# ndfb amendment



## Bad Dog

Another article on the ndfb's constitutional amendment proposal. Again, farming is an occupation and not a 'right', this needs to be defeated and stop littering our constitution with rubbish.

http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/article/id/147442/


----------



## swift

> Aasmundstad, the North Dakota Farm Bureau leader, said guaranteeing farmers and ranchers the right to farm and ranch does not override regulation of such things as hog farm siting and production of biotech crops. He compared it to U.S. citizens having a constitutional right to bear arms but also being required to follow gun laws.
> 
> Johannes, the central North Dakota farmer, said supporters simply want to ensure their ability to produce food free from onerous restrictions.
> 
> "It keeps your options open," he said. "It doesn't give you a license to pillage and plunder."


The whole article is a contradiction. If a law is passed, it will have to be followed regardless of a constitutional amendment.

There is a state constitutional amendment expressing the right to hunt and fish. If that meant anything, the whole HFH debacle would have never made it to a vote. If the vote sided with the HFH side the right to hunt and fish would have had no bearing on the regulation of HFH. Just like the amendment has no bearing on the seasons, tag numbers or bag limits.

I agree with Bad Dog this is unnecessary rubbish in the state constitution.

The NDFB should be lobbying the non-ag citizens for legislative support of their businesses and operations to thwart any east coast or west coast nonsense that is brought to the state. But since the NDFB holds non-ag citizens in such low regard it isn't likely to happen.


----------



## Bad Dog

Why isn't the ndfb showing and doing more to support CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture)? This is how you get people to actually 'buy in' to agriculture. I know and support two near us, and I am looking for more. Plus this is supporting the family farmer, not a corporate machine.

If you really care about the real family farm ndfb, then support and promote CSAs!


----------



## shaug

For some time now I have been telling you fellars that the HFI wasn't the reason why Farm Bureau has decided to do this ballot measure but maybe I was wrong. Read it yourselves:

http://ndfb.org/image/cache/2011_Oct-Nov_insertweb.pdf



> Why now?
> During the last election cycle, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) poured several thousand dollars into a hunting
> issue. They carried the vote in the largest urban center in our state. HSUS has also been effective in curtailing accepted
> farming practices in other states through initiated measures. Members of The Feeding Families Committee feel that if we wait
> until we need to safeguard current ag practices in North Dakota, it will already be too late.


The Fair Chase Committee opened the door. They partnered with HSUS. Hey bad dog, were you a sponser of the HFI? Is your name David?


----------



## Bad Dog

shaug - no my name is not david nor was I a sponsor of the high fence initiative. I have never brought the hfi up in discussing the ndfb proposal. IMO, I can't really see a difference in killing a deer raised in a fence or killing a cow that was raised in a fence.

Why doesn't ndfb spend the time, effort, and dollars on CSA instead of measures that support the multinational corporations?


----------



## gst

Bad dog, would you please explain more of what a CSA is?


----------



## Bad Dog

gst
CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture. It is similar to a coop. Individuals buy into them and in return, they get products. For example, one CSA we belong to, we pay a 6 month fee and every month we get different cuts of beef either delivered or we can pick up. They also offer ground wheat, poultry, and eggs. Another one offers poultry, veggies, and fruit. These are both local family farms. This seems like to me a great way to get individuals involved in where their food comes from, support the ag community, and support true family farms.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog wrote,



> For example, one CSA we belong to, we pay a 6 month fee and every month we get different cuts of beef either delivered or we can pick up.


So let me understand this, you walk into farmer johns herd and say I'll take that one. Then farmer john processes it at the end of the month and sends you certain cuts from said animal.

What about the poultry? Are they frozen or fresh? Where do you find processed on the farm fresh broilers in February?


----------



## Bad Dog

shaug

It may just be the tone of your posts, but it seems that you are cynical and negative. If you are truely interested in what CSAs are, then please state so.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog said,



> every month we get different cuts of beef either delivered or we can pick up.


Please explain.


----------



## Bad Dog

we pay a set fee per 6 months for a certain amount of beef. The beef comes in varying cuts each month. We can also include poultry, eggs, ground wheat, etc.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog,

Farm Bureau probably isn't doing anything to promote CSA's but I don't believe they are doing anything to detract from it either. If you want to belong to a coop that is fine.

Dam few people raise poultry that are ready for slaughter in February. But the Amish do. Have you heard of their colony at Maple Valley near Jamestown? It is a one stop shop. They hatch raise and butcher them at the farm.

About your farmer friend, does he birth raise and slaughter beef on the farm?


----------



## Bad Dog

Shaug

Why wouldn't the ndfb promote CSA's?

Is the group near Jamestown Amish or Hutterites? I was unaware of any amish in the state.

They do raise all their animals from birth to slaughter, which they do themselves. As for chickens in the winter, buying one in Feb would be a frozen bird from the fall.

I guess I don't see why ndfb would not want to promote CSAs.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog wrote,



> They do raise all their animals from birth to slaughter, which they do themselves.


I am having some trouble getting my arms around this concept. Your farmer friend breeds births bales straw beds the animals and then butchers them. That is a lot of work in and of itself. But a CSA is more. Do you go out and tour the farm? Do you pick out a nice healthy steer? If a steer produces 500 lbs. of meat and the farmer bundles it up into 20 lbs. packages, that would mean that steer would go to 25 different people. Do 25 different people go out and tour the farm? Does he deliver? If so, that is a lot of driving around. Even if the 25 go out to the farm and pick up there is this time factor. There is always a BS session. With all the coming and going, when does your farmer friend get his chores done?


----------



## gst

bad dog, I assumed that was what you meant by CSA's but wanted to be sure. My wife is involved in this very thing, She has a large outdoor garden as well as a 30 by 72 high tunnel enabling her to stretch her growing season from mar to nov, that she produces a variety of vegetables in. It started as a hobby and she is growing it into a business. She currently provides a number of people, farmers markets as well as 4 different grocery stores produce including the Market Place chain. She is very active in the promotion of using locally grown foods in schools, old folks homes, ect.... She has been to a number of meetings thruout the state regarding this very concept as well as other "locally grown" programs and groups. At these meetings there has indeed been support from not only the ND Ag Dept, but the very farm groups mentioned on here with disdain by some.

CSA's while a very worthwhile idea and one I support and beleive in, are merely a VERY small niche in ag production here in ND. This area of the US has been and still is refered to as "the bread basket of the world" for a very real reason. There is only so many acres that can be implemented in CSA's and even if every one in ND begin purchasing their produce from them it would only be a very small percentage of arable acres that would be used. Large scale ag production is required to continue to keep pace with the ever increasing global population as this population continues to grow, while arable acres globaly continue to decline. Production agriculture will always be a large part of this states as well as this nations economy and the ability to produce safe cheap avalible food lies at the base of a nations stability. .

Here in ND we produce 94% of all flax, 89% of all canola, 57% of all edible peas, 55% of all Pinto beans, 62% of all durum, 41% of all navy beans, 45% of all spring wheat, 48% of all oil sunflowers, 45% of all lentils, 46% of all other sunflowers,24% of all barley, 36% of all edible beans, and 24% of all honey of all the production of these commodities in the US ranking us first in production in these various commodities. We are in the top ten in 5 other commodities as well.


----------



## gst

bad dog, as I have stated before, I share some of the same concerns over the use of our Constitutions, both state and national, to address agenda or groups specific ideologies. As I said there are questions regarding this proposed amendment that need to be answered regarding it's contradiction or not of current wording already in the state constitution.

But what I also stop and consider is that the framers of these constitutions at the time they were put in place, likely did not envision the social pushes we see from various orgs in trying to impose their will thru the various other forms of govt such as the judicial arena. They likely did not envision orgs pushing agendas into law without following the basic concept of truth and fact in attempting to change social opinion and law resulting from their agendas.

Like it or not, beleive it or not, the HFH initiative was indeed a partial catalyst behind this measure being introduced at this time. The ranching of captive cervids was a Dept of Ag, ND legislative branches supported legaly defined agricultural endeavor that was attempted to be regulated out of existance here in ND. And the very groups that eventually entered into this measure as aniumal ag groups here in ND claimed they would are the leaders of pushing other anti animal agricultural agendas all across this nation in various forms. EVERY ag org. that has any ties to animal agriculture here in ND and across this nations understands this and realizes the very real and direct threat these groups and their agendas have. People such as plainsamn may try to dismiss this, but the fact is they only have to look in the mirror to see someone that worked to ban an accepted and approved agriculture endeavor they simply did not aprove of. So please explain to me why this is any different than PETA or HSUS looking to end other and all froms of animal agriculture THEY do not agree with???

The simple fact is society and the orgs claiming to represent it are much different than what was present at the framing of these documents, and are willing to use means and methods not previously seen or considered by those framers of our Constitutions. So like it or not, perhaps as a living document, these constitutions will indeed have to begin to define and address more specifically what is a "right" more so now than ever before as these orgs find ways to twist the intent of our original branches and means of governing and creating laws as well as the original "intent" of our constitutions.

Do you beleive the framers of our constitutions beleived the judicial branch of govt should be used to "legislate" from the bench, or simply "interpret" the legislation provided? The orgs pushing for these agendas have indeed discovered that it is much easier to convince an activist judge to "interpret" and rule on legislation and basically "create" law than it is to convince a majority of the legislative body or in many cases society itself.

Beleive me I wish for days were these groups and agendas did not exist, but the reality is as long as society is afluent they will exist, and those of us that make our living from production agriculture, particularily animal agriculture, have to deal firsthand with their influences and methods.


----------



## shaug

I too support farmers markets. So does everybody living in ND.

www.nd.gov/ndda/program-area/marketing

But there is something wrong with Bad Dogs "meat" story. It is not as simple as butchering an animal on the farm in a shed out back and then selling 20 lbs. of hamburger to whomever. There are laws for selling meat. If an animal is harvested and processed on the farm the premises of a person who is the owner of the animal to be slaughtered or of carcasses to be processed, and the resulting product can only be for the exclusive use by that person, members of the persons household, or that persons "nonpaying" guests.

We have six federal plants with live kill floors.

Casselton Cold Storage...Casselton 347-4781
Cloverdale Foods Co....Minot 852-0129
Fairmount Lockers...Fairmount 474-5869
Langdon Lockers...Langdon 256-2496
Myers Meats and Specialties...Parshall 743-4451
NDSU, Animal Science Dept....Fargo 231-8107
North American Bison Co-op...New Rockford 947-2505
Prairie Packing Inc....Williston 577-6788
Valley Meat Supply...Valley City 845-4705

If you want to get in you will need an appointment. Most like Myers Meats are booked from Nov. to Mar. because of the deer season. The cost at these facilities is like 65 cents hanging and 60 bucks an hour for the federal inspector. We can rule out Bad Dog is using one of these.

In North Dakota we have,

OFFICIAL STATE PROCESSING ESTABLISHMENTS
COMPANY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 
BRIDGEMART MEATS LLC
15620 HWY 13
WYNDMERE
ND
58081

DAKOTA SAUSAGE KITCHEN INC 3306 SHEYENNE ST STE 212 WEST FARGO ND 58078

EDGELEY MEAT PROCESSING PLANT 605 6TH AVE W
EDGELEY
ND 58433

HICKORY HUT
1205 9TH ST
LANGDON
ND
58249 
L & M MEAT & SAUSAGE INC
2801 S WASHINGTON ST
GRAND FORKS 
ND 
58201

NEXT DOOR PIZZA 
PO BOX 151 
SCRANTON 
ND 
58653

REISTER MEATS & CATERING 
4640 52nd AVE SE 
STREETER 
ND 
58483

WURST SHOP 
205 14TH ST W 
DICKINSON 
ND 
58601

Bad Dog, most of these do not have a live kill floor. I know the guy at L&M Meats in Grand Forks. He buys his buffalo meat from Rapid City. Some friends of mine have buffalo in ND and haul them to Rapid City. If you want to buy jerky from L&M Meats you must pay the freight both ways. Crazy eh?

We also have these sites below with live kill floors where a person can haul an animal to and then sell the meat in 20 lbs. bundles.

OFFICIAL STATE SLAUGHTER ESTABLISHMENTS
COMPANY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 
BARTON MEATS 
1020 N 11TH ST 
CARRINGTON ND
58421

BUTCHER BLOCK 
421 S 3RD ST 
OAKES 
ND 
58474

GARRISON CUSTOM MEATS 1 CESSNA DR GARRISON ND 58540

MAPLE VALLEY LOCKERS 
218 4TH AVE 
ENDERLIN 
ND 
58027

SIOUXLAND BUFFALO 
1705 16TH ST NE 
GRAND FORKS
ND 
58203

Bad Dog, If you take an animal here you can sell the meat in small packages to anyone in ND. But not outside of the state. For that you have to use a federal plant.

OK lastly, we have

CUSTOM EXEMPT ESTABLISHMENTS
COMPANY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 
ANETA MEATS SERVICE 
MAIN STREET 
ANETA 
ND 
58212

ASHLEY SUPER VALU 
PO BOX 199 
ASHLEY 
ND 
58413

BARLOW MEAT 185 ELEVATOR RD CARRINGTON ND 58421

BERT'S DEER PROCESSING 
2684 19TH ST NW 
BENEDICT 
ND 
58716

BEULAH HIGH SCHOOL 
204 5TH STREET NW 
BEULAH 
ND 
58523

BLOMS' LOCKER & PROCESSING 110 CENTRAL AVE E MINOT ND 58701

BOSCH'S MEAT MARKET 
750 HWY 13 SE 
LINTON 
ND 
58552

BRENNO MEATS 
330 RIVERSIDE AVE 
SHEYENNE 
ND 
58374

BRONSON'S SUPER VALU PO BOX 939 BEULAH ND 58523 
B'S CATERING 61 3RD AVE SE BEACH ND 58621

BUTCHER BLOCK MEATS 
108 W MAIN ST 
MANDAN 
ND 
58554

CARRINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 
PO BOX 48 
CARRINGTON 
ND 
58421

CHARLIE'S COUNTRY SAUSAGE 4005 E. BURDICK EXPWY MINOT ND 58701

COUNTRY MEATS 
PO BOX 189 
WEST HOPE 
ND 
58793

COUNTRY SMOKEHOUSE 115 WEST 5TH ST GRAFTON ND 58237

DAKOTA PACKING 
207 HWY 12 E 
HETTINGER 
ND 
58639

DAVIDSON'S PROCESSING PLANT 
1403 SINCLAIR ST S 
BOTTINEAU 
ND 
58318

DEAN'S MEAT MARKET 355 1ST ST E DICKINSON ND 58601

DEVORE CUSTOM MEATS 
PO BOX 7 
STEELE 
ND 
58482

DIAMOND S MEATS, INC. 
2905 4TH AVE NE 
LEMMON 
SD 
57638

DONALD KRAFT DAIRY INC 2649 91ST ST SELFRIDGE ND 58568

DON'S MEAT MARKET 
118 N AVE E 
RICHARDTON 
ND 
58652

DOUBLE R MEATS, INC 
PO BOX 322 
CARSON 
ND 
58529

DRAKE COOP CREAMERY 204 1ST AVE W DRAKE ND 58736

DW MEATS & SAUSAGE
1103 S 12TH ST 
BISMARCK 
ND 
58504

ECONOMART 300 11TH ST W WILLISTON ND 58801

ELLINGSON MEATS PO BOX 47 EDINBURG ND 58227

ENGEBRETSON PROCESSING 9455 45TH AVE NW MOHALL ND 58761

ERICKSON'S MEAT MARKET, INC. PO BOX 704 BOWMAN ND 58623

ESMOND LOCKER PLANT
PO BOX 86
ESMOND
ND
58332

FORDSTORE
PO BOX 267
FORDVILLE
ND
58231

GARRISON SUPER VALUE PO BOX 5 GARRISON ND 58540

GILBERTSON BUTCHER SHOP
PO BOX 536
CROSBY
ND
58730

GOLDADE PROCESSING 
PO BOX 972 
DEVILS LAKE 
ND 
58301

GOLVA CUSTOM MEATS 
PO BOX 149
GOLVA 
ND 
58632

HALLIDAY CUSTOM MEATS 
PO BOX 68 
HALLIDAY 
ND 
58636

HAMBURGER MEATS 
PO BOX 101 
RICHARDTON 
ND 
58652

HAZEN HIGH SCHOOL 
PO BOX 487 
HAZEN 
ND 
58545

HAZEN MEATS 
904 3RD ST NW 
HAZEN 
ND 
58545

HOYT PROCESSING 
PO BOX 203 
MCHENRY 
ND 
58464

J & J MEATS, LLC 
28001 HWY 83 
WILTON
ND 
58579

JACK & JILL STORE 
PO BOX 564 
WATFORD CITY 
ND 
58854

JERRY'S JACK & JILL 
PO BOX 265 
FESSENDEN 
ND 
58438

JIM'S SUPER VALU INC. 
101 3RD ST W BOX 54 
PARK RIVER 
ND 
58270

K & E MEATS 
425 8TH AVE 
CANDO 
ND 
58353

KALMBACH'S MEAT PROCESSING 
PO BOX 232 
FLAXTON 
ND 
58737

KENMARE LOCKER 
PO BOX 817 
KENMARE 
ND 
58746

KRAUSE SUPER VALU 
13 CENTRAL AVE S 
HAZEN 
ND 
58545

KUNTZ'S BUTCHER SHOP 
6480 HWY 49 
GLEN ULLIN 
ND 
58631

LAMOURE LOCKERS 
PO BOX 423 
LAMOURE 
ND
58458

LARRY'S MEAT PROCESSING 
404 INDIANA AVE 
MOTT 
ND 
58646

LEIER'S PROCESSING 
PO BOX 314 
KARLSRUHE 
ND 
58744

LISBON WAREHOUSE GROCERY 
1112 MAIN ST 
LISBON

M & M SAUSAGE & MEATS 
2901 N 19TH ST 
BISMARCK
ND 
58503

MANOCK MEATS 
PO BOX 135 
GREAT BEND
ND 
58075

MEATS BY JOHN & WAYNE 
1801 45TH ST S 
FARGO 
ND 
58103

MID DAKOTA MEATS LLC 
PO BOX 157 
NEW LEIPZIG 
ND 
58562

MIKE & VI'S CUSTOM SAUSAGE 
306 2nd AVE SW 
JAMESTOWN 
ND 
58401

MILLER MEATS AND PROCESSING 
123 WILLIAMS ST 
HEATON 
ND 
58418

MILLER'S FRESH FOODS 
PO BOX 531 
COOPERSTOWN 
ND 
58425

MILNOR LOCKER 
PO BOX 224 
MILNOR 
ND 
58060

NORM'S GROCERY & MEAT 
PO BOX 6
DRISCOLL 
ND 
58532

OLD SCHOOL MEAT PROCESSING 
14444 18TH ST NW 
ALEXANDER 
ND 
58831

OLD TYME MEAT SHOPPE 
101 MAIN ST N 
BELFIELD 
ND 
58622

PEOPLE'S MEAT MARKET 
PO BOX 190 
KULM 
ND 
58456-0190

PRAIRIE WEST MEATS, INC. 
401 SOUTH 1ST ST 
NEW SALEM 
ND 
58563

PRIME CUT MEATS 
2434 S UNIVERSITY DR 
FARGO 
ND 
58103

S & B FAMILY FOOD PRIDE 
1200 N 8TH ST 
NEW SALEM 
ND 
58563

S & E MEATS & SPECIALTIES 
PO BOX 224 
GRANVILLE 
ND 
58741

S & K PROCESSING 
1121 54TH AVE SE 
MINOT 
ND 
58701

SCHERR'S MEATS 
202 HWY 83 
LINTON 
ND 
58552

SCHMITT LOCKERS 
PO BOX 173 
NAPOLEON 
ND 
58561

SELECT MEATS 
7217 44TH ST 
GLEN ULLIN 
ND 
58631

STANLEY HIGH SCHOOL 
#1 EDUCATION ROAD 
STANLEY 
ND 
58784

STAN'S SUPER VALU 
PO BOX 186 
WISHEK 
ND 
58495

SUNDALE COLONY 
14226 75TH ST SE 
MILNOR 
ND 
58060

THE DEER SHACK 
4250 21 ST AVE NE 
LARIMORE 
ND 
58251

THE MEAT SHACK 
608 STATE ST N 
ROLETTE 
ND 
58366

THE MEAT SHOP 
PO BOX 257 
BERTHOLD 
ND 
58718

THORESON'S MEAT PROCESSING 
PO BOX 4 
RAY 
ND 
58849-0004

TOWN & COUNTRY LOCKER 
120 HAMBERG AVE 
HAMBERG 
ND 
58341

WALT'S MARKET 
922 UNIVERSITY AVE 
WILLISTON 
ND 
58801

WAREHOUSE GROCERY 
PO BOX 417 
HARVEY 
ND 
58341

WATFORD CITY HIGH SCHOOL 
PO BOX 589 
WATFORD CITY 
ND 
58854

WAYNE'S FOOD PRIDE 
PO BOX 189 
DUNSEITH 
ND 
58329

WEBER'S MEATS 
PO BOX 7 
REYNOLDS 
ND 
58275

WEST DAKOTA MEATS 
1125 MEMORIAL HWY 
BISMARCK 
ND 
58501

WOLF'S PROCESSING 
12903 96TH ST SW 
SCRANTON 
ND 
58653

YATES DEER PROCESSING 
1142 1ST AVE WEST 
NEW ENGLAND 
ND 
58647

Bad Dog, When using one of these plants the meat has to be marked NOT FOR RESALE.

Bad Dog, for poultry we have these:

POULTRY EXEMPT ESTABLISHMENTS
COMPANY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 
FAIRVIEW COLONY
9644 74TH ST SE
LAMOURE
ND
58458

FOREST RIVER COMMUNITY 4068 35TH AVE FORDVILLE ND 58231

MANOCK MEATS PO BOX 135 GREAT BEND ND 58075 
MAPLE RIVER HUTTERIAN BRETHREN ASSN 9262 93RD AVE SE FULLERTON ND 58441 
RINGWALL'S CHICKENS PO BOX 86 COLUMBUS ND 58727 
SUNDALE COLONY 14226 75TH ST SE MILNOR ND 58060

Bad Dog, earlier I mentioned the Amish at Maple Valley, it's Hutterites at Maple River. They sell poultry but cannot advertize. They have someone take orders and then they deliver to a location where everyone congragates to pick up.

There are a lot of laws concerning the sale of meat.

http://www.nd.gov/ndda/program/meat-inspection

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c24.pdf

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c24.pdf

A person cannot simply butcher a cow in the shed out back and then start selling meat. Don't believe me? Try taking an ad out in any newspaper, "meat for sale." Your very first call will be from the ND Meat Inspection Deptment. Visiting with the ND Meat Inspection people I was informed if a person (buyer) views the animal it can be processed anywhere. If an animal is to be divided amongest 25 different people all 25 would have to veiw it. If they didn't view it then it would be illegal to sell 20 lbs. bundles.

CSA's are also about organic. Jim Kusler used to be the ND Secetary of State. He was certified organic beef. He hauled them to Harvey. The plant at Harvey is now closed. Too many rules and regs. Kusler also quit the organic beef thing because it was a lot of added expense but not income.

The Animal Law Institute wants to ban On-Farm-Slaughter. All the rules and regulations concerning meat inspection are very confusing. How hard would it be for The Animal Law Insitute to come into this state and start spewing unfacts and fiction to the general public? On-Farm-Slaughter....... another freedom lost.

Measure Two the HFI was a wake up call. I believe Farm Bureas measure will help address some of the problems headed our way in the near future.

Bad Dog, You are going to have to explain to me how it is that you are purchasing small quantities of meat right off the farm.


----------



## spentwings

I can recommend Manock Meats of their excellent deer sauasge. :thumb: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug a big long list doesn't really mean anything does it. I don't know exactly how these things work. I know a buffalo rancher that has hunts to avoid inspection. However, one of the best steaks I have ever had in a restaurant was at Jack Creek Saloon in Ennis, Montana. The local rancher only a couple miles out of town did his own butchering and delivered to Jack Creek Saloon three times a week. If you form a cooperative would members of that cooperative be subject to federal inspection? I don't know, but I think they had a thing like that going here in Jamestown a few years ago.

You know what? I just remembered a farmer I know who delivers to a number of people. If I let them know ahead of time I can also get in on it. Is it legal? I don't know, but I think I will get in on it because the price is good for farm fresh beef. You can tell me they can't do it if you want Shaug, but they do it, and I'm going to take advantage of it.

As to the amendment it's simply a power grab. A way to avoid responsibility (regulations).


----------



## Bad Dog

Shaug

Again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the cynical and low demeanor I get from your posts are just the way they are written and the way I am reading them. This producer does take their animals to one of instituions you cited on the list for processing.

Again I ask, time number three, why won't the ndfb come out and promote these coops? Again, what better tool to get non-ag folks involved in ag?


----------



## gst

Bad dog, , please refer to my post where I said my wife at various meeting has indeed talked with people from these orgs. and they do "support" this type of local sourced products. But the simple fact as to why it is not policy is no one has brought it forth to be developed into policy at these orgs annual meetings. Plains and simple. If you beleive that strongly in it, join NDFB and introduce this as a resolution at the next annual meeting!



Plainsman said:


> Shaug a big long list doesn't really mean anything does it. I don't know exactly how these things work. I know a buffalo rancher that has hunts to avoid inspection. However, one of the best steaks I have ever had in a restaurant was at Jack Creek Saloon in Ennis, Montana. The local rancher only a couple miles out of town did his own butchering and delivered to Jack Creek Saloon three times a week. If you form a cooperative would members of that cooperative be subject to federal inspection? I don't know, but I think they had a thing like that going here in Jamestown a few years ago.
> 
> You know what? I just remembered a farmer I know who delivers to a number of people. If I let them know ahead of time I can also get in on it. Is it legal? *I don't know, but I think I will get in on it because the price is good for farm fresh beef. You can tell me they can't do it if you want Shaug, but they do it, and I'm going to take advantage of it.[/b]**
> As to the amendment it's simply a power grab. A way to avoid responsibility (regulations).*


*

plainsman, actually that "big long list" does in fact "mean something" if you wish to speak of "regulations" as you so often do, as it is a factual list of slaughter facilities and what regulations they are governed by. But perhaps direct factual "lists" are not as relavent as "stories" of trips to Ennis and some farmer selling beef. :wink:

So plainsman let me get this straight, as long as violating Federal regulations regarding the slaughter and sale of meat products to individuals outside of a Federaly inspected plant benefits you you do not beleive these farmers need to follow Federal regulations, but when it is of no benefit to you, you accuse these ag orgs. of "A way to avoid responsibility (regulations)".

(note the emboldened claim by plainsman above)

Who now is choosing to allow producers to "avoid regulations" when there is benefit in it for you??? :roll: It seems as if YOU wish to pick and choose which Federal regulations YOU wish to allow others to ignore, but yet demand others follow the ones YOU wish them to. And when they do not, you have the hypocrasy to call others greedy???? :roll:*


----------



## Plainsman

> You can tell me they can't do it if you want Shaug, but they do it, and I'm going to take advantage of it


You have a problem with the english language don't you gst? I said nothing about getting past regulations. I said Shaug could tell me they can't do it and that doesn't mean much to me. I assume they are somehow doing it legally. A cooperative perhaps. I don't know. They live just a couple of miles from Edgeley, and their is a place there that processes and sells in a number of businesses here in Jamestown. I would guess you know all of that though. Your hoping someone will buy your twisted tale.



> plainsman, actually that "big long list" does in fact "mean something" if you wish to speak of "regulations" as you so often do, as it is a factual list of slaughter facilities and what regulations they are governed


The list and the regulations are two different subjects. The regulations do not require a list. I repeat long lists mean nothing. They are a simple attempt to impress the simple.

I got a think in the mail today from stopEPAND.com I normally don't like government intervention. However, after talking to you and Shaug and looking at the things NDFB wants I am being frightened into supporting the EPA. I don't want to, but I am being forced to. There is a number to call EPA at. I guess I will have to voice my concern about the NDFB amendment.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I don't know exactly how these things work.


plainsman, shaugs "long list" tells you "exactly how these things work". in a clear, consise, factual manner if you care to take the time to comprehend it. Perhaps that is why you have a hard time understanding it's relevant value and connection to the regulatory aspects and this discussion. The list itself spells out which regulations one must follow and in which plants you can legally process cattle in order to sell beef direct.

plainsman no problem with the English language, you spelled it out quite clear you did not care if it was "legal" or not as you were "taking advantage of it". Remember now, I am not putting words in your mouth here, you stated that yourself quite clearly in the quote below. (note the emboldened and underline statements). 



Plainsman said:


> *Is it legal? I don't know*, but I think I will get in on it because the price is good for farm fresh beef. You can tell me they can't do it if you want Shaug, but they do it, and *I'm going to take advantage of it*.


Now "clarify" , "explain" tell "stories" all you wish, but it sure looks to me as if in your own words you do not care wether Federal regulations are being followed or not (is it legal?) as long as it is of benefit (take advantage of it) to you. But yet you demand others follow what you deem they should or you will report them to the EPA. :roll:

But hey, maybe you are right and I just don't understand how you use the English language.  :eyeroll:

Greed

Hypocrasy

Credibility

Plainsman your very own words speak quite clearly.


----------



## Plainsman

Is it legal? I don't know. However, it has to be legal or they could not do it. Therefore I will take part with the assurance that everything is on the up and up. I buy at the local grocer assuming the same thing. I don't know if everything is legal there, but I assume so. Perhaps assumptions should not be made, but one does not have the time to check every asspect. I guess that's why the regulations are indeed needed.

I do care about the following of regulations. That is one of my complaints about NDFB. They want regulations to go away. That is on topic and I think that's why they want this amendment as a tool to that end. They want modern production, but with an 18th century mentality. To me that says they only care about themselves and no one else. That's my beef.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog said,



> Again I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the cynical and low demeanor I get from your posts are just the way they are written and the way I am reading them.


What??? Are you some kind of a priss? You are the one starting these threads trying to demonize and find fault with Farm Bureau. Maybe they don't actively lobby for or against CSA's. That is no sin. There are already several orgs promoting CSA's. How many more do you need?

www.nd.gov/ndda/program-area/marketing

Bad Dog, there is something about your meat story that smells bad.



> This producer does take their animals to one of instituions you cited on the list for processing.


In the beginnig of this thread you said,



> They do raise all their animals from birth to slaughter, which they do themselves. As for chickens in the winter, buying one in Feb would be a frozen bird from the fall.


So which is it? No backpedaling. Which meat plant institution I cited are they using? Name it.

You also said,



> For example, one CSA we belong to, we pay a 6 month fee and every month we get different cuts of beef either delivered or we can pick up.


Please explain the delivery part. Is your farmer friend delivering raw meat in the back of his old pick up truck or..........?

Plainsman wrote,



> Is it legal? I don't know, but I think I will get in on it because the price is good for farm fresh beef. You can tell me they can't do it if you want Shaug, but they do it, and I'm going to take advantage of it.


Plainsman,

You can pay a fee or other remuneration to another person for the killing or attempted killing of a privately-owned beef all day long just as long as you first view that animal live on the hoof. Let your eyes be the judge and your pocket book be your guide. You can shoot it or the farmer can. You can plop it on an old shower curtain, use a chain saw or a long handled ax to chop it up and no one will care. Try to sell just 10 lbs. of raw hamburger out of that thing to someone who did not in fact view that animal live and then someone at the state level will begin to care.

The Animal Law Insitute wants to ban on-farm-slaughter. All they need is a handful of social rejects to carry their cause, repeat their slogans and spew their unfacts.


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman,



> You can pay a fee or other remuneration to another person for the killing or attempted killing of a privately-owned beef all day long just as long as you first view that animal live on the hoof. Let your eyes be the judge and your pocket book be your guide. You can shoot it or the farmer can. You can plop it on an old shower curtain, use a chain saw or a long handled ax to chop it up and no one will care. Try to sell just 10 lbs. of raw hamburger out of that thing to someone who did not in fact view that animal live and then someone at the state level will begin to care.
> 
> The Animal Law Insitute wants to ban on-farm-slaughter. All they need is a handful of social rejects to carry their cause, repeat their slogans and spew their unfacts.


Thanks for that insight. There are many farmers I would trust more than the licensed processors to provide me with quality clean meat. I understand the need for regulations, but know farmers with unquestionable integrity. With integrity there is no need for regulations. Unfortunately a small minority make regulations necessary. To bad.

I don't know how the meat thing worked for the Jack Creek Saloon in Ennis, but it was sure good. We had gone to a place called the Silver Dollar where all the outfitters gathered and the hunters all wore Pendleton wool. I opened the menu and the cheapest thing was $30. I asked the waitress if they had anything like a cheeseburger. She stuck her nose in the air and said they served things like that at the Jack Creek Saloon. I said no kidding, I guess that's where I want to be, "where is it". Sure was happy I walked out of the Silver Dollar. Better people and better food at Jack Creek.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Is it legal? I don't know. However, it has to be legal or they could not do it


 

So apparently if someone is draining a slough "it has to be legal or they could not do it"! :wink:

Nice "explaining" and "story" there plainsman.

So on your travels thru out the NE part of this country some fella in a hoodie and pants around his knees comes up to you to sell a "farm fresh" "nine" for a "good price", simply because he is doing it makes it legal???

Try that explaination out with the State Health Dept or USDA and see how far it gets you. If you truly are concerned about "following regulations" a simple phone call to this farmer friend is all it would take.

But hey I will simply let your own words speak for themselves as to the "integrity" with which you follow regulations when there is a benefit (advantage) in it for you .



gst said:


> Plainsman wrote:
> ]Is it legal? I don't know, but I think I will get in on it because the price is good for farm fresh beef. You can tell me they can't do it if you want Shaug, but they do it, and I'm going to take advantage of it[/b].


Hypocrasy


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I got a think in the mail today from stopEPAND.com I normally don't like government intervention. However, after talking to you and Shaug and looking at the things NDFB wants I am being frightened into supporting the EPA. I don't want to, but I am being forced to. There is a number to call EPA at. I guess I will have to voice my concern about the NDFB amendment.


So plainsman, will you be so quick to turn in your farmer friend if he is not following the "regulations" if it will prevent you from "taking advantage" of a "good price for farm fresh beef" as you are apparently those that do not follow regulations you do not get to "take advantage" from???

But hey go ahead and call that EPA number you refer to and ask them directly if this measure will suddenly allow for the "illegal use of pesticides" or "allowing feedlots to be built on rivers so the water washes away the manure" as you claimed previously. Then have the "integrity" to come on this site and post whatever answer they give you. :-?

Credibility


----------



## gst

Oh and plainsman, the NDFB advocates specifically for the ability of LOCAL producers to be able to sell LOCALLY raised products processed LOCALY without excessive govt regulations and cost. Without these ag orgs. advocating for this the ability to do so even as it is now regulated would have disappeared long ago and the "price for farm fresh beef" would not be so "good".

There was just this summer a meeting of these ag org representatives, the Ag Commissioner, and the ND State Health Dept. and discussion about this very thing. So perhaps when you are writing the check to your farmer friend to take "advantage" of a "good price on farm fresh beef" you should stop and consider the possibility that the NDFB as well as other ag orgs have advocated for your ability to do so.

But hey as long as there is an "advantage" in it for you, you are all about not having the "intergrity" to make a simple phone call or ask a question to check how and where the beef you are buying is being processed. Your own words clearly point that out.



Plainsman said:


> You know what? I just remembered a farmer I know who delivers to a number of people. If I let them know ahead of time I can also get in on it. *Is it legal? I don't know, but I think I will get in on it because the price is good for farm fresh beef. You can tell me they can't do it if you want Shaug, but they do it, and I'm going to take advantage of it*.


 :roll:

Integrity


----------



## Plainsman

I guess I'll have to ask about the processing of that beef rather than making assumptions. I don't know if it's legal, but I have so much faith in that farmer (an acquaintance not a friend) that I simply assumed. I often make fun of assumptions so I should not make them myself. Good point, and I'll take it serious.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> But hey go ahead and call that EPA number you refer to and ask them directly if this measure will suddenly allow for the "illegal use of pesticides" or "allowing feedlots to be built on rivers so the water washes away the manure" as you claimed previously. Then have the "integrity" to come on this site and post whatever answer they give you.
> 
> Credibility


Plainsman why don;t you go ahead and make that call and tell us what the EPA says regarding your claims about this measure?


----------



## Plainsman

gst, the NDFB has on thier site that there wishes is to do away with regulations. Now do you think any reasonable person would see this measure as one day used as a tool to bring that about? Reasonable! You simply will not look at that possibility. So lets ask others if that is a reasonable conclusion.
1 NDFB wants to do away with farming regulations
2 NDFB has a measure for a new amendment to the North Dakota constitution

Question: is there any possibility of using the amendment to further the agenda of doing away with regulations? To eliminate bias this question is for non ag people.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> gst, *the NDFB has on thier site that there wishes is to do away with regulations*. Now do you think any reasonable person would see this measure as one day used as a tool to bring that about? Reasonable! You simply will not look at that possibility. So lets ask others if that is a reasonable conclusion.
> 1 *NDFB wants to do away with farming regulations*


Where on their site does it say that? Could you post a link?

*Credibility.*


----------



## gst

plainsman, quit avoiding simply clearing the air on your claims by one simple call to the EPA regarding what this mesure would be able to do in response to the examples YOU gave of what YOU claim this measure will do regarding these "regulations" YOU are now claiming it will be used to do away with.

If you can not simply make one phone call and post the response the EPA gives as to wether this measure will do away with regulations regarding illegal pesticide use or the other claims you have made it will, how can your continued claims be given any credibility even by unbiased "non ag people".



Plainsman said:


> I got a think in the mail today from stopEPAND.com I normally don't like government intervention. However, after talking to you and Shaug and looking at the things NDFB wants I am being *frightened *into supporting the EPA. I don't want to, but I am being forced to. *There is a number to call EPA at. I guess I will have to voice my concern about the NDFB amendment*


Plainsman, make the call, post the response. It just might keep you from becoming so "frightened" :roll:

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

LT that has been posted about two or three times in the last month. You guys just create busy work. Search NDFB and find the other threads. I think Swift posted the link twice.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I got a think in the mail today from stopEPAND.com I normally don't like government intervention. However, after talking to you and Shaug and looking at the things NDFB wants I am being frightened into supporting the EPA. I don't want to, but I am being forced to. *There is a number to call EPA at. I guess I will have to voice my concern about the NDFB amendment*.





gst said:


> If you can not simply make one phone call and post the response the EPA gives as to wether this measure will do away with regulations regarding illegal pesticide use or the other claims you have made it will, how can your continued claims be given any credibility even by unbiased "non ag people".


plainsman, make the call. Clear the air and substantiate your claims (or not). :wink:

Lets see what the EPA says about this state amendment over riding their regulatory authority regarding the use of pesticides and feedlot placement and management like you have repeatedly claimed it will.

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

gst, the EPA would not be able to comment on that and you know it, or maybe you actually don't. A government agency is not going to make a comment about a law being made in a state. You can bet they are wondering what NDFB is up to, and they are not the only ones.

Once again the question to non bias non ag people. If an organization wants to do away with regulations then pushes for a constitutional amendment that ensures them non interference would you think they would use that tool to fight regulations? I think that's a reasonable question. Anyone willing to face gst's wrath and give an honest answer?

I notice the current open for public input at the EPA has to do with clean air and the card was sponsored by our energy co-op's. I think department of agriculture would be a more appropriate place to question regulations and threats to them. However, if the amendment passes I bet it will not be long before the EPA picks up on problems.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, the EPA would not be able to comment on that and you know it,


What a bunch of chicken **** back pedaling. They most certainly would be able to comment on wether this measure would overide their regulatory authority regarding the use of pesticides and feedlots. How many "georges" do you want to bet if I called and asked if this measure would overide their ability to impose regulations regarding the use of pesticides or feedlots they would most emphatically tell me no it would not.

But you know that and yet you will not admit your claims you made are nothing more than unsubstantiated bull****.

Too be far plainsman, (Before you take that bet, stop and consider wether any of these ag orgs (livestock orientated) that someone may be a member of has already talked with the EPA regarding these very claims you have made regarding feedlots and such. Remember, some orgs have departments within the org that have direct communication with the EPA regarding these very regulations regarding feedlots you have made claims about)

So make the phone call as you said you would, share your "concerns and what is "frightening" you, and then have the "integrity" to post the response the EPA makes TRUTHFULLY regarding wether this state amendment would overide their FEDERAL regulatory authority and substantiate your repeated claims. (Or not).

Credibility (or not) :roll:


----------



## gst

plainsman, too be "nonbiased" when you make the phone call, simply ask wether a state constitutional amendment has the ability to over ride the EPA's Federal regulatory powers regarding pesticide use and the regulation of feedlots and allow for the illegal use of pesticides and feedlots to be able to allow run off to remove manure directly into water sheds.

That is what you have claimed this measure and amendment will do.

Any of you "non ag people" beleive that is fair?


----------



## gst

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/anafowat.html

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulatin ... /index.htm

plainsman, just a couple of links that give you a little insight into the regulatory power the FEDERAL EPA has over these very things you have made claims about.


----------



## Plainsman

> So make the phone call as you said you would


I will make the phone call for what is open for public comment. As for posting a response I'm not going to fall for that. You would want a copy of a certified letter and documentation if it didn't agree with you. It would only be digging a hole for you, voluntarily jumping in, and letting you shovel the dirt.

As it stands EPA federal law overrides whatever North Dakota passes. As it stands is the key point here. Once past they then have a tool to complain further and push harder. No one is claiming that it will take away federal control when it's past. My claim is that it will become a tool towards that end. Of course you will not agree because you want to sooth the public until you can club them. That's your whole purpose of being here. Not to defend agriculture, but to serve as an anesthetic while the NDFB performs another walletectomy e. g. Game and Fish money.


----------



## shaug

Hey Bad Dog,

Don't slink off with your tail between your legs. CSA's already get special help, special support but do not and should not get special rules. Your meat story smells bad. First you claim you can pick up or have delivered raw meat from a CSA farm that has been processed on the farm. Then you back pedal saying the farmer takes it to a slaughter plant. Which one. Name it.

Let me make it more simple for you. Multiple choice:

No.1 Federal Plant
No.2 Official State Processing Establishment
No.3 Official State Slaughter Establishment
No.3 Custom Exempt Establishment
No.4 Poultry Exempt Establishment

Bad Dog, which one???????????????

Plainsman said,



> You would want a copy of a certified letter and documentation if it didn't agree with you. It would only be digging a hole for you, voluntarily jumping in, and letting you shovel the dirt.


You never post anything of substance or education. Just stupid stories.

www.mikeroweworks.com

This website above was created to tell the stories of the working man.

This website below is the president of Farm Bureau talking about this measure.

http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2011/11/nd ... to-farm-2/


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug, I don't post other peoples thoughts, I post my own. Where is the thought in simply posting what another man says? I don't put any faith in what the president of NDFB says. He wants this amendment to pass and will say whatever it takes to get it passed. 
Can you farm in North Dakota now?
Why do you need to clutter our constitution, farmers are already pampered by the state and federal government.
NDFB wants regulations removed from farming, they want an amendment that could become a tool towards that end. There can be no debate about the possibility. The only debate can be about probability. I think the probability is great.

No silly story Shaug, just an exercise in logic.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> . No one is claiming that it will take away federal control when it's past.


Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

"I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame."

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

by Plainsman » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:26 pm

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

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

*
Plainsman*, it sure does appear from these few comments SOMEONE is suggesting this measure will take away the Federal controls and regulations that governs these particular issues. Any idea who made these claims??? :wink:

If you recall way back when you first started making these claims, I specifically asked you wether you could substantaite the claims this measure would overidre Federal authority and you went on for how many pages with a wide variety of bull**** not even related to this measure. At least now you do acknowledge that indeed the regulatory powers maintained by the Federal EPA would prevent the claims you have made regarding pesticide use, feedlots ect... from happening.

So were you just that uninformed or were you simply intentionally pulling bull**** that is not true our of your *** on purpose? 
:eyeroll:

Oh hey did you ever figure out which North Dakota Grazing Association that was??? :roll:


----------



## gst

plainsman if you really wish to get into a debate about what regulations the EPA has control over the states regarding the cattle feeding industry, I have a number of people that indeed HAVE talked directly with the EPA regarding these very claims you have made whose job description and title deals directly with this very thing.

You come on this site pulling crap out of your *** and apparently either just hope no one calls you on it or are so foolish to beleive that no one else knows enough to factually contradict your bull**** claims. Perhaps you have been on your site so long you beleive you have the "right" to make whatever claims you wish without substantiating them and we should all just accept them as true even when they are not.

So lets take just this one "claim" you have stated this measure will allow regarding feedlots, and get to the bottom of wether it is indeed factual or simply an inflamtory lie you hoped to slide past.

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

So plainsman please substantiate how this measure will indeed overide the Federal EPA regulations that regulate the run off from feedlots (CAFO's) and will take away the regulations currently governing these feedlots which require them to have containment systems, waste management plans, water flow control structures, soil structure studies, ect... as you have claimed in the above statement you made early on in the debate about this measure.

So make the call to the EPA and see just wether this state constitutional measure will indeed allow to happen what you claim will happen and have the " integrity" to post the answer on here so "non ag people" can make a true "unbiased" decision wether this claim is the truth or a lie.

Plainsman, here is possibly something for you to consider, thru my involvement in the states leading cattle org and being informed thru their Enviromental Services Dept. which deals directly with the EPA over this very issue, as well as knowing many people involved in the feeding industry here in ND, I know what the answer will be. Lets see if you have the "integrity" to post it on here.

I am sure you could get a signed, dated, written response from the EPA regarding this to post if you would like.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Plainsman, here is a hint, thru my involvement in the states leading cattle org and being informed thru their Enviromental Services Dept. which deals directly with the EPA over this very issue, *I know what the answer will be*. Lets see if you have the "integrity" to post it on here.


Come on gst, lets here it. You make a lot of claims. You sound more like a politician the way you twist people's words. Are you sure you're not a failed politician with any credibility instead of a rancher? Why play games if you know it all? With your great influence why didn't you lend NDFB your expertise so that the wording for this bill wasn't so vague?



> • We believe in government by legislative and constitutional law, impartially administered, *without special privilege*.
> 
> • We believe that legislation and regulations favorable to all sectors of agriculture should be aggressively developed in cooperation with allied groups possessing common goals.


Yep, Hypocrasy!


----------



## gst

longshot, have you comprehended where I have previously refered to an established section of our state constitution in which I have suggested someone involved wioth this measure needs to explain how this measure is not in contradiction regarding the very thing you emboldened???

All I have ever asked is that people such as plainsman refrain from making claims regarding agriculture that are not true or factual. He now has the opportunity as he suggested by making a phone call to go directly to the source of the regulatory powers that be (EPA) to substantiate a claim he has made regarding this measure as true or not.

If he is not able to substantiate this claim as being the truth, what then is it?

Plainsman was asked way back at the start of this debate if he could substantiate the claim he made that this amendment would allow the very things these Federal regulations conrol and prevent regarding pesticide use and CAFO's and their regulation for water runoff, to happen as he claimed it would.

He can simply admit that claim was indeed not true if his "integrity" or credibility is important. Or make his phone call, ask that very question, and post the answer.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> Come on gst, lets here it.


If that is in reference to what you emboldened as to knowing the response the EPA would give as to wether this measure will superceede their ability to continue to regulate CAFO's and pesticide use here in ND?? There answer would be a bit more detailed, but could be simply summerized by two words.

Nice try.

Or perhaps Not hardly.

Or maybe even No way.

Or maybe even just Bull ****! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman was asked way back at the start of this debate if he could substantiate the claim he made


I don't consider you reasonable gst, and have no intention of following any of your requests, or jumping through hoops to meet your approval. Your simply representing radical agriculture not the average farmer/rancher. I am simply making 2 + 2, common sense, connect the dots, logical conclusions, based on NDFB statements desires, along with their proposed amendment to the North Dakota constitution. Keep playing your banjo, but don't expect me to squeal for you :wink: i.e. twist words and expect me to respond or surrender.

Anyone with an IQ of ten should be able to connect these dots. Dot one: desire the ending of regulations. Dot two: the new constitutional amendment. So what is the control in this constitutional amendment that spells out it's range of use or abuse?

gst at one time you told me what a conservationist you are. Why is it your for drain and tile, against anyone who challenges radical agriculture, support radical groups like NDFB, etc? I don't see you as a conservationist because you constantly support rip, rape, and run agriculture.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Shaug, I don't post other peoples thoughts, I post my own. Where is the thought in simply posting what another man says? I don't put any faith in what the president of NDFB says. He wants this amendment to pass and will say whatever it takes to get it passed.


I need to weigh this statement. Let me see. The president of NDFB is on Fox News using his own name, Eric Aasmundsted. He looked good and sounded professional. You on the other hand, sit in a dark room, pounding on your keyboard, hide behind a psuedo name, typing on a dying web-forum that nobody reads. Hmmmmmmm

Plainsman, you were a sponser of the HFI and that group did in fact partner with the Humane Society of the United States to ban a form of on-farm-slaughter. Like it or not your group started this whole ball rolling. It's growing and gaining momentum.

Let me ask you this, (I mean you like to post your own thoughts, right.) What part do you think you will play in stopping Farm Bureau from getting this measure past?


----------



## Plainsman

I don't see myself as important enough to have much impact. However, even a slight impact is worth it. I would not have thought I would even have a slight impact if it were not for you and gst being upset. My real goal is to let sportsmen know that the NDFB is trying to rob them (take license money from Game and Fish) implement a constitutional amendment that may have negative environmental impacts, and are looking for ways to eliminate regulations.

Other than that I am trying to use these things in combination to build on the old concept of where there is smoke there is fire. You say the HFI started the ball rolling. So by your own admission the NDFB wants an amendment to the constitution that guarantees them that no one can tell them what they can do. The question is is this all inclusive meaning no one can tell them what to do no matter how important or how much environmental damage. Come on what's the real reason?

I was sure I had little to no impact, but wow, you and gst must think so or it would not bother you. :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Other than that I am trying to use these things in combination to build on the old concept of where there is smoke there is fire. You say the HFI started the ball rolling. So by your own admission the NDFB wants an amendment to the constitution that guarantees them that no one can tell them what they can do. The question is is this all inclusive meaning no one can tell them what to do no matter how important or how much environmental damage. Come on what's the real reason?


So much hyperbolye. Your mind certainly likes to have a run-away. Always looking for and trying to create division. You are trying to read into something that isn't there. No one can tell them what to do?????????????? Where does it say that? Here, read it for yourself.

http://ndfb.org/image/cache/2011_Oct-Nov_insertweb.pdf

Why now?
During the last election cycle, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) poured several thousand dollars into a hunting
issue. They carried the vote in the largest urban center in our state. HSUS has also been effective in curtailing accepted
farming practices in other states through initiated measures. Members of The Feeding Families Committee feel that if we wait
until we need to safeguard current ag practices in North Dakota, it will already be too late.


----------



## Plainsman

> What is the proposed amendment?
> "The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in
> modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever
> guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which
> abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ
> agricultural technology, modern livestock production and
> ranching practices."
> 
> "This language seems vague. Why?"
> It's not vague, it's broad.


There right it is broad. So broad that it can be used in many ways as yet unseen.

The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices. That all by itself is very broad. Does that mean when Devils Lake is getting even worse they can't stop drain and tile to the north? Who is paying for all of the damage around Devils Lake? Does this mean that those who caused it can never be taken to court and made accountable? It looks like it to me. Does it mean that if we find one of the chemicals currently being used turns out to be even more destructive than the old DDT that we can not stop farmers from using it? It sure looks that way to me.

No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, Which technology would that be? Tile perhaps? What if someone develops a new technology that is very destructive can we pass a law to stop it? Nope, not if the wording in this law holds. What if it's only North Dakota? Then there is absolutely no recourse if we can not get the feds to fight it. Very very broad they are right.

No hyperbole there, only looking at their own words. Their words: "very broad".


----------



## Bad Dog

shaug

Thank you for illustrating to me that it is not my interpretation of your posts but obviously your true nature of cynisim. I know I should have expected as much just from some of your other postings.

As for my tail between my legs, if you are referring to my absence it had to do with work. I assure you, that I do not run from anything.

I don't recall requesting that CSAs get special help. All I originally asked was for ndfb to promote and support CSAs. My logic is, if people living in towns and cities have more of a connection to their food, they in turn will be more apt to understand and support the ag community. Isn't that what a lot of us want?

If you are a card carrying member of the ndfb, then I know the answer to my original question.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug stated:



> I need to weigh this statement. Let me see. The president of NDFB is on Fox News using his own name, Eric Aasmundsted. He looked good and sounded professional.


Oh, you mean like Obama? Don't you think that's an extremely shallow statement? I hope many liberals learned a lesson about voting for someone because they are well spoken.

Hand: don't want regulations
Glove: constitutional amendment that no law may be passed to restrict modern farming practices.

No charge for logic 101.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst at one time you told me what a conservationist you are. Why is it your for drain and tile,


Another untrue bull**** claim. Show me where I have ever said I am "for drain and tile".


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I was sure I had little to no impact, but wow, you and gst must think so or it would not bother you


palinsman outside of a handful of people on this site, you likely do have little impact as your petty childish demeanor takes away from any legitimate credibility. Add to that the number of claims you make that you can not substantiate simply because they are not true and your "integrity" isn't far behind.

I simply do not like people making untrue bull**** claims regarding how I make my living thru agriculture. You can no longer deny your claims regarding this measure ending the regulation of pesticides and CAFO's was undeniably bull****.

But then again it has come to be expected from you.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> plainsman if you really wish to get into a debate about what regulations the EPA has control over the states regarding the cattle feeding industry, I have a number of people that indeed HAVE talked directly with the EPA regarding these very claims you have made whose job description and title deals directly with this very thing.
> 
> You come on this site pulling crap out of your a$$ and apparently either just hope no one calls you on it or are so foolish to beleive that no one else knows enough to factually contradict your b#llsh*t claims. Perhaps you have been on your site so long you beleive you have the "right" to make whatever claims you wish without substantiating them and we should all just accept them as true even when they are not.
> 
> So lets take just this one "claim" you have stated this measure will allow regarding feedlots, and get to the bottom of wether it is indeed factual or simply an inflamtory lie you hoped to slide past.
> 
> plainsmans quote: "I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, *feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up*, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen."
> 
> So plainsman please substantiate how this measure will indeed overide the Federal EPA regulations that regulate the run off from feedlots (CAFO's) and will take away the regulations currently governing these feedlots which require them to have containment systems, waste management plans, water flow control structures, soil structure studies, ect... as you have claimed in the above statement you made early on in the debate about this measure.
> 
> So make the call to the EPA and see just wether this state constitutional measure will indeed allow to happen what you claim will happen and have the " integrity" to post the answer on here so "non ag people" can make a true "unbiased" decision wether this claim is the truth or a lie.
> 
> Plainsman, here is possibly something for you to consider, thru my involvement in the states leading cattle org and being informed thru their Enviromental Services Dept. which deals directly with the EPA over this very issue, as well as knowing many people involved in the feeding industry here in ND, I know what the answer will be. Lets see if you have the "integrity" to post it on here.
> 
> I am sure you could get a signed, dated, written response from the EPA regarding this to post if you would like.


plainsman are you going to answer for the lies you made regarding this measure regarding the above claim or not?

Intregrity,
Credibility,


----------



## Plainsman

> Another untrue b#llsh*t claim. Show me where I have ever said I am "for drain and tile".


When I said it was habitat destructive and pointed out problems caused by drain and tile you argued with me. Isn't that supporting it? Sure is in my book.



> plainsman are you going to answer for the lies you made regarding this measure regarding the above claim or not?


I am making predictions. Do you want to contribute a couple of hundred thousand dollars for research to prove it, or should we just wait and see if these things come true? You wouldn't be so upset if much of this didn't make sense.

So as I said:

Hand: NDFB doesn't want regulations
Glove: NDFB wants an amendment that says no laws can be made to hinder modern agriculture practices

Perfectly logical I think. I think we will take a step backwards in environmental protection. You simply want everyone to shut up until all these things are in place. I suppose some were in hopes this would sort of fly in under the radar. People would go into the voting booth and say "oh for farming sure" and pull the lever for the amendment. Now some don't like it and others are seeing red because we don't like it. Were entitled to opinions just like you are we not gst? Would speaking vulgar make me more convincing? oke:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I often make fun of assumptions so I should not make them myself.





Plainsman said:


> When I said it was habitat destructive and pointed out problems caused by drain and tile you argued with me. Isn't that supporting it? Sure is in my book


So which is it plainsman, are you making assumptions or not. As I said please show ANYWHERE I have said what you specifically claim that I "am for drain and tile"? If you can not you have simply told one more lie.

Pointing out untruthes and unfactual claims regarding agriculture is not "supporting" anything other than a truthful factual debate which unfortunately seems impossible given your tendancy to engage in "opinion" that you do not care to even try to substantiate as factual.



Plainsman said:


> Would speaking vulgar make me more convincing?


Simply speaking the truth would make you more convincing. Where it stands, below is your claim which is not. You simply do not have the "integrity" to make a simple request to the EPA to actually hear the facts so you can speak the truth.

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

It was pointed out to you the EPA will still maintain the regulatory powers to prevent these very claims you have made from happening. Instead of accepting that as factual, and simply making a phone call yourself as you claimed you were going to, you choose to try to keep perpetuating these untrue claims. I suppose next is a diatribe of how it is merely an "opinion" and you can not be held accountable for your "opinions" to be factual or truthful because they are indeed only "opininons" . :roll:

Plainsman please simply make the call to EPA like you said you were going to and ask if what you claimed above regarding this measure would indeed be the truth. Perhaps the response directly from the EPA would allow you to change your "opinion" regarding these specific claims. If you can not do that, it is clear you are less concerned with a factual debate and simply wish to continue your pattern of making unsubstantiated "opinions" and then self excusing them as "opinions" as a way to escape being accountable for your unfactual claims.



Plainsman said:


> Were entitled to opinions just like you are we not gst?


Save the keyboard on your computor, we have all read that self excusing crap for what seems to be a predisposition of you pulling claims out of your *** you can not substantiate when you are asked going all the way back to your accusation/"opinion" I had a HFH operation because I was argueing against your measure. Still waiting for you to substantiate that claim/"opinion"/lie. :roll:

You suggested you have little impact, perhaps if you examined how many times you have lied and made incorrect, unfactual claims regarding agriculture in the past year alone in threads on this site you would begin to understand why. As you said everyone is entitiled to an opinion. I have found in life the ones (opinions) I give any credibility to are the ones that come from people who can substantiate them when asked based on factual information. It is how one maintains:

Credibility
"


----------



## gst

plainsman, simply set the record straight regarding the claims you made by contacting the EPA and asking them if this measure will allow what you have claimed it will allow happen actually will.

Ask for a written resposnse as to wether this measure will overide their regulatory authority and allow what you have claimed this measure will allow to happen to actually happen.

If you can not do so to substantiate YOUR claim/opinion, your "opinion" is worthless and everyone will know you are less concerned about fact and truth than you are creating childish diversions to further your juvenile hatred of this ag org and the farmers and ranchers that are it's members.


----------



## shaug

> I need to weigh this statement. Let me see. The president of NDFB is on Fox News using his own name, Eric Aasmundsted. He looked good and sounded professional.


Plainsman wrote,



> Oh, you mean like Obama? Don't you think that's an extremely shallow statement? I hope many liberals learned a lesson about voting for someone because they are well spoken.


If you can make the leap and compare Eric Aasmundsted to Obama then let me say you are the Ed Schultz of Nodakoutdoors.

Bad Dog wrote,



> Thank you for illustrating to me that it is not my interpretation of your posts but obviously your true nature of cynisim. I know I should have expected as much just from some of your other postings.


Cynisim, more like persistent. If you feel like I am dogging you it is because I am. You can't answer questions. Is the farmer processing on the farm or taking them to a licensed facility? Is he delivering and if so is it a licensed refrigerated truck? Or is it out of the trunk of his car?

I give many tours in a year at my farm. We do a lot of on-farm-slaughter and therefore must know and adhere to the rules. I belong to the AG COALITiON and have attended meetings between them and the EPA. Everything is very cordial, professional and both sides can come to agreements. The EPA officials are federal employees. Plainsman used to be a federal emplyee. If these EPA officials behaved like him well............It would be one if by land, two if by sea, the shot that was heard around the world and you know the rest.

Bad Dog, there are many rules in the meat industry. They protect the consumer and the producer. They protect commerce. 
Your meat story stinks. Let me show you what can happen when confidence between the consumer and the producer breaks down. Better yet, let's let Plainsmen tell it:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=74998&hilit=door+to+door+steak+salesman



> Years ago some fellows from Fargo came in a white van selling Farmers Pride steaks. They gave me the old line of only four boxes left for half price. Then it came to four boxes for the price of two. I asked what's the difference. They said they wanted to get home and would give the the four boxes for the price of one. I thought what the heck at that price I will try them. Tasted like cow crap not cow steak. They were so bad I called the company and complained. They sent me more steak. In the end I had eight boxes for the price of one, but it was still expensive for crap.


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> Oh, you mean like Obama? Don't you think that's an extremely shallow statement? I hope many liberals learned a lesson about voting for someone because they are well spoken.
> 
> If you can make the leap and compare Eric Aasmundsted to Obama then let me say *you are the Ed Schultz of Nodakoutdoors*


  Thats kinda funny, when I was typing the last post, I was thinking Ed Schultz has his "opinions", I wonder how factual and truthful plainsman thinks they are??? :wink:

Nail you have been hit on the head!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> No charge for logic 101.


That's good, because as they say, you get what you pay for! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Pointing out untruthes and unfactual claims regarding agriculture is not "supporting" anything other than a truthful factual debate which unfortunately seems impossible given your tendancy to engage in "opinion" that you do not care to even try to substantiate as factual.


I posted a number of articles you should go back and read. There are many more, but neither you nor I have access to them since they require access to professional publications. Many in the fishing industry have attributed sedimentation to the low reproductive rate of many fish species. Fish eggs can not tolerate even small amounts of sediments. Someone on here mentioned lakes in California, and I believe it is Benton Lake, in Montana that has become a ag chemical cesspool in the last few years. It is well documented.

Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards, but I am sure the amendment will be used to resist them. Now since you think I should substantiate opinion I'll ask you to do the same. Can you guarantee me that this amendment will never be used to protect a bad agriculture practice, and if so prove it please. That's what your asking of my opinion and you think that's reasonable. If you think that is reasonable please prove it by proving beyond any doubt that this amendment will never be used that way. If I hold you to the same standards and you can't do it will that make you a liar? Your strumming that banjo hard this morning.



> Oh, you mean like Obama? Don't you think that's an extremely shallow statement? I hope many liberals learned a lesson about voting for someone because they are well spoken.





> If you can make the leap and compare Eric Aasmundsted to Obama then let me say you are the Ed Schultz of Nodakoutdoors.


And here I thought I was talking with someone who could understand. Where did I compare Aasmunsted to Obama? What I did was compare you to the shallow people that liked Obama because he was well spoken. Your either trying to deceive the simple minded or your not as intelligent as I gave you credit for. Please read it again and try to comprehend my point.

Perhaps you missed the part I have highlighted.


----------



## shaug

Do you believe Obama is well spoken???????????


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It is well documented.


So is the fact notill planting of corn is a common practice as well as the fact tax dollars spent on agriculture is NOT second only to defense. Those are just 2 "opinions"/calims you made that were indeed "unfactual". Recall the links provided proving so?? :wink:



Plainsman said:


> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not.* I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards*


.

Then why would you make the claim it will as you did regarding pesticide use and regulation of feedlot run off????? And CONTINUE claiming this after it was pointed out the EPA has ultimate regulatory powers in these issues?????????

If you indeed knew this as you now claim and yet continued to make these accusations, it is clearly a case of not telling the truth.



Plainsman said:


> Now back to the NDFB amendment. *I say it's going to cause problems,* *you say it is not*. I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards, but I am sure the amendment will be used to resist them. Now since you think I should substantiate opinion I'll ask you to do the same. Can you guarantee me that this amendment will never be used to protect a bad agriculture practice, and if so prove it please.


The difference you do not seem able to comprehend is I have never once made the claim/opinion you specifically and clearly claim I have and wish me to substantiate. Yet once again, "please show me" where this opinion has ever been made as you claim it was in the emboldened underlined enlarged statement above???

If you can not, this is simply one more lie you have chalked up.

I have stated that ultimately as spelled out in the ND constitution the legislative assembly has the right to enact ANY legislation they deem necessary for the well being of this state and it's citizenry. As I said there are aspects of this measure that are IMO contradictory to already established verbage that need to be explained, but I have NEVER made the claim you say I have.


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Do you believe Obama is well spoken???????????


I think he does ok at reading a teleprompter. Without it he is an idiot. However, in the debates before election one fellow was fawning all over because Obama was so well spoken. I think you and I know better.

I can scarcely find the words to thank you actually. You said comparing me to Eric Aasmundsted would be like me being Ed Schultz. On the political form I have tried to convince liberals that I am moderate, because they accuse me of being radical right. Now you have done that for me. Also, I think Aasmundsted is radical right, and you have confirmed that. k:



> So is the fact notill planting of corn is a common practice


I paid attention this fall. I have four corn fields within a mile. I have six where I hunt deer with archery. All have been tilled already. So I would not say it's a common practice. As a matter of fact in the last two weeks I have seen dozens of corn fields. As a matter of fact one relative has at least 2000 acres into corn, and he should finish tilling this week. It sure doesn't look common to me. Here is what I don't understand. People tell me they still need to till in the fall, but they can plant in the spring without tilling again. I can understand that, but I don't consider that no till. There is hunge amounts of debris left in the field when they harvest for the corn itself and not silage. If someone doesn't mind tell me how they plant without fall or spring tillage.



> Plainsman wrote:Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards


.



> Then why would you make the claim it will as you did regarding pesticide use and regulation of feedlot run off????? And CONTINUE claiming this after it was pointed out the EPA has ultimate regulatory powers in these issues?????????





> If you indeed knew this as you now claim and yet continued to make these accusations, it is clearly a case of not telling the truth.


OK, I thought you were just trying to wear me out and make me loose it, but he!! will freeze over before I loose my temper.  
Anyway, you worded that without snide comments and now I take you serious. Here is what I am saying: I know that when this amendment first passes it will not negate the federal regulations. However, in their own words this amendment was written very broad. I don't think beyond a doubt that someone will use this amendment as a tool to at least try challenge some or many regulations. I can see it in the courts for years fighting to eliminate some regulations and this amendment used as a tool to that end. If it passes in other states then in my mind it is without doubt going to be used for that purpose. This is my prediction based on history and human behavior. Look at the NDFB saying they are for getting game and fish money for township roads. This is akin to theft in my book, and tells me there is little doubt the amendment will be used to attack regulations.



> "please show me" where this opinion has ever been made as you claim it was in the emboldened underlined enlarged statement above???





> If you can not, this is simply one more lie you have chalked up.





> you say it is not


Yes, because when I say it will be a problem you debate and take an opposing view. That's the same as saying it's not going to be a problem. You say it can not override the EPA. It can't override now, but I think it will be a tool for just that challenge. It is not necessary that you say it in those exact words for it to mean the same thing. You don't want me saying it will be a problem, hence you think it will not be, or you know it will be and you don't want anyone thinking it will. I suspect you want people to think I lie. I suspect you would destroy anyone you can to get that amendment. All I can do is ask myself why?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now back to the NDFB amendment. *I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. *


 You make a specific claim that I stated something and when asked to substantiate when and where it was said you start your chicken **** backpedaling because you can not substantiate what you claimed.

So either substantiate this statement you made regarding what you claim I said or realize it is nothing more than a lie.

I have REPEATEDLY stated why I am "debating" you. And it is in response to the claim you made stating what this measure would do that you now after being backed into a corner admit it will not. You could have had the "integrity" to simply say this measure will not do what you claimed it would in regards to the two specific areas I mentioned (pesticides and feedlots) but you could not man up and do that and had to yet once again make a claim towards me personally that you can now not substantiate yet again.

How many times have I told you I would not even be on this site if you would simply stop making claims about agriculture that are simply not true. THAT is what you did when you stated your claims as to what this measure would do regarding pesticides and feedlots. THAT is why I am "debating" you.

So accept responsibility for you untrue claims that you repeatedly made all the while knowing by your own admission they were not true as shown in the below emboldened, enlarge statement.



Plainsman said:


> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. *I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards, *but I am sure the amendment will be used to resist them. Now since you think I should substantiate opinion I'll ask you to do the same. Can you guarantee me that this amendment will never be used to protect a bad agriculture practice, and if so prove it please.


Credibility???

You lost that long ago.


----------



## Plainsman

> You make a specific claim that I stated something and when asked to substantiate when and where it was said you start your chicken &$#* backpedaling because you can not substantiate what you claimed.


Yes, and I still make that claim. You have said it's not possible because the EPA still has control etc etc etc. If I say there will be problems and you argue your saying there will be no problems. However, I have come to the conclusion your simply unable to understand much of anything. Or your just looking for anyone to argue with and I was dumb enough to accommodate you.

I would try explain one more time to you, but I don't think they make a big enough hammer to get an idea through to you. Have someone else read this and explain it to you.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If I say there will be problems and you argue *your saying there will be no problems*.


Once again plainsman, "please show me" where I have ever stated what you claim.

I'll give you a hint that I think everyone else knows by now, just as when you claimed I have a HFH operations. You can not because just like your claim I have a HFH operation, *your claim is not true*.

You see I can not factually make such a claim as what you are trying to get people to beleive I have by lying about what I have said. No one can. Yet here even after admitting you know this measure will not overide the regulatory powers of the EPA regarding two very specific claims you made earlier, you will still not admit that those claims you made regarding the specific issues are nothing more than petty, biased bull****.

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

Fact. This measure will not allow feedlots to use a river to wash away their manure. Don't beleive me, call the EPA as you said you would.



Plainsman said:


> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. *I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards*,


*In your own words, you admit you knew what you claimed was not factual. * And yet you will not accept responsibility for making this bull**** claim.

People can make their own desicion what that is called.


----------



## Plainsman

> Fact. This measure will not allow feedlots to use a river to wash away their manure. Don't beleive me, call the EPA as you said you would.


There you go again. You just said that couldn't happen. You also said chemicals would not be a problem. When I say it will be used as a tool to resist regulations you say no. So everything I mention you say is no problem. I think your simply playing games.

By the way maybe we better clarify feedlot, because I think you started using that term. What I am talking about is those guys who winter feed along the river.

You know you can go off the deep end, call people liars, talk about willies, pulling things out of orifices, but it doesn't change anything. I was just telling one of my grandchildren who is hunting with me this week-end that it's not what you put in your mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out of it.

I hear Bambi calling me so have a good week-end guys.


----------



## indsport

I normally stay out of the usual plainsman/gst arguments but didn't see the text of the amendment posted in the discussion. I am playing devil's advocate here for the purposes of the discussion.

Here it is: "The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices. "

I will not vote for the amendment for the following reasons: 1) Who defines what is "modern" and does this mean that practices that are not modern are not guaranteed? As a former farmer, I used to help with castration in the spring with the animals. That practice is as old as the history of ranching, but a lawyer would claim that it is not a "modern" practice and therefore subject to laws restricting the practice. 2) No law shall be enacted? Does NDFB mean local law, state law, or federal law? It is easy to see where a federal law could be passed that would conflict with the amendment and who would determine whether there was a conflict or not? Another example, what about a local government entity passing a law that restricts a CAFO operation through land use and zoning? Lastly, who defines what constitutes agricultural technology? Does this mean that North Dakota would open its doors to any and all "technology" even if it was not reviewed, or received approval subject to any other state or federal agency?

In total, the language of the proposed amendment is too broad, undefined and poorly worded from my perspective with too many loopholes that would be challenged immediately in court. All I see right now is a guaranteed jobs program for lawyers and the courts. It may seem like quibbling (and it is), but these are just some of the questions that will come up. I am all for an amendment, if so desired, that keeps farming as a vital necessary part of this state and prevents various fringe groups like HSUS from being able to challenge normal farming practices but this amendment will not do it.


----------



## shaug

indsport,

Some time ago on another thread you said,



> http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37063&start=40





> Plainsman and I worked together for a number of years and I agree that the environmental movement has garnered a bad reputation. That being said however, and I do consider myself an environmentalist and belong to several organizations. I would suspect that both Plainsman and I agree that the politics of most of the environmental scientists actually doing science are as diverse and run the gamut from staunch conservative to staunch liberal. The so called environmentalist that gives the genre a bad rep is probably not a trained scientist and most of the public cannot make that distinction.


indsport it would appear that you are more than just another fellow traveler. So where did you work with Plainsman? Was it The Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You also said chemicals would not be a problem.


palinsman once again you engage in a lie.

I have never once said what you claimed I did in your above statement. What I have "said" is this measure will not overide the Federal EPA regulations that regulate and prohibit the very claims you make suggesting it will that you admitted knowing was NOT fact even though you made claims that said otherwise.



Plainsman said:


> By the way maybe we better clarify feedlot, because I think you started using that term.


Once again you engage in a lie and excuse it with an insinuation of a loss of memory. If you are becvoming that senile perhaps it is time to quit making claims you can not remember.

Plainsman the following are *YOUR* words from the beginning of the debate regarding this measure.

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

Enagage in all the chicken**** backpedaling all you wish to try and weasel your way out of accepting responsibility for making unfactual claims you later admitted knowing were not true.


----------



## gst

indsport, all that is asked is that people do not make claims regarding how I make my living thru agriculture that are not factual or true. I beleive that is a simple courteousy to extend someone.

Debate the measure all one wishes, simply refrain from allowing juvenile personal biases to cloud the truth of what is posted as plainsman has done.

I do not disagree with your beleif that this will indeed create opportunities for legal challenges. As I said, I personally beleive this measure was poorly worded not only in regards to current Constituional language, but also legal and judicial ruling aspects as well as simply garnering support.

But hey no one asked for my input!


----------



## gst

http://www.legis.nd.gov/constitution/const.pdf

from the North Dakota State Constitution.

*Article I Sec 21.*

* No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
citizens.*

This is the section of our constitution I referenced early on in the discussion about this measure. Lets stop and take an honest look leaving the childish personal biases out.

I will readily admit not being a legal scholar that is an authority on constitutional law and procedure so this is simply being pointed out and two simple direct unbiased questions are being asked regarding this measure, if anyone does indeed know the FACTUAL answers please share them.

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

Does this section indeed give the legislature the ability to enact laws which will prevent what plainsman claims from happening if they so choose REGARDLESS of this ammendment?

_*nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
citizens.*_

Does this section pose a contradictory decree from what the NDFB amendment intent is?

I think the honest factual answers to these two questions should be a part of any unbiased honest discussion involved in a debate regarding this measure. So if someone wishes to discuss these questions without engaing in untrue personal accusations and making claims they can not substantiate as true and factual, I would be interested in further discussion. If not, I really have no further need to continue to point out the untruthes in regards to plainsmans "claims"/ "opinions"/ "stories" or whatever he wishes to call them.


----------



## Plainsman

Here is my opinion of what the NDFB constitutional amendment is. It's an amendment hiding behind the facade of freedom when it's actually protection for environmentally abusive farming practices. Freedom sounds great to all Americans if there is not someone else that interprets it as shaft everyone else for the benefit of a few.

Now you can swear at me, call me a liar, make every possible character assasination you can think of, but it will not change what I think of this amendment.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Here is my opinion of what the NDFB constitutional amendment is.


 At least you are not making specific claims regarding this measure that you later admit knowing were not true so I guess that is a step in the right direction!



Plainsman said:


> but it will not change what I think of this amendment.


Plainsman, I could care less about what you think of this amendment, it is how you go about trying to influence what others may think by making statements you can not substantiate simply because they are not true that will ALWAYS result in it being pointed out. If you do not wish to have this done, simply quit making claims regarding agriculture that are not true.

Your own words and continueal bogus claims and your refusal to simply admit they were not factual nor true when asked to substantaiate them "assasinated" your own character.

Credibility


----------



## spentwings

Oil or Ag makes no diff.
Our ND politicians have always been environmentally unfriendly.
Money and power whatever the cost,,,pretty pathetic.
And especially with oil,,,,welcome to the real world North Dakota.


----------



## Plainsman

spentwings said:


> Oil or Ag makes no diff.
> Our ND politicians have always been environmentally unfriendly.
> Money and power whatever the cost,,,pretty pathetic.
> And especially with oil,,,,welcome to the real world North Dakota.


Yes, I try to remain optimistic about the economy, but have some very strong ominous feelings about environmental disasters. Just like the NDFB amendment. I expect we will see them fight environmental rules in the name of recovery. I know some would bring back DDT if they could. The neighbor who was feeding his cattle right on the banks of the Sheyenne river passed away this summer, so there will be cleaner water to canoe next summer. In North Dakota many regulation violations are simply ignored already. Maybe we will see a new amendment to our state constitution called FREEDOM To DRILL. I am all for developing our oil fields, but the situation certainly is CASH and TRASH.


----------



## spentwings

North Dakota as we knew it is gone my friend.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman,

It would seem indsport may have been off line or something, he has not responded to my question. Maybe you can help me. When and where did you and indsport work together?

This below is from an old thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37063&start=40



> Indsport
> 
> Good post. Through our career working together we debated politics passionately. We however both respected the science. We also know that some scientists may be swayed by their personal beliefs, but the majority bite the bullet and publish the data as collected if they like it or not.





> Plainsman and I worked together for a number of years and I agree that the environmental movement has garnered a bad reputation. That being said however, and I do consider myself an environmentalist and belong to several organizations.


Plainsman, was it for the USFWS or USGS?


----------



## zogman

Shaug, Why is this so important to you??? :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug if indsport has not answered you it could be for many reasons. Perhaps it's because he is hunting, on vacation, working, or simply thinks it's none of your business. 
Hey, how about you send me your name so I can search EWG Farm Subsidy Database and see how much you get from the government? I noticed many name their wives and kids still in elementary school to kind of hide that huge bundle they are getting.  No, I am not really interested, just trying to show you that some things have no bearing on this debate unless your a little old lady that likes to gossip.
Since indsports posts that you quoted show he was very reasonable I too am interested in why it's so important to you? Are you interested in what people think, or just looking for any way possible to dismiss what indsport said? You don't need to answer that since I already know the answer. It's very obvious.

Spentwings, I am afraid you are absolutely correct. I am already mourning it's passing.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *I know some would bring back DDT if they could.* quote]
> 
> And I know some would ban every form of animal agriculture if they could.
> 
> Plainsman some of your friends involved in measure two that you also sponsored at one time had direct conversations with them and INVITED them into this state. Keep that *FACT* in mind when you are spouting off "opinions" about this NDFB measure.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, your method of debate is to create a boogieman to scare people. I understand the method and use it myself when talking about organizations that undermine the second amendment. However, this isn't an attack on something as important as our federal constitution and our rights, this is cluttering our state constitution with trivia. Do you support the NDFB amendment, and if not why do you debate so vigorously the people who oppose it?

gst, you have told me your a conservationist. Would a conservationist support an organization that wants to do away with regulations? Now I am asking you to take an honest look at what I say. I'm not attacking farmers, but I want you to understand that I believe, no I know every segment of society has it's radicals, and that includes farmers. Regulations are in place not to punish farmers, but to keep in line the radicals within their numbers. Radicals that think a dollar in their pocket is more important than ten dollars in someone else's pocket. Or a dollar is more important in their pocket than someone else's home. I'm sure you know the type, because you can't live 20 years and not understand what I am saying. How can you support an organization so radical that they would step back 100 years and give up the conservation we have achieved? I'm not talking conservation simply from a wildlife perspective, but from an agricultural perspective also. Our soil and water for example our our greatest natural resource even though at this point some may think it's oil. You can give up driving, but you can't give up eating and drinking.

Some may think my last sentence plays right into your opposition. However, I consider agriculture conservation as wise use of the resource and not the abuse of it for excess today and starvation tomorrow.

Yes, some would bring back DDT if they could. I know the Farmers Union station in my home town had a large supply they never turned back, and they sold small amounts of it for six or seven years to "special" customers" after it was outlawed. I know because the manager was angry with my father who worked there for refusing to sell it and break the law. My father came home very troubled about it. He had farmed all his life up to numerous heart attacks. I took care of the farm 6th grade to sophomore year before we gave up and moved to town where dad went to work at the Farmers Union. We need regulations, and evidently we need better enforcement. I think it is very realistic to think this NDFB amendment would undermine that.


----------



## shaug

zogman interjected,



> Shaug, Why is this so important to you???


Why do you ask?

Plainsman said,



> Shaug if indsport has not answered you it could be for many reasons. Perhaps it's because he is hunting, on vacation, working, or simply thinks it's none of your business.
> Hey, how about you send me your name so I can search EWG Farm Subsidy Database and see how much you get from the government? I noticed many name their wives and kids still in elementary school to kind of hide that huge bundle they are getting. No, I am not really interested, just trying to show you that some things have no bearing on this debate unless your a little old lady that likes to gossip.


Well.......... that was kind of mean.

I visited with a Farm Bureau rep and asked GST's question about:

Article I Sec 21.

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
citizens.

The Farm Bureau rep said this measure isn't strictly for farmers and ranchers but instead protects an industry as a whole. Everyone has a vested interest in ag. 36% of people in ND are employed in one way or another through agriculture. The seed salesman, veterinarian, the truck driver, the grocery store etc. Basically anyone who eats food.

I just started collecting and have already filled out one petition in two days. Nothing to it. All 38 signed. Not one person disagreed. My presentation (pitch) is getting better and better with time. Maybe Plainsman I can talk you into signing. (grin)


----------



## Plainsman

> Well.......... that was kind of mean.


It was sort of, and I think I am sorry about that, but it actually depends on your motivation. I hope you didn't miss my point though and that was what you were asking had no more bearing on our debate than me asking for your name to look up your government subsidies. I seen it as creating a boogieman to scare people, so I reacted with something I thought would be as distasteful to you to get you to look at it in perspective. If you understand that then also accept my apology.



> Maybe Plainsman I can talk you into signing.


My memory is cra**&^ as gst loves to point out, and I'll admit it, but didn't I once tell you what it would take to get me to sign that petition? I am a believer in letting the people decide as long as they get the truth to assist in making that decision. I agree with more of the NDFB policies than I disagree with. It's just that some are so radical, and outright greedy (Game and Fish license money), that I find it hard to trust them in anything.

gst stated:


> And I know some would ban every form of animal agriculture if they could.


I would fight harder against that than I now do against NDFB.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, your method of debate is to create a boogieman to scare people


plainsman, 
Can you deny HSUS wants to end most all animal agriculture?
Can you deny they are working to that end means in other states?
Can you deny HSUS was invited into this state by a group of people that you at one time were a part of that were trying to ban a legally defined animal agriculture enterprise?

Boogieman????

Now on the flip side. 


gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I say there will be problems and you argue *your saying there will be no problems*.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again plainsman, "please show me" where I have ever stated what you claim.
> 
> I'll give you a hint that I think everyone else knows by now, just as when you claimed I have a HFH operations. You can not because just like your claim I have a HFH operation, *your claim is not true*.
> 
> You see I can not factually make such a claim as what you are trying to get people to beleive I have by lying about what I have said. No one can. Yet here even after admitting you know this measure will not overide the regulatory powers of the EPA regarding two very specific claims you made earlier, you will still not admit that those claims you made regarding the specific issues are nothing more than petty, biased b#llsh*t.
> 
> plainsmans quote: *"I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use,* *feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, **etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen*." end quote
> 
> Fact. This measure will not allow feedlots to use a river to wash away their manure. Don't beleive me, call the EPA as you said you would.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. *I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards*,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In your own words, you admit you knew what you claimed was not factual. * And yet you will not accept responsibility for making this b#llsh*t claim.
> 
> People can make their own desicion what that is called.
Click to expand...

 Now who exactly is creating a "boogieman" all the while by your own admission as quoted above, you know was not true???


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I am a believer in letting the people decide as long as they get the truth to assist in making that decision.


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

All the while knowing and finally admitting this:
Plainsman wrote quote:
Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards, end quote

So exactly what is the "truth" you are trying to get to people to help "assist" them in making their decisions? 
The claims you made regarding this measure that are not true, or the fact EPA regulations will prevent those claims from happening as you admit knowing???

I can see you do not care to actually debate the following question.


gst said:


> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
> 
> Does this section indeed give the legislature the ability to enact laws which will prevent what plainsman claims from happening if they so choose REGARDLESS of this ammendment?


 The answer to this simple, direct, unbiased question could finally put to rest the "boogieman" claims you seem so intent on posting regarding this measure. If you truly are as concerned with the "truth" regarding this measure as you say, find the answer to this question before making anymore bull**** claims as to what it will do. Otherwise your claim of wanting the truth made avalible is simply one more bull**** claim. 
Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

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


You know as well as I do that once something passes it's nearly impossible to remove.

The truth is what you fight so hard against. My theory is you want to be free to rip and rape the land then run to Arizona for retirement. Your constantly denying any problems with chemicals, drainage, tile, and say the EPA will not let it happen. I say that is currently true, but the amendment will be used as a tool to do away with regulations. Lets see now, NDFB on their web page say they want regulations removed. Now they have an amendment that says no law shall be made against modern agriculture practices. Just what practices would that include? Then there is the future to worry about. What ding bat idea might someone come up with in the future? It could be terribly environmentally destructive, but we could make no law against it.

Face it gst, you just can't leave it alone because I don't like it. You constantly show that your real problem is your frustrated because I don't respond to bully tactics. Also, a foul mouth doesn't turn dumb ideas into brilliance. My guess is you will not take a hint and only continue to get worse.

Yes, I believe chemicals will be used more irresponsibly, drainage will be a huge problem, and all forms of agriculture that are currently under some form of regulation will become problems for society. WE already have those who cheat and drain illegally. Can you imagine protecting these people from regulations. If I lived in Devils Lake I would get out if this amendment passes. It's as if NDFB is asking the voters to give them permission to dump on us.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> I seen it as creating a boogieman to scare people, so I reacted with something I thought would be as distasteful to you to get you to look at it in perspective. If you understand that then also accept my apology.


The main thing is that you reacted. Then you can understand the dynamic. For every action there is a reaction. For every push there is a push back. You and yours started the fair chase initiative. The committee was formed in Jamestown and you were in attendance. The fair chase committee could have refused the signatures gathered by Humane Society members but didn't. The committee could have refused the $150,000 dollars put up by HSUS but they didn't.

You guys brought the HSUS to North Dakota and awakened a sleeping giant. "For Every Action There Is a Reaction"

This measure was brought forward because of something you and yours did. Plainsman, do you accept responsibility?


----------



## Plainsman

> The committee was formed in Jamestown and you were in attendance.


That's not true, and you have been told that and had it explained to you a number of times. What's gst always say? I think it's can you substantiate that? 
I was not at the formation of that group the first go around. I only agreed to help at the very end. I attended one meeting and met four people. The following year I didn't sponsor nor attend any meetings. You already know that though because gst blew it on open form after we talked in PM's. 
Maybe this will help you stick to the truth next time. Remember I told you what the requirements were for me to sign that petition. Truth, and you blew that tonight.

I hope you awaken people also shaug. I hope they now know they are not getting the truth. I hope the North Dakota voters wake up. I think you guys have made enough mileage of the HSUS boogieman. Very few North Dakotans have any use for HSUS, but I think they will catch on that NDFB is simply using them as a tool to dump on the environment. Like the turkey farm near Wahpeton about ten years ago that was violating about every environmental rule out there. The guy got his rear handed to him on that one.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> I think you guys have made enough mileage of the HSUS boogieman.


Would you like to get that monkey off your back? Would you like ND sportsmen to forget?


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Plainsman said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you guys have made enough mileage of the HSUS boogieman.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to get that monkey off your back? Would you like ND sportsmen to forget?
Click to expand...

Many sportsmen seen it as a landowner issue. I seen it as a hunting issue so would have done things differently. The monkey isn't on my back. gst sometimes talks to much and violates the rules of this site, but maybe he did me a favor when he posted information from a private message I sent him.

Also, most sportsmen didn't think it was hunting to shoot an animal inside of a fence. That's why even with your amendment what I would like to see done will still work. What I want is a bill that forbids hunters to shoot and pay for animals that can not escape. Your amendment would do nothing to stop that. So what is your amendment good for? To avoid regulations of environmentally destructive ag practices is what I think.

So since the people have spoken ( loud and clear I might add) on the high fence issue as presented last time it's clear HSUS presents no threat to North Dakota farmers and ranchers. That's why I say you now use them as the boogieman to frighten people. Wolf, wolf, wolf.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> What I want is a bill that forbids hunters to shoot and pay for animals that can not escape.


You mean like a longhorn or a buffalo?


----------



## Plainsman

People shoot longhorns?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> People shoot longhorns?


Yep, and then the take the head and nail it to the wall. Or, they put the horns on the hood of their vehicle.

When longhorns are young they are also used for roping. In rodeo there is a header and a heeler. The header ropes them about the horns and turns hard left dragging the animal. The heeler moves in behind and throws a loop in the ground so the animal hops into it and if the timing is right he gets both back legs. The animal is stretched out between the two horses. Time.

The animals are also used for steer wrestling. Two riders on each side of a running animal. One leans in off his horse and grabs the animal about the horns and wrestles the animal to the ground by twisting its neck.

It is all great sport and the fans love it. The Mandan rodeo is full to the top of the bleachers every 4th of July.

BUT, there are those who abhor rodeo. It is cruel. If you are looking for a bill to forbid shooting an animal that cannot escape then give those people a call. You know, coalition building.


----------



## Plainsman

We went to rodeo every 4th of July when I was a kid. I about got rodeoed out, but I think I'm about in the mood for it again. My nephews are good bull riders, but I think they gave it up now. To old. Your to old for that stuff at 30 years old. That and I think the one has an extra couple of pounds from bone scar and healing. One nephew had a bull hook him under the chin and he sucked everything through a straw for four months.



> BUT, there are those who abhor rodeo. It is cruel.


 Ya, but those idiots will have little affect in North Dakota.

Shooting longhorns just sort of feels like shooting a plain old cow to me. I know they shoot Vancouver bulls in Hawaii and those buggers act real wild. I guess you don't want to be close and wound one. They sort of have the mentality of water buffalo. Of course the Vancouver bulls are not in captivity. I guess if you want to shoot a wild longhorn I don't care, but don't shoot it in a pen and them put it in Outdoor life where the world will judge us all as non sportsmen.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Ya, but those idiots will have little affect in North Dakota.


The people at the Animal legal Center do not view themselves as idiots.



> Shooting longhorns just sort of feels like shooting a plain old cow to me.


That is your option. This is America.



> I guess if you want to shoot a wild longhorn I don't care, but don't shoot it in a pen and them put it in Outdoor life where the world will judge us all as non sportsmen.


That is so very weak. Outdoor Life doesn't feature articles on high fence hunting. Maybe they have done a piece or two on HFH in Africa. I don't know. Haven't subscribed in many years. I did hear outdoor writer Jim Zumbo got run off for trying to compromise away semi-auto guns to the enemies of the 2nd Amendment. He didn't think sportsmen needed those assault rifles. Good riddance to him.

Plainsman, Would you like to see "fair chase" defined in federal law?


----------



## huntin1

I really don't care what people shoot, or where they shoot it. But, don't call it *hunting* when it is done in a high fenced enclosure and the animals are not free to come and go from that enclosure. Landowners that want to buy deer, elk, buffalo or whatever, trap it in a fence and then sell an opportunity to kill one can do so as far as I'm concerned. Just don't glorify it and call it a hunt.

And that is the problem. People will pay big dollars if you advertise an exclusive *hunt*, but, how much will they pay if you advertise the truth and say something like, come out to my farm and shoot a pen raised bull elk that comes running when I drive into the pasture cause it knows it's time to eat.

huntin1


----------



## shaug

huntin1 said,



> how much will they pay if you advertise the truth


How much do you think someone should pay? Would you like to get in the middle of a transaction? Do you think the government should be empowered to intervene between a willing seller and a willing buyer?

huntin1, Have you heard any rumblings in the news lately that the "ban" on horse slaughter is going to be strongly challenged and there is a very good chance it will be overturned.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, Would you like to see "fair chase" defined in federal law?
Click to expand...

No, I would like to see hunters with enough sportmanship to control ourselves. Remember, we asked and got bag limits, outlawed spot lighting, and defined legal hunting hours. There is nothing wrong with keeping the sport in sport hunting.



> Do you think the government should be empowered to intervene between a willing seller and a willing buyer?


No, but unlike you NDFB guys I am consistent. I don't think they should get between a willing landowner wanting to sell to the U S Fish and Wildlilfe either. You guys want to have your cake and eat it too. No regulations unless it's someone trying to sell his farm to someone you don't like.


----------



## huntin1

shaug said:


> How much do you think someone should pay? Would you like to get in the middle of a transaction? Do you think the government should be empowered to intervene between a willing seller and a willing buyer?
> 
> huntin1, Have you heard any rumblings in the news lately that the "ban" on horse slaughter is going to be strongly challenged and there is a very good chance it will be overturned.


I don't care how much they pay, that's between the buyer and seller. But, do you really believe that they would get half as much advertising it in the manner I outlined rather than advertising it as an exclusive hunt on a private ranch? If the landowner is truthful about his operation and doesn't say things like "Trophy hunt of a lifetime" etc. then no one should be involved in the transaction other than buyer and seller. However, when landowers start talking "trophy hunts" "lifetime experiences" and generally misrepresenting what they are selling, then yes, the government should get involved, if only to ensure that the buyer is getting what he is paying for.

Haven't heard anything about lifting the ban on hourse slaughter. Doesn't matter to me cause they call it what it is, the slaughter of a horse to make dog food and glue. Maybe the price of dog food and glue will come down.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

> Maybe the price of dog food and glue will come down.


Maybe we will have illegal French aliens. I can see them now, sneaking across the border in Chef's hats with salt and pepper.


----------



## huntin1

Don't forget the gleam in their eye. :wink: :lol:

Also, along with having to advertise the true nature of their operation, they should have to afix a non-removable notice to the antlers that said the animal was raised on a farm. Something that would be obvious to a person scoreing the animal should they try to have it entered in the trophy book.

huntin1


----------



## shaug

huntin1 said,



> However, when landowers start talking "trophy hunts" "lifetime experiences" and generally misrepresenting what they are selling, then yes, the government should get involved, if only to ensure that the buyer is getting what he is paying for.


Poeple who frequent game farms are not the ones complaining. All the fuss is coming from a small group.



> they should have to afix a non-removable notice to the antlers that said the animal was raised on a farm. Something that would be obvious to a person scoreing the animal should they try to have it entered in the trophy book.


And you can give me examples of people who have tried to slip one past the scoreing trophy book persons. Examples please.


----------



## huntin1

shaug said:


> Poeple who frequent game farms are not the ones complaining. All the fuss is coming from a small group.


Of course not. people who frequent game farms like to do things the easy way. They often have lots of money and want a large set of antlers without having to take a chance at bagging a wild animal. And I would submit that this group is far smaller than the group making a "fuss".



shaug said:


> And you can give me examples of people who have tried to slip one past the scoreing trophy book persons. Examples please.


Don't need examples, don't care if it has ever happened, just need to ensure that it can't happen.

huntin1


----------



## shaug

huntin1 wrote,



> Of course not. people who frequent game farms like to do things the easy way.


And you know this to be a fact.



> They often have lots of money and want a large set of antlers without having to take a chance at bagging a wild animal.


They often have lots of money???? Do you dislike people who have money?



> And I would submit that this group is far smaller than the group making a "fuss".


In one small pargragh you make several classifications and assumptions about people. Is it because you are arrogant or is it just in your nature to "judge" because you are/were a police officer?

I do think it is great to have sportsmens sites such as fishingbuddy and this one for the exchange of ideas and over-all general teasing and ribbing. However, all these threads started to bash Farm Bureau and landowners in general is a sad situation.


----------



## huntin1

Neither arrogant nor judgemental. And I have nothing against people with money. Also, not all of those who use game farms have money, hence the phrase,"they often have money" which would imply, "often" but not "always".

I do happen to know several people who have gone to game farms to "hunt" elk. Their chief reason was the ease of bagging a "trophy".

And I'm not bashing anyone. I would just like the operators of these game farms to call it what it is, the slaughter of a fenced-in, pen raised animal.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

> They often have lots of money???? Do you dislike people who have money?


Forgive me for getting in on this one. No, I like people who have money, even though I don't. They employ people. You don't get a job from poor people. Judging people by the money they have is what Obama wants to do. It's what the spoiled brats at Occupy Wall Street do.


----------



## shaug

huntin1 wrote,



> I would just like the operators of these game farms to call it what it is, the slaughter of a fenced-in, pen raised animal.


You aren't the only one. This is taken from an HSUS blogspot in 2007:

AN ADVOCATES HANDBOOK TO END CANNED HUNTING

Critics of this ballot measure (fair chase) raise questions of property rights. They claim that the animals are not taken from the wild, but instead raised in captivity, and are therefore not the property of the state.The animals at canned hunting areas are purchased or reared by the landowners and are raised like livestock. Since these animals are regulated like livestock, critics claim the issue of hunting is mute. They further argue that it is not within the power of the government to encroach upon the rights of the private landowners. It should be noted, however, that if the landowners want the "livestock" to be removed from the considerations of hunting, then the federal Humane Slaughter Act should apply to the taking of individual members from the canned hunting areas. Application of the Humane Slaughter Act would require the captive animals be "rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or by other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter." If enforced, this could effectively shut down canned hunting areas, as compliance with the Act would be virtually impossible.

hunt, On farm slaughter of any animal has already been "banned" in Canada. Horse slaughter is "banned" in the US. Horse owners were really divided on that one. And that is the name of the game, divide and conquer. Everyone complains about loss of freedom loss of rights, well...................


----------



## Plainsman

> loss of rights, well...................


You can tell if something is a right or a privilege. Rights do not require permits, privileges do. That does get goofed up at times because there should be no permit required to carry a handgun anywhere. Does raising of native wild species require a permit?


----------



## huntin1

shaug,

Earlier you spoke of an exchange of ideas, I really don't believe that is what you want. You are like the media, twist everything that is said in an effort to support your narrow-minded agenda, whatever the heck it's supposed to be.

I'm done. Have a good day.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

huntin1, that has always been the tactic. Demonize the messenger. They would accuse anyone of being the anti Christ if it will further their agenda. The dishonesty is disappointing.

You know how much mileage gst made of the point that I was unfamiliar with no till corn. Well I have talked with landowners who have up to 8,000 acres of corn. I have talked to a dozen farmers. Today in church I talked to three more. It's only half true. My cousin has been airseeding for about 20 years. I knew about that. However, most tell me there is equipment that can seed in corn stubble, but if you do it will hold to much snow and you can't get in next spring. They all said they have never seen a corn field that was not tilled in the fall. So all that big deal gst was making about my ignorance about no till corn was mostly untrue. I have better manners than to call someone a liar as I have been called by one person many times, but it was not exactly the truth. I suppose we will have some edited posts to cover the behind now.

Shaug I wish you well, but don't follow down that trail that others have made.



> bash Farm Bureau and landowners in general is a sad situation.


It isn't in general it's bashing an organization that is radical. The people who propose no regulations are radical anti environmental, anti habitat, and anti Fish and Wildlife and state Game and Fish. If these people continue down this path they deserve to be bashed and more. Some landowners (some) need to understand that the life of other people is just as valuable as theirs. We don't have kings in America, and they are not royalty to dump on the rest of society.

Oh, by the way that petition to get rid of property tax. I don't like taxes, I am conservative, but if that passed most farmers would pay nothing. They need to pull their share like everyone else. I suppose that is the need NDFB sees when then want to steal money from the Game and Fish for township roads. If farmers pay no property tax the state will have to foot the entire bill for township roads. As it is now you don't pay taxes on your houses. We who live in the country just like you, but do not farm pay taxes on our houses. Mine is right around $3000. What do you pay on a section of land?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman, it gets old having to go back and define what the truth is to rebutt your jibber-jabber.



> Oh, by the way that petition to get rid of property tax. I don't like taxes, I am conservative, but if that passed most farmers would pay nothing. They need to pull their share like everyone else. I suppose that is the need NDFB sees when then want to steal money from the Game and Fish for township roads. If farmers pay no property tax the state will have to foot the entire bill for township roads. As it is now you don't pay taxes on your houses. We who live in the country just like you, but do not farm pay taxes on our houses. Mine is right around $3000. What do you pay on a section of land?


The truth is both Farm Bureau and Farmers Union have their new resolutions out now and neither one supports the property tax petition.

The truth about the resolution to use G/F money for township roads is that is was a simple resolution. If ten farmer/ranchers seek a resolution they might get one but it isn't going anywhere unless a thousand or ten thousand like-minded individuals come together because it's a big problem. At this point I don't see a big problem out in the country side.

Clarification: If a farmer/rancher makes 51% of his income off the land then he pays on his land not his house. If someone moves out into the country and purchases 5 acres they pay on their house. If someone farms/ranches "and" works in town than that person has to prove that 51% of his income is from the farm. Here is the catcher. The comparison is made from off farm "gross"
wages to "net" farm income. That is a bugger because the net off the farm can fluctuate wildlly with equipment purchases etc. There isn't many who can meet that criteria.

The truth Plainsman is that I have off farm income and therefore I pay on my house and my land. Double whammy. But I not the one *****ing about the "unfairness" of it all, day after day night after night on this webforum.


----------



## Plainsman

I know how the taxes work. However, I do thank you for clarifying the resolution on taking Game and Fish money. No one has made it as clear as you have. That is a great relief to me, thank you.



> The truth is both Farm Bureau and Farmers Union have their new resolutions out now and neither one supports the property tax petition.


Great, I'll have to get myself up to speed on their resolutions. Normally I would have been for any type of tax break, but at the same time I think everyone has to pay some taxes. I think the only ones that would disagree with me on that is the Occupy Wall Street crowd. They want everyone to pay taxes but them so they can draw from the hard work of others.

Anyway shaug I do appreciate the clarity you used in explaining the resolutions that can come about within NDFB by a small number of people. I have watched for many years as farmers and hunters have been allies. I hate to see that disappear. The reason I feel that way is because in recent years with the pay hunting, the high fence, the resolution that you explained, and a number of other things I was beginning to feel like it had become a one way street.

Good evening, 
later


----------



## gst

back from hunting up north so will simply start once again with asking plainsman to substantiate a claim he has made once again, that is bull****.



Plainsman said:


> Your constantly denying any problems with chemicals, drainage, tile, and say the EPA will not let it happen.


Plainsman please show where I have EVER made the claim you say I have above. If you can not this claim is once again nothing more than another lie.


----------



## gst

quote="Plainsman"]You already know that though because gst blew it on open form after we talked in PM's.[/quote]

plainsman, once again pleas show where I ever mention specifically what you claim I did regarding your involvement in the measure thru PM's.



Plainsman said:


> I hope they now know they are not getting the truth.


Such as your claims regarding this measure stating this meaure will allow feedlots to use rivers to wash away their manure?????
Truth? I see you do not want to factually and honestly answer the question I had regarding the current languagte already in our constitution so that perhaps the unbiased factual truth can be told rather than your bull**** claims that you later admit you KNEW were not factual.



Plainsman said:


> Like the turkey farm near Wahpeton about ten years ago that was violating about every environmental rule out there. The guy got his rear handed to him on that one.


Seems as if even regardless of your claims there are indeed regulations that will continue to work to deal with violations such as it did in your example. What are you trying to point out here, that these regulations in place actually work?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst sometimes talks to much and violates the rules of this site, but maybe he did me a favor when he posted information from a private message I sent him.


plainsman if you recall, I aksed you to simply substantiate what you told me in private (PM's) that was much different than what you were stating in public in these forums. It was you, after being badgered to finally tell the truth about who had conversations with whom, that admitted indeed someone from the FC initiative had indeed spoken with HSUS.



Plainsman said:


> So since the people have spoken ( loud and clear I might add) on the high fence issue as presented last time it's clear HSUS presents no threat to North Dakota farmers and ranchers.


This statement only serves to show how ignorant you are as to HSUS's agendas to end ALL forms of animals agriculture. This groups agenda does not exempt North Dakota farmers and ranchers from their end results.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> loss of rights, well...................
> 
> 
> 
> You can tell if something is a right or a privilege. Rights do not require permits, privileges do. That does get goofed up at times because there should be no permit required to carry a handgun anywhere. Does raising of native wild species require a permit?
Click to expand...

So from this statement it is clear that the qualification of what is a "right" because of the need for a permit is to be qualified by YOUR judgement. What makes you more of an authoritarian of what is a "right" than those demanding a permit to own a handgun?

Plainsman, what was the definition of an oligarchy once again? Seems like you would like to be the one determining what "rights" are and who is allowed to have them.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> huntin1, that has always been the tactic. Demonize the messenger. They would accuse anyone of being the anti Christ if it will further their agenda. The dishonesty is disappointing.
> 
> _*Such as the dishonestly in your claims as to what this measure would do that you later ADMITTED knowing were not true??? *_
> 
> I suppose we will have some edited posts to cover the behind now.
> 
> *[b]Once again please prove this claim as "honest".[/*_i] [/b]
> 
> It isn't in general it's bashing an organization that is radical.
> 
> *Plainsman did you not admit you approve of most all of what this orgs stands for other than one minor resolution that has never been passed thru the legislature that shaug so "clearly" explained why it has not?? *quote]_


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a believer in letting the people decide as long as they get the truth to assist in making that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> Really??? Really???? That surely was why you posted this:
> plainsmans quote: "I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen." end quote
> 
> All the while knowing and finally admitting this:
> Plainsman wrote quote:
> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards, end quote
> 
> So exactly what is the "truth" you are trying to get to people to help "assist" them in making their decisions?
> The claims you made regarding this measure that are not true, or the fact EPA regulations will prevent those claims from happening as you admit knowing???
> 
> I can see you do not care to actually debate the following question.
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
> 
> Does this section indeed give the legislature the ability to enact laws which will prevent what plainsman claims from happening if they so choose REGARDLESS of this ammendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to this simple, direct, unbiased question could finally put to rest the "boogieman" claims you seem so intent on posting regarding this measure. If you truly are as concerned with the "truth" regarding this measure as you say, find the answer to this question before making anymore b#llsh*t claims as to what it will do. Otherwise your claim of wanting the truth made avalible is simply one more b#llsh*t claim.
> Credibility
Click to expand...

Once again I will simply ask plainsman to substantiate yet another round of bull**** claims with a simple request that if he indeed wishes people to get the truth about this measure to simply provide the factual answer to the question I asked regarding the wording already contained on our constitution that would prevent the claims plainsman makes from happening.

Truth???

Credibility.


----------



## Plainsman

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





> Once again I will simply ask plainsman to substantiate yet another round of b#llsh*t claims


Well potty mouth your simply not intelligent enough to understand that one can not substantiate an opinion. It is my opinion that these things will happen, and at the least they will try use this amendment as a tool to avoid regulations. Knowing that the EPA can enforce regulations today doesn't mean they will be able to enforce regulations in the future if those regulations are removed. Your spinning in circles as usual. I can't decide if your intelligent enough to understand and simply trying to deceive others, or if you really don't get it.

and still you say:


> that you ADMITTED knowing were not true???


Like you say please show me where I said I knew it was not true. Maybe you should think a little bit. It will not kill you. Really. I think the farmers like yourself will try see what they can get away with. Look for example at those who lease federal grazing land. In Idaho they burned a man's house a few years ago when he tried to enforce the rules. The rules he was trying to enforce was the number of cattle in a unit. Ranchers who are paying for 100 cattle in a unit cheat when they run 200 cattle in that unit. Ever hear of such things gst? Tell me people like that will not cheat more with this amendment in place. Can you guarantee me that will not happen? Can you substantiate it? Come on gst this is your chance to be the ag hero, because if it can be guaranteed I'll drop the argument.



> I can see you do not care to actually debate the following question.
> 
> gst wrote:No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
Click to expand...

I did address it. I'm not going to search for you go find it yourself.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, you are shown.


gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now back to the NDFB amendment. *I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. *
> 
> 
> 
> You make a specific claim that I stated something and when asked to substantiate when and where it was said you start your chicken &$#* backpedaling because you can not substantiate what you claimed.
> 
> So either substantiate this statement you made regarding what you claim I said or realize it is nothing more than a lie.
> 
> I have REPEATEDLY stated why I am "debating" you. And it is in response to the claim you made stating what this measure would do that you now after being backed into a corner admit it will not. You could have had the "integrity" to simply say this measure will not do what you claimed it would in regards to the two specific areas I mentioned (pesticides and feedlots) but you could not man up and do that and had to yet once again make a claim towards me personally that you can now not substantiate yet again.
> 
> How many times have I told you I would not even be on this site if you would simply stop making claims about agriculture that are simply not true. THAT is what you did when you stated your claims as to what this measure would do regarding pesticides and feedlots. THAT is why I am "debating" you.
> 
> So accept responsibility for you untrue claims that you repeatedly made all the while knowing by your own admission they were not true as shown in the below emboldened, enlarge statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. *I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards, *but I am sure the amendment will be used to resist them. Now since you think I should substantiate opinion I'll ask you to do the same. Can you guarantee me that this amendment will never be used to protect a bad agriculture practice, and if so prove it please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Credibility???
> 
> You lost that long ago.
Click to expand...

So plainsman if you know the amendment will not overide any EPA regulations as you admit above as quoted from an earlier statement you made, note the enlarged portion , why then would you claim it would as you clearly did in the claims you made about feedlots and pesticide use?

Plainsman, all you have to do is simply stop making bull**** claims regarding agriculture.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a believer in letting the people decide as long as they get the truth to assist in making that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> Really??? Really???? That surely was why you posted this:
> plainsmans quote: "I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen." end quote
> 
> All the while knowing and finally admitting this:
> Plainsman wrote quote:
> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards, end quote
> 
> So exactly what is the "truth" you are trying to get to people to help "assist" them in making their decisions?
> The claims you made regarding this measure that are not true, or the fact EPA regulations will prevent those claims from happening as you admit knowing???
> 
> I can see you do not care to actually debate the following question.
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
> 
> Does this section indeed give the legislature the ability to enact laws which will prevent what plainsman claims from happening if they so choose REGARDLESS of this ammendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer to this simple, direct, unbiased question could finally put to rest the "boogieman" claims you seem so intent on posting regarding this measure. If you truly are as concerned with the "truth" regarding this measure as you say, find the answer to this question before making anymore b#llsh*t claims as to what it will do. Otherwise your claim of wanting the truth made avalible is simply one more b#llsh*t claim.
> Credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again I will simply ask plainsman to substantiate yet another round of b#llsh*t claims with a simple request that if he indeed wishes people to get the truth about this measure to simply provide the factual answer to the question I asked regarding the wording already contained on our constitution that would prevent the claims plainsman makes from happening.
> 
> Truth???
> 
> Credibility.
Click to expand...

plainsman, your "opinion" regarding this constitutional wording is worth as much as previous "opinions" you have given, and is not the factual answer that would indeed put an end to your claims or substantiate them once and for all. But yet I am guessing you are simply not willing to possibly get the "truth" regarding the powers this very specific wording of our constitution is meant to give the legislature as this factual thruthful answer may indeed possibly point out the untruthful nature of your claims regarding this amendment, and yet you insist you are concerned with people getting the truth?????? It most certainly seems as if this concern for the truth is indeed merely one more bull**** claim.

So your "adressing it" leaves a little be desired from a factual stand point. But then again, we are becoming used to these such "opinions.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> http://www.legis.nd.gov/constitution/const.pdf
> 
> from the North Dakota State Constitution.
> 
> *Article I Sec 21.*
> 
> * No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
> be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
> citizens.*
> 
> This is the section of our constitution I referenced early on in the discussion about this measure. Lets stop and take an honest look leaving the childish personal biases out.
> 
> I will readily admit not being a legal scholar that is an authority on constitutional law and procedure so this is simply being pointed out and two simple direct unbiased questions are being asked regarding this measure, if anyone does indeed know the FACTUAL answers please share them.
> 
> * No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; *
> 
> Does this section indeed give the legislature the ability to enact laws which will prevent what plainsman claims from happening if they so choose REGARDLESS of this ammendment?
> 
> _*nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
> be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
> citizens.*_
> 
> Does this section pose a contradictory decree from what the NDFB amendment intent is?
> 
> I think the honest factual answers to these two questions should be a part of any unbiased honest discussion involved in a debate regarding this measure. So if someone wishes to discuss these questions without engaing in untrue personal accusations and making claims they can not substantiate as true and factual, I would be interested in further discussion. If not, I really have no further need to continue to point out the untruthes in regards to plainsmans "claims"/ "opinions"/ "stories" or whatever he wishes to call them.


plainsman, if you truly wish to have a honest, factual, unbiased debate regarding this measure you will need to address these two simplle direct questions. If you can not do so, it is clear what your specific claims you can not substantiate that you have admitted to not being true are meant to do.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I made a mistake. I thought I was talking to an intelligent reasonable person. You simply don't understand what I say, or what you yourself say. Debating someone incapable of understanding is pointless.

Example: .


> I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards


Did you see the word currently? Do you understand the underlying implication? Do you understand that the word current means the future may be different? You don't understand, or you don't want to be confused by the reality of possibilities. You simply don't debate, you only accuse. You have responded with zero input. Why will the measure not challenge current regulations? Can you substantiate that it will not? I know that is a ridiculous question since you can't do that even if you think your word is enough. I simply use it as an example of the ridiculous requests you have to substantiate a hypothesis. I challenge you to an honest answer rather than continuing down your usual path.

Thanksgiving I am going to talk to my ten year old grandson and see if he understands. I'll bet he does.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Why will the measure not challenge current regulations?





gst said:


> This is the section of our constitution I referenced early on in the discussion about this measure. Lets stop and take an honest look leaving the childish personal biases out.
> 
> I will readily admit not being a legal scholar that is an authority on constitutional law and procedure so this is simply being pointed out and two simple direct unbiased questions are being asked regarding this measure, if anyone does indeed know the FACTUAL answers please share them.
> 
> *No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
> 
> Does this section indeed give the legislature the ability to enact laws which will prevent what plainsman claims from happening if they so choose REGARDLESS of this ammendment?[/[/b]quote]
> 
> plainsman,
> 1. I have suggested, an HONEST, FACTUAL answer to the above emboldened, underlined question would answer the question you pose and claims you make.
> 2. YOU are the one making claims as what this measure will and will not do, not I. You have been repeatedly asked to substatntiate your claims as to what you claim I hae stated regarding this measure which you have not because you can not. .
> 3. If you are indeed concerned with people knowing the "truth" about this measure, why then will you not provide a HONEST, FACTUAL answer to the above emboldened, underlined question rather than merely giving an opinion which as you so often point out is NOT factual but merely one persons veiw?
> 4. If you do not provide a FACTUAL, HONEST answer to the above emboldened, underlined question, we can only deduce you are less interested in having people hear the "truth" about this measure as you have claimed you are, than you are in making claims you can not substantiate as true or factual in an attempt to sway peoples opinion regarding this measure by the very thing you acuse others of doing, fearmongering.
> 
> So until you answer the above emboldened undelined question with more than your "opinion" which you have shown to lack credibility by making claims/opinions you have not substantiated when asked to , continueing this debate is quite pointless.
> 
> So plainsman either find the answer to this above emboldened underlined question regarding the regulatory power, intent, and meaning of the constitutional wording I have shared as it applies to the abilities of this amendment and the claims you have made regarding it or we will clearly see your claims of wishing people to know the "truth" about this measure are no different than your other claims/opinions/stories, ect.... which are merely that, and not the factual honest truth.
> 
> Credibility.*


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Well potty mouth your simply not intelligent enough to understand that one can not substantiate an opinion. It is my opinion that these things will happen, and at the least they will try use this amendment as a tool to avoid regulations. Knowing that the EPA can enforce regulations today doesn't mean they will be able to enforce regulations in the future if those regulations are removed. Your spinning in circles as usual. I can't decide if your intelligent enough to understand and simply trying to deceive others, or if you really don't get it.
> 
> Like you say please show me where I said I knew it was not true. Maybe you should think a little bit. It will not kill you. Really. I think the farmers like yourself will try see what they can get away with. Look for example at those who lease federal grazing land. In Idaho they burned a man's house a few years ago when he tried to enforce the rules. The rules he was trying to enforce was the number of cattle in a unit. Ranchers who are paying for 100 cattle in a unit cheat when they run 200 cattle in that unit. Ever hear of such things gst? Tell me people like that will not cheat more with this amendment in place. Can you guarantee me that will not happen? Can you substantiate it? Come on gst this is your chance to be the ag hero, because if it can be guaranteed I'll drop the argument. .


I wasn;t going to respond to this childish personal rant and "story", but there is something that needs to be pointed out. There are laws (regulations) in place regarding crimes that go so far as to carry the penalty of death if they are violated here in this country. And yet individuals choose to violate these laws(regulations). The fact is ANY law/regulation that is in place,now or in the future will be broken by individuals that choose to. But that human nature is not what is being debated here. I have NEVER made the claims regarding this plainsman states I have. What is being debated here is wether this amendment will take away the regulations preventing and holding accountable for doing what plainsman claims will happen if this amendment is passed.

Plainsman has claimed, and then backepedaled to suggest it was merely an opinion, that this amendment will indeed overturn "current" existing regulations that he admits knowing prevents the very things he claims will happen from happening. He has merely been asked to substantiate how what he claims will happen.

Article I Sec 21.

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

That can be done FACTUALLY and HONESTLY by simply providing an answer as to what the current wording of our constitution that has been provided gives our legislature from a legislative regulatory standpoint. In plain and simple words does the state legislature retain the power thru the wording in our state constitution (Article 1, section 21) that is posted above to prevent the very things plainsman claims from happening regardless of this amendment? (please note the use of the word "immunities" in this constitutional language)

Until someone factually answers this question, there is little to be gained by continueing to debate as has been done.

We will now see moving forward from this point in the debate if plainsman is indeed actually concerned with the truth being factually presented regarding this measure.

Credibility


----------



## swift

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


*

This statement is proof enough that the amendment will not protect anything, it will not stand up to the HSUS boogeyman stories, if the legislature wants to pass a bill brought forth by the HSUS like in California it can and regardless of the Amendment, if passed will become law. The Amendment is a feel good thing that is not necessary or effective.

Quit wasting the lawmakers time and try to effectively gain support against the boogeyman through citizen education and community relations.*


----------



## gst

swift, if what you are saying is indeed true (and I am not sayig it is not) would not then the legislature maintain the ability to pass whatever law is deemed necessary to prevent the claims plainsman is making from happening regardless of this amendment???

As I said early on in the discussion, while the intent is there, the wording of this measure was not very well thoughtout IMHO as is the ability to effectively carry out what the intent of this measure is. The determination of this will likely end up in the courts where no one wins other than those making their livings from doing so and great risk of an activist judge exists.

My involvement in this "debate" is soley a result of plainsman making claims regarding agriculture he can not factually substantiate. One would hope at some point he would simply discontinue doing so.


----------



## Plainsman

> My involvement in this "debate" is soley a result of plainsman making claims regarding agriculture he can not factually substantiate. One would hope at some point he would simply discontinue doing so.


I'm not going to stop giving my opinion, so it looks like your here for life. :wink: and that is good, or I would not have a reason to continue. Your a great help. I seriously thank you.



> swift, if what you are saying is indeed true (and I am not sayig it is not) would not then the legislature maintain the ability to pass whatever law is deemed necessary to prevent the claims plainsman is making from happening regardless of this amendment???


This will be a constitutional amendment. It states that no law can be made that restricts modern agriculture practices. That means it would be unconstitutional for our legislature to make a law against the new coming agriculture practices no matter how damaging. It would require changing the constitution to pass a new law. With the huge number of farmers in our legislature that's not likely to happen.



> But that human nature is not what is being debated here.


I will debate it. There are those who cheat now, and this amendment will only cause more to try cheat because I think they will see it as protection. I'm not backpeddling at all. We have wetland easment violations now, and I think this amendment will cause an increase. We have pesticide misuse now, and I think this amendment will cause those violations to increase. I think violations of many regulations will increase.

Anyway, 95+ % of farmers are great people. However, within their numbers, just like police, teachers, firemen, or any other demographic there are a few bad apples. Unfortunately some get their undies in a bunch when I say that, and take it as an attack. No, it's not an attack it is reality in this world. Those bad apples is why we need regulations. Those bad apples will see this amendment as covering their behind to violate further. That is human nature, and it can not be counted out of the problem. I hope reasonable people understand my point.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> This will be a constitutional amendment. It states that no law can be made that restricts modern agriculture practices. That means it would be unconstitutional for our legislature to make a law against the new coming agriculture practices no matter how damaging. It would require changing the constitution to pass a new law. *With the huge number of farmers in our legislature that's not likely to happen*.


So plainsman is this once again simply your "opinion" you can not factually substantiate or is it indeed what process will occur as a result of this measure. You are simply refusing to address factually the simple unbiased question I presented that would once and for all either substantiate your claims or put them to rest as unfactual ramblings of a person with a bias against this ag org and it's thousands of producer members which you have readily admitted to previously.



gst said:


> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens
> be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all
> citizens.


Until you FACTUALLY address this wording already in our state constitution and the power it grants the legislature as it will pertain to the claims you make as a result of this proposed amendment, you indeedcan continue to make your "claims"/"opinions"/"stories", but they will simply be given the CREDIBILITY they deserve while continueing to be held up for the unfactual ramblings they are. .

Hell even swift beleives this wording will over ride this amendment and as a result show the claims you make regarding it as false.

Again with the farmers running roughshod over the other elected legislative representatives of the people as emboldened above :roll: Plainsman if you wish I can go back and repost the percentages of legislators involved with agriculture in any manner which I posted the last time you gave this "opinion"! :wink:

Are you suggesting the majority of elected representatives of the people are farmers? You seem to have one of those "willies" over the ability of farmers to be involved in the legislative process as elected representatives of the people.

Perhaps you do not understand how the legislative process works whereby MAJORITIES are needed to pass legislation. One could possibly understand that given your oligarchian ideals regarding agriculture and hunting. :wink:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> There are laws (regulations) in place regarding crimes that go so far as to carry the penalty of death if they are violated here in this country. And yet individuals choose to violate these laws(regulations). The fact is ANY law/regulation that is in place,now or in the future will be broken by individuals that choose to. But that human nature is not what is being debated here. I have NEVER made the claims regarding this plainsman states I have. What is being debated here is wether this amendment will take away the regulations preventing and holding accountable for doing what plainsman claims will happen if this amendment is passed.
> 
> Plainsman has claimed, and then backepedaled to suggest it was merely an opinion, that this amendment will indeed overturn "current" existing regulations that he admits knowing prevents the very things he claims will happen from happening. He has merely been asked to substantiate how what he claims will happen.
> 
> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;
> 
> That can be done FACTUALLY and HONESTLY by simply providing an answer as to what the current wording of our constitution that has been provided gives our legislature from a legislative regulatory standpoint. In plain and simple words does the state legislature retain the power thru the wording in our state constitution (Article 1, section 21) that is posted above to prevent the very things plainsman claims from happening regardless of this amendment? (please note the use of the word "immunities" in this constitutional language)
> 
> Until someone factually answers this question, there is little to be gained by continueing to debate as has been done.
> 
> We will now see moving forward from this point in the debate if plainsman is indeed actually concerned with the truth being factually presented regarding this measure.
> 
> Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> If we have another part of our constitution that says no laws may be made to inhibit modern agriculture practices then where are we? Which part of the constitution wins? What percentage of our legislators must vote to override once something is passed? I think they can pass with 51%, but doesn't it take a 2/3 majority to get something out of the constitution? It would not take a majority of farmers to keep a new law from passing that conflicts with the NDFB amendment. Nearly all of the farm legislators would vote against revoking, and many others that are not farmers, but benefit directly from agriculture. We have a very environmentally unfriendly legislature. Evidently your very much against things that preserve our natural environment also.
> 
> Nothing can substantiate more than the very words in the NDFB amendment. No laws against modern agriculture You don't need to be an attorney or a rocket scientist to understand that.
> 
> I say it is an environmentally dangerous bill, a widlife unfriendly bill, and since it ignores all the rest of us and our needs it's unfriendly to the average citizen. So now tell me what you think of the bill. All you have done so far is try to discredit any idea I have about it. Yours is all attack. Tell us what you think, or is that to much to ask? If your truely interested in a debate, then take part in the debate. So far you have been just a little boy standing in the sidelines crying liar liar pants on fire. You say you want to defend agriculture. Then grow up and give your opinion of the amendment. What will it do, and what will it not do?


----------



## Plainsman

Here is something you really need to understand gst. You like to post Article I Sec 21. as some kind of proof. You think it will keep the NDFB from getting out of line. You think, meaning it's your ------ opinion. You are posting opinion gst not proof. Do you not understand that? Once something like that goes to legislature and someone doesn't like it then it will go to the courts. Who will win? You don't know gst, so it's all opinion. Then it may go to the state supreme court. Who will win? You don't know gst, so it's only your opinion. Those things you think are proof are in most cases worth no more than anyone else's opinion. Do you get it now?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If your truely interested in a debate, then take part in the debate. So far you have been just a little boy standing in the sidelines crying liar liar pants on fire. You say you want to defend agriculture. Then grow up and give your opinion of the amendment. What will it do, and what will it not do?


plainsman, I have indeed given my "opinion" of the amendment a number of time previously within this "debate". I am not going to keep repeating it to satisfy your senility. 
I have simply claimed that it will not overide reulations that are in place prevening the claims you make as you have admitted knowing it will not even after making these claims.



Plainsman said:


> I say it is an environmentally dangerous bill, a widlife unfriendly bill,


plainsman this is NOT a "bill". It is not something that will be entered into the State's Century Code as law.

As to the "liar liar" comment, when it is appropriate I will do so in regards to your claims towards agriculture that are not true. Please remember here it is YOU that have made claims as to what this amendment will do, not I. So if you do not wish to have your claims questioned as to their truthfulness, simply substantiate them as fact and end the discussion. I have told you how thru answering the question I posed regarding previous wording in the constitution in Article 1 Sec 21. If you are indeed concerned with the truth one would think you eager to prove your claims as such.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Here is something you really need to understand gst. You like to post Article I Sec 21. as some kind of proof. You think it will keep the NDFB from getting out of line. You think, meaning it's your ------ opinion. You are posting opinion gst not proof. Do you not understand that? Once something like that goes to legislature and someone doesn't like it then it will go to the courts. Who will win? You don't know gst, so it's all opinion. Then it may go to the state supreme court. Who will win? You don't know gst, so it's only your opinion. Those things you think are proof are in most cases worth no more than anyone else's opinion. Do you get it now?


plainsman here is something YOU "really need to understand". Never once have I posted Article 1 Sec 21 as proof to defend any claim I have made. It has been repeatedly posted as a question looking for an answer to understand the truth of the claims YOU have made in what powers the legislature will have even regardless of this measure's passage. "Do you not understand that?"
"Do you get it now?"

Please stop and comprehend this before making any more untruthful accusations. Once again, please show me where I have ever stated this article and section of our constitution will "keep NDFB from getting out of line" as you have claimed I have.

Please show me ANY of the "claims" you state I have made regarding what this measure will do.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> I say it is an environmentally dangerous bill, a widlife unfriendly bill, and since it ignores all the rest of us and our needs it's unfriendly to the average citizen.


It is unfriendly to the average citizen????????? What???? There are more than just farmer/ranchers involved in the production and distribution of food. The veterinarian, seed salesman, truckers, partsman, groccers, etc. Are your needs not being met now? This measure does nothing to change the system we have now. But in the future, there are those who endeavor to change the system. Take away one option one freedom at a time. Swift says get out there and inform the public about all the good things farmers and ranchers are already doing. Well........ I am sure it is all very entertaining for him to watch the farmer/ranchers spend millions trying defend themslves in the courtroom (media) of public opinion against PETA and the HSUS types.

Farms and ranches are like miniature factories. They cannot simply retool everytime the political wind blows from another direction. It causes uncertainty and instability. Anyone who eats food will benefit from this measure. I have been out collecting sigs and not one person has turned me down. When I do find my first one it will be someone like swift or plainsman who delight in making as much trouble for agriculture as they can.

Plainsman wrote,



> You are posting opinion gst not proof. Do you not understand that? Once something like that goes to legislature and someone doesn't like it then it will go to the courts. Who will win? You don't know gst, so it's all opinion. Then it may go to the state supreme court. Who will win?


Plainsman, below are the last two additions to the Consitution. Were they challenged? Why not?

Section 27. Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued
part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and
regulation for the public good.
Section 28. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No
other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the
same or substantially equivalent legal effect.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, below are the last two additions to the Consitution. Were they challenged? Why not?


I think they are clutter just like the NDFB amendment. I don't think the NDFB amendment will do much to protect you from idiots like PETA and HSUS. We citizens will just have to stand behind you when that time comes. Like I said if they had not made this amendmente so broad, and wrote something assuring that it was not meant as a tool to breach regulations I would not only sign your petition I would vote for the amendment. It's guys like gst in the NDFB that scare me and cause concern. It is sort of a wast to argue about because in North Dakota it will pass with about 80% voting for it.

On a positive note HAPPY THANKSGIVING everyone.


----------



## gst

So plainsman, it appears that once again you are not going to substantiate the claims you have made about something I supposedly stated when asked to?



Plainsman said:
 

> Like I said if they had not made this amendmente so broad, and wrote something assuring that it was not meant as a tool to breach regulations I would not only sign your petition I would vote for the amendment.


So plainsman, if it is determined that the wording in Article 1 Sec. 21 of our current state constitution will continue to give the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE OF ND (the state legislature) the power to continue to create regulatory law regardless of this measure keeping it from being "a tool to breach regulations" and the legislature would still maintain the ability to prevent the claims you have made from happening you will support and vote for this measure???

This is a simple direct question that only requires a yes or no answer.


----------



## Plainsman

> This is a simple direct question that only requires a yes or no answer.


You wish. That would be like the old question "have you stopped beating your wife yet". If you say yes it means you were beating your wife, and if you say no it means your still beating your wife.

I answered your question to my satisfaction. I know it's not your satisfaction because it's not the answer you want. Have you stopped crying when you don't get the presents (answers) you want? :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman[u:2f6wfkaw said:


> *":2f6wfkaw]Like I said if they had not made this amendmente so broad, and wrote something assuring that it was not meant as a tool to breach regulations I would not only sign your petition I would vote for the amendment.[/*[/u]quote]
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> So plainsman, if it is determined that the wording in Article 1 Sec. 21 of our current state constitution will continue to give the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE OF ND (the state legislature) the power to continue to create regulatory law regardless of this measure keeping it from being "a tool to breach regulations" and the legislature would still maintain the ability to prevent the claims you have made from happening you will support and vote for this measure???
Click to expand...

plainsman, it is not a gotcha type question, simply clarifying a claim YOU made regarding this measure.

YOU stated if "it was not meant as a tool to breach regulations" you would support it. You were simply asked if it is assured that the state legislature because of wording already in our constitution, will retain the power to pass legislation preventing this amendment from being a "tool to breach regulations" and continue with the ability to prevent your previous claims from happening as they now do, would you support this measure as you claimed you would?

yes or no?

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman

We have not determined if the legislature could since it's a constitutional amendment. Also, if the percentage to override the amendment is more than 51% it would never happen in North Dakota. It would require faith that our legislature is reasonable. I don't have that. I'm afraid something I think is destructive our legislature would think is wonderful if it makes a buck.

You see, a yes or no doesn't really work.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, so can we assume you are not going to substantiate the claims you have made regarding statements you claim I made that I did not????

backpedal
Definition
back·ped·al[ bák pèdd'l ]VERB 
1. transitive and intransitive verb pedal backward: to turn the pedals of a bicycle backward in order to operate a brake
2. intransitive verb move backward: in sports, to move quickly backward in order to get away from an opponent or to catch a ball
size=150][b]3. intransitive verb retract statement: to try to escape the consequences of a statement or action by retracting it, modifying it, or toning it down[/b][/size]



Plainsman said:


> pm
> We have not determined if the legislature could since it's a constitutional amendment.


What has been asked is if "assurances" are given that indeed the legislative body of elected representatives of the people of ND will still be able to establish and pass regulatory laws preventing what you have claimed from happening regardless of this measure and subsequent amendments inclusion in our constitution, would you support it as you claimed you would? Or is this simply one more claim you have made that is so much bull**** that you are backpedaling from yet once again when confronted with the "consequences" of it?



Plainsman said:


> . It is sort of a wast to argue about because in North Dakota it will pass with about 80% voting for it.





Plainsman said:


> It would require faith that our legislature is reasonable. I don't have that.


So plainsman are you now claiming 80% of the people of ND would be wrong as well as the representatives they have elected? It must be a burden and frustrating being so much smarter than everyone else and yet not having them listen to you. :roll: It really is too bad we do not have an oligarchian form of govt with you in charge.

Backpedal.
Credibility.


----------



## shaug

GST wrote,



> So plainsman are you now claiming 80% of the people of ND would be wrong as well as the representatives they have elected? It must be a burden and frustrating being so much smarter than everyone else and yet not having them listen to you. It really is too bad we do not have an oligarchian form of govt with you in charge.


Durring the HFI, I can remember the mantra coming from Ron Gilmore and the cheerleaders, "LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE."

There is more squeaking coming from this webforum then from bedsprings at a brothel.


----------



## gst




----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Like I said if they had not made this amendmente so broad, and wrote something assuring that it was not meant as a tool to breach regulations I would not only sign your petition I would vote for the amendment. .


shaug, If the assurances are provided plainsman said he would need to sign and vote for this measure, as a petition signature gatherer, perhaps you would be willing to meet him halfway to Jamestown to allow him the opportunity to sign? :wink:

I'd kick in a little for gas!


----------



## Plainsman

> There is more squeaking coming from this webforum then from bedsprings at a brothel.


I wouldn't know anything about that, so I'll just take your word for it. 



> shaug, If the assurances are provided plainsman said he would need to sign and vote for this measure, as a petition signature gatherer, perhaps you would be willing to meet him halfway to Jamestown to allow him the opportunity to sign?


I already told Shaug that. If they had written in assurances that this was not intended for a tool to duck regulations I would not only sign it I would vote for it. That offer still stands.

As for you telling me you didn't say anything that's just like Bill Clinton saying it depends on what is is. You don't understand that saying there will be no use of this bill to duck regulations is the same as saying there will be no problems. Every problem I brought up you said would not be a problem. You don't understand English well enough to understand what your implying. I'm an idiot for trying to teach the unteachable.

Edit: I just thought of something while I had my face burried in a nice smoky pork loin.  All the things I have mentioned that I thought would be a problem you have said is not a problem. So I deduct you are saying there are no problems. You say that isn't true. So evidently you see problems other than what I mentioned. Perhaps you would like to share those problems with us. I'm all ears. I should have caught that earlier, but it slid right past me. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Me that is.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> If they had written in assurances that this was not intended for a tool to duck regulations I would not only sign it I would vote for it.





> Edit: I just thought of something while I had my face burried in a nice smoky pork loin.


Plainsman, While you were ramming that pork in your pie hole, did you stop and think about all the people involved in bringing that product to you?

the grocceer
the butcher
the inspector
the slaughterhouse owner
the trucker
the ring sale owner
the pig buyer
the corn grower
the corn grinder salesman
the corn grinder welder
the corn grinder machinist
the corn seed salesman
the corn pellet maker
the hog feeder saleman
the hog wire maker and salesman
the fellas who haul manure
the veternarian

Plainsman, the list can go on and on. Every one of these persons makes a little profit along the way and has regulations to follow regarding commerce. After this measure is voted in not one will be able to duck any regulations. The laws that exist regulating them now will continue to exist. When someone goes into business they research the laws, rules and regs so that they know what they are getting themselves into. What they want and expect from government is consistancy certainty and stability. The very worst thing that can happen is mixed signals. Everyone has a vested interest in Ag. However, not if, but when radicals come to ND and start spending millions to misinform the general public some people will be swayed.

So, do our farmer/ranchers spend bukoo hours and millions to fight back, or do they move their money to the sidelines? 
What about the seed saleman, the veternarian, the slaughterhouse owner? Maybe they can find federal jobs.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Every problem I brought up you said would not be a problem.


Please show us EXACTLY where I have said what you have claimed in this statement with a specific quote. If you can not it is nothing more than yet one more lie.

plainsman you have made *very specific claims *as to what I have supposedly stated. You have been asked to substantiate these claims you have made with examples of these specific statements you have claimed I made, you have not, why is that?????

You have made very specific claims as to what problems will arise and have been asked to substantiate how that will happen.

I asked the QUESTION wether existing wording in the constitution will give the legislature power to continue to create regulatory laws to prevent what you caim will happen, (which you admitted you knew can not happen because of Federal regulations)

You have repeatedly ducked answering this unbiased question which would get the truth, (which you "claim" to want people to have) regarding this measure and your claims of what will happen if it passes.

You either do not want the truth out there as you claim because you know what it would mean to your "opinions", or you are simply to biased against ag and the orgs that represent it which means your claims of supporting ag are as bull**** as the claims you make to discredit it.



gst said:


> backpedal
> Definition
> back·ped·al[ bák pèdd'l ]VERB
> size=150]*3. intransitive verb retract statement: to try to escape the consequences of a statement or action by retracting it, modifying it, or toning it down*


*

Backpedal all you wish and make all the untrue claims you do not substantiate as factual when asked plainsman, by now anyone that wishes to has seen your claims for what they are. Credibility.*


----------



## gst

Re: Farm Bureau Constitutional Amendment
by Plainsman » Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:48 am

*"I think the idea behind freedom to farm is so they can farm without restrictions. It will be the biggest environmental disaster we have ever seen in the last 50 years. Yes, I think it will put the gulf oil spill to shame."

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

Plainsman, lets go back to the start of this entire debate prior to all the childish personal; bull**** and back pedaling. Above is the claim you made regarding this measure. Explain exactly how this will happen if this measure passes.

Now remember, YOU ADMITTED that there are indeed Federal regulations that will prevent these claims from happening, so please so the TRUTH is stated regarding this measure, explain just how the specific claims you have made will happen if this measure passes.

Now remember, there is language already in our state constitution that might just give the state legislature the ability to continue to create and maintain regulatory law even after the passage of this measure. So if you are actually concerned with the truth being told regarding this measure, please explain exactly how passage of this measure will allow for the very specific claims you made to happen.

If you can not substantiate these very specific claims you made regarding this measure, it is one of two things, a very ill informed unfactual "opinion" that people can indeed give the due consideration it deserves, or an intentional lie meant to sway what people think about this measure. So plainsman, which is it?


----------



## Plainsman

> Now remember, there is language already in our state constitution


and we will add this amendment. Then if there is a conflict which will set precedent?

OK lets do this slow one thing at a time.

I said:


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


Will there be a very remarked increase in drainage?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> OK lets do this slow one thing at a time.





gst said:


> Plainsman, lets go back to the start of this entire debate prior to all the childish personal; b#llsh*t and back pedaling. Above is the claim you made regarding this measure. Explain exactly how this will happen if this measure passes.
> 
> Now remember, YOU ADMITTED that there are indeed Federal regulations that will prevent these claims from happening, so please so the TRUTH is stated regarding this measure, explain just how the specific claims you have made will happen if this measure passes.
> 
> Now remember, there is language already in our state constitution that might just give the state legislature the ability to continue to create and maintain regulatory law even after the passage of this measure. So if you are actually concerned with the truth being told regarding this measure, please explain exactly how passage of this measure will allow for the very specific claims you made to happen.
> 
> If you can not substantiate these very specific claims you made regarding this measure, it is one of two things, a very ill informed unfactual "opinion" that people can indeed give the due consideration it deserves, or an intentional lie meant to sway what people think about this measure. So plainsman, which is it


Plainsman, remember here, you are the one making the claims. Substantiate them or they will be given the credibility you have earned.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman wrote:
> Every problem I brought up you said would not be a problem.
> 
> Please show us EXACTLY where I have said what you have claimed in this statement with a specific quote. If you can not it is nothing more than yet one more lie.
> 
> plainsman you have made very specific claims as to what I have supposedly stated. You have been asked to substantiate these claims you have made with examples of these specific statements you have claimed I made, you have not, why is that?????


Take it as slow as you wish plainsman! :wink: :roll:

Credibility


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> and we will add this amendment. Then if there is a conflict which will set precedent?





Plainsman said:


> Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
Click to expand...

That is the QUESTION I have asked a number of times already and hoped you would find a truthful answer to before spouting off any more claims you can not prove are nothing more than admittedly biased bull****. That is if indeed your claim you wish to have people know the truth about this measure was not biased bull**** as well. :roll:

Until we actually know the answer to wether this section of our constitution already in place will continue to give the elected representatives of the people the ability to create and carry out regulatory legislation, what is it when you continue to make these claims you can not factually substantiate?????

If you truly do wish people to have the truth about this measure and what it will do, establish the factual answer to this question we have now both posed or quit making claims you can not substantiate as anything more than a bull**** "opinion".


----------



## Plainsman

Will there be a very remarked increase in drainage?


----------



## gst

plainsman, neither you nor I can say yes or no to that question. The Federal Farm Bill and Clean Water Act will play a much larger role in determining this than any state measure. Will the established wording in our state constitution enable the legislature to continue to create and pass regualtory laws??? Answer that if you are concerned with the factual truth.



Plainsman said:


> K lets do this slow one thing at a time


Okay, lets in fact do that. Plainsman has made a number of personal accusations that he has been asked to substantiate that he has not. I won't bother to fill up the page with them as they have simply become too many.



Plainsman said:


> It's guys like gst in the NDFB that scare me and cause concern


As I have stated before I really am not that involved in NDFB and any one that is can speak to that fact. I am a member for 2 reasons, they have provided satisfactory insurance for a number of decades and the are the more conservative voice representing ag here in ND and I agree with most of their positions. Even though plainsman has never met me, and prior to my taking an opposing stance ion the HFH measure he complemented me on my commitment to wildlife friendly ag production practices, he now wishes to paint a much different picture. The simple fact is I have spent literally tens of thousands of my own dollars (georges) on wildlife habitat establishement, and enviromentally/wildlife friendly production practices. Our operation tries to give back more than we take and as a result two generations of our family have been recognized by our county Natural Resources Conservation office with awards for doing so. The people that actually have met me and know me find plainsmans claims amusing. Plainsman, how many of your "georges" have YOU spent on giving back to wildlife thru creating habitat and other wildlife friendly practices???? How about a direct answer for once.

Now here is a fact that even plainsman can not deny. Wether anyone likes it or not, the raising of captive cervids is indeed a legally defined, state approved animal agriculture enterprise. Plainsman took an active role in trying to end this animal ag enterprise here in this state. The reason he has made so many bull**** claims regarding this measure is simply tied directly to the fact that he is the very reason and example of the type of people this measure is attempting to protect agriculture from. They claim to "support" agriculture just as long as agriculture capitulates to their demands regardless of the cost to agriculture and all the people that are dependant on it an any way. Explain how plainsmans demand on agriculture are any more right than HSUS's demands on agriculture??? It is the "opinion" of both that the specific claims they make regarding the "evils of agriculture are the largest negative impact on society. They both make bull**** "opinions" regarding agriculture and do not substantiate them when confronted and leave agriculture to deal with the fall out from these bull**** "fearmongering" claims.

Plainsman has painted himself in a corner repeatedly while "debating" this measure and has made repeated accusations he has not substantiated when asked to simply because he can not as they simply are not true. A page right out of most any anti agriculture orgs playbook. Throw enough bull**** and hoefully some people think some sticks.

It was asked in an unbiased manner wether wording already in the state's cponstitution will allow the legislature to continue to create regulatory law regardless of this measure to prevent plainsmans claims from happening and instead of finding the truth to this question as plainsman claims he is concerned with, he continues to simply make more bull**** claims he can not substantiate when asked. I think we have gotten a pretty clear picture of what tactics those opposed to this measure will use. They learned them well during their cooperative efforts with HSUS they tried denying. Even plainsman after being pressured into doing so revealed indeed there was a connection with HSUS that the people involved in the HF measure have now admitted to .

So indeed plainsman lets take it slow and examine your reasons and methods opposing this measure. As a sponsor of an previouos initiative to end a legally define animal agriculture enterprise we can begin to see why you are argueing so hard and making these bull**** claims you can not substantiate against this measure. You want to know why this measure is here???? Simply look in the mirror for your answer.

So if you wish to slow this down and take it one thing at a time, please start with going back thru this debate and every time you have been confronted with a "please show me where" request, actually take the time to substantiate the claim that fostered it. If you can not, each of these claims that have resulted in a "please show me" request are nothing more than bull**** lies meant to distract from the "truth" you "claimed" to want people to know regarding this measure.


----------



## gst

plainsman you have been posed an unbiased question that will indeed result in the truth regarding what scope this measure will have in regards to the claims you have made in questioning what powers the existing wording in our constitution will continue to provide the legislature in creating and passing regulaory law.

Why are you not finding out the answer to this question instead of making more bull**** claims and accusations?

Do you in fact actually want the truth to be provided regarding this measure?


----------



## Plainsman

> Do you in fact actually want the truth to be provided regarding this measure?


Absolutely

You agree to one thing at a time, but your last two posts indicate you can't count.

I predict an increase in drainage and you debated me. My question was "will there be more drainage". Even though you debated me angrily, even calling me a liar because I could not substantiate theory, your answer is plainsman,


> neither you nor I can say yes or no to that question.


 So why so ticked off over theory?

If we can't answer the question about increased drainage don't you think this amendment is dangerous. We should be able to answer that question. If we can't the amendment should not be passed until we can.

So the next question (of three) is will this amendment lead to more careless pesticide use?

Edit: If you do the things you say you do in your farm practices I still complement you. That doesn't mean I have to suck up all the bull droppings you shovel. You say you do conservation things, but you don't sound like a conservationist. You debate me when I say drainage and tile have problems. That's not the stand of a conservationist.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Do you in fact actually want the truth to be provided regarding this measure?
> Absolutely


Then why won't you wait until it is substantiated what this measure will actually do regarding the legislatures ability to create and implement regulatory laws thru existing language in the states constitution before making "opinions", "claims" or "theories" you have yet to substantiate? ???

I could give two ****s about your "theories" regarding draining. What I have called you on, which you even admited you were not telling the truth about, was your claims regarding feedlots and also pesticide use.

Plainsman while your at it why don;t you answer wether the implementation of the death penalty will lead to more murders???

You simply do not want to get the "assurances" wether existing language in our constitution will continue to allow the legislature to pass regulatory law to prevent the claims you made from happening because you are concerned it may prove your claims are merely so much bull****.

THAT is the slow and simple, one step at a time answer to this whole debate. And that one simple fact alone pokes a giant hole in your "claim" to want the truth regarding this measure. You have such a willie over this ag org and it's producer members you will continue to tell your whoppers rather than establish factual truth regarding this measure.

So plainsman explain specifically step by step how this measure will:


Plainsman said:


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


Taking into consideration the existing language I have pointed out that allows the legislature to pass laws that prevent your claims from happening.

And try an do so in a factual honest truthful manner rather than bull**** bias "opinions" that you have maintained throughout this "debate". That is if you are indeed wanting the "truth" to be known or your "opinions" to have any: .

Credibility


----------



## gst

so plainsman just for the record and so we can move on. Are you going to substantiate any of the personal claims you have made in which you have been asked to "please show where" at any time?

Or should we simply accept the fact you are not going to substantiate them because you can not and they are nothing more than petty, vindictive bull**** from someone that is frustrated over his own backing himself into a corner of telling whoppers he can not substantiate and being called on it?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Edit: If you do the things you say you do in your farm practices I still complement you. That doesn't mean I have to suck up all the bull droppings you shovel. You say you do conservation things, but you don't sound like a conservationist. You debate me when I say drainage and tile have problems. That's not the stand of a conservationist.


Here is where you are once again simply wrong or intentiopnally not telling the truth. I do not debate you when you claim there are "problems" with agriculture or agricultural practices, I "debate" you when you do not tell the truth when debating them.

Once again, *please show me* where I have ever claimed there are not "problems" associated with agriculture as you have repeatedly claimed I have, just as there are ANY occupation or industry.

The ironic part is we could be having a legitimate worthwhile debate if you would simply refrain from allowing your admitted bias/willie over this ag org and it's producer members push you into telling one lie after another.


----------



## Plainsman

> Then why won't you wait until it is substantiated what this measure will actually do


Nancy is that you? :wink: 
Do you remember Nancy Pelosi telling us we had to pass Obama's health bill to see what was in it? That's what your asking the North Dakota citizen to do.



> I could give two sh*ts about your "theories" regarding draining. What I have called you on, which you even admited you were not telling the truth about, was your claims regarding feedlots and also pesticide use.


OK potty mouth were getting to that. Didn't you see my last question about pesticide use. Do you think this amendment will lead to increased pesticide misuse? One thing at a time remember? In that way you will undertand my statement. If your really interested that is.



> which you even admited you were not telling the truth about


quote that for me would you please? If you can't you know what that makes you right?

You have asked hundreds of questions gst. Now I will ask three and you already ducked the first. Or maybe you did answer with the "I don't know". You get very steamed over things you don't know don't you?



> Plainsman while your at it why don;t you answer wether the implementation of the death penalty will lead to more murders???


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: Your sure trying to stay away from the real subject arn't you.

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


----------



## gst

plainsman, I have repeatedly stated I can not make claims that I do not know the factual answers to. And I do not like to even share an "opinion" unless I have some way to substantiate what that "opinion" is. Luckily for me the opinion I have of your many claims and accusation being so much bull**** have substantiated themselves. :wink:

You on the other hand when it comes to agriculture and me personally have no problem pulling crap out of your *** that you can not factually substantiate and then back pedal to claim oh it is merely my "opinion". Well here it is, you were asked way back at the beginning of this discussion to substantiate your "opinion" as to how this measure will do what you claim. Particularily given the Federal regulations you later admitted when backed into a corner knowing will not allow what you claim will happen to happen. Do you need me to repost that admission of knowing your claims were bull****? How many posts and bull**** childish comments later and you still have not substantiated your "opinion" or the statements you claimed I had made. Why is that???

You speak of answering questions???? Answer this one posed way back when and perhaps the truth regarding your claims will be known.

Article I Sec 21.

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

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

A plain and simple, no beating your wife question back pedaling, nonbiased, merely looking for factual truth kind of a question that will provide the truth you "claim" you want known regarding this measure. If you can not do so, well it pretty much sums up the lack of your:

Credibility


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


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





gst said:


> gst wrote:
> backpedal
> Definition
> back·ped·al[ bák pèdd'l ]VERB
> size=150]*3. intransitive verb retract statement: to try to escape the consequences of a statement or action by retracting it, modifying it, or toning it down*


*

Credibility :roll:*


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is not. I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards, .


(Admission of knowledge below "opinion" will not happen.)



Plainsman said:


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


So which is it plasinaman, you think or you say it's going to???

Either way you have admitted the Federal EPA regulations will prevent what you claimed from happening. So besides that, given the wording I have asked about already existing in our constitution, (you should know by now what I am refering to) which would give the legislature the power to prevent what ou claim form happening, wouldn;t it be logical for anyone with an IQ of 10 to think perhaps the claims you have made/ oops, "opinions" you have shared, are only so much biased bull**** made out of admitted hatred for an ag org and it's producer members ? Particularily when even though repeatedly being asked to, you have not substantiated how what you claim will happen.

So either answer the question regarding the constitutional language and what it will allow the legislature to do or there really is nothing more to say to point out the bull**** nature of your claims.

Oh and as to the use of the word "bull****", it is merely calling a spade a spade, unless you would prefer me to go back to using the word lies. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> So either answer the question regarding the constitutional language


I have done that at least twice. Why do you keep asking questions when you have been given answers? Don't you know doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the definition of insanity? Oh, oh, I keep trying to explain to you don't I? Ooooops.

Like I said you ask hundreds of questions, but seldom answer any. I have two of three outstanding.
1. Will this amendment cause increased wetland drainage?
2. Will this amendment cause increased pesticide misuse?
My third is do you think you will find things like more people feeding cattle on floodplains.

You have debated against those opinions which means the same as no there will be no problem. Isn't that true gst? Yes, the English language implies many things without outright words. The implication of telling me the constitution as it stands will prevent this is telling me as far as my concerns there is no problem. Perhaps your inability to understand that causes many unneeded conflicts with many other people too gst.

gst stated:


> which you even admited you were not telling the truth about


Plainsman responded:


> quote that for me would you please? If you can't you know what that makes you right?


You see gst I am not serious about the above, but by your own standards you would be a liar. I however would never call you that. I don't think your telling the truth, but it isn't dishonesty it's simply ignorance. Now I hope you understand I'm not calling you stupid, only that you don't understand "implied" language. You do use it often, but evidently are unaware of it.

Have you ever held political office? You spin things like a politician.


----------



## gst

So either answer the question regarding the constitutional language

plainsman stated: "I have done that at least twice. Why do you keep asking questions when you have been given answers?"



gst said:


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


plainsman please for my sake and those who may have missed it, please show where you have FACTUALLY answered this question as you claim you have with something more than one of your "opinions".


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Like I said you ask hundreds of questions, but seldom answer any. I have two of three outstanding.
> 1. Will this amendment cause increased wetland drainage?
> 2. Will this amendment cause increased pesticide misuse?
> My third is do you think you will find things like more people feeding cattle on floodplains.
> 
> You have debated against those opinions which means the same as no there will be no problem. Isn't that true gst? Yes, the English language implies many things without outright words. The implication of telling me the constitution as it stands will prevent this is telling me as far as my concerns there is no problem. Perhaps your inability to understand that causes many unneeded conflicts with many other people too gst.


No it is not true. Plainsman you seem to not be able to comprehend I what I have "debated against" is your claim as what this measure will do if passed. All that I am simply asking you is to substantiate how what you claim will happen in fact will if this measure passes. Anyone can indeed have an "opinion", to have it given any credibility, the person giving it should be able to substantiate how it will happen when they are asked. THAT is what is being asked quite plain and simply.

And once again, I have made NO "implication" as to what any wording in the constitution will do. THAT is what you have done. I on the otherhand have repeatedly asked as a question what this wording will do and suggested as I do yet once again, if you are truly concerned with the actual truth being given regarding this measure you would find the answer to this unbiased question prior to making anymore "opinions"This seems to be your "inability to understand, of simply it is you understand but are simply afraid that if the answer is determined, it may indeed be that the wording that already exists in our constitution wll indeed allow the legislature to continue to create and impose regulatory law that will in fact prevent the claims you have said will happen if this measure passes from happening.

So ignore the QUESTION I have asked and how it will affect your claims all you wish. Back pedal all you wish plainsman, by now you have very little of the corner you have painted yourself into to squirm around in. :wink:

Credibility


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now back to the NDFB amendment. I say it's going to cause problems, you say it is n* I know that it will not currently override EPA or any other federal standards*ot. , .
> 
> 
> 
> (Admission of knowledge below "opinion" will not happen.)
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way:
> Plainsman wrote:"*I think "freedom to farm" would lead to rampant drainage, irresponsible pesticide use, feed lots on river bottoms so the spring flood would carry away the manure and they would have less clean up*, etc. Like I said and environmental disaster waiting to happen."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So which is it plasinaman, you think or you say it's going to???
> 
> Either way you have admitted the Federal EPA regulations will prevent what you claimed from happening. So besides that, given the wording I have asked about already existing in our constitution, (you should know by now what I am refering to) which would give the legislature the power to prevent what ou claim form happening, wouldn;t it be logical for anyone with an IQ of 10 to think perhaps the claims you have made/ oops, "opinions" you have shared, are only so much biased b#llsh*t made out of admitted hatred for an ag org and it's producer members ? Particularily when even though repeatedly being asked to, you have not substantiated how what you claim will happen.
> 
> So either answer the question regarding the constitutional language and what it will allow the legislature to do or there really is nothing more to say to point out the b#llsh*t nature of your claims.
> 
> Oh and as to the use of the word "b#llsh*t", it is merely calling a spade a spade, unless you would prefer me to go back to using the word lies. :wink:
Click to expand...

Plainsamn in case you missed it above are the two quotes where you claim one thing, then admit knowing what you claimed would not happen because of the Federal regs. I really do not know how much clear I can make it than what *YOUR OWN WORDS DO.*


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Like I said you ask hundreds of questions, but seldom answer any. I have two of three outstanding.
> 1. Will this amendment cause increased wetland drainage?
> 2. Will this amendment cause increased pesticide misuse?
> My third is do you think you will find things like more people feeding cattle on floodplains


Plainsman, you want the answers to these questions????????

Then simply find the answer to this one.



gst said:


> *Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening.[/*quote]
> 
> There are already regulatory laws imposed by the legislature AS WELL AS the Federal govt that regulate to prevent the very claims you have made. This is FACT.
> 
> There is language in our constitution that allows the legislature to create and impose any regulatory law they wish over and above other "special priveledge or immunities". This is FACT
> 
> So any degree of common sense would ask that if you are going to make claims this measure will do what you claim, you need to substantiate exactly how given the FACTS that suggest otherwise. Please realize it is not my "oipinion" that these laws at the state and federal level exist, it is FACT. It is not my "opinion" as to what the language in our constitution states, it is FACT.
> 
> What remains a question that would ultimately clear this up is what has been asked that you steadfastly refuse to address. By know most understand why.
> 
> Credibility


----------



## gst

plainsman, please realize that at this point of the "debate" there is nothing more that I can say that has not been said to point out the necessity for you to substantiate your claims if you expect them to be given any credibility. So continue to say what you wish and attack with childish personal comments, but understand the response will simply be the post I have made above, and will continue to be until it is FACTUALLY determined what the answer is to the QUESTION I have posed which will indeed answer your own and for once allow the truth to enter into your "debate".


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsamn in case you missed it above are the two quotes where you claim one thing, then admit knowing what you claimed would not happen because of the Federal regs. I really do not know how much clear I can make it than what YOUR OWN WORDS DO.


I don't think you read my posts. You missed where I talked about current and future. All these things can change, and without doubt in time will. I think this amendment will have an impact on which direction things change as for good or bad.


> once again, I have made NO "implication"


Sure you have. When I say there will be a problem with drainage and you say I am wrong you have implied there will be no problem. Simple.

gst, you know all these things and simply hope people are dumb enough not to look back and understand completely. You simply keep this up because you want me in the mud with you. If I leave you just get more outrageous so I come back to defend myself. I suppose my one post will have you do another five again. I think the truth is this bill is so radical that your trying to hide the truth. Your not interested in the possibilities of such a nebulous and broadly worded amendment.


----------



## gst

plainsman, yet once again please show where I have ever said there will not be "problems" within agriculture just as there are within any industry. If you can not, these claims you continue tp make that I have, are nothing less than lies. (note the non use of the word bull****). :wink:



Plainsman said:


> I think the truth is this bill is so radical that your trying to hide the truth.


plainsman I have repeatedly asked a question that will likely get to the "truth" regarding your "opinions" and you squirm away from answering it every time it is brought up. Why do you not want the following question answered so that people may once and for all get to the truth regarding your claims about this measure???



gst said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening.[/*quote]
> 
> There are already regulatory laws imposed by the legislature AS WELL AS the Federal govt that regulate to prevent the very claims you have made. This is FACT.
> 
> There is language in our constitution that allows the legislature to create and impose any regulatory law they wish over and above other "special priveledge or immunities". This is FACT
> 
> So any degree of common sense would ask that if you are going to make claims this measure will do what you claim, you need to substantiate exactly how given the FACTS that suggest otherwise. Please realize it is not my "oipinion" that these laws at the state and federal level exist, it is FACT. It is not my "opinion" as to what the language in our constitution states, it is FACT.
> 
> What remains a question that would ultimately clear this up is what has been asked that you steadfastly refuse to address. By know most understand why.
Click to expand...


----------



## Plainsman

Lost cause. Take an English class. I kept this up counting on the intelligence of people. I hope it worked.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Article I Sec 21.
> 
> No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be
> altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly;[/quote
> 
> Will this wording already in our constitution allow the elected representatives of the people of ND to continue to create and implement regulatory law to prevent the claims plainsman says this amendment will cause from happening.[/*quote]
> 
> There are already regulatory laws imposed by the legislature AS WELL AS the Federal govt that regulate to prevent the very claims you have made. This is FACT.
> 
> There is language in our constitution that allows the legislature to create and impose any regulatory law they wish over and above other "special priveledge or immunities". This is FACT
> 
> So any degree of common sense would ask that if you are going to make claims this measure will do what you claim, you need to substantiate exactly how given the FACTS that suggest otherwise. Please realize it is not my "oipinion" that these laws at the state and federal level exist, it is FACT. It is not my "opinion" as to what the language in our constitution states, it is FACT.
> 
> What remains a question that would ultimately clear this up is what has been asked that you steadfastly refuse to address. By know most understand why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Plainsman, If you wish your questions answered and the truth regarding your claims about this measure be known, simply find the factual answer to this unbiased question. I would bet somewhere in the dialogue about this measure it will indeed be addressed by those that can factually answer rather than give an "opinion" that is of questionable value. So until that time, we will see if you wait to learn the facts regarding this constitutional wording and what powers it will continue to allow the legislative body, or continue to make claims you can not substantiate how they will happen as you have.

Credibility


----------



## gst

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... n-the-menu

from this link:
*Horses could soon be butchered in the U.S. for human consumption after Congress quietly lifted a 5-year-old ban on funding horse meat inspections, and activists say slaughterhouses could be up and running in as little as a month.

Although there are reports of Americans dining on horse meat as recently as the 1940s, the practice is virtually non-existent in this country, where the animals are treated as beloved pets and iconic symbols of the West*.

plainsman, it appears people are taking a page out of your playbook of throwing "opinions" they can not substantiate out there to grab attention, or is it the other way around? Waht exactly was talked about in those meetings with HSUS??? :wink: Are people going to be eating Mr Ed and Trigger suddenly as a result of this ban being lifted, or will society continue as they have since the 1940's 70 years ago of not consuming horse meat?

What did you call this type of claims, "fearmongering"???? yes indeed this country will suddenly reverse a 70 year trend and start demanding horsemeat hamburgers at Hardees right along with the Angus beef. :roll: Note the title of the story.

What did you call the claims of an HSUS agenda aimed even at states such as ND????? Follow along with another segment from the report:

*
"If plants open up in Oklahoma or Nebraska, you'll see controversy, litigation, legislative action and basically a very inhospitable environment to operate," predicted Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of The Humane Society of the United States. "Local opposition will emerge and you'll have tremendous controversy over slaughtering Trigger and Mr. Ed."*

So I wonder what kind of "inhospitable enviroment" or "legislative action" we would see here in ND if they move forward with the feasibility study the ND legislature aproved for a horse slaughter plant here in ND?? Yes indeed states like ND, Nebraska and Oklahoma can rest assured simply because you say so this "boogieman" does not exist. :roll:


----------



## shaug

GST,

I went to your link MSNBC. It took a while to load because there are over 1000 comments. It is a hot button issue. Reading a handful of those comments it looks as if the tables are turning. Many supporters of horse slaughter are getting passionate. Gang piling those blogs and forums is an old HSUS tactic. Durring the FCI in ND their activsts were busy posting on Fargo Forums and the Bismarck Tribunes on-line comments sections. One guy, screen name Will, was caught blogging on the Tribune site from a computer in Washington DC at the HSUS headquarters.

Another thing I found interesting in the Article was Rep. Jim Moran quoted as he will fight to keep horse slaughter banned. Jim Moran can always be counted on to endorse bills that would eliminate high fence hunting. What is crazy though is Jim Moran says he is a conservationist and he was involved in trying to get the $900 million to fund the Land Water Conservation Fund. $588 million of that money was to be used to fund the Dakota Grasslands Proposal.

OK, so Jim Moran doesn't want people making a profit on horses or a profit on animals in a high fence, but he would like them to pay their taxes so he can spend taxpayers money to buy land and convert it from private ownership to public ownership.

Another thing, Wayne Pacelle said his people will start a ruckas in any state that tries to start up a horse slaughter facility. Maybe what the states need is a Farm Bureau type Constitutional Amendment.


----------

