# SD man sentenced



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) - A South Dakota man has been sentenced to a year of probation for poisoning Canada geese on his farm.
> 
> U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson says 54-year-old Randy Albers of Hartford also was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay more than $1,650 in restitution.
> 
> Albers was indicted for unlawfully killing migratory birds and pleaded guilty in March. Authorities say he placed containers of gopher poison and chemically treated seed corn on his property to kill the geese.


Had to pay $1650 restitution, I wonder how much he was paid for the damage done to his crops by the geese?


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Hopefully none, SInce geese, deer, pheasants, mice, songbirds are all acts of nature you have to assume the risks when you plant the crop.


----------



## IowaBlood (Aug 16, 2010)

How did they find out he was poisoning them?


----------



## the professor (Oct 13, 2006)

swift said:


> Hopefully none, SInce geese, deer, pheasants, mice, songbirds are all acts of nature you have to assume the risks when you plant the crop.


multi peril crop insurance policies often cover wildlife damage.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Crop insurances should pay. Not G F P or the state. Just like the weather man shouldn't pay for hail damage.


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

The state of SD does not pay for any damage by wildlife whether it be deer, geese, turkeys, elk, etc. They do however have programs that attempt to alleviate damage (ie electric fences, propane cannons). There is no excuse for killing "wild" animals when there alternative means available...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Off topic.... but:

Crop insurance is a federally funded program.....so we all are paying for any "insurance" claims. Even multi-peril is funded by the goverment. This protects you against yield losses. For those of you that don't know what this is here is in a very quick nut shell..... A farmer buys insurance for a gaurenteed certain yield at a certain premium. If he does not make that yield per acre he gets paid for that yield. IE if the coverage is for 200 bushel per acre and he only gets 180 that fall....the insurance kicks in for the other 20 per acre. This is all for a certain price. Again this is the condenced nutshell version of multi-peril crop insurance. And this is federally funded.

Now back to the man killing geese. It is wrong. But maybe SD should loosen up some laws with waterfowl to allow more to be shot by hunters.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

With the huge amount of pay to hunt in SD allowing more hunters likely would have no impact on the population. If more access was obtained to accomodate more hunters then the populations may be affected. As it stands now the areas with the geese, mainly the eastern quarter of the state and the Missouri river corridor have access to hunters blocked by pay to hunt grounds and leases to waterfowl clubs.


----------



## jpallen14 (Nov 28, 2005)

In August and September of the 30+ landowners I bet I ask to each year to hunt geese about 30-50% let me no. That is where the real problem reducing numbers is.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Swift wrote,



> With the huge amount of pay to hunt in SD allowing more hunters likely would have no impact on the population. If more access was obtained to accomodate more hunters then the populations may be affected. As it stands now the areas with the geese, mainly the eastern quarter of the state and the Missouri river corridor have access to hunters blocked by pay to hunt grounds and leases to waterfowl clubs.


If "access" is a problem for you (with your attitude it could be) then you need to get on board with open fields.

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/fe ... m/C41/L41/



> The new Open Fields Program funds public access to private lands. Photos by Dusan Smetana.
> 
> Updated July 7, 1 am: Baucus Continues to Support Open Fields.
> 
> ...


These Federally Funded Farm Bills just keep getting more bloated all the time. I wonder where Baucus found the $50 million?

This country is broke and Swift still has his gimme hands out. (eyeroll)


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

http://dakotafarmer.com/blogs.aspx/open ... where/1696

Open Fields -- A Bridge To Nowhere

Posted on October 06, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Click here to view recent posts

I say give the money back.

USDA is going to award North Dakota $300,000 soon under the new $50-million Open Fields program. In the spirit of a "Bridge To Nowhere," North Dakota ought to give the money back.

Open Fields is a new program - dreamed up by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and others in 2003 - to pay farmers and ranchers to open private land to the public for hunting, fishing, bird watching and other wildlife activites.

It's a nice idea, but it doesn't make much sense when the nation faced a $14 trillion deficit.

Besides, we already have "open field" programs. One is called SIAATLFP" -- stop-in-and-ask-the-landowner-for-permission."

Another is called "parks" - as in city, county, state and national parks.

And we have a payment program - it's called fee hunting.

North Dakota and South Dakota even have their own Open Field programs. But these programs are funded by hunting and fishing fees.

If outdoor enthusiasts want to pay more for licenses and send some of their entertainment dollars to farmers and ranchers so even more people can have access to land, more power to them.

But I don't hear anyone saying they want to pay more taxes.

Send the Open Fields money back.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Spending my first 22 years of life in watertown i never had any problem getting on to hunt ducks or geese. When you get out into the centeral part where there are more pheasants it can get harder but even at that i find that people whine they cant get on but dont try to find any where. Lived in mobridge since 02 and have *never* been told no when hunting waterfowl. So that pay for play thing is so much over rated it is not even funny. My dad tells me stories of when you got a tag to shoot 2 geese a whole season and no one would let you hunt them if they had one flock on there land. People read way to much into this it is just some idiot that thought he had a good idea but in the end is just another gilligan. With the amount of public land if i would decide to shoot ducks every weekend to freeze up it would not be a problem. Just seems people need to find every reason they can to try and blame guides for everything.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Amen Kurt.
As to access affecting the 'take',simply not true.Go to your local GFPs office and get the facts from last August and September.
Access was NOT an issue except in cases where too MANY people were hunting the same fields and thereby theoretically reducing the 'take'.
Both August and September early seasons were extremely successful but with 150,000 too many breeding birds,no solution is really effective except maybe a pre nesting Spring season which few want.With more water than ever again this Spring,things will only get worse with even mediocre nesting success.A perfect storm in terms of increased production-and predation.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

A bit off topic again but this ought to rekindle a hot exchange or two.With $7 a bushel corn and many farmers driving new Cadillac pickups many farm programs seem unnecessary including some mentioned in this thread but,as often the case,things turn out to be a 2 edged sword.Ending some payments,ie,CRP etc will end some hunting as we know it since over 90% of the land is private and raises 'our' wild game.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4650047/subs ... ure-budget


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Kurt times have changed. If you want to hunt water there is plenty of public land in the eastern quarter of the state. If you want to hunt fields there is not so much.

Shaug, you can kiss off. I have all the access I need, I never asked for a hand out. I never asked for open fields. I never asked for generations to be paid for easements over and over and over in light of perpetual easements that is your idea. You and I have a similar mindset on fiscal responsibility that our countries leaders have cast aside.

The fact is I believe that folks should do with what they have as long as it doesn't infringe on somebody elses rights or properties. These geese are owned by us. People have decided to profit off the public trust, in turn they reap the rewards of a bloated farm bill, they hoard public entities to further capitalize on the taxpayer then spit in our faces by poisoning or shooting or starving by overpopulating the overabundant game that they have hoarded. If you guys think this is good practice or being a good steward of the land then it's no wonder you disagree with me.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Shaug, you can kiss off. I have all the access I need, I never asked for a hand out. I never asked for open fields. I never asked for generations to be paid for easements over and over and over in light of perpetual easements that is your idea.


Swift, um, that was actually MY idea! 

.


swift said:


> You and I have a similar mindset on fiscal responsibility that our countries leaders have cast aside


I beleive shaug thought perhaps we should not be spending ANY monies on easements.

So per your above statement that you agree with shaug, are you now saying that there should be no USFWS wetland easement programs? Or other govt programs to benefit sportsmen?



swift said:


> Shaug, you can kiss off. I have all the access I need,


Apparently as long as you have what you need you have no concerns for others. :wink:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

GST, as you like to point out... this is a South Dakota issue so unless you live here butt out.


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

The folks that say hunting access on private land in August and September is not a problem are completely out of the game. I would say that I only have a 25% success rate when asking for permission. Let me say, that this is on private fields. Landowners continue to complain about geese, but when an average college kid that can hunt 5 days a week calls them and asks for permission they continue to say no. The answers ultimately inlcude that they lease out land or that they are saving it for someone.

The problem with that is the fact that many times geese do not stay on the same fields for long (and farmers dont realize this). They tell hunters that are able to hunt most of the week that they are saving it for someone for the weekend. Its not a surprise that when you drive past a feild a few days later the geese are gone.

I have a huge problem with farmers complaining about goose damage (and killing them illegally) and then not letting hunters reduce the problem. IMO, no state assistance should go to any farmer that leases his land for waterfowl. Not only are you increasing your yields by having the state put up electric fences but you are charging people to hunt those same geese on your land. This is downright bull!

I do agree with the above posts that say hunters will not be able to reduce the current population to a manageable level through hunting. A lot of geese in this state go through a post molt migration and leave these "damaged" areas completely. So, unless we start hunting geese July 1, we are not getting a shot at many of the geese that cause the damage.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

"kiss off" "butt out"

sniffle, swift, quit being such a "bully" ! :x


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Well i went home last year to watertown went around the south shore area and asked 2 differnet people to hunt geese both let me and my dad hunt. I dont think it has changed that much and with the limited amount of license that nr can get to hunt here guiding is just not that profitable unles in the pierre region. In the last few years of early season i have not been told no in the watertown area and had guys call me that i hunted thier land the year before.

mntwinsfan you had a key statement you are a college student it is hard for older guys to trust kids i went thhrough that when i was younger. Now the same guys that told me no when i was 21 have no problem letting me hunt on thier land. 11 years makes a differnence. It is just a stero type that young people have to deal with as i know just as many older guys that tear **** up just the same as the young ones that close gates and really apriciate the land they hunt.

In the end i have no time for people who kill geese or ducks or deer or any animal like this. It has nothing to do with guides or anyone else. Hopefully this will send a message to others that if they want geese killed to let hunters do it and not go above the law.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Mntwinns,You just need to get some facts instead of your limited opinions.Go to GFPs and get their early season info.There where field limitations but that was primarily due to few being harvested and available in August.In most areas,harvested fields that had geese were not only hunted but often hunted too hard.Some fields were hunted by multiple groups at the same time.'Turn downs' often occurred cause the competition for existing fields was intense,not cause they weren't hunted.Facts not opinions govern.
Obviously there are exceptions but overall,access was good as were results.In fact better than expected PLUS the August season did not appreciably affect the September season nor the number of non-res licenses sold for the September season.
On the other hand,I hope you're not part of the 'college' group that 'reserved' many fields and then didn't hunt them as promised-that WAS an issue in places.


----------



## jpallen14 (Nov 28, 2005)

My statement stands that I get turned down 30-50% of the time in NE SD in August and September. That's hunting many Thursdays thru Sundays. Last year I hunted 14 days during early goose season. Early goose is shat show in SD.


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

duckp,

You can jump on the GFP website all you want and it still does not change my opinion that many farmers still limit access. As a college student, I am able to hunt much more than the average individual (especially during the week). Like I said, many farmers saved geese on their fields for the groups that can only hunt on the weekends. I don't blame them for saving fields for friends and family, but don't try to tell me that access was a breeze. I do understand that I go to school at SDSU and am around a couple large population centers (Brookings/Sioux Falls) but on many occasions I was told that the land was being saved. Also, I would be willing to bet I put on more miles scouting per week than many put on in a full year, so I have plenty of cases to judge from.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Go north around summit and such and you will get to hunt more than staying around brookings. hunting is way better watertown and north any way. If you are polite even when told no people will eventually let you in. Getting old helps out once in a while and getting permision is one thing it helps with


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

I realize that both hunting and permission gets easier as you head north, but college does have class that goes with it. So, during the week I am stuck in the SE section of the state. I have gotten permission for fields after being told no, but unfortunately sometimes "no" means "no".


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Yeh,I sure wouldn't want to confuse you with facts.As to college guys having 5 days a week to hunt,I have a couple of thoughts.First,I never had 5 days when I was in college but then I guess i worked as well.Secondly,I guess we'll have to try get some legislation so that farmers will have to let you on 5 days a week instead of 'saving' it for friends,neighbor kids and the other less fortunate that don't have 5 days a week to hunt geese on land owned by others.How silly/selfish of us not to have thought of this before.What a relief to now have a solution to this goose problem. :rollin:


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

You ultimately just confirmed my thoughts about access on private lands in this state. I never said I blamed farmers for saving land for friends and family, but don't try to tell me that access is not a problem. All spring and summer, farmers complain about geese but when they are ripe for the picking during the week access is a no go. IMO, you have no right to complain if you value the geese during the fall and save them for other people. BTW show me the place where the state said access was easy across the state.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Go to your GFPs locally and get the studies/materials on last years season.Specifically get Scott Lindgrens materials.Then please explain why you should have unlimited access,and why you think that you're being denied translates into less geese being shot.Finally,give me the name of one landowner who denied you access and let his land be a goose sanctuary.Get real,the fact you or anyone else gets turned down has nothing to do with the underlying problem whatsoever.
.


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

.Get real,the fact you or anyone else gets turned down has nothing to do with the underlying problem whatsoever.
.[/quote]

I have a serious question for you. Do you think any GFP employee will admit to the general public that access is a problem? Especially when they want geese harvested? Seems to me that the GFP personel would be the last person to ask. People that constantly hunt would be the real folks to ask.

I am confused. What is the underlying problem?

You also mentioned something about me not getting permission results in less geese getting killed. Are you serious? Geese are pressured during the weekends and thus are harder to kill. When they get hunted on the weekdays, they are much easier to harvest. Like I mentioned, most times when I didn't get permission it was because they were saving it for others and it didnt have anything to do with "goose" sanctuaries.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Well about enough I guess.The underlying problem is too many geese.YOUR problem is you don't like facts-one of which is the fact you apparently think the geese you don't get to hunt all survive.
As to GFP sticking their heads in the sand about 'access',nothing could be further from the truth.They go all out to get hunters as much access as they possibly can and readily admit that 'access' is a problem.A problem that impacts the future of hunting.You apparently don't know how lucky you are to have as proactive 'access' orientated a Dept as we have.I serve on a board that deals with these issues and can tell you GFPs is EXTREMELY proactive in obtaining and trying to further public hunting 'access'.(think a bit about why they initiated CREP if you doubt that.)Your definition of 'access' is not applicable here cause the 'access' involved in the early season wasn't that no one had access,they did.Just perhaps not you on a particular piece of land.In that sense,'access' was not an issue in the early season.Again,show me or name one landowner that accepts GFP help or *****es about goose depredation that maintained goose sanctuaries during ANY early season.Few if any.


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

I agree that the GFP does a great job of accessing and providing plenty of opportunities for the average hunter. But how much hunting during August and September occurs on public land for Canada geese? You are correct in saying that someone had access on much of the land I asked on, that was the problem. I can understand why farmers would leave land set aside for family and friends, but many times these people might not hunt the ground for quite some time and the geese have moved on. This is where I have a problem. The only "goose" sanctuary that I ran into was by Oak Lake NE of Brookings. This is not a ***** fest about the situations I ran into (although I believe it happened to many people throughout the year) but rather my opinion. These are the FACTS that I encountered.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Good hunting this year.Should be great.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Swift said,



> Shaug, you can kiss off. I have all the access I need, I never asked for a hand out. I never asked for open fields. I never asked for generations to be paid for easements over and over and over in light of perpetual easements that is your idea. You and I have a similar mindset on fiscal responsibility that our countries leaders have cast aside.


Maybe you were not directly involved campaign lobbying for this, but somebody was. We have representative government. Someone went to Senators Kent Conrad and Max Baucus with this idea of subsidized hunting. The groups were listed in the arcticle.



> Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited and many other conservation groups


Simply go to one of their banquets and you are in. They represent you. They speak for you. They campaign for you. They lobby for you. Check it out:

http://www.trcp.org/issues/agriculture/ ... l-programs

Swift, all they do for you and it still isn't enough. You want "access." I don't think the taxpayers should have to put up another cent for easements or your access dilemma.

Swift wrote,



> The fact is I believe that folks should do with what they have as long as it doesn't infringe on somebody elses rights or properties. These geese are owned by us. People have decided to profit off the public trust, in turn they reap the rewards of a bloated farm bill, they hoard public entities to further capitalize on the taxpayer then spit in our faces by poisoning or shooting or starving by overpopulating the overabundant game that they have hoarded. If you guys think this is good practice or being a good steward of the land then it's no wonder you disagree with me.


Yes, the geese are owned by all the people or public trust. Nobody is hoarding them. How childish. You seem to have had a bad experiance with landowners. Just curious, did one really spit in your face?


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

duckp said:


> Good hunting this year.Should be great.


So very true!


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

mntwinsfan said:


> I realize that both hunting and permission gets easier as you head north, but college does have class that goes with it. So, during the week I am stuck in the SE section of the state. I have gotten permission for fields after being told no, but unfortunately sometimes "no" means "no".


Watertown is only a short 40 minute drive on the interstate north from brookings and if you go on 81 you can scout the whole way up there. I might have done that a time or to. You also said that you put more miles on scouting than anyone so 40 miles should not be that much of an issue. Wish i had five days a week to hunt while in school but work and the ladies took up more of my time personal choice i guess. You are just as close to the ne as you are the se in brookings just point your rig in the north direction and not south. I am not that old but just guessing i was hunting geese while you were still in diapers and it took alot of years of work in summer time and forming relation ships with land owners to get to hunt alot of ground and once you break in they will kind of tell there buddy you are a good guy over coffe at the local coffe shop which counts for alot. Have you ever offered to help do a little fenceing or just little things to help out go along ways(always will take help throwing square bails). Even if it does not pay off the first year or two in the end it will and you will have a freind that will be able to give better scouting info than you can get as they know the land and habits of the animals better than any one. It is alot of work and time invested but in the end i think worth every bit of it i have spent.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Shaug, or should I say GST's minion. I have my own land I have no problem getting access to other land and I don't really care what your opinions are regarding any of this. Much the same that you have no respect what anyone elses opinions are. I'd like to know what the name of your guiding operation is? You are either an anti-government Gordon Kahl loving wack job or a self serving profiteer of public trust. Either way you have no concern with what is best for the citizens of the country.

What industry brings in the most money to ND or SD? answer is NOT agriculture it is tourism. Hunting and Fishing are the two biggest draws. Do away with public access and hurt your neighbors, friends, businesses and wildlife management of your state. Being a farmer you must know it takes money to make money.

This topic was about a guy that poisoned geese started by a guy that makes money guiding and outfitting. His initial post was basically defending the actions of a poacher/enviornmental terrorist. When legitimate concerns were made and opinions were given as to how better control of the population may be obtained the landlords start crying. I hope your just as willing to "give back" your government check since that is your battle cry.


----------



## verg (Aug 21, 2006)

I don't remember the exact stat but one of the "main" reasons in the last survey as to why less hunters in SD- was access. Now I'm not sure what to think about that. I bet that may be true in more populated areas?? I live in Day co. and shoot a ton of geese each season. I do get turned down occasionally but it is usually cuz the farmer is saving it for someone or I was beat to the punch. The pressure is really increasing here too. I found lots of fields and put on 3500 miles just scouting this year and that is in Day co. alone. I don't drive more than 20 miles from home usually. So, If you really get out and look, look, look you'll find a good hunt. With $4 gas it might be less scouting next year.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Shaug, or should I say GST's minion.


 Really???

Perhaps you taking comparisons directly from plainsman ie... "Gordon Kahl" is a bit more "minionesque" than you realize. 



swift said:


> *What industry brings in the most money to ND or SD? answer is NOT agriculture it is tourism. Hunting and Fishing are the two biggest draws*


 :bs:

http://stuffaboutstates.com/north.dakot ... ulture.htm

In this site you will see the value of ND ag products in 2004 was over $4 billion dollars.

http://www.kxnet.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=752047

In this article you will see tourism brought $176 million dollars into ND in 2010.

I realize the years are different, but do you really beleive tourism (hunting and fishing) brings more value to these states than agriculture as you claim????

I beleive this claim made by swift may qualify as an example of "pulling something out of your ***" that is simply untrue regarding agriculture. I apologize for being a "bully" and actually posting links that provide information that show this claim to be factually incorrect at least regarding ND. In regards to SD as I am not a resident I will "butt out" and let someone involved in SD agriculture provide the appropriate data. :justanangel:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In regards to SD as I am not a resident I will "butt out"


That's a wonderful idea since this subject is about South Dakota. That is why I have said nothing. :justanangel:

I have been trying to find that little angel icon for a long time.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, once again it seems as if people just can not help themselves but to pull crap out of their *** and make untruthful claims regarding agriculture here in ND. You have taught your young one well Obe wan Kenobe. 

And for the record, it took about as much time to find that little angel icon as it did to find that agriculture is indeed NOT second only behind defense in spending in the Federal budget or second behind tourism in dollars created in ND. :wink:

Although I wish I had found that BS flag icon a little sooner, it sure would have came in handy!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That's a wonderful idea since this subject is about South Dakota. That is why I have said nothing.





> plainsman, once again it seems as if people just can not help themselves but to pull crap out of their a$$ and make untruthful claims regarding agriculture here in ND.


 :lame:

South, south, south, south Hope that helps. :rollin:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

From https://www.ndtourism.com/about/funfact ... y/tourism/



> Tourism is North Dakota's third-largest industry, with an estimated $3.8 billion spent in 2006. It is a vital part of our economy, not only because of the significant economic impact but because tourism delivers intangible benefits. Tourism is a lead generator and image builder for the state. By attracting visitors into North Dakota, tourism exposes new people to our state and helps showcase all of North Dakota's great qualities - our legendary people, attractions, business climate and quality of life.
> 
> The Leisure and Hospitality industry in North Dakota has grown since 1999. The estimated employment number for 2007 is 32,886, a 4.2% increase. Wages grew by 9.1%, outpacing the state average of 7.5%.
> 
> ...


Seems maybe someone else is pulling things out of their A$$ since almost 4 BILLION dollars is a might bit more than 176 million dollars. But reading comprehension hasn't been a strong suit of this cowpolk.

Take statistics for what they are worth and how they are manipulated.

http://www.agdepartment.com/PDFFiles/agbrochure2008.pdf

This graph from the AG DEPT shows cash receipts for 2006


> North Dakota production agriculture generated more than $4.4 billion in total
> cash receipts in 2006 (*including government payments*).


 Tourism made 3.8 billion without government payments

And this is from Ag's own biased organizations. Look at the graphs they don't even match the print. Look at the pie chart that says farmers receive 19 cents on the dollar for their crop then see the largest piece of the pie is labor cost at 38% of the cost. The farmers are the laborers.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift from your very own link.

 North Dakota production agriculture generated more than $4.4 billion in total
cash receipts in 2006 (including government payments).
 *The projected crop production in 2007 was valued at $6.46 billion-an increase
of 75 percent over 2006. This figure does not include sugarbeet or livestock
production.*
 Production agriculture is the largest sector of North Dakota's economy, making up
25 percent of the economic base.
 Nearly 24 percent of North Dakota
workers are farmers and ranchers
or are employed in farm-related jobs.
 Value-added ag processing and
farm input manufacturing generates
$1.7 billion in business activity per year.
 North Dakota crop land would cover
more than 12 million city blocks.
 North Dakota farms provide food and habitat for 75 percent of the state's wildlife.
 North Dakota has 30,100 farms and ranches. The average size of a North Dakota
farm is 1,309 acres.
 North Dakota is home to nearly 160 certified organic farms. Thirty companies in
North Dakota are organically certified to handle and/or process organic products.
 North Dakota ranks first in the nation in the organic production of flax,
sunflowers, oats and buckwheat.

Swift this cowpoke ALWAYS got A's in reading comprehension!  You have to get past those shiney pie charts and read a bit. Note the $6.46 billion didn't include cattle and sugarr beets, the 2nd and 4rd largest ag product in ND behind wheat. Cattle typically range about $750 million and sugar beets are roughly $250 million. So combine them and in 2007 there were over $7.5 billion in ag sales receipts projected here in ND. Note also, these are ONLY commodity sales receipts, NOT the dollars generated thru agriculture based business here in ND. Take a moment to see where ag is in the last couple of years. Tourism has a ways to go to be number one as you claim.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

From the KX link I provided is the text below, perhaps the states tourism director Ms. Coleman mispoke when she stated tourism generated $176. 9 million. Perhaps the tourism director is simply not including all the dollars spent by NDans themselves in travel and the turning of these dollars to get to the $3 billion mark. Which would make a bit of a difference if it is indeed the case as to how much NEW wealth each generatesfor the state.

Quote swift:
"Take statistics for what they are worth and how they are manipulated"

Regardless of how the "statistics are manipulated" concerning tourism and travel in ND, take note BOTH sources provided rank tourism 3rd behind ag and oil.

So if this "cowpolks" reading comprehension is correct, the following statement made by swift:

Quote"What industry brings in the most money to ND or SD? answer is NOT agriculture it is tourism."

is simply not true. Even based on the first line in the link he provides! Quote" *Tourism is North Dakota's third-largest industry"*  

KXMBTV Bismarck 
Another year passes by in North Dakota bringing many visitors.

The ultimate goal in the tourism division is to bring in out-of-state tourists to spend dollars in here North Dakota.

And in 2010, that's what happened.

Tourism Director Sara Otte Coleman says the department spent 1.94 million on adds for Legendary North Dakota.

And, the numbers show it brought in over a million people.

She says, for every dollar spent on tourism last year, we got 91 dollars back.

(Sara Otte Coleman/Tourism Director)""Those visitors spent 176.9 million dollars in north dakota last year.13.6 million of that was taxes that they paid on goods and services while visiting here so those are of course taxes that you and I don't have pay.

Tourism is the third largest industry in north Dakota.

Behind Agriculture and oil.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Guys I could care less what you wish to discuss, but please TRY to refrain from making statements regarding agriculture that are simply not true.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Swift wrote,



> This topic was about a guy that poisoned geese started by a guy that makes money guiding and outfitting. His initial post was basically defending the actions of a poacher/enviornmental terrorist. When legitimate concerns were made and opinions were given as to how better control of the population may be obtained the landlords start crying. I hope your just as willing to "give back" your government check since that is your battle cry.


This thread was started by g/o. I have personally met him. Nice fella. It would appear you do not like him or the fact he is a guide. So you took it of topic and whined how he is negatively impacting your access.



> What industry brings in the most money to ND or SD? answer is NOT agriculture it is tourism. Hunting and Fishing are the two biggest draws. Do away with public access and hurt your neighbors, friends, businesses and wildlife management of your state. Being a farmer you must know it takes money to make money.


"New" wealth can only be created from two areas on this planet. Mining and agriculture. Tourism is a trade between states. You do my laundry, I give you a haircut. Old money exchanging hands. And the bit about doing away with public access; I never said anything about that. I'm all for public access. Except if the "sign" says Federal Park, NPS, FWS Refuge, Chase Lake, Cross Ranch, Keep of the Grass, No Trespassing, No Hunting or Keep Out.



> Shaug, or should I say GST's minion. I have my own land I have no problem getting access to other land and I don't really care what your opinions are regarding any of this. Much the same that you have no respect what anyone elses opinions are. I'd like to know what the name of your guiding operation is? You are either an anti-government Gordon Kahl loving wack job or a self serving profiteer of public trust. Either way you have no concern with what is best for the citizens of the country.


Why do you always have to get so wordy and melodramatic. Why don't you just cut through the chase.What you "want" is to pursue "your" game animals across other peoples property. There are people and organizations out there that want to give you and others like you what it is you desire. Free hunting. But there is a catch. There is always a catch. They need you to repeat their slogans, colorful ideals, catchy phrases. They need you to complain about guides competing for your wildlife. Overcrowding.

Check out this video.

http://www.trcp.org/media/video-view/sp ... and-access

Swift, you are doing a good job for them with your repeating that old saw "access." These guys want $900 million to purchase land and perpetual easements, from willing sellers of course. wink wink. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has been involved in habitat, easements and land purchases for years. Do date they have accomplished little more than raising food for wolves. Think about it $900 million per year. Along with the federal purchases of these lands comes the management and costs to maintain them. They can't manage what they have now.

The old guy (video) in the rapella hat is good. He says the funds are not from the taxpayers, the money comes from offshore oil and gas leases. What he omits is that both are destined for the the general treasurey. So in fact it is taken from the taxpayers.
Durring these budget cut talks all Sen. Reid wants the public to hear is how the Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare. Not a peep about HR 1 and the defunding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The taxpayers are subsidizing federal land aquisitions and easements. These lands will then be made off limits to mining agriculture or economic development. Maybe that is the real agenda.

Anyway swift, keep up the good work. Bellyaching, complaining, hurling insults, *****ing about access. The Land and Water Conservation Fund should send you a medal. You are a good minion.

If you are not part of the solution than you are part of the problem.

Everyone complains about the environmentalists and big government. Defund it, stop feeding the monster.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Actually Shaug I think, just from his participation on this thread, that G/O is a good guy that cares about people and the game he profits off of. It's my understanding he outfits his own land and does a very good job of it. I don't begrudge him at all. WIth that said I am allowed to have a difference of opinion with him. If you search back I have never bashed G/O. He stands for his rights and generally returns the respect to those he debates.

Your and your buddy do not have respect for anyone outside your own little world. It is painfully obvious that you two feel superior to the poor schlepts that work 50 weeks a year and would like to take part in their favorite activties for their two weeks vacation. I have the utmost respect for anyone that earns that respect. I don't expect it due to my professional label and I don't give it blindly because someone demands it. Like I tell my students respect is earned and doesn't come with a degree, possession, or because you have something someone else wants.

Again I don't care if Guides/Outfitters or HFH operators run their operations, as long as they are within the law. I do care when access is denied then MY Tax dollars are distributed to those to fix a problem that they started. My wife was nearly killed in a deer vs jeep MVC east of Surrey a few years back. The landowner refused all hunting and planted a sunflower food plot on the north side of hwy 2 and a corn food plot on the south side. At that time I worked in the ER in Minot and we had several accidents from that area during the winter. IMO that landowner showed malice and neglect putting those two food plots within 75 yards of HWY 2. He should have been held responsible for those crashes. But the good ole boys network in ND at its best had the states attorney refusing to prosecute a poor farmer. Again I was threaten and chased off a school section (unposted) south of Arnegard by a person that was legendary in the area for running people off federal and state land. When I talked to the McKenzie county warden he told me the states attorney will not act against a landowner regardless of the situation. Again good oles boys looking out for their own. You two are no better than those two in the example above.

On the flip side 90% of the other folks I have interacted with are nice, cordial and respectful whether permission is granted or not. I know the same goes with hunters mostly good, some bad. Unfortunately most of the jerks on both side got what they have from someone else.

Being a guide/outfitter it is no wonder you want to put a stop to all public land access. If there is no place for folks to go they will have to pay you.

I asked you two questions are you going to answer them? ( I learned this from your buddy)

1. What is your guiding operation called?
2. Will you send back your checks from the government?

GST, Projected is not actual look up the word. I will concede ag being #1 or #2 now but the stats are not pure. I wouldn't scoff at 3.8 Billion dollars they way you seem to. On a bell curve 4.4 billion and 3.8 billion would fall near the same percentile.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> GST, Projected is not actual look up the word. I will concede ag being #1 or #2 now but the stats are not pure. I wouldn't scoff at 3.8 Billion dollars they way you seem to. On a bell curve 4.4 billion and 3.8 billion would fall near the same percentile.


It would be even more interesting to see how much each of those industries pay in to state taxes. What does each generate for the state?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It would be even more interesting to see how much each of those industries pay in to state taxes.


Make it income tax and I know which industry pays by far the most. oke: The only reason I am skeptical about dropping property tax is because some people would pay no taxes if not for property tax.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> GST, Projected is not actual look up the word.





swift said:


> Tourism is North Dakota's third-largest industry, with an estimated $3.8 billion spent in 2006.


Swift this "cowpolk" was just wondering given my limited "comprehension" skills, does "projected" mean anything like "estimated" ? :roll:

I really do not give much thought to what you think of me swift or what you talk about on this site or others, I am merely asking you and others to simply stop making claims regarding agriculture that are not true.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> That's a wonderful idea since this subject is about South Dakota. That is why I have said nothing. :justanangel:
> /quote]
> 
> Well that didn't last long! :roll:
> ...


So plainsman, when you "paid" your income tax from your Federal biologist job funded completely by the taxpayers dollar, what exactly were you paying it with? :wink: You really don't stop to think much before you make these little snipes at ag do you. :roll:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Swift,



> Your and your buddy do not have respect for anyone outside your own little world. It is painfully obvious that you two feel superior to the poor schlepts that work 50 weeks a year and would like to take part in their favorite activties for their two weeks vacation. I have the utmost respect for anyone that earns that respect. I don't expect it due to my professional label and I don't give it blindly because someone demands it. Like I tell my students respect is earned and doesn't come with a degree, possession, or because you have something someone else wants.


Mumbo jumbo and talking in circles. Mindless.



> Again I don't care if Guides/Outfitters or HFH operators run their operations, as long as they are within the law. I do care when access is denied then MY Tax dollars are distributed to those to fix a problem that they started. My wife was nearly killed in a deer vs jeep MVC east of Surrey a few years back. The landowner refused all hunting and planted a sunflower food plot on the north side of hwy 2 and a corn food plot on the south side. At that time I worked in the ER in Minot and we had several accidents from that area during the winter. IMO that landowner showed malice and neglect putting those two food plots within 75 yards of HWY 2. He should have been held responsible for those crashes. But the good ole boys network in ND at its best had the states attorney refusing to prosecute a poor farmer. Again I was threaten and chased off a school section (unposted) south of Arnegard by a person that was legendary in the area for running people off federal and state land. When I talked to the McKenzie county warden he told me the states attorney will not act against a landowner regardless of the situation. Again good oles boys looking out for their own. You two are no better than those two in the example above.


You sure do have a lot of problems.



> 1. What is your guiding operation called?
> 2. Will you send back your checks from the government?


Number One, I am not a guide. Number Two, Hurry up and pay it in, I need to draw it out.

Plainsman wrote,



> Make it income tax and I know which industry pays by far the most. The only reason I am skeptical about dropping property tax is because some people would pay no taxes if not for property tax.


You are a little off topic so let me run with it for a minute. Plainsman, You have heard of the Death Tax? I just read it somewhere that these conservation orgs are bucking its repeal. The reason, most times the recipiants of a land inheritance cannot afford the taxes so they can either sell off a portion of it or in a last ditch effort to keep it all together they sell an easement. They are forced into the waiting arms of these non-profits. But orgs like the Nature Conservancy are worth billions. I think there are some profits in there somewhere for these non-profits. While most people sleep, guys like swift are worried that it's the farmers who are getting fat.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The point is, I paid it.
Plainsman wrote:


> Make it income tax and I know which industry pays by far the most.


gst wrote:


> You really don't stop to think much before you make these little snipes at ag do you.


Soooo evidently you think it's agriculture? :rollin:

Shaug, I think you and I have some of the same ideas on wasted money, and the country being broke. Most often those who you receive inheritance from have already paid high taxes on everything they earn. Paying inheritance tax is like paying taxes on taxes. 
I think this is the time for everyone to step up to the plate. We are all going to hurt a little in the next few years. I have this feeling you agree with me on that.

As far as the original subject I think the guy should have been fined. I think access is a problem for many people. Some of us are lucky. One guy mentioned age, and ya, it has a lot of disadvantages, but there are a few benefits. You poor middle aged, white, working, non gay, non Muslim, guys hold in there if Obama don't start bumping us off at 65 you may get a break yet. Did I leave anyone out? Oh, ya, gst, non farmer. :rollin:


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I haven't taken the time to read all the posts, but whatever this guy gets he more than deserves.

South Dakota is pay to play when it comes to hunting plain and simple. I bang on doors a lot and 80-90% have their hands out. Which is fine, it is their land.

But, I am also of the believe if you take any form of federal subsidizing, be it federal crop insurance, load deficiancy payment, or CRP, your land should be open to foot traffic hunting and posted as such since my tax dollars are paying for your subsidizing.

I have looked at the land titles on numerous parcels and 1/4's of land that are worth over $500,000 are being taxed at about 10%. I would love to have that on my house, seeing that my property taxes have went up 47% over the last 5 years.

The farmer of today is cutting the fat hog, which is fine, but the incessant *****ing and whining has to stop on their part, their pretend world of being the down trodden is long over.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> The point is, I paid it.
> Plainsman wrote:
> Make it income tax and I know which industry pays by far the most.
> gst wrote:
> ...


Plainsman, what I am refereing to in my comment is you snipe at ag for not paying taxes and "having their hands in the taxpayers pocket", but in reality when you "paid" your taxes, you were doing so with other peoples tax dollars as that was who paid ALL your salary (the tax payer) to start with. You were paying your taxes with other "taxes" that had already been paid, so where was any net gain????? In reality those taxes you "paid" didn't gain this coutry anything. Taking from Peter to pay Paul. Stop and really think about that one for a moment .One would think that someone whoose entire salary that he used to "pay" his taxes with came from other tax payers wouldn;t be so snippitey towards other groups, tax payer dollars and paying taxes. Oh I know, I know, but you "earned" it. :roll:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Like I said, debate whatever you wish to. But swift, plainsman, try to refrain from taking these threads off topic :wink: by making untrue or sniping little comments about agriculture. What does it really accomplish.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Shaug, I think you and I have some of the same ideas on wasted money, and the country being broke. Most often those who you receive inheritance from have already paid high taxes on everything they earn. Paying inheritance tax is like paying taxes on taxes.
> quote]
> 
> So plainsman, which is it farmers do not pay taxes or they have "already paid high taxes on everything they earn" as you suggest above in response to shaugs mention of the Death Tax?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So plainsman, which is it farmers do not pay taxes or they have "already paid high taxes on everything they earn" as you suggest above in response to shaugs mention of the Death Tax?


I'll let you chew on that a while. It's fun watching you jump to conclusions then stop and think: I wonder if that's what he meant? You may want to figure that out before you go off the deep end. 

I didn't take it way off topic, I did answer the question about the guy poisoning geese. I wonder if he drains his wetlands into the water supply and poisons people too? I guess it's ok when you poison things more slow so we don't have to look at the dead bodies.

sdbearfan your statement is correct about pay to play. I have had a number of people from Aberdeen work for me up here in North Dakota. One did a little guiding around Aberdeen. Those who say it's no problem hunt around home where neighbors still act like neighbors, or they don't want people to know the problem because somehow through parents owning farms, or parents charging to hunt etc they are connected. It's getting that way around North Dakota also. It started in Mott and has spread to Steele and Devils Lake. Isn't it odd it occurs where the big outfitters are.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Shaug don't worry I paid in and I'd venture to guess it was more than you took home last year.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

sdbearfan wrote,



> But, I am also of the believe if you take any form of federal subsidizing, be it federal crop insurance, load deficiancy payment, or CRP, your land should be open to foot traffic hunting and posted as such since my tax dollars are paying for your subsidizing.


Many things in our lives are subsidized. Your boulevaard, pavement, bike path. Even if you have a keep off the grass sign, can I set up a blind in front of your house to film a yellow bellyed sap sucker building a nest in your tree. The birds belong to everyone and you could be obstructing my access.



> I have looked at the land titles on numerous parcels and 1/4's of land that are worth over $500,000 are being taxed at about 10%. I would love to have that on my house, seeing that my property taxes have went up 47% over the last 5 years.


You need to become more involved in your community. People like goods and services. More recreation centers, bigger schools, more busing for the elderly so they can haul them to Prairie Nights etc. You need to go to the public forums and tell them "NO."



> The farmer of today is cutting the fat hog, which is fine, but the incessant b*tching and whining has to stop on their part, their pretend world of being the down trodden is long over.


Nodakoutdoors is a boiler room of *****ing and whining. There are some farmers who ***** and whine more than they work. The market place has a correction for them. They go broke. The opposite is true for the *****ing and whining sportsman who cannot gain access through his own merit. It is the squeaky wheel syndrome. Congress can hear you. These conservation orgs amplify the message to them. We need to deficit spend millions and subsidize to save our hunting heritage.

How's that again? Let me put in it context. We need to borrow millions at interest from China and then pass the loan on to the next generation to pay for. Our children can either work it off or sell assets.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

swift said,



> Shaug don't worry I paid in and I'd venture to guess it was more than you took home last year.


Now, was that really necessary.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

I'm always amazed and saddened by how these 'sportsman' vs 'landowners' threads can originate from nearly anything.Too bad-as I've said many times-since I believe the future of hunting depends on the two 'sides' getting along.
On this one it does appear all agree the offender should and is being prosecuted.I think we'd all agree this is a rare,isolated occurrence and not typical of landowners-as say poaching is not typical of sportsmen.
As to access,well in SoDak,if one is talking about EARLY season goose hunting,my opinion is anyone that puts in reasonable effort can find access on decent private land to hunt.At other times,for other game,not so likely.I think all can agree on that and then,isn't the question why is that?I suspect most here would quickly blame the landowner which is sad and wrong IMO.Doesn't it take two to tango?Pay to hunt,leases,whatever-WHO is paying,leasing and whatevering?SPORTSMEN!!!!Most of you should look in the mirror or at your friends.It's not landowners paying themselves,leasing their own land,-or misusing/abusing private land of others like some do.
This blindness is then usually followed by getting around to 'subsidies','greed',forced 'access'etc.I say get real.WHAT is not subsized nowadays?WHO in this society nowadays doesn't have their hand out?(whether they contribute a damn thing to society or not)The facts are no one!We reap what we allow.We have the 'policies' we allow.So,does the fact someone gets 'subsidized' mean we can use their private property?Access their land or homes for our own use?If so,get rid of your door locks.'Crop insurance' keeps coming up.Well,what about flood insurance?Thats subsidized!Do people taking this subsidy give us the right to use their homes or private land?Hardly.
Then of course CRP will come up.Get paid?OK let me on.Why?Why does or should accepting that 'policy' subsidy mean someone gives up their property rights?Isn't that land helping you?(growing wildlife,saving soils/water quality???etc,ie,the 'social policy' purposes behind it that we supported in starting the program?)Who really pushes CRP?Not that many landowners-heck they want out to get more $7 corn.Nope its Sportsmens groups(DU,PF,etc)or conservation groups or....someone similar who wants their way for their OWN(greedy???)reasons and agenda.
Am I in favor of all the farm subsidies and 'programs'?Absolutely not.Do I think they are excessive,abused and often totally unneeded?Absolutely.But then I feel that way about 100s of programs and subsidies and waste.Welfare,funding rebuilding in flood areas(New Orleans for example which eventually we'll rebuild again with taxpayer,ie,OUR,$$),tax credits for business,mortgage payment tax deductions,and on and on.All policies we've allowed.I hate them but am willing to acknowledge people accepting them is a reality and if I don't like it,work to change it,not take away private property rights.
I saw another thread recently that spun off on 'tourism' vs Ag.Does anyone really believe 'Tourism' doesn't have their hand out?That they don't get subsidized?Ha!From our license plates('Great Faces,Great Places' or 'Land of 10,000 Lakes')to running taxpayer funded ads on American Idol,its subsidized.Again,get real.Look in the mirror.Better yet,consider working toward a solution instead of promoting division.(I do realize thats funny and not going to happen.)
Here's some reading that may provoke some thinking though.Its not just here these issues are devisive.
Good farming and hunting! 

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/opinion/h ... 03-15.html
http://www.iptv.org/exploremore/land/issues/issues.cfm
http://www.swoam.org/positions/index.shtml

Or think about the stated policy here:http://gf.nd.gov/maps/pli-program.html


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug as much as we debate I can see your mind is open, and your still thinking. I find value in talking to you seriously.



> Many things in our lives are subsidized. Your boulevaard, pavement, bike path.


The difference is they are for society, not the benefit of a single individual. Now, before you think that means I am against farm subsidies try to remember that I said I prefer paying some subsidies because the farmer gets it, not the truckers, the people who grind the wheat, the guy who bakes it etc. However, I do prefer to pay for conservation practices because more people benefit. With some land out of production and the reduction of farm surplus the price for you goes up in the free market, wildlife has habitat, water has a filtration system, and some farmers who are generous with their neighbors let them hunt.



> People like goods and services. More recreation centers, bigger schools, more busing for the elderly so they can haul them to Prairie Nights etc.


Same thing again, but I like the humor about Prairie Nights. The native Americans are going to get this country back if we keep this up. I know people who have lost entire monthly salaries. I have this poster in my gun room. It's three pictures. One the guy is paying tax and the sign above says property tax, another is paying tax and the sign above says income tax, another is buying chips and the sign above says "idiot tax". 



> There are some farmers who b#tch and whine more than they work. The market place has a correction for them. They go broke.


Shaug, your a good guy. It takes a good person to admit the shortcomings of those who are in the same profession as you. I have said I don't like the invasion of Bunny huggers the universities are sending into the wildlife profession and some on here like to post that again and again as if it is common. I know not all farmers are like that, but a man that can admit it is a man worth talking to. My hat is off to you for that comment. I do have a slight different experience. A man (farmer) who I admired passed away two years ago. He made a good living, but never complained. Another that I know very well complains more than any ten farmers I know combined. His wife has a new Cadillac every two or three years.

There are a lot of different types of drainers. I had to call the state health department because my neighbor is pumping his septic system into my yard and it's draining to the Jamestown reservoir. We will see how the state health department reacts to that. I went out and videoed it about a half hour ago.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Duckp, Very good post, If you notice above the rift has come from the two landowners. I stated above that folks should do with what they have as they see fit, as long as it's within the law and doesn't infringe on anothers rights or property. shaug, and GST made it into a landowner vs sportsman rift. Facts are...
1. This guy was convicted for an illegal activity.
2. This topic was started by an outfitter that by default stands to benefit by tarnishing landowner, sportsman relations, (regardless of his intent) and took the side of defending his actions.
3. As you admit access is a problem here in SD. BUT NOBODY HAS MADE THE CLAIM OF FORCED ACCESS.
4. The economy is such that non-farmers are starting to feel the crunch that farmers have felt for many years, just as farmers are having some of their best years in decades. Neither side is coping well with the changes.
5. My business is highly subsidized by the government. Medicine has the first "open fields" policy put down by the governtment. I'll explain, Since our hospital accepts medicare; the doors to the hospital must be open to any and all that request care. That is when John Smith age 21 comes to the ER at 2:30 in the morning drunk with a toothache we are legally obligated to get out of bed go in and treat him regardless of his 1. outstanding $25,000 bill or 2. His non-emergent status. 3.His abusive attitude toward staff.
So the idea of accepting subsidies equaling access is not a new idea and is NOT without precedent. It is in fact a legitimate arguement. I personally see how this access is abused and do not think it should be forced into the farm bill yet. But attitudes like a couple on here are starting to shift my opinion. As they say misery loves company.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Swift,
I basically couldn't agree with you more although in this thread,and most every similar thread,it WAS stated that by accepting CRP etc,landowners should be forced to allow access.
As to the medical field,I couldn't agree with you more.OUTRAGEOUS and needs to be changed!!!!It will eventually cripple/end quality care. Simply stated though,thats a precedent we should NEVER follow,just end.Two wrongs do not.....


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

So swift, is simply pointing out when somewone makes an untrue claim about your profession starting a rift????

Anyone that wants can go back and read a few of the last threads that have gone on. All I have asked is that individuals no not post claims regarding agriculture that are not true or insinuate and snipe juvenile comments regarding someones profession. Particularily if by your very own posts it is clear how little you know about the profession. If you stop to consider, that really should not be too much to ask.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Blah Blah Blah GST same ole crap. I'm not going to bow to you ever just because your a loud mouth that inherited some land. I admitted my error above you should try it sometime.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Duckp can you see the frustration when one group of subsidy dependent workers are treated differently than another? I said it above and I agree with your statement that the precedent should end. Or some on the other side should be a little more grateful for what they get from their tax paying neighbors. But there will always be those few that look down on those that weren't gifted land.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

duckp,

Well said. Very well said.

The part about Tourism vs Agriculture is interesting to me. There is room here for an economics class. Tourism is a zero sum game. States keep track of dollars coming in. Who keeps track of dollars going out? How many people from ND seek vacations in other states? Where do they derive the income for this?

Let's use Plainsman for example. When he retired his position at the government he was doing such a good job it took two people to replace him. (laugh outloud) A new government job is thus created. There is only so much money in circulation. Where does the money come from to pay the wages, pensions and health care for this new government employee? How is it created? By taxing his income? Not hardly. By profits and taxes derived from tourism? No. That is old money exchanging hands between states. New wealth on this planet can only be created from two areas, mining and agriculture.

Swift thinks tourism brings in as much money as agriculture. Tourism does not create new wealth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Shaug don't worry I paid in and I'd venture to guess it was more than you took home last year.


I don't "look down on anyone" I judge them by who they are when I actually meet them and get to know them as an individual. But people who make conceited, arrogant comments like the one above probably will not end up in my circle of friends. (I'm sure swift is heartbroken) 



swift said:


> Blah Blah Blah GST same ole crap. I'm not going to bow to you ever just because your a loud mouth that inherited some land.[/qoute]
> 
> swift. Truly a couple of fine examples of adult dialogue, and gladly, I have yet to inherit anything.
> 
> Now if people can simply discuss an issue without making untrue claims regarding agriculture or juvenile snipes at someones profession we should all get along just fine. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I have yet to inherit anything.


Sometimes farmers don't consider it inheriting, but most of the farmers I know got the farm from their father. People who want to start farming now have a tough road with the start up price of land and machinery.

Will your son farm, and how much will he pay you for the farm?

I have known people who have purchased from their parents and consider they had no inheritance, but they paid 1/3 what the land was worth. That helps two ways with no inheritance tax even though the land was worth a million. Well, I didn't figure it out exactly, but consider a savings of $300/acre on 4500 acres. Now people will have to decide if that person inherited something or not. I say he did. I'm not begrudging anything, just pointing out reality.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

No worries GST in my circle of friends do not include the likes of you. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you I'm worthy of your company. And fact is I do pay more in taxes than most people make in a year. Since you like facts so much there you have it.

Call me arrogant it doesn't really mean a thing since your credibility was lost long ago. Now just go feed the world.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

A good man leaves a sound inheritance to his children. Be it his reputation in the community a hotel a successfull business or a farm.

My Circle My Circle. It sounds like the Altel Commercial. GST is the blonde haired dude trying to calmly explain the business end of the way things work to swift and friends.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> GST is the blonde haired dude


I thought of him more like the tubby brown haired guy coming out of the bathroom (nodak) saying "whew don't go in there".  Don't complain about the smell if your the one making the stink. :rollin:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

swift wrote,



> 5. My business is highly subsidized by the government. Medicine has the first "open fields" policy put down by the governtment. I'll explain, Since our hospital accepts medicare; the doors to the hospital must be open to any and all that request care. That is when John Smith age 21 comes to the ER at 2:30 in the morning drunk with a toothache we are legally obligated to get out of bed go in and treat him regardless of his 1. outstanding $25,000 bill or 2. His non-emergent status. 3.His abusive attitude toward staff.
> So the idea of accepting subsidies equaling access is not a new idea and is NOT without precedent. It is in fact a legitimate arguement. I personally see how this access is abused and do not think it should be forced into the farm bill yet. But attitudes like a couple on here are starting to shift my opinion. As they say misery loves company.


Everything you say is a contradiction. I am not so sure that because a hospital accepts medicare that is "the" reason they cannot turn away patients. I believe it has more to do with a Samaritin Law. But let's run with your little theory for a minute. So what you are saying is that your theory has legitimate precedent. If someone did in fact receive a subsidy than others should have access. Maybe even forced access.

Let's say you are walking along cold and hungry. At this one house you know they are on fuel assistance. As a taxpayer, are you allowed access to the stove? They have food in the pantry. As a taxpayer, you helped pay for it so why not take some? The woman living there has three children from three different fathers. Swift, you do not have a legitimate access arguement.

The other day Obama gave a speech about all the things that have made this country great. He talked at length about how we take care of the needs of our people, social security, nutrition, health care, housing. He made no mention of the people who like to work and pay the taxes.

Former Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnsons "Greater Society" has arrived.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Just came across something of interest that applies,

Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

The National Debt


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> No worries GST in my circle of friends do not include the likes of you. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you I'm worthy of your company. And fact is I do pay more in taxes than most people make in a year. Since you like facts so much there you have it.
> 
> Call me arrogant it doesn't really mean a thing since your credibility was lost long ago. Now just go feed the world.


swift the arrogance does not come as a result of you paying more in taxes than "most" people make, many people do. It comes from you pointing it out in the manner you do.

by swift » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:09 am

Quote "Shaug don't worry I paid in and I'd venture to guess it was more than you took home last year." end quote

Juvenile or arrogant, take your pick.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Point is I pay a lot of taxes. I don't have the benefit of tax write offs. I would like a return on my investment into the country. Shaug much the same way you want to be respected for feeding the world I would like equal respect for giving you the opportunity to do so through my tax dollars.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Point is I pay a lot of taxes. I don't have the benefit of tax write offs. I would like a return on my investment into the country. Shaug much the same way you want to be respected for feeding the world I would like equal respect for giving you the opportunity to do so through my tax dollars.


Swift, I would venture a guess alot of people pay alot more in taxes than you do, I know several that likely do in some form or another, some perhaps on this very site. But they are not suggesting "respect" come simply from the dollars they pay in taxes as a result of their good fortune.

As to the "return on your investment in this country" I have provided links in previous discussions to show what pennies of your tax dollars goes towards the agriculture industry that produces the food that you pay the lowest percentage of your disposable income to purchase of any modern industrialized country. If all your "investments" showed this great a "return" you would be paying a much higher amount of taxes than you are currently! :wink: This "return" is a direct result of this nations food security policies.

As a result of your prosperity, the fact you pay the lowest percentage of your income purchaseing food may not mean that much to you. But for a majority of Americans that are not making as much money as you it can mean the difference between feeding their family from their own incomes or having to go on govt assistance to do so. THAT is our nations food security policy. And an additional part of that food security policy that is funded thru the Federal Ag Dept budget thru an even larger portion of "your" tax dollar are the various food assistance programs I mentioned. Stop and actually think for a moment about which portion of this policy is ultimately better for this country and it's citizens.

As to demanding those that receive a portion of your tax dollars for one thing or another "respect" you, that kinda sounds like the elitiest baronesuqe attitudes of old Europe the people of this country moved here to escape! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> the fact you pay the lowest percentage of your income purchaseing food may not mean that much to you


I may be wrong, but I think cheap food is a fallacy. I think we pay for it in other ways. The reason we do is simply another form of wealth redistribution. If we all paid directly for our food we would all be more, but that's not what happens. We pay support prices. The tax payer does. Since 45% of the American people do not pay taxes they are getting cheap food. Those of us paying taxes are paying our share, and half or more of the share for the non tax paying people. At the same time we are paying a large share of farm income. Since most farmers claim they are making nothing I guess that means we the taxpayer are paying a huge portion of their real income. 
gst, you often point out that all of my income came from taxpayers since I was a government employee. That's true, and I am very thankful for that. However, it has no bearing on a private business seeing much of their income from tax dollars. You simply try to compare apples to oranges, so this time let me beat you to it. One would expect an employee who works for Walmart to be paid by Walmart, and one would expect one who works for the government to be paid by the government. However the subject has turned to agriculture once again. One would expect their income to come from production. However, because of their great inefficiency they must be subsidized. I think swift is simply saying one would expect another to appreciate the person that puts the frosting on their cake. I did, and still do, what is your problem with that concept. Hey swift, thank you, I hope I worked hard enough that in some small way it benefits you. It was my priveledge to work for you and others like you. I didn't use your money unwisely like many of the stories we hear, and I put in a lot more hours than paid for. That is not a complaint at all, just an attempt to make you think I was worth it. Thanks again.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

GST wrote:


> Swift, I would venture a guess alot of people pay alot more in taxes than you do, I know several that likely do in some form or another, some perhaps on this very site. But they are not suggesting "respect" come simply from the dollars they pay in taxes as a result of their good fortune.
> 
> As to the "return on your investment in this country" I have provided links in previous discussions to show what pennies of your tax dollars goes towards the agriculture industry that produces the food that you pay the lowest percentage of your disposable income to purchase of any modern industrialized country. If all your "investments" showed this great a "return" you would be paying a much higher amount of taxes than you are currently! This "return" is a direct result of this nations food security policies.
> 
> ...


That's such a load of BS gst and you know it. Every program the government has is a small percentage of what we pay. You're just playing a BS number game. Just because you have a link to something doesn't make it fact, you can find anything you want on the internet and by google to say anything to back about any argument. Also any bias site can skew/hide facts with other minor facts to get what they want, you should know this. Just like you didn't like my site that claimed farmers receive 60% of thier income from subsidies. I can understand your frustration gst, I wouldn't feel right if I was getting money from 65% of americans through taxes for doing nothing also. Get subsidies from the american tax payer so that you can undercut the world market. (see my previous site on the other threads as you would say  ) How can that be wrong I can find it on the internet!


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

No the concept of the king owning and controlling the land and animals of europe was a big reason for the mass emigration. You calling someone else a baron is truely hysterical.

And by the way here are some definitions for you to chew on. 
1.Profession: In modern usage, professionals tend to have certain qualities in common. A profession is always held by a person, and it is generally that person's way of generating income. A professional is usually licensed and regulated by a particular quasi-governmental organization, such as a bar association. To get a license, the professional must receive certain education (such as graduating from medical school), and pass further examinations and/or apprenticeships. Professionals are also subject to discipline, including revocation of their license. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Profession#Definitions

2. Occupation: a. An activity that serves as one's regular source of livelihood; a vocation. 
http://www.yourdictionary.com/occupation
OR
Usual or principal business, calling, trade, or work a person is engaged in earning a living. 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occupation

So now that you understand you have an occupation/vocation and are not a professional maybe you can amend your preaching about your "profession".

I'm more like the serf that pays the bulk of the taxes and gets to see less and less as the heirarchy took more and more. Just the opposite of a Baron. How much is the farm bill?


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Everything you say is a contradiction. I am not so sure that because a hospital accepts medicare that is "the" reason they cannot turn away patients. I believe it has more to do with a Samaritin Law.


Well your wrong, Look up EMTALA. That should clarify it. The samaritan law has to do with not getting sued if you help someone in need. The samaritan law only covers a person that helps to the level of their training and receives no payment for the acts. So a nurse that stops at a car accident and straightens out a fractured femur reestablishing blood flow to the foot; thereby saving the limb is at risk for a lawsuit because reducing fractures is not within the scope of practice for a nurse. That nurse is NOT covered by the samaritan act. And don't think a person wouldn't sue over that very scenerio descripted above.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Plainsman, I'm sure you understand I don't want to be thanked by everyone that receives tax dollars. I just want those whom work for themselves to realize first that there is a face that belongs to the government checks they receive.


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

I think this might clear some things up...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

swift said:


> Plainsman, I'm sure you understand I don't want to be thanked by everyone that receives tax dollars. I just want those whom work for themselves to realize first that there is a face that belongs to the government checks they receive.


Oh, I was sure of that. I just wanted anyone reading this to understand how appreciative I am. I was a bit of an oddball being conservative and a federal employee. I become disappointed in my fellow conservatives however, when they appear to worship any way of making a dollar. Sometimes they think I am liberal, but the fact is I am conservative, but my political opinion gives way to the superiority of the constitution. That's why I am against pay hunting. I consider it a violation of the constitution even if they hide behind the loophole called "pay access". No matter what they call it it is pay for the animal you already own. No fools pay to walk plowed fields.


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

Interesting how these discussions seem to always diverge into other arenas. Forgive me as I am going to make generalities here. Why is it that in ND there is this tension between the ag and wildlife sectors? It's not so much elsewhere? I may be able to understand it between the crop producers and the wildlifers but why is there this same tension between the ranching community and the wildlife community? Seems to me, they both have the same goals? Work with the land, not against it.

How can we, these two groups, end up working together to preserve the ranching way of life and in doing so protect the habitat that wildlife needs? I have struggled to find a way to bring these two groups together but there is a lot of distrust. Are the posts on this site from the extremes on both ends?

I am looking for those that want to truely work together for a solution that benefits both.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bad dog, simply take a look with open eyes at some of the posts that are on here. I have simply asked people to not make claims regarding agriculture that are not true. That really should not be that difficult. Now I have been told that farming is not a profession because I haven;t gone to enough school or "learned" enough for it to be called a "profession". And yet this person accuses others of having elitist ideologies.

All I am simply asking is for people to not make false and inaccurate and sniping comments regarding my "profession/ocupation". 
Perhaps that one thing could generate a little respect.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

It's just another fact of the english language that you seem to think you have such command of. And no farming is not a profession by definition. Neither are plumbers, carpenters or heavy equiptment operators. NONE are less "important" or less needed or lower in stature than any professional. (I know you will try to twist my words to try to say that but anyone that knows me would scoff at the idea). You love to educate me on my mistakes now consider yourself educated.

I'm mearly pointing out that a title, or job or profession is just that and a title doesn't earn respect the actions of the title holder may or may not command respect.

Your title of landlord doesn't mean that everyone else must bow to you.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

swift wrote,



> Point is I pay a lot of taxes. I don't have the benefit of tax write offs. I would like a return on my investment into the country. Shaug much the same way you want to be respected for feeding the world I would like equal respect for giving you the opportunity to do so through my tax dollars.


I always say if one is paying taxes than you are making money. That's a good thing.

Tax write offs are not a benefit. If a trucker makes $1000 going to the Twin Cities and back, the fuel and wear and tear are deductable. That's just business.

So you would like a return on your investment made to this country? What's the matter, don't you like the libraries, museums, interstate highways, ball parks that we have? You should maybe move to another country that would appreciate you.

I never said anything about me wanting to feed the world. My family farm is small. I doubt any of what I produce has made it to a sea port.

Your last sentence is a doosie. You want me to respect you for "giving me the opportunity to farm" through your tax dollars? That is so much arrogance. Anyone can tell you they would rather get their paycheck through the marketplace instead of the mailbox. Agriculture has gone global. I don't believe in free trade. If Canada has a bumper crop should they have the right to dump it here? 
I don't care if it is automobiles, plastic toys or paint, American workers should be protected by tarrifs at the waters edge.

So let the farm bill go under. Defund it. Import food. Like Plainsman said, cheap food is a fallacy.

I thought I got way off topic but then I see Plainsman said,



> Oh, I was sure of that. I just wanted anyone reading this to understand how appreciative I am. I was a bit of an oddball being conservative and a federal employee. I become disappointed in my fellow conservatives however, when they appear to worship any way of making a dollar. Sometimes they think I am liberal, but the fact is I am conservative, but my political opinion gives way to the superiority of the constitution. That's why I am against pay hunting. I consider it a violation of the constitution even if they hide behind the loophole called "pay access". No matter what they call it it is pay for the animal you already own. No fools pay to walk plowed fields.


Yes fools do pay for access. It is called the Open Fields Program. $50 million bucks from the US general treasurey to subsidize hunting. Plainsman, you would never pay to play. However, you are not adverse to having all the citizens fund your pastime.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

One more point to anyone out there reading this. I have no problems with farmers, ranchers, landowners or anyone else. My only problem is with one guy that pushes his agenda which I truely believe is to hurt landowner/sportsman relations. He has tried to push legislation that would hurt thousands of people in North Dakota. His organization is certainly able to fund a coyote bounty but have lobbied for tax dollars to again pay to help them make more money. He has lobbied to kill deer that by his own admission travel for many miles to winter in his hay yard. Killing those deer would affect the population across many counties and if passed across the state.

It seems to me that in an effort to micromanage the G&F he has decided to drive a wedge between sportsman and ag producers. If he can get enough folks to rally behind him he will be able to cicumvent the Game and Fish and get his personal agendas passed through the legislature.

1. State tax dollars to fund a coyote bounty 
2. Landowner controlled depredation season essentially whiping out deer herds from some areas.
3. Standing policy of No increase in public land in ND.
4. block perpetual easements that can be used by anyone forever.
Yea he sure does advocate for the non-agriculture folks of ND.

Shaug did you look up EMTALA? I didn't think so since you know everything.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Hey Commander of the English Language,



> I'm mearly pointing out that a title, or job or profession is just that and a title doesn't earn respect the actions of the title holder may or may not command respect.


It's merely.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Typo, and I didn't claim to have command of anything. Read son, words mean things.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bad dog, there really is not as big a rift as some on here would like to make it seem between agriculture and hunting. Just a small group of people that take little potshots at agriculture and make statements regarding it that simply are not true. How ever this one single post sums up pretty well the basis for what most of these discussions turn into and take the path they do. .



swift said:


> One more point to anyone out there reading this. I have no problems with farmers, ranchers, landowners or anyone else. *My only problem is with one guy that pushes his agenda which I truely believe is to hurt landowner/sportsman relations. [/b]He has tried to push legislation that would hurt thousands of people in North Dakota. His organization is certainly able to fund a coyote bounty but have lobbied for tax dollars to again pay to help them make more money. He has lobbied to kill deer that by his own admission travel for many miles to winter in his hay yard. Killing those deer would affect the population across many counties and if passed across the state.
> 
> It seems to me that in an effort to micromanage the G&F he has decided to drive a wedge between sportsman and ag producers. If he can get enough folks to rally behind him he will be able to cicumvent the Game and Fish and get his personal agendas passed through the legislature.
> 
> ...


*

Once again, given this post it seems as if it is purely a personal issue with some on here.

Swift, It seems as if it is hard for you to comprehend agriculture will "lobby" for what they beleive is best for agriculture, much like the AMA "lobbies for what is best for the medical "profession" (Note my proper use of the word profession)  as does every other "profession" or "occupation" :wink: ect..... It then becomes the responsibility of the people that are elected by the citizens of this state or country to look out for the best interests of this state or country and it's citizens to make the laws and regulations that govern us based on this. It was how this Republic was meant to function.

I truly am flattered you beleive it is I alone that have developed these policies and lobbying issues you mentioned above as a part of my devious mster plan. :roll: But I must confess and tell you it is those very farmers and ranchers you claim to have no problem with that have developed what you mention all on their own. I don;t seem to have as much "power" as you wish to give me regarding these issues! :wink:

But my "agenda" here lately is to simply get a couple of people to stop making statements about agriculture that are not true. And laying off the little sniping comments would be nice as well.  As someone said, words mean something.*


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> 1. State tax dollars to fund a coyote bounty
> 2. Landowner controlled depredation season essentially whiping out deer herds from some areas.
> 3. Standing policy of No increase in public land in ND.
> 4. block perpetual easements that can be used by anyone forever.
> Yea he sure does advocate for the non-agriculture folks of ND.


Lets take a look at the claims swift makes regarding the above issues with a little insight into them. 
1. The coyote bounty was brought forth by an individual in the state legislature on his own. A part of his reasoning was an undeniably significant increase in coyote numbers and corresponding depredation on not only livestock but deer as well. The lamb and wool growers were instrumental in moving this bill forward and a cattle org. of this state supported a revised version of this bill that never came to be, and as a result the bill failed as it should have in the form it was in. The org. swift alludes to had NOTHING to do with it being brought forth.

2. The livestock industries have been working proactively WITH the NDG&F dept for the last few years to deal with the consequences of the management by this agency that has lead to undeniably significantly higher populations of deer and the consequences that go with these increased numbers. The legislation that came out this session aimed at dealing with these consequences was *SUPPORTED* by the NDG&F. *The G&F testified in favor of this bill.* Kinda hard to "circumvent" what they support.

3. There is no "standing policy of no increase in "public" land" as swift claims, he is simply wrong in making this claim. The major ag groups do have policy opposing the increased ownership of land by govt or their agenecies as developed by the thousands of farmers and rancher that are their members, as well as supporting the process the state has long held that nonprofits are required to go thru prior to being allowed to purchase any lands. These policies are readdressed every 3 years by the very farmers and ranchers that create them and vote to implement them or not. There is support amoungst these groups for volantary, renewable programs such as plots and others. Some of their members have even advocated for a block management program such as seen in Mt. that provides access for the public to private lands. As well as public access to private lands in exchange for tools to deal with wildlife depredation issues.

4. The agriculture groups made up of thousands of these farmers and ranchers swift claims to have "no problems with" support the ideology of the state law that is already in place regarding perpetual easements that unfortunately the Federal govt is exempt from. They simply beleive as does the state itself that there should be an end time frame on easements that allow the easements as well as the consequences of them to be re examined.

I did not bring these points up to rehash issues that have been discussed in length before, but simply to point out a slightly different version than what was being presented without the "personal" slant. If this "personal" aspect is taken out of the equation, it is clear to see there is not the rift or issues some would like to make out there is.

Some people claim to have "no problem" with agricultural policies and the farmers and ranchers that advocate for them as long as they conincide with THEIR ideologies even though they have no connection to or involvement in production agriculture. As soon as ag does something they do not agree wih, suddenly it appears they do indeed "have a problem" as is shown with some of the comments on here. That in itself seems as self serving as what they are critisizing.

It appears in this case if the policies regarding ag do not fit a medical "professional" from SD ideologies they are not what is best for the state of ND even though the elected representatives of the people of this state have considered them and in some cases implemented them into law while looking at the bigger picture.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

[quote1. The coyote bounty was brought forth by an individual in the state legislature on his own. A part of his reasoning was coyote depredation on not only livestock but deer as well. The lamb ad wool growers were instrumental in moving this bill forward and the cattle org. of this state supported a revised version of this bill that never came to be. We had NOTHING to do with it being brought forth. *lobbied for by the NDSA and GST with the only benefit being their own increase in profits at the expense of the taxpayers*

2. The livestock industries have been working proactively WITH the NDG&F dept for the last few years to deal with the consequences of the management by this agency that has lead to undeniably significantly higher populations of deer and the consequences that go with these increased numbers. The legislation that came out this session aimed at dealing with these consequences was SUPPORTED by the NDG&F. They testified in favor of this bill. Kinda hard to "circumvent" what they support. *Lobbied for, by GST and the ag orgs with little regard for the other people of the state that would be affected*

3. There is no "standing policy of no increase in "public" land" as swift claims he is simply wrong in this claim. The 3 major ag groups do have policy opposing the increased ownership of land by govt or their agenecies, as well as supporting the process the state has long held that nonprofits are required to go thru prior to being allowed to purchase any lands. There is support amoungst these groups for volantary, renewable programs such as plots and others. Some of their members have even advocated for a block management program such as seen in Mt. that provides access for the public to private lands. * Everything you say above is double speak. I believe your description of the policy was no net loss of public land. That pretty much says it all. *

4. The agriculture groups made up of thousands of these farmers and ranchers swift claims to have "no problems with" support the ideology of the state law that is already in place regarding perpetual easements that unfortunately the Federal govt is exempt from. They simply beleive as does the state itself that there should be an end time frame on easements that allow the easements as well as the consequences of them to be re examined. *Being lobied for by GST and his groups with absolutely no benefit for the majority population of the state. And will once again will cost taxpayers many times over instead of just onced. Once again I have no problem with any of the above except the one on here. And yes it is personal.*

I did not bring these points up to rehash issues that have been discussed in length before but simply to point out a slightly different version than what was being presented without the "personal" slant. *Actions mean more than words.*

Some people claim to have "no problem" with agricultural policies and the farmers and ranchers that advocate for them as long as they conincide with THEIR ideologies* even though they have no connection to or involvement in production agriculture.* As soon as ag does something they do not agree wih, suddenly it appears they do indeed "have a problem" as is shown with some of the comments on here. *The problem is we do have connection and involvement in production agriculture every April 15th. That is the part you can't seem to grasp. Because we do not run a tractor doesn't mean we don't pay for that tractor. I like nothing more than to buy American. American farmers are an amazing group of hardworking good people. Most want to work their gro

It appears in this case if the policies regarding ag do not fit a medical "professional" from SD ideologies they are not what is best for the state of ND even though the elected representatives of the people of this state have considered them and in some cases implemented them into law.][/quote] By in large the Ag policies fit great into our society. It is the total disregard for the other guy that is the sticking point with these four policy changes No single group should consider themselves above public scrutiny if they take tax dollars and they lobby to negatively affect the public paying those tax dollars.

And fyi the AMA has less than 25% physicians amongst its ranks and does not represent the medical profession as evident by their support of Obamacare. This grassroots organization has burned it's roots to say. I can only wonder if the same is happening in other grassroot organizations?

From...
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/se ... ttle-brews

Key findings of the survey include

Seventy-five percent of physicians surveyed are not members of the AMA. 
Eighty-nine percent of physicians claim "The AMA does not speak for me." 
Ninety-one percent of physicians surveyed do not believe the AMA accurately reflects their opinion as physicians.*


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, as I said, you do not seem to grasp that EVERY "profession", occupation, or industry "lobbies" for what is best for that particular group. The ELECTED representatives of the people then weigh this "lobbying" in deciding what is best for the the state or country and it's citizens they are charged with looking out for as a whole. If they do not, you have an opportunity to address this every time you vote.

Contrary to what you beleive, myself or one group does not have the "lobbying power" to impose our will.

I would venture to guess if we delved into the policies lobbied for regarding healthcare and the medical profession that are supported by whatever groups and individuals there are reperesenting these various policies, we would find ones that a great many in society that are not "involved" in the medical profession would have an issue with.

I am as "involved" in the medical profession everytime I pay my own healthcare costs and insurance as you are in agriculture every April 15. But the difference is I realize that those dollars I pay have gotten me the best healthcare avalible in the world and while I do not enjoy the costs and would like to see them lowered, I am not so blindly biased to not realize what those dollars I pay have gotten me. The same could be said if you would think with an open mind of those dollars you pay every April 15 of which a few pennies go to provide the fact you have avalible to you what you do in safe, avalible, economical food source here in this country that most other countries do not in the same manner you do.

This is not an expectation or "demand" of gratitude as you have suggested, merely a request to think a little bit and leave your individual personal biases you admitted to aside.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am as "involved" in the medical profession everytime I pay my own healthcare insurance and costs as you are every April 15.


No, actually your involved in the insurance profession not medical.  I understand that it makes little difference to you and I because it's a cost, but unlike ag subsidies, swift doesn't get paid by the insurance company on top of his standard payment. You could drop the insurance and pay directly.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Swift, as I said, you do not seem to grasp that EVERY "profession", occupation, or industry "lobbies" for what is best for that particular group. The ELECTED representatives of the people then weigh this "lobbying" in deciding what is best for the the state or country and it's citizens they are charged with looking out for as a whole.


 What most industries do is lobby with the concern of the collateral damage that may arise from their lobbying. It seems the collateral damage is thrown to the wind in the four examples listed above. 
Can you tell me if there are any members of the Ag orgs in the ELECTED legislature? Do they remove themselves from voting on ag related bills? Could it be considered a conflict of interest if they vote on items that are lobbied for by orgs that they are members of?



> I am as "involved" in the medical profession everytime I pay my own healthcare costs and insurance as you are in agriculture every April 15.


 you are involved in the insurance industry everytime you pay your premium. When you pay for medical service you are paying for something you bought. Not exactly the same thing as you would have us believe.



> swift doesn't get paid by the insurance company on top of his standard payment.


 Quite the opposite since insurance companies draw up contracts with discounts written into them. I get paid less than standard payment.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, so you are saying every policy lobbied for by say the medical profession is void of any self serving interests and takes into consideration "colateral damages" ????? Hasn't there been some issue about a pharmacy bill or something in this state lately? So every issue that say the medical profession lobbies for is in the right because of their concern over "collateral damages"? :roll: For some reason I get the feeling if we were to delve into debating the medical "profession" I would bet there are issues that you support the medical professions lobbying policies on that most people paying for healthcare would not simply because as a health care "professional" you would know what is best . :wink:

plainsman, what you and swift do not seem to understand is the farm programs this country adopted are it's (the citizens, me and you) "insurance policy" against ending up paying what many other countries are percentage wise of their disposable incomes for food. As well as programs to provide food for those that can not afford it. So every time you pay your taxes and a few pennies of the dollars you pay of it goes to production agriculture, consider that you are not actually involved in ag and "buying" that tractor as swift claims but rather the govt's insurance business of insuring cheap food for this country or insuring if you fall on hard times you can still access food and you and I are simply paying our premium for this insurance much like I pay my HC insurance premiums.

I know that doesn;t coincide very well with your "farmers are greedy with their hands in the taxpayers pockets" thought process you mention so often, but it is the basis for this countries food security (insurance) policies.

As these policies are faded out because of fiscal limitations this country is facing and the percentage of your income you pay for food begins to rise alongside inflation, please keep these conversations in the back of your mind before blaming higher food prices on "greedy farmers". People that "pay more in taxes than other people make" :roll: may not feel the affects of higher food costs, but many Americans will.

Wait an see, the total dollars going into the Federal ag budget will likely not change much as every dollar that is currently being paid to production ag thru this budget that will be cut will likely be reallocated to nutrition programs such as food stamps instead. If you do not beleive me, it is already happening.

So answer this one simple question, which fiscal policy do you beleive is best for this country, more people producing cheaper food for more people here and abroad (globaly thru exports) bringing new equity into this country creating a net gain fiscally from these dollars spent, or more people on food assistance programs paid for with borrowed dollars because they can no longer afford to buy food on their own. This is the essence of this countries food security policies.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> What most industries do is lobby with the concern of the collateral damage that may arise from their lobbying. It seems the collateral damage is thrown to the wind in the four examples listed above


Do you actually beleive that very first sentence you wrote??????? As to the second sentence apparently the state as well as the NDG&F have decided to join in "throwing this collateral damage to the winds" as they support 2 of the 3 policies you mentioned that can be considered as somewhat true. And if you are going to pin your claims of greed and disregard in agriculture soley on a limited coyote bounty program that would have had as much "collateral BENEFIT" for sportsmen as it did agriculture, well it just seems kinda lame. :wink:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Keep twisting this GST, it's what you do best. We are not talking about the medical profession. How about answering my questions?

One huge difference in lobbying is when the AMA lobbied for Obamacare the grassroots folks (MD's and other medical providers) came out denounceing the very organization that supposedly was representing them.

If you would like to talk about healthcare lets start another topic. I will do my best to explain how it works.

I really don't think you want to go down the road of comparing the two industries.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> And if you are going to pin your claims of greed and disregard in agriculture soley on a limited coyote bounty program that would have had as much "collateral BENEFIT" for sportsmen as it did agriculture, well it just seems kinda lame.


I agree it would be lame. I'm looking at it from a taxpayers perspective regarding the bounty. I would support a bounty if it was paid for by the cattleman and not the taxpayers.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Keep twisting this GST, it's what you do best. We are not talking about the medical profession. How about answering my questions?


swift, the medical "profession" was merely being used as an example regarding the claims you made. I can understand given these claims where you would not want to delve into discussing your "profession" and it's concern over "collateral damage" on others regarding the lobbying it does. :wink: There is quite enough debate regarding the HC "profession" and the costs (collateral damages) it creates for the average American already. As a matter of fact I would guess many people ponder this very thing as they sit for what seems like hours in waiting rooms in HC facilities around this country 

And besides I really do not wish to get into any other debates, I am simply trying to get you and a couple of others to stop making untrue claims about my "occupation" :wink:

As to your questions if it is these you are refering to:



swift said:


> Can you tell me if there are any members of the Ag orgs in the ELECTED legislature? Do they remove themselves from voting on ag related bills? Could it be considered a conflict of interest if they vote on items that are lobbied for by orgs that they are members of?


Of course there are members of ag orgs in the ELECTED legislature much like I'm sure there are members of many other orgs some perhaps even healthcare related in the ELECTED legislature. *It is a reality of having a legislature ELECTED from a cross section of society*. I am not familiar with the conflict of interest policies in place for the legislature regarding those concerns you raise which I am sure happen with many orgs and industies thru out a legislative session. I would guess it would be a conflict of interest if any personal finacial gain maybe received as a result of someones vote regardless of what group or industry they are involved with. But as I said I am not familiar to make a claim one way or the other. But to simply suggest someone can not vote on policy that involves a group they may belong to would likely result in significant limitations on voting in some instances. And as said earlier, if the voter beleives there have been abuses of voting taking place, they have the ability to address that at the next ELECTION.



swift said:


> I
> I really don't think you want to go down the road of comparing the two industries.


Swift, I am curious why would you make tis assumption ?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> > And if you are going to pin your claims of greed and disregard in agriculture soley on a limited coyote bounty program that would have had as much "collateral BENEFIT" for sportsmen as it did agriculture, well it just seems kinda lame.
> 
> 
> I agree it would be lame. I'm looking at it from a taxpayers perspective regarding the bounty. I would support a bounty if it was paid for by the cattleman and not the taxpayers.


So you are suggesting that a program that would have benefited a cross section of taxpayers (both ranchers as well as hunters), from where it would have been funded, (there are very roughly 70,000 plus deer hunters and even more bird hunters while roughly only 15000 livestock producers in ND ) should not be shared by a cross section of people, but merely fall on one segment (the smaller) and not another (the larger)it would benefit as well? ( I would venture a guess there are far more deer, upland birds and waterfowl killed by coyotes in this state than there are livestock so who would receive the greatest "*collateral benefit*" from this policy that was being lobbied for???? ) And if you wish to talk soley monetary value and benefit to the 2 segements seeing benefit from this policy, what is the restitution $ value placed on a mature muledeer buck by the G&F?, wanna bet it is more than a lamb or a calf?

It seems from your statement above as if the dollar being spent is of benefit to you without you having to pay for that benefit you are all for the policy but if you have to pay your "fair share" not so much. :wink:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Why didn't they pass if they had so much support? Could it be the ranchers wanted to control the depredation season themselves? They wanted to hold the cards as to who and when the deer could be shot? The NDGF was not in support of that little tidbit were they?

There is always more to the story than you like to let out.

*( I would venture a guess there are far more deer, upland birds and waterfowl killed by coyotes in this state than there are livestock so who would receive the greatest "collateral benefit" from this policy that was being lobbied for???? )*

You see it wasn't the hunters lobbying for this. Generally hunters understand that the coyote is a natural part of the ecosystem. Please don't come on here and pretend to give a crap about anyone non ag related especially hunters. Your past has proven you see them as a cash cow and a personal burden.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> swift, the medical "profession" was merely being used as an example regarding the claims you made. I can understand given these claims where you would not want to delve into discussing your "profession" and it's concern over "collateral damage" on others regarding the lobbying it does.


Another patented GST twist of what was written. In fact I said...


> If you would like to talk about healthcare lets start another topic. I will do my best to explain how it works.


It doesn't sound like I don't want to delve into discussing my profession does it. No, just your way of twisting what is written to serve your purpose.

What is the percentage of ELECTED officials that are engaged in Agriculture in some way shape or form? I may be wrong but I'd bet it is high. Isn't it convienent to elect those with the same opinions and goals? How much money is spent by the NDSA, NDFU and NDFB on campaigning? Seems quite a bit like good ole fashion Chicago politics to me.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

After reading all this i think i want to eat some of the poison oats that the geese did.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Bad Dog wrote,



> Interesting how these discussions seem to always diverge into other arenas. Forgive me as I am going to make generalities here. Why is it that in ND there is this tension between the ag and wildlife sectors? It's not so much elsewhere? I may be able to understand it between the crop producers and the wildlifers but why is there this same tension between the ranching community and the wildlife community? Seems to me, they both have the same goals? Work with the land, not against it.
> 
> How can we, these two groups, end up working together to preserve the ranching way of life and in doing so protect the habitat that wildlife needs? I have struggled to find a way to bring these two groups together but there is a lot of distrust. Are the posts on this site from the extremes on both ends?
> 
> I am looking for those that want to truely work together for a solution that benefits both.


I belong to the United Sportsmen of ND, some local sportsmens groups and what is posted here is not the general concensus or a crosssection of what ND is thinking. I also belong to some farm orgs and I like to relay to them what the extremists on this site are bellyaching about. It's good for a chuckle. As far as the two groups you speak of, farming and ranching is quite large and respected. The real sportsmen of ND just wish this small group of Wilma Whiners would dry up.

No amount of money, no amount of concessions or compromises made to them would make them happy. They don't represent anybody so don't worry about it.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> How can we, these two groups, end up working together to preserve the ranching way of life and in doing so protect the habitat that wildlife needs? I have struggled to find a way to bring these two groups together but there is a lot of distrust. Are the posts on this site from the extremes on both ends?


Yes they are from the extremes on both ends. Our rancher buddy has pushed his extreme agenda from the beginning. He has pushed an easy going, willing to help anyone at anytime guy to the other side. Still if GST"s barn burned and I was in the area I'd be the first to grab a bucket and throw water. I'm not so sure he wouldn't charge access to the bonfire though.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

swift wrote,



> What is the percentage of ELECTED officials that are engaged in Agriculture in some way shape or form? I may be wrong but I'd bet it is high. Isn't it convienent to elect those with the same opinions and goals? How much money is spent by the NDSA, NDFU and NDFB on campaigning? Seems quite a bit like good ole fashion Chicago politics to me


Sometimes things on the surface are not what they appear. Do you know where former Sen. Byron Dorgan got the funding for his first campaign? He got it from Ducks Unlimited. His first item of business, kill the Garrison Diversion. We are going to miss him like Blagojevich.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I will simply set the record straight regarding the bounty bill. This bill failed as it was presented to the legislature as it should have. It was a waste of money that would have accomplished little. The bill as written did not receive support from the org swift mentions. They supported the concept of working with systems in place such as wildlife services to more effectively control a growing problem. They lobbied for a much different version of this bill. I publically voiced my opposition to the bill as it was written on another outdoor site as well as with legislators at the time the debate was being held in the legislature on this particular bill. In the end the lobbying efforts to change this to a workable program failed and the bill was presented as originally written and failed as it should have.

And in regards to the deer depredation and control bill, the G&F in fact was present and did testify in support of this bill with only one minor concern over wording regarding ones day in court. The proactive efforts between the livestock industry and the G&F resulted in a workable program that both parties beleive would be beneficial.



swift said:


> Why didn't they pass if they had so much support? Could it be the ranchers wanted to control the depredation season themselves? They wanted to hold the cards as to who and when the deer could be shot? The NDGF was not in support of that little tidbit were they


This statement by swift simply is not true.

All I am asking for is for people to try and refrain from making untrue statements regarding agriculture and the people involved in it. If people wish to have a burr under their saddle over someone they have never met and know nothing about that is certainly their choice.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

You say it isn't true and I say it is. My sources tell me your wrong like you are above on several occasions. My sources are credible game and fish game wardens. Why didn't it pass? You claim everybody would benefit and everyone supported it. But the legislature voted it down? Seems to be more to the story than your letting on.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> You say it isn't true and I say it is. My sources tell me your wrong like you are above on several occasions. My sources are credible game and fish game wardens. Why didn't it pass? You claim everybody would benefit and everyone supported it. But the legislature voted it down? Seems to be more to the story than your letting on.





swift said:


> Why didn't they pass if they had so much support? Could it be the ranchers wanted to control the depredation season themselves? They wanted to hold the cards as to who and when the deer could be shot? The NDGF was not in support of that little tidbit were they?


swift, simply go to the ND legislature website and find the testimony given on SB2227 you will find the G&F testimony. Then check out the link below. It provides the bill as written after much discssion amoungst those involved giving an insight into who controls what and the votes as it passed both houses unanimously.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-201 ... -06000.pdf

Perhaps you should read the text of the bill to see exactly what these orgs you claim have no consideration of "collateral damage" lobbied for and accomplished with the G&F as possibly a workable solution to a significant problem.

All I am asking is that people do not make claims regarding agriculture, agriculture producers, and the groups that represent them that are not true.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> A landowner dissatisfied with a decision of the director under this subsection may
> submit the decision to the agricultural mediation service for mandatory mediation. A decision
> of an agricultural mediation service negotiator is subject to review by the credit review board. A
> decision of the credit review board under this subsection is final.


Maybe this is the part that was taken by my sources as landowners wanting the control.

It's cute how you point out the cooperation between you and the G&F but forget to tell us if G&F director diagrees you want to override the decision through an Agriculture mediation service. I know lets have the NDWF be the mediators for those that disagree with the director.



> *The Board was created to provide assistance to financially distressed farmers.* The Credit Review Board's purpose is to administer the monies of the Home Quarter Fund in a manner consistent with the law and policy governing, and established by, the Credit Review Board; to formulate policy for the North Dakota Agricultural Mediation Service and to make recommendations to the Industrial Commission regarding the farm loan programs at the Bank of North Dakota. The Credit Review Board agrees to serve in an advisory capacity for the ND Adult Farm Management Program. The membership must include: two members with experience as a director of a financial institution (one appointed by the governor, one by the attorney general); four members with experience in farming operations (one appointed by the governor; one appointed by the attorney general; and two are appointed by the commissioner of agriculture). No member of the board may hold state office or serve in state office or serve in state government in any capacity at any time of appointment or during service on the Board.


I love it.... GST touts We work with the Game and Fish to bring a mutually beneficial law forward. But we throw in that no matter what the Game and Fish director says we still have our own people have the ability to override the directors decision.

Wait it gets even better....


> Making available the sum of one hundred thousand dollars from each biennial game and
> fish department appropriation to be used for *food plots on private property *for the
> purpose of providing winter feed. T*hese food plots are not subject to public access*considerations.


Another huge thank you to the sportsman that fund the G&F through licenses. Hunters will pay for my food plots to attract the deer all fall where hunters cannot get to them. Then we ranchers will use the ag mediation service and the credit review board to allow us to shoot those deer during the winter.

It is no wonder GST why you didn't answer the question "WHY DIDN'T THIS BILL PASS?"


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift wrote: quote["It is no wonder GST why you didn't answer the question "WHY DIDN'T THIS BILL PASS?"] end quote

swift, please look at the votes on SB2227 I provided on page 3 in the link above, it appears as it passed both houses unanimously and is waiting to be signed into law by the Govenor.

:-? I give up you win.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bad dog, if you are wondering why some sort of a rift exists, read the bill in the link provided entirely and see what cooperative efforts to deal with a serious issue where made in the creation of this bill, then read swifts response to these cooperative efforts between the livestock industry and the states G&F.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst's definition of cooperation is only when someone agrees with him. :rollin:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

This certifies that the within bill originated in the Senate of the Sixty-second Legislative Assembly of
North Dakota and is known on the records of that body as Senate Bill No. 2227 and that two-thirds of
the members-elect of the Senate voted in favor of said law.
Vote: Yeas 47 Nays 0 Absent 0
____________________________ ____________________________
President of the Senate Secretary of the Senate
This certifies that two-thirds of the members-elect of the House of Representatives voted in favor of
said law.
Vote: Yeas 94 Nays 0 Absent 0

This bill received a fair bit of attention this session. Given the fact not one single ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE of the people of the state of ND in the legislative body voted against this bill in it;s fianl version, perhaps being better informed as to the full content of this bill and what went into writing it than some on here or likely just less personally biased, they recognized it as a cooperative effort that hopefully will benefit everyone involved.

Contrary to swifts claim, ranchers can not just shoot the deer in these depredation hunts. The reduction must be done by antlerless license holders. Meaning if the rancher wishes to address the problem they have opportunities will be given to the public to shoot these deer.

If you charge access or guide (Commercial hunting operations)and have a majority of your land posted, you will not qualify for assistance from the G&F in regards to depredation issues.

Before any depredation hunts can occur "site specific" management plans must be in place.

Provisions to lease private lands for developement of wildlife habitat which must remain open to public access.

The ability to go thru two separate mediation processes was a compromise to do away with wording that was legally grey in the original bill dealing with having their day in court that the G&F beleived could possibily allow for individuals who shot deer as a result of depredation to possibly be aquitted as a result of defending their properties. This was also addressed in the legal wording regarding all the things one can not do shoot, chase harass, ect... included in this bill specifically that will prevent this from happening. (And before the accusation is made, NO the NDSA had NO involvement in the writing of the original bill.)

I do not intend to get into a debate regarding this bill, rather simply share other aspects of it that for some reason were never mentioned.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> If you charge access or guide (Commercial hunting operations)and have a majority of your land posted, you will not qualify for assistance from the G&F in regards to depredation issues.





> This is a blatant LIE.


 The truth is...


> A landowner who allows commercial hunting for *big
> game *on a majority of acres owned and operated in exchange for compensation and who posts a
> majority of the acres owned and operated by that person to prohibit big game hunting is *not eligible to
> participate in the deerproof hay yard program.* The department shall establish a *prorated repayment
> system over a three-year period*.


another fact:


> Making available the sum of one hundred thousand dollars from each biennial game and
> fish department appropriation to be used for food plots on private property for the
> purpose of providing winter feed. *These food plots are not subject to public access
> considerations.[/*quote]
> ...


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-201 ... -06000.pdf

Once again here is the link to the bill that passed both houses of the legislature UNANIMOUSLY. If people are interested they can read it for themselves and take from it what they will.


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

> bad dog, if you are wondering why some sort of a rift exists, read the bill in the link provided entirely and see what cooperative efforts to deal with a serious issue where made in the creation of this bill, then read swifts response to these cooperative efforts between the livestock industry and the states G&F.


gst, I too have let my emotions get the best of me at times and have said something or acted in a way that I probably shouldn't have. From past post I am lead to believe that you have cattle, if I am not mistaken. If you do and you range them, I presume that you value your grasslands and want to maintain them. I currently do not have cattle but I too value your grasslands and I want to do what I can to give you want you need to also maintain them. Seems like we have a common goal. So let's figure it out and find a way to where I can help you maintain your grasslands. Now, we both understand that there will be ideas that you have that I may not want to pursue and there will be ideas that I have that you will not want to pursue. With that said, we still need to find a solution and failure is not an option in my book.

In 2012 there will be just shy of 1,000,000 acres of CRP in ND that will be up for expiration. I have had some landowners with these expiring CRP contracts contact me wishing they could keep it in grass. How can you and I hook these landowners up with ranchers to graze it and keep it in grass?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bad dog pm sent.


----------



## jaimfedrer (May 4, 2011)

As it stands now the areas with the geese, mainly the eastern quarter of the state and the Missouri river corridor have access to hunters blocked by pay to hunt grounds and leases to waterfowl clubs.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Around pierre there are more giudes and stuff like that but over east there is no problem getting on land if you just go ask. What are the name of the waterfowl clubs over east that have the land leased i have not lived there since 02. I know just working around waubay that i have had the been offered more places to hunt than i could in a year.


----------



## jpallen14 (Nov 28, 2005)

I lived in Florence, SD for several years in mid and late 00' land permission is a problem. I still hunt in the area often it is the same every year. How many times do I need to say it? Unless you only hunt a handfull of places you would not understand. Several large landowners in the Day/Clark Co. areas lease their ground out. I can think of several outfitter/guides in the area also.


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

KurtR said:


> Around pierre there are more giudes and stuff like that but over east there is no problem getting on land if you just go ask. What are the name of the waterfowl clubs over east that have the land leased i have not lived there since 02. I know just working around waubay that i have had the been offered more places to hunt than i could in a year.


And yet you still don't understand. I could go ask plenty of farmers to hunt that have no birds on their land and they probably wouldn't care. Many hunters that hunt a lot and that are going after the best fields don't even bother to ask on sub par fields. With gas the way it is, I am selective on what I hunt. Not that I need to kill a lot of birds to consider it a good hunt, but it sure helps.

With folks that are true freelancers and do not stick to one area, we ask a ton of farmers every year to hunt. And it is my experience, along with tons of my hunting buddies, that hunting access is many times (60-70%) a no-go. Let me state that this is for early goose and the remainder of the year is much better.

Also, since you haven't lived here for 9 years, you are speaking of a much different time. Leasing is occuring, whether it be small farmers or giant landowners, on a scary level.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

I have not lived there for 9 years but my parents and whole family still live there and i had no problem getting land to hunt last year from people who i have never asked before so i am speaking of now. I guess the five of us that got limits 4 times during the early season must just be good if i am geting permision on sub par fields. If you want to see access problems should have been around when you could shoot 1 goose a year then they were guarded like fort knox. It is nice having the relationship with the land owners i call ask any geese in field X they say yes i say thanks for saving me time and gas. Send them a nice bottle of whiskey for xmas throw a few bales in the summer.

Also, I would be willing to bet I put on more miles scouting per week than many put on in a full year, so I have plenty of cases to judge from

That is what you put on an earlier post and with that i would say you are putting the miles on in the wrong direction. Have you ever got north and west of watertown?


----------



## mntwinsfan (Oct 8, 2010)

KurtR said:


> I have not lived there for 9 years but my parents and whole family still live there and i had no problem getting land to hunt last year from people who i have never asked before so i am speaking of now. I guess the five of us that got limits 4 times during the early season must just be good if i am geting permision on sub par fields. If you want to see access problems should have been around when you could shoot 1 goose a year then they were guarded like fort knox. It is nice having the relationship with the land owners i call ask any geese in field X they say yes i say thanks for saving me time and gas. Send them a nice bottle of whiskey for xmas throw a few bales in the summer.
> 
> Also, I would be willing to bet I put on more miles scouting per week than many put on in a full year, so I have plenty of cases to judge from
> 
> That is what you put on an earlier post and with that i would say you are putting the miles on in the wrong direction. Have you ever got north and west of watertown?


Ok, let me put it this way. How many days did you hunt combined for Canada geese last August and September? Like I mentioned in my earlier post, going north and west of Watertown is nearly an hour+ to just get there. Thats not feasible for me. I am forced to scout around Brookings (N,S,E,W) I never said that all areas have a ton of pressure. But the general point I have made is that access is difficult for the folks that don't have friends and family living in an area. I know you said that you asked some landowners that you don't know, but you may have just gotten lucky.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

I will have to go check my log book but i hunted 5 days around the watertown area then spent the remaninder of early season around mobridge and did all the rest of the season from mobridge to pierre. All in all i would guess 50 plus days through the whole season deer hunting cuts into it as i hit that pretty hard east and west river season but did give up one morning to hunt geese over west that i found while deer hunting but not to much time as 4 of us were done before the actuall sunrise dont think those geese had ever seen a deke. Brookings is horible for trying to compare access to rest of state 1st alot of farmers dont trsut college kids and there are a **** ton of people. Maybe cut the scouting miles back and make fewer trips but go to more productive areas. With all this water waterfowl are going to be like mosquitos this year. At least you have 70 gegree weather to look forward to always some nice scenery walking around campus in the spring thats what i would be scouting right about now if i was still there :beer: if you are of age


----------

