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> I have stayed out of bringing up the HFH measure but one of your claims back then was that for sale slaughter of elk by those operating them could not occur. The people in charge of the measure drafting said that this was not the case!


I do not beleive I recall seeing wherethe people with unbiased "legal backing" came on this website and stated thsi. perhaps I missed though. What I do recall was you strongly encouraging us to simply accept what you said as truth! 

Ron, perhaps your buddy Joel H. as some connection to someone with "legal backing" you can get to come on here!! Perhaps your reps are a little like Joel when it comes to your time!


----------



## gst

Boy lucky the basketball game didn;t go into over time, my keyboard would have melted!  Anyway, JV game was good we won, Varsity not so good. guess that happens when you have 25 days without a game. :-?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, where exactly is that opinion? Listed below are all the published opinions out of the AG office from 08 through 2010 I do not see any from the State Vet office. Can you provide it for us?

Now how do you like being asked to produce what you always ask of others! Once you provide the people's name that you trust so much with the legal backing or Leg experince I can post up mine but this is going to be a you show me yours and I will show you mine and you have to go first!

Most people can figure out who I talked with pretty easy!
2008 Opinions

DATE ISSUED: ISSUED TO: OPINION NO: 
12-22-2008 Roger Johnson, Agriculture commissioner 2008-L-20 
12-22-2008 Tim Karsky, ND Department of Financial Institutions 2008-L-19 
12-16-2008 Rod Froelich, State Representative 2008-L-18 
11-28-2008 Neil fleming, Cavalier City Attorney 2008-L-17 
11-26-2008 Hettinger County State's Attorney 2008-L-16 
11-18-2008 Robert Peterson, State Auditor 2008-L-15 
10-01-2008 Dale Frink, State Engineer 2008-L-14 
07-23-2008 JoNell Bakke, State Senator & Lisa Wolf, State Representative 2008-L-13 
07-15-2008 Richard Riha, Burleigh County State's Attorney 2008-L-12 
07-11-2008 ND Veterans Home 2008-L-11 
06-11-2008 Robin Weisz, State Representative 2008-L-10 
06-11-2008 Terry Steinwand, Game & Fish Department 2008-L-09 
05-22-2008 Dwight Wrangham, Mark Dosch & Lisa Meier, State Representatives 2008-L-08 
05-20-2008 John T. Shockley, Harwood City Attorney 2008-L-07 
05-12-2008 Wayne Sanstead, Department of Public Instruction 2008-L-06 
04-23-2008 Steven J. Zaiser, State Representative 2008-L-05 
04-07-2008 Stutsman County State's Attorney 2008-L-04 
04-02-2008 Public Service Commission 2008-L-03 
02-27-2008 Erik Johnson, Fargo City Attorney 2008-L-02 
02-13-2008 Ladd R. Erickson , McLean County State's Attorney 2008-L-01

2009 Opinions

DATE ISSUED: ISSUED TO: OPINION NO: 
12-28-2009 Fritz Fremgen, Stutsman County State's Attorney 2009-L-19 
11-27-2009 Dennis Johnson, McKenzie County State's Attorney 2009-L-18 
10-23-2009 Aaron Roseland, Adams County State's Attorney 2009-L-17 
10-13-2009 Terry Elhard, McIntosh County State's Attorney 2009-L-16 
10-12-2009 Wayne G. Sanstead, Department of Public Instruction 2009-L-15 
10-09-2009 A. W. Stokes, Richland County State's Attorney 2009-L-14 
08-03-2009 John Shockley, Mapleton City Attorney 2009-L-13 
07-07-2009 Representative Merle Boucher 2009-L-12 
07-06-2009 Representatives Kim Koppelman, Dan Ruby, Mike Schatz 2009-L-11 
07-01-2009 RaeAnn Kelsch, State Representative 2009-L-10 
07-01-2009 Howard Swanson, Grand Forks City Attorney 2009-L-09 
06-04-2009 Al Carlson, State Representative 2009-L-08 
04-24-2009 Rozanna Larson, Ward County State's Attorney 2009-L-07 
03-18-2009 Ray Holmberg & Mac Schneider, State Senators 2009-L-06 
02-23-2009 Elizabeth L. Pendlay, Crosby City Attorney 2009-L-05 
02-09-2009 Thomas L. Fischer, Cass County Joint Water Resource 2009-L-04 
02-06-2009 Wade Enget, Tioga City Attorney 2009-L-03 
02-02-2009 Kevin Cramer, Public Service Commission 2009-L-02 
01-05-2009 Dennis Johnson, McKenzie County State's Attorney 2009-L-01

DATE ISSUED: ISSUED TO: OPINION NO: 
12-28-2010 Elizabeth Pendlay, Divide County State's Attorney 2010-L-16 
12-28-2010 Walter Lipp, Sheridan County State's Attorney 2010-L-15 
10-22-2010 Kelly L. Schmidt, State Treasurer 2010-L-14 
09-20-2010 Kari Conrad, State Representative 2010-L-13 
09-13-2010 Jerry Klein, State Senator 2010-L-12 
06-28-2010 Robert R. Peterson, State Auditor 2010-L-11 
05-25-2010 Rozanna C. Larson, Ward County State's Attorney 2010-L-10 
05-19-2010 George Keiser, State Representative 2010-L-09 
05-13-2010 Blair Thoreson, State Representative 2010-L-08 
03-25-2010 Mike Schatz, State Representative 2010-L-07 
03-22-2010 Peter D. Welte, Grand Forks County State's Attorney 2010-L-06 
03-17-2010 Pam Sharp, Office of management and Budget 2010-L-05 
03-08-2010 Peter H. Furuseth, Williston City Attorney 2010-L-04 
02-12-2010 Malcolm H. Brown, Mandan City Attorney 2010-L-03 
02-11-2010 Lois Delmore, State Representative 2010-L-02 
02-05-2010 Wade Enget, Mountrail County State's Attorney


----------



## Ron Gilmore

http://www.ag.nd.gov/Brochures/FactSheet/AGOpinions.pdf

This is a link to the page that explains who may ask for an opinion but it also explains what the Opinion covers. Two things stand out gst one is interpretation of laws and the questions cannot be hypothetical and until this is passed all concerns are just that! So it seems to me that there is not any way for the AG to give a legal opinion!


----------



## swift

> Answer me this if you would ron, given the juvenile name calling that has occured on this site repeatedly by a small handful of people, would you invite someone that is your friend and someone you respect on here to substantiate your position? I have NO reaosn to beleive the same treatment would not be given this person simply because I was the one connected to hi, that is how sadly juvenile this site and some on it are. Or perhaps they would deal with accusations of some grand conspiracy and of merely being an"ag lackey" and more name calling would occur. Perhaps you wish to subject your friends and collegues to ths type of juvenile crap, I do not.


If the person comes on here with the same attitude you and Shaug seem to have he will likely be met with the same backlash. If he comes on here with coherent posts that are not twisted claims, likely he will get respectful dialogue. It is pretty simple GST, we want the same amount of respect from you that you demand from us. And emoticons do not convey respect. They convey a condescending,holier than thou, know it all, laugh in your face type of message.



> Your "support" of the elk and deer ranchers was abit different than others,perhaps shaug remembers it better than I!


selling your credibility again I see. You and everyone else on here know I stood with the cervid ranchers. You and a few super-citizens tried to argue against fellow citizens rights to file an intiative. That is what I did not support. Keep digging the hole your already over your head.



> And hey as a matter of protocal, who should have to substantiate their claims with a "legal backing" first, the guy who originally made the one that stated this whole thing, or the one that merely asked him to substantiate those claims with some sort of "legal backing" as is apparently now expected and demanded by most on here?


How about those bringing forth the amendment. Seems logical that those causing all the questions should be responsible enough to answer some of them.



> Ron, you are exactly right, and that is why I asked bruce way back at the beginning of this debate when he made his claims to substantiate them with some sort of "legal backing".


I do believe Csquared and Huntin1 (whom has education in constitutional law) has substantiated the claims quite well.

Seems Rons last post is substantiative as well.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Maybe you should sober up and take some of the advice given here.


Your opinion is now advice. I think I shall pass. It is well known and documented that Plainsman and his hyenas have championed many causes and have lost most. And you are about to lose another.



> Pull out and save the embarrassment of not doing your homework on this site come up with a well worded measure and support may flourish. .


More advice..........again sorry I'm going to pass. But there is something here that begs a question. On this nodak site it was first stated please don't clutter up the ND Constitution. Now you are saying stop this attempt "now" and then at a latter date resubmit a different amendment that is worded a little better. Question, will a more well worded amendment entered at a later date be less intrusive to the ND Constitution? Swift, why do you fight so hard? Let the people decide.

As far as support for this measure what I can tell you is that support already is flourishing. Everyone signs may petition. Just not here.

Swift, I am still waiting for that infomercial on TV with your face on it explaining to the people of ND why you think this measure is a bad idea.


----------



## Plainsman

gst when you complained about people posting price supports you asked if I liked it. I said I don't even like it when people use names and I never do. Then you started using my name right away. I think that tells everyone who the petty little juvanile is. That's why I believe you have no reason to whine to me about the big boys picking on you. You have built this nest of poop.


> (and maybe my memory is getting as bad as Bruces


 As for the content I do remember our PM's going back and fourth about that. Yup, could be a problem.

Csquared, swift, Ron, I'm curious why gst never answered any questions about that feedlot north of Carrington. Every time I go to Devils Lake I drive fast with the windows up. It's right on a creek leading to the James River.

Do you guys have google earth? If you don't it's a free download and well worth it. Anyway, if you have it type in Carrington, ND. Then scroll three miles north. On the west side of highway 281 you will find a feed lot. On google earth scroll to the location 47 29' 48.84 N by 99 07' 40.75 and you will see settling ponds right on the edge of the creek banks. I wonder where that eventually drains to? Like we don't know. Do any of you think this feed lot would enlarge and go into full swing if this amendment passes. In the beginning I was only thinking about winter feeding, but thanks to gst I think we have keyed in on a bigger problem that could occur.

I talked to a few more farmers and they all think this amendment is about tile. They reminded me that there was a push to streamline tile permits. It looks like many want local people giving out the permits rather than government officials away from the local area. Maybe they want to pick up their permit at the parts department of the local John Deer implement dealer.

So gst, you were not planning to buy into this feedlot to finish off your cows or something were you? :rollin:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug why are you avoiding the questions, does not your position put you directly in line to address the concerns brought forth? I could venture a guess as to the avoidance but I will simply ask you to address them.

gst, still waiting on the AG opinion to the State Vet? I will gladly admit I was wrong if you show it to us.


----------



## gst

Re: Wall Street Journal/Fair Chase Measure 2
by gst » Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:14 pm

HUNTNFISHND wrote:
LT wrote:
Dick stated on the radio this morning when asked by a guy that called in if he buys an animal from someone and as the new owner can he shoot it -- Dick told him no.

So you believe everything somebody spouts off about on a radio?

Again, in law speak, not somebody said such and such, how does this measure stop the owner from killing his own animals?

Hunt, I believe the language of the State AG's office is that of this "law speak" you wish to hear.

Here is a portion of a response from the STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL in regards to a request from the state vets office concerning what their enforcement responsibilities would be if this measure were to pass. This was sent to the state vet, and fowarded to the board of the NDSA, as well as the State Board of Animal Health. And before anyone suggests this is not what is stated remember a call to anyone of these entities can easily verify it.

This is page two of the response from the State AG office.

_*quote [We also have to think about the definition of "farmed elk" in 36-25-01m which is also broad and would include, it seems, animals confined for the purpose of for-pay hunting, for it states that "farmed elk" are mammals of the elk family confined and raised for "harvest." But Measure No. 2 would now say that you can't hold elk for harvest. To ensure that there isn't a conflict in the statues, we'd have to read "harvest" as limited to harvests that don't involve fees or other remuneration.

Well, enough rambling. Bottom line, I think it premature to say that the Measure, if approved, will impose significanat work or duties on the BAH and state vet.

Oh, one more thing. This morning we talked about the terms in the Measure, that is, "privately-owned big game species" and "exotic mammals," and wondered whether since those terms are not defined in code whether the Measure would be really do anything. It will most definitely do something. It will be given effect and a landowner who thinks otherwise would do so at his peril. The Measures provisions and terms do have meaning and if they aren't defined in rule or in statutes enacted down the road, they will be difined by a court in a criminal prosecution under the Measure or, possibly, in an enforcement action by the BAH.] end quote*_

Sounds a little like "law speak" to me! Perhaps even unbiased "law speak" at that!


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Swift wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should sober up and take some of the advice given here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is now advice. I think I shall pass. It is well known and documented that Plainsman and his hyenas have championed many causes and have lost most. And you are about to lose another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pull out and save the embarrassment of not doing your homework on this site come up with a well worded measure and support may flourish. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More advice..........again sorry I'm going to pass. But there is something here that begs a question. On this nodak site it was first stated please don't clutter up the ND Constitution. Now you are saying stop this attempt "now" and then at a latter date resubmit a different amendment that is worded a little better. Question, will a more well worded amendment entered at a later date be less intrusive to the ND Constitution? Swift, why do you fight so hard? Let the people decide.
> 
> As far as support for this measure what I can tell you is that support already is flourishing. Everyone signs may petition. Just not here.
> 
> Swift, I am still waiting for that infomercial on TV with your face on it explaining to the people of ND why you think this measure is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Old shaug...the gst mini-me.lol You are right shaug, it will probably pass and the only reason it will is because 80% of the people who vote on it are "sheep" so to say...you know followers. It is worded so vaguely that they wont really weigh the ramifications of the actual measure. They will see "protect farmers" and they will say well hell I know a farmer so that sounds good to me. Its a shame really but very smart I'd say on the part of the writers of the measure. Why get to "windy" on the measure when you can keep it so lame and broad that it looks like the only thing it is going to do is protect those poor hard working farmers. When in all reality it is opening so many doors to them to really do whatever they want with no one to keep an eye on them....something that most farmers will do fine with but also something that a lot of others will take advantage of. You know you got a good one here shaugy and thats why you are defending it so much. You are one of those "feels entitled" to individuals just like old gabe.


----------



## leadfed

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed,or he simply could admit the hypocracy in his statements condemning others.
> 
> You do realize those numbers are for a 10 year period and also include ALL forms of govt payments INCLUDING various *conservation* program payments as well do you not?
> 
> Conservation programs such as CRP, tree plantings, enrolling lands in grassland, establishing water systems away from cricks, once over rotational grazing systems which promote wildlife habitat and bird nesting, ect???? Just a few of the dozens of programs designed to work with producers to promote conservation the govt funds.
> 
> Perhaps we should simply get rid of ALL these gov payments.
> 
> 
> 
> _*EVERYONE READ THIS*_ :beer: :beer:
> 
> Ya I guess you are right. $47,877 of the $333,505 you received over the last 15 years has gone to "conservation" so to speak. What exactly where those "conservation" dollars used for gabe? Crp maybe?.....did you post that crp? Conservation my a$$. You and conservation go together like fart and church as they say. Oh yea, lets not forget the $68,459 that another Gabe Thompson with the same address has collected from all of us over that same period. Truth and fact?.....http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?cu ... =A07556731 and http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?cu ... =A07582007 (there ya are....id say that is substantiation)
> 
> However, that is NOT where this story ends folks. Gst are you so sure you want to "get rid" of all these subsidy programs? Think about it for awhile.......
> 
> The reason I ask is because in an Oct. 2006 article on Farmprogress.com you say this. quote, "The lack of subsidies in the farming side of the game has forced the Canadian producers to find ways to make that land economically profitable. Cattle are a
> way of doing that." http://magissues.farmprogress.com/mif/M ... /mif50.pdf Substantiated enough for ya?
> 
> That quote from you sure makes it sound to me like you are pretty impressed with the subsidies WE GIVE you....not? :lol: At least if you want to be an "economically profitable" farmer that is.  I know you are talking about the canadian market but our two farming systems really cannot be that far apart in structure for you to make that comment.
> 
> I actually feel a little sorry for your train of thought. You are obviously not a content individual. You are always looking for the government and everyone who pays into it to pave your way to becoming a rich farmer/rancher. You feel superior over others and entitled to things you shouldn't be entitled to. Take for example that crooked thumb you have. Why not go get it checked by a Dr.? That to me is arrogant, stubborn and just plain stupid! You wouldn't be b*tching about it right now if you would have.
> 
> By the way Gabe. I have watched numerous ranch rodeos and have done many of those same things either goofing around on the ranches around here or working cows out in the pastures. That is a young, fit mans hobby gabe if ya know what I mean. :wink: Pretty sure you would be better off leanin that belly up against a spool at the beer gardens. oke: Just teasing. :wink:
Click to expand...

I just thought we should touch on this again. I just really enjoy how it makes gst look like a greedy, self deserving juvenile idiot. I can use those words cause you do  Well maybe not the greedy and self deserving but as you say....if the shoe fits! :lol:


----------



## gst

Ron this is what was presented to the galley during the HFH measuer debate. I did not keep the email correspondence from the State Vet so this will have to do. Wether it was an offficial "opinion" given or not, the State Vets ofice forwarded the answer to some "concerns" they had regarding the Fair Cahse measure that they asked the ND AG's office to clarify and what I posted was the response they got from them.

I'm sure some will not accept this, my response to them is call the AG's office or the State Vets office and see if this was ever done.

I really do not care if anyoe admits they are "right o wrong" , simply that the factual truth is told about this measure one way or the other.

Ron I do not know if this was an "official" opinion or not to be included on your list, simply that the State Vets office did in fact request the AG to clarify their "concerns".



gst said:


> And hey as a matter of protocal, who should have to substantiate their claims with a "legal backing" first, the guy who originally made the one that stated this whole thing, or the one that merely asked him to substantiate those claims with some sort of "legal backing" as is apparently now expected and demanded by most on here?
> 
> I vote for the guy who started this whole mess by claiming this measure will allow feedlots to be purposely built so to allow manure to be washed into rivers to reduce clean up, irresponsible usage of pesticides such as being sprayed in a manner that is illegal now such as over well sites where school children get their drinking water, and illegal things perhaps such as poppies and marajuna to be grown by ND farmers?
> 
> Now here it is fellas if Bruce can bring someone on here legitimately unbiased with proper "legal backing" to substantiate that if this measure passes these specific things indeed will happen as claimed, I will admit I have been wrong to question him at all on this matter.


Ron should plainsamn be held to the same standard of "legal backing" in his claims? yes or no?


----------



## Plainsman

> You are one of those "feels entitled" to individuals just like old gabe.


I'll bet there are conflicts in their own mind that just about drive them nuts. Conservatives like myself have radicals among us that worship business and think there should be no restrictions. Then there are the liberals who think we should tax everyone else and give it to them. These guys fall into the radical of both sides. In the end though they will be Obama lovers for the subsidies. :wink:

Have you ever wondered why so many years we vote for a republican president and democrat senators and representatives. Ya, not lately, but for the previous many years. It's because they don't want federal regulations, but they want to send North Dakota people to Washington that will bring home the tax payer bacon (ie farm subsidies). Absolutely no doubt.

gst as for the legal backing, the AG can not predict the future anymore accurate than the rest of us. Yes us. That's the way opinion works. Since all of the farmers are thinking it's about tile I am beginning to think that is the main reason. After all isn't a farmers opinion as good as the AG? What about that Carrington feed lot gst?


----------



## shaug

leadfed said,



> Old shaug...the gst mini-me.lol You are right shaug, it will probably pass and the only reason it will is because 80% of the people who vote on it are "sheep" so to say...you know followers.


If you feel that strongly, then appear on the infomercial side by side with Swift and tell the people they are sheep. You can't miss.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Not going to deflect away with your Plainsman comments! What we have is NO AG OPINION TO THE STATE VET on record any more than we could get a AG OPINION ON RECORD regarding the current measure.

Thus it is just as you asked of the HFH people that drafted the amendment to come forth and put themselves into the debate to answer questions that is being asked of the current measure. Shaug is capable of doing that, but is avoiding it for some reason! I have my beliefs but will refrain from stating them now and will give him some time!

So back to the point of this, you where wrong gst and misrepresented the process, was it intentional or simply lack of actual understanding of the process. My guess is the first, but that is simply an opinion of mine!

Shaug on the other hand intentionally has misstated what will take place with the measure if passed. He has said the Leg can water it down or put teeth into it! The measure if passed stands on its own and the only ones doing any watering or putting teeth into it will be the judicial system who will settle disputes that are going to arise out of it. The Leg will be charged with implementation and are not allowed to change it, just implement it!

My Sen in a voice mail this AM confirmed that, and he was very clear about the Leg not having any ability to put teeth into it. He pointed to the Cig measure that passed in 2010, how the powers in Bismarck looked long and hard at every angle to disrupt that law. In the end, the law passed stood with little affect to it by the Leg body who had a majority of support to do exactly what Shaug claims will be done!

So Shaug no more smoke up out collective butts!


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> leadfed said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old shaug...the gst mini-me.lol You are right shaug, it will probably pass and the only reason it will is because 80% of the people who vote on it are "sheep" so to say...you know followers.
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that strongly, then appear on the infomercial side by side with Swift and tell the people they are sheep. You can't miss.
Click to expand...

Infomercial? lol you mean comercial? Isn't infomercial where you try to sell something? You got it wrong thats where you and your partner gst should be. Too bad you grew up with a dominant self entitlement gene shaug. I know its not your fault but its just a sad deal to watch a grown man think the "world" owes him something.....pitiful actually.


----------



## Plainsman

Leadfed, I have been thinking about the entitlement mentality that is often displayed. Most of the time in the political debates it comes from those who are lazy or not that smart who have poor jobs. It also comes from those that are kind and compassionate who want to help the lazy be lazy. However, I now notice there is a third component in the entitlement crowd. It's the entitlement group that thinks to themselves "I am royalty and you owe me".

Leadfed, did you go to Google Earth and check out that feed lot? I just mentioned it in passing, but since gst has no comment I am getting more curious about it by the hour. Hmmmmm Take a close look at the creek on the north side of the feedlot. Follow it downstream. Ask yourself why there are so many cattails and why it's so wide just downstream of the feedlot. I think it's sediments and high nitrogen. Perhaps it's just geological formation, but??????? Take a look at it. I think this amendment would lead to many more of this type of feed lots, and position with the watershed the same or worse. Yup cow manure creek this should be named.


----------



## shaug

ledfed wrote,



> Infomercial? lol you mean comercial? Isn't infomercial where you try to sell something? You got it wrong thats where you and your partner gst should be. Too bad you grew up with a dominant self entitlement gene shaug.


I am just sitting here laughing. Self entitlement????????? Federal spending must stop. Cut Cut Cut. Cut it straight across the board. Infomercial or commercial, you can split hairs if you want to. It probably won't cost you anything out of pocket to advertize against this measure as the Humane Society will pick up the tab. "Again"


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Come on Shuag why do you keep avoiding the questions and concerns and instead try to deflect away from the issues. Could it be that what is being asked and opinions given on as to the lack of merit the wording provides is accurate and was intentionally done so by NDFB? My gut is telling me it is and I and others will have this thread to point to as a source of that concern.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> ledfed wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infomercial? lol you mean comercial? Isn't infomercial where you try to sell something? You got it wrong thats where you and your partner gst should be. Too bad you grew up with a dominant self entitlement gene shaug.
> 
> 
> 
> I am just sitting here laughing. Self entitlement????????? Federal spending must stop. Cut Cut Cut. Cut it straight across the board. Infomercial or commercial, you can split hairs if you want to. It probably won't cost you anything out of pocket to advertize against this measure as the Humane Society will pick up the tab. "Again"
Click to expand...

en·ti·tle·ment (n-ttl-mnt)
n.
1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. *A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group:*

Glad you get a kick out of it :wink: You get any subsidies Shaugy? You probably don't want em just like gst doesn't. Just send em my way buddy! I'll take em and be grateful for them instead of just wanting more more more!

OH yea and I'm sure the HSUS is just banging on the door to get in on this. Hell maybe they are I don't know. All I know is that I about guarantee I hate those pricks just as much as you do so try not to assume so much. Thats why I said before, change the wording of the measure to target these "groups" and I'm in. The way it stands now is rediculous. You know it too but yet you don't care because its going to make your life easier even if it has the potential and a good one at that to disrupt a bunch of other peoples lifes.


----------



## KurtR

This is giving the is the 223 big enough for deer thread a run for its money.


----------



## Plainsman

> OH yea and I'm sure the HSUS is just banging on the door to get in on this. Hell maybe they are I don't know. All I know is that I about guarantee I hate those pricks just as much as you do so try not to assume so much. Thats why I said before, change the wording of the measure to target these "groups" and I'm in.


Same here leadfed, and I think this is about tile. They use HSUS because it worked so well to scare people before. It's a tool they hate to give up, but the truth is they want local tile permits because it's cheaper to influence locals, and locals want to get along in their small community. They can't get to the people and harass them now.


----------



## LT

Leadfed Stated:


> OH yea and I'm sure the HSUS is just banging on the door to get in on this. Hell maybe they are I don't know. All I know is that I about guarantee I hate those pricks just as much as you do so try not to assume so much. Thats why I said before, change the wording of the measure to target these "groups" and I'm in.


I am sure they would love to run an ad here for you guys if you are interested in their help. Maybe you could ask Dick Monson and Mike McEnroe for help; they should know who to contact.

_These euphemisms obscure the truth about what animal agriculture actually is: unmitigated cruelty, misery and death. The text of the amendment could more accurately read:

"The right of farmers and ranchers to slit the throats of animals so they choke on their own blood. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ 'rape racks' to forcibly impregnate cows, tear their babies away shortly after birth, kill the baby for veal and milk the mother to death for dairy products."
_
http://www.care2.com/causes/constitutio ... imals.html

Plainsman Stated:


> Same here leadfed, and I think this is about tile. They use HSUS because it worked so well to scare people before. It's a tool they hate to give up, but the truth is they want local tile permits because it's cheaper to influence locals, and locals want to get along in their small community. They can't get to the people and harass them now.


So Plainsman, you have stated that HSUS involvement the first time around kept you from becoming a sponsor of the fair chase initiative the second time around.


----------



## Plainsman

> So Plainsman, you have stated that HSUS involvement the first time around kept you from becoming a sponsor of the fair chase initiative the second time around.


Yes that was one of the reasons. I thought everyone knew that by now. gst told everyone on FBO to contact me about it.

I was really in a tizzy over the HSUS thing. At first I didn't believe the people that said HSUS was involved. Then I did. Then I didn't again. Then a guy said he would send me proof, but he didn't so I continued not to believe it. Then at last I talked to someone who I believed who confirmed it. I'm still in the dark about who contacted who first, but I now know they did pay for adds. 
I could understand them asking me to support it the first time and not having any input, but when they asked the second time, and I still had no input that also was more than I liked. I didn't like the way it was done. I would not have gotten into the debates if someone had not jumped on my case without me saying anything. Well one thing leads to another and soon I was debating hard to support it. I don't remember who that was, but it wasn't smart.

Like leadfed and I have both stated make this NDFB about protection from animal rights people and we are on board.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:



> Yes that was one of the reasons. I thought everyone knew that by now. gst told everyone on FBO to contact me about it.
> 
> I was really in a tizzy over the HSUS thing. At first I didn't believe the people that said HSUS was involved. Then I did. Then I didn't again. Then a guy said he would send me proof, but he didn't so I continued not to believe it. Then at last I talked to someone who I believed who confirmed it. I'm still in the dark about who contacted who first, but I now know they did pay for adds.
> I could understand them asking me to support it the first time and not having any input, but when they asked the second time, and I still had no input that also was more than I liked. I didn't like the way it was done. I would not have gotten into the debates if someone had not jumped on my case without me saying anything. Well one thing leads to another and soon I was debating hard to support it. I don't remember who that was, but it wasn't smart.


Okay plainsman, so you dropped out the second time round because of HSUS, but you felt it was not necessary for other sportsman to know about HSUS involvement? Right? In fact you would rather that we not bring it up as every time we did we were told they were just the bogieman and we were trying to scare people. A little selfish?

You may have debated here on this forum the second go round, but you did not sign the petition the second go round.


----------



## Plainsman

> A little selfish?


I didn't like the HSUS involvement, and even though I didn't like the measure as it was I thought it was better than nothing. I think HSUS is dangerous, but I think they are more dangerous to hunting with the high fence existing. I know they will gripe and try stop all hunting, but I truly do worry they have a better chance by painting all hunters as unsporting like shooting in high fence situations. 
You will have to ask yourself is it more selfish to want to save the sport I like more than any, or is it more selfish to not care as long as your making money? I hope this doesn't turn into another high fence debate since that whole thing is over now. I notice some people just can't get over it. Like I said I didn't care to get involved at all the second time, and I hope you don't start the ball rolling a third time.

This is way off subject don't you think?


----------



## gst

plainsman, never once voted for a democratic representative inthe 30 years I have been able to vote.

Ron do you beleive plainsman should provide "legal backing" for the very specific comments he has made regarding this measure?

Ron the AG's office did in fact give the ND State Vets office the "opinion" over concerns they had with the HFH measure. The context from there was what I posted. Don't beleive me, email the State Vets office with the context I provided and ask themand post their reply on here. Perhaps this was simply an informal "opinion" between state agencies, I don't know.

So as I asked before, what "legal backing would be appropriate enough for the people on this site that are in opposition? 
I do have an "opinion" as to what that is. Anything that supports their position, anything else regardless of who says it will be treated as part of a "grand conspiracy" perpetuated by agriculture. 

So far the legislature, the ND Attorney Generals office as well as "they" on FBO have been lumped into this collusion" by "greedy" farmers against plainsman.

Ron would it be considered blindly biased to demand someone else substantiate their claims with "legal backing" yet allow the claims Bruce made at the very start of this to skate the very same standard?



gst said:


> And hey as a matter of protocal, who should have to substantiate their claims with a "legal backing" first, the guy who originally made the one that stated this whole thing, or the one that merely asked him to substantiate those claims with some sort of "legal backing" as is apparently now expected and demanded by most on here?
> 
> I vote for the guy who started this whole mess by claiming this measure will allow feedlots to be purposely built so to allow manure to be washed into rivers to reduce clean up, irresponsible usage of pesticides such as being sprayed in a manner that is illegal now such as over well sites where school children get their drinking water, and illegal things perhaps such as poppies and marajuna to be grown by ND farmers?
> 
> Now here it is fellas if Bruce can bring someone on here legitimately unbiased with proper "legal backing" to substantiate that if this measure passes these specific things indeed will happen as claimed, I will admit I have been wrong to question him at all on this matter


Ron why don't you guys address these claims Bruce has made that started this WHOLE mess with "legal backing" if that is the standard you are applying???

Really otherwise what is the point in continueing any discussion if we pick and chose whose "opinions" or what "side" have to be accompanied by "legal backing"?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *I didn't like the HSUS involvement, and even though I didn't like the measure as it was I thought it was better than nothing*.





Plainsman said:


> Well one thing leads to another *and soon I was debating hard to support it*.


Please take note of this statements above. So Bruce, even though you have admitted that you did not like this measure as it was written, (remember now, earlier you stated you wished it had been written to go after the hunting part of HF) ,* and you knew the HSUS (the nations leading anti unting org.) was contacted for their involvement, you "debated hard" to support it anyways regardless of your "concerns" and what the ultimate concequences would be*???

And now you are condemning shaug and I for supporting a measure that may or may not be perfectly written?

Say it ain't so Joe! 



Plainsman said:


> Like leadfed and I have both stated make this NDFB about protection from animal rights people and we are on board.


Bruce, if it is proven with "legal backing" that this measure will not prevent regulations from governing agriculture as you have claimed, will you sign the petition and vote for this measure?


----------



## swift

Thank heavens GST is done posting on this subject. I do agree with him though, nothing anyone on here can say will ever be good enough on his eyes.


----------



## Csquared

I gotta say I admire gst and shaug for at least one thing. They get their intellectual butts kicked almost daily by anyone of up to a half dozen or more individuals on here alone and keep coming back for more. Although I am impressed with their "never say never" attitude, for some reason I'm reminded there's oftentimes a very fine line between being tough and being.....well, suffice it to say I'm sure they're both very tough.

I post the following 4 gst quotes for entertainment value, and to illustrate the amount of desperation present in gst's thought processes now that it's obvious to everyone (including himself) that he has gotten himself smack-dab into the middle of something he knows nothing about and is frantically trying to fill in all the blanks...



> "But your Honor, bioman,Csquared and leadfed from Nodak Outdoors said I could"!!
> 
> I don't know if you place much credibility in the law degrees of those that have since posted on here to beleive they have the "legal backing" you wish to prove plainsamns claims, but the Nodak/Illinois/Colorado/SoDak Law Firm is not the first choice on my list.
> 
> Recall from the start of tis thread hen I asked the question regarding teh art 1 sec 21 I mentioned it would be interesting to hear someone "qualified" to give answer" so far no one has posted their "qualifications"
> 
> And the law firm of Nodak, Ill,co,and soDak need not apply! That is unless they post their constitutional law degree?


----------



## Csquared

> C squared perhaps you can share your "legal backing" which would qualify your statements? Anyone else? Recall if you would at the start of this whole discussion I readily admitted not being a constitutional scholar, any one else wish to "man up"?


This gst quote I post for a different reason. I answered the first part with an answer so direct I can't possibly imagine how anyone could misunderstand. SO this time I'll make an attempt to answer in a way that might appease him. But first, in response to his admission he's not schooled in matters of the constitution followed by wondering outloud if anyone else wishes to admit the same....

Well I can't speak for everyone, but for me...no, I do not wish to say I don't know any more about constitutional law than you do, gst. I actually thought I had already proven otherwise. Plainsman must have thought so, too, because he said this...


> I think that's the same as a surrender Csquared.


.... to which you acknowledged....


> Indeed it is plainsman.


----------



## Csquared

> C squared perhaps you can share your "legal backing" which would qualify your statements?


But back to this. I clearly told you I had no intentions to post, nor do I even feel the need for anyone to know anything about who or what I am, nor whom or what I know. It may also be important for you to hear I believe it's equally unimportant for me to know anything about anyone else on here. You will never see me ask anyone to prove their standing. I am more than capable of verifying the validity of posted info without relying solely on the "word" of the poster...regardless of their credentials.

I also clearly stated I care how I am viewed on here about equally as much as that matters to the content I post. Virtually zero. I leave it squarely up to each individual reader to determine in any way he/she chooses if they think I am full of ag fertilzer or knowledge, and I'm perfectly happy for them regardless of their ultimate decision.

But since you seem to be foaming at the mouth since I won't post a degree or even hint to a specific field, gst. I think I may know a way to help ease your anxieties. For the sake of this discussion, and in an attempt to allow you to relax and focus on the subject matter at hand, I offer this suggestion. As I did earlier I will try to make this as easy for you as I possibly can. Let's just assume I don't even have a high school diploma, let alone a college degree or any post-grad credentials. On top of that, consider I am unemployed and actually dropped out of high school on my 16th birthday. If it is important for you to "quantify" all those who dare to oppose you, from now on simply consider that is exactly who you are talking to.

That should help you, I would think. Besides, I gotta admit I kinda like the image that's conjured up in my mind when I see Plainsman, Ron, swift, leadfed, bioman and the others...even shaug and LT, say to themselves....

"Wow, gst just got his arse kicked by that crazy ,unemployed high school dropout dude from IL again  "


----------



## Csquared

Plainsman, Ron, Swift....anybody? Do they say "dude" in the dakotas?


----------



## gst

At the very start of this discussion back inAug. VERY specific claims were made what this measure would do if passed.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743&start=0

The following posts from this link are listed in their entirity so not to be accused of "cherry pickin" or taking something out of "context".

{Quote}
_Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

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

These claims came from the very first page of 3 separate threads and 35 total pages of "discussion" regarding this measure. Can anyone provide from within these 3 threads and the 35 correlating pages where these claims have been substantatiated with any "legal backing" as was simply asked to be done at the very start of this dialogue?

Ron do you beleive these claims should be substantiated with any "legal backing"?

C squared please show me where these specific claims have been substantaited with any "legal backing" and I will consider my "butt kicked".

Otherwise it has been nothing more than juvenile accusations, name calling and diverting attention from the original claims made by a former sponsor and supporters of an initiated measure whose intent was banning a modern ranching practice here in ND they do not approve of, and that this particular constitutional amendment is intended to prevent from happening again.

So indeed, talk with a farmer or rancher and show them these specific claims on this site. Ask them if they beleive claims such as these should be substantaited with some "legal backing" regarding how this constitutional amendment would allow them to happen or not.


----------



## Plainsman

> Bruce, if it is proven with "legal backing" that this measure will not prevent regulations from governing agriculture as you have claimed, will you sign the petition and vote for this measure?


Can someone of credibility guarantee me that no regulations will be removed in the next 20 years? Can anyone with credibility guarantee me that the EPA will be around 20 years from now? Can anyone with credibility guarantee me that this will not lead to some more farmers violating regulations already in existence? Can anyone with credibility guarantee me there will be no increased poor farming practices? Can anyone guarantee me that new laws can be made to protect the environment and people from dangerous farming practices that may come along in the future? If so who?

If not I stick to my original forecast.

Edit: Oh, ya, how about that feedlot north of Carrington?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, you are full of crap! Any legal opinion handed down by the AG is on the list! If they made inquires and received some input it was not in the form of a legal opinion! So stop trying to split hairs! You said to contact the AG and get a legal opinion from him regarding the questions. This cannot happen because the measure is not law at this time and only laws on the books! 
So try again gst, post up the legal opinion that the AG gave the State Vet! 
It is that simple, you have made the statement that they gave the State Vet a legal opinion, I would beg to differ, they may gave them some guidance but it was not in the form of a legal opinion!

_*02-27-2008 Erik Johnson, Fargo City Attorney 2008-L-02 *_ Go to the site and read this! I made a formal request of the City Commission to seek a AG opinion on a procedure that they where trying to do. Eric Johnson tried the same BS as you in claiming he had talked with them and the City Commission was good to go! He had made contact and sought some advice on the subject but when he presented the complete and actual data and action the AG opinion put the brakes on the action! Do you get it gst! Informal communications are not binding nor are they intended to. People such as the State Vet and City attorneys or elected legislators can ask for guidance but that guidance is not a formal opinion nor is it binding or admissible in a court of law!

Hope you get it now!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Csquared said:


> Plainsman, Ron, Swift....anybody? Do they say "dude" in the dakotas?


Only those who have dropped out of HS at 16 have spent to much time on the nipple of a pipe not filled with tobacco! :lol:


----------



## gst

So ron if the "guidance" given by the ND AG's office as in the example I gave you that the State Vets office requested over concerns regading an initiated measures consequences is not good enough, what exctly will be considered accepted "legal backing" to substantiate ANYTHING regarding this measure INCLUDING THE CLAIMS MADE BY PLAINSMAN.

If the ND AG's office "guidance" is not good enough for you, what is?

Ron do you beleive the claims made by plainsman regarding this measure should be held to the same standard of proof thru "legal backing" as you are DEMANDING of others?


----------



## gst

Ron in case you forgot what those claims are, here they are once again.



gst said:


> At the very start of this discussion back inAug. VERY specific claims were made what this measure would do if passed.
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743&start=0
> 
> The following posts from this link are listed in their entirity so not to be accused of "cherry pickin" or taking something out of "context".
> 
> {Quote}
> _Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am
> 
> I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.
> 
> Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan.
> 
> A fellow who lives a mile north of me had all the trees on the west side of his lot killed when the farmer sprayed with a west wind and drift came into his yard. The applicator had insurance that took care of it. If the farmer did the spraying himself under a freedom to farm constitutional amendment would he be liable? As it is now they were not liable when canola plugged culverts and took out roads a couple of years ago. At least they can't blame hunters when it happens in the spring.
> 
> I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am
> 
> As far as antibiotics some farm practices use it in their feed. It is fed every day as a preventative not to treat an infection. We often read in (American Medical Association for example) about the over use of antbiotics and how it creates super bugs. Well agriculture is the culprit here more so than people over using it on a personal basis, or doctors overprescribing. Our neighbor had 5000 turkeys and all of his feed had antibiotics already in it. That does concern me and should concern everyone.
> 
> Also, not to pick on anyone, but some farmers want to grow hemp. To date the government has not let them. I have no problem with a farmer growing hemp, but what's next poppies? Now I know that's a hyperbole, but I use it as an example. However, if they could get away with it I know farmers who would produce heroin if it was profitable. Now before anyone goes ballistic I'm not saying that's what farmers are all like. What I will say is that they are like everyone else and some will go beyond reason and most will not. How many is the question. Look at Devils Lake for example. There is a high percentage draining from the north with no concern for Devils Lake, Valley City, or Fargo. One person on here who I will not name because he edited it fast and I can't prove it said he didn't care about Fargo. He said anyone dumb enough to build on a flood plain deserves to be flooded.
> 
> I think the freedom to farm as a constitutional amendment would be an absolute disaster. There is no doubt in my mind there wold be rampant drain and tile. There would be rampant habitat destruction. There would be ag practices that took away my choice as a consumer. How about a constitutional amendment for consumers that would protect me from pesticide residues, medical residues, flooding, chemical overspray, silt damage to public waterways etc. An absolute disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> This isn't liberal vs conservative, it isn't farming vs the public, it isn't farming vs animal rights, it's simply a step back into 17th century Europe. It's an attitude of, we will do what we want, and you will eat what we give you. Your life is worth less than ours attitude.
> 
> Edit: I'm not sure what I think of geneticly modified foods. I see some countries have banned them. I do sympathise with farmers because of the way the ELCA church has attacked genetic modifications. To date I don't know of anything wrong with eating them. However, let the free market decide. I think I would eat it and guess I do, but if someone doesn't want to I see that as more their right than the right of a farmer to say you have no choice, eat it or starve.
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm
> 
> The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else._ {end quote}
> 
> These claims came from the very first page of 3 separate threads and 35 total pages of "discussion" regarding this measure. Can anyone provide from within these 3 threads and the 35 correlating pages where these claims have been substantatiated with any "legal backing" as was simply asked to be done at the very start of this dialogue?
> 
> Ron do you beleive these claims should be substantiated with any "legal backing"?
> 
> C squared please show me where these specific claims have been substantaited with any "legal backing" and I will consider my "butt kicked".
> 
> Otherwise it has been nothing more than juvenile accusations, name calling and diverting attention from the original claims made by a former sponsor and supporters of an initiated measure whose intent was banning a modern ranching practice here in ND they do not approve of, and that this particular constitutional amendment is intended to prevent from happening again.
> 
> So indeed, talk with a farmer or rancher and show them these specific claims on this site. Ask them if they beleive claims such as these should be substantaited with some "legal backing" regarding how this constitutional amendment would allow them to happen or not.


Should these original instigating claims stating what will happen if this measure passes be substantiated with "legal backing" you are now demanding of others and if so what will constitute "legal backing"?


----------



## Plainsman

gst we are talking about the future with an amendment you yourself admitted is vague. One persons prediction about the future within that context is as good as another. People reading this will just have to decide which is right. Since you are totally full of bull droppings about the AG legal opinion your predictions should clearly be seen as suspect.

Here is a new way for you to look at life gst. Some of the people will kiss up to you all of the time, all of he people will kiss up to you some of the time, but not all of the people will kiss up to you all of the time. In that light my view of this amendment is that there is little doubt it will lead to multiple abuses.

So gst how about that feed lot sitting right against a creek at Carrington. You have ducked that question about five or six times now. Care to enlighten me?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, for the last time what you and plainsman have going it between you and him. I am not going to allow you to deflect away a false legal claim you made!



> If the ND AG's office "guidance" is not good enough for you, what is?





> 02-27-2008 Erik Johnson, Fargo City Attorney 2008-L-02 Go to the site and read this! I made a formal request of the City Commission to seek a AG opinion on a procedure that they where trying to do. Eric Johnson tried the same BS as you in claiming he had talked with them and the City Commission was good to go! He had made contact and sought some advice on the subject but when he presented the complete and actual data and action the AG opinion put the brakes on the action! Do you get it gst! Informal communications are not binding nor are they intended to. People such as the State Vet and City attorneys or elected legislators can ask for guidance but that guidance is not a formal opinion nor is it binding or admissible in a court of law!


gst I know full well why your nose is so out of joint! You have lost a huge position argument and another layer of deceit by you has been unveiled. Look at what you posted and what I posted! There is no opinion from the AG on the HFH issued PERIOD!

Now as to the guidance again look at what I posted again. Eric called,emailed or whatever with the mindset that he was right. The guidance that came back was simply a restating of current law. He took that as an affirmation of his interpretation of the law! When the action of the City Commission was in its entirety put before the AG and he was asked to render an opinion, the AG clearly stated they did not have the power to do what they where attempting to do! Hence in the record as a matter of law anyone and everyone can go and see it!

So unless I see exactly what was asked and the exact response from the AG office NO I will not accept that as guidance to support any of the positions you claim regarding this measure! And you cannot continue to claim that the State Vet recieved an AG opinion on the HFH measure! They did not~!


----------



## huntin1

I think it should be up to the NDFB, and the supporters of this measure to get an *outside* legal opinion on what this measure would do. It is your measure, you want us to vote on it, provide the information needed to make an informed vote.

Better yet, gst why don't you email the AG and ask if this measure would prevent a law against a farming practice that is accepted now, but later found to be harmful. Then post his response, whatever it msay be.

Let me know if you need his email address.

But I should probably wait for a winning lottery ticket. I am think the odds are better.

Huntin1


----------



## shaug

Ron said,



> So unless I see exactly what was asked and the exact response from the AG office NO I will not accept that as guidance to support any of the positions you claim regarding this measure! And you cannot continue to claim that the State Vet recieved an AG opinion on the HFH measure! They did not~!


I already addressed this. It was a sort of an impact to ND study. State Officials including the AG's Office some legislators had a meeting about the HFH Initiative and the wording. Trying to decipher the code of the wording of the HFI, what was funny about that meeting was they didn't know what it meant but were sure it meant something. The States Vets Office wanted to know who was going to enforce the HFI or in other words who was going to be given enforcement powers to go out in the country and make sure those elk and deer farmers (persons) were not selling their property to other (persons). The State Vets Office, the AG's Office and participants were talking about guidance. No opinion was given that day and the elk and deer growers never forced one. There-in lies the problem with the HFI, know one knew exactly what it meant. Maybe an AG's opinion should have been forced. When all that business hit the papers it was hard to tell if the AG's Office had given a position or what. Everyone was confused.

Huntin1 said,



> Better yet, gst why don't you email the AG and ask if this measure would prevent a law against a farming practice that is accepted now, but later found to be harmful. Then post his response, whatever it msay be.
> 
> Let me know if you need his email address.
> 
> But I should probably wait for a winning lottery ticket. I am think the odds are better.


Hunt, any one of you valedictorians should know, "you can't win if you don't enter."


----------



## indsport

Sigarms is correct. Gst or shaug, please post any legal opinions you may have on hand regarding the initiated measure in their entirety if you have not already done so. As to the SOS, they only approve the language of the measure not whether it may be challenged in court at some future date.


----------



## huntin1

Shaug,

I do enter, occasionally. Even my infrequent tickets, would give me a better chance than we have of gst emailing the AG. 

And sorry for the misspells, doing this on my phone, small keyboard, big thumbs.

Huntin1


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Shaug thank you, that is much different than the BS that GST was trying to blow up our collective butts about the HFH measure! I can understand a bit of confusion on people who are not involved, but there was never a single thing published on the AG web site. Which is where every legal opinion is put!

_*Now how about addressing the questions and concerns about this measure for us since I know you have the ability to do so with your current position*_!

gst even your own ally in this has put a pin in your hot air balloon! :lol: :lol:


----------



## gst

Re: Wall Street Journal/Fair Chase Measure 2
by gst » Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:14 pm

HUNTNFISHND wrote:
LT wrote:
Dick stated on the radio this morning when asked by a guy that called in if he buys an animal from someone and as the new owner can he shoot it -- Dick told him no.

So you believe everything somebody spouts off about on a radio?

Again, in law speak, not somebody said such and such, how does this measure stop the owner from killing his own animals?

Hunt, I believe the language of the State AG's office is that of this "law speak" you wish to hear.

Here is a portion of a response from the STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL in regards to a request from the state vets office concerning what their enforcement responsibilities would be if this measure were to pass. This was sent to the state vet, and fowarded to the board of the NDSA, as well as the State Board of Animal Health. *And before anyone suggests this is not what is stated remember a call to anyone of these entities can easily verify it*. 

This is page two of the response from the State AG office.

quote [We also have to think about the definition of "farmed elk" in 36-25-01m which is also broad and would include, it seems, animals confined for the purpose of for-pay hunting, for it states that "farmed elk" are mammals of the elk family confined and raised for "harvest."* But Measure No. 2 would now say that you can't hold elk for harvest. To ensure that there isn't a conflict in the statues, we'd have to read "harvest" as limited to harvests that don't involve fees or other remuneration.[/*u]

Well, enough rambling. Bottom line, I think it premature to say that the Measure, if approved, will impose significanat work or duties on the BAH and state vet.

Oh, one more thing. This morning we talked about the terms in the Measure, that is, "privately-owned big game species" and "exotic mammals," and wondered whether since those terms are not defined in code whether the Measure would be really do anything. It will most definitely do something. It will be given effect and a landowner who thinks otherwise would do so at his peril. The Measures provisions and terms do have meaning and if they aren't defined in rule or in statutes enacted down the road, they will be difined by a court in a criminal prosecution under the Measure or, possibly, in an enforcement action by the BAH.] end quote

Sounds a little like "law speak" to me! Perhaps even unbiased "law speak" at that! ]End quote

Ron if I reacll correctly, you argued quite adamantly that the HFH measure would not prevent producersgfrom selling elk for "harvest" for a renumeration as long as there was no "hunting" involved. As this AG's "opinion" that is underlined clearly contradicted that and suggeested your claims were wrong. Perhaps that fact has a bit to do with why you will not acknowledge it. :wink: Apparently the ND State's Attorney General's office did not beleive it to be "hot air"! * Ron who would have the better "legal backing" here, you or the ND AG's office???* :wink:

Or perhaps you are refering to the claim HSUS wascontacted and would become involved in the HFH measure as the "hot air" being blown up your arse! :wink:

Regardless ron the ND State Vets office asked for and was granted an "opinion" by the ND AG's office and it was given. Denying it does not mean it did not occur. To bad they don;t have a little icon of the little kid with his fingers in his ears singing at the top of his voice so he does not hear what someone is saying! 

As I said, if you do not beleive me contact the State Vet office if you wish to "prove me wrong". As you see that was also suggested back when this ND AG's opinion was initially shared, you did not do that back then, I doubt you will now.


----------



## gst

If one claim is required to be substantiated with "legal backing", shouldn;t they all?? Perhaps even those that started this whole debate?



gst said:


> Ron in case you forgot what those claims are, here they are once again.
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the very start of this discussion back inAug. VERY specific claims were made what this measure would do if passed.
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743&start=0
> 
> The following posts from this link are listed in their entirity so not to be accused of "cherry pickin" or taking something out of "context".
> 
> {Quote}
> _Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am
> 
> I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.
> 
> Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan.
> 
> A fellow who lives a mile north of me had all the trees on the west side of his lot killed when the farmer sprayed with a west wind and drift came into his yard. The applicator had insurance that took care of it. If the farmer did the spraying himself under a freedom to farm constitutional amendment would he be liable? As it is now they were not liable when canola plugged culverts and took out roads a couple of years ago. At least they can't blame hunters when it happens in the spring.
> 
> I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am
> 
> As far as antibiotics some farm practices use it in their feed. It is fed every day as a preventative not to treat an infection. We often read in (American Medical Association for example) about the over use of antbiotics and how it creates super bugs. Well agriculture is the culprit here more so than people over using it on a personal basis, or doctors overprescribing. Our neighbor had 5000 turkeys and all of his feed had antibiotics already in it. That does concern me and should concern everyone.
> 
> Also, not to pick on anyone, but some farmers want to grow hemp. To date the government has not let them. I have no problem with a farmer growing hemp, but what's next poppies? Now I know that's a hyperbole, but I use it as an example. However, if they could get away with it I know farmers who would produce heroin if it was profitable. Now before anyone goes ballistic I'm not saying that's what farmers are all like. What I will say is that they are like everyone else and some will go beyond reason and most will not. How many is the question. Look at Devils Lake for example. There is a high percentage draining from the north with no concern for Devils Lake, Valley City, or Fargo. One person on here who I will not name because he edited it fast and I can't prove it said he didn't care about Fargo. He said anyone dumb enough to build on a flood plain deserves to be flooded.
> 
> I think the freedom to farm as a constitutional amendment would be an absolute disaster. There is no doubt in my mind there wold be rampant drain and tile. There would be rampant habitat destruction. There would be ag practices that took away my choice as a consumer. How about a constitutional amendment for consumers that would protect me from pesticide residues, medical residues, flooding, chemical overspray, silt damage to public waterways etc. An absolute disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> This isn't liberal vs conservative, it isn't farming vs the public, it isn't farming vs animal rights, it's simply a step back into 17th century Europe. It's an attitude of, we will do what we want, and you will eat what we give you. Your life is worth less than ours attitude.
> 
> Edit: I'm not sure what I think of geneticly modified foods. I see some countries have banned them. I do sympathise with farmers because of the way the ELCA church has attacked genetic modifications. To date I don't know of anything wrong with eating them. However, let the free market decide. I think I would eat it and guess I do, but if someone doesn't want to I see that as more their right than the right of a farmer to say you have no choice, eat it or starve.
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm
> 
> The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else._ {end quote}
> 
> These claims came from the very first page of 3 separate threads and 35 total pages of "discussion" regarding this measure. Can anyone provide from within these 3 threads and the 35 correlating pages where these claims have been substantatiated with any "legal backing" as was simply asked to be done at the very start of this dialogue?
> 
> Ron do you beleive these claims should be substantiated with any "legal backing"?
> 
> C squared please show me where these specific claims have been substantaited with any "legal backing" and I will consider my "butt kicked".
> 
> Otherwise it has been nothing more than juvenile accusations, name calling and diverting attention from the original claims made by a former sponsor and supporters of an initiated measure whose intent was banning a modern ranching practice here in ND they do not approve of, and that this particular constitutional amendment is intended to prevent from happening again.
> 
> So indeed, talk with a farmer or rancher and show them these specific claims on this site. Ask them if they beleive claims such as these should be substantaited with some "legal backing" regarding how this constitutional amendment would allow them to happen or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Should these original instigating claims stating what will happen if this measure passes be substantiated with "legal backing" you are now demanding of others and if so what will constitute "legal backing"?
Click to expand...

ANYONE want to have a run at addressing where in 35 pages these claims have been substantiated with rons standard of "legal backing"?


----------



## gst

]


Ron Gilmore"
[i][b]Now how about addressing the questions and concerns about this measure for us since I know you have the ability to do so with your current position[/b][/i]!
:[/quote]
[i][b]Ron what would you call someonethat demands an answer and yet will not accept it when given because it does not meet his standard of criteria required for it?[/b][/i]
[quote="Plainsman said:


> gst we are talking about the future with an amendment you yourself admitted is vague. One persons prediction about the future within that context is as good as another. .


So apparently as long as the "one persons prediction" supports your posistions it does not need to be "qualified" with any sort of "legal backing" and is "good" yet those in opposition do and are not??? :-? :roll:



Plainsman said:


> People reading this will just have to decide which is right. Since you are totally full of bull droppings about the AG legal opinion your predictions should clearly be seen as suspect.


plainsamn if I recall you claimed I was full of "bull droppings" inso many words when I suggested the AG could give an "opinion" as to rons claims that this measure would not affect the sale of these captive cervids for meat thru "havest" during the HFH debate. And that this opinion would suggest the "vagueness"of the measure would prevent these sales?

It was asked for and was given and suggested that very thing.

If I recall you said I was full of "bull droppings"in so many words when I suggested HSUS would become involved in this measure and that coversations were being held with them.

They did and they were.

As a result indeed the people did "decide which is right". And now the same folks that brought us the HFH measure and supported it are out for revenge to block a measure whose intent is to prevent HFH III from surfacing somewhere down the road. No wonder the same people are making the same type claims accusations and personal name calling now. :roll:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> ANYONE want to have a run at addressing where in 35 pages these claims have been substantiated with rons standard of "legal backing"?


Funny! :rollin: 
All I see is plains on his soapbox spouting off this thoughts, opinions, and maybe even some biases,,,so what! 
The NDFB opens itself up for this type of rhetoric with it's one chip at a time agenda.
Anyone with half of a tulip can see that,,,except maybe you.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANYONE want to have a run at addressing where in 35 pages these claims have been substantiated with rons standard of "legal backing"?
> 
> 
> 
> Funny! :rollin:
> All I see is plains on his soapbox spouting off this thoughts, opinions, and maybe even some biases,,,so what!
> The NDFB opens itself up for this type of rhetoric with it's one chip at a time agenda.
> Anyone with half of a tulip can see that,,,except maybe you.
Click to expand...

So spent, what you are saying is here simply because of a bias against an ag org, the thoughts and opinions and biases and lets ot forget very specific claims of what this measure will do should not have some sort of "legal backing" when discussing something such as a constitutional amendment? What a great basis to build an amendment off of, bull**** and rhetoric. :roll:

Plainsman did not start this by simply suggesting he had concerns wether this measure would prevent necessary regulations for being allowed for agriculture. HE MADE VERY SPECIFIC CLAIMS AS TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS MEASURE PASSES. Some merely think those should be substantiated if they are to be believed. And given his track record of adamantly denying things like HSUS involvement in the last HFH measure perhaps rightly so. :wink:


----------



## gst

spent in case you forgot what those specific claims palisnman made, here they are once again. Take note of the repeated reference to raising poppies and heroin and things illegal now if is measure passes! 

Quote"[The following posts from this link are listed in their entirity so not to be accused of "cherry pickin" or taking something out of "context".

{Quote}_
Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

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

Indeed spent given the "who's who" of the HFH supporters on here making these claims and supporting them, I would think anyone with "half a tulip" can see what their "agenda" is if they actually want to. :wink:


----------



## spentwings

I see opinions and nothing more. Are they biased??? Well they're opinions.
,,,unfortunately your fixation may have wilted your tulip a long time ago. 
As I've often said, these threads after the 1st page don't make sense to me.
Beating a dead horse doesn't advance agendas,,, it only speeds up decomposition.


----------



## Plainsman

So gst how about that Carrington feed lot?



> And given his track record of adamantly denying things like HSUS involvement in the last HFH measure perhaps rightly so.


You said you were going to send me proof of HSUS involvement. At that time I had some confidence in what you said. You never sent any proof. So naturally I thought it was more bull droppings.

So gst if the HFH initiative was to vague, and this amendment is to vague what makes this one better? Other than giving you more freedom to rip, rape, and run. That one percent of farmers that I say needs watching will push hard for this amendment.


----------



## huntin1

Gst, your lack of comprehension is appalling. I don't care what was said about the HFH measure, it was defeated. Why do you keep yammering on about it?

Email the AG and see what he says in regard to whether or not the amendment will prevent the legislature from enacting a law prohibiting a currently accepted farming practice that is found to be harmful in the future. Then post his response.

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

I don't want to clutter things with more than one sentence and confuse people so --------- gst what about that Carrington feed lot sitting on the edge of a creek?


----------



## huntin1

Plainsman, don't think he's going to answer you. Perhaps he knows, as do you and I, that the runoff goes right into the creek, and ends up in the river.

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

Where was that that we were told feed lots would never be built? What's that long green line running west to east on the north side of the lot? What are those ponds right next to the valley edge? I can't figure this out can you gst? Explain this one for me. I need some photo interpretation help. :wink:


----------



## shaug

Huntin1 wrote,



> Gst, your lack of comprehension is appalling. I don't care what was said about the HFH measure, it was defeated. Why do you keep yammering on about it?
> 
> Email the AG and see what he says in regard to whether or not the amendment will prevent the legislature from enacting a law prohibiting a currently accepted farming practice that is found to be harmful in the future. Then post his response.


The HFI had everything to do with these threads because the propondents of the HFI measure are now the oppondents of this measure. Hunt, do your own homework and contact the AG. I'll bet you do not even get past his secretary, she is a bulldog. You will need your Senator or Representative standing right beside you. Hint: do not take your Representative Lyle Hanson with you. The Attorney General knows Lyle carries water for the ND Wildlife Federation. They are the ones who opened the door for HSUS in ND and that involvement right there spawned this FB measure. The AG knows.

Anyway, in all of this some people make claims give opinions and spew nonsense. Look at Dick Monsons opinion from the HFI:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=42776&p=331106&hilit=then+somebody+is+going+to+jail#p331106



> I appreciate the interest most have shown here. Bison are exempt. They are neither a defined big game species nor an exotic non-native mammal. Attorney Germolus has worked both ag and wildlife law in the AGs office before he went private. I did ask him the question Horsager mentioned on loop holing the measure and he had an answer. Somebody's going to jail.
> 
> Which brings up 2 other points of the measure wording. This baby isn't a class B, it's class A misdemeanor. And the canned shooting operations have 3 more seasons after the election before it goes into effect, ... before they are shut down. Plenty of time to sell off "inventory". Then we taxpayers wouldn't have to subsidize this industry anymore.
> 
> Hunters need to take a lesson from the corporations that produce commercial pork. Antis have hammered for years about the use of farrowing crates for sows. Too small to turn around in. This year the corporations pulled farrowing crates before the antis could write legislation that would have gone farther. Good move. Proactive. We need to do the same.


Dick Monson had an opinion too. Sad fact is he took it right out of the HSUS playbook.

We need this Farm Bureau measure to defend farming/ranching. HSUS isn't going to come to ND wearing loud clothing screaming they are here to shut down agriculture or hunting. Too big a bite. What they will do is partner with people who already live here to blend in. And we have certain individuals in ND who have already proven they will sell out and provide that front group.


----------



## Plainsman

So shaug why didn't you guys write it to protect animal agriculture? I know why. You want to tile the heck out of everything you can. Ya, ya, HSUS. Nonsense, it's drain and tile just like 80% of the farmers around here think. If it was protection against animal rights groups it would be an animal amendment. Nope. You guy just picked up on a scare tactic. It worked last time so your milking it for all it's worth.

Shaug, do you know anything about that feed lot pictured above? I'll bet we will see a lot more of them. Why do they place them right in the watershed that way?

I would suggest people go to Google Earth and download the program. Then slide your cursor around and watch the elevation. My computer is reading 1560 feet above sea level in the pens, 1547 at the west pond and 1555 at the east pond. The creek bottom is 1546. I guess that means these ponds are right down in the valley. At least that's what I get moving my cursor around and watching the elevation.


----------



## huntin1

Hnmmm, shaug, why do I suspect that you know what will happen if I or any one else involved in this debate contacts the AG for his opinion.

Huntin1


----------



## gst

Plainsman, I really do not know which feedlot you are talking about. Is it permitted? If it is permitted it has to have a containment system. These containment systems have very specific requirements. Contact the State Health Dept. and ask what thepermitting process is for a feedlot. Then contactthe EPA and ask the say question.

Elavations mean little if indeed there is a containment system built. Some operations have been "grandfathered in but still must meet EPA and State Health Dept. standards.

New construction of feedlots, which is what you claimed will be built on river bottoms, require significant engineering to meet the regulations required to be permitted. Soil types, water containment ect... are all part of the equation.

Like I said don;t take my word for it, bruce, if I explained to you where the laoon systems were and how they worked in your picture wouldyou accept it as correct anyway, so please contact the State Health Dept. and th Federal EPA and find out for yourself what is required to permit construction of a feedlot.


----------



## gst

Huntin one, comprehend it or not the HFH measure is a part of the picture and discussion with this measure. As has been said, it was a significant part of the catalyst for developing this measure. Of course the supporters and sponsors of the HFH debacle wish to deflect away from that, as if this measure passes, it is very likely they will not be able to accomplish your agenda of ending cervid ranching here in ND.

When the HFH measure was being debated, there were claims made it would not prevent the sale and harvest of captive cervids for meat y people on this site. I contacted the ND AG's office directly and was told I as a citizen of ND could not request an opinion, by the secratary shaug mentions that it had to be ran through a state agency or I beleive a legislative committee. There were concerns that the ND State Vets office as well as the Board of Animal Health had if this HFH measure where to be passed, so they askd the AG's office for an opinion regarding these concerns. One was the ability of producers to sell the animals for harvest for a fee or renumeration as the measure prohibited.

What I posted was context from the ND AG's "opinion" given the ND State Vets office. So indeed if one has the desire and the cooperation of various state agencies or legislative comittees as it was presented to me an "opinion" can be given.

Perhaps some legislators simply do not wish to work with people that demand things rather than request them!


----------



## gst

http://www.ag.state.nd.us/Brochures/Fac ... inions.pdf

One of the Attorney General's most important and demanding statutory duties is to respond
in writing to questions of law in which the state or any of its officers, bureaus, boards, commissions,
or agencies have an interest.
Attorney General Opinions answer legal questions that relate to a public official's duties, interpret
laws, and guide state and local officials in applying laws.
What is An
Attorney General's
Opinion?
An Opinion is similar to a legal precedent and stands until a court or later opinion overrules it,
or new legislation is enacted to change the statute in question. Opinions are not binding on the
courts, but they are usually given careful consideration. An Attorney General's opinion protects
a public official who follows it from liability, even if a court would later disagree with the
opinion.
Who May Request
an Opinion?
State law restricts who may request and receive an Attorney General's Opinion. The Attorney
General may issue legal opinions only to: state officers, state agencies, the state legislature,
county state's attorneys, city attorneys, city governing bodies, water resource boards, soil
conservation districts, health district boards, the Judicial Conduct Commission, and the Garrison
Diversion Conservancy District.
Any member of the public, however, may request an opinion relating to an alleged violation
of the state's open records or open meetings laws by a public entity.
What Questions Are
Not Appropriate for
An Opinion?
The Attorney General issues opinions on questions of law related to matters involving state
statutes, *the state constitution, and matters having statewide significance*. There are several
situations for which an opinion typically would be unsuitable. These include when the question
presented:
 is one of fact rather than law;
 is imminently likely to be or is presently pending before a court of law, or a court having
jurisdiction has already ruled on the issue;
 concerns internal operation or management of the judicial branch of government;
 is moot or hypothetical;
 calls for interpreting local ordinances or charters;
 involves matters regarding whether a criminal offense has occurred;
 involves the constitutionality of a statute, or
 amounts to private legal advice to individuals or businesses (even if the request is made
by someone otherwise entitled to an opinion).
City or County
Issues
Because city attorneys and county state's attorneys have a statutory duty to advise the local
government officials and agencies within their jurisdiction, this office may decline to issue opinions
on matters that should be, or which already have been, addressed by the political subdivision's
legal advisor.
Requesting An
Opinion
1. Review the guidelines about what questions are appropriate for Attorney General Opinions.
2. Send a written request to the Office of Attorney General.
3. It is helpful to state why the question is significant, and the context in which the issue arises. Try
to provide any information that may be useful, including relevant research, statutes, cases, prior
opinions, and agency rules.
4. When requesting an opinion, county state's attorneys and city attorneys must include their preliminary
research on the issue, along with any previously issued advice, memorandum, or conclusion.
5. Explain any special needs for expedited issuance. Please note that these needs will be considered
but it is impossible to guarantee the exact date an opinion will be issued.
Note: When the Legislature is in session, requests for opinions from members of the Legislative
Assembly will be accepted only after the request has received approval from a majority or
minority leader.
The Drafting
Process
The Attorney General first determines whether a formal opinion is the appropriate response.
The Attorney General may deny a request for an opinion.[u*] Often, the issue may be addressed
or resolved through an informal process*.[/u]
Attorney General Opinions involve a lengthy research and review process. The request is assigned
to an Assistant Attorney General who analyzes the issues, conducts extensive research,
and prepares a draft opinion. Each draft opinion is reviewed by at least one other Assistant
Attorney General, as well as the Division Director, the Chief Deputy Attorney General, and the
Attorney General. The opinion may be revised throughout the process. The opinion is issued to
the requesting entity.
Because of the legal significance of an Attorney General's Opinion, the opinion drafting process
is exhaustive and generally takes around 120 to 180 days; complex issues may take
longer.
Where Can One Find
Attorney General
Opinions?
 Published Attorney General Opinions issued from 1942 to date can be downloaded at
http://www.ag.nd.gov by clicking on the "Legal Opinions" link. Copies of Attorney General
opinions are provided to the State Law Library, Westlaw and Lexis.
 Individual copies of opinions issued prior to 1942 may be requested by contacting the Office
of Attorney General at (701) 328-2210 or via e-mail to [email protected].
 Anyone may register to receive e-mail notification when Attorney General opinions are issued.
Send an e-mail to [email protected] or call (701) 328-2210.
Opinions on Open
Records and Open
Meeting Violations
Anyone may request an opinion on an alleged violation of the state's open records or open
meetings laws by a public entity. Additional information is available on the Attorney General's
on the "Open Records & Meetings" link.
The Office of Attorney General is prohibited by law from giving legal advice or assistance to private businesses or
members of the public. For legal advice and information please consult an attorney in private practice.


----------



## gst

http://www.ag.state.nd.us/Brochures/Fac ... inions.pdf



gst said:


> Who May Request
> an Opinion?
> State law restricts who may request and receive an Attorney General's Opinion. The Attorney
> General may issue legal opinions only to: state officers, state agencies, the state legislature,
> county state's attorneys, city attorneys, city governing bodies, water resource boards, soil
> conservation districts, health district boards, the Judicial Conduct Commission, and the Garrison
> Diversion Conservancy District.





gst said:


> The Attorney General issues opinions on questions of law related to matters involving state
> statutes, the state constitution, and matters having statewide significance





gst said:


> The Attorney General first determines whether a formal opinion is the appropriate response.
> The Attorney General may deny a request for an opinion. Often, the issue may be addressed
> or resolved through an informal process.[/u




Perhaps it was an "informal process" in which the State Vet had their concerns addressed from the ND AG's office regarding the HFH measure.

It appears there are a number of avenues to request an "opinion" form the ND AG's office. Perhaps this proposed amendment to the state constitution that is a matter of statewide significance would qualify.

But hey I'm no expert on this, just clicked the mouse on my computer a couple of times.

I wonder if any "water resource boards" would be concerned regarding bruces claims of feedlots being built on rivers and manure being allowed to be washed away by the water into the river?

I would bet they would even be concerned with the impact of "irresponsible pesticide use" as well. Could be an avenue to substantiate ones claims if they actually wished to.

Since the NRCS is often involved in these feedlot projects, perhaps they as a "soil conservation district" would have some interest in substantiating Bruces claims as well.

Perhaps the "county states attorneys" would like to know if farmers will be able to raise poppies and produce heroin in their county as brucve sugests will happen if this measure passes.

Hmmmm looks as if there are a number of avenues to request an opinion thru. Perhaps you guys have your work cut out for you if you are actually concerned with the "truth" regarding these claims and how this measure will affect them.


----------



## swift

I thought you were done on this topic. Oh well nice while it lasted.

Question for you GST, off topic kind of. What is the federal law regarding Marijuana? (I know since it doesn't benefit you, an answer isn't likely). Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug which is illegal to possess under federal law.

States that have legalized medical marijuana have done so in direct violation of federal law. At the time being the feds have not acted on these states.

Will this precedent allow for ND to write laws that are contrary to federal law without repercussions? Can you see where the lack of due diligence in the past has some of us nervous?


----------



## gst

swift. I thought you were "ignoring me" !  Oh well nice while it lasted! :wink:

Perhapsif you have concerns about this emasure allowing it like bruce claims it will, you should then use one of the several avenues avalible to you to request an opinion from the AG's office.

Perhaps you have to be a resident of ND, I didn;t catch that part in the link.


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> Huntin one, comprehend it or not the HFH measure is a part of the picture and discussion with this measure. As has been said, it was a significant part of the catalyst for developing this measure. Of course the supporters and sponsors of the HFH debacle wish to deflect away from that, as if this measure passes, it is very likely they will not be able to accomplish your agenda of ending cervid ranching here in ND.


My agenda? You see gst this is why I question your comprehension. I have said this in other threads here, and this is from page 13 of this thread:



huntin1 said:


> I don't care if any one wants to buy an elk herd (deer, buffalo, whatever) turn it loose in their pasture and charge people several thousand dollars to come kill one. I am however against calling it "the hunt of a lifetime" as many of these operations do. Call it what it is, harvesting a captive animal, and mark the antlers in some permanent manner so that some yahoo in Chicago can't try to enter it in a record book.
> 
> These are my areas of concern, nothing else.


So what is there about this statement that you just can't comprehend?

What you posted in your cut and past post is what I have been alluding to all along. The AG is not going to give an opinion on this when requested by one of us, because all of us involved in this debate are individuals and not affiliated..........hey, wait a minute, you represent the Stockman's Association, right? And Shaug represents NDFB, right? Both organizations have a vested interest in this measure, so both organizations would be within the rules requesting an AG opinion, right?

So, here's the question again, you know, just in case you forgot. :wink:

If this amendment is passed will it prevent the legislature from enacting a law that prohibits a modern farming practice that is accepted now, but is found to be dangerous or harmful at some point in the future?

And shaug, I am familiar with the AG's secretary.

huntin1


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Funny gst that you finally went and posted up what I had already linked earlier! Like somehow you suddenly found nirvana! :lol:

So as Shaug pointed out, if the State Vet contacted them in regards to who would be in charge of enforcement if passed that is not requesting a legal opinion or even an informal opinion of what the measure said or did! But enough about the HFH issue.

Let us look at the very first part of the posting from the AG site!

One of the Attorney General's most important and demanding statutory duties is to respond
in writing to questions of_* law*_ in which the state or any of its officers, bureaus, boards, commissions,
or agencies have an interest.

I put the single most important word in bold, underlined it and made it big so you can see it and not ignore it!

The AG office cannot answer the questions put forth regarding this because of the fact it is not a law! It is currently a measure awaiting enough signatures to see if it can be put on the Nov 12 ballot and then has to be voted upon. If passed then it will become _*law*_ and then the AG can render a legal opinion on them at that time!

Do you have any idea as to why this is? Because like it or not the AG is an elected official who has party backing! He cannot comment outside of the law on hypothetical questions because his response could have a positive or negative affect upon a measure before the people to vote on!

So in response again to the claims that those opposed to this are also those who supported the HFH measure. So what? I am not opposed to a proper amendment, but this one is worded so vaguely that it leaves way to many things open that will cause untold harm in my opinion!


----------



## shaug

Now Plainsman wants to talk about a feedlot north of Jamestown and Swift wants to talk about marijuana. Good grief.

Huntin1 wrote,



> What you posted in your cut and past post is what I have been alluding to all along. The AG is not going to give an opinion on this when requested by one of us, because all of us involved in this debate are individuals and not affiliated..........hey, wait a minute, you represent the Stockman's Association, right? And Shaug represents NDFB, right? Both organizations have a vested interest in this measure, so both organizations would be within the rules requesting an AG opinion, right?
> 
> So, here's the question again, you know, just in case you forgot.
> 
> If this amendment is passed will it prevent the legislature from enacting a law that prohibits a modern farming practice that is accepted now, but is found to be dangerous or harmful at some point in the future?
> 
> And shaug, I am familiar with the AG's secretary.


Hunt, No one is going to do your leg work for you. If you already know the AG's secretary and Attorney Paul Germalous who used to work inside the AG's Office, then you are further ahead than you think. Force an opinion. Key word "FORCE"


----------



## Plainsman

Force an opinion. Key word "FORCE"

You want an opinion. gst will not settle for an opinion. The AG will have to substantiate his remarks. oke:


----------



## huntin1

Force? From tthe AG's office.

Actually, I'm further ahead than you think. I know that an individual looking for an AG's opinion is not going to get one. *He does not issue opinions if the request is from an individual.*

Huntin1


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug are you as dense as gst? There is no opinion to FORCE on this measure from the AG because it is not a LAW!

But shaug you are a drafter of this measure by the position you hold! So why the avoidance of answering the questions? Is it that they are hitting the bulls eye and not the Bull crap that gst and you have tried to sling?


----------



## shaug

Huntin1 wrote,



> Actually, I'm further ahead than you think. I know that an individual looking for an AG's opinion is not going to get one. He does not issue opinions if the request is from an individual.


Hunt, you win the k-p doll. An individual "alone" cannot.


----------



## gst

Ron, I posted the context of the link you provided as the wording shows a little more than what you are claiming.

From the text:
_The Attorney General issues opinions on questions of law related to matters involving state statutes, the state constitution, and matters having statewide significance_

Ron, bruce has suggested that if this measure passes there will be no way to create impose and enforce regulatory LA to prevent the claims he has made. Indeed the AG's office could give an opinion on this.

From the text:
_The Attorney General first determines whether a formal opinion is the appropriate response.
The Attorney General may deny a request for an opinion. Often, the issue may be addressed
or resolved through an informal process_.[/u

Wether the "opinion" given by the AG's office is official such as the ones you listed, or "informal" as in the one given the State Vet I shared, the "legal backing" comes from the very same source.

So how are feedlot prevented from allowing manure to be "washed into rivers"?

How are pesticides prevented from being used "irresponsibly"

How are farmers prevented from growing "things that are now illegal" such as poppies to produce heroin?

ALL these things are prevented BY LAW.

Bruce claims this measure will prevent existing laws from being implemented and new laws from being created to regulate agriculture.

Given this claim these "laws related to matters" of an amendment to our "constitution" that will most definately have "state wide significance" one would beleive they would indeed qualify for an opinion bythe state AG's office[/size]. [/size]

The simple fact is no one wants to push for an "opinion" to be given. When the HFH measure was being debated, the very same debate over what the wording of that measure would do was being held. Ron and others claimed it would NOT prevent cervids from being sold for "harvest" for slaughter. The "informal" opinion given by the AG's office said exactly the opposite and supported the claims of those opposing what the HFH suppoprters were doing.



gst said:


> I wonder if any "water resource boards" would be concerned regarding bruces claims of feedlots being built on rivers and manure being allowed to be washed away by the water into the river?
> 
> I would bet they would even be concerned with the impact of "irresponsible pesticide use" as well. Could be an avenue to substantiate ones claims if they actually wished to.
> 
> Since the NRCS is often involved in these feedlot projects, perhaps they as a "soil conservation district" would have some interest in substantiating Bruces claims as well.
> 
> Perhaps the "county states attorneys" would like to know if farmers will be able to raise poppies and produce heroin in their county as brucve sugests will happen if this measure passes.
> 
> Hmmmm looks as if there are a number of avenues to request an opinion thru. Perhaps you guys have your work cut out for you if you are actually concerned with the "truth" regarding these claims and how this measure will affect them.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Are you really that dense to keep using the term "opinion" from the AG office on a measure that is not a law of the state gst?

You are like the dog chasing his tail and even if he catches it does not know what the heck to do with it!

So once again gst, the AG cannot provide a legal opinion on this measure! No amount of posting or pointing to the stuff you have changes that!

So why not stop with the charade!

Shaug why not respond? Quite the double standard you hold in regards to information to the voting public! Cowardly is the cleanest description I can give of your avoidance!


----------



## gst

Ron, will this measure and resulting constitutional amendment impact the laws of the state of ND and have a statewide significance?

Could these "concerns"/claims "be addressed or resolved thru an informal process" from the ND AG's office ?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst said:


> Ron, will this measure and resulting constitutional amendment impact the laws of the state of ND and have a statewide significance?
> 
> Could these "concerns"/claims "be addressed or resolved thru an informal process" from the ND AG's office ?


Not really gst for the simple reason of undue influence which is something that the AG is not allowed to do. Questions on jurisdiction or clarification on a term is not providing the answers to the questions posed.

Another reason for this is simply refer back to my post regarding the City of Fargo! Eric went through the informal process and provided to the Commission his belief that their action was within the statues. When fully vetted by the AG and a legal opinion was given, it was found that the City could not act in the manner that they where headed.

I am not looking for a legal opinion from the AG, I am looking for those who drafted this to provide adequate answers to the valid questions and concerns that have been presented. Just as you and others did of the HFH measure drafters! I have stated that over and over.

I have stated my opposition to this measure because of the vague wording and what others as well as myself seeing it causing. I am not opposed to a measure that would make it harder or next to impossible for PETA and groups like them to cause havoc with the livestock producers or commodity growers!

The opposition to this is not about the idea!

Something you are not aware of is that I lived in WI when they passed a law that gave people the right to farm. The first two attempts to draft legislation failed to garner support in a very Ag friendly state for much of the same reasons that this one has opposition. the third attempt they got it mostly right and it passed and was adopted!

I think that in my opinion that counties and cities are not going to favor this law but not for the reasons you claim. They will see what I and others have with the wording.


----------



## gst

So ron, why was the AG's office able to give the "informal opinion" to the state vet concerning the HFH measure, and yet not give an "informal opinion" to say a water resource board, a county states atty, or the soil conservation district in regards to this maeasure regardng claims it will prevent laws from being created to regulate ag?



Ron Gilmore said:


> I am not opposed to a measure that would make it harder or next to impossible for PETA and groups like them to cause havoc with the livestock producers or commodity growers!


So ron you would support a measure that would prevent gorups wether PETA. HSUS or even NDH for FC from causing "havoc" for ND producers of livestock as defined in our Century Code?


----------



## gst

Sample request for an "opinion" form the ND AG"'s office.

_There exists concerns the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment being circulated by petition will remove regulatory law from being implemented in regards to agriculture adopted into our state constitution. Will this measure as worded and placed within our state constitution prevent agriculture from being regulated by state law._

If you do indeed have concerns and wish them factually addressed, why not at least try to solict an opinion wether formal or informal from the AG's office thru one of the several avenues avalible?

Would the interpretation of the AG's office be sufficient?

There have been many claims made as to what this measure will do, I'm sure by now you know what they are. So is this really about getting to the truth of these claims or merely acheiving an end result by influencing people "opinions"?

Ron, plainsman, anyone, how many actual witches do you beleive were burned centuries ago in Salem?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Ron, will this measure and resulting constitutional amendment impact the laws of the state of ND and have a statewide significance?
> 
> Could these "concerns"/claims "be addressed or resolved thru an informal process" from the ND AG's office ?





Ron Gilmore said:


> Not really gst


Is that "not really" an answer to the first question or the second?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> So ron, why was the AG's office able to give the "informal opinion" to the state vet concerning the HFH measure, and yet not give an "informal opinion" to say a water resource board, a county states atty, or the soil conservation district in regards to this maeasure regardng claims it will prevent laws from being created to regulate ag?


The answer to that is in your postings from the AG website!

To your second, again that has been answered as well! Just not going to support this broad and vague measure to do that! Simple as can be! 
Just saw your last post!
Have your local county board ask the questions see if the AG even entertains them since they are hypothetical and see what kind of response they get! The State Vet asked who would be in charge of enforcement which is different than what has been asked here! 
Continue to paint the floor gst the door is on the other side of the room and the corner is closing in fast!


----------



## Plainsman

Ron, I will address you since gst appears to be unable to comprehend. He also tells me to contact the EPA. I worked for a government agency, and I know they will give no opinion. It would be akin to career suicide to do so. You can bet the national office would hang anyone out to dry who was caught up officially in a controversy like this. It simply isn't going to happen. So all these avenues he says he has followed are simply not true. Get you wet suite on because these guys are shoveling bull dropping so deep we are going to have to swim for it.

We already have feed lots that drain to our waterways, and with the protection of this amendment does anyone think it will get better? If you do then you believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and you want to buy some swamp land.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> The answer to that is in your postings from the AG website!


You will have to be a bit more specific than that.



Ron Gilmore said:


> The State Vet asked who would be in charge of enforcement which is different than what has been asked here!


Ron the State vet asked more than simply who would be in charge, I had a little insight into the dialogue. :wink:

What needs to be realized here is I was not the one that made these claims. You know the ones right? I'm not the one with concerns this measure will prevent ag from being regulated, I know better. The fact you guys do not want to even make an attempt to have your "concerns" addressed thru the avenues avalible to you, says quite abit about what the agenda behind these claims is.



Plainsman said:


> So all these avenues he says he has followed are simply not true.


Please show where I have said what avenues you are claiming I have followed outside of talking with a couple of people whose opinions on this I respect a gfreat del more than yours.



Plainsman said:


> We already have feed lots that drain to our waterways,


 Plainsman if this is ture they simply are in violation of current law. Prove this by reporting them and posting the results on here.


----------



## Plainsman

> Please show where I have said what avenues you are claiming I have followed outside of talking with a couple of people whose opinions on this I respect a gfreat del more than yours.


OK



> I had a little insight into the dialogue


You said you had opinion from the AG office to the state vet right? Then you tell us all we have to do is call EPA right? All bull droppings. If you want to get something like this out of an employee of the EPA I think you would have to take it to court and subpoena them as witnesses. They are not going to give opinion (since it's future it predictions) on what may, could, or eventually may happen ten years down the road.



> Plainsman wrote:We already have feed lots that drain to our waterways,
> Plainsman if this is ture they simply are in violation of current law. Prove this by reporting them and posting the results on here.


I think I will do that, but since I know who these people are I will first talk to them and tell them a representative of the NDSA told me to report them. Then I'll ask them if they are in compliance. Then I'll check further. Good idea. Thanks.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst I am not playing your game, you know the answer as well as anyone. You made the claim that the State Vet got an opinion from the AG office, and the only opinions listed are the ones posted. NONE FROM THE AG TO THE STATE VET! Now you claim it is an informal opinion which I pointed out means little when and where the rubber meets the road. I gave the example for that.

Shaug posted what was asked and what was responded to, fine I can and do believe that is accurate maybe not complete but far different than you are trying to say! Without a legal opinion from the AG office nothing is binding get it!

In regards to why I or you could not ask the questions of the AG poised in this thread. The link I provided and what you posted clearly states why! Legal opinions are given on law and only on law. Informal opinions can be had for questions concerning law. My memory serves me poorly on this but if I am not mistaken the questions put to the AG on the HFH where about standing laws. Not laws that may be passed in the future affecting the measure.

So you created a reasonable question, why not as a board member of the NDSA send it in and see what kind of response you get! You are the one claiming YOU ARE IN THE KNOW! Shaug who is in the know is refusing to answer!


----------



## Plainsman

> So you created a reasonable question, why not as a board member of the NDSA send it in and see what kind of response you get! You are the one claiming YOU ARE IN THE KNOW! Shaug who is in the know is refusing to answer!


These points that Ron makes can only mean one thing to me. You guys are blowing smoke to hide the truth. What is it your up to? I think my predictions are right, and further I think you both know it.


----------



## Csquared

BINGO !!!!!!!


----------



## Csquared

Hey Ron, it appears to me that at least shaug (gst too?) interacts with legal counsel....possibly even the author(s) of the measure. It also seems said counsel would have a vested interest in putting any fears concerning verbiage to rest using the most accurate, legal precedent available. It follows then that rather than 18 pages of propaganda here clearly intended to cloud the issue they would...without pressure...provide a letter to gst or shaug explaining how the stated fears are unfounded, and exactly how the general assembly will retain authority over the amendment, and do it in a way that would allow legal experts on the other side a chance to publically rebut.

That would put this all to rest, and given the gravity of the measure, isn't asking much at all.

Are there any public meetings scheduled on this?


----------



## Plainsman

csquared it took 18 pages, but at last I think they have their foot in their mouth. These guys are in a corner. We have explained the AG can only comment on current law. We have explained we are talking about the future beyond current regulations. They ignore everything and keep spewing their line like turning on a cheap predator call with a ten second loop.


----------



## gst

quote="Ron Gilmore"]gst I am not playing your game, you know the answer as well as anyone. You made the claim that the State Vet got an opinion from the AG office, and the only opinions listed are the ones posted. NONE FROM THE AG TO THE STATE VET! Now you claim it is an informal opinion which I pointed out means little when and where the rubber meets the road. I gave the example for that.[/quote]

Ron so you are stating now that the ND AG's office "legal backing" is not good enough when they deal with these things in an informal matter either? What exactly will be of sufficient "legal backing" to satisfy you guys???

Ron what is YOUR "legal backing" to make the following interpretive statement?



Ron Gilmore said:


> In regards to why I or you could not ask the questions of the AG poised in this thread. The link I provided and what you posted clearly states why! Legal opinions are given on law and only on law. Informal opinions can be had for questions concerning law.


Ron, is it not the LAWS that plainsman claims will be affected by this amendment that are of concern? Will not the inability to create and implement LAW as a result of this measure the concern behind tis whole discussion? So why would the ND AG's ofice not give an opinion on wether a LAW will be binding after this measure passes? The whole premise of Bruces claims is that the LAWS binding agriculture will be null and void if this measure passes, so why would not this be appropriate for the AG's office to give an "opinion on? IF THIS IS NOT ABOUT "LAW", WHAT IS THE CONCERN OVER ?



Ron Gilmore said:


> My memory serves me poorly on this but if I am not mistaken the questions put to the AG on the HFH where about standing laws. Not laws that may be passed in the future affecting the measure.


Indeed your memoy serves you poorly. The informal opinion given the State VEts office also delt with the wording of the measure and it's intended FUTURE law regarding fees or renumeration for the harvest of cervids and the ability of producers to sell these animals for 'harvest' for meat and still receive a fee or renumeration. If you recall, you claimed they could. The ND AG's office gave a different opinion claiming if that measure passed they would do so at their own peril. Perhaps this is why you are less thn supportive of the AG's office! :wink:



Ron Gilmore said:


> So you created a reasonable question, why not as a board member of the NDSA send it in and see what kind of response you get! You are the one claiming YOU ARE IN THE KNOW! Shaug who is in the know is refusing to answer!


Simple, we are not the ones with concerns based on some great conspiracy or collusion of agencies, orgs and legislative bodies over what this measure will do other than what it is intended to. It is not to hard to understand that it should be the persons with concerns that would wish to have them answered. But you see, once that answer is given, what fear mongering claims can be made to oppose this measure? What will prevent it from passing and preventing another attempt at banning captive cervid ranching somewhere down the road?

If this measure passes will the same attempt to ban captive cervid ranching that has been tried twice be allowed again?

Do you guys really think people are so "supid" they do not realize that the vast majority of those opposing this were also the who's who of the HFH measure supporters nd what this is all about?? So go ahead and continue to give reason after reason why these claims palinsamn makes can not be substantiated. :roll: He just made one more about feedlots draining into waterways that can easily be proven true or false by a simple phone call to the ND State Health Dept.


----------



## gst

At some point if this measure is to be accepted by the public, these claims will indeed have to be addressed. That was made very clear to NDFB. Perhaps they beleive they can get enough signatures to get this on the ballot and at that time spend their dolalrs combating these claims and accusations.

On the flip side, if there is great enough concern about the negative effects of this measure, and the "truth" about this measure is wished to be known to the public by those with these concerns, why will they not, "using the most accurate, legal precedent available" simply prove the claims they have made??? THAT was teh questio asked 35 pages ago! :wink: :roll:


----------



## spentwings

:-? 
This is a talk forum gst, not a court of law.
No one has to prove anything,,,,that my friend is what you'll never understand.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So gst you have a very interesting question to pose to the AG and you sit on the NDSA board! A group the AG would recognize. Ask the question of him! Get your response, Post it up! That would show everyone how much smarter you are than the rest, since we have pointed out that the AG cannot provide that ! 
Then GAME OVER!~ NO MORE OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT! IN FACT I WOULD FIND SOMEONE AND SIGN THE PETITION TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT!

So enough already! YOU,SHAUG both sit in a position on Ag boards to do this!

There is fire that is causing the smoke, Plainsman has it right in that it would be in the best interest of drafters to clear these questions up but for some reason refuse to. This leaves the impression that they are hiding something, plain and simple that is a huge negative.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> o gst you have a very interesting question to pose to the AG and you sit on the NDSA board! A group the AG would recognize.


Ron this statemetn shows you apparently donot understand the wording in the link you posted that I shared the context of. The NDSA can not on their own request an opinion form the AG's office any more than you can as an individual. These "ag boards" you reference would have to go thru a soil conservation board, a water resource board, and county states attorney just the same as you can as an individual.

As was sadi, it is the people that have the concerns and are making actual claims as to the negatives associated with this measure and making claims they wish the "truth" to be known about this measure that one would think would want to back up their claims. 
So contact the AG's ofice thru one of the several avenues avalible, if they are unable to give an opinion in either a formal or informal process, fie, you were right and we are back to square one. If they are then ones claims that have been made on here can be proven that this measure would ideed allow feedlots to be built and manure to be washed into rivers, pesticides to be sprayed irresponsibly over water supply systems, and illegal things to be grown such as poppies to make heroin.

But hey apparently people like spent beleive these sort of claims do NOT have to be proven on this site. :roll:



spentwings said:


> This is a talk forum gst, not a court of law.
> No one has to prove anything,,,,that my friend is what you'll never understand.


Spent I get there are no "rules" stating things have to be "proven" on talk forums, but if you expect anyone to give a degree of credibility and beleive you are not simply making fearmongering claims to further an agenda perhaps it would help if you would! :wink:

Unless you actually beleive ND farmers are going to start growing poppies and start heroin producing coops if this measure passes. :roll:


----------



## gst

spent in case you have forgotten these claims you do not beleive should be proven in talking about the creation of an amendment to our state constitution, here they are once again.

_Quote"[The following posts from this link are listed in their entirity so not to be accused of "cherry pickin" or taking something out of "context".

{Quote}
Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

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

Now spent, apparently you and I have differing veiw point. I beleive when debating the creation of law or a constitutional amendment, the basis for the discussion should be one of truth and fact that can be substantiated in some manner. It is clear from what is posted on here you and others on this "talk forum" do not. Perhaps that is why most people I know look at this particular "talk forum" in the manner they do and why the question has been asked by others is this a "dying forum"?

But hey, when you are talking with that farmer or rancher as this threads topic suggests :wink: be sure to share these particular claims (especially the one about the heroin) and see if they beleive the debatate aboout this meausre should be held to a standard of truth or not.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> But hey apparently people like spent beleive these sort of claims do NOT have to be proven on this site. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a talk forum gst, not a court of law.
> No one has to prove anything,,,,that my friend is what you'll never understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Spent I get there are no "rules" stating things have to be "proven" on talk forums, but if you expect anyone to give a degree of credibility and beleive you are not simply making fearmongering claims to further an agenda perhaps it would help if you would! :wink:
> 
> Unless you actually beleive ND farmers are going to start growing poppies and start heroin producing coops if this measure passes. :roll:
Click to expand...

 :eyeroll: 
Credibility? Mein Gott!
I'm afraid you don't "get it" gst. 
Imagine, the promotion of a vague amendment that sparks mistrust and hypotheticals on a talk forum,,,hard to believe.
You're like a man surprised he's drowning even though he never learned to swim.


----------



## gst

02-27-2008 Erik Johnson, Fargo City Attorney 2008-L-02 Go to the site and read this! I made a formal request of the City Commission to seek a AG opinion on a procedure that they where trying to do. Eric Johnson tried the same BS as you in claiming he had talked with them and the City Commission was good to go! He had made contact and sought some advice on the subject but when he presented the complete and actual data and action the AG opinion put the brakes on the action! Do you get it gst! Informal communications are not binding nor are they intended to. People such as the State Vet and City attorneys or elected legislators can ask for guidance but that guidance is not a formal opinion nor is it binding or admissible in a court of law!



Ron Gilmore said:


> So enough already!


Ron perhaps this is an examle of the "demanding" behavior that could be affecting people wishing you may wish to work with in these regards!

It appears even if the AG's office were to give an opinion thru an "informal process" it would not be good enough for you and your cronies on here.

It appears you have attempted (although going thru the wrong avenue) to speak with the AG's office before. So now that you know the proper avenue to go thru one would think given your concerns you would wish to have them addressed by some one other than the two people you have accused of flinging bull dung thru out this thread. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> The whole premise of Bruces claims is that the LAWS binding agriculture will be null and void


Show me where I said that gst. :wink:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Credibility? Mein Gott!
> I'm afraid you don't "get it" gst.
> You're like a man surprised he's drowning even though he never learned to swim.


So spent, are you suggesting the claims that if this measure passes farmers in ND will be able to start growin things like poppies to produce heroin are "credible" claims??

I'm wondering , because if indeed you do beleive this and the claims of feedlots being allowed to dump manure into rivers dispite any number of agencies and laws preventing it ect..... are indeed "credible" it sheds a bilt of light onto your "credibility" to determine what is "credible"As well as the "credibility" in questioning someone elses "credibility"   :wink:

So when you talk with farmers, share these apparently by Nodak Outdoors standards, "credible" claims of manure being dumped diretly into rivers and poppies being grown to produce heroin and pesticides being irresponsibly sprayed over water supply sources ect... and the manner in which they are being presented and defended on this site.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The whole premise of Bruces claims is that the LAWS binding agriculture will be null and void
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I said that gst. :wink:
Click to expand...




gst said:


> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am
> 
> I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions.


I beleive it was one of your very first "claims" regarding this measure.

I await your explananion of how "farming without restrictions" is different than "laws binding agriculture will be null and void".

If there is farming "without restrictions" as a result of this measure you refer to as "freedom to farm" , the laws currently "binding agricuture will be null and void".


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Credibility? Mein Gott!
> I'm afraid you don't "get it" gst.
> You're like a man surprised he's drowning even though he never learned to swim.
> 
> 
> 
> So spent, are you suggesting the claims that if this measure passes farmers in ND will be able to start growin things like poppies to produce heroin are "credible" claims??
> 
> I'm wondering , because if indeed you do beleive this and the claims of feedlots being allowed to dump manure into rivers dispite any number of agencies and laws preventing it ect..... are indeed "credible" it sheds a bilt of light onto your "credibility" to determine what is "credible"As well as the "credibility" in questioning someone elses "credibility"   :wink:
> 
> So when you talk with farmers, share these apparently by Nodak Outdoors standards, "credible" claims of manure being dumped diretly into rivers and poppies being grown to produce heroin and pesticides being irresponsibly sprayed over water supply sources ect... and the manner in which they are being presented and defended on this site.
Click to expand...




> _*Imagine, the promotion of a vague amendment that sparks mistrust and hypotheticals on a talk forum,,,hard to believe.*_


----------



## Plainsman

You need reading comprehension gst. I have always said that I'm talking about the future. If NDFB wants EPA gone, and restrictions lifted where does that leave us? They simply want to get this bill in place before their big push on what you call their "wish list". The other way around is to obvious.

No where have I said it would make current laws null and void. No where. Stop typing so fast and think.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Imagine, the promotion of a vague amendment that sparks mistrust and hypotheticals on a talk forum,,,hard to believe.


Spent, I do not beleive I have "promoted" this amendment as much as I have simply tried holding the claims made against it to some standard of factual proof. You do belive something as significant as an amedment to our constitution and the dialogue surrounding it should be based on factual claims don't you?

If you recall I have said before in this debate if the sponsors of this measure wish the public to support it, they will have to deal with the perceived concerns. That has been made clear, how they choose to go about it and when is not up to me.


----------



## Plainsman

> Spent, I do not beleive I have "promoted" this amendment


You deny that the things I fear are possible. That's promoting it. So if that's not a worry what is a worry for you?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You need reading comprehension gst. I have always said that I'm talking about the future. If NDFB wants EPA gone, and restrictions lifted where does that leave us? They simply want to get this bill in place before their big push on what you call their "wish list". The other way around is to obvious.
> 
> No where have I said it would make current laws null and void. No where. Stop typing so fast and think.


Perhaps then you can explain to those of us you beleive have poor reading comprehension given the FACT there are "current" laws preventing the vey claims you made that started this whole 37 pages of debate why you made the claims you did given the current laws prevent them?

How will these claims you made be allowed if "current" law is not made "null and void" when there is "current law" that "currently" makes these claims illegal to do? :-?

Perhaps there is an easy solution here Bruce, perhaps YOU simply did not comprehend what you wrote when you made those claims and you were simply wrong!   :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Spent, I do not beleive I have "promoted" this amendment
> 
> 
> 
> You deny that the things I fear are possible. That's promoting it. So if that's not a worry what is a worry for you?
Click to expand...

Plainsman, I have simply asked you to substatiate how they will happen, beyond your grand conspiracy/collusionary "theories"! :wink:


----------



## gst

Have your concerns regarding this measure. Voice your concerns regarding this measure. Simply realize if you are going past that to making actual claims as to what this measure will do in regards to elimiinating regulations on agriculture and allowing these claims to happen, you will be expected to substantiate factually how this will occur beyond conspiracy theories.

Perhaps that is not the standard of Nodak Outdoors and it's moderators, but ouside of this little world it is. :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, the point I made with the City of Fargo and its attorney is exactly why an informal response is not a binding response or to be blunt an accurate response from the AG office and why it is non binding! If an informal response is sought and given, then all matters and correspondence would need to be made available so that people could actually know what was asked. Hence what Eric did was frame the question to suit his desired response, then stated that they where good to go! He did much of the same in regards to the fine structure in Fargo that eventually was found to violate the State Constitution and they even disregarded a AG opinion on that.

My point in telling you to do it as a board member of the NDSA was to purposely point out how you make demands of everyone else but will not fulfill any yourself.

Now back to the amendment, itself. I posted that there are concerns of people in the farming community and others I had spoken with that wondered if this amendment would make any existing laws null and void? Never said it would, it was a question! That is when you started the BS about seeking an OPINION from the AG and third party hearsay.

It should not be any surprise to you at all based on your actions that anyone would question your so called third party hearsay.

Now back to the amendment again, current wording has people concerned as to any future ability to set into place any restrictions on farm and livestock activity. there is concerns as to impact it will have on existing laws regulating the industry that are currently on the books in the state.

Others with some background have pointed out that while it may not affect them directly, it could lead to the amendment being used in a court of law to undermine or overturn them. These are unanswered questions and concerns, not claims of fact?

How will this amendment affect counties and cities that border ag property?

How will this amendment affect permit processing form drain and tile projects?

The way it is currently worded nobody from the drafting agency has properly addressed the valid questions and concerns all we have gotten is statements from you repeating a third party statement that you filtered. And looking at how you filter and twist peoples words, it is no wonder that nobody believes you at all!++

I would gladly take fully disclosed communications from the AG on this subject in any form formal or informal.
I would gladly support a properly worded amendment that protects livestock and grain producers from frivolous lawsuits and claims by the likes of PETA.


----------



## Plainsman

> I would gladly support a properly worded amendment that protects livestock and grain producers from frivolous lawsuits and claims by the likes of PETA.


Ditto Ron, and I think everyone else in this debate would also. The ball is in your court shaug and gst. You know the old saying "poop or get off the pot".

Roger K, Fair Chase, Government, EPA, HSUS, are all dust getting kicked up to hide the issue. The issue is this amendment is vague. One of the big grips about the Fair Chase initiative which people brought up was that it was to vague and terrible things would happen. This amendment is even more vague, but everything will be ok? Why the double standard? The vagueness was reason enough to vote against the Fair Chase initiative, but we should just go along with the NDFB amendment for what reason?

Address these points and give up on the EPA contact and the AG opinion because it's simply not feasible for individuals. Not for any of us, but you guys (shaug and gst) are the ones in position to get that information. So lets have it. Since the Fair Chase initiative was to broad for you guys I would have expected you to be more prepared.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Now back to the amendment, itself. I posted that there are concerns of people in the farming community and others I had spoken with that wondered if this amendment would make any existing laws null and void? Never said it would, it was a question! That is when you started the BS about seeking an OPINION from the AG and third party hearsay.


Ron so then if you are saying this mendment will not make existing laws "null and void" you are pretty much sayig plainsamns claims as to what will happen if this emasure passes are "bull dung" as there are existing current laws that prevent them form happening that will remain in effect corret?


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> I would gladly take fully disclosed communications from the AG on this subject in any form formal or informal.


Then if you have these concerns, one would think you willing and eager to request an "opinion" wether thru a formal or informal process thru any of the several avenues avalible.



Ron Gilmore said:


> I would gladly support a properly worded amendment that protects livestock and grain producers from frivolous lawsuits and claims by the likes of PETA.





Plainsman said:


> Ditto Ron, and I think everyone else in this debate would also.


Even from groups such as North Dakota Hunter for Fair Chase??? :wink: 

You see you guys, you may wish to not beleive what I have shared with you as "third party" information and by all means please do not. I have been quite steadfast in suggesting you find answers for your self. But you see myself and any number of others involved in ag, including several ag orgs that have came out in support of this measure do not have the same concerns because we know the people we have talked with and respect their opinions regarding this measure.

So if you do indeed have concerns and are not just blowing smoke making claims such as plainsman have that are simply "bull droppings" designed to fear monger what this measure will do to prevent them from blocking further agendas of groups like NDH for FC(recall rons statement this measure will not make existing laws preventig these claims null and void so how can they happen) Take the effort yourself to contact "as an individual" any of the agencies listed that can request an opinion in whatever formal or informal process to address them.

I mean?I'm sure if thestate vet actually beleived this amendment would prevent them form imposing regulatory laws regardin the health of ND animals they woudl surely request and opinion and relay that information to the NDSA. I am sure that if teh ND Health Dept had concerns over their ailtiy to continue to regulate ag regarding this measure they would request an opinion from the AG and relay it to the proper orgs. So why don;t you guys do th same thru anyof these avenues. I mean SOMEONE has to know SOMEBODY in one of these agencies to request something?????

I mean come on you guys still need your nose wiped when it's running? The NDFB will address these issues when they wish, I have no say in it. If they are foolish enough to let claims that simply are not true go unanswered, they have no one to blame but themselves if the measure fails.

So ron do YOU beleive Bruces claims are true of what will happen if this measure passes? Manure dumped in rivers, pesticides sprayed all over irresponsibly, and poppies grown ect... ?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, here is something to ponder, even if this measure passes, PETA could file and seek a petition to outlaw certain livestock handling procedures via a Constitutional amendment. This is a provision of our state Constitution and even this measure as it is worded would not remove that because it does not seek to.

But you bring up a point that I have been pondering since Shaug made the claim that the Leg could water it down or put teeth into it. If that is the case then could the Leg not pass laws that ban certain types of livestock handling and raising procedures even with this amendment in place and if they can what good is the amendment for?

Curious to know what you think about that since that would be a regulation coming from the Leg which you insist will retain authority?

One example I can think of is in the raising of veal calves. Some states have legislated the raising of veal out basically out of business by imposing regulations on how the animals are handled. Is this not what the amendment is suppose to prevent? If so then it seems to me that it takes the Leg out of the equation completely?

I am not asking this as a trick question, I am asking this because you are in the business of raising cattle. I grew up around people that had a commercial egg operation and have been through a couple in MN recently and saw very little difference in what and how the chickens where handled. The only big difference was the automation vs the manual labor.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

By the way, I do not believe that in the foreseeable future that any such legislation would be passed even if offered nor would I advocate for it to pass. Far from it! But it does bring to the table the conflict of what Shaug said and you have asserted that this amendment does?


----------



## gst

Ron, I readily admitted WAAAAYYYYY back 30 some odd pages ago that I am not a constitutional scholar or legal authority. The comments I have shared as stated come from others far more qualified than I that I respect. I'm guessing you know someone such as this to address these questions to or as suggested run them thru an avenue for the AG's office. I mean why continue to ask people that have no more "legal backing" basis than yourself to answer them.

What I am curious to hear you answer to if you wouldn't mind sharing is the question I posed if you beleive plainsamsn claims are true given you as well as him do not beleive this measure will render existing laws null and void.

I mean Bruce claims if this measure passes these things will suddenly begin happening. Which means they are not happening now. They are not happening now because of current laws preventing it. So if these laws will remain in effect regardless of this measure as both you and bruce have now stated you beleive they will, how can these claims he makes be true?


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> By the way, I do not believe that in the foreseeable future that any such legislation would be passed even if offered nor would I advocate for it to pass. Far from it! But it does bring to the table the conflict of what Shaug said and you have asserted that this amendment does?





gst said:


> Ron Gilmore wrote:
> I would gladly support a properly worded amendment that protects livestock and grain producers from frivolous lawsuits and claims by the likes of PETA.
> 
> Plainsman wrote:
> Ditto Ron, and I think everyone else in this debate would also.
> 
> Even from groups such as North Dakota Hunter for Fair Chase???


So would you refrain from advocating for another attempt at the HFH measure by this group?


----------



## Plainsman

> What I am curious to hear you answer to if you wouldn't mind sharing is the question I posed if you beleive plainsamsn claims are true given you as well as him do not beleive this measure will render existing laws null and void.


I see your still hoping people didn't understand crystal clear what I meant. I think they did. I think you did too. However, the more times you bring this up the more humorous it gets. You actually think your convincing people that's what I said. :rollin:

1 NDFB wants no regulations
2 Some members on another site said EPA has to be elminated
3 This amendment says no new laws against agriculture.

Get one perhaps not a problem that can not be delt with. Get two of the above and real problems begin. Get all three and we have a disaster waiting to happen. This isn't that different than the NDFB wanting license money from the Game and Fish for repair of township roads. You described that as just a "wish list". Is that what this is?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

To be blunt gst, I do not put the Hunters for Fair Chase in the same grouping as PETA or HSUS. I do however believe that no group should be allowed to file frivilous lawsuits nor should people. I will never advocate that the people regardless of position ever lose the right to use the initated measure clause to enact a law,repeal a law or amend the Constitution of our State. Whether or not I would support the action would depend upon the measure.

I am not getting into your spat with Plainsman period!

My view of HF SHOOTING has not changed and likely will not!

So what is your opinion of the concerns I mentioned? Correct me if I am wrong, but your third party contact makes it seem that in the future the Leg could outlaw the raising of veal in confined crates, or make it a requirement that chickens have to have X amount of free range movement, or that GMO grains not be planted in the state, or a host of other regulations that the livestock and grain industry would not like? These all fall under what would be regarded as regulating farming and livestock operations. All currently could be passed in the Leg.


----------



## Plainsman

> I am not getting into your spat with Plainsman period!


I'm happy you see what gst is trying to do. Kind of like the Russian theory of divide and conquer. I am not about to drive a wedge between people. I wish more got along better. I'm just sick of one group looking for ways to take advantage of another group. it isn't just the Occupy Wall Street crowd with that mentality.

gst do you remember that book I told you I was reading. You know "Politics According to the Bible". Since our constitution is based on many of those beliefs it's of little surprise I agree with them. When it talks of property rights it includes all things like land, houses, cars etc. It also recognises that property rights are not exclusive and are limited when what you do with your property begins to hurt others. Isn't that a novel idea? I think the NDFB amendment is an attempt to skirt that.


----------



## shaug

Ron said,



> In regards to why I or you could not ask the questions of the AG poised in this thread. The link I provided and what you posted clearly states why! Legal opinions are given on law and only on law. Informal opinions can be had for questions concerning law. My memory serves me poorly on this but if I am not mistaken the questions put to the AG on the HFH where about standing laws. Not laws that may be passed in the future affecting the measure.


Wrong, the Ag's office Board of Animal Health legislators and other state officials had a meeting to determine the future impact to the state and the people who were about to be negativly impacted. Many topics were covered. Ron, you cherry picked the one issue about law enforcement or what department was going to cover that HFI law. The meeting was about a hellava lot more than just that on issue.

But let's talk about enforcement. This last legislative session 2011 there was an animal welfare law introduced by Cory Mock. It failed. (this time) What was dangerous about that bill was state and federal employees who were in the vicinty or first responders could be deputized right on the spot. I don't know if deputized is the best choice of words but it was something to that effect. Anyone looking into the near future can see the abuse that could/would happen by giving authority to some angry persons.

Farmer/ranchers need this Farm Bureau measure.


----------



## Plainsman

> Farmer/ranchers need this Farm Bureau measure.


Do they need it enough to write it in such a way that it will not endanger the standard of living for the rest of us?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

*But let's talk about enforcement. This last legislative session 2011 there was an animal welfare law introduced by Cory Mock. It failed. (this time) What was dangerous about that bill was state and federal employees who were in the vicinty or first responders could be deputized right on the spot. I don't know if deputized is the best choice of words but it was something to that effect. Anyone looking into the near future can see the abuse that could/would happen by giving authority to some angry persons.

Farmer/ranchers need this Farm Bureau measure.*

When the signatures for this measure are collected the state will do an impact study... There will be meetings by our elected officials and state persons. When the measure is passed the Attorney Generals Office will be involved and our elected legislators.
They can water it down to become a law of no effect. Or they can give it teeth. I don't know if there will be hearings on it before it goes into the constitution. My guess is they will go back to Farm Bureau and all the other ag orgs that more likely are going to support it, and then ask, "WHAT IS YOUR INTENT?"

Shaug you are exposed for being an outright liar!!

Your own posting contradict each other! In the last you are admitting that this amendment stops state regulation, and earlier you claimed the Leg could water it down or put teeth into it.

The amendment as it is written strips away any over site in the future and possibly existing that there is! Ag operations deserve the protection to continue to operate, they should not have to face frivolous lawsuits or have normal Ag practices be litigated against. THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CARTE BLANCHE BEHAVIOR THAT IS NOT EVEN SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE OVER SITE AND REGULATION ANY MORE THAN ANY OTHER BUSINESS WOULD BE!

THE TRUE INTENT IS EXPOSED!

So what do you think of that gst?Are you still in support of free rein with no oversite from the Leg! Are you looking forward to the constant litigation you will face that this law will open up? Every nuance of what is done in raising cattle, farming wheat or beans will be subject to going to court over. Neighbor A will not have to worry one bit about the water rights rules anymore! He can stop the creek from flowing into your pastures. Think I am crazy, think about it gst! You are drolling over the idea that this may stop anyone from bringing back the HFH but instead are blind to the actual measure and the reach it is going to have!

Constitutional law trumps laws passed by the Leg! There is no grandfathering of existing laws unless it is so stated!

Let me put it this way. If ND has a law that says abortion is legal and we pass a Constitutional amendment making abortion illegal which one stands!

All the water right laws if this passes are null and void in regards to use! The courts will have to sift through each one and apply how the current Constitutional wording regarding water applies to use of that water or retention or even discharge fits with the new measure if passed. Drainage,dams,are all modern day practices!

I am not crazy on this! This is exactly what many got from this and I stated that when I came back after Christmas!


----------



## leadfed

So what do you think of that gst?Are you still in support of free rein with no oversite from the Leg! Are you looking forward to the constant litigation you will face that this law will open up? Every nuance of what is done in raising cattle said:


> Sorry Ron but that was a bad question. We all know what gst thinks. He thinks like this...."well let me see how much this benefits ME???????" and then he makes his decision. Someone shuts his water off legally becasue of the measure he pushed forward.....well he'll just come at em from a million other ways. It is very apparent he has plenty time on his hands to pursue such ventures.
> 
> Jeez, can you imagine being this guys neighbor! whew


----------



## Plainsman

leadfed, that is much of what bothers me. Money from the American taxpayer goes to support ag, and the reward is they drain and flood them, and apparently some think they are not abusing the taxpayer enough. Me, me, me, and that's how this constitutional amendment comes across. The vague part of it makes it come across that way. If it was directed at frivolous lawsuits by animal rights activists, or if it dealt with animal agriculture alone I would be more comfortable. However, tile and drain isn't just about agriculture. If we look at Devils Lake we see more damage than gain. We have to look at the sum total affect on all people. We have to look at the sum total economic impact. 
All jokes aside how do we handle Devils Lake fairly. If we did it fairly we would look at acre feet of flooding then go upstream, find those drained wetlands, and access damages based on the acre feet contributed by those wetlands. He who does the damage should pay the damages.  NDFB wants the opposite. Farmers with huge trucks and tractors damage township roads, but the NDFB wants money from hunting license to repair those roads because hunters in little dinky pick me up trucks are damaging to roads. Now if someone in a big jacked up truck does come and tear your private road apart who should pay? Why is tile and drain different?

There is an old cliche that goes: "when your up to your eyes in poop don't open your mouth". I think the world of many farmers, but a new rule for a few should be: "when the taxpayer has you in gravy up to your eyes don't poop in it, or on them".


----------



## spentwings

leadfed said:


> Jeez, can you imagine being this guys neighbor! whew


 :eyeroll: 
Now that has gone to far.
If I was gst's neighbor, I expect we'd have beers together,,,he'd supply me with beef liver and let me hunt on his land.
Seriously,,,he ain't the boogeyman ,,,I've always kinda liked him.


----------



## Plainsman

Spentwings, the reality is I would perhaps like everyone in this debate. However, this amendment clouds our vision of each other. It is so vague it sort of says "trust us". Have you ever trusted anyone who says that? The blind support of it casts shadows and mistrust. I see your point and leadfeds. Shaug wants this so bad he has made conflicting comments, and that builds mistrust. gst has called people liars so often who have not lied that there is a pile of mistrust. I don't believe gst is a dumb man, but he constantly ignores the idea of opinion, as you so well pointed out.



> This is a talk forum gst, not a court of law.
> No one has to prove anything,,,,that my friend is what you'll never understand.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

spentwings said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez, can you imagine being this guys neighbor! whew
> 
> 
> 
> :eyeroll:
> Now that has gone to far.
> If I was gst's neighbor, I expect we'd have beers together,,,he'd supply me with beef liver and let me hunt on his land.
> Seriously,,,he ain't the bogeyman ,,,I've always kinda liked him.
Click to expand...

This is gst to me in that he has such a warped view caused by association with others of the like mindset that he will have hard time understanding the ramifications of this measure if passed. All he is seeing is the spoon fed BS that the FB has spewed like the stuff Shaug put forward. Remember the words he used something about trust! I will be hard for him and others like him to really think for themselves in a non biased way in looking at this. Small minded focus that is stuck on the HFH issue will prevent the blinders from coming off.

Let us look at the oil industry in Western ND, people are constantly asking for more oversight,more regulations etc... Some from a environmental position,others because of jealousy, and others because their world was turned upside down by change. How would a Constitutional amendment be met from the oil industry asking for the same thing? With the money that oil is putting in the coffers does it not deserve the same type of free reign being asked from some Ag groups! Not all Ag producers by the way!

The newness of the oil and speed of change has it not in a favorable manner. Ag on the other hand has had a gradual growth and a consolidation of production. Ag is not the Mom and Pop farms that I grew up in nor many of us did.


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> Spentwings, the reality is I would perhaps like everyone in this debate. However, this amendment clouds our vision of each other. It is so vague it sort of says "trust us". Have you ever trusted anyone who says that? The blind support of it casts shadows and mistrust. I see your point and leadfeds. Shaug wants this so bad he has made conflicting comments, and that builds mistrust. gst has called people liars so often who have not lied that there is a pile of mistrust. I don't believe gst is a dumb man, but he constantly ignores the idea of opinion, as you so well pointed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a talk forum gst, not a court of law.
> No one has to prove anything,,,,that my friend is what you'll never understand.
Click to expand...

Of course Plainsman.
But what I find increasingly annoying is your inability as a moderator to keep these messy threads with gst civil.
And believe me,,,I not defending gst when I say that.


----------



## spentwings

Ron Gilmore said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez, can you imagine being this guys neighbor! whew
> 
> 
> 
> :eyeroll:
> Now that has gone to far.
> If I was gst's neighbor, I expect we'd have beers together,,,he'd supply me with beef liver and let me hunt on his land.
> Seriously,,,he ain't the bogeyman ,,,I've always kinda liked him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is gst to me in that he has such a warped view caused by association with others of the like mindset that he will have hard time understanding the ramifications of this measure if passed. All he is seeing is the spoon fed BS that the FB has spewed like the stuff Shaug put forward. Remember the words he used something about trust! I will be hard for him and others like him to really think for themselves in a non biased way in looking at this. Small minded focus that is stuck on the HFH issue will prevent the blinders from coming off.
> 
> Let us look at the oil industry in Western ND, people are constantly asking for more oversight,more regulations etc... Some from a environmental position,others because of jealousy, and others because their world was turned upside down by change. How would a Constitutional amendment be met from the oil industry asking for the same thing? With the money that oil is putting in the coffers does it not deserve the same type of free reign being asked from some Ag groups! Not all Ag producers by the way!
> 
> The newness of the oil and speed of change has it not in a favorable manner. Ag on the other hand has had a gradual growth and a consolidation of production. Ag is not the Mom and Pop farms that I grew up in nor many of us did.
Click to expand...

No argument from me. But then, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

got your point well spent! I would gladly sit down and have a beer with gst and most likely the conversation would not be about the above subjects!


----------



## Plainsman

Spentwings I sent you a PM.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Your own posting contradict each other!





gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole premise of Bruces claims is that the LAWS binding agriculture will be null and void
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I said that gst. :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am
> 
> I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I beleive it was one of your very first "claims" regarding this measure.
> 
> I await your explananion of how "farming without restrictions" is different than "laws binding agriculture will be null and void".
> 
> If there is farming "without restrictions" as a result of this measure you refer to as "freedom to farm" , the laws currently "binding agricuture will be null and void".
Click to expand...




Plainsman said:


> Shaug wants this so bad he has made conflicting comments, and that builds mistrust


So someone explain how saying this measure will allow farming without restrictions is different from it making laws regulating it null and void? If the laws regulating ag are not made null and void, farming will not happen without restrictions as these current laws "restrict" agriculture.

Plainsamn first states this measure will allow farming without restrictions and then claims he has never said it will make laws "restricting" ag null and void. How is this not a "contradiction" ? Hell how is it even possible??? Plainsamn made claims this measure will allow feedlots to wash manure into rivers yet acknowledges federal regulations will continue to prevent this even if this measure passes. How is this not a contradiction"?

Eventually at some point these "claims" will have to be addressed when the public is asked to vote on this if they expect it to be supported as I have a feeling these type claims will continue to be made. At that point the sponsoring ag org of this measure will decide how and when to do so. Unless those opposing it factually substantiate their claims somehow, that is all they are is claims. If those making these claims do not care to use the avenues avalible to them to substantiate these claims of what this measure will do, why should credibility be given these any more than the claims saying they are not correct?

I mean come on uys, the majority of people opposing this measure were the whos who of sponsoring and supporting the HFH measure. The "intent" of this NDFB measure is to prevent that from happening again with not only groups such as PETA and HSUS but the "home grown" one that sponsored the HFH measure. The"intent" is to prevent these type groups from targeting the veal calf industry, poultry, hog confinement, ect..... in the same manner the cervid industry was so yes the main opponents of the HFH measure on this site are indeed supporting this NDFB measure. At least have the honesty to admit this is playing as large a role in your opposition to theis measure as anything.

I think most people have enough common sense to realize that regardless of all the "spin" from each side! And trying to deflect from it only lessens ones credibility.


----------



## Plainsman

> So someone explain how saying this measure will allow farming without restrictions is different from it making laws regulating it null and void? If the laws regulating ag are not made null and void, farming will not happen without restrictions as these current laws "restrict" agriculture.


I see your starting to get it with the key word current. Now look to the future and add this up. This is all NDFB goals by the way.

1 Amendment that denies any further laws be made.
2 From their web site they call for current regulations to be abolished
3 Some members have called for an end to the EPA.

I think you can with just the first two they will meet the goal that will allow my predictions. If those goals were dropped the amendment would not be as bad, but then they could just add those goals once the amendment passes. If shaug is getting all the people he says signing those petitions he is only asking those he knows are NDFB members, or people sign the petition but will not vote for it. About 80% of the farmers I talk with will not vote for it. If the public becomes aware of that they will not vote for it either.



> If those making these claims do not care to use the avenues avalible to them to substantiate these claims of what this measure will do, why should credibility be given these any more than the claims saying they are not correct?


That's intellectually dishonest gst. You know full well, and it has been explained to you that individuals will not get what an organization may get from the AG. You are a representative of an organization so it is within your grasp to get an opinion. You know that yet you constantly tell us to get an opinion from the AG. Anyone reading this knows the ball is in your court not mine. Put up or shut up. If you don't it's as some have already alluded to, your just full of it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, you are going on record then as a Rep of the NDSA to remove the Leg from any and all ablity to pass legislation regarding agriculture or livestock production! Good to know!

This should make great talk radio fodder! Two board members of Ag org pulicly stating this!!!!!!!!!

You talk so much about rights the last time around, now who is trying to remove the rights of the voters of the state?


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> I mean come on uys, the majority of people opposing this measure were the whos who of sponsoring and supporting the HFH measure. The "intent" of this NDFB measure is to prevent that from happening again with not only groups such as PETA and HSUS but the "home grown" one that sponsored the HFH measure. The"intent" is to prevent these type groups from targeting the veal calf industry, poultry, hog confinement, ect..... in the same manner the cervid industry was so yes the main opponents of the HFH measure on this site are indeed supporting this NDFB measure. At least have the honesty to admit this is playing as large a role in your opposition to theis measure as anything.
> 
> I think most people have enough common sense to realize that regardless of all the "spin" from each side! And trying to deflect from it only lessens ones credibility.


Huh?
Even I don't believe that anymore.
So somewhere in this mountain of crap you must have lost your credibility,,,at least with me.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> gst, you are going on record then as a Rep of the NDSA to remove the Leg from any and all ablity to pass legislation regarding agriculture or livestock production! Good to know!


Please show in black and white print where this has been said.

Lets for one moment if we can, forget the persoanl crap that drives these discussions and bull**** claims like the one above and use a bit of common sense.

Bruces claims are that this measure will allow manure to be dumped directly into water systems, pesticides to be sprayed irresponsibly, and things that are illegal such as marajuna to be grown.

On our farm and ranch, our water supply which provides our drinking water comes from three different shallow surface water wells. We test these wells yearly for nitrate content and water quality.

Please explain why I or any other farmer would want to remove regulations that prevent a neighbor from dumping manure into a water system we may have shallow wells that we get our drinking water from and as a result have to invest $20,000 to drill and develope a deep well as a source for our drinking water.

This year input costs on an acre of sunflowers are going to run from $250 to $300 per acre. As a farmer that is equity that is invested into a crop to get a return to make a living from.

Please expalin why I or any other farmer would want to remove regulations that prevent someone from spraying their wheat along side my sunflowers in an "irresponsible" manner and killing 30 acres with spray drift or using pesticides "irresponsibly" and contaminating my shallow water wells that my family gets their drinking water from.

As a parent I am responsible for the well being of and keeping my kids safe from things such as drugs that can ruin their lives.

Please explain Why I or other FAMILY farmers would want to remove regulations that prevent people from raising marajuna right up the road from where I live or growing poppies to make heroin outside the town my kids go to school in.

I mean stop and use some actual reason and common sense one would beleive you have been given here for a moment before throwing these foolish personal claims and accusations out there.


----------



## Plainsman

> Please explain Why I or other FAMILY farmers would want to remove regulations that prevent people from raising marajuna right up the road from where I live or growing poppies to make heroin outside the town my kids go to school in.


You have to be smart enough to understand I threw the drugs in just to put your panties in a wad. :rollin: You see this smiling and rolling little icon? That was me when I typed that. I had visions of you spitting coffee all over your keyboard. :rollin: I also knew that as crazy as it was you would try capitalize on it as you have. My hopes were people would see my humor and your propensity to grasp at any straw, and build something serious from nothing.


----------



## huntin1

Ok gst, I would concede that you and most every other farmer would not knowingly allow manure in your water source or want someone else damaging your crop with over spray.

But you still haven't addressed the issue of a practice that is accepted as safe right now, but somewhere in the future is found to be harmful. Will this amendment prevent out legislature from enacting a new law that prevents it?

Huntin1


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Huh?
> Even I don't believe that anymore.
> So somewhere in this mountain of crap you must have lost your credibility,,,at least with me.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86742&start=120
spent, even back here you were involved in this debate. 
plainsamn, ron gilmore,leadfed,bioman , all we were missing was Csquared! :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86974
by spentwings » Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:24 am

Re: Measure 2 Results
by spentwings » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:12 pm

Quote:_"Anyone who supported this measure is suspect in my opinion.
It was an elitist attitude...'cause I don't like it I'm gonna end it, and cuz I can't do it up front I'll do it with Measure.'
Well I don't like HF either but with a big difference,,,I'd never go the measure route that involves the non-hunting public.
I wouldn't want to hunt with any supporters of this measure...no doubt I'd be told that my .243 isn't adequate for deer._" end quote

spent, do you honestly beleive this "elitist" attitude you have previously mentioned has suddenly dissappeared and the very same people are not opposing THIS measure as it's intent will prevent them from pursueing their "elitist" veiws somewhere once again down the road??


----------



## Plainsman

> Ok gst, I would concede that you and most every other farmer


The key word there is most. There are some that would do it as long as it's going downstream from their place. We often think of feedlots only as the 1000 + crowded cattle with little room to move and feeders spaced every 50 feet. Feedlots also include the 200 herefords brought in from summer pasture to winter in the back 40 acres behind the barn and along the river. The James and Sheyenne float tons of manure every spring right now. I think a law was passed a few years ago that prevented feeding right on the ice, which a few were doing.

huntin1, you know where my brother lives. Only ten years ago his neighbor fed on the river. Another neighbor is angry because my brother will not rent his lower 80 that is wooded river bottom. He wants to winter his cattle there, but my brother wants deer. As you know about 30 acres of that is flooded in the spring. Deep enough that we have canoed over some of it in spring when we went beaver hunting.

gst wrote:


> spent, do you honestly beleive this "elitist" attitude you have previously mentioned has suddenly dissappeared and the very same people are not opposing THIS measure as it's intent will prevent them from pursueing their "elitist" veiws somewhere once again down the road??


So gst if the HF was elitist is this amendment elitist too?


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> Please explain Why I or other FAMILY farmers would want to remove regulations that prevent people from raising marajuna right up the road from where I live or growing poppies to make heroin outside the town my kids go to school in.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be smart enough to understand I threw the drugs in just to put your panties in a wad. :rollin: You see this smiling and rolling little icon? That was me when I typed that. I had visions of you spitting coffee all over your keyboard. :rollin: I also knew that as crazy as it was you would try capitalize on it as you have. My hopes were people would see my humor and your propensity to grasp at any straw, and build something serious from nothing.
Click to expand...

With a manipulative bloviator like gst the best response may be no response at all.
Having said that,,,he does do a pretty good job at discrediting the NDFB's agenda.


----------



## gst

Huntin one, I can only tell you what some pretty sharp people I respect have told me and once agin that is that this measure and resulting amedment would not prevent agriculture from being "regulated" in the future. I know it is thrid party, ut as I have readily admitted, I do not have the "legal backig" myself to provide you the assurances you are asking for.

If these truly are concerns you have, please pursue finding an answer from a reputable unbiased source that you will accept an answer from. That will likely not be on this site! :wink:

Bruce, Riiiiggghhhtt. :roll:

So lets forget your claims about growing heroin, I know you probably do not wish to stand by that one as it is rather outrageous! :wink: But answer the other two questions posed why we as farmers wold support a measure that does what you claim regarding the measures that protect us as well. I mean if "greed" is the basis you are claiming our support for this measure lies on, it seems by not having these regulations you claim this measure will make "null and void" as current law, it would cost us a significat amount of money.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> Even I don't believe that anymore.
> So somewhere in this mountain of crap you must have lost your credibility,,,at least with me.
> 
> 
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86742&start=120
> spent, even back here you were involved in this debate.
> plainsamn, ron gilmore,leadfed,bioman , all we were missing was Csquared! :wink:
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86974
> by spentwings » Wed Nov 03, 2010 6:24 am
> 
> Re: Measure 2 Results
> by spentwings » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:12 pm
> 
> Quote:_"Anyone who supported this measure is suspect in my opinion.
> It was an elitist attitude...'cause I don't like it I'm gonna end it, and cuz I can't do it up front I'll do it with Measure.'
> Well I don't like HF either but with a big difference,,,I'd never go the measure route that involves the non-hunting public.
> I wouldn't want to hunt with any supporters of this measure...no doubt I'd be told that my .243 isn't adequate for deer._" end quote
> 
> spent, do you honestly believe this "elitist" attitude you have previously mentioned has suddenly dissappeared and the very same people are not opposing THIS measure as it's intent will prevent them from pursueing their "elitist" veiws somewhere once again down the road??
Click to expand...

I still believe Measure 2 was an elitist attitude,,,but man you got a problem! Besides, quoting me when I was drunk is 
totally unfair.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> With a manipulative bloviator like gst the best response may be no response at all.
> Having said that,,,he does do a pretty good job at discrediting the NDFB's agenda.


spent even in your breif verbousness you keep coming up with new and exciting verbage!!!

Spent, all that was being "manipulated" was a mouse on a computer to highlight a few peoples own words.  You never did answer the one question, given your own veiws that it was an elitism that was driving the agenda of the people sponsoring and supporting the HFH measure, and given the intent of the NDFB measure is to prevent such measures banning animal agriculture ventures in the future, how would it be such a great leap to beleive the opposition of the very same people may be connected? So perhaps you would address it directly this time.

spent, do you honestly beleive this "elitist" attitude you have previously mentioned while discussing the HFH measure has suddenly dissappeared and the very same people are not opposing THIS measure as it's intent will prevent them from pursueing their "elitist" veiws of banning cervid ranching somewhere once again down the road??

One could argue this pretty clearly spells out the NDFB "agenda" and that is exactly why these people are opposing this measure.


----------



## spentwings

If I must :roll: 
Support of Measure 2 and opposition to a vague right to farm amendment isn't the same thing
no matter how you try to connect the two. My advice? Quit spouting that line,,,it doesn't help you.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> gst, you are going on record then as a Rep of the NDSA to remove the Leg from any and all ablity to pass legislation regarding agriculture or livestock production! Good to know!
> 
> 
> 
> Please show in black and white print where this has been said.
> 
> Lets for one moment if we can, forget the persoanl crap that drives these discussions and b#llsh*t claims like the one above and use a bit of common sense.
> 
> Bruces claims are that this measure will allow manure to be dumped directly into water systems, pesticides to be sprayed irresponsibly, and things that are illegal such as marajuna to be grown.
> 
> On our farm and ranch, our water supply which provides our drinking water comes from three different shallow surface water wells. We test these wells yearly for nitrate content and water quality.
> 
> Please explain why I or any other farmer would want to remove regulations that prevent a neighbor from dumping manure into a water system we may have shallow wells that we get our drinking water from and as a result have to invest $20,000 to drill and develope a deep well as a source for our drinking water.
> 
> This year input costs on an acre of sunflowers are going to run from $250 to $300 per acre. As a farmer that is equity that is invested into a crop to get a return to make a living from.
> 
> Please expalin why I or any other farmer would want to remove regulations that prevent someone from spraying their wheat along side my sunflowers in an "irresponsible" manner and killing 30 acres with spray drift or using pesticides "irresponsibly" and contaminating my shallow water wells that my family gets their drinking water from.
> 
> As a parent I am responsible for the well being of and keeping my kids safe from things such as drugs that can ruin their lives.
> 
> Please explain Why I or other FAMILY farmers would want to remove regulations that prevent people from raising marajuna right up the road from where I live or growing poppies to make heroin outside the town my kids go to school in.
> 
> I mean stop and use some actual reason and common sense one would beleive you have been given here for a moment before throwing these foolish personal claims and accusations out there.
Click to expand...

Good questions gst and I agree why? Then you go on to defend the measure that will do so!!!!!!!!!!! You are dense!


----------



## leadfed

gst said
So lets forget your claims about growing heroin, I know you probably do not wish to stand by that one as it is rather outrageous! :wink: But answer the other two questions posed why we as farmers wold support a measure that does what you claim regarding the measures that protect us as well. I mean if "greed" is the basis you are claiming our support for this measure lies on, it seems by not having these regulations you claim this measure will make "null and void" as current law, it would cost us a significat amount of money.[/quote]

Thats alright gabe...you would be alright. You and the rest of the fam would still have those subsidies to keep your operation "economically profitable" :wink:


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Good questions gst and I agree why? Then you go on to defend the measure that will do so!!!!!!!!!!! You are dense!


What some might consider "dense" is demanding "legal backing" to prove claims, and then continue making them without it! :wink:

Perhaps I have missed where these claims complete with "legal backing" showing this measure will do as plainsamn states have been provided.

Ron would you be so kind as to repost them?



gst said:


> Re: Measure 2 Results
> by spentwings » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:12 pm
> 
> Quote:"Anyone who supported this measure is suspect in my opinion.
> It was an elitist attitude...'cause I don't like it I'm gonna end it, and cuz I can't do it up front I'll do it with Measure.'
> Well I don't like HF either but with a big difference,,,I'd never go the measure route that involves the non-hunting public.
> I wouldn't want to hunt with any supporters of this measure...no doubt I'd be told that my .243 isn't adequate for deer." end quote by spentwings
> 
> spent, do you honestly beleive this "elitist" attitude you have previously mentioned has suddenly dissappeared and the very same people are not opposing THIS measure as it's intent will prevent them from pursueing their "elitist" veiws somewhere once again down the road??


Spent, not trying to be antagonistic, simply am curious to your answer to the question. If you wish to open a bottle of mescaline to reply in an inebriated manner please do, but tie yourself to your chair prior to prevent the urge to fly from floating you away from your computer before answering! 

In all seriousness it is the "elitist" attitude and agendas and MEANS you specifically refer to that I have underlined in your statement above that is the entire basis of the intent of this measure regarding HSUS and PETA's ideals and agendas and MEANS of accomplishing them aimed towards animal ag that everyone claims they would support in preventing. What is wished to be deflected away from in this debate that you clealy point out in your previous statement, and that people have specifically stopped short of answering is that the ideals and agendas of a home grown group was no different and they do not wish to support preventing this from once again occuring somewhere down the road.

Deny it if you wish, I think most people outside of this debate can see the connection.


----------



## spentwings

What I'm beginning to think gst, besides any of your* perceived *connections,,,,is this thread, like me :lol: , has become your *entertainment *for the day.
I think we should both become supporting members of NODAK just to show our appreciation.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> .
> What I'm beginning to think gst, besides any of your perceived connections,,,,is this thread is your entertainment for the day.


You're on to me!!!!!  At least part of my entertainemnt forthe day, it gets kinda slow around here when we aren't destroying the enviroment in a manner "worse than the Gulf oil spill" ! :roll: But seriously I am interested in your answer to this question below. I mean it doesn't even require a "legal" backing" to answer, a simple "opinion" will do nicely! 

spent, do you honestly beleive this "elitist attitude" you have previously mentioned has suddenly dissappeared and the very same people are not opposing THIS measure as it's intent will prevent them from pursueing their "elitist" veiws and mans of advancing them somewhere once again down the road with another attempt??


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst how about legal backing proving my opinion is wrong and yours is right? You have provided nothing of the sort, but Shaug has stated as a board member of the drafting Ag agency that this is exactly what the intent is! Now it is clear as filtered water! Words out of the mouth of the drafters or your third party filtered bs!


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> What I'm beginning to think gst, besides any of your perceived connections,,,,is this thread is your entertainment for the day.
> 
> 
> 
> spent, do you honestly beleive this "elitist attitude" you have previously mentioned has suddenly dissappeared and the very same people are not opposing THIS measure as it's intent will prevent them from pursueing their "elitist" veiws and mans of advancing them somewhere once again down the road with another attempt??
Click to expand...

You truly have a problem gst. Maybe like me it's alcohol,,,but I doubt it,,,I think it's a more of a compulsive disjointed malfeasance disorder. Commonly called,,, B.S. with a greed agenda.


----------



## gst

Ron what you are seemingly having a hard time understanding is after talking with certain people whom I respect their understanding and knowledge regarding tis measure, I do not share the same concerns as you and others to your claims as to what this measure will do. Nor do dozens of other people this measure has been presented to in seeking various groups support. Questions were asked regarding this measure by some pretty sharp people you might very well respect yourself if you knew them before giving the support requested and we have no reason to beleive the answers given were not done in an honest, factual manner.

Not everyone beleives in Bruces garnd conspiracy claims! 

If you choose to beleive this measure does more than what has been suggested, perhaps you need to take the initiattive to find whatever proof with "legal backing you need yourself. If you choose to share it publically on this site, please simply remember the standard of "legal backing" and not simply third party claims you have demanded.

At some point as suggested the NDFB will address these concerns to make sure the ND people know the facts regarding this measure. When, where and how are not up to me and likely not even shaug as a petition carrier. I would guess if shaug and other petition cariers would be having a difficult time collecting signatures because of these concerns you state others may have, the NDFB would address them sooner than later to ensure the required numbers of signatures are gathered. If they are not having this difficulty,I would guess the dollars involved to address these concerns will be spent when they would be of most use to allow this measure to pass once it is on the ballot.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> You truly have a problem gst. Maybe like me it's alcohol,,,but I doubt it,,,I think it's a more of a compulsive disjointed malfeasance disorder. Commonly called,,, B.S. with a greed agenda.


Spent, isn't "greed" commonly thought of as a strong desire for monies? If so why would I support a measure by any number of examples, only a couple of which I have given, that could likely cost me far more monies than it would return??? I mean if I am drilling new wells, loseing crops and constantly sueing my neighbors or being sued by them in civil court over things that were previously prevented by law that would be allowed to happen if this measure passes, how would I come out ahead? I mean just stop and think of all teh civil lawsuits that would happen in ag iftheir were no regulations to prevent the things plainsamn calims. As it is, only a small handful chose to ignore regulations and open tehmselves up for a civil action. If these regulations were to disappear and everyone started doing what Bruce claims, he courts would be over whelmed with civil actions. Personally I would rather spend the monies on common sense compliance regulatory meausres than lawyers 

I know swift will jump on this, but I have at least stated why I no longer feel compelled to answer his questions as he explained quite clearly the only reason they are being asked is one of personal animousity. But in the case of the question I posed to you spent, I am truly curious, without any personal angst towards even a person of such culinary bad taste to enjoy liver, what your answer would be as to wether you beleive the "elitist attitudes" behind the last HFH measure are not concerned this NDFB measure if passed would prevent them from occomplishing their agenda. Perhap given your own comments in regards to HFH, even though your support of the property rights issue was duly noted and appreciated in speaking out against the previous measure in identifying the elitist ideals pushing it's passage, perhaps there is a glimmer of using some means to end HFH held within your inner self as well you are afraid this NDFB measure will prevent.

Regardless, I am still curious to hear your response if you beleive the others you once called elitists would be done pursueing their agenda and so have nothing to fear from this measure blocking their future attempts.


----------



## spentwings

Your verbosity kills me.
A picture is worth a thousand of your words,,,,NDFB's agenda one cut at a time.









Pretty lame I know,,,but cut the crap and maybe you might have some of your valued credibility.
By the hand of NODAK's highest power,,, you apparently have a free rein here. 
Question is,,,why?? :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> At some point as suggested the NDFB will address these concerns to make sure the ND people know the facts regarding this measure.


They should have explained it right in the amendment. If they didn't why not? Because they didn't what they tell us verbally will mean little. It will come off as one story out of the left side of their mouth, and another story out of the right side of their mouth. What they say they can not be held to. The only thing that means anything is the words on that amendment. They can say it will in no way degrade the standard of living for their neighbors in the country and city, then go out and do just that. Like most politicians you will be able to tell if they are lying because if they are their lips will be moving.


----------



## Plainsman

spentwings said:


> You're verbosity kills me.
> A picture is worth a thousand of your words,,,,NDFB's agenda one cut at a time.


You have that right spent.

First cut: this amendment
Second cut: regulations abolished
Third cut: EPA abolished
Fourth cut: ??????

It only takes the first two to shaft all the rest of us.


----------



## swift

> I know swift will jump on this, but I have at least stated why I no longer feel compelled to answer his questions as he explained quite clearly the only reason they are being asked is one of personal animousity.


Glad to know I'm still in your head. Atleast there is something in there. Your hypocrit traits are showing again. You entered into a topic on FBO I was commenting on just to spin and twist and stir. When you were proven to be small minded and foolish you stopped. But you wont answer very real questions about this amendment because I don't like you? You really are an adolescent girl aren't you. Don't worry I'm sure your panty-liners can be written off as a farm expense.


----------



## spentwings

swift said:


> I know swift will jump on this, but I have at least stated why I no longer feel compelled to answer his questions as he explained quite clearly the only reason they are being asked is one of personal animousity.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to know I'm still in your head. Atleast there is something in there. Your hypocrit traits are showing again. You entered into a topic on FBO I was commenting on just to spin and twist and stir. When you were proven to be small minded and foolish you stopped. But you wont answer very real questions about this amendment because I don't like you? You really are an adolescent girl aren't you. Don't worry I'm sure your panty-liners can be written off as a farm expense.
Click to expand...

Even by my standards that's a pretty stupid post swift.


----------



## leadfed

spentwings said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know swift will jump on this, but I have at least stated why I no longer feel compelled to answer his questions as he explained quite clearly the only reason they are being asked is one of personal animousity.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to know I'm still in your head. Atleast there is something in there. Your hypocrit traits are showing again. You entered into a topic on FBO I was commenting on just to spin and twist and stir. When you were proven to be small minded and foolish you stopped. But you wont answer very real questions about this amendment because I don't like you? You really are an adolescent girl aren't you. Don't worry I'm sure your panty-liners can be written off as a farm expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even by my standards that's a pretty stupid post swift.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Go read the forum on the other site. Like gst says spent.....if the shoe fits. and then he usually puts a bunch of these, :wink: :lol: :-?   oke: , after it.


----------



## spentwings

So calling gst and adolescent girl is OK with you lead?
I cud also say there's nothing like the breasts on an adolescent girl,,,is that OK on this thread?
It's the tone the really *(******)* me off,,,not the substance.
So anything goes here except for censoring a word with *ticks*????


----------



## leadfed

spentwings said:


> So calling gst and adolescent girl is OK with you lead?
> I cud also say there's nothing like the breasts on an adolescent girl,,,is that OK on this thread?
> It's the tone the really *(ticks)* me off,,,not the substance.
> So anything goes here except for censoring a word with *ticks*????


Ummmmmm


----------



## swift

spentwings said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know swift will jump on this, but I have at least stated why I no longer feel compelled to answer his questions as he explained quite clearly the only reason they are being asked is one of personal animousity.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to know I'm still in your head. Atleast there is something in there. Your hypocrit traits are showing again. You entered into a topic on FBO I was commenting on just to spin and twist and stir. When you were proven to be small minded and foolish you stopped. But you wont answer very real questions about this amendment because I don't like you? You really are an adolescent girl aren't you. Don't worry I'm sure your panty-liners can be written off as a farm expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even by my standards that's a pretty stupid post swift.
Click to expand...

I haven't posted on this topic in days. But GST feels the need to drag me into once again. Just like he did on FBO on a topic of several pages that I didn't even enter a post.

He is so upset that I have personal animosity toward him he will not answer my questions but he will enter into another topic, unprovoked, to try (unsucessfully)to make a point that several said was wrong.

This is behavior of teenage girls not adult men. Maybe when he gets his period his PMS attitude will get better.


----------



## swift

oh! I forgot...         :beer: :rollin: :iroll: :shake: oke: I forgot that what's said is all good if there are smiley faces after it.


----------



## spentwings

leadfed said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So calling gst and adolescent girl is OK with you lead?
> I cud also say there's nothing like the breasts on an adolescent girl,,,is that OK on this thread?
> It's the tone the really *(ticks)* me off,,,not the substance.
> So anything goes here except for censoring a word with *ticks*????
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmm
Click to expand...

 :withstupid: 
Truly,,,I need to cut back on the mescaline as I'm sure gst wud want me to. 
Breasts aside lead,,,you're another offender


----------



## spentwings

swift said:


> He is so upset that I have personal animosity toward him he will not answer my questions but he will enter into another topic, unprovoked, to try (unsucessfully)to make a point that several said was wrong.
> 
> This is behavior of teenage girls not adult men. Maybe when he gets his period his PMS attitude will get better.


Two stupid posts in one day,,,congratulations!


----------



## swift

spent maybe you need some panti-liners too?  oops make that three stupid posts in a day.


----------



## spentwings

Maybe,,,but you need a warning and your *** booted as a last resort.
But that won't happen here,,,so no need to worry.


----------



## huntin1

Plainsman, yes I do remember the guy feeding his cattle on the ice. Disgusting to say the least, especially when considering that there are cities down stream that get their drinking water from the river. There are those that either don't think that what they are doing causes harm, or in some cases, don't care.

gst, you keep harping on this HFH thing. I have not made it a secret about my feelings on the issue. I do not want to stop cervid ranching, I couldn't care less about you or anyone else buying an elk or deer herd and turning it loose on your land and then selling the opportunity to come kill one. So, as a board member of the NDSA why don't you guys get together and police the industry on your own. Maybe introduce a bill stating that these operations could not be termed as hunting operations, owners could not use terms like "hunt of a lifetime" etc to make the slaughter of their captive animals more attractive. Antlers would have to be permantly marked in some manner so that they could never be entered in a record book. You could also include wording to address testing and disease issues. Do this and not only will I sign a petition, I'll circulate one. With these things in place I would never vote for a HF measure. Without addressing them I will vote for it every time. And I think that these things address what most people have against the elk and deer ranching operations.

huntin1


----------



## gst

huntin 1, the NDSA is a cattle organization. We focas on issues that impact us as cattle producers. I beleive the elk and deer growers proactively introduced legislation this last legislative session that would have proactively "monitered" their industry if I recall.

You may not wish to stop cervid ranching but there are those that do, they are pretty vocal in this debate as well! :wink: .



swift said:


> I haven't posted on this topic in days. But GST feels the need to drag me into once again. Just like he did on FBO on a topic of several pages that I didn't even enter a post.
> 
> He is so upset that I have personal animosity toward him he will not answer my questions


swift, not upset just pointing out what you confirm once again your personal animousity is the basis for your involvement in this dialogue. I beleive the topic you are refering to doctors going broke as a result of the govt reducing the taxpayer dollars it puts in their pockets thru medicaid/medicare payments was less than 1 and 1/2 "pages" long and I belive you posted more in the topic than I!  But rather than continue conversing in this topic off topic as it were, :wink: .

Spent, I know my "credibility" was suggested to be lacking back in the HFH debate when I suggested by usesing the initiated measure form of creating legislation it would invite orgs. like HSUS into the discussion to further their platform and give a degree of legitimacy to their org. and I did not beleive INVITING the nonhunting public to legislate what was being debated as hunting was a wise thing to do simply to accomplish a personal agenda s well. I beleive if I am not mistaken you held largely the same veiw of this being a mistake as well. Ultimately the credibility of the claims HSUS was and would become involved was substantiated. As we know now the sponsors of the measure admitted that.

If the claims that have been made as to what this measure will do in overiding state law and ending all regulation of agriculture are in fact correct I will be the first to admit my beleifs based upon conversations I have had with several pretty knowledgable people are indeed wrong, and I would not vote for this measure if indeed this is proven true. As I have said here more than once agriculture like ANY industry and occupation must have common sense regulations to govern it. I personally beleive these regulatory powers are best handled at the state level to remain of a common sense nature so would most definately not support a measure designed to prevent that. As the ultimate result of that would be the Federal govt stepping in and asserting even further control over these issues.

However, you will have to forgive me if I require a bit more proof than plainsamn and co. "opinions" claiming this is what the intended amendment will do.

I apologize for the verbousness of my posts, the degree of mastery of the English language or the lack thereof, prevents me from summerizing my veiws in a more compact manner you seem adept at doing! :wink:


----------



## Csquared

I decided to use info readily available from each reader's computer to show why the measure *AS WRITTEN* will do exactly as it's wording clearly says....prevent the enactment of laws. No law library is needed. What follows is all the proof you need...along with an adequate understanding of our language and elemantary legal speak:

This basically explains how the ND constitution can be amended. Note in *ALL* cases, regardless of initiatian process,* THE PEOPLE* have to pass it. And don't get caught up trying to make the word "amend" more complicated than it is. Simply put, to deviate from specific points explicitly spelled out in the constitution requires either an amendment of those specific points *or* a ruling specifically "defining" those points by the ND Supreme Court. In *NO CASE* does the legislature have that authority.

And note that *"no law shall be enacted which abridges the right"* doesn't leave much room for the ND Supreme Court to use a liberal interpretation of the measure in an attempt to re-define.



> North Dakota
> North Dakota Constitution
> 
> Articles
> Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • Schedule
> 
> See also: Article III, North Dakota Constitution and Section 16 of Article IV
> There are three paths to amending the North Dakota Constitution: initiated constitutional amendments, legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, and constitutional conventions.
> 
> Sections 1-9 are about how an initiated constitutional amendment can alter the state's constitution. These sections define how many signatures are required, who is legally allowed to circulate initiative petitions, and other features of the laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota.
> Section 1 of Article III explicitly says that the initiative petition process can be used to call a constitutional convention. It is unusual for a constitution to explicitly address this issue. The North Dakota Constitution provides no mechanism under which the state legislature can initiate a call for a convention.
> Section 16 of Article IV is about legislatively-referred constitutional amendments. It very simply says, "Any amendment to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the legislative assembly, and if agreed to upon a roll call by a majority of the members elected to each house, must be submitted to the electors and if a majority of the votes cast thereon are in the affirmative, the amendment is a part of this constitution." Unlike any other state constitution, the North Dakota Constitution defines the process of the legislatively-referred constitutional amendment in the article of the state constitution that, overall, has to do with the rights and perogatives of the state's legislative branch. Nearly every other state constitution has a separate article of the constitution just to do with how that constitution can be amended.


----------



## Csquared

The other pieces of FACT necessary to prove the power of the measure if adopted as written are these:

a) The constitution is written BY *THE PEOPLE* and is *THE DOCUMENT* that governs the government. It limits that which the legislature (among others) can do. Once the measue is adopted it BECOMES part of the constitution...and one more thing specifically placed "off limits" to the legislature.

b) Your constitution clearly states all *rights* are given by God. That is of HUGE importance. Remember that if passed, this measure will not be a side note or an asterisk...it will be part of the constitution. And as such will be just one more God-given right protected by that very constitution.


> "We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution."


c) Sec 21 of Article 1 of the ND state constitution, the sole example given by gst as the avenue the legislature can use to regulate the Ag industry *AFTER *passage of the measure, is clearly talking about *legislative powers* by using the words "privileges", "Immunites" and "granted" since rights are God-given, and any other niceties "granted" by the state obviously come from the state.

d) Directly contrasting with point "a" above, the legislature governs the people, and MUST do so within the bounds of the constitution.

Add it all up and all that's left is the need to understand basic legal verbiage and the English language to clearly prove the state legislature will be powerless to address public concerns in the form of regulations if the measure is adopted as currently written. Not that they couldn't still try, but anything passed would certainly be immediately open to challenge as being "unconstitutional"


----------



## Csquared

gst wrote:


> At some point as suggested the NDFB will address these concerns to make sure the ND people know the facts regarding this measure.


That was just too precious to pass up! How comforting it must be to all Nodaks concerned about current verbiage to hear that the very people pushing this measure and refusing to re-word it...not to mention the very ones who stand to gain from it's passage....are also the ones who will present the people with all the pertinent facts.

How sweet! And along those lines, just think how much money the state of Indiana could have saved by, instead of having a trial in a court of law, simply asking Mike Tyson to explain in his own words if he did, or did not rape that woman.

I'm sure he would have presented all the pertinent facts to support his case, too :wink:


----------



## Csquared

But to the point of understanding the English language, I would be remiss if I didn't re-post this that gst posted,_ I suppose_, in an attempt to bolster *HIS* case, but it actually perfectly supports the other side....



> abridge
> Definition
> a·bridge[ ə bríj ]To hear the pronunciation, install SilverlightTRANSITIVE VERB
> 1. shorten something: to shorten a text, e.g. by cutting or summarizing it
> "abridged for television"
> 2. cut something short: to reduce something in scope or extent
> "trying to abridge First Amendment rights"
> 3. restrict somebody's rights: to deprive somebody of rights or privileges ( archaic )


So, yes, by the very definitions gst has provided, use of the phrase "...no law shall be enacted which abridges the right..." in the current measure clearly means that the right to engage cannot be restricted, shortened, reduced, or deprived.

But thanks for posting the definition, gst.


----------



## huntin1

Csquared said:


> gst wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point as suggested the NDFB will address these concerns to make sure the ND people know the facts regarding this measure.
> 
> 
> 
> That was just too precious to pass up! How comforting it must be to all Nodaks concerned about current verbiage to hear that the very people pushing this measure and refusing to re-word it...not to mention the very ones who stand to gain from it's passage....are also the ones who will present the people with all the pertinent facts.
> 
> How sweet! And along those lines, just think how much money the state of Indiana could have saved by, instead of having a trial in a court of law, simply asking Mike Tyson to explain in his own words if he did, or did not rape that woman.
> 
> I'm sure he would have presented all the pertinent facts to support his case, too :wink:
Click to expand...

Yes, I am very comforted in the fact that NDFB will address these concerns "at some point." Like when? After it passes, if it passes?

I don't believe for a minute that NDFB is going to address any of these concerns. They simply do not want the true intent of this measure, whatever that may be, to be known.

huntin1


----------



## Csquared

gst, if I weren't an unemployed high school dropout this might well be where I would say "the prosecution rests", at which time it would then be your turn to prove how and why we are wrong.

But you can't.

And apparently shaug can't either because we're still waiting for him to explain how *any *entity can alter a measure AFTER passed by the people but PRIOR to becoming part of the constitution in North Dakota.

But you both know people who could prove us wrong... if that were the case. A very brief letter from one or more of them posted here would allow all "experts" the chance to verify the avenues your people claim will be available to the legislature to regulate the ag industry, and once verified would shut up all opposition indefinitely.

It seems you should not only want that, but _*encourage*_ it!

But I'm going out on a limb here, and I submit somehere in ND there are MANY legal experts who's love of the law will overpower all other factors and they will speak out about the potential dangers of the current wording.....whether they're asked for it or not.

It's still a long time till election day :wink:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> However, you will have to forgive me if I require a bit more proof than plainsamn and co. "opinions" claiming this is what the intended amendment will do.
> 
> I apologize for the verbousness of my posts, the degree of mastery of the English language or the lack thereof, prevents me from summerizing my veiws in a more compact manner you seem adept at doing! :wink:


Swift may have a point gst. It's childish to keep asking the same questions hoping to get a different answer.
Again,,, talk forums are based largely on opinion....no proof required. You have every right to disagree with someone but
badgering them is foolish in my *opinion*.
And when it comes to swift and lead yesterday,,,I'm a little  by my self righteous indignation.


----------



## leadfed

gst said
If the claims that have been made as to what this measure will do in overiding state law and ending all regulation of agriculture are in fact correct I will be the first to admit my beleifs based upon conversations I have had with several pretty knowledgable people are indeed wrong, and I would not vote for this measure if indeed this is proven true.

Do you really think that is what everybody is claiming gabe? That this measure will end all regulation of ag? Get it through your thick skull buddy that most people are not worried about what is in the PAST they are more worried about what this measure will do to the FUTURE of farming. IT WILL GIVE YOU AS A FARMER TOO MUCH ROOM TO ROAM WHILE NOT ALLOWING YOU TO BE POLICED FURTHER. Everything might be fine for awhile but then someday something is going to come up in the farming world that is going to need regulation and this measure is going to not allow that. It makes you invisible to further regulation plain and simple.


----------



## gst

Csquared, I do not beleive the discussion has been about who has the power to amend the states constitution. Perhaps you have missed the point the discussion has centered around for 40 pages being if the people do amend the constitution as provided in this measure, will this amendment prevent the legislative body from retaining the "legislative powers" to continue to create and enact regulatory law governing agriculture. Perhaps I missed where you have proven this with any sort of "legal backing" as has been demanded here, if you have please do so once again if you would.

The key of how this measure is worded is what is being prevented from being "abridged", the ability of agriculture to be regulated, or the ability of agriculture industries to continue existing while being regulated.



Csquared said:


> gst, if I weren't an unemployed high school dropout this might well be where I would say "the prosecution rests", at which time it would then be your turn to prove how and why we are wrong. But you can't.


You might be jumping the gun abit there squared. As has been said previously. Neither I nor you and your legal partners will be able to provide "proof" by our own basis therein lacking sufficient "legal backing" to be accepted. So it has been suggested if you do in fact have concerns you need to have addressed prior to the sponsoring org. doing so at some point, there are a number of avenues avalible to do so.

Huntin 1, it really is pretty simple, as I said it comes down to wether the NDFB beleives they can gather enough signatures to get this on the ballot. If they beleive they can, they will likely wait until then to "address" these claims that will continue to be made. At that time they will HAVE to address them in a manner that will close the door (at least in less unbiased eyes) on the claims being made here that will allow people to accept that indeed there is factual and sufficient "legal backing" to eplain what is being intended to support this emasure otherwise it will fail to garner enough votes to pass.

I imagine regardless of what factual "legal backing" is ever provided, there will be a small number of people that will simply oppose it because of their "willies" over who is sponsoring and supporting it. And there will be those that will oppose it because of what the intent of it is and how this would affect their agendas. I beleive those two reasons have more to do with the debate on this site than any others.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> gst said
> If the claims that have been made as to what this measure will do in overiding state law and ending all regulation of agriculture are in fact correct I will be the first to admit my beleifs based upon conversations I have had with several pretty knowledgable people are indeed wrong, and I would not vote for this measure if indeed this is proven true.
> 
> Do you really think that is what everybody is claiming gabe? That this measure will end all regulation of ag? Get it through your thick skull buddy that most people are not worried about what is in the PAST they are more worried about what this measure will do to the FUTURE of farming. IT WILL GIVE YOU AS A FARMER TOO MUCH ROOM TO ROAM WHILE NOT ALLOWING YOU TO BE POLICED FURTHER. Everything might be fine for awhile but then someday something is going to come up in the farming world that is going to need regulation and this measure is going to not allow that. It makes you invisible to further regulation plain and simple.


leadfed, so now are you suggeting that the claims made by plainsamn will not happen as current law does and will prevent them?

What is being suggested, is if you are going to make the claims you have capitalized that have been underlined, simply provide the facual "legal backing" to prove this is what this measure will do beyond your fairly obvious biased "opinion". Please show where this has been done.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, you will have to forgive me if I require a bit more proof than plainsamn and co. "opinions" claiming this is what the intended amendment will do.
> 
> I apologize for the verbousness of my posts, the degree of mastery of the English language or the lack thereof, prevents me from summerizing my veiws in a more compact manner you seem adept at doing! :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> Swift may have a point gst. It's childish to keep asking the same questions hoping to get a different answer.
> Again,,, talk forums are based largely on opinion....no proof required. You have every right to disagree with someone but
> badgering them is foolish in my *opinion*.
> And when it comes to swift and lead yesterday,,,I'm a little  by my self righteous indignation.
Click to expand...

Spent, everyone is indeed entitled to an"opinoon" but how does one determine the "credibility" of this "opinion" ?


----------



## leadfed

Gabe there is no damn way to provide factual evidence as to what or what not this measure will allow becasue it is worded so vaugely that not even you, shaug, or the people who wrote the damn thing knows its potential. It is like a giant fn umbrella to protect you from any further regulation. Thats the way it looks to me and a lot of others.

Give gabe a inch and he wants a mile. Moreso, give him $330,000 free dollars to be "economically profitable" and that won't be enough.lol


----------



## gst

In case anyone has forgotten what "opinions" I am refering to or just jined the train wreck, here they are once again. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743&start=0

The following posts from this link are listed in their entirity so not to be accused of "cherry pickin" or taking something out of "context".

{Quote}
Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

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

Opinon? yes Credible? Please show me anywhere it has be substantiated ( and no I do not consider a drawing of a 1000 cuts substantiated) to be considered credible.

Like I have said spent, if some one wishes to deabte wehter your .243 is good enouh caliber to shoot a deer hey let the "opinions" fly and I could care lesss if anyone substantaites them. But in the case of something as significant as the creation of law or constittuional amendments, I beleive "opinions" should at least be able to be credibly substantiated, and the discussion surrounding the creation of law or amending the constitution factual.

"Radical" ideas I know.

40 some pages and can you honestly show me where these original "opinions" have been credibly substantiated?


----------



## Plainsman

> leadfed, so now are you suggeting that the claims made by plainsamn will not happen as current law does and will prevent them?


Wow, that again. To use your words gst it looks like your "willie" is over me. Simply because when it came to the HF initiative I wouldn't let you bend me over the log on fishingbuddy. :wink: Get over it, I'm not our huckleberry. :wink:

With a little forethought one can imagine where this vague amendment will lead us. The NDFB may well come out and explain it. However, will we trust an organization that wants to abolish all regulations and the EPA? Their goals make them to radical to trust. Also, even if there is no undermining intent it doesn't mean their explanation makes those problems go away. It's a litigation attorneys dream. Attorneys may well tell them everything looks good because either way he is going to make money.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Gabe there is no damn way to provide factual evidence as to what or what not this measure will allow becasue it is worded so vaugely that not even you, shaug, or the people who wrote the damn thing knows its potential. It is like a giant fn umbrella to protect you from any further regulation. Thats the way it looks to me and a lot of others.


So lead, will it allow the claims plainsman makes or not? Yes, no?? True, False??? Realize there are current state AND Federal laws preventing them that will HAVE to be made "null and void" for these claims to happen.

So part of the arguement is indeed wether this amendment will affect the abiliy of the leislative assembly to create and impose future regulatory laws. It is my "opinion" that is EXACTLY the parameters the NDAG's office would look at in regards to an "opinon" on this measure. How will this amendment affect the creation of regulatory law. Will it allow regulatory law to be implemented. There are a number of avenues, formal and infomal whereby someone with actual "legal backing" could possibly clear the air. But as I said there will be a small number of people whom even this would not be enough. Perhaps even some on here! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> leadfed, so now are you suggeting that the claims made by plainsamn will not happen as current law does and will prevent them?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that again. To use your words gst it looks like your "willie" is over me. Simply because when it came to the HF initiative I wouldn't let you bend me over the log on fishingbuddy. :wink: Get over it, I'm not our huckleberry. :wink:
> 
> With a little forethought one can imagine where this vague amendment will lead us. The NDFB may well come out and explain it. However, will we trust an organization that wants to abolish all regulations and the EPA? Their goals make them to radical to trust. Also, even if there is no undermining intent it doesn't mean their explanation makes those problems go away. It's a litigation attorneys dream. Attorneys may well tell them everything looks good because either way he is going to make money.
Click to expand...

Bruce you perhaps flatter yourself too much, it is not about "you", it is about your "claims" you like to refer to as your "opinions" .

Perhaps you can explain how the ND AG's office will "make money" on this simply by giving a formal or informal "opinion"?

Unless of course you are still running with that conspiracy/collusion deal you had going earlier whereby the state legislature, the ND AG's office as well as "they" from FBO were in agricultures pocket! :wink:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Like I hve said spent, if some one wishes to deabte wehter your .243 is good enouh caliber to shoot a deer hey let the "opinions" fly and I could care lesss if anyone substantaites them. But in the case of something as significant as the creation of law or constittuional amendments, I beleive "opinions" should at least be able to be credibly substantiated, and the discussion surrounding the creation of law or amending the constitution factual.
> 
> 40 some pages and can you honestly show me where these original "opinions" have been credibly substantiated?


I'm really starting to worry about you gst. If you were a disaffected troll I could understand it.
But your fixation on plains' opinions _that he admits contain some hyperbole _ain't healthy.
Again,,,this isn't the floor the state legislature or a court of law. No one gives a rat's!


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gabe there is no damn way to provide factual evidence as to what or what not this measure will allow becasue it is worded so vaugely that not even you, shaug, or the people who wrote the damn thing knows its potential. It is like a giant fn umbrella to protect you from any further regulation. Thats the way it looks to me and a lot of others.
> 
> 
> 
> So lead, will it allow the claims plainsman makes or not? Yes, no?? True, False??? Realize there are current state AND Federal laws preventing them that will HAVE to be made "null and void" for these claims to happen.
> 
> So part of the arguement is indeed wether this amendment will affect the abiliy of the leislative assembly to create and impose future regulatory laws. It is my "opinion" that is EXACTLY the parameters the NDAG's office would look at in regards to an "opinon" on this measure. How will this amendment affect the creation of regulatory law. Will it allow regulatory law to be implemented. There are a number of avenues, formal and infomal whereby someone with actual "legal backing" could possibly clear the air. But as I said there will be a small number of people whom even this would not be enough. Perhaps even some on here! :wink:
Click to expand...

Whats your deal with plainsman? That is between you and him, I'm not going to answer his questions for him and I'd expect he wouldn't for me either.

What I am saying is that this measure is bogus! Everyone sees "protect farmer". What I see is let farmers do what ever they want with the land even if it is environmentally wrong and affects others in adverse ways. That is my deal. You can play with your "plainsman willie" without my help.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Again,,,this isn't the floor the state legislature or a court of law. No one gives a rat's


Even after 21 pages of "discussion"? 



leadfed said:


> It is like a giant fn umbrella to protect you from any further regulation.


Okay,lets forget Bruces fairly specific claims/opinoons/rhetoric/bulldroppings/hyperbole ect.... . All that has been asked is if you are going to make these "opinions" to substantiate how this measure does so. So can you substantiate how this measure will prevent further regulations from being placed on agriculture? "(outside of pictures of Indians and conspiracy theories) I mean come on guys is that really too much to ask?? :-?


----------



## spentwings

If I really wanted to be unkind I'd say you were insufferable. 
Instead, I'll go back to my premise that this is your entertainment for the day.
Is it so? Or is it an underlying animosity against anyone that you perceived to have supported Measure 2? 
Maybe both?
The former I cud almost understand,,,the latter speaks for itself.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,,,this isn't the floor the state legislature or a court of law. No one gives a rat's
> 
> 
> 
> Even after 21 pages of "discussion"?
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is like a giant fn umbrella to protect you from any further regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay,lets forget Bruces fairly specific claims/opinoons/rhetoric/bulldroppings/hyperbole ect.... . All that has been asked is if you are going to make these "opinions" to substantiate how this measure does so. So can you substantiate how this measure will prevent further regulations from being placed on agriculture? "(outside of pictures of Indians and conspiracy theories) I mean come on guys is that really too much to ask?? :-?
Click to expand...

Well you tell me what EXACTLY this measure is intended to do and any "unseen" instances that could occur because of it. I don't think that is too much to ask if this is going to be added to the constitution. There should be absolutely NO question as to what the the measure will do if it is going to be added to the constitution right? I don't think it is too much for me to ask you what EXACTLY THIS MEASURE IS INTENDED TO DO AND WHAT COULD IT POTENTIALLY DO AS IT IS CURRENTLY WORDED? Do you think it could prevent further regulation against the farmer gabe?.....Peta, hsus aside.


----------



## spentwings

spentwings said:


> If I really wanted to be unkind I'd say you were insufferable.
> Instead, I'll go back to my premise that this is your entertainment for the day.
> Is it so? Or is it an underlying animosity against anyone that you perceived to have supported Measure 2?
> Maybe both?
> The former I cud almost understand,,,the latter speaks for itself.


BL,,, gst. No one trusts the NDFB to do anything that isn't in their own best interest.
"_To much to ask_" is a victim's if not a whiner's mentality,,which goes along way in promoting a along standing
misconception of the farmers of North Dakota. If I was farmer,,, I'd say thanks a lot.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> If I really wanted to be unkind I'd say you were insufferable.
> Instead, I'll go back to my premise that this is your entertainment for the day.
> Is it so? Or is it an underlying animosity against anyone that you perceived to have supported Measure 2?
> Maybe both?
> The former I cud almost understand,,,the latter speaks for itself.


Spent, while this is entertaining at times, my "intent" on here is to simply hold people to some degree of accountability hen making claims regarding people occupation. I harbour no personal animousity toward people for their own personal beleifs. Particularily people I have never met in person. That said, I will hold people accountable to speak the truth when having a conversation regarding how I make my livig in agiculture. If you wish to have any credibility, I would beleive speaking the truth would go a long ways. So when someone claims this measure will allow feedlots to be built on rive bottoms to wash away the manure and I know for a FACT there are numerous state and Federal laws that will prevent that by numerous different agencies, that will not be affected y this measure I called bull****.

So far exactly where has plainsman proven this will happen? Theories of death by a thousand cuts aside, how will this specific state amendment overide the numerous Federal laws and agencies preventing these claims and suddenly allow what is not allowed now? And if tis measure will not make all current laws null and void as now claimed, how will it over ride numerous sate laws as well?

Spent, one question for you if you would consider regarding the importance of holding peoples "opinions" accountable in matters such as these.

How many actual real live witches do you beleive were burned back in Salem???


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Spent, one question for you if you would consider regarding the importance of holding peoples "opinions" accountable in matters such as these.


Now that includes yours as well because all you have stated is opinion!


----------



## Plainsman

Ron Gilmore said:


> Spent, one question for you if you would consider regarding the importance of holding peoples "opinions" accountable in matters such as these.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that includes yours as well because all you have stated is opinion!
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct Ron.

gst what's going to happen when federal regulations conflict with our state constitution? Will our state fight in court? What will our state do when the federal government creates new regulations? Will we be in court every time another federal regulation comes along? What does the future hold with this amendment in place?


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> How many actual real live witches do you beleive were burned back in Salem???


*You are insufferable!*
An opinion is a *subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts*. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions *rarely change without new **arguments being presented*. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] *In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs. Collective or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion*.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## swift

I'm glad you guys see through the facade that is GST. He demands truth and fact but is not willing to give any. He demands respect for his occupation while pushing for things that negatively impacts others. Example is to look at the topic of tiling. He adamantly supports private property rights to have a stream lined method to receive tiling permits. He through the NDFB lobbied the ND legislature for a depredation deer season whereby the landowners would control the tags and distribute them as they wished. (if you don't believe me look at the NDFB policy book it's in there). He through the NDFB and NDSA adamantly opposes any public land purchases for the citizens of North Dakota and lobbies for a reduction of public land holdings in ND with that public land be sold only to ag producers. Again see the NDFB policy book. He through the NDFB has successfully removed private landowners ability to sell or gift land to anyone they choose. Somehow this private property right doesn't seem to fit with the landgrab mentality of the NDFB or NDSA. Also he through his NDFB demands a cap be placed on acres allowed to be in the PLOTS program. Another kick to the groin of privated property rights.
Another endearing trait of GST is his inability to answer questions regarding topics that may not fit his agenda. In the many years of reading his diatribes two statements where never typed regarding any subject....1. "I don't know what may happen" and 2. "You have a valid concern." Both show too much respect for those that oppose his agenda. 
I wish I had GST's crystal ball so I can know all that will happen in the future. But the facts are Csquared, Leadfed, Spentwings and plainsman all have valid concerns regarding this issue. They have made good arguements regarding their concerns and GST nor Shaug have done anything to answer those questions or alleviate those concerns.
GST has a very predictable behavior of looking for the most sensational hyperbole posted and reposting it as a statement of fact whenver he cannot get out of the corner he painted himself into.


----------



## leadfed

swift said:


> I'm glad you guys see through the facade that is GST. He demands truth and fact but is not willing to give any. He demands respect for his occupation while pushing for things that negatively impacts others. Example is to look at the topic of tiling. He adamantly supports private property rights to have a stream lined method to receive tiling permits. He through the NDFB lobbied the ND legislature for a depredation deer season whereby the landowners would control the tags and distribute them as they wished. (if you don't believe me look at the NDFB policy book it's in there). He through the NDFB and NDSA adamantly opposes any public land purchases for the citizens of North Dakota and lobbies for a reduction of public land holdings in ND with that public land be sold only to ag producers. Again see the NDFB policy book. He through the NDFB has successfully removed private landowners ability to sell or gift land to anyone they choose. Somehow this private property right doesn't seem to fit with the landgrab mentality of the NDFB or NDSA. Also he through his NDFB demands a cap be placed on acres allowed to be in the PLOTS program. Another kick to the groin of privated property rights.
> Another endearing trait of GST is his inability to answer questions regarding topics that may not fit his agenda. In the many years of reading his diatribes two statements where never typed regarding any subject....1. "I don't know what may happen" and 2. "You have a valid concern." Both show too much respect for those that oppose his agenda.
> I wish I had GST's crystal ball so I can know all that will happen in the future. But the facts are Csquared, Leadfed, Spentwings and plainsman all have valid concerns regarding this issue. They have made good arguements regarding their concerns and GST nor Shaug have done anything to answer those questions or alleviate those concerns.
> GST has a very predictable behavior of looking for the most sensational hyperbole posted and reposting it as a statement of fact whenver he cannot get out of the corner he painted himself into.


 :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman

Very good points swift. What I think, and what stood out subconsciously in your post (for me anyway) was the one way street mentality. Gst, and I think also shaug pass of NDFB as just an organization that works for their benefit. However, in nearly the same breath they will condemn us as anti agriculture if we work for our benefit.

Who should a private landowner be able to sell his land to?
I think he should be able to sell his or her land to anyone they want.
NDFB don't think they should be able to sell to a government agency, a state agency, or anyone who isn't going to farm.

Who does the federal land belong to in North Dakota?
I think every citizen of the United States, and those living in towns want open spaces to go to.
NDFB thinks the government should divest themselves of land holdings, and sell to who? Farmers and ranchers
As a matter of fact they have blocked anyone from leasing federal land that is not going to graze it. Some organizations bid on open grazing rights in New Mexico a few years ago and the ranchers went nuts. Somehow they got that stopped and the organization that tried to purchase those grazing rights was not allowed to do it. Ya, ya gst substantiate. It was in my government news letter at work.

Yes I think this is a bunch of greedy , greedy people. They work for their benefit at the demise of all others. Not just for their benefit, but they work against others. When the North Dakota Wildlife Federation (all local sportsmen) want to do something the NDFB is right there to stop them. They are anti environmental, anti wildlife, anti sportsmen, anti anything that doesn't put land and dollars under their control.

Now for the million dollar question. Why is it when we sportsmen work for ourselves we are labeled anti agriculture, but when NDFB works directly against us they are wonderful and only working for their members? Double standard and hypocritical. The next question, are there any sportsmen out there that don't think this amendment will be used to shaft us in the future?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many actual real live witches do you beleive were burned back in Salem???
> 
> 
> 
> *You are insufferable!*
> An opinion is a *subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts*. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions *rarely change without new **arguments being presented*. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] *In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs. Collective or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion*.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

So spent, what was it that drove the ideologies of tying a woman to a wood post surrounding it with wood and lighting it on fire?

Facts????? Not unless you beleive in witches. :wink:

It was "opinion" spawned from rhetoric and untruthes based on not knowing what was happening and a hatred for any ideologies other than their own and the people that held them that burned these people at the stake.

Now you have people on this site making claims and spouting rhetoric and untruthes without taking the time to factually inform themselves simply because they have a hatred for an org. and an admitted personal animousity for anyone that questions their beleifs and tries to hold them accountable for their claims.

At some popint people realized the claims regarding the accusaation towards these women were simply biased hatred, from people too blinded by this hatred to see something different than what they beleived possible could happen. It was then and only then that these "witch burners" were looked at for what they were and held accountable for their hatred based claims and actions.

Take a look at the rhetoric of hatred in this thread aimed at one org. and tell me that alone is not a large part of what is driving this conversation. Throw in the juvenile personal comments and claims and you have a small little group of individuals that by themselves would not have the balls to light the match, but together would have been the first to pile up the wood and light it on fire and dance around the flames. This little group doesn't want to find out this measure is not the "witch" they wish to burn, it would only serve to lessen a reason to hate something. If they truly did wish to know the "truth" regarding this measure, they would make the effort to factually do so themselves.

Beleive me insufferable if you wish, it matters little.  I think I will simply wait for NDFB to move this along as they see fit, and leave the dialogue to those with the gas and matches! :wink: Anyone wishing to learn rather than dance around the flames has plenty of rhetoric to ponder how it can be true from here on out! :roll:


----------



## Csquared

gst wrote:


> will this amendment prevent the legislative body from retaining the "legislative powers" to continue to create and enact regulatory law governing agriculture. Perhaps I missed where you have proven this with any sort of "legal backing" as has been demanded here, if you have please do so once again if you would.


It's pretty obvious to me that you're the only one buying into this "I know you are, but what am I" game you're playing with "the facts", gst. Your refusal to accept proven meanings of each word in the measure and the proven separation of powers clearly spelled out in your constitution as fact is like refusing to accept that 1+1=2 unless proven with "mathematical fact" by a poster who''s successfully proven to you he has a degree in elementary arithmetic.

That's the beauty of this discussion. The burden of proof is clearly on your side, and for several reasons, but you either fail to realize it... or refuse to accept it. All the proof anyone else needs is right here in front of them. The words have even been defined BY YOU, gst...right here in this thread. But that's not the proof that is ultimately needed by you and your side.

Your side will have to prove "_no law shall be enacted_" means something other than *NO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED*...

And your side will have to prove how the legislature can restrict a God-given right guaranteed and protected by your constitution when that same constitution clearly states the legislature is powerless to act in any way that is contrary to it.

It's very simple, gst, and I honestly think you're the only one who doesn't get it. Actually, allow me to rephrase that. I'm pretty sure you DO GET IT, and I'm almost as certain your buddies at your meetings have discussed that very thing with you. But either way, I'm absolutely certain it will be explained by MANY people who are more than adequately qualified to do so before anyone votes on this.

But if you truly are unsure about how powerless the legislature will be to write laws in the future, ask yourself one question...

Why does the NDFB think adding this measure to the constitution will give them the ability to keep the HSUS and PETA at bay?

A truthful answer to that question instantly gives credence to the fears mentioned here in this thread...even though all of us here know full well you'll never acknowledge it.


----------



## swift

GST has never once objectively answered the concerns with the policies and resolutions of the NDFB and said I can understand why you have concerns. Instead he makes the claim, "they are only resolutions they don't really matter. We advocate for ag" he actually thinks anyone that questions the mighty ag orgs has a problem with all of ag. GST has an all or none attitude and if your not all in with him you are all in against him. Then he blasts the NDFU as being a socialist organization. His thinking is so bizarre no person is beyond his twist and spin "logic".


----------



## Plainsman

> if your not all in with him you are all in against him.


csquared and spentwings were both attacked with what I would consider no provocation. All because gst will not tolerate simple questions. I guess a question is seen as sedition.

gst you ask many question, but duck the important ones asked of you.


----------



## gst

I guess there may be room for one last (hopefully) "please show me". 



Plainsman said:


> csquared and spentwings were both attacked with what I would consider no provocation. All because gst will not tolerate simple questions. I guess a question is seen as sedition


Plainsman "please show me" where this "attack" occured by quoting it once again. :roll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Forget about gst guys and start talking with friends, neighbors, relatives and anyone that you know that votes in ND. Get the word out about the attempted power grab that the NDFB is attempting trying to use the boogie man PETA as their poster child!

We have a direct answer from Shaug who is a NDFB board member about what they are trying to stop. So use his own words to show the voters the scam this is!


----------



## Plainsman

Your right Ron. I wonder what the best route is. Perhaps a few letters to the editor or something along those lines also. I think every hunter in North Dakota should take this serious. It's a power grab that will have far reaching tentacles, beyond habitat destruction. I suppose the local wildlife federations, United Sportsmen, and those types are already fully aware. If they get the signatures we better start contacting every organization we can think of.

I had coffee with about six retired farmers at Hardees this morning. One a good friend of mine had belonged to FB up to just a year ago. He is very conservative so dislikes FU, but also thinks FB is loosing it. Four belonged to farmers union and two of them didn't want to say much, but the other two had little use for FB. I am optimistic because most farmers think this amendment is sort of ---- well they called it poorly thought out and out of mainstream. One old cattle buyer now 94 years old didn't say anything he just kept shaking his head every time I mentioned some of the things like this amendment, wanting license money to fix township roads (the old guy hunted geese alone this fall a couple of days) wanted regulations abolished, wanted the EPA gone etc. I don't think the old guy likes EPA much though. Probably because he was one of those guys that fed on the river years ago. He still fiddles around and feeds a few animals. At 94 he must just enjoy doing it.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> I guess there may be room for one last (hopefully) "please show me".
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> csquared and spentwings were both attacked with what I would consider no provocation. All because gst will not tolerate simple questions. I guess a question is seen as sedition
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman "please show me" where this "attack" occured by quoting it once again. :roll:
Click to expand...

So typical of what has gone on in the past Bruce, it apears you are going to make a "claim" as you have regarding these "attacks" and then not substantiate it when asked??? :eyeroll:

Perhaps spent himself can help you out and show where he bleives this "attack" occured! :wink: :roll:

The "hatred" of the witch burners stil lives on!!!


----------



## gst

gst said:


> In case anyone has forgotten what "opinions" I am refering to or just jined the train wreck, here they are once again. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92743&start=0
> 
> The following posts from this link are listed in their entirity so not to be accused of "cherry pickin" or taking something out of "context".
> 
> {Quote}
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am
> 
> I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame.
> 
> Maybe someone wants to grow poppies. They make money off it in Afghanistan.
> 
> A fellow who lives a mile north of me had all the trees on the west side of his lot killed when the farmer sprayed with a west wind and drift came into his yard. The applicator had insurance that took care of it. If the farmer did the spraying himself under a freedom to farm constitutional amendment would he be liable? As it is now they were not liable when canola plugged culverts and took out roads a couple of years ago. At least they can't blame hunters when it happens in the spring.
> 
> I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am
> 
> As far as antibiotics some farm practices use it in their feed. It is fed every day as a preventative not to treat an infection. We often read in (American Medical Association for example) about the over use of antbiotics and how it creates super bugs. Well agriculture is the culprit here more so than people over using it on a personal basis, or doctors overprescribing. Our neighbor had 5000 turkeys and all of his feed had antibiotics already in it. That does concern me and should concern everyone.
> 
> Also, not to pick on anyone, but some farmers want to grow hemp. To date the government has not let them. I have no problem with a farmer growing hemp, but what's next poppies? Now I know that's a hyperbole, but I use it as an example. However, if they could get away with it I know farmers who would produce heroin if it was profitable. Now before anyone goes ballistic I'm not saying that's what farmers are all like. What I will say is that they are like everyone else and some will go beyond reason and most will not. How many is the question. Look at Devils Lake for example. There is a high percentage draining from the north with no concern for Devils Lake, Valley City, or Fargo. One person on here who I will not name because he edited it fast and I can't prove it said he didn't care about Fargo. He said anyone dumb enough to build on a flood plain deserves to be flooded.
> 
> I think the freedom to farm as a constitutional amendment would be an absolute disaster. There is no doubt in my mind there wold be rampant drain and tile. There would be rampant habitat destruction. There would be ag practices that took away my choice as a consumer. How about a constitutional amendment for consumers that would protect me from pesticide residues, medical residues, flooding, chemical overspray, silt damage to public waterways etc. An absolute disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> This isn't liberal vs conservative, it isn't farming vs the public, it isn't farming vs animal rights, it's simply a step back into 17th century Europe. It's an attitude of, we will do what we want, and you will eat what we give you. Your life is worth less than ours attitude.
> 
> Edit: I'm not sure what I think of geneticly modified foods. I see some countries have banned them. I do sympathise with farmers because of the way the ELCA church has attacked genetic modifications. To date I don't know of anything wrong with eating them. However, let the free market decide. I think I would eat it and guess I do, but if someone doesn't want to I see that as more their right than the right of a farmer to say you have no choice, eat it or starve.
> 
> Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
> by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm
> 
> The only reason for this constitutional amendment is to be given the freedom from responsiblity for problem practices that threaten the environment and encroach on the lives of other people. Devils Lake flooding Valley City and Fargo could be a problem without this amendment that will allow dumping on other people with no regard. They could raise anything they want including things that are now illegal. There is nothing good in this amendment for anyone but a farmer who wants to make every penny he can with no regard for anything or anyone else. {end quote


Indeed talk with your neighbors who are farmers and ranchers, share these claims Bruce has made regarding this measure as well as this whole thread spent by him and others defendig them. :wink:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess there may be room for one last (hopefully) "please show me".
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> csquared and spentwings were both attacked with what I would consider no provocation. All because gst will not tolerate simple questions. I guess a question is seen as sedition
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman "please show me" where this "attack" occured by quoting it once again. :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So typical of what has gone on in the past Bruce, it apears you are going to make a "claim" as you have regarding these "attacks" and then not substantiate it when asked??? :eyeroll:
> 
> Perhaps spent himself can help you out and show where he bleives this "attack" occured! :wink: :roll:
> 
> The "hatred" of the witch burners stil lives on!!!
Click to expand...

I know we're all in step with plains in your *opinion* but I'll have disagree with him on that one.
Besides gst,,,everyone knows we like each other to much for that sort of thing.
So is it going to be your same crap,,,different day?


----------



## Plainsman

Sorry spent I thought he sort of got on your case fast. If you don't feel that way I certainly should not. Sorry gst, your right about this one.


----------



## shaug

plainsman said,



> When the North Dakota Wildlife Federation (all local sportsmen) want to do something the NDFB is right there to stop them.


Sell it man sell it. All "local sportsmen", that is funny. The NDWF is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. Both are government advocacy groups. Plainsman, you want desperately to make people believe these are grassroots sportsmens orgs, they are not.

Plainsman said,



> Your right Ron. I wonder what the best route is. Perhaps a few letters to the editor or something along those lines also. I think every hunter in North Dakota should take this serious. It's a power grab that will have far reaching tentacles, beyond habitat destruction. I suppose the local wildlife federations, United Sportsmen, and those types are already fully aware. If they get the signatures we better start contacting every organization we can think of.


Plainsman, the president of the United Sportsman is Sheldon Cieslak. He is not in your corner, he doesn't like you.

Ron said,



> We have a direct answer from Shaug who is a NDFB board member about what they are trying to stop. So use his own words to show the voters the scam this is!


I am not an NDFB board member. Also, in my own words I said when the signatures are collected there will be formal meetings to ascertain impacts. At which time the question will more than likely be posed, "what is the intent?" In the end, will I have egg on my face? I don't believe so. Mine, is nothing more than an opinion on a dying web-forum. Ron, durring the HFI you repeatedly said over and over, "there is no HSUS connection." Ron, when fair chase partnered with HSUS did you end up with egg on your face? Yes or no? Like I told Swift. Take out some ads. The media needs the economic development. Just don't do it the name of sportsmen. Or better yet, do it in the name of sportsmen, let the Humane Society Legislative Fund pay for those ads (again) and then let the voters decide.

Right now I am sending this from the Adams Hotel in Boston Mass. Today my wife and I walked the Freedom Trail. Paul Revere Mall, the Old North Church and finally the USS Constitution. The battle flag said, "Don't Tread on Me." God, I love this country.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

There was no involvment, HSUS entered the fray on their own. Everyone I knew connected to it knew the minute they ran the ad that the measure was dead! More BS crap.

But like it or not shaug you are directly involved in measure up to your neck, and you do represent NDFB. You have intentionaly stated false claims about what the Leg can do with this measure and at least admitted the end game of eliminating the Leg from any oversight along with any state agency of the Ag and Livestock industry at the state level. You cannot do this on the Fed level, but I am sure you are working on that as well!


----------



## Plainsman

Ron, somewhere gst said shaug was a NDFB representative. Which one isn't telling us the truth?


----------



## shaug

Ron said,



> There was no involvment, HSUS entered the fray on their own. Everyone I knew connected to it knew the minute they ran the ad that the measure was dead! More BS crap.


Ron, you must very much like the taste of crow and championing losing causes.



> But like it or not shaug you are directly involved in measure up to your neck, and you do represent NDFB. You have intentionaly stated false claims about what the Leg can do with this measure and at least admitted the end game of eliminating the Leg from any oversight along with any state agency of the Ag and Livestock industry at the state level. You cannot do this on the Fed level, but I am sure you are working on that as well!


Ron, you have quite an imagination.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> We have a direct answer from Shaug who is a NDFB board member about what they are trying to stop. So use his own words to show the voters the scam this is!





Plainsman said:


> Ron, somewhere gst said shaug was a NDFB representative. Which one isn't telling us the truth?


plainsman, there is a distinct difference between being a "board member" and simply carrying a petition as a "representative" of NDFB. So unless ron has proof that shaug is indeed a "NDFB board member" it would appear we know "who isn't telling us the truth" .

Bruce didn't you state something along the lines "we won't be getting the truth from NDFB representatives regarding this measure" insinuating ALL NDFB "representatives" were lying about this measure? Quite the grand conspiracy you seem to have.



Ron Gilmore said:


> There was no involvment, HSUS entered the fray on their own. Everyone I knew connected to it knew the minute they ran the ad that the measure was dead! More BS crap.


Perhaps if you wish know "who isn't telling us the truth", you and ron should go back and read the Dakota Country article! :wink: Plainsamn didn't you as a former sponsor admit to knowing there was conversations held between HSUS and someone from NDH for FC?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug, gst, very simple, HSUS was not contacted to become involved,donate money to advance the HFH. They ended up running ads but not at the direction of those involved with the petition. Having a conversation with a group and telling them you do not want their involvement is a conversation.

But back to the issue at hand, I will stand corrected that Shaug is not a board member but is instead a representative of NDFB, does not change what he has said or implied falsely about the Leg, nor does it change the fact that he stated that the goal is to remove the Leg from having oversight in any form.

Now gst you are always the one implying that others need to prove this or that! The article in the Dakota Country does not prove your position or claims. Like it or not! You claim to have proof positive but you have never produced it!

So we are back to square one all over again which is what this measure if passed will do. I believe firmly that it removes all oversight from any law making or rule making agency within the state of ND over livestock or Ag. I believe that result is going to lead to needless legal battles between neighbors over water issues and other acts that either have been addressed by law or could have been if needed. It stops any county or township from passing or amending any zoning laws in place regarding anything related to Ag other than maybe building and electrical codes.

To use a example that occurred to me today while taking the wife to work, I drove by bean field that sits surrounded by commercial and residential property. Owner has it for sale, but if this measure was passed he could build on that land grain storage or barn and start running cattle or chickens etc... City zoning laws would not apply to his activity within the city limits or a court would have to decide if he could or could not since now the vague measure being pushed does not grant this type of rule making. Other parts of the Constitution may grant them, but now a legal battle would ensue to see which trumps which.

But the one that really got me thinking the most was that this amendment will render the state law prohibiting corporations from owning land in ND null and void! Modern farming includes corporations owning and operating farms and since you have not included protection to existing laws in the amendment this is ripe to be tossed with a simple AG opinion!

have fun boys, this poorly thought out measure is so full of things like this that I would be embarrassed to put it forward!
No more boards stopping conservation organizations from buying land from a willing owner, no more stopping wetland easements by limiting them to 30 years! No more none of the protections that the state has provided! that are not in the Constitution!

Or is this really a back door way around it to avoid losing face with your members!


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, you do know that shaug is a "representative of NDFB" carrying a petition do you not?


gst since you quoted "representative of NDFB" carrying a petition it does mean he is a representative. A little different than saying because he is carrying a petition he is a representative. You may want to hide what shaug is by playing English challenged, but we know what you meant. 
So what type of representative are you shaug. Speak for yourself since gst is running in another circle.

I don't know you guys so gst are you really a representative of NDSA and if so what is your official title? It would be nice to know exactly what your guys dog is in this debate.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I don't know you guys so gst are you really a representative of NDSA and if so what is your official title? It would be nice to know exactly what your guys dog is in this debate.


plainsman, if you do not know by now I am on the board of the NDSA elected to represent district 6, you really have not been following many threads very closely. 

Our "dog" in the fight regarding this measure is we support it's intent to prevent what you and others attempted doing. Banning the ability to engage in a ranching enterprise operating under state laws and regulations.



Ron Gilmore said:


> shaug, gst, very simple, HSUS was not contacted to become involved,donate money to advance the HFH. They ended up running ads but not at the direction of those involved with the petition. Having a conversation with a group and telling them you do not want their involvement is a conversation.


Ron perhaps you might wish to revist the Dakota Country article and more closely examine the "explaination" given by two sponsors as to why thy told the HSUS to go ahead and run their ads. Hardly an adament "you do not want their invovlement" position.  If two sponsors of themeasure admitting they told the HSUS to go ahead and run their ads as at that point they beleived what coulf it hurt is not "proof" enough, likely nothing presented inregards to this measure will be "proof" enough for you either. :roll:

Wether anyone in this HFH opponant gaggle of people opposing this measure want to admit it, the HFH measure was indeed a catalyst for this NDFB measure. And from the NDSA'a perspective of where their dog entered this fight, when a home grown group of North Dakotans INVITED a group like HSUS stop help their cause to ban a legally defined livestock industry right here in ND, no one could no longer say "that will never happen here". So for those adamant supporters and sponsors of the HFH measure, take a look in the mirror and realize you are looking a large reason this measure exists.

Deny the similarities if you wish. HSUS wishes to ban cervid ranching, NDH for FC wishes to ban cervid ranching in ND, HSUS wishes to end all animal agriculture, ___________ wishes to end animal agriculture in ND. It is the elitist mentality spentwings refered to of the HFH supporters and sponsors that drove the HFH measure. It is the elitist mentality of HSUS and their supporters that at some point will drive another attmept to ban some sort of animal ag enterprise Ron mentioned as being targeted such as veal calves, poultry operations, hog confinement operations ect.....


----------



## gst

quote="gst"]The following posts from this link are listed in their entirity so not to be accused of "cherry pickin" or taking something out of "context".

{Quote}
Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:31 am

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

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



Ron Gilmore said:


> So we are back to square one all over again which is what this measure if passed will do. I believe firmly that it removes all oversight from any law making or rule making agency within the state of ND over livestock or Ag.


So ron, are you suggesting that plainsmans claims are then true??

So given the FACT there are regulatory laws that prevent these claims from happening currently, you must be suggesting they will be rendered null and void for this to happen???



Ron Gilmore said:


> But the one that really got me thinking the most was that this amendment will render the state law prohibiting corporations from owning land in ND null and void! Modern farming includes corporations owning and operating farms and since you have not included protection to existing laws in the amendment this is ripe to be tossed with a simple AG opinion!


So ron if you would, please explain how the ND AG's office could give an "opinion" on this but not on what this measure will do regarding the implementation of law that has "statewide significance" in accordance with a proposed constitutional amendment?


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, if you do not know by now I am on the board of the NDSA elected to represent district 6, you really have not been following many threads very closely.


Well that's what I thought, but there has been statements made, then backpedaling and diving for cover.

Is there anyone who can seriously believe the North Dakota people would change enough to try outlaw raising pigs and chickens? I doubt it, but HSUS worked so well last time that the NDFB is using it like a poster boogieman. If that was not true why didn't they state animal agriculture? Because it's aimed at tile, and no new laws of any kind against rip rape and run agriculture.



> If two sponsors of themeasure admitting they told the HSUS to go ahead and run their ads as at that point they beleived what coulf it hurt


I'll bet the other 28 were not happy with that decision, if that is how it happened. The first year I sponsored I signed and never heard from anyone again. I would guess most of the sponsors the second time around were as surprised as I was the first time around. Two people hardly represent the whole, but I guess they thought so. :******:

Anyway, this measure is about out of control. Those who support this amendment the strongest are the ones that need to be watched the closest. This whole thing should point out to the public why regulations are needed, and identify the leading organization that wants to dump on everyone else for the benefit of a few rogues.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Now back to the amendment, itself. I posted that there are concerns of people in the farming community and others I had spoken with that wondered if this amendment would make any existing laws null and void? Never said it would, it was a question! That is when you started the BS about seeking an OPINION from the AG and third party hearsay.
> 
> And looking at how you filter and twist peoples words, it is no wonder that nobody believes you at all!++





Ron Gilmore said:


> But the one that really got me thinking the most was that this amendment will render the state law prohibiting corporations from owning land in ND null and void!


So ron, your position on this measure, is it now a "question" or a "claim" this measure will render existing state law "null and void"??? :-?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> plainsman, if you do not know by now I am on the board of the NDSA elected to represent district 6, you really have not been following many threads very closely.
> 
> Well that's what I thought, but there has been statements made, then backpedaling and diving for cover.


You simply can not help yourself plaisamn.

Please show me by posting it where I have EVER "backpedaled" or "dove for cover" regarding my "position" in the NDSA.

You really are a peice of work. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're verbosity kills me.
> A picture is worth a thousand of your words,,,,NDFB's agenda one cut at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have that right spent.
> 
> First cut: this amendment
> Second cut: regulations abolished
> Third cut: EPA abolished
> Fourth cut: ???? It only takes the first two to shaft all the rest of us.
Click to expand...




Plainsman said:


> Is there anyone who can seriously believe the North Dakota people would change enough to try outlaw raising pigs and chickens?


You do realize this pictorial example "cuts" both ways right?

HSUS has stated many times one small step at a time they will work to acheive their agenda of ending animal agriculture. You wish to beleive it is a "boogie man" most involved in animal agriculture know better.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I'll bet the other 28 were not happy with that decision, if that is how it happened. The first year I sponsored I signed and never heard from anyone again. I would guess most of the sponsors the second time around were as surprised as I was the first time around. Two people hardly represent the whole, but I guess they thought so.


"Explain" all you wish Bruce, as written in print in a reputable ND magazine, two sponsors admitted to telling HSUS to go ahead and run their ads inviting them into our state in the second measure attempt.

You can dismiss the "actions" of two sponsors, but the fact is when you sign your name as a "sponsor" of a measure, you accept the responsibility of the consequences of the actions of your fellow sponsors. If you are not willing to do so you have no business signing on as a fellow sponsor.

Bruce, did you hear of a one of your fellow sponsors contacing HSUS as well during the first measure attempt?


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> A picture is worth a thousand of your words,,,,HSUS'S agenda to end animal agriculture one cut at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :


Now I will state BOLDLY I changed one acronym adthe subsequent goal in the above quote and spentwings did not state this as HSUS agenda! But it most certainly seems appropriate!

http://www.saova.org/HSUS_timeline.html
http://lucasoilspeedway.com/news/2010/o ... osition-b/
http://www.activistcash.com/organizatio ... ted-states
http://brownfieldagnews.com/2009/12/11/ ... ting-hsus/
http://www.capitalpress.com/content/cs- ... ial-012811


----------



## gst

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2010/11/15/ ... rm-bureau/

Pacelle going after Missouri Farm Bureau

November 15, 2010 By Julie Harker 10 Comments

A week after the narrow passage of the HSUS-backed dog breeding measure in Missouri, Proposition B, President Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the U.S. published an "open letter" on his blog criticizing the Missouri Farm Bureau's campaign against the measure.

"This agreement should not provide a liscense for gross misrepresentations of fact. And that's exactly what the Missouri Farm Bureau was responsible for during this campaign."

Pacelle complained to Brownfield last week that the Missouri Farm Bureau falsely claimed that existing state regulations on dog breeding are sufficient, that the HSUS wants to eliminate pet ownership, and, that HSUS wants to end animal agriculture.

Missouri Farm Bureau Public Affairs Director Estill Fretwell calls Pacelle's complaints a publicity stunt.

"If you look at their agenda this is simply the first step of HSUS and Mr. Pacelle to try to regulate animal agriculture in the state. It's his spin on what he wants to try to put out, but again this is just a tactic on his part to get publicity."

Most troubling, says Pacelle, are the claims from agriculture groups that HSUS spends less than one-percent of its funds on pet care.

"If these are honorable people at the Missouri Farm Bureau they will cease and desist making false statements. HSUS is the largest animal care provider in the United States. No other group cares for more animals than HSUS."

*Fretwell says it's a well known tactic of Pacelle to demonize ag groups.* He says Missouri Farm Bureau stands up for and defends legitimate farmers and dog breeders who treat their animals humanely.

"Mr. Pacelle - and HSUS - has an agenda as we have seen in other states to go far beyond that and try to regulate animal agriculture in a way we have problems with."

Fretwell says the Missouri Farm Bureau hopes lawmakers take a look at what changes can be made to Proposition B to protect the state's legitimate dog breeders from going out of business under the measure's strict requirements.
*End quote*

It seems as if not only in the HFH debate a page was taken from HSUS's playbook, here in the debate over this measure the same tactics seem to be being followed! :wink:

The FACT is HSUS spends less than 1% of what they take in on the care of cats and dogs. 
http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/p ... e_percent/

The FACT is the Humane Society of America (different than HSUS) is the largest care provider for cats and dogs, the HSUS does not even come close. 
http://humanewatch.org/

But hey what place does truth and fact have on these internet blog sites. :roll: Seems to be a common theme with some people and their "agendas"! :wink:


----------



## Csquared

There isn't a single person in this discussion more pro landownwer rights than I am, so I'm going to suggest we refrain from discussions about that topic in this thread. This thread isn't about landowner rights...it's about the potential effect of a pending measure, and simply suggested voters talk to farmers before deciding which side of the issue they were on.

In many ways this measure actually has very little to do with landowner rights. It doesn't define them or protect any of them specifically. It's purpose is clearly to take the power to legislate out of the hands of the legislature, and anyone with an 8th grade education sees that. How else could PETA or the HSUS be kept out of the legislative process if the legislature retained the authority to regulate either way on the issue? That means this measure has much more to do with _*OTHERS'*_ rights....how the needs of others may be affected by a constitutional amendment that forbids any new state regulation of an entire industry.

But constant mention of the past high fence issue and attempts to discredit those here by statements made concerning other issues, although entertaining at times, are adding nothing to this discussion.

The simple fact is the measure stands on it's own, as written, until someone proves otherwise. The NDFB and any other ag group pushing the measure all have legal representation who would be tripping over themselves to *PROVE* the measure would not inhibit future regulation for the common good...*IF* that were the case.

...But I don't see it happening. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> You do realize this pictorial example "cuts" both ways right?


That is why HSUS, PETA, NDFB, NDSA all need to be watched. They all try infringe on the rights of others. None of them are to be trusted.



> HSUS has stated many times one small step at a time they will work to acheive their agenda of ending animal agriculture. You wish to beleive it is a "boogie man" most involved in animal agriculture know better.


That's good now were back to the issue of the amendment as csquared recommended. If the NDFB is worried about animal agriculture then that is what the amendment should have addressed. It is much more wide, vague, and dangerous. The reason they made it more wide ranging I think is because it's motivated by tile and a power grab. Hey how about no new laws against oil drilling? How about no new laws against the lumber industry. How about no new laws against mining. How about no new laws against -----take your pick. See how this amendment is either stupid or treacherous. It's one or the other and I think treachery is afoot.

You guys must really be trashing the environment to be so afraid someone is going to stop you.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> A picture is worth a thousand of your words,,,,HSUS'S agenda to end animal agriculture one cut at a time.
> 
> Now I will state BOLDLY I changed one acronym adthe subsequent goal in the above quote and spentwings did not state this as HSUS agenda! But it most certainly seems appropriate!
Click to expand...

I'm really starting to hate that picture,,,
People with unpopular agendas use similar tactics,,,what else is new?
Welcome to the filthy world of reality gst.
Your verbosity is moldier than last week's bread.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Your verbosity is moldier than last week's bread.


Well then it is good that farmers can still use "modern agriculture practices" to poduce the wheat to keep you in fresh bread!! :wink:

If HSUS had their way, I wouldn't be able to offer you that fresh liver either! 



Plainsman said:


> That is why HSUS, PETA, NDFB, NDSA all need to be watched. They all try infringe on the rights of others. None of them are to be trusted


Bruce it is interesting you left out the NDH for FC, your fellow sponsors of the last measure attempt to ban an animal agriculture industry here in ND. Apparently in your book that does not qualify as "infringing on the rights of others". :roll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman wrote» Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:44 am 
I don't know you guys so gst are you really a representative of NDSA and if so what is your official title?



gst said:


> plainsman, if you do not know by now I am on the board of the NDSA elected to represent district 6, you really have not been following many threads very closely





Plainsman said:


> Well that's what I thought, but there has been statements made, then backpedaling and diving for cover.





gst said:


> You simply can not help yourself plaisamn.
> 
> Please show me by posting it where I have EVER "backpedaled" or "dove for cover" regarding my "position" in the NDSA.


So Bruce are you going to address these claims you made or just write them off as yet another example of you stating something that simply is not true and then ignoring the request to "please show where" it was stated as you have done any number of other times?

I mean the entertainment value here has worn thin and I would like to simply allow this to simmer until the facts are made known as to what this measrue will do, but plainsman keeps pulling this crap out of his arse! :wink: :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> I mean the entertainment value here has worn thin and I would like to simply allow this to simmer until the facts are made


The fact I think is that you guys have designed a Trojan Horse amendment. It looks good on the outside until were into it a year or two. Then we find the damage this pro ag bill will do to everyone else. It's more of an anti environmental, anti public amendment. It doesn't place more value on farmers, it devalues everyone else. It's an insult.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I don't know you guys so gst are you really a representative of NDSA and if so what is your official title? It would be nice to know exactly what your guys dog is in this debate.





gst said:


> plainsman, if you do not know by now I am on the board of the NDSA elected to represent district 6, you really have not been following many threads very closely.





Plainsman said:


> Well that's what I thought, but there has been statements made, then backpedaling and diving for cover.





gst said:


> Please show me by posting it where I have EVER "backpedaled" or "dove for cover" regarding my "position" in the NDSA.


So then Bruce can we just assume this is yet one more claim along with how many others you have made you can not substantiate?


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why HSUS, PETA, NDFB, NDSA all need to be watched. They all try infringe on the rights of others. None of them are to be trusted
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce it is interesting you left out the NDH for FC, your fellow sponsors of the last measure attempt to ban an animal agriculture industry here in ND. Apparently in your book that does not qualify as "infringing on the rights of others". :roll:
Click to expand...

Ha! Touché!
Like I've said gst, when you stop asking for proof and reply to an opinion with an opinion you make a good point once in awhile.
But unfortunately, in my *opinion*,,, you don't lack understanding, you lack control. :rock:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Ha! Touché!
> Like I've said gst, when you stop asking for proof and reply to an opinion with an opinion you make a good point once in awhile.
> But unfortunately, in my opinion,,, you don't lack understanding, you lack control.


spent, beleive me, I "understand" what this little gaggle of opposition to this measure is about. Heck most of them in one post or another have admitted it! 

Control??? Well I have never drank so much mescaline I have thought I could fly!


----------



## Plainsman

> Bruce it is interesting you left out the NDH for FC, your fellow sponsors of the last measure attempt to ban an animal agriculture industry here in ND. Apparently in your book that does not qualify as "infringing on the rights of others".


I left them out because they didn't infringe on rights they questioned privileges. Some will never understand the difference. If you need a permit it is not a right it's a privilege. Government has violated that many times concerning firearms ownership, but there never has been a right to own native wildlife species. So again you have blown smoke to obscure the obvious comparison of apples to oranges. It appears to truly do not understand.

Please so everyone will understand this Google rights vs privileges.

Wikipedia: 


> A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.


----------



## spentwings

Privileges, rights, opinions, dropping mescaline vs. drinking muscatel?,,, It's all pretty confusing in my book.
Keep it simple plains and you'll win over gst every time,,,muddy the water and you'll sound just like him and the NDFB.


----------



## Plainsman

Point well taken spent, and I am aware it's always a balancing act. One must not look to picky. Please allow me to explain my point.

Wildlife Law Enforcement by Willian F. Sigler

This man wrote the book on wildlife law enforcement for all federal and state agencies. I took his course through Utah State University.

Page 80 Chapter 5 Rights of Private Citizens under Wildlife Law: Ownership of Wildlife a Privilege


> Since the state or the federal government are custodians of the game in its wild state and in its sovereign capacity, it follows than an individual cannot obtain absolute property rights to the game except upon such conditions, restrictions, and limitations as the state or federal government permits. Further the individual acquires absolute property rights to wildlife only as a matter of privilege and not as a right.


The federal government has many Acts such as the Lacey Act that requires states to follow federal restrictions. For that reason raising deer and elk will always remain a privilege in any given state and will never under our current federal constitution become a right. That is very interesting because the deer and elk ranches will find no protection under this proposed state constitution. It's a slight of hand where we are to look at a recent initiative as the boogieman while they pass an amendment that will open the flood gate (no pun intended) for tile and drain projects. Unfortunately it may give them some liability protection when damage downstream is directly related to these projects. Perhaps it's just a membership drive and the NDFB just wants to make average Joe Farmer think they are doing something for him. Other than ticking off the public that is.


----------



## Csquared

> It's all pretty confusing in my book.
> Keep it simple plains and you'll win over gst every time,,,


It's ridiculously simple, spent. I'm sure we all know the meaning of the word privilege. But just in case, Plainsman posted the definition...



> Wikipedia:
> 
> A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.


That's important, but not nearly as important as the context in which the other side of the argument has tried to tie the word to the non-existent ability of the legislature to regulate ag _*AFTER*_ the constitution is amended to say it can't.

It has been presented here that sect 21 of Article 1 is the sole means the pro side of this measure is counting on to convince voters they will still have a voice, through the legislature, to regulate the ag industry. But remember, Article 1 is the *RIGHTS* section of the document that limits *GOVERNMENT*, and is written *by the people*. It is explaining the limitations imposed on the government by the constitution, and in the case of sec 21 is explaining how the legislature cannot play fovorites or effectively ignore any particular segment of society. It is clearly explaining limits on the authority granted by the constitution to the legislature to write laws. That's what the legislature does. They grant and revoke privileges by writing laws. Laws that are *NOT* prohibited by the constitution.

The constitution, on the other hand, protects God-given *RIGHTS* by telling the legislature what they can *NOT* do to what the people have identified as *rights*. And adding an amendment that clearly says *"NO LAW SHALL BE ENACTED"* is as simple as can be, and for some to imply one section of the constitution grants powers that are forbidden in another part of the same document is disingenuous at best. It's kinda like a CEO establishing a set of rules for his upper management, and including in those rules a provision for upper management to change *HIS* rules. Wouldn't make a lick of sense, would it?

But the simplest way to sum it up from my perspective is with the yet-to-be-answered question of how will this amendment give the people of ND the power to deny HSUS and PETA involvement in the legislative process if it still allows the legislature to legislate against it?

As written, it simply couldn't be any more simple :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Besides it does not prevent PETA FROM SUING IN COURT OVER ANYTHING! Gst is simply using PETA as a scare tactic to win support, to avoid talking about the meaning and power grab that this measure really is!


----------



## Csquared

The court issues are another subject, Ron...as you've accurately articulated previously. Will be a litigational nightmare by providing an entirely new avenue for challenges to ANY law(s) ag doesn't like.

But you guys better get some legal guys involved fairly soon, since the way I understand ND constitutional law there aren't many avenues for you to _force_ public discourse prior to a vote


----------



## indsport

LOL. Stopped by to see if the discussion has changed and it clearly has not. The discussion about HF keeps coming up and is not germane to the topic which is the farming amendment. Supporters of the amendment are still asking questions of other commenters. Supporters still have not provided additional information addressing the vagueness of the amendment. I'll check back in another week or so to see if the discussion has changed.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> But you guys better get some legal guys involved fairly soon, since the way I understand ND constitutional law there aren't many avenues for you to _force_ public discourse prior to a vote


So you are now saying Nodak and partners law firm are not good enough? 

There actally has been "disclosure" given by the ND AG's office in fromal and informal means regarding the affects of measures having "statewide significance" prior. One such example was given here regarding the HF measure as to claims what it would not do legally in restricting the ability to sell the "harvest" of an animal.

Plainsman, so you are not going to address the "backpedaling" and "ducking for cover" calims you made????

Ron still kinda confused wether you are claiming this measure will make "current" laws "null and void" ????

Spent, you see the waters do indeed get muddied on this site quite often. The example that started this whole 40 plus page discussion. Bruce makes very specific claims as to what this measure will do and then when pressed on it admits Federal regulations will indeed prevent the claims he has made from happening. He claims this measure will allow "farming without restrictions", and then claims he never said it would make the current restrictions that prevent the previous claims he made "null and void".

So which is it??

Will the Federal regulations prevent feedlots from being built so the spring flood washaway manure???

Will the current state laws that prevent these specific claims from happening be declared null and void ???? 
If they are not, how will what they are preventing now suddnly be allowed to happen? 
How can you "farm without restrictions" if there exists current "restrictions" that are ot made "null and void"?

Will this measure take away the ability of the state legislature to continue to create and impose regulatory law to prevent these claims???

Do you begin to see where "opinions" not held to some degree of factual accountability "muddy the waters"?

That is the whole purpose behind the people making these claims. Prior to making these claims, if plainsman had truly wished for the "truth" to be known regarding this measure he could have made any number of attempts to gather and provide information from sources not impeachable unless one is so blindly bias you have lost all common sense. Or he could have simply said I have concerns wether the intent of this measure can be accomplished without limiting our legislative bodies necessary abilities. Instead his admitted hatred of NDFB and persons involved in the dialogue, as has also been admitted to by others involved in this dialogue, clouded his reasoning and these very specific claims were made. If you are going to make SPECIFIC claims, even on these talk foums, expect to have to substantiate them.

So when admitted hatred and bias for someone or some org is the basis for an individuals involvement in a discussion, how much credibility can you give the claims of that individual who has that reason as his sole purpose for being involved in the dialogue??

How much will this personal animousity muddy the waters with juvenile personal claims rather than direct factual discussion about the affects a constitutional amendment may or may not have?

But hey we haven;t seen anything like that on this site on these topics have we??   :wink:


----------



## gst

indsport said:


> LOL. Stopped by to see if the discussion has changed and it clearly has not. The discussion about HF keeps coming up and is not germane to the topic which is the farming amendment. Supporters of the amendment are still asking questions of other commenters. Supporters still have not provided additional information addressing the vagueness of the amendment. I'll check back in another week or so to see if the discussion has changed.


As an adamant HFH measure supporter, you can continue to deny the previous attempt to ban an animal agriculture industry in our state has "nothing to do with this farming measure" if you wish, but most people not so blindly consumed by this agenda can see otherwise.

Did you notice where opponents of this measure have provided any "addiional information" supporting their claims as to the specific nature of what this measure will do?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, so you are not going to address the "backpedaling" and "ducking for cover" calims you made????


Yes, you said shaug was a representative of NDFB. That's what I relayed, but shaug denied he was a representative. Something about not being a board member, but I never said he was. Yes, you guys run in circles and never answer questions.

Example: You will not address the fact that if this amendment goes through there are no assurances that today's regulations will be here tomorrow. NDFB wants to abolish regulations. If that happens what protection do we have against this amendment?

Also, there is serious push to abolish EPA. If that happens who enforces the regulations? Do you really think it would be done at the state level? I don't because I can't even get an answer to what is in my own well on my property. The politicians and ag groups in North Dakota would hang a state employee who tried to enforce regulations. There are to many in our legislature with an agenda for agriculture over all other people. Agriculture groups like NDFB have to much hold on our politicians and state agencies.


----------



## spentwings

You can't debate with a man that equates talk forum opinions with unsubstantiated claims and demands proof.
gst is an insufferable agendaist and sounds more like a politician than a rancher.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know you guys so gst are you really a representative of NDSA and if so what is your official title? It would be nice to know exactly what your guys dog is in this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> plainsman, if you do not know by now I am on the board of the NDSA elected to represent district 6, you really have not been following many threads very closely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's what I thought, but there has been statements made, then backpedaling and diving for cover.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me by posting it where I have EVER "backpedaled" or "dove for cover" regarding my "position" in the NDSA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then Bruce can we just assume this is yet one more claim along with how many others you have made you can not substantiate?
Click to expand...

Bruce the claims you made were regarding my involvement with the NDSA not shaugs and the NDFB.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> You can't debate with a man that equates talk forum opinions with unsubstantiated claims and demands proof.
> gst is an insufferable agendaist and sounds more like a politician than a rancher.


So spent if a "talk forum opinion" is not "unsubstantiated claims" (particularily in this case), exactly what is it?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Yes, you said shaug was a representative of NDFB. That's what I relayed, but shaug denied he was a representative


Maybe I missed it so could you post where shaug has done as you claim?


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't debate with a man that equates talk forum opinions with unsubstantiated claims and demands proof.
> gst is an insufferable agendaist and sounds more like a politician than a rancher.
> 
> 
> 
> So spent if a "talk forum opinion" is not "unsubstantiated claims" (particularily in this case), exactly what is it?
Click to expand...

They're the same,,,but unsubstantiated claims demanding proof is what's so ridiculous.
You don't have anything but picking posts apart and asking "Is that to much to ask" to prove the unprovable.
Little men with big agendas,,,are still little men.

And before you ask,,,does that include HFH measure supporters? Yeah in my opinion it does.
Unfortunately from your perspective, you can't accuse me of being of being one of them.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> You can't debate with a man that equates talk forum opinions with unsubstantiated claims and demands proof.
> gst is an insufferable agendaist and sounds more like a politician than a rancher.





spentwings said:


> They're the same,,,but unsubstantiated claims demanding proof is what's so ridiculous.
> You don't have anything but picking posts apart and asking "Is that to much to ask" to prove the unprovable.
> Little men with big agendas,,,are still little men


Spent I do appreciate your answering questions as you have. If they are indeed the same, ("opinions" and "unsubstantiated claims") why then could they not be "equated" to each other?

Aswer me this if you would please. In regards to the discussion of the creation of law or amending our constitution from which all laws are weighed, which would you rather have the conversations discussing these important items based on, factual truth or "unsubstantiated claims"?

Spent I do beleive I have hilited your opposition to the HFH measure.


----------



## Plainsman

> I am not an NDFB board member.


I don't know who called him that. I only called him a representative after you did. Still it's hard to tie you guys down. I was convinced you were a member of the NDSA, but I just wanted you to say it so I could be sure. Still it's hard to be sure even after you say it. So much bull droppings come from you guys.



> Bruce the claims you made were regarding my involvement with the NDSA not shaugs and the NDFB.





> I don't know you guys so gst are you really a representative of NDSA and if so what is your official title?


Struggling with English again gst? See the S on "guys"? However, bickering about these petty things is just a smoke screen to keep from talking about the real subject. It's so bad you have to misdirect the conversation.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't debate with a man that equates talk forum opinions with unsubstantiated claims and demands proof.
> gst is an insufferable agendaist and sounds more like a politician than a rancher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're the same,,,but unsubstantiated claims demanding proof is what's so ridiculous.
> You don't have anything but picking posts apart and asking "Is that to much to ask" to prove the unprovable.
> Little men with big agendas,,,are still little men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spent I do appreciate your answering questions as you have. If they are indeed the same, ("opinions" and "unsubstantiated claims") why then could they not be "equated" to each other?
> 
> Aswer me this if you would please. In regards to the discussion of the creation of law or amending our constitution from which all laws are weighed, which would you rather have the conversations discussing these important items based on, factual truth or "unsubstantiated claims"?
> 
> Spent I do beleive I have hilited your opposition to the HFH measure.
Click to expand...

I'm really tired of your play on words gst. Unsubstantiated claims is how you define opinions...sure they're same but with the nuance of your demand for proof.
What factual truth? Your reassurance that a vague right to farm amendment is nothing to worry about because federal
regs will supersede????,,,give me a break.


----------



## Plainsman

> What factual truth? You're reassurance that a vague right to farm amendment is nothing to worry about because federal
> regs will supersede,,,give me a break.


That and his "assurance" that the legislature can change the constitution that the people voted on. That in itself is ducking for cover. The amendment is so bad that they can't point out good things, only imaginary controls that gst imagines can help. I guess he doesn't understand that all he has is opinions, and no substantiation, but that's ok because he's gst the hot shot at NDSA. I'm only looking at a computer screen, but still I can almost hear his chest thumping. Two NDFB and NDSA hacks trying to force their will on the people through Trojan Horse amendments.

Spent I enjoy your commentary even when it makes me sting. Stick around until the above becomes absolutely clear. Why? Because I think your response is going to double me over laughing. :thumb:


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> Spent I enjoy your commentary even when it makes me sting. Stick around until the above becomes absolutely clear. Why? Because I think your response is going to double me over laughing. :thumb:


When this becomes clear plains?
Maybe,,,in 12/12/12 when the planets align, the sun sets in the East of never, and gst is an organic farmer selling goat cheese.
Until then,,,and only then, I expect my sting to be tolerated.! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spent I enjoy your commentary even when it makes me sting. Stick around until the above becomes absolutely clear. Why? Because I think your response is going to double me over laughing. :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> When this becomes clear plains?
> Maybe,,,in 12/12/12 when the planets align, the sun sets in the East of never, and gst is an organic farmer selling goat cheese.
> Until then,,,and only then, I expect my sting to be tolerated.! :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

  I guess I shouldn't hold my breath then.  12-12-12 will come, and the chance of the sun setting in the east has a chance and gst may actually sell goat chease, but the chance of him having an open mind about the NDFB amendment ------- ok I got your point. :wink:

Speaking of 12-12-12 I think that Mayan calendar mentioned something about HSUS and the Fair Chase Committee. :rollin: gst has proof. Just ask he will send it to you.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you said shaug was a representative of NDFB. That's what I relayed, but shaug denied he was a representative
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I missed it so could you post where shaug has done as you claim?
Click to expand...

So Bruce now just for the record, are you admitting shaug did not say what you claimed he said?



Plainsman said:


> Struggling with English again gst? See the S on "guys"? However, bickering about these petty things is just a smoke screen to keep from talking about the real subject. It's so bad you have to misdirect the conversation.


Bruce your use of the English language is quite clear and easy to understand. You repeatedly claim people say or do things they simply did not. Some people have a word for that. :wink: I actually think there is a page on it in the HSUS manuel! :wink:

It really has little to do with being a "smoke screen", but simply a reference to your credibility of what you type on here hiding behind your computer screen. You mentioned letters to the editor once in this dialogue. Please realize that in order for them to be printed you do have to include your name and address. No level of anonimity hiding behind a computer screen.

As I said before once the NDFB decides wether they will gain enough signatures to place this one the ballot, they will then most likely have to address these "claims/opinions/rhetoric" that is being presented regarding this measure to gain enough support for it's passage. Until then Nodak and Co. legal firm will just have to keep giving their "opinions" in the "informal" manner they have! 

That is unless any one cares enough to get the truth to the concerns given thru a process suggested previously with a little more "legal backing"! :wink:


----------



## gst

Guys, as the election is in Nov. (11/6/12) it should "become clear" long before 12/12/12! Come on guys inform yourselves a little to the political process!!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Speaking of 12-12-12 I think that Mayan calendar mentioned something about HSUS and the Fair Chase Committee. gst has proof. Just ask he will send it to you.


Bruce did the Mayans admit to something in the Dakota Coutry magazine? :wink: I missed that issue!


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I'm not familiar with the NDFB. I tried to find representatives, but didn't. I did find board members like the on below. I Xed out the names because it is no use bringing names into this. I totally deleted information about family. So this is what I find on the NDFB website. You said shaug was a representative. So what is his title exactly? Lets not play games, just come out and tell me what he is.



> District 7 Director
> 
> Hazen-area rancher XXXX XXXX was elected to the North Dakota Farm Bureau Board of Directors in 2008. As the District 7 Director, XXXX will represent Farm Bureau members in Mercer, Oliver, Morton, Grant, Sioux, Emmons and Burleigh Counties.
> 
> XXXX is a long-time 4-H leader and has been active on the Mercer County Farm Bureau Board, serving as vice president and secretary.


Plainsman wrote:


> Ron, somewhere gst said shaug was a NDFB representative


Shaug wrote:


> I am not an NDFB board member


gst wrote:


> plainsman, there is a distinct difference between being a "board member" and simply carrying a petition as a "representative" of NDFB.


Confusing isn't it? I don't know if I got that all right or not, but I'm not to worried because that is all simply cover you guys are trying to hide behind. See, the subject is the amendment. Still, I would like to know what shaug is. I can't find representatives only board members. So is it shaugs daddy that is the board member, no one is a board member, someone is a board member what???????? :homer:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Guys, as the election is in Nov. (11/6/12) it should "become clear" long before 12/12/12! Come on guys inform yourselves a little to the political process!!


Truly,,,and my predication (opinion) is that any unbiased legislator that connives for this amendment as it stands now,,,
will loose office. The general public,,,,well that's another matter. Agendaists are sleaze balls and you're really starting 
piss me off gst.


----------



## Csquared

> you're really starting piss me off gst.


Have a drink, spent...he aint worth it :wink:

The facts are not in his favor or we wouldn't be 23 pages into him still asking irrelevant questions, demanding opinions be substantiated, futilely trying to discredit people who dare to post against his agenda, and refusing to acknowledge what NDFB's legal experts have informed him about the effect of the measure.

gst wrote:


> So you are now saying Nodak and partners law firm are not good enough?


Not saying that at all. It's actually quite the contrary. We're spot-on accurate. If we were wrong you would have stopped short of *NOTHING* to put the proof on here long ago...at *ANY* cost. Afterall, we _ARE_ talking about a guy who used multiple paragraphs here arguing the difference between "vague" and "broad".....not exactly the tactics of someone who would roll over and allow his entire position to be blown out of the water if he had any way to prevent it.

You're not foolin anybody, gst. I personally don't think you give the people of ND the credit they deserve :shake:


----------



## Plainsman

It should be painfully obvious to shaug and gst that they are doing more damage than good for what they think is their cause. I know, I know, they are doing us a big favor, but they should understand that this amendment is so bad it turns people off. I would be willing to bet they will not get the idea and keep it up. I'm interested to see how many more pages it will go. :lol:

We don't want it, and we don't think you guys are being intellectually honest with us. The more you talk the worse it looks. I don't know but if I was a NDSA member I would want a new representative in place of gst. If I was a member of NDFB I would drop my membership so people didn't think I was that wacked out. Luckily I only represent myself so I'll keep these two going as long as they want to keep cutting their own throat. Get a bucket gst is going to go for the left carotid. :wink:

Terrible amendment guys. Some control vs out of control. If it passes the tile and drain contractors will make a mint. Of course they will be the only winners. Farmers just think they will be winners, but that is questionable too.

I heard an add on a Fargo radio station today advertising that tiling your land is good for the environment. Ya, like colonel sanders is a chickens best friend.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Agendaists are sleaze balls and you're really starting
> piss me off gst.


Recall if you would a comment about a few people on this site getting their undies bunched when someone simply does not accept the "party line" and fall into the ranks? 

plainsamn, you make your "claims" and then backpedal, "explain", and spin all over the place just to avoid saying "hey I claimed someone said something they did not". :-?



Csquared said:


> You're not foolin anybody, gst. I personally don't think you give the people of ND the credit they deserve


Actually C squared the people of ND are alot smarter than some on here beleive. They listened to the very same kind of "claims" regarding a measure a couple of years ago and said they did not approve. :wink:

They sat and watched a group of "hunters" invite the nations largest anti hunting org into our state to selfishly push an elitist personal agenda. The people of ND said no thanks.

The trouble is these "elitists" as spent calls them are not willing to simply let that be. And if this new measure is successful, it will make their next attempt at banning the captive cervid industry that much harder if even possible. They KNOW that and are making any claim they can to prevent it from being successful. THAT is why we are 40 plus pages into this debate with the whos who of the HFH measure sponsor and supporters argueing their cause and making claims they have yet not poven factual with any sort of "legal backing". :wink: . Do;t beleive me, go back thru some of th old HFH threads and see just who was making claims and spouting off in their supporting the banning of an animal ag industry.



Csquared said:


> If we were wrong you would have stopped short of NOTHING to put the proof on here long ago...at ANY cost.


So c squared, given the juvenile name calling and accusations that a few on here have made the norm, don;t you think the same would indeed be true if they could "prove" shaug or I wrong with an unbiased factual proof" with credible "legal backing"?

The FACT here is these "opinions" will continue to be bantered about by this same small group of people until they are indeed factuallly addressed by the org sponsoring this measure. I will simply wait until I hear from someone abit more"credible" than a talk forum internet site "expert" on constitutional law.

You guys try not to make too many more claims about what someone said that they in fact did not say and hopefully we can see if enough signatures are collected andI'd imagine the "claims" will start anew with a vigor not yet seen at that time. :roll:


----------



## Csquared

> So c squared, given the juvenile name calling and accusations that a few on here have made the norm, don;t you think the same would indeed be true if they could "prove" shaug or I wrong with an unbiased factual proof" with credible "legal backing"?


They did. They showed you exactly why the legislature's hands will be tied and used verbatim verbiage from the state constitution as proof.

You're the only one who won't acknowledge it. It's not their fault you can't understand it.

Even shaug has shut up about it.

"They", as you call them, have nothing more to say. You asked for proof and it was provided. They can't force you to understand or acknowledge. So go back to "your people" and have them tell you what to do next...because as Plainsman so eloquently put it...this isn't working for you.


----------



## leadfed

Gabe you play that hsus/peta angle for one reason and that is as a scare tactic plain and simple. No one on here wants to stop you or I from raising our cows. If anyone does please post now. Like I said before if this measure was about HSUS/peta and any other anti group of the sort we would all be getting petitions signed.....but its not.

Ok now that we are clear on that we can touch on the main issue with this measure as written at this point. It is has the destinct potential of putting you in situation where you can go about any future "modern farming practices" without regulation....right? We all know about the current laws/regulations that are in effect but that is NOT the point.

Gabe, virtually every profession in the USA today has some sort of regulation. The oil industry does, the medical field does, the school systems do, law enforcement does....see where I'm going? Now why in sam hell do you think you do not need to be regulated? What happens if one of your neighbors decides to practice a "modern farming practice" that is adversly affecting your operation and the only way to cure the problem is through regulation? You will no longer be able to do that. That is one instance of litterally hundreds that could evolve in the future if this measure goes through as written.

It is TOOOOOO vague, you know that, yet you still defend it by using hsus and peta. I don't get it? It kinda makes you look psychotic really. I think you need to cross the fence for awhile and think of it from the other side and decide if you still believe it is the right way to go. In the end if it passes the way it is worded it could very possibly come back to bite you right in the ***. Or someone else but we already know you could give two ****s about adversly affecting someone else as long as you got yours.


----------



## Plainsman

> Gabe you play that hsus/peta angle for one reason and that is as a scare tactic plain and simple. No one on here wants to stop you or I from raising our cows. If anyone does please post now. Like I said before if this measure was about HSUS/peta and any other anti group of the sort we would all be getting petitions signed.....but its not


exactly, and yet gst tries to insinuate that because I debated for the high fence initiative that I don't want this. He implies that I don't want it because I want another shot at the high fence industry. Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS. Now, get this: I stated that if they made this an animal ag bill aimed at protection from HSUS and PETA that I would personally sign the petition. Yet he tries to make people think I am against it because it would protect animal agriculture. Honest? I think not. Deceptive? I think very much so.

These guys have pooped in their nest and those in ag have seen it. Now the only way out is try to discredit any and all opposition. You can be stubborn and wrong, and you can be stubborn and right, but being stubborn doesn't make you right, and doesn't equate with wisdom.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> They did.You asked for proof and it was provided.


With the "legal backing" ron demands???? I missed that! I keep telling you guys, I don;t think a judge would by the explaination "well the legal minds on Nodak Outdoors said so!"  



leadfed said:


> Now why in sam hell do you think you do not need to be regulated?


Man it must be a disease on here. *Please show where I have EVER said that.* If you wish I can post whereI have made the exact OPPOSITE statement. :roll:



leadfed said:


> No one on here wants to stop you or I from raising our cows.


There is a whole big world outside of Nodak Outdoors! :wink: If you truly beleive no one is working an agenda to end "us raising our cows" you are a fool. 


leadfed said:


> I think you need to cross the fence for awhile and think of it from the other side and decide if you still believe it is the right way to go.


If you recall I have stated if indeed this measure will remove all regulations such as you claims, I will not support it with a vote for it



Plainsman said:


> Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS.


.

So plainsamn, here in your own words you have admitted that you knew HSUS was involved prior to becoming a sponsor the second go around. That means you had to know they were contacted in the first go around. That is unless you were privy to a plann to include them in the second go all along. *Thanks for finally admitting that*. And we ALL know they were invited once again into the second attempt by a group of ND "Sportsmen" (NDH for FC) to accomplish a personal agenda. Kind of a "deal with the devil" I guess. And yet even knowing this involvement as you have just admitted to, you STILL argued in support of this measure adamantly every chance you got *and tried to tell people there was no connection*??????? And now you are asking people to just take your word in this measure?????

And you guys want to demonize NDFB??????? You claim "we won't get the truth from NDFB representatives"???????

But hey HSUS does not want to be involved here in ND in ending an animal agriculture enterprise right??? You guys are a peice of work! :roll:

The who's who of the HFH debate in supporters and sponsor making claims/opinions/accusations opposing a measure which was jump started as a result of their measure to attempt to prevent that sort of thing from happening again claiming that it has no bearing on their opposition and demonizing this measure, org., and individuals?????



Plainsman said:


> Honest? I think not. Deceptive? I think very much so


I couldn;t have said it better myself!!!  Just how ignorant do you think people are? :roll: Perhaps you still hope people bleive there was no HSUS connection in the hFH meaure attempt. Oh wait, plainsman admitted as a sponsor he knew there was.



Plainsman said:


> *Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS*.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Csquared said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did.You asked for proof and it was provided.
> 
> 
> 
> With the "legal backing" ron demands???? I missed that! I keep telling you guys, I don;t think a judge would by the explaination "well the legal minds on Nodak Outdoors said so!"
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now why in sam hell do you think you do not need to be regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man it must be a disease on here. *Please show where I have EVER said that.* If you wish I can post whereI have made the exact OPPOSITE statement. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one on here wants to stop you or I from raising our cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a whole big world outside of Nodak Outdoors! :wink: If you truly beleive no one is working an agenda to end "us raising our cows" you are a fool.
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to cross the fence for awhile and think of it from the other side and decide if you still believe it is the right way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you recall I have stated if indeed this measure will remove all regulations such as you claims, I will not support it with a vote for it
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> So plainsamn, here in your own words you have admitted that you knew HSUS was involved prior to becoming a sponsor the second go around. That means you had to know they were contacted in the first go around. That is unless you were privy to a plann to include them in the second go all along. *Thanks for finally admitting that*. And we ALL know they were invited once again into the second attempt by a group of ND "Sportsmen" (NDH for FC) to accomplish a personal agenda. Kind of a "deal with the devil" I guess. And yet even knowing this involvement as you have just admitted to, you STILL argued in support of this measure adamantly every chance you got *and tried to tell people there was no connection*??????? And now you are asking people to just take your word in this measure?????
> 
> And you guys want to demonize NDFB??????? You claim "we won't get the truth from NDFB representatives"???????
> 
> But hey HSUS does not want to be involved here in ND in ending an animal agriculture enterprise right??? You guys are a peice of work! :roll:
> 
> The who's who of the HFH debate in supporters and sponsor making claims/opinions/accusations opposing a measure which was jump started as a result of their measure to attempt to prevent that sort of thing from happening again claiming that it has no bearing on their opposition and demonizing this measure, org., and individuals?????
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest? I think not. Deceptive? I think very much so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn;t have said it better myself!!!  Just how ignorant do you think people are? :roll: Perhaps you still hope people bleive there was no HSUS connection in the hFH meaure attempt. Oh wait, plainsman admitted as a sponsor he knew there was.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Gst you my friend are a dip ****. You knew exactly what I was saying yet you twist it around to act like I am lying. You dont want FURTHER regulation. You are regulated now I know that idiot, but what you want is no FURTHER regulation which is just as bad. Like talking to a god damn mud fence I tell ya!lol


----------



## spentwings

gst,,,been dealing to sell an airgun to a 13 yr old in Washington State. 
How I got into that I'm not sure considering I lost my ***,,,but starting to think you could learn a few things from him,,,
like honesty and maturity. Maybe that's why I gave him such a good deal.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman wrote: Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS.


Gst responded:


> So plainsamn, here in your own words you have admitted that you knew HSUS was involved prior to becoming a sponsor the second go around.


I can't decide if your drunk, dishonest, stupid, or all of the above. That's not an accusation of any of those, but I do have to wonder. I was not a sponsor the second time around. You know that, but you try make others believe otherwise. I just got through explaining it, yet here you are ignoring facts and spewing more of your bull droppings.

Now try your best to understand this. I will explain it for the tenth or more time. I sponsored the first time. People said HSUS was involved, but I had no faith in the people who said it because they lie about other things. Then some convinced me, and further down the road I again did not believe it. All through the first go around I kept changing my mind because of different messages I got. At one time you said you had proof that you would send me, but you never did. So again I thought it was a lie. That time it was your fault I thought it was a lie. We were nearly to the second go around when someone who I did trust said yes HSUS and Roger had talked. That's all I know. I still think they contacted him. The problem is liars twist this, but now they want us to believe them again. Sure you bet.

gst with your above comment I have zero faith in anything you say. Also, no one else should believe a word you say. Your caught red handed as they say.


----------



## spentwings

My advice plains?
There's no reason to continue this thread,,,shut it down.
You can't be rational with the irrational.
BTW,,,drunk is my malady,,,not gst's.


----------



## leadfed

spentwings said:


> My advice plains?
> There's no reason to continue this thread,,,shut it down.
> You can't be rational with the irrational.
> In fact, think I start a new thread. _*Why we, the rational, are spinning our wheels when respounding to gst's irrationality.*_


 :thumb:

I agree spent. As a matter of fact I say we just ban him all together. Like I said before he is just as harmful to the sportsman as HSUS PETA combined. Nice appreciation to everyone who donates to his paycheck so he can run an "economically profitable" operation.


----------



## spentwings

Well I thought that a little immature gst ,,,reason for the edit.
He'll never be banned,,,maybe you or me,,,but never him. :wink:


----------



## huntin1

leadfed said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> My advice plains?
> There's no reason to continue this thread,,,shut it down.
> You can't be rational with the irrational.
> In fact, think I start a new thread. _*Why we, the rational, are spinning our wheels when respounding to gst's irrationality.*_
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:
> 
> I agree spent. As a matter of fact I say we just ban him all together. Like I said before he is just as harmful to the sportsman as HSUS PETA combined. Nice appreciation to everyone who donates to his paycheck so he can run an "economically profitable" operation.
Click to expand...

Naa, leave him on here. The irrational ramblings of both gst and shaug hurt the organizations they represent way more than help them. Just about everytime I read one of their post this pops in my head:










  :laugh: :laugh:

:beer: :beer:

huntin1


----------



## gst

Jeesh guys, I thought the "topic" was about the NDFB amedment not me???  The panties really are in a bunch aren't they! 

You guys just can not help yourself making it about the person that disagrees with you rather than the issue.



Plainsman said:


> I can't decide if your drunk, dishonest, stupid, or all of the above. That's not an accusation of any of those, but I do have to wonder. I was not a sponsor the second time around. You know that, but you try make others believe otherwise. I just got through explaining it, yet here you are ignoring facts and spewing more of your bull droppings.


plainsamn please show me where I have ever stated you were a sponsor inthe second measure attempt.



Plainsman said:


> At one time you said you had proof that you would send me, but you never did.


Please show me where I ever claimed I had "proof" that I would send you. And please remember you can not "edit" things on FBO after 30 minutes. Remember we had this discussion once before.



Plainsman said:


> Then some convinced me, and further down the road I again did not believe it. All through the first go around I kept changing my mind because of different messages I got. At one time you said you had proof that you would send me, but you never did. So again I thought it was a lie. That time it was your fault I thought it was a lie. We were nearly to the second go around when someone who I did trust said yes HSUS and Roger had talked. That's all I know. I still think they contacted him. The problem is liars twist this,


Indeed they do plainsamn, indeed they do! :roll:



Plainsman said:


> Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS.[/quote]
> 
> So which exactly is it Bruce, did you know HSUS was involved the first time?? And yet you adamantly denied any involvement all thru the debate of the second measure right up untill HSUS actually was involved. Even then you denied it until the sponsors themselves admitted talking ith HSUS and giving them the go ahead. Recall your folowing admission.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were nearly to the second go around when someone who I did trust said yes HSUS and Roger had talked
Click to expand...

So are you know saying this person whom you trusted is a liar?

Indeed shut this thread down, there is yet two more started to take it's place! :roll: Complete with the same unsubstantiated claims. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember.





Plainsman said:


> I can't decide if your drunk, dishonest, stupid, or all of the above. That's not an accusation of any of those, but I do have to wonder. I was not a sponsor the second time around. You know that, but you try make others believe otherwise.


It appears your "memory" suddenly got better??? :wink: 

Tell you what plains, just show by posting where I have claimed you were a sponsor the second attempt to ban a "legaly defined" animal agriculture enterprise and this will all be cleared up. If you do not, it goes directly to your credibility of any other claim you make.


----------



## Plainsman

gst stated:


> you knew HSUS was involved prior to becoming a sponsor the second go around.


gst stated:


> Tell you what plains, just show by posting where I have claimed you were a sponsor the second attempt


Trying to play stupid so your honesty isn't questioned?

More twisting turning, and attempted deceiving:



> Plainsman wrote: We were nearly to the second go around when someone who I did trust said yes HSUS and Roger had talked


gst responded with:


> So are you know saying this person whom you trusted is a liar?


Didn't I just say in the sentence you quoted "someone who I did trust"? In our PM's between us you know I was unhappy about HSUS getting their nose into it. You knew that was one of the reasons I didn't sponsor the second time. What's wrong gst that connection you keep trying to make with me and your poster boogieman slipping through your fingers. You must be frantic. How are those petitions going? Ya I have heard some stories that make me grin. Not the type of stories we hear from shaug either.
Speaking of shaug he called people cowards who hide behind screen names, or was that you? I don't think I know who he is. Maybe you would like to help us with that. :wink: Odd thing is shaug was always asking who people were, who they worked with, who they worked for, when they worked together etc. We know who you are because your a hot shot with the NDSA and you want people to know you.

You know gst at one time I offered to sign that petition if it was for animal agriculture only. Now I understand that was a mistake, because animal agriculture can be polluters also.

You know gst I was angry at my neighbor because he drained his septic system into my yard. A friend of mine reminded me that we are commanded to love our neighbor. I felt guilty. You know what this amendment says? It screams: My neighbor? My neighbor? My neighbor can go to he!!.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Jeesh guys, I thought the "topic" was about the NDFB amedment not me???  The panties really are in a bunch aren't they!
> 
> You guys just can not help yourself making it about the person that disagrees with you rather than the issue.
> 
> Indeed shut this thread down, there is yet two more started to take it's place! :roll: Complete with the same unsubstantiated claims. :eyeroll:


Speaking only for myself gst, rationally trying to discuss anything with you is so frustrating it's hard not to get personal.
Stupid I know,,,as it does nothing but play into your victim persona which is really all you have.

As for the thread I started, I'm going to have plains take it down.
Thinking I might be able to keep it based on opinions and not unsubstantiated claims with demands for proof
was irrationality in the extreme.


----------



## Duckslayer100

Oh for the love of.... 23 pages of circles?! Do you not see the futility of this??? Aren't you guys dizzy yet? Once and for all, just hash out a date (please don't let it take another 23 pages to figure out a time and place that works with everyone) and meet up somewhere to settle all your difference! Pistols at dawn? Cage fights? Maybe a good old fashion game of chess? I know: get drunk and bar-room box. Then everyone is happy...especially the spectators.

Seriously, every dang thread that starts in here is the same 3-4 posters spouting off, misconstruing everything that is said by everyone else. I can't even pick sides anymore...its embarrassing to watch.

I can't believe the amount of time and energy spent on what has largely evolved into drivel...it's mind numbing.


----------



## spentwings

Your chastisement is well deserved and suspect we'll all take it to heart. :lol:


----------



## leadfed

Duckslayer100 said:


> Oh for the love of.... 23 pages of circles?! Do you not see the futility of this??? Aren't you guys dizzy yet? Once and for all, just hash out a date (please don't let it take another 23 pages to figure out a time and place that works with everyone) and meet up somewhere to settle all your difference! Pistols at dawn? Cage fights? Maybe a good old fashion game of chess? I know: get drunk and bar-room box. Then everyone is happy...especially the spectators.
> 
> Seriously, every dang thread that starts in here is the same 3-4 posters spouting off, misconstruing everything that is said by everyone else. I can't even pick sides anymore...its embarrassing to watch.
> 
> I can't believe the amount of time and energy spent on what has largely evolved into drivel...it's mind numbing.


I know!!!!!!!! How bout a ranch rodeo! :lol:


----------



## KurtR

That would take 100 page thread just to debate where the horses will be allowed to crap and how hsus is going to hurt the future of ranch rodeos. I have no facts to back this up other than the first 23 pages on here.


----------



## Duckslayer100

KurtR said:


> That would take 100 page thread just to debate where the horses will be allowed to crap and how hsus is going to hurt the future of ranch rodeos. I have no facts to back this up other than the first 23 pages on here.


It's funny and sad at the same time.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Tell you what plains, just show by posting where I have claimed you were a sponsor the second attempt to ban a "legaly defined" animal agriculture enterprise and this will all be cleared up. If you do not, it goes directly to your credibility of any other claim you make.


So I take it you are not going to show where I have suggested you were a sponsor the 2nd go as you claimed I have?  
Go figure! :wink:



leadfed said:


> I know!!!!!!!! How bout a ranch rodeo!


We have a series of them up here at Antler, bring your pony and come on up if you would like!!!! You might be surprised at what you find! 



KurtR said:


> That would take 100 page thread just to debate where the horses will be allowed to crap and how hsus is going to hurt the future of ranch rodeos.


As long as the horses weren;t tied where the spring rains would wash the manure into the river we should be alright! :wink: 

You should check out the HSUS position on rodeos though, particularily "steer tipping" !


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should check out the HSUS position on rodeos though, particularily "steer tipping" !
Click to expand...

You mean steer tRipping there cowboy? Or maybe thats the way you do it thar in Antler. :wink:


----------



## gst

lead, if you have been in many ranch rodeos, you gotta know that "tRippin" the steer is not allowed, you have to actually "tip" the steer by hand in the steer muggin. :wink: At least that's how we do it up here in Antler! 

Like I said, bring your pony up and have a go this summer, you might just be surprised! :wink:

But hey you are right, steer "tRipping" is one of the events HSUS specifically hilights in their position against rodeos.

spent, you once asked for a little glimpse into life as a rancher up in Antler, here is a little of the fun we have during the summer monthes.

http://www.auphoto.net/Rudland-Equine-P ... &k=qRPWZK4

3/10ths of one second in the trlr relay kept us from winning this one! 3rd out of 12 teams.

http://www.auphoto.net/Rudland-Equine-P ... &k=NvTQCb2

1/10th of one second in the steer mugging kept us from winning this one. 2nd out of 9 teams.

The composite age of our team is 204 years. Not bad for a bunch of old fellas with big bellies!  :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> So I take it you are not going to show where I have suggested you were a sponsor the 2nd go as you claimed I have?
> Go figure!


Here you go gst, full post. Look for the very large bold words. 



gst said:


> Csquared said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did.You asked for proof and it was provided.
> 
> 
> 
> With the "legal backing" ron demands???? I missed that! I keep telling you guys, I don;t think a judge would by the explaination "well the legal minds on Nodak Outdoors said so!"
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now why in sam hell do you think you do not need to be regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man it must be a disease on here. *Please show where I have EVER said that.* If you wish I can post whereI have made the exact OPPOSITE statement. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one on here wants to stop you or I from raising our cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a whole big world outside of Nodak Outdoors! :wink: If you truly beleive no one is working an agenda to end "us raising our cows" you are a fool.
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to cross the fence for awhile and think of it from the other side and decide if you still believe it is the right way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you recall I have stated if indeed this measure will remove all regulations such as you claims, I will not support it with a vote for it
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> So plainsamn, here in your own words you have admitted that* you knew HSUS was involved prior to becoming a sponsor the second go around*. That means you had to know they were contacted in the first go around. That is unless you were privy to a plann to include them in the second go all along. *Thanks for finally admitting that*. And we ALL know they were invited once again into the second attempt by a group of ND "Sportsmen" (NDH for FC) to accomplish a personal agenda. Kind of a "deal with the devil" I guess. And yet even knowing this involvement as you have just admitted to, you STILL argued in support of this measure adamantly every chance you got *and tried to tell people there was no connection*??????? And now you are asking people to just take your word in this measure?????
> 
> And you guys want to demonize NDFB??????? You claim "we won't get the truth from NDFB representatives"???????
> 
> But hey HSUS does not want to be involved here in ND in ending an animal agriculture enterprise right??? You guys are a peice of work! :roll:
> 
> The who's who of the HFH debate in supporters and sponsor making claims/opinions/accusations opposing a measure which was jump started as a result of their measure to attempt to prevent that sort of thing from happening again claiming that it has no bearing on their opposition and demonizing this measure, org., and individuals?????
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest? I think not. Deceptive? I think very much so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn;t have said it better myself!!!  Just how ignorant do you think people are? :roll: Perhaps you still hope people bleive there was no HSUS connection in the hFH meaure attempt. Oh wait, plainsman admitted as a sponsor he knew there was.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So I take it you are not going to show where I have suggested you were a sponsor the 2nd go as you claimed I have?
> Go figure!
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go gst, full post. Look for the very large bold words.
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Csquared said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did.You asked for proof and it was provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With the "legal backing" ron demands???? I missed that! I keep telling you guys, I don;t think a judge would by the explaination "well the legal minds on Nodak Outdoors said so!"
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now why in sam hell do you think you do not need to be regulated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man it must be a disease on here. *Please show where I have EVER said that.* If you wish I can post whereI have made the exact OPPOSITE statement. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one on here wants to stop you or I from raising our cows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a whole big world outside of Nodak Outdoors! :wink: If you truly beleive no one is working an agenda to end "us raising our cows" you are a fool.
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to cross the fence for awhile and think of it from the other side and decide if you still believe it is the right way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you recall I have stated if indeed this measure will remove all regulations such as you claims, I will not support it with a vote for it
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> So plainsamn, here in your own words you have admitted that* you knew HSUS was involved prior to becoming a sponsor the second go around*. That means you had to know they were contacted in the first go around. That is unless you were privy to a plann to include them in the second go all along. *Thanks for finally admitting that*. And we ALL know they were invited once again into the second attempt by a group of ND "Sportsmen" (NDH for FC) to accomplish a personal agenda. Kind of a "deal with the devil" I guess. And yet even knowing this involvement as you have just admitted to, you STILL argued in support of this measure adamantly every chance you got *and tried to tell people there was no connection*??????? And now you are asking people to just take your word in this measure?????
> 
> And you guys want to demonize NDFB??????? You claim "we won't get the truth from NDFB representatives"???????
> 
> But hey HSUS does not want to be involved here in ND in ending an animal agriculture enterprise right??? You guys are a peice of work! :roll:
> 
> The who's who of the HFH debate in supporters and sponsor making claims/opinions/accusations opposing a measure which was jump started as a result of their measure to attempt to prevent that sort of thing from happening again claiming that it has no bearing on their opposition and demonizing this measure, org., and individuals?????
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honest? I think not. Deceptive? I think very much so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn;t have said it better myself!!!  Just how ignorant do you think people are? :roll: Perhaps you still hope people bleive there was no HSUS connection in the hFH meaure attempt. Oh wait, plainsman admitted as a sponsor he knew there was.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Others try to imply that I was a sponsor, then backpedal when confronted. Whether of not gst has done that I can not remember. I was the first time, I did not the second time because of HSUS*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

plainsamn, it is a little thing, but yet significant, time lines are kinda like that. . Your "proof" that I tried to imply you were a sponsor,actually occured after the accusation you made that "Others tried to imply I was a sponsor"  oops.

So if you could, please show PRIOR to your making the accusation "Others tried to imply I was a sponsor" where I implied you were a sponsor in the second initiateive attempt to ban a legally defined animal agriculture enterprise here in ND.

I will readily admit the incorrect wording was used in the post above, and that you were indeed not a sponsor of the second measure attempt, you caught the tator in a slip up typing! But hey, I thought since "proof" is not required in discussions on here, maybe I could slip one by!! 

But please, using a proper time line to substantiate your accusation please show me where prior to your making the accusation of "Others trying to imply" you were a sponsor I have ever previously done so and then "backpedaled" when confronted. But then again you did qualify that by stating you could not recall if I had ever done that so maybe this is all simply a distraction from the facts! :wink:

Since this is perhaps a bit confusing for others, can you for the record clear up what you had suggested to me in a PM regarding what happened during the time frame of the first measure attempt of which you WERE a sponsor? Or was it the second measure attempt in which you were NOT a sponsor that a sponsor had conversations with HSUS inviting them into the state? Or did a sponsor or sponsors talk with HSUS during both measure attempts???? According to two sponsors of the 2nd measure attempt, in Dakota Country they did in fact admitt to inviting HSUS to run ads supporting their meaure correct? But not during the first attempt?? What was the communication that took place between HSUS and some sponsors during the first attempt tha upset you?? There was some communication then as well right??? It is all so confusing. :roll: So when the 3rd attempt comes, who should we beleive when they adamantly deny any HSUS involvement yet once again???  :wink:  Or perhaps you can simply give your assurances there will never be another attempt to ban this! :eyeroll:

Here I thought all this little back and forth was done and we could have talked about something fun like ranch rodeos!


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> lead, if you have been in many ranch rodeos, you gotta know that "tRippin" the steer is not allowed, you have to actually "tip" the steer by hand in the steer muggin. :wink: At least that's how we do it up here in Antler!
> 
> Like I said, bring your pony up and have a go this summer, you might just be surprised! :wink:
> 
> But hey you are right, steer "tRipping" is one of the events HSUS specifically hilights in their position against rodeos.
> 
> spent, you once asked for a little glimpse into life as a rancher up in Antler, here is a little of the fun we have during the summer monthes.
> 
> http://www.auphoto.net/Rudland-Equine-P ... &k=qRPWZK4
> 
> 3/10ths of one second in the trlr relay kept us from winning this one! 3rd out of 12 teams.
> 
> http://www.auphoto.net/Rudland-Equine-P ... &k=NvTQCb2
> 
> 1/10th of one second in the steer mugging kept us from winning this one. 2nd out of 9 teams.
> 
> The composite age of our team is 204 years. Not bad for a bunch of old fellas with big bellies!  :wink:


Ya you gotta specify buddy. You said rodeo so I figured you were talking about the real thing and therefore steer tripping. You guys look like you take that stuff serious! Heck, you even busted out a brand new pair of ****** for it! :wink:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Ya you gotta specify buddy. You said rodeo so I figured you were talking about the real thing and therefore steer tripping. You guys look like you take that stuff serious! Heck, you even busted out a new pair of ****** for it!


If we were "serious" about it, we would get a young fella or two on our team, us old, out of shape fellas (at least some of us) are merely in it for the fun!!

And we do have fun!!!!!

In between having fun, we still show the "youngsters" how to do it now and then by winning an occasional event. Actually hold the arena record in the trailer relay race!! That long legged fella on our team on the Palamino can get swing on with his horse already off and running kinda like Little Joe Cartwright. 

Hey when was the last time you were at a "real" rodeo and they had a steer "tRipping" event, I seem to miss them whenever I go??

I mean if you know what you are doing it is kinda cool. Know a guy last summer, not only did he "trip" the "wild cow milking" cow in the arena so the other team could get their rope off after the event, he flipped a loop around her back legs and held her down with the same rope he caught and tripped her with! Pretty slick! :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya you gotta specify buddy. You said rodeo so I figured you were talking about the real thing and therefore steer tripping. You guys look like you take that stuff serious! Heck, you even busted out a new pair of ****** for it!
> 
> 
> 
> If we were "serious" about it, we would get a young fella or two on our team, us old, out of shape fellas (at least some of us) are merely in it for the fun!!
> 
> And we do have fun!!!!!
> 
> In between having fun, we still show the "youngsters" how to do it now and then by winning an occasional event. Actually hold the arena record in the trailer relay race!! That long legged fella on our team on the Palamino can get swing on with his horse already off and running kinda like Little Joe Cartwright.
> 
> Hey when was the last time you were at a "real" rodeo and they had a steer "tRipping" event, I seem to miss them whenever I go??
> 
> I mean if you know what you are doing it is kinda cool. Know a guy last summer, not only did he "trip" the "wild cow milking" cow in the arena so the other team could get their rope off after the event, he flipped a loop around her back legs and held her down with the same rope he caught and tripped her with! Pretty slick! :wink:
Click to expand...

Pendleton roundup was the last rodeo but I watch some buddies do it throughout the summer over at the neighbors. It's fun to watch but not something you wanna be doing to your roping steers everynight. They take a hell of a wreck.


----------



## Plainsman

> Here I thought all this little back and forth was done and we could have talked about something fun like ranch rodeos!


Hey go for it and enjoy. :thumb:

My last rodeo was watching my nephews bull ride. Shorter guys are better at it. They are about six foot tall, and I worried they were going to snap in two about mid section.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Hey go for it and enjoy.
> 
> My last rodeo was watching my nephews bull ride. Shorter guys are better at it. They are about six foot tall, and I worried they were going to snap in two about mid section.


Guys with "big bellies" aren;t very good at it either!! 

So just for the record, we aren;t goingto get chastized for taking a thread off "topic"?? 

Since there is yet another new thread slamming the NDFB amendment, (what is that 4 or 5?) perhaps it would be okay to change this one to talking about ranch rodeo without accusations of spin and misdirecting the conversation. :wink: 

All banter aside, if anyone wants to have a litle fun and enjoy themselves, we do put on a pretty good show and time up here in little old Antler.


----------



## Plainsman

Well since I started this thread and there is little left to be debated go ahead and change it for all I care. You may have better luck starting a rodeo thread. Some people have got sick of this one and will not look. Whatever you decide is hunky dory with me so have at it.

It would be great to have a thread that reminds us we are all North Dakotan's, and that in our society we all live off one another so we should appreciate one another. Hope it goes well.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It would be great to have a thread that reminds us we are all North Dakotan's, and that in our society we all live off one another so we should appreciate one another. Hope it goes well.


Why have a thread when we live the reality?

You wonder if people like me "apreciate" the revenue we receive from taxpayers, I wonder if most tax payers like yourself "appreciate" what these dollars provide them and undestand why they are being paid. I will be the first to admit the govt involvement in agricutlrue has had far more detrimental effects on agriculture than it has had positives. "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help" hardly EVER works. There are any number of issues that are detriments to ag and ag producers as a whole one can tie directly to flawed govt programs and those that abuse them. ( I know, shocking, that a govt program is abused and ends up with other results than those intended) But what has to be remembered is that thru it all, the one constant that has remained here in this country is that the US citizen while paying a small portion of his taxes to production agriculture, has paid less for the food they eat from their disposable income than ANY other modern country. Tally up the net dollars gained as a result of the dollars spent and it will be a good investment. It is why this country engages in Farm Bill programs, food security and as a result national security.

Do I appreciate the revenues I receive from the American taxpayer? Of course. But I would just as soon be able to enage in production agriculture without them as a result of how they have changed agriculture. I also realize that if I wish to remain in production agriculture I must accept them as long as they exist, to stay competative and viable because of what these programs themselves with their flaws have done to change agriculture.

So here we are you accusing me of not appreciating "your" tax dollar and I wondering if you understand what this dollar has provided you. So tell me, exactly what gets accomplishesd in these threads??? Especially when they are not held to a standard of truth and fact.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great to have a thread that reminds us we are all North Dakotan's, and that in our society we all live off one another so we should appreciate one another. Hope it goes well.
> 
> 
> 
> Why have a thread when we live the reality?
> 
> You wonder if people like me "apreciate" the revenue we receive from taxpayers, I wonder if most tax payers like yourself "appreciate" what these dollars provide them and undestand why they are being paid. I will be the first to admit the govt involvement in agricutlrue has had far more detrimental effects on agriculture than it has had positives. "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help" hardly EVER works. There are any number of issues that are detriments to ag and ag producers as a whole one can tie directly to flawed govt programs and those that abuse them. ( I know, shocking, that a govt program is abused and ends up with other results than those intended) But what has to be remembered is that thru it all, the one constant that has remained here in this country is that the US citizen while paying a small portion of his taxes to production agriculture, has paid less for the food they eat from their disposable income than ANY other modern country. Tally up the net dollars gained as a result of the dollars spent and it will be a good investment. It is why this country engages in Farm Bill programs, food security and as a result national security.
> 
> Do I appreciate the revenues I receive from the American taxpayer? Of course. But I would just as soon be able to enage in production agriculture without them as a result of how they have changed agriculture. I also realize that if I wish to remain in production agriculture I must accept them as long as they exist, to stay competative and viable because of what these programs themselves with their flaws have done to change agriculture.
> 
> So here we are you accusing me of not appreciating "your" tax dollar and I wondering if you understand what this dollar has provided you. So tell me, exactly what gets accomplishesd in these threads??? Especially when they are not held to a standard of truth and fact.
Click to expand...

Dont go there gst. That is the first time we have ever heard you say you appreciate these tax dollars so you can understand how we feel a lot of people feel entitled to them. One thing I have heard a lot of is how farmers/ranchers say like you did that they wish they could engage in agriculture production without them yet I never see measures being brought up trying to get rid of them. I understand they do more than just line your pocket. However, what about all the other professions in this world that live without them yet provide a service to the whole country? I know there are not many health care providers out there whol get subsidies. All they get is put in a high tax bracket without the numerous tax breaks and write offs you get.

Thats the bottom line really. When is enough enough? I know you have to always try to protect and further your profession. However when done in a way that could affect so many other people adversly and in a way that would take away further regulation, it just isn't right. Change the wording to do what you say it is there to do, keep anti's away, and I'll back it 100% The way it stands now....no way.

As far as lies go. There have probably been a lot told by your side as well as the other side. Don't ask me to prove it either becsause I'll be damned if I am going to go back trhrough this whole forum. The one thing there is is compromise on this side and none on yours which plain and simply is not democratic.


----------



## Plainsman

You know the old story about keeping your mouth shut when your up to your eyes in poop? You should have stuck to rodeo gst.

I had a whole post and don't know what I did wrong it is gone. Anywayyyyyyy



> "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help" hardly EVER works.


 Yes, and even though I was a fed employee I will admit it's to true to be funny sometimes. Lets keep in mind though that it's the politicians you elect that make fed employees do what they do. If you don't like the environmental laws don't vote for liberals.



> paid less for the food they eat from their disposable income than ANY other modern country.


I don't think that is true when you include all costs including the taxes to support agriculture. It's a socialist program that takes tax dollars to support farmers, gives away food to the poor to eat up surplus and drive prices up in the grocery store etc. Then they stack laws on top stopping some imports that are even cheaper. I wouldn't go there if I was you gst because we can't even buy milk from Minnesota that is considerably cheaper.



> I also realize that if I wish to remain in production agriculture I must accept them as long as they exist, to stay competative and viable because of what these programs themselves with their flaws have done to change agriculture.


I would not expect you not to. When everyone does you have to to survive. No one blames you, just don't turn up your nose at us please.



> So here we are you accusing me of not appreciating "your" tax dollar and I wondering if you understand what this dollar has provided you. So tell me, exactly what gets accomplished in these threads???


Hopefully producers and consumers will begin to understand we need each other. As of late I have been experiencing the feeling we are looked at as suckers. Would you like that?



> Especially when they are not held to a standard of truth and fact.


 Why are we held to a higher standard than you? All any of us have about the future is opinion. I am reminded of an old joke that says: if you want to make God laugh tell him your plans. What you will not acknowledge is all any of us have is opinion. It makes little difference if it's you or I or the AG. I know you will want to jump all over that comment including the AG, but what does he know about ten years from now anymore than anyone else? Nothing. His expertise is the here and now, this moment only, and only under current law. That is not what I am talking about nor many of the other people opposing this amendment.

Where do the hard feelings come from? Amendments like this that say your money is more important than our health. This is an elitist attitude just like the guy my friend heard say "your not sheitt if your not a landowner". Ya, ya another story right gst. Right. As long as you have that attitude it tells me you don't really care what anyone else things as long as you have your way. Then you wonder why we have the attitude we do. We get it from one way opinions presented by pro agriculture. I'll just ask don't look at us as suckers simply because you have found that through power you can have politicians rob us for your benefit.

I word things as if I am talking to one person, but I don't mean you gst, I mean anyone who feels the way I described.

Anyway, this appears to be just another cycle that could go another 20 pages. I don't see the benefit. We have been over this. It's a very old bone to chew on. Perhaps you should start that rodeo thread gst.


----------



## gst

You guys are lettiing your peronal animousity cloud your ability to reason.



gst said:


> Plainsman wrote:
> It would be great to have a thread that reminds us we are all North Dakotan's, and that in our society we all live off one another so we should appreciate one another. Hope it goes well.
> 
> Why have a thread when we live the reality?


You seem to have overlooked the admission that while you may wish to post in a thread about this magical symbyotic relationship, most are simply living it here in ND. You guys look to create discord when the simple fact is most of this state does not see it or beleive it exists. The vast majority of sportsmen simply do not buy into your conspiracy theories about agriculture and realize that indeed they (agriculture and sportsmen) exist quite nicely together. Always have, always will. Will things change, of course, always have,always will. But constantly sowing the seeds of discontent in the manner you do on here simply does not help this relationship.

Plainsamn you will never accept that this nations food security policies were developed with far more than just the farmer in mind so there is little use in discussing it with you. Perhaps you can ask Bad dog why he made the comments he did in the Conrad thread.


----------



## swift

> has paid less for the food they eat from their disposable income than ANY other modern country.


GST, can you please substantiate this claim?

Thank you


----------



## spentwings

swift said:


> has paid less for the food they eat from their disposable income than ANY other modern country.
> 
> 
> 
> GST, can you please substantiate this claim?
> 
> Thank you
Click to expand...

I think he should even though it's true.
Fact is provable, opinion isn't and not expect to be by rational people.


----------



## gst

swift just as I "substantiated" the NDFB resolution regarding ending Federal subsidies by going back in a thread and using a link you yourself provided, this can be substantiated by going back in other threads and finding where it has been provided previously when asked.

http://salem-news.com/articles/july1920 ... _71906.php

Note the decreasing amounts here in the US consumers have spent for food over the years.

http://askville.amazon.com/Americans-sp ... d=10286264

This study examined 51 countries, home to 2.5 billion of the world's 5.8 billion people, to compare spending and consumption patterns and how they relate to income. International comparisons indicate that, in general, the richer a country is, the smaller the share of PCE its citizens spend on food (see box on private consumption expenditures). Of the countries included in this study, the United States spent the smallest share of its PCE on food at home, only 9 percent, while Tanzania, with the lowest per capita income, spent the highest share, 71 percent.


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> Fact is provable, opinion isn't and not expect to be by rational people.


But most "rational" people also determine the "credibility" of an"opinion" on it's ability to be factually proven when the "opinion" is tied to claims of what a law or constitutional amendment will do! :wink:


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is provable, opinion isn't and not expect to be by rational people.
> 
> 
> 
> But most "rational" people also determine the "credibility" of an"opinion" on it's ability to be factually proven when the "opinion" is tied to claims of what a law or constitutional amendment will do! :wink:
Click to expand...

But of course gst,,, we all understand by now your *opinion* about that. 
The NDFB's initiative sucks and that's my *opinion*.
If you want proof :roll: of that "unsubstantiated claim",,, ask plains. 
The only irrational thing about me is that I'm here with you.


----------



## swift

Thank you GST for substantiating those claims.

Now just get the NDFB to make a public plea to congress to stop all subsidies and it won't be just lip service.


----------



## gst

You are welcome swift, any time I am able, I am more than happy to substantiate what I post. 

So why is this resolution looked at as nothing more than "lip service" yet you guys have your panties in a wad over a resolution for monies for road maintainance as if it where written in blood on the front agenda of every legislative session?

Seems like maybe you guys are "cherry pickin" the resolutions you wish to hate an org for and dismissing the ones that,........ well you get the picture. :wink:


----------

