# ND Measure - % of O&G Taxes for Conservation Projects



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Just saw this news clip - Interesting. Let the debate begin...



> BISMARCK, N.D. - A proposed North Dakota constitutional amendment would spend part of the state's oil tax collections on water, wildlife and conservation projects.
> 
> The plan would give a nine-member appointed board authority over a special fund. The fund could have more than $50 million in annual income.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Check the website out:

http://ndheritage.org/

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q. What is the North Dakota Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage constitutional amendment?
A. This measure would use five percent of the state's oil and gas extraction and production tax revenue to create a fund to sustain the high quality of our natural resources.

Q. What will North Dakotans get from this measure?
A. If passed by voters, this amendment will protect our quality of life in ND by:

 protecting our clean water
 improving natural flood control
 conserving natural areas by creating parks and other recreational areas
 protecting wildlife and fish habitat
 supporting and encouraging beginning farmers and ranches

Q. How will this money be used?
A. North Dakota's Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage Fund can be used for grants for a broad set of purposes including protecting and enhancing the state's water, wildlife and working farms and ranches. Projects authorized by the measure could include improving water quality of rivers, streams, and groundwater; natural flood control improvements; providing habitat for fish, game and wildlife; improved parks and public for outdoor activities; and conservation incentives for working farms and ranches and beginning farmers and ranchers . Any state agency, local government entity, tribal government or non-profit corporation is eligible to submit a grant application for funding by the conservation fund.

Q. Will this increase my taxes? Will this increase anybody else's taxes?
A. No and no. Oil and gas production in North Dakota is rapidly increasing, and as a result, tax revenues from this source are also rapidly increasing. This measure will take a small portion of the growing tax revenue projected over the coming years. Programs currently funded through oil taxes (water projects, school funding, roads and other energy impacts, local governments) will also see significant additional tax revenue, and the growth in oil tax revenue will generate new money for many other necessary purposes.

Q. Will this increase oil and gas taxes paid by oil companies?
A. No, the level of taxes is set by the legislature and this measure does nothing to either increase or decrease those taxes. This measure takes a small portion of the current oil and gas production and extraction taxes not designated for any other uses and sets those dollars aside to improve our environment-our water and our land.

Q. Will this increase the price I pay for gasoline at the pump?
A. No, as indicated above, this measure does nothing to increase or decrease taxes paid on the production of oil and gas. This measure has no effect on the economics of oil and gas production in North Dakota.

Q. Who decides how it will be spent?
B. The measure creates a nine-member citizen board, which implement a competitive grant program to protect clean water, improve flood control, protect natural areas and wildlife and fish populations and encourage beginning farmers and ranchers in our state. The legislature will appoint four members, the Governor will appoint four members, and the state's wildlife professionals will appoint one member.

Q. How much money will the measure raise?
A. Predicting future oil production and future oil prices is extremely difficult. However, if we accept the assumptions used by the 2011 North Dakota State Legislature in making plans for the two-year period beginning July 1, 2011, this measure would raise about $50 million annually for conservation programs in North Dakota.

Q. Do we really need this much money for conservation purposes?
A. North Dakota's clean water and wildlife--critical to our quality of life and tourism economy - are being threatened, and we need to invest more just to protect what we have. Yet, federal funding for agricultural and other conservation programs currently makes up the vast majority of spending for conservation in our state and is likely to decline significantly due to reduced federal spending. Our forests, our water and wildlife habitat are threatened by invasive species such as emerald ash borer, zebra mussels and saltcedar. Many residents are concerned that oil activity threatens the quality of their drinking water. Maintaining what we have in the face of significant new threats will require a serious financial commitment by our state.

Q. Will this measure take money from schools, water development and flood control or property tax relief?
A. No, this measure contains specific language protecting that current distribution of the oil and gas tax to ensure that no funds are taken from important state programs such as water development, education and local government in the counties affected by energy development. This biennium, state oil and gas revenues are projected to bring over $2 billion into state coffers. All experts see those dollars going up. We are only talking about using a small portion - five percent - for conservation. North Dakota's budget is in the enviable position of having growing amounts of tax revenues available for already established priorities while still being able to establish new priorities such as protecting our water and our land.

Q. Why amend the constitution for this measure?
A. North Dakota has a long history of amendments to the constitution by the citizens of the state. Since statehood, citizens have initiated constitutional measures to change the constitution forty-five times. Just since 1990, the state's voters have approved twenty-six changes to the constitution. For example, in 2000, voters amended the constitution to identify hunting, fishing and trapping as "a valued part of our heritage." North Dakota is at a pivotal moment when we must make a decision to invest in maintaining the high quality of our natural resources. North Dakota state government has not addressed this critical issue, and so the citizens must act. A constitutional measure will ensure that these funds are used for this purpose and that the will of the voters is followed.

Q. How can we be certain that the money this measure generates for natural resources will be managed in a common-sense, fiscally responsible manner?
A. This measure requires that the State Auditor review the fiscal operations of the fund and that these findings be reported to the citizens when the state legislature meets every other year. The measure requires that all project funds be spent in North Dakota to benefit North Dakota's natural resources. Finally, the measure caps how much money can be spent on administrative overhead


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

The concept is appealing. More detail in how the funding would be distributed would be nice. Guaranteed set assides for specific programs might be nice with a segment of the money in an open pool for grants. Land acquisition for conservation/flood management would be high on my list. One concern might be an assurance that this money remains a suppliment to existing programs rather than a substitution.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

dakotashooter2 said:


> One concern might be an assurance that this money remains a supplement to existing programs rather than a substitution.


That stipulation is in the measure. They were thinking ahead.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Nice to see a well written amendment with the sponsors putting out an FAQ's sheet. Instead of the crap the FB is trying to pull.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

swift said:


> Nice to see a well written amendment with the sponsors putting out an FAQ's sheet. Instead of the crap the FB is trying to pull.


 :thumb: Really seems like the right way to do things doesn't it?


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Speaking of FB that is another one of my concerns. I can evision them trying to grab more than their share of this pie under the pretense of conservation.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

dakotashooter2 said:


> Speeking of FB that is another one of my concerns. I can evision them trying to grab more than their share of this pie under the pretense of conservation.


  Didn't think of that. :shake:


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

I live in Wyoming where mineral revenues are a very big part of our state's existence. This money can do tremendous good, but don't get too attached to it in the long term. I would caution against any sort of "permanent" projects with such revenues as these funds do come and go with the boom and bust cycles which are endemic to the industry. I am only 40 years of age and have witnessed many of them. Short term efforts like wetland restorations, conservation easements, etc. which to not require a constant influx of funding are great. Just don't get tangled up in anything that requires perpetual funding, or you will be paying for it with your own taxes in between "booms". However, if the funding is utilized with such aspects in mind, it will do a great deal. Good luck with your efforts. :thumb:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

dakotashooter2 said:


> Speaking of FB that is another one of my concerns. I can evision them trying to grab more than their share of this pie under the pretense of conservation.


Yup, just like the grab for licnese fees to pay for township roads now.

 protecting our clean water
 improving natural flood control
 conserving natural areas by creating parks and other recreational areas
 protecting wildlife and fish habitat


>  supporting and encouraging beginning farmers and ranches


They will think $49 million should be for that last one, even though it says wildlife and conservation projects.



> BISMARCK, N.D. - A proposed North Dakota constitutional amendment would spend part of the state's oil tax collections on water, wildlife and conservation projects.


Sportsmen better keep an eye on it so it doesn't turn into another poor joke on us.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Went to the Secretary of States website and looked for the sponsoring committee. No suprise there.

http://legacy.inforum.com/pdfs/oilwater.pdf

Page three:

Dick Monson
Keith Trego
Terry Fleck
Erik Fritzell
David Brandt

Sponsors of the fair chase folly

Most of the rest are wildlife society such as Karen Kreil or Ducks Unlimited etc.

I have been out of state for awhile. In New York the governor wants to grap money from the Pitt-Robertson. Michigan is also in financial straights. They have oil wells in the northern part and are diverting money away from the general treasurey same as this amendment would do. The state of Michigan is going to raid it.

I have to laugh everytime I read somewhere with Keith Trego stating, "it is important voters and petition signers remember the fund doesn't deter or detract from human and infrastruture needs currently funded by taxes paid by the oil and gas industry."

Who is he trying to kid, the money is diverted away from the general treasurey "period." Then this money is going to be given away in the form of grants etc. for studies etc. That is the equivalent of taking the money and flaring it off.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

At least they are not trying to hide what the amendment is about! Unlike the NDFB who are using smoke and mirrors to imply it is all about PETA when it is all about removing any oversite from the Leg.

I am not sure about this measure, but if you are against it, I am sure it is a good thing!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The ND Conservation Measure wording has been approved by NDSS and the signature gathering effort will begin now.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-a ... 3ce6c.html

If you are willing to help collect signatures check in on the website http://ndheritage.org/ and click the volunteer tab or if you want information explaining the reasoning behind the measure and effects of it, browse that web page.

It is not difficult to understand the need when you look at the staggering development taking place in ND now. This is only the beginning.










Both MN and WY have passed similar conservation measures to preserve their outdoor heritage. Like North Dakota residents, Wyoming citizens placed great value on their outdoor resources when they were confronted with habitat destruction from natural gas development (see below). Without a conservation measure there won't be much left.










It is only a matter of time as developement spreads across ND so action is needed now.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Your choice. If the Conservation Measure can pass ND will have more of this:










And less of this:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Q. Who decides how it will be spent?
> B. The measure creates a nine-member citizen board, which implement a competitive grant program to protect clean water, improve flood control, protect natural areas and wildlife and fish populations and encourage beginning farmers and ranchers in our state. The legislature will appoint four members, the Governor will appoint four members, and the state's wildlife professionals will appoint one member.


The trick may be keeping this board from becoming all ranchers, farmers or FB designees.


----------



## 58504451 (Jan 6, 2006)

While the concept sounds interesting I have a couple questions for the sponsors.

An earlier post showed a dog in a burned slough, what programs will be available to make a landowner stop burning sloughs?

How will we be able to stop development from ruining habitat and will the money be limited to spending where the actual tax money is coming from and where the destruction is taking place or will it go statewide ??

Where can I find a complete text of the measure?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

58504451, this should answer your question somewhat. JMO, I would not think this law would stop anyone from any action. It would instead provide incentives to stop the action. Strictly voluntary. Citizens would certainly want to be involved in the oversight of application of the law.

Note, all of the below is new language that would be underscored.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: 
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. A new section to article X of the Constitution of North Dakota is created and enacted as follows:

1. To protect our clean water, lands, and outdoor heritage for the benefit of North Dakota citizens, five percent of total revenue derived from taxes on oil and gas production and five percent of total revenue derived from taxes on oil extraction must be transferred by the state treasurer to a special fund in the state treasury known as the clean water, lands and outdoor heritage fund.

2. The clean water, lands and outdoor heritage fund shall be used for grants to state agencies, tribal governments, local governments, political subdivisions and nonprofit organizations for the following purposes: 
a. Protect, improve, maintain, and restore water quality through the restoration and protection of rivers, streams, lakes or other surface waters, groundwater, wetlands, grasslands, prairies, and forests; 
b. Improve natural flood control through the restoration and protection of natural areas along rivers, streams, lakes or other surface waters, groundwater, wetlands, grasslands, prairies, and forests; 
c. Protect and create wildlife and fish habitat on private and public lands through grassland, prairie, wetland, stream, lake and forest restoration and protection; 
d. Conserve natural areas for people through the establishment and development of parks and other recreation areas; and 
e. Encourage beginning farmers and ranchers and enhance working farms and ranches through conservation programs and conservation incentives.

3. A clean water, lands and outdoor heritage board is hereby created to oversee, govern, administer and distribute the clean water, lands and outdoor heritage fund. The clean water, lands and outdoor heritage board consists of nine citizen members who are qualified electors of the state not employed by the state or elected to legislative or state office. Each member shall have practical experience and expertise and demonstrated knowledge in the science, policy, or practice of restoring, protecting, and enhancing groundwater, wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. One member each shall be appointed by the North Dakota House majority leader and minority leader and the North Dakota Senate majority leader and minority leader. Four members shall be appointed by the Governor from a list of names submitted by the Game and Fish Director, and one member shall be appointed by the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society. The terms of these members will be three years, except the terms of the first board will vary and be drawn by lot to ensure that only three new members be subsequently appointed each year. Board members may not serve more than three terms.

4. The board shall be appointed within ninety days of the effective date of this measure. Grant applications shall be considered within three hundred sixty five days of the effective date of this measure, and grant applications shall be considered at least annually thereafter.

5. All principal and income received from investments shall be utilized for programs in North Dakota and for the administration and monitoring of such programs, and such principal and income is hereby appropriated to the clean water, lands and outdoor heritage board on a continuing basis for expenditure upon those programs selected at the discretion of the clean water, lands and outdoor heritage board. No more than three percent of the funds available in a given year may be used for administration. No more than 50 percent of expenditures per biennium shall be for any one of the stated purposes. The dedicated money under this section must supplement traditional sources of funding for these purposes and may not be used as a substitute.

6. Each regular legislative session, the clean water, lands and outdoor heritage board must file a report to the citizens of the state at a public hearing before the standing natural resources committee of each house of the legislative assembly. The report must include a state auditor's report on the clean water, lands and outdoor heritage fund for the previous two fiscal years.

7. Investment of the fund shall be the responsibility of the state investment board.

8. Statutory programs, in existence as a result of legislation enacted through 2011, providing for impact grants, direct revenue allocations to political subdivisions, and deposits in the oil and gas research fund must remain in effect but the legislative assembly may adjust statutory allocations for those purposes.

9. This constitutional provision shall be self-executing and shall become effective without the necessity of legislative action. 
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective for oil and gas produced after January 1, 2013, or the first day of a calendar quarter beginning after the date it is approved by the voters, whichever occurs later.


----------



## 58504451 (Jan 6, 2006)

Thanks for posting the text.

Will the money stay in western ND where the tax is being generated to help habitat or is it available anywhere in the state?

Do you have any ideas on the programs or will they be up to another agency to administer?

Thanks.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

58504451 said:


> Thanks for posting the text.
> 
> Will the money stay in western ND where the tax is being generated to help habitat or is it available anywhere in the state?
> 
> ...


I don't know but will try to find out. One would hope the grants go to the greatest need first. JMO that the grant process will not be a popularity contest. The measure language is specific as to qualifications of board members, which is as it should be. Added insurance.

_* Each member shall have practical experience and expertise and demonstrated knowledge in the science, policy, or practice of restoring, protecting, and enhancing groundwater, wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. One member each shall be appointed by the North Dakota House majority leader and minority leader and the North Dakota Senate majority leader and minority leader. Four members shall be appointed by the Governor from a list of names submitted by the Game and Fish Director, and one member shall be appointed by the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.*_


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Article in Fargo Forum, 2-13-12, concerning the the conservation measure:

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... roup/News/


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

I sure hope this or something similar passes.We need energy,we need 'progress' etc IMO but what a cost!Just was in that part of your State again and it's very sad from a wildlife,hunting,Sportsmens perspective.Hopefully this or a similar measure can correct some abuses and restore the quality of life there in the future when the 'boom' part subsides.I can't even imagine how this must feel if you grew up in that area loving and enjoying the outdoors.OR,you lived and retired there on a fixed income.  
Good luck with this.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Duckp, thank you. You fellows in SD are going to face the habitat loss too. Farming is using land more intensely and oil, gas, and wind are going to take their toll of habitat and natural resouces needed by wildlife.

MN and WY have this law in place. If ND can pass it then SD would be a natural fit too.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Another reason for the ND Conservation Measure: http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... sher_ID/1/



> *Garrison Dam fish hatchery faces funding uncertainties.* RIVERDALE, N.D. - After dodging a budget bullet a year ago, the national fish hatchery at the Garrison Dam is again facing funding uncertainties that could jeopardize the mission of federal hatcheries across the country.
> Overall, the proposal is to reduce the total national fish hatcheries' budget by $6.2 million. One study of the two hatcheries in Georgia showed retail sales associated with angler expenditures as a result of stocking by the hatchery amounted to more than $15 million per year. More than $4 million of that was for food, lodging and transportation. The total economic output was $28.8 million, a return of $37.20 for every dollar spent.
> ...the hatchery has had requests for more than 9 million walleyes alone and time is tight.


A footnote is that all personnel at the Valley City Hatchery are retired and it is questionable if that facility will be reopened do to Federal budget cuts.

Check the website out at : http://ndheritage.org/


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

And again on March 28th. http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... roup/News/

*Threats to North Dakota hunting to be discussed at conference*


> BISMARCK - Hunting and outdoor recreation in North Dakota face unprecedented threats from a host of factors as diverse as oil drilling, field drainage and dwindling farm acres idled for conservation.....
> 
> ....."It's been kind of a perfect storm of habitat issues," said McEnroe. "There's not a lot of good on the horizon for hunting."
> 
> ...


This is your baby. You have to help yourselves. Check the website out at : http://ndheritage.org/


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Another April 1st editorial on ND's outdoor heritage and the necessity of acting now: http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... sher_ID/1/

An excerpt from the Forum editorial today:



> But the most important voices in the outdoor community are North Dakotans who love to hunt, fish, hike, camp and otherwise enjoy the incredible natural amenities of the state. State agencies and private conservation organizations are trying to raise awareness, but their efforts are not enough. Without a coordinated and focused effort by North Dakotans who look forward to that summer camping trip, that fall hunt, that hike through an untrammeled Badlands canyon, elected policymakers and regulators will hear only the siren song of oil riches. And the cry that "We're losing our outdoor heritage" will become "We've lost it."


Pass it on: http://ndheritage.org/


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

An Apl 2, 20012, editorial from the Grand Forks Herald on the value to North Dakota of public lands and private land available to the public. A perfect fit for the ND Outdoor Heritage Measure. Read it here:

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/a ... her_ID/40/



> ....North Dakota should take note. Minnesota learned this lesson long ago. As a result, the Minnesota state park system ranks among America's best.
> In contrast, North Dakota has less public land than almost any other state. As mentioned before in this space, only Rhode Island devotes less acreage to its state parks - and Rhode Island is 1/70th North Dakota's size....


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Fargo Forum editorial on the Badlands fiasco : http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/359406/



> The state of North Dakota is losing its largest and most spectacular state park. Little Missouri State Park, 20 miles north of Killdeer, is literally being given to the oil industry. Burlington Resources, a division of ConocoPhillips, has been given permission to drill as many as 80 wells in a 30,000-acre giant unitized lease area surrounding the park and possibly as many as 10 within the park boundaries.





> In fact, the parks department and the tourism office are continuing to advertise the park as a badlands wilderness experience for hiking, horseback riding and camping. Just avoid the trucks and don't get too close to the gas flares.
> 
> This is one of the most spectacular natural areas in the state. Why must it be degraded and possibly destroyed for the profit of a giant international oil company? Why is the state so eager to give this land away? Why is this story being kept so quiet?





> Why is the state unwilling to even put up a mild fight for this spectacular piece of its natural heritage?


Pass it on : http://ndheritage.org/


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gabe, try reading the measure language. Self explainatory. Your "worries" are groundless.

http://ndheritage.org/

When the measure language was under consideration, the first group approached was the oil and gas industry in ND. They were not opposed, and thought that their indusrty could often have a less negative imprint on the habitat, if they could access professional natural resource assitance in an advisory role. Which is currently not provided on any scale.

In case you haven't read the measure, or would prefer not to, there is no regulation or restriction on any activity in the language.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> Gabe, try reading the measure language. Self explainatory. Your "worries" are groundless.
> 
> http://ndheritage.org/
> 
> When the measure language was under consideration, the first group approached was the oil and gas industry in ND. They were not opposed, and thought that their indusrty could often have a less negative imprint on the habitat, if they could access professional natural resource assitance in an advisory role. Which is currently not provided on any scale.


The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The editorials posted above from the state's newspaper editors have a common theme. North Dakota is in a downward spiral in the quality of our outdoors. The trend is not stabilizing, it is accelerating. Whether you used to enjoy the west or never went there, that downward spiral is going to land on your front step. Distance will not save you, time is not your friend.

The energy appetite of the world is insatiable. Think of the natural gas fields that cover much of the state. Every stone is going to be rolled over in the search and extraction of energy. Maybe not today but tomorrow for sure. And your front step will never be the same when that happens. The problems that were once 300 miles away will now be across the road from your house. Our ND population is expected to jump 300,000 people in the next 10 years. The consumption of potable water is expected to rise 40% by the year 2020. The increasing demand for food tracks the world's rising population. Everybody wants more and they go to the places that "have" to satisfy their need.

ND's outdoor heritage is about much more than just hunting and fishing. It is about what is going to be left here in ND after all of these other needs were quenched. Are we satisfied to roll with the punches, or do we want a plan for the future? We know as certain as baby rabbits in spring what happens when we just roll with the punches. The Bakken is getting that right now. Happy landings.

The outdoor heritage measure is a good plan for the future. It benefits the whole state. It is the only plan out there for the future.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*Poll: Farmers Value Conservation Programs and Reject Cutting Farm Bill Conservation Funding *  
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 25, 2012

Contact: Melisa Augusto, 202-314-3191
[email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it 
Tony Jarboe, 202-314-3104
[email protected] e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

WASHINGTON (June 25, 2012) - American farmers believe conservation programs and environmental stewardship are key components of the Farm Bill and critical to their bottom line, according to a poll released today by National Farmers Union (NFU).

The bipartisan poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research - a Democratic polling firm -- and Public Opinion Strategies - a Republican polling firm - surveyed 502 American farmers across 13 Midwestern and Great Plains states on their views regarding farm bill conservation programs. The results show that farmers view conservation programs and environmental stewardship as key components to the farm bill and critical to their future and bottom line.

"The findings of this survey demonstrate the deep commitment to conservation that farmers have across the heartland," said NFU President Roger Johnson. "As Congress moves forward crafting the farm bill, we would emphasize the importance conservation programs play for farmers both for environmental stewardship and continued productivity."

Last week the Senate passed their version of the Farm Bill. The House is expected to begin markup on their bill on the second week of July.

The survey was conducted in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Specific highlights of the survey include:

•Eighty-six percent of farmers say the level of conservation funding should be maintained or increased. Nearly half would be less likely to support a member of Congress who voted to cut conservation funding more than the $6 billion in the Senate-passed Farm Bill. 
•Conservation programs rank as the second-highest priority for inclusion in the farm bill, and farmers are not swayed by an argument that says conservation funding should be cut in order to prioritize risk management coverage. 
•Farmers view conservation as a priority that is vital to their long-term economic viability with nearly three-quarters of farmers saying that conservation programs help their bottom line. 
•By a nearly two-to-one margin, farmers believe that farmers should be required to meet some environmental standards in order to receive federal benefits such as crop insurance.
NFU worked with Cultivate Impact to produce this poll. Cultivate Impact is a new non-profit project of the Trust for Conservation Innovation specializing in strategic research and program development to help build a future with healthy and profitable farms, plentiful and accessible good food for all, and strong urban and rural communities.

National Farmers Union has been working since 1902 to protect and enhance the economic well-being and quality of life for family farmers, ranchers and rural communities through advocating grassroots-driven policy positions adopted by its membership.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

and the survey says...........



> By a nearly two-to-one margin, farmers believe that farmers should be required to meet some environmental standards in order to receive federal benefits such as crop insurance.


I am going to have to wave the bs flag on that one. I attended NDFU meetings and no one supported this. If the fed/gov pays $20 bucks and the farmer pays $15 dollars per acre for crop insurance than explain to me how the farmer can be denied coverage in the event of hail storm if he hasn't been doing his conservation compliance? Where did his $15 bucks go?



> NFU worked with Cultivate Impact to produce this poll. Cultivate Impact is a new non-profit project of the Trust for Conservation Innovation specializing in strategic research and program development to help build a future with healthy and profitable farms, plentiful and accessible good food for all, and strong urban and rural communities.


Cultivate Impact is a new non-profit that gets its funding from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. (Another non-profit)Polls and studies are skewed in favor of those who paid for it.

http://www.cultivateimpact.org/who-we-are

And then there is the next non-profit called the Trust for Conservation Innovation. Mostly what they do is help set up more non-profits.

http://www.trustforconservationinnovati ... or=wwd#wwd



> What We Do
> The Trust for Conservation Innovation (TCI) helps environmental leaders fulfill their visions by providing nonprofit status and fiscal sponsorship services for innovative conservation projects. Because we take care of the financial, administrative, and legal aspects of managing a nonprofit for you, you can focus on what's really important - your mission.
> 
> As fiscal sponsors, we provide structure for your vision:
> ...


They can help you or your organization "farm" all the gubment grants out there.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Another thing.........

When you your company or corporation make a profit you pay a tax into the general treasury. Many years ago Congress passed a law creating foundations. Pre-tax income could be placed in them to do philanthropy work. Red Cross etc.

Meaning tax dollars on income are diverted away from the general treasury. Over the years the criteria for non-profit status has been weakened and now people like David and Lucile Packard can spend those pre-tax dollars on more than philanthropy work.

I mean they give money to non-profits such as Cultivate Impact. Is that philanthropy work or is Cultivate Impact more of a controlled opposition group?

It's a double whammy to the taxpayers carrying the load in America. The super rich such as David and Lucile Packard don't pay taxes and then give some of their profits to foundations who in turn beggar Congress for more grant money. That is what I am against. I am for conservation but I don't need resource hog capitalists like David and Lucile Packard telling me why I need to conserve.

There is a website called www.activistcash.com where you can view all the foundations in America. Look at the money. Hunreds of billions. Wouldn't it be nice if these peeople just paid their taxes like everybody else.

Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to read their controlled politik-think such as the article Dick Monson just posted???


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Point being conservation funding is drying up, to the detriment of the state and all of it's citizens. Below:

Private lands conservation at a crossroads as Farm Bill takes shape
By: Brad Dokken, Grand Forks Herald

The Farm Bill that the U.S. Senate passed Thursday has drawn positive reviews from conservation groups. The big question now is whether the House version of the wide-ranging farm legislation will be as friendly to conservation.

Given recent House actions, such as a bill passed Wednesday by a House subcommittee to cut the North American Wetlands Conservation Act by more than $13 million, I wouldn't bet the farm on a bill with the same commitment to conservation.

That's only speculation, though, because the House hasn't released its version of the bill.

One thing's for sure: Conservation groups will be ramping up the pressure on the House as it prepares its version of the Farm Bill.

"Waiting only increases budget pressures, while rural landscapes continue to be diminished, and fish and wildlife populations and the economies they support suffer," said Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, Farm Bill coordinator for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. "The Farm Bill has helped conserve and enhance millions of acres of fish and game habitat, and we urge the House to follow the Senate's lead and finalize its version of the Farm Bill without delay."

No doubt the Farm Bill has been beneficial to conservation in the Dakotas and Minnesota. Thanks to the Conservation Reserve Program, in particular, there's a whole generation of hunters out there that became accustomed to booming populations of pheasants, waterfowl and deer. But as more land leaves CRP and returns to farm production, that abundance is in jeopardy.

Just this week, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department added a caveat to a report about the annual spring breeding duck survey, which showed the third-highest duck index ever. The state has about 2.3 million acres of land in CRP, the department said, down 30 percent from 2007, with 650,000 acres set to expire this year and another 1.1 million acres going away in 2013 and 2014.

The resulting loss of nesting cover "will be disastrous for breeding ducks, other nesting birds and hunting opportunities in the future," Game and Fish waterfowl biologist Mike Szymanski said in a statement.

Such ominous words make the commitment to conservation in the Senate Farm Bill even more significant. Here's a look at some of the key conservation provisions in the Senate bill:

n CRP, which pays landowners to take sensitive land out of production and establish grassland habitat, would be authorized through 2017, with a gradual decline in total acreage each year. The CRP cap would fall from 32 million acres this year to 25 million acres in the 2017 fiscal year. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, about 30 million acres nationally are enrolled in CRP.

n A conservation easement program with incentives to preserve and maintain wetlands and grasslands.

n Sodsaver, a provision to discourage the practice of plowing up environmentally sensitive lands.

n A measure to link eligibility for federal crop insurance to compliance with conservation practices.

n A provision to authorize mandatory funding of $40 million annually for fiscal 2013 through fiscal 2017 for a voluntary public access and habitat program.

In a news release, Ducks Unlimited said the Senate Farm Bill strikes a balance between conservation and fiscal responsibility.

"In these challenging economic times it's critical to thoughtfully review long-standing programs and to work on increased efficacy and cost savings," Dale Hall, CEO of Ducks Unlimited, said in a statement. "The conservation title in the Farm Bill has gone through extreme scrutiny, and our legislators have made some changes that maintain support for a strong agricultural economy and the conservation of soil, water, wetlands, waterfowl and other wildlife. This bill recognizes the significant value of conservation programs in keeping our citizens on their working farms, ranches and forestlands."

No doubt the next few months are going to be crucial to the future of conservation in the United States as lawmakers work out differences in the two farm bills. Here's hoping the quality habitat and hunting opportunities we've grown accustomed to in the past 25 years are maintained well into the future.

To see the complete version of the Senate Farm Bill, go to ag.senate.gov/issues/farm-bill.

Dokken reports on outdoors. Reach him at (701) 780-1148; (800) 477-6572, ext. 1148; or send email to [email protected].


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> One thing's for sure: Conservation groups will be ramping up the pressure on the House as it prepares its version of the Farm Bill.
> 
> "Waiting only increases budget pressures, while rural landscapes continue to be diminished, and fish and wildlife populations and the economies they support suffer," said Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, Farm Bill coordinator for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. "The Farm Bill has helped conserve and enhance millions of acres of fish and game habitat, and we urge the House to follow the Senate's lead and finalize its version of the Farm Bill without delay."


So, who are these conservation groups that will be ramping up the pressure on Congress to cut spending; just not their spending?

http://www.teaming.com/teaming-wildlife ... ee-members



> Teaming With Wildlife Steering Committee Members
> A national steering committee of thirteen conservation organizations provides national leadership for the Teaming with Wildlife initiative, setting national strategy and supporting the activities of state coalitions.
> 
> Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
> ...


Whether it is the Farm Bill or something else these orgs never miss an opportunity to get some money.

http://www.teaming.com/dedicated-funding



> Dedicated Funding
> The Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program (WCRP), created by Congress in 2000, authorizes federal funding to State fish and wildlife agencies for wildlife conservation and related recreation and education. While the program is on the books, it is not currently receiving any funding. The Teaming With Wildlife (TWW) coalition is working to find a permanent, stable funding source for the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program.
> 
> The Teaming With Wildlife ActThe proposed Teaming With Wildlife Act would provide a reliable and increased amount of funding for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. The bill would dedicate a portion of existing federal revenue from on-shore and off-shore oil and mineral development activities to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program.
> ...


Someone needs to inform these non-profits that the well is dry. They will have to layoff people from their overbloated staffs.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Another well written article on the importance of funding conservation efforts, this time from the Minnesota side. Where the state's voters just happened to have passed their own conservation measure. 

http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/19914/

_*Conservation key in farm bill*_
By: Kristin Weeks Duncanson, Agweek

MAPLETON, Minn. - Minnesotans are proud of the natural wealth within the state. Minnesota has beautiful lakes and forests, and the conservation practices on the state's working lands contribute not only to its agricultural productivity, but also the wildlife and fishing that improve the quality of life.

But pressure on land resources in Minnesota is likely to intensify. The global population is projected to increase from approximately 7 billion today to 9 billion by 2050. The need to increase food production to meet expected future global demand means it is more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to conservation.

As Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., the chair of Senate Agriculture Committee, noted, "Farming is measured in generations. Farms are passed down from children to grandchildren. But a farm can only be successful if it has quality soil and clean water.

"With a growing global population, it is even more important than ever that we conserve water and conserve soil resources. Advances in technology and farm practices have helped our farmers be more productive than ever before, but no amount of technology can overcome degraded soils, poor water quality or a lack of water."

Land investment

The conservation programs in the farm bill have worked. They help farmers and other landowners improve stewardship, even as they have increased productivity.

But they aren't a free ride. The programs require participants, including farmers, to contribute a share of the cost of implementing conservation practices on their land.

So, these programs help encourage additional private investments in conservation, which is particularly important in a time of limited federal, state and local funding for conservation.

Conservation programs face significant cuts as Congress works to enact a new farm bill this year. The Senate has passed its version of the 2012 farm bill now. This bill would cut a total of $23 billion from farm programs in the next decade, with $6.4 billion of that coming from conservation programs.

The cuts to conservation programs are painful and will be felt on the ground, where demand from producers for conservation assistance already exceeds available funding. But leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee worked in a bipartisan way to minimize the effect of the cuts by consolidating and streamlining programs and making other changes to increase how effective these programs are in helping producers deliver conservation benefits to their operations and to the public.

Smart reductions

We all agree that it is important to reduce the federal budget deficit. The Senate version of the 2012 farm bill contributes significantly to deficit reduction, and conservation programs have given their fair share.

It is critical that as the House takes up its version of the legislation, lawmakers hold the line and reject deeper cuts to conservation programs that may be proposed along the way.

In the past few decades, conservation programs have been successful in helping farmers, ranchers and private forest landowners improve long-term productivity, conserve water and improve water quality and wildlife habitat.

We must maintain our investment in America's working lands as we work toward the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Minnesotans know that this is an investment that has paid off for everyone.

Editor's Note: Duncanson farms near Mapleton, Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check it out: ndheritage.org


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

A column from the Faro Forum, 7/15/12. It expalins part of the need for the Outdoor Heritage Amendment very well.

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/367391/

*Natural heritage at risk*

By: Dave Lambeth

In his recent column, Lloyd Omdahl was spot on in writing that the state's top priority right now is to meet the burgeoning demands for services and infrastructure in western North Dakota.

Omdahl also identified three other areas for long-term, strategic attention: education, economic development and tax reform. I would add to the list the need to preserve more of the state's natural heritage while we still can.

We once were truly a prairie state, with an abundance of grassland and wetland animals and plants that constituted the prairie ecosystem. This ecosystem is now virtually gone from the Red River Valley and increasingly is disappearing across the state because of energy development and the conversion of grassland to cropland. So I pose the question: Are we willing to let the prairie ecosystem disappear entirely?

To provide a cogent example of what is happening: Breeding bird surveys consisting of 50 stops along 25-mile routes have been run across North Dakota since the late 1960s. One route I run in Walsh County extends from near Nash to near Johnstown, and another in Pembina County runs north from near Bowesmont to just west of Pembina.

Both routes now are through extensive cropland in contrast to the mixed farming practices of the earlier years. Although more than 100 meadowlarks were sometimes recorded on the Bowesmont route in the 1970s, neither the Bowesmont nor Nash survey has recorded a Western meadowlark - the North Dakota state bird - for several years.

Other routes within North Dakota document a rapid decline in our state bird along with such marquee grassland species as upland sandpiper, horned lark, chestnut-collared longspur, Baird's sparrow and Sprague's pipit.

For 10 years now, it has been my privilege to guide visitors attending the Prairie and Pothole Birding Festival in Carrington, N.D. This year, 70 people from 24 states attended the festival. Such visitors are in awe at the grassland and wetland birds that we still have, at the courtship displays and nesting activities they see. But those of us serving as guides are finding it increasingly difficult to show the species our visitors most want to see.

I do not urge that we turn back the clock, demonize farmers who seek to make a living from the land, or stop the development of energy resources that we all need and enjoy. Rather, I urge that we look at the natural areas we still have and ask two questions: How can we ensure the survival of the best of what is left? And how can we best manage our grassland, wetland and water resources over the long-term? Grasslands, for example, need to be actively managed by grazing, burning or mowing, as they otherwise cease to exist because of invasion by trees and shrubs.

North Dakota is the envy of the nation because of the money coming in from agriculture and energy. We are in a position to make the financial investment needed to conserve a remnant of what American Indians knew and early settlers found upon arrival in North Dakota.

The window of opportunity to act is now. Saving places for Western meadowlarks along with their companions of a living, functioning prairie ecosystem, also will save an environment we humans treasure and find enriching.


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

A couple years ago i warned that things were going to get real complicated in your neck of the woods...now that the pigeon has come home to roost, make sure not to park the car under him. You have a genuine mess on your hands and it needs to be dealt with in a timely manor. The legislature needs to take care of this and forget about petty measures like raising license fees and the like. This will pay the bills and not punish those who wish enjoy the outdoors in their free time. Sportsman are not making monetary profits from their activities. The oil companies are. The energy industry, while admittedly providing good short term employment, is removing a portion your resources and altering others. Compensation and sensible limitations are not too much ask of those actually making a profit from it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

For Immediate Release

August 6, 2012

BISMARCK - North Dakotans for Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage filed signatures with the North Dakota Secretary of State today to get a constitutional initiated measure on the November general election ballot that would establish funding for water, land and wildlife conservation in North Dakota.

"We have a unique opportunity to use a small portion of existing funds to protect sources of drinking water, improve our natural flood controls and conserve unique natural areas such as the Badlands," said Steve Adair, sponsoring committee chairperson. "Hundreds of volunteers from across the state helped to gather the nearly 27,000 signatures needed to get the measure on the November ballot."

If the filed signatures meet the approval of the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the November 6 ballot. The constitutional amendment will establish a Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage Fund that will receive five percent of the total revenues generated from existing taxes collected from the production and extraction of oil and gas.

"North Dakota is at a pivotal moment. With the state's rapid development, we have the opportunity now to invest in maintaining our clean water, our unique natural lands and our outdoors heritage," said Adair. "This fund will conserve these resources while they are still intact and help improve natural flood control through the restoration and protection of natural areas along rivers, lakes and streams."

Coalition partners stressed the Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage fund will not raise taxes or adversely affect other programs currently funded through oil tax revenue.

The measure will establish a nine-member citizen board to oversee the distribution of the fund. The measure also calls for all project funds to be spent in North Dakota for the benefit of North Dakotan citizens. The purposes stated for the fund include protecting water quality, improving flood control, and protecting and creating habitat for wildlife and people.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

People First of North Dakota Coalition launched in opposition to Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage Fund Constitutional Amendment

Supporters of Amendment to file petitions with North Dakota Secretary of State today

Bismarck, N.D. - The People First of North Dakota Coalition, made up of various statewide associations and organizations, spoke out today against the proposed constitutional measure that would create the Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage Fund.

Andy Peterson, People First Coalition spokesperson and president of the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, said the proposed measure spends too much with no accountability. "The People First Coalition certainly supports the conservation of our state's natural resources for current and future generations. But this proposed measure is too extreme, including taking money from much needed investments in education, tax relief and infrastructure like roads and flood protection."

Peterson noted financing the fund with five percent of the revenues from oil extraction and oil and gas production taxes as proposed would generate more than $100 million in its first year and more than $1 billion over the next decade. "Essentially this fund would get more money per year than the North Dakota National Guard and Health Department combined, and would create a new government agency with the ninth largest budget in state government."

Furthermore, Peterson said the measure's language is vague and lacks guidelines that could result in proceeds being used to impose new regulations and restrict private property rights. "There is no doubt that future boards could grant this money to radical environmental and animal rights organizations to promote initiated measures, lobby or even sue the state and federal government in pursuit of new regulations and restrictions on private property, agriculture or energy development."

Peterson continued, "Considering that the Fund's unelected board could serve up to nine years and would operate independently with no oversight by elected officials, the legislature, the Governor or voters, the concern of how this money would be used is very real. In fact, it would take another constitutional measure to change how this unelected board operates and spends the hundreds of millions of dollars they receive."

Adding to the coalition's concerns for the future use of this fund is the fact that the supporters of the constitutional measure are being financed by out-of-state special interests. "These wilderness, wildlife and environmental oriented groups are pouring millions of dollars into the campaign to pass this measure. A couple of million dollars now will get them a billion dollars to advance their agenda for years to come."

Representing statewide industries ranging from agriculture and energy to business, the initial People First of North Dakota Coalition members include the North Dakota Stockmen's Association, North Dakota Farm Bureau, Landowners Association of North Dakota, North Dakota Corn Growers, North Dakota Grain Growers, North Dakota Renewable Energy Association, North Dakota Elk Growers, North Dakota Association of Oil and Gas Producing Counties, North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, North Dakota Petroleum Council, Lignite Energy Council, North Dakota Utility Shareholders, and North Dakota Taxpayers Association. Additional groups will be announced in the coming weeks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The first part of that was convincing. No oversight, is that true? Then I read who supports it like the stockmens association and the Farm Bureau. I suspect they oppose it because they never want wildlife, or habitat, or conservation to get any of it because they want it all. What I would like to know is where is the other 95% going. That makes a huge difference in how I look at that small 5%. If they are getting a portion of that 95% but don't want wildlife to get 5% then the problem is greed. If they are getting nothing I am open to being convinced otherwise.

I was sitting on the fence. Looking at the list of supporters is pushing me the other way. I'm just kind of hanging now. Help.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

In their efforts to get on the November ballot, those shepherding some of North Dakota's new crop of voter initiatives relied on paid petition carriers, most notably a proposal to reserve a share of the state's oil tax revenue for wildlife, parks and wetlands projects.

Supporters of the conservation initiative paid an Iowa consulting firm $145,000 to run their signature-gathering effort. Advocates of a medical marijuana initiative paid $45,000 to hire workers to solicit petition signatures.

North Dakota initiative and referendum campaigns have traditionally relied on volunteers, and state law bars linking payments to circulators to the number of signatures they gather. But the use of paid circulators has risen in recent years, Secretary of State Al Jaeger said.

"I was a little surprised" at the money spent to gather signatures for the conservation fund, Jaeger said Tuesday. The move, he said, "hasn't been a common practice."

The proposed conservation fund, which would put an appointed board in charge of a fund that could collect $80 million to $100 million annually in oil taxes, is backed by a number of environmental and conservation groups. The initiative's chairman, Stephen Adair, is director of the Bismarck regional office of Ducks Unlimited, a national conservation group. The campaign's treasurer is a Ducks Unlimited administrator.

A coalition of groups is being assembled to fight the proposal, including the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce and organizations that represent farming and ranching interests.

Andy Peterson, president of the Chamber of Commerce, argues the initiative would provide money for projects with no independent oversight, and would take funding from education, human services, flood protection and road construction.

Jon Godfread, chamber vice president, said Tuesday he expects backers of the conservation measure to spend as much as $2 million.

The $145,000 expenditure "was an eye-opening thing for us," but made sense given the amount of money at stake, Godfread said.

"This is $2 million (in campaign spending) to get a billion" in oil tax revenues over several years, he said. "If you just look at the numbers, that's a pretty good return on investment."

Although a $2 million initiative campaign would likely set a North Dakota record, the sum is unimpressive when compared to struggles over ballot measures in some of the 23 other states that allow citizen initiatives. In Washington state, more than $61 million was spent on initiative campaigns two years ago, according to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission.

The roster of Washington initiatives in 2010 included proposals to raise state income taxes on higher-earning couples, eliminate a state sales tax on candy and bottled water, allow private insurance companies to offer workers' compensation coverage and abolish a state monopoly on liquor distribution.

In California's citizen initiative campaigns from 1976 to 2004, an average of $3.6 million was spent supporting 137 initiatives, and $2.4 million was spent contesting them, Duke Law School professor John de Figueiredo said in a 2010 paper.

Dave Schwartz, campaign director for the pro-medical marijuana group North Dakotans for Compassionate Care, said as many as 30 petition carriers were hired to get the needed signatures. The campaign turned in petitions with about 20,000 names Monday, well above the minimum of 13,452 needed.

Schwartz said Tuesday the paid circulators were necessary because the campaign had less than three months to reach its signature goal. They were paid between $10 and $15 hourly, he said.

"We were under a tight deadline and we had to get the numbers in," Schwartz said. "We would have liked to have had more time, but that was our own issue."


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I was sitting on the fence. Looking at the list of supporters is pushing me the other way. I'm just kind of hanging now. Help


Plainsman,
No one would expect you to do anything but support this mess. These are your people and your agenda so don't even pretend to be thinking about otherwise. Liberals such as yourself always want something for nothing and your hatered towards farmers and energy along with free enterprise it's easy to see which side you are on. Have a good one :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

You have to remember if there was an initiated measure to save someone from crucifixion, somebody would oppose it. Poorly worded, wouldn't get the curcifixion tax, curcifixion is a property right, blah,.......... Same old stuff from the same old choir.

If you don't like the fence, drive the posts yourself.

The legislature sets the amount of oil and gas extraction tax. They change the amount all the time, up and down. Lately they have set it lower. So they must believe they have taxed enough for all the state projects. Recent news articles show they misscalculated tax revenue by about 40% or more. The surplus ND recieved is going to be a whopper. We'll know how much they were off by the end of the year. The proposed 5% conservation money isn't going to detract from any state expenditure.

Oversight of how the conservation money is spent is in control of the people appointed by the governor and legislature. How much more control could there be?

What really drives conservation opponents nuts is that the conservation money collected would be in a dedicated fund that could not be stolen for legislator's pet projects. As they currently do with our NDGF license money.

All ND hunting and fishing is going to benefit from this measure, but soil, water, and air quality are going to be the big beneficiaries. And guides and outfitters. And tourism. And local businesses. And farmers and ranchers. And most of all, our citizens in general. That just drives opponents nuts. :beer:

*All the facts are at ndheritage.org*


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick wrote,



> Oversight of how the conservation money is spent is in control of the people appointed by the governor and legislature. How much more control could there be?


Panelists must have education in wildlife management. Four chosen by the legislature. How are legislators to know or not know if the panelists they are considering are not wildlife federation or society already? Four to be chosen by the Governor from a list of names submitted to him by the Game and Fish Director. How is the Governor to know or not know if these names are not wildlife federation or society already? One to be chosen by the Wildlife Society. Why are the words wildlife society being written into our states Constitution?

This is going to be a fixed panel. So much mischief.

Passage of this measure would create (at current dollars) the 9th largest state agency in the state, funding conservation greater than Highway Patrol, ITD, the National Guard, and the University System to name a few.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick wrote,



> If you don't like the fence, drive the posts yourself.


Why do you think it is neccesary to build a fence or wall?



> What really drives conservation opponents nuts is that the conservation money collected would be in a dedicated fund that could not be stolen for legislator's pet projects. As they currently do with our NDGF license money.


If legislators are raiding Game and Fish license monies for their pet projects as you claim, then that could lead to no money in the account. Does the NDGF deficit spend now?????????? No they do not. They have over $60 million at their disposal every biennium.

Accounting Section NDG/F

Chief Accountant: Angie Krueger, Bismarck -- 328-6306

Accountant: Melissa Long, Bismarck -- 328-6318

Accountant: Kelly J. Wike, Bismarck -- 328-6608

Accountant: Ashley Baker, Bismarck -- 328-6304

Dick, you got the part "oppondents of conservation" wrong. I am a conservationist. I am also a conservative. Giving away $2 million dollars a week of the taxpayers money to your pet projects and organizations is just wrong.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This sounds better all the time. It would be good if the people with oversight had wildlife experience. Makes perfect sense to me. :thumb:



> wildlife federation or society already?


Wildlife society, is professional. That would ensure we don't get a guy with a degree from a crackerjack box. Wildlife federation isn't professional, but at least they are guys who are fellow hunters and fishermen. All good choices. Who would you guys put in charge of this money? I would hire a mechanic to fix my vehicle, not a music teacher.


----------



## Boonedog (Sep 10, 2006)

Dick Monson said


> The legislature sets the amount of oil and gas extraction tax. They change the amount all the time, up and down. Lately they have set it lower.


The oil extraction tax and oil production tax have not been changed recently.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If legislators are raiding Game and Fish license monies for their pet projects as you claim, then that could lead to no money in the account. Does the NDGF deficit spend now?????????? No they do not. They have over $60 million at their disposal every biennium.


You have said nothing that shows Dick's statement to be wrong. Simply because the NDGF doesn't have deficit spending doesn't mean money was not pilfered by the legislature. Also, if you have $60 million in the bank it doesn't mean someone has not taken $30 million. It's not that tough to figure out fritz.

Say, who would you like to oversee this money. If it was a space program to Mars I know you would want farmers running it. Same thing.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plain and simple it is an earmark, and those are becoming increasingly unpopular.

Who do I think should oversee this money?

Well, the money currently goes into the ND State General Treasurey. It's everyones money and gets appropriated out accordingly. Through their representative everyone has a voice. State Agencies, roads, schools and things that benefit the people get funded. This conservation amendment would create the ninth largest agency in the state. Plainsman, you sir are not a conservative as you claim.

Public Instruction (201) $1,362,015,260.00

2 DOT (801)$1,122,074,456.00

3 Human Services (325) $1,056,078,373.75

4 OMB (110)$473,335,766.67

5 Water Commission (770) $442,695,037.00

6 UND (230)$243,044,189.86

7 Corrections & Rehab (530) $230,277,520.00

8 NDSU (235)$225,502,003.77

9 Conservation Measure Projection $179,100,000.00

10 ITD (112)$175,726,544.00

11 Land Department (226) $140,473,187.00

12Adjutant General (540)$112,228,160.36

13 Main Research Station (640) $103,407,932.99

14 Bank of ND (471)$91,253,155.00

15 University System (215) $89,671,423.47

16 Minot State (241)$72,943,273.40

17 Health Department (301) $72,145,278.88

18 District Courts (182) $71,323,032.00

19 Industrial Commission (405) $64,578,884.00

20 Historical Society (701)$60,153,588.00


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, you sir are not a conservative as you claim.


I am very conservative, I am just not willing to let you have everything. I once told a pastor who is an acquaintance that conservatives that do not believe in God worship money. I guess that may be the difference between myself as a conservative and other conservatives. Hint, I don't worship money.

It's very clear why you don't want this going to wildlife or in the hands of people who can manage wildlife. You want farmers in charge because you want your hands on that last 5%. Your not even willing to let 5% slip through your fingers for conservation. How much is enough for you fritz?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

It must be very hard for you being a libertal spending conservationist in a conservative land.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> It must be very hard for you being a libertal spending conservationist in a conservative land.


I was thinking it would be harder for you. You want 100%, and I am leaning towards wanting that 5%. That still leaves you 95% to fight over. Isn't that a big enough share for you?
It's the habitat that is suffering so doesn't it make sense to take a minor portion (5%) to make up for some of the damage? So what do you want 100% for? I can see where you need some for roads if your in the area affected. Are you? Where do you want all the money to go?

Edit: Your grasping at straws Fritz. The state is taxing them. The money is already being collected. The only difference between you and I is you want 100% and I want 5%. It simply kills you that you may not get it all. I would guess through the legislature highly imbalanced with grain farmers (comparing per capita) you will get most of it. Don't you think wanting it all is a bit greedy?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> It's the habitat that is suffering so doesn't it make sense to take a minor portion (5%) to make up for some of the damage? So what do you want 100% for? I can see where you need some for roads if your in the area affected. Are you? Where do you want all the money to go?


Wouldn't it be hilarious if state and fed/gov employees from the Departments of Transportation sponsored a petition to amend the consitution where-by 10% of oil revenues went to roads and they were put in charge of the money. I mean they could say they rerpresent drivers.

Or if the college Deans, Professors and school teachers sponsored a petition to amend the constitution where-by 20% of oil revenues went to education and they were put in charge of the expenditures of the money. They could say they represent students.

Five percent here, ten or twenty percent there and it shouldn't take long before all the money is "earmarked."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the reason they are trying to earmark the money is because if it goes into the general fund it will be raided by everyone else. In most cases it's raided for agriculture through our legislature. For example where did all the tobacco money settlement go? Tiny little bit for education and the rest went where? Did it go to offset health costs related to tobacco? No. So where did it go Fritz?

Hint, I'll bet that's where you want all the oil revenue to go also.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> I think the reason they are trying to earmark the money is because if it goes into the general fund it will be raided by everyone else.





> I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it. I don't care if it only cost me a penny.


At least Plainsman, you are consistant.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As usual everyone wants some of the money, and some of the people want all of the money. Those who want all of the money will not like 5% going to anyone but them.

It's interesting what some consider good government or corrupt government. So Fritz tell us where that tobacco money went. I think it will help everyone reading this understand the desire for this earmark as you call it. I see it as insurance against corruption. Also, lets not confuse allotment of funds with Washington politics and earmarks. Nearly all of us dislike earmarks so even though this doesn't fall into that category I understand your political strategy shaug. By your definition every agriculture allotment of funds is also an earmark.

Are you sure your not liberal? Next thing you will call agriculture spending an investment. We don't have taxes we have investments right?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> So Fritz tell us where that tobacco money went.


I am not up to speed where the tobacco money went. From scuttlebutt around town I can quote most people saying it was mis-spent. If the 5% oil revenue rip off were to pass in November, history "will" repeat itself.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> > So Fritz tell us where that tobacco money went.
> 
> 
> I am not up to speed where the tobacco money went. From scuttlebutt around town I can quote most people saying it was mis-spent. If the 5% oil revenue rip off were to pass in November, history "will" repeat itself.


No, just the opposite. It will not be ripped off and spent for something else. How much of that tobacco money went into the Devils Lake west outlet?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Money raised by the measure goes into a dedicated fund. That means it cannot be spent for any other purpose. Period. It is worthwhile to read the wording.

This plaque sums up the ND Outdoor Heritage concept nicely:










Note the phrase, " foresight in preserving this place for future generations". He did that for us and now it is our turn to do so for those coming after us.

Check it out at http://ndheritage.org/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The one thing that would improve the measure is wording like "habitat preserved for wildlife and open to hunting for perpetuity".


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

Dick - love the plaque. The Chase Lake Foundation is a great example of how people that are landowners, farmers, ranchers, sportsmen, and true conservationists, work together to not only create/maintain wildlife habitat but also work to maintain ND's true sustainable agriculture heritage. Most of these members are farmers/ranchers that have never lost the conservation ethic that so many others have.

One thought I have had is that if this initative does not pass, I propose an initative like Alaska's we all ND citizens would get an oil/gas revenue check each year from the state. We are all paying for this exploitation so we should all get some benefit from it. If the government is not going to put some of that money back into habitat that is now lost, then give it back to the people rather than let it sit in the state coffers getting moldy or going to fund some state water commission drainage project!


----------



## Springerguy (Sep 10, 2003)

I hope the outdoor groups and individuals in ND support this bill with as much enthusiasm as they do when it comes to passing laws aimed at limiting non-residents I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed that there hasn't been more activity or discussion around this bill - I read the Fargo Forum and Grand Forks Herald on line almost daily and don't recall any press about this bill. 
MN passed a similar law - all in all, it has been a very good bill for the state with a couple of bumps: 1) the state legislature has steadily cut the DNR budget, although the bill was not supposed to cause this to happen. 2) politicians and other groups will come out of the woodwork to lay claim to the funding once approved (although nowhere to be seen when campaigning to pass the bill). Based on the language to help farmers/ranchers I think ND will have the same problems if passed - all of the farm/ranch organizations aligning against the bill will be the first to find a way to dip into the well of money if passed. Considering the direction the ag community and politicians are heading it would seem like a good opportunity for the outdoors - the new farm bill limits direct payments and is moving towards subsidizing crop insurance. I'm not well read regarding the farm bill but the languages lead me to believe that CRP will be plowed under and planted based on the design of the farm bill - and add to that the high prices of commodities, the writing is on the wall regarding CRP. If this bill is passed the next hurdle for Dick and crew to tackle is the stubborn stance that local commissioners have taken regarding the purchase of land for use by the public domain - i.e. public hunting lands.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Thank you both for those comments regarding the Outdoor Heritage Measure. Implementation of the concept seems to have worked well in other states, it can here too.

Back in the early '70s coal was king in ND and strip mining rampant. The spoil banks were left as is. Governor Art Link put through a reclamation law that was a model for the nation. People ****** and moaned that it wasn't necessary, it would hurt the industry, etc. And now ND politicians embrace that law like a long lost child. And the coal companies give guided tours of the fine work they do reclaiming the land. It is the exact same concept as this measure. Protecting a natural resource for the future.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson wrote,



> Back in the early '70s coal was king in ND and strip mining rampant. The spoil banks were left as is.


Before the 70's coal mining wasn't rampant. Those spoil banks are still there. A few hundred acres. Trees weeds and grasses have taken over that land and it is open to public hunting. There is a little wildlife in there.



> Governor Art Link put through a reclamation law that was a model for the nation. People ticked and moaned that it wasn't necessary, it would hurt the industry, etc. And now ND politicians embrace that law like a long lost child.


The coal industry was set to expand. Leaving vast areas of spoiled lands open to public hunting wasn't the answer so a reclamation law was passed. It takes a lot of fuel to first strip the topsoil subsoil and then put it all back again after the spoil peaks have been leveled. This land is more level now than it used to be and makes better farmland. The cost to perform all this was passed on to the consumer in a higher utility bill.

Once again proving that an improving environment is dependent upon economic productivity, and that economic productivity is dependent upon private ownership of the "means of production."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Once again proving that an improving environment is dependent upon economic productivity, and that economic productivity is dependent upon private ownership of the "means of production."


 :huh: What???????? English please.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

BISMARCK - Eight current North Dakota State University football players and one former player are among 11 people facing charges in connection with voter fraud tied to general election ballot measures.

Four of the accused are starters on the defending national championship football team.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and Secretary of State Al Jaeger identified the individuals charged as: Aireal Boyd, Josh Colville, Josh Gatlin, Demetrius Grey, Jennifer Krahn, Lane O'Brien, Samuel Ojuri, Brendin Pierre, Antonio Rodgers, Bryan Shepherd and Marcus Williams.

All are charged with facilitation of voter fraud or filing a false statement, according to Stenehjem and Jaeger.

The charges are Class A misdemeanors.

Criminal complaints claim that all circulators of a petition are required to sign an affidavit stating they witnessed all the signatures and that all signatures are genuine.

An investigation found that the statements were not correct and that many of the individuals whose signatures appeared on the petitions had not signed them.

As a result, two proposed measures will not be on the November general election ballot.

The affected measures are the proposed Constitutional initiative establishing a Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage Fund and the statutory initiative for medical marijuana. Those involved may have been paid by a third party to gather signatures.

"Petition fraud is an affront to the election process and to all citizens, and particularly to those who legitimately signed the petitions hoping to have these measures placed on the ballot. That's why it's essential that these allegations are investigated and violations prosecuted," Stenehjem said in a written statement.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

See what happens when you bring in corrupt out of state money. Now you guys can stop the argument for a year


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Absolute fiasco would sum it up. I would hope the measure committee will revamp and go forward.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It sounds like fraud for certain, but which side. Did they in fact forge signatures, or did someone sign those petitions with the intent of denying it when asked? I agree that someone should be in trouble for this, but I don't know who ---- yet.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> It sounds like fraud for certain, but which side. Did they in fact forge signatures, or did someone sign those petitions with the intent of denying it when asked? I agree that someone should be in trouble for this, but I don't know who ---- yet.


Considering one of the signed names was "Donald Duck," you have to believe there was some forgery going on.



> Several NDSU football players could face jail time on charges that they falsified signatures on a November ballot measure. This morning, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and Secretary of State Al Jaeger said two measures will have to be thrown out, including a proposal to allow medical marijuana in North Dakota and another to form a Clean Water, Lands and Outdoor Heritage Fund.
> 
> Stenehjem has filed charges against 11 people who were working as petition circulators on the medical marijuana measure. Eight of them are listed on the NDSU football roster.
> 
> ...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I would think the coalition will sue the out of state company to get their fees back....like $45,000


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I would think the coalition will sue the out of state company to get their fees back....like $45,000I would think the coalition will sue the out of state company to get their fees back....like $45,000


No Ken that would $140,000.00 that Dick and crew spent, and they should go after it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > I would think the coalition will sue the out of state company to get their fees back....like $45,000I would think the coalition will sue the out of state company to get their fees back....like $45,000
> 
> 
> No Ken that would $140,000.00 that Dick and crew spent, and they should go after it.


I don't understand.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I'm only out $25 from the street fair booth and a few afternoons of time circulating the petition. The sad thing is that is was so simple to get legitimate signatures. People would line up to sign.

I would hope the measure committee can recover their money for a service not rendered and then refile as soon as possible before the 2013 session begins. To try this conservation concept in the legislature would be a total disaster.

But that is up to that committee.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

Take heart boys,,,we'll still be able to vote and make animal cruelty a felony in this state.


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

I would think that the legislature would take it up themselves. They seem to be whining about a need for more funding (like all legislatures). With fewer hunters paying the bills due to increased fees, poor economy, and other reasons; the legislature should be all over this. There has been talk of CRP going to pot and nothing to replace it. When the wildlife populations respond to that, fewer hunters will be interested in going afield. Then the funding problem gets even worse. The legislature should already have the intelligence to foresee that. Maybe there is some oil money involved there. Or some other interest. Seems odd to me. Wyoming funds everything from roads to schools to conservation projects with mineral royalties. I am surprised North Dakota does not already have something in place from former oil activities. Maybe the previous boom was not nearly this big.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kingcanada, I think in Wyoming you have many more ranches than grain farms. Those guys have to take care of their cattle year around. Unless they are so big they don't work themselves. I know a couple like that. Anyway, here in North Dakota we have many farms that have no animals. Many of those are in the legislature. Not a majority perhaps but much more represented than anyone else. The attitude of many of those is, if it isn't agriculture they are not interested.

Have you heard Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota who is running for congress brag about getting money for flood relief. She helped rob the tobacco money for health care and used it for the Devils Lake outlet. If more people don't get interested in politics and run for office we will be in even more trouble. Much of the reason we are in such good shape in North Dakot is because we don't spend more than taxes take in. One bad thing is it has to be agriculture related or little money is available.

This isn't agriculture bashing, this is the reality of this state. I may add that it isn't like I am new here either. I am 64 years old and my grandfather was one of the first people in this state. He purchsed one farm from a French fur trapper that worked for the Hudson Bay company. I think that fellow got it through the homestead act like my grandfather got his other land.


----------



## kingcanada (Sep 19, 2009)

Wyoming is not that much different, our legislature is still primarily rancher interest. But it seems the scope of their view is a little broader. Sometimes a little too broad, but it is one heck of a lot better than most states for sure.


----------



## Springerguy (Sep 10, 2003)

What is saddest about this fiasco is the attitude displayed by NDSU staff regarding the behavior of their football players by forging these documents. It goes against the grain of the North Dakota I remember - where honesty, integrity and hard work were the measure of a person. Have we become that focused on local sports that winning takes precedence over setting behavior standards? And, yes, I am a hardcore sports fan to the core - I still drive to my beloved UND to watch the Fighting Sioux so I'm not some anti-sport kinda guy. By the way, Bison fans, I do realize UND is no longer the Fighting Sioux...no need to correct me, instead, pick up the phone and give Coach Bohl some advice on managing his players


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I wonder how many of those forgers are from good old North Dakota. They are getting of easy, and that doesn't set a good example. We wonder why society is going to pot, then let them off because they are good ballplayers? I guess as a society we get what we deserve. We were dumb enough to vote in Obama so were dumb enough to let these criminals off. The committee people should sign the complaint with law enforcement.


----------

