# ND Farm Bureau Resolutions



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

My favorite resolution below.
*To decrease the threat of West Nile disease, farmers should be able to drain nuisance ponds to eliminate mosquito-breeding habitat. -ID#: 845/05* :rollin:

Reasons for sportsmen to carry NDFB insurance:

We believe that all agricultural land repossessed by government agencies should be put up for sale to private individuals and that no federal or state entity should be allowed to obtain it or be granted easements or acquire any existing mineral rights. -ID#: 1070/07

Since a U.S. deficit exists and disaster payments are increasing the deficit, we encourage the funding for domestic disasters be diverted from wildlife and conservation programs. -ID#: 901/06

We believe the North Dakota State Veterinarian's office and the Board of Animal Health should not be under the authority of the Department of Agriculture and the Ag Commissioner. -ID#: 948/06

We recommend the removal of the "no mow" policy on all state roads because of the danger to wildlife and vehicles. -ID#: 54/06

We believe zoning authority should be controlled at the township level when the townships choose to do so. -ID#: 1090/07

We support a state pre-emption of environmental regulations with regard to local zoning of AFOs/CAFOs. -ID#: 975/06

No taxpayer-employed person shall testify before a legislative body unless recognized as such and must testify on their own time and at their own expense unless specifically requested to testify by a legislator and then only when testifying in his/her official employment capacity. -ID#: 498/06

We support the elimination of ambient air odor as a regulation on open-air feedlots. -ID#: 836/05

We oppose the gifting of public lands to any organization; however, we support the sale of federal and state land back to the private sector. -ID#: 1051/07

We believe that government-owned lands should be managed with input from the private sector. -ID#: 981/07

We oppose the development of federal lands management plans with poor information. We recommend that the scientific, economic, sociologic and historic inputs into the development of management plans be of peer review quality. Those directly affected by these management plans must have their inputs given equal weight in this development process. -ID#: 131/06

We are opposed to any changes in the Forest Service Management Plan and/or its administrative rule for National Grasslands/Forest Service lands located within North Dakota that alters the multiple use of such
lands, and that would adversely impact North Dakota residents. In addition, North Dakota Farm Bureau is opposed to any change in the management plan for said lands that:
1. Inhibits or reduces economic uses of said lands, including but not limited to livestock grazing;
2. Reduces the ability to fully develop all energy resources on such land, including but not limited to oil and/or gas resources;
3. Inhibits or reduces recreational uses of said lands;
4. Undermines, or changes, the purpose for which said lands were initially acquired; and
5. Reduces revenues from said lands that would reduce payments in lieu of taxes to the counties in which
the land is located. -ID#: 888/06
We continue to support a local advisory committee to the National Forest Service to help monitor and oversee the grazing and use of the National Grasslands.-ID#: 133/06

We oppose the sale of State School Lands for uses other than production agriculture. -ID#: 898/06

We support a net reduction of government-owned land. For every acre acquired, a reduction of two acres should be made and/or for every dollar of value acquired, two dollars of value should be relinquished. -ID#: 764/05

We support a no-net gain of government-owned land. -ID#: 128/05

We oppose limiting the number of out-of-state hunters or any difference in season limitations between resident and non-resident hunters. -ID#: 680/07

To help reduce the deer population, the Legislature shall allow transferable depredation tags for antler less deer be made available to landowners, in addition to the regular hunting season licenses. -ID#: 28/06

We should continue to work through all channels toward the end result of considering all lands as posted and closed to public access unless the landowner grants permission. -ID#: 542/06

We support reimbursement by the North Dakota Game & Fish Department to rural communities that suffer revenue loss due to the restrictions placed on out-of-state hunters. -ID#: 825/05

We support offering excess deer licenses at a discount (half price) or first-come, first-served on free excess licenses. -ID#: 778/05

We support North Dakota property owners' rights to continue to control all types of hunting on their property. Property owners or lessors shall decide who hunts their land, and if they prefer, to charge a fee to the hunter for that privilege. -ID#: 159/05

We support any action to repeal the restrictions on out-of-state hunters with regard to hunting zones. -ID#: 823/05

We believe the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and USDA Wildlife Services Division should continue to fund an aerial hunting program for coyotes. -ID#: 1020/07

We believe farmers should be allowed to take the necessary steps, including elimination, to keep wildlife from destroying tangible property. -ID#: 938/06

We oppose the federal "wild and scenic" designation for any rivers and their tributaries in North Dakota and oppose any wilderness land designations in North Dakota. -ID#: 550/06

We believe that all private property should be considered "Posted - No Trespassing" even if signs or other notices are not in existence, unless otherwise designated. -ID#: 160/05

If CRP is released for emergency haying, the Farm Service Agency should be the lead agency and work primarily with agricultural organizations in determining starting dates and rules for haying CRP. -ID#: 190/07

We believe the CRP managed and unmanaged haying/grazing program should begin July 15th each year. -ID#: 639/07

We oppose the Conservation Reserve Program. -ID#: 767/05
We oppose raising the 25 percent cap on Conservation Reserve Program acres per county. -ID#: 781/05

We recommend that water management boards remain local boards as opposed to watershed boards. -ID#: 182/05

We support an east end outlet to Devils Lake. -ID#: 178/05

We believe landowners should have the right to consolidate wetlands on their own property. -ID#:152/07

We believe that wetlands or temporary bodies of water in areas of ten acres or less should not be under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies. -ID#: 569/06

All land that has been farmed for two out of the last ten years should be exempt from state and federal wetlands regulations. -ID#: 868/06

We support renewed efforts to develop a locally managed wetland policy that recognizes the interest of private landowners. -ID#: 782/05

We propose that all farmable land be exempt from wetlands designation. -ID#: 736/05

To decrease the threat of West Nile disease, farmers should be able to drain nuisance ponds to eliminate mosquito-breeding habitat. -ID#: 845/05

We believe that local agricultural input must be considered in the development of any wildlife management plan. -ID#: 627/07

In regard to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between USDA and Ducks Unlimited, we believe FSA should move cautiously in working with Ducks Unlimited or other environmental organizations and should instead work more closely with landowners and producers in regard to environmental issues, including landowners and producers in every phase of policy development. -ID#: 914/06

We should actively pursue and participate in the development of a North Dakota Game and Fish Citizen's Commission made up of at least 50 percent agricultural producers and be elected at the county level. This Citizen's Commission would be responsible, in part, for policy development, conservation programs and budget usage of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. This Citizen's Commission would replace the current advisory board and would have more statutory control over the department's decisions than the current advisory board. -ID#: 722/05

We resolve that one dollar from each general game license be distributed to townships for road
maintenance due to increased hunter vehicle traffic. Each county would distribute these funds according to certified miles to each township (organized and unorganized). -ID#: 723/05

We recommend that the North Dakota Game & Fish Department and/or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service should pay agricultural producers for wildlife depredation of crops. The producer would be paid for losses at market price or contract price. -ID#: 806/05

Rather than controlled burns, grazing or haying should be used to control grasses on state and federal wildlife management areas. -ID#: 844/05

We believe the state and federal wildlife management areas should not be allowed to use controlled burns until after August 1, the same as CRP rules. -ID#: 772/05

We support prohibiting any governmental agencies, such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from having first purchase or easement rights on land conveyed back or repossessed by the state FSA, other lending agencies, or any government agency. -ID#: 572/06

We believe perpetual easements should be revised whereby all easements are based on a generation, or 20 years, and all payments are on a pro-rata basis over that period of time. With any termination of ownership, easement payments would be returned on that pro-rata basis. -ID#: 972/06

Compensation for mitigated acres should apply to agricultural acres, as well as for wildlife acres. -ID#: 787/05

We believe that wildlife property and wetlands should be subject to eminent domain procedures in the same manner as is private property. -ID#: 785/05

We support an acreage and value cap on state wildlife programs, such as PLOTS, that use private land for public use. These programs should not cause adjacent land values or rental rates to escalate. -ID#: 967/06

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now just guess which organization fields the most registered lobbyists on wildlife legislation during the session in Bismarck? (Hint: it's not a wildlife organization).


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

That is why my senator will not get any contributios from me anymore. He sponsered a couple of the anti hunter bills the last session. Farm Bureau Bills. The Farm burea has been our enemy for years.
Assume you meant sportsmen should not carry FB insuranse.[/b]


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

A, yep, I was sarcastic.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

ND hunters worst enemy they spend thousands of $ lobbying agianst us every session.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

That is just sick! It makes me want to oppose every farm program out there. When are these farmers and ranchers going to wake up? Or...is this really what they think?
Jim


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

No, the FB positions and resolutions are not the thoughts of the majority. The FB is a bunch of crazy whiney SOBs that think all thier problems are the result of everybody but themselves. I say fine drain everything you can, Ill bet I can find a lawyer that is willing to go into court and argue negligence every spring when I flood because the natural water storage has been drained. But I digress. The NDFU positions are more mainstream.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> We support North Dakota property owners' rights to continue to control all types of hunting on their property. Property owners or lessors shall decide who hunts their land, and if they prefer, to charge a fee to the hunter for that privilege. -ID#: 159/05
> 
> We believe that all private property should be considered "Posted - No Trespassing" even if signs or other notices are not in existence, unless otherwise designated. -ID#: 160/05


Ironic isn't it??



> We recommend that the North Dakota Game & Fish Department and/or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service should pay agricultural producers for wildlife depredation of crops. The producer would be paid for losses at market price or contract price. -ID#: 806/05


How convenient. They support restriction of hunters (both R's and NR's) from doing their part in controlling the game species and then turn around and want to get paid for wildlife who damage their crops???

Double dipping anyone??

This group is just as extreme as PETA is. :eyeroll:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

:stirpot:

What good is a post like this going to do? Yes the FB have some pretty off the wall ideas, IMO, but there's enough to go around for everyone.

I'll bet you can find a farmer opposed to the majority of these ideas for everyone that finds them attractive.

Oh, before some of you come down on me, I'm not a farmer..just a sportsman tired of the lack of outfitters and sportsmen getting together on the issues!

I've stayed off this site and others for quite sometime and now I know why. I come on the site and there's 500 posts I havent read and what comes up? Same old crap, just another day.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> just a sportsman tired of the lack of outfitters and sportsmen getting together on the issues!


Yep!!!!! That is the truth!!!!!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Quote: 
We support North Dakota property owners' rights to continue to control all types of hunting on their property. Property owners or lessors shall decide who hunts their land, and if they prefer, to charge a fee to the hunter for that privilege. -ID#: 159/05



> We believe that all private property should be considered "Posted - No Trespassing" even if signs or other notices are not in existence, unless otherwise designated. -ID#: 160/05
> 
> Ironic isn't it??
> 
> ...


OOOPs you missed this one.



> To help reduce the deer population, the Legislature shall allow transferable depredation tags for antler less deer be made available to landowners, in addition to the regular hunting season licenses. -ID#: 28/06


We all know what would happen with these "transferable" tags.

To sum it up they want 100% private control over ALL land and roads, 100% private control over hunting and wildlife and heavy federal subsidies to pay for their mismanagement of all of the above.

If all of these things were granted ND would be a gameless, desert wasteland within 20 years.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Wow! Thanks for posting this. It was a real eye opener for me.

Classic political grab. There is not one scintilla of consideration for anybody but themselves.


----------

