# ND Versus Audubon Society



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://kxnet.com/custom404.asp?404;http ... 577187.asp

The ND lawsuit against the Audubon Society is still proceeding, requesting divestiture of their land purchased in Stutsman County.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

I believe Genevieve Thompson is vice-president of the N.D. Audubon Society. I believe she is also on the board of the Natural Resources Trust. Dick, how much land is enough for these federals?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05 ... latestnews


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Don't know much about this precise issue but the attitude of the fed burro-crats in the fox news article is sickening.Who the hell do they think they work for?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

DG,
Who would be a better steward of this land? The Audubon Society or someone else?
Jim


----------



## conservationmaven (Oct 22, 2010)

Any news on how/if this was resolved?

Seems like this wasn't the intent of an anti-corporate farming law.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

haven't heard anything yet. These actions always move slowly.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I don't understand why they just don't leave it how it is. It's not hurting anyone. :roll:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Audubon Society won their case. Slowly ND's prohibition against NGO ownership slips away.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick wrote,



> Audubon Society won their case.


Can't find the story. Dick, you're going to have to post it.



> Slowly ND's prohibition against NGO ownership slips away.


North Dakotas anti-corporate farming law is going to be challenged by non-profits soon enough. "For profit."

Ducks Unlimited is one of the orgs leading the charge. And why not? They used to be the 7th largest agricultural subsidy recipient.

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?cu ... =000500754

Also, after the purchase is made from a "willing seller" "wink wink" they hang on to it for a few years and then resell it to the fed/gov for a large profit.

Let's keep private lands in private hands!!!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I have seen no published story, just an inside source, that ND folded the case because of fear of losing and thus setting legal precedent, which would negate the illegal ND law now in place. (Easy to see the Audubon signs are in place on their property.) The same "law" that has consistently been overturned in other states where it has been challenged. :beer: And that is a win for everybody.

Makes one wonder how the ND vs Jim Cook scenario is going?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> which would negate the illegal ND law now in place.


Dick, show me where it is illegal?



> same "law" that has consistently been overturned in other states where it has been challenged. And that is a win for everybody.


I know of only one state, that being Nebraska, where the anti-corporate farming law was over turned. Large corporate hog and dairy farms taking over now. Hardly a win.

The anti-corporate farming law in ND applies equally to factory farms and non=profits. Neither orgs are good for the state, the people or the land. We the people (the little guy) veiw land as that which we control the economic potential and the means of production.

I would suppose an argument can be made that our children will be richer with more lands set aside and places to recreate. An equal argument can be made that our children will be poorer with less land to build their homes, businesses and livelyhoods. Once real property is acquired by a non-profit or the fed/gov, that's it. It's gone forever.

In Nevada the fed/gov owns something like 85% of the land area. Is it great? They have more land disputes than most.

Let's keep private lands in private hands.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In Nevada the fed/gov owns something like 85% of the land area. Is it great?


Yes it is great. Much of the area your talking about it would take 100 acres to feed one cow. Do you think you can make a living on that land? The way it is there is some wildlife for sportsmen. You have to walk your behind off, but maybe in a week you will find an javelin or two. I have spent some time on the desert and enjoyed it a lot.

I see some asked how much land is enough for the federal. The Audubon Society is not federal it's private. Is there any reason they are less entitled to own land that agriculture?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Bioman, https://picasaweb.google.com/ctgilfoy/W ... 6350599986

July 4th 2009 said,



> This is beyond a slippery slope. Allowing any non-governmental organization the ability to influence policy and local land use decisions is an absolute disaster that will have numerous unintended consequences.
> 
> In Wyoming, the Audubon Society successfully implemented the 'core population area' concept via a greater sage-grouse working group (http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife ... /index.asp). The core area concept was subsequently issued by proclamation of Governor Freudenthal via Executive Order (EO) in 2008. It was an extremely bad policy that was not fully vetted. More importantly, the EO was supposed to recognize existing rights and to have state agencies work colloboratively with private landowners.
> 
> ...


Dick and Plains, I'll let one of your own say it.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Read the facts. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments ... 000651.pdf.

The core area was designed and implemented by Wyoming Game and Fish Dept to put Wyoming in charge of sage grouse restoration otherwise the feds (USFWS) would have stepped in. Audubon had little to do with it other than be consulted along with every other group including hunters and ranchers.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport wrote,



> The core area was designed and implemented by Wyoming Game and Fish Dept to put Wyoming in charge of sage grouse restoration otherwise the feds (USFWS) would have stepped in.


The feds are already inside. They are inside these non-profits. Not sure how it works in Wyoming but here in North Dakota it goes like this.

The contact person for Dakota Prarie Audubon Society is one Lawrence D. Igl:

http://dk.audubon.org/chapters/dakota-p ... on-society

Who is Lawrence D. Igl? Well, he works at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (USGS) in Jamestown as a research ecologist. Or Larry D. Igl.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/staff.html



> Audubon had little to do with it other than be consulted along with every other group including hunters and ranchers.


Like I said, Not sure how it works in Wyoming but here in North Dakota all or most of our non-profits such as Audubon or wildlife federation or wildlife society are top heavy with fed/gov persons.

Tom, I believe you know what I'm getting at. You used to work with Lawrence (Larry) D. Igl at the Northern Plains Research Center. He went to the non-profit Audubon and you went to the non-profit wildlife federation. Are you still director number number 5? And what does your position as auditer at the wildlife society entail?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Tom, I believe you know what I'm getting at.


It's a shame you don't know what your talking about. If you look at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation you will find people interested in elk. Since the feds don't do much with that there is a good chance it will be either a sportsmen or a state biologist affiliated with that organization. Igl isn't affiliated with the Audubon Society because he is a fed, he is affiliated with them because the number one thing with him is birds. Simple as that. You will find that all the work these guys do with private organizations is on their own time. They don't get to work on these things during their normal work day.

You better look inside your North Dakota Farm Bureau. You have to be a member to purchase their auto insurance. I think the feds are inside and running NDFB. Makes sense to you right?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Shaug, I merely pointed out that the article you reference is false. The article you posted said "In Wyoming, the Audubon Society successfully implemented the 'core population area' concept via a greater sage-grouse working group (http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife ... /index.asp)." is false and I provided the actual proclamation by the governor of Wyoming that refuted the article, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport said:


> Shaug, I merely pointed out that the article you reference is false. The article you posted said "In Wyoming, the Audubon Society successfully implemented the 'core population area' concept via a greater sage-grouse working group (http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife ... /index.asp)." is false and I provided the actual proclamation by the governor of Wyoming that refuted the article, nothing more, nothing less.


Tom, I didn't post the article, bioman did. I merely quoted him. Bioman or Ryan, worked at the time for a wind energy company in Wyoming. Maybe his job (his livelyhood) was more important to him then the greater sage grouse?

Plains, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is a trust. They often prefer not to own the land because they recognize that managing it is costly. They resell at a profit, acquired habitat or "protected land" to a state or federal agency that will be responsible for its management. Without question, land trusts promote an increase in the federal estate. The taxpayers pick up the tab to manage it.

I would suppose the Dakota Audubon Society would like to be able to purchase real property in North Dakota so that they can get in on the feeding frenzy too.

This article below is from the late nineties, but it shows the timeline to now.

Land Trusts or Land Agents?

Celebrated by market enthusiasts and conservationists alike, land trusts have become the instrument of choice across the nation for conserving farmland, sensitive habitat, and open space. Recently, however, free market environmentalists have been raising a few questions about them.

For years, friends of the market such as PERC associates have cheered trusts because of the way they go about achieving their mission: Trusts rely on voluntary transactions and respect private property rights. They buy land and purchase or receive voluntary donations of land and conservation easements. (See p. 12 for an example of the sophisticated management typical of the Nature Conservancy, the nation's largest land trust.)

Conservationists, whether market-oriented or not, applaud the mission of protecting land from development and other disturbance. Some 17 million acres of U.S. land is now controlled by land trusts.(1) That's a lot of habitat, farmland, and open space, an amount close to the size of South Carolina.

Land trusts have been growing dramatically. Prior to 1950 there were fewer than 40 land trusts in the United States. There are now more than 1200 land trusts operating across the 50 states and U.S. territories (Land Trust Alliance 1999).

Small local trusts are found in every state, led by Massachusetts with 137, followed by California with 119 and Connecticut with 113. The local trusts control some four million acres of land. The 14 larger national land trusts control 13 million acres of U.S. land. Indeed, the Nature Conservancy alone claims to have protected 10.5 million acres since its founding in 1953 (Nature Conservancy 1999).

Notice the word "control." Of the 4.7 million acres protected by local and regional trusts, only 17 percent is owned in fee simple. Some 30 percent is controlled by way of conservation easements, and the rest, about 50 percent, is transferred to government or controlled by other means such as through the ownership of mineral rights (Land Trust Alliance 1999).

The breakdown appears to be different for the large national land trusts. Nine of the 14 national trusts provide land management data. They indicate fee simple ownership of just one percent of the land they "control." Some 20 percent is transferred to government, and the remainder is managed by way of conservation easements, deed restrictions, and mineral right ownership (Land Trust Alliance 1998, 197Ð99).

The growth of land trusts raises three issues that environmentalists and conservationists would do well to consider.

First, land trusts don't always retain the right to divest ownership. Yet this is a key characteristic of private property rights. If land parcels can be transferred, they can be traded and assembled to better achieve environmental objectives. When they are able to do so, land trusts willingly sell or trade land that has been donated to them so that they can acquire more sensitive habitat.

For example, some years ago the Nature Conservancy surprised some observers by selling beachfront property that it had received as a gift. The beachfront land in the Virgin Islands was degraded and damaged and did not have any endangered animals or plants. The conservancy, whose mission was to protect endangered species, traded the beachfront property for Wisconsin land that provided nesting habitat for the hooded warbler, a rare Neotropical migrant bird.(2)

When land is set aside through easements and other agreements rather than through direct ownership, this freedom to divest is lost. Some of the traditional incentives of private property rights weaken. Conservation easements or land donated as a perpetuity freeze the present use of land into the limitless future.

Over time, both the environment and the desires and locations of human populations can change, turning a perpetuity into a millstone. Perhaps it would be wise for donors to require that court-supervised environmental reviews be made every one hundred years with an allowance for selling land that no longer satisfies the donor's intent.

A second issue is the transfer of land from private ownership to government. The federal government's track record for managing land is not a stellar one. To select a few examples: Yellowstone's outmoded sewer system spews sewage into native trout streams and prehistoric dwellings in Mesa Verde National Park are disintegrating from a buildup of oils and airborne particles (Fretwell 1999, 3). And according to a General Accounting Office (1999, 22) report, 39 million acres of national forests are in danger of going up in flames due to poor management.

Managing land properly costs money. When additional land is transferred to governmental bodies, public funds for land management must be stretched even farther.

The issue is incentives, not the character or commitment of government agents. Generally speaking, government managers and the units they manage do not reap rewards for managing resources effectively. Nor are they systematically punished when bad decisions are made.

A third problem to consider is that land trusts are making many large purchases using taxpayer money. Evidence comes from the Interior Department. Between 1985 and 1991, the Department of the Interior made 317 land purchases of land from conservation organizations. These cost $222.6 million in taxpayer funds. In some cases, the department reported, the land was sold to the government at prices that exceeded fair market value (U.S. Department of the Interior 1992, 3).

Such taxpayer-financed purchases cloud the widely held image of trust managers accepting and managing donated land or buying it with funds contributed by dedicated land trust members. It did not sit well with a member of the Nature Conservancy who wrote a letter to the editor of the conservancy's magazine (the November/December 1999 issue).

The reader fumed about the conservancy's purchase of 45,000 acres of Florida land using $133.5 million in federal funds: "If the federal government is paying for the Conservancy's purchases, then you do not need my membership pittance!" wrote Osman Latif. "An explanation would be appreciated."

The letter generated two explanations within the same issue of the magazine. The magazine's editor responded that donations from individuals "comprise the greatest and most valued source of funding for our work; nevertheless, when an opportunity arises to accomplish our conservation goals with funding from outside sources, we think our members would want us to take full advantage of the opportunity."

In his column, John Sawhill, president of the conservancy, implied an even more expansive role for government funds and government ownership. He noted that the Nature Conservancy "has a long record of working with federal, state and local public agencies to protect ecologically important land and waters," and added that "stewards from the Nature Conservancy collaborate with government officials to promote conservation on all types of public land holdings" (Sawhill 1999, 5). This description differs from the usual concept of a land trust.

For the most part, there is little journalistic scrutiny of how organizations such as the Nature Conservancy operate. However, land trust collaboration with government was described in a series of 1991 columns by the late Warren Brookes, editorial page writer for the Detroit News. For example, Brookes discussed (January 23) a provision that had been added to the Interior Department appropriation bill for fiscal 1988. It required Diamond International Paper Company to sell a 53,000-acre New Hampshire holding to the Nature Conservancy or the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; if it did not, its land would be purchased by the U.S. Forest Service for $5.25 million. This, Brookes commented, was a fraction of its actual value.

It appears that these two trusts were obtaining help from the federal government. All they had to do was to offer something more attractive than the price demanded by the Forest Service to get a deal. (The conservation group could offer a tax benefit if the land was sold at a loss and in turn gain a "profit" when the land was resold to the government.)

Today, the federal government is dangling before environmental organizations enormous sums of money that can be used to control land use. For example, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century provides some $630 million for transportation enhancements, which include greenways, bike trails, and open space easements. Millions in matching funds have emerged for the acquisition of wetlands. And billions are being proposed to enrich the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a plan that has received support from Republicans as well as Democrats.

A typical example of the close relationship between government and private organizations was the Forest Service's 1999 purchase of acreage near Yellowstone National Park. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation acted as a facilitator as the Forest Service negotiated the purchase of land from a religious organization, to the tune of about $13 million. The elk foundation, along with the Forest Service, holds a right of first refusal to assist the federal government in acquiring additional land (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 1999a and 1999b).

Such programs encourage land trusts to serve as government land agents, often quite profitably. If land trusts continue to respond to this temptation, land conservation will become ever more political. The splendid conservation incentive that comes with bearing costs and earning benefits will be compromised. History teaches us that market incentives for conservation are strongest when individuals pay market prices and receive market rewards. They are weakest when government agents spend someone else's money and get no reward for good management.

Free market environmentalism is about harnessing property rights and markets for the purpose of managing environmental resources. Beneficial outcomes depend on getting the incentives right and keeping them right.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There are many hunters and other outdoor people in North Dakota, but little public land compared to other states. Trusts purchasing land and turning it over to our Game and Fish doesn't work as well as some states because our ag oriented legislature can't keep their paws off it. Look at the attempted land grab this year where they want land below Bismarck and Mallard Island turned back to original owners. It's to bad that these days their is no shame anymore. It's been destroyed by political correctness and tolerance. People tolerate groups like the NDFB constantly cutting the throat of sportsmen.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,

There are more then a few fed/gov employees on this web-forum

There are more then a few who have joined a non-profit

There has been more than a few hundred thousand dollars thrown about here in North Dakota towards activism

Permit me to put the whole affair into a nutshell

http://www.undueinfluence.com/Battered% ... nities.pdf

HOW WEALTHY PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS,

GRANT-DRIVEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS,

AND ACTIVIST FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMBINE TO

SYSTEMATICALLY CRIPPLE RURAL ECONOMIES

A REPORT BY
THE CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF
FREE ENTERPRISE


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug your conspiracy theories are not that different than a fellow called AidanK who was on here and telling us all of our problems were the Jews. He thought Hitler was a real nice guy. Your conspiracy theories are just as wild. You can find things on the webs demonizing anyone you want, or making heroes of anyone you want. Rest assured these foundations don't have 1% of the resources agriculture does. You guys are the giants when it comes to money and political clout. I wish you were satisfied with the lions share rather than thinking you have to have it all.

If two people come into an agriculture area with ten million dollars to spend who has more right to the land buyer A, or buyer B?


----------



## fieldgeneral (Feb 12, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Shaug your conspiracy theories are not that different than a fellow called AidanK who was on here and telling us all of our problems were the Jews. He thought Hitler was a real nice guy. Your conspiracy theories are just as wild. You can find things on the webs demonizing anyone you want, or making heroes of anyone you want. Rest assured these foundations don't have 1% of the resources agriculture does. You guys are the giants when it comes to money and political clout. I wish you were satisfied with the lions share rather than thinking you have to have it all.
> 
> If two people come into an agriculture area with ten million dollars to spend who has more right to the land buyer A, or buyer B?


Very good point Plainsman.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> If two people come into an agriculture area with ten million dollars to spend who has more right to the land buyer A, or buyer B?


What you just wrote is misleading. The real question pertaining to this thread is, if one person and one corporation come into an agricultural area with ten million dollars to spend who has more right to the land, buyer (A) farmer jones or buyer (B) corporoate Tyson Chicken or even an incorporated non-profit? Corporations are not people Bruce.



> You guys are the giants when it comes to money and political clout. I wish you were satisfied with the lions share rather than thinking you have to have it all.


We the people view real property as that which we control the economic activity and the means of production. No conspiracy here.

Note to Bruce, when you try to make the Hitler comparison, you damage your credibility.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Note to Bruce, when you try to make the Hitler comparison, you damage your credibility.


The point was not comparing Hitler to anyone, the point is conspiracy theories in general are not reliable.

Plainsman asked:


> If two people come into an agriculture area with ten million dollars to spend who has more right to the land buyer A, or buyer B?


Shaug responded:


> What you just wrote is misleading.


Nice try Shaug, but questions are not misleading. What is misleading is you adding your biased designations for A and B. You see without identification their is no difference between A and B. One must be biased towards one or the other to judge against one. What those questions brought out was your bias towards this subject.

So the question remains who has more right to purchase land buyer A with ten million dollars, or buyer B with ten million dollars.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> So the question remains who has more right to purchase land buyer A with ten million dollars, or buyer B with ten million dollars.


This thread is about the Audubon Society (an incorporated non-profit) wanting to purchase real property. There's your identification. The anti-corporate farming law says they cannot. It also says that large factory hog and chicken farms cannot.

Which part don't you like?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plains wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, this is something I have always struggled with. I have always wanted farms to stay family units and continue as I enjoyed our family farm. I think corporations could destroy that. I think the door got opened when families incorporated. If they can do it why can't others? 
The other thing that has changed is farmers, hunters and most people have always cooperated. Nowadays farmers look at our wallet and don't see individuals. Some of us older hunters and older farmers still have that close relationship, but the young farmers have little respect. I guess the same could be said of some of the younger hunters, but which came first the farmer or the hunter with less respect? I don't know. However, I sure don't feel the same loyalty that I did twenty years ago. 
So the question has not really been answered. Who has more right to purchase land, buyer A with ten million dollars, or buyer B with ten million dollars. When you attach no name it's clear neither has more right than the other. Both are American citizens. Who has more right to purchase land. Do I have the right to purchase two acres for a house? How about 1000 acres? What's the difference? If the landowner should have the right to do as he wishes with his land is their a difference between wheat and wildlife? Why?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> Well, this is something I have always struggled with. I have always wanted farms to stay family units and continue as I enjoyed our family farm. I think corporations could destroy that.


Yep, tear apart the anti-corporate farming law and brace yourself for sow central to build a 20,000 head facility in your back yard.



> I think the door got opened when families incorporated.


Nope, there are rules.



> If they can do it why can't others?


Well Plains, you certainly have a dilema on your hands. You want in-corporated non-profits such as Audubon and Ducks Unlimited to be able to purchase real property but at the same time you want in-corporated sow central and big chicken to be excluded.

Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?


Nope.

Edit: I think anyone with the money has as much right as anyone else. I wish that was not true. However, how can we discriminate under the constitution. Are some people more equal than others? Your right, it is a can of worms. I think the can will get opened further if it goes to federal court. If I was a farmer I would keep my mouth shut, let Audubon purchase land if they like, and hope the big corporations don't notice. Fighting will be like fighting in quicksand. The more we struggle the deeper we go.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> If I was a farmer I would keep my mouth shut, let Audubon purchase land if they like, and hope the big corporations don't notice.


That is by far, yet the dumbest thing you have said on this dying web-forum. Bruce, you complain that the politicians cannot be trusted and they are bought. This is one if those that doesn't have an easy solution. Your comment above is no solution at all. I don't think you have any idea how things work.

Write a Bill and take it to your legislator. You tell your Representative that you want your favorite in-corporated non-profits exempted from the Anti-corporate Farming Law so they "can" purchase real property but still want the Anti-Corporate Farming Law to apply to other Corporations such as JBS Meats from Brazil so that they "cannot."

If you can get enough people to flood the Hearings and persuade the legislature to pass it then it still has to stand up to a challenge in the courts. It's a double standard, it won't.

Dick Monson has made his opinion known about the Jim Cook scenerio. I'm sure you guys are prepared to give away the farm to big chicken and sow central just so that your favorite non-profit can purchase land.

If the anti-corporate farming law is dimantled in ND then here is the way I think it will play out. Cargil, ConAgra Tyson and companies will come in and scout for land. They will not set up in the Red River Valley. They will not build in the oil field or western ND. They will need to be close to metro areas for workers and housing. Downtown Valley City and Jamestown look a little run down and could use some economic development. There is plenty of agricultural land around there to knife into the soil all the chicken litter and dairy cow manure.

If the people in these two cities do not like this kind of labor then south of the border workers could be brought in. They might even improve the gene pool. :rollin:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

shaug the continued challenge to any land going into conservation is the driving factor in this law being ruled unconstitutional. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

If the parties who continually vote NO as a directive regardless of merit, they need to stop whining about a web site and start looking in a mirror.

Simple question the court will be asked does a person have the right to sell his or her land to the highest bidder? State says NO, and any court outside of ND will say YES!

There is not a single active farmer or prospective farmer that is going to benefit by the stance of saying NO almost all the time to these types of purchases. Increased competition when the law is gutted means higher costs. Who is going to benefit? People looking to sell their land. So I guess maybe the membership of retired landowners are looking out for themselves.

So instead of harping on non issues like your conspiracy theory, explain why other states either changed their law or had them challenged and lost and if ND law was so solid why didn't other states simply adopt it word for word? 
I am not for the law going away, you can look back at old posts of mine in that regard. I have always said though that the continued denial of conservation acre purchases would lead to the law being overturned and open the door to Cargill and the like! But you instead want to blame the wrong people for this, instead of taking a hard look at the actions that are causing it.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Hardwaterman wrote,



> So instead of harping on non issues like your conspiracy theory


My conspiracy theory? Answer me this, who is challenging the ND anti-corporate farming law??? Who, Ron who? Name them.

Ron wrote,



> I have always said though that the continued denial of conservation acre purchases would lead to the law being overturned and open the door to Cargill and the like!


Plains wrote:



> If I was a farmer I would keep my mouth shut, let Audubon purchase land if they like, and hope the big corporations don't notice.


Ron, is this your opinion also? Maybe Cargil won't notice?



> But you instead want to blame the wrong people for this, instead of taking a hard look at the actions that are causing it.


So what is that you want the leadership of ND to do, compromise? Compromise with whom? Name them.

I attended the last legislative seesion and witnessed all the foul play by the conseravtion boyz trying to get their schemes funded with taxpayer dollars. They wanted $100 million. They got $30 but will have to share. I hear they want to go again on another constitutional amendment try and want an even larger amount of taxpayer dollars. They want easements on Coteau prairie and grasslands. They want to purchase a bunch of land. They pretty much want to stifle any economic development in this state. And they want to direct the flow of oil revenues that currently go to the General Treasury into their coffers to do it.

Ron, you say look at the actions that are causing the turmoil. I have. Witnessed it at the legislature. Take a look at this recent story in the news:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/shocke ... y-service/

Ron, take a look at the comments. Everybody wants to debate about the NDSU football players. They missed the real story. Somebody should be going to court for this mess and it isn't the football players.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Your comment above is no solution at all.


That may be because I don't think there is a solution. Our law is unconstitutional, and not many biased laws stand today.



> Ron, take a look at the comments. Everybody wants to debate about the NDSU football players. They missed the real story. Somebody should be going to court for this mess and it isn't the football players.


Now there is the dumbest statement. Lets say your hired man goes to town and robs the bank. Your mentality says the law should come after you instead of the hired man. We all know your statement is simple vindictiveness trying to punish those who don't agree with you, or give you everything you want. There is no end to what you want.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> That may be because I don't think there is a solution. Our law is unconstitutional, and not many biased laws stand today.


Our Law is Unconstitutional...."Our" Law is Unconstitutional......Our Law is "Unconstitutional"........"Our law"....



> Now there is the dumbest statement. Lets say your hired man goes to town and robs the bank. Your mentality says the law should come after you instead of the hired man. We all know your statement is simple vindictiveness trying to punish those who don't agree with you, or give you everything you want. There is no end to what you want.


There should have been an investigation. Clue look here:

https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/pet ... -water.pdf

The Sponsors:

No. 1 Stephen Adair.......................Ducks Unlimited

No. 2 Franklin Larson....................

No. 3 Jeffrey Anderson..................Pheasants Forever

No. 4 Robert Seabloom.................Environmental Consultant

No. 5 Eric Bakke..............................

No. 6 Kim Christianson..................director Great Plains Energy Corridor

No. 7 Karen Kreil..............................ND Natural Resources Trust, Ducks Unlimited, Wildlife Society

No. 8 David Nix.................................North Dakota Tourism

No. 9 William Price...........................

No.10 Joseph Cichy........................

No.11 David Brandt.........................(USGS) Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Wildlife Society, ND Wildlife Federation President Stutsmans County Wildlife Federation

No.12 Susan Wefald........................former Public Service Commissioner

No.13 David Borlaug.......................Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center, former Chair of the Northern Plains Heritage Area

No.14 Terry Fleck............................ Life member of the ND Wildlife Federation, volunteer chairman ND Energy Forum, President of Friends of Lake Sakakawea

No.15 Thomas Hutchens...............Delta Waterfowl Chairman

No.16 Jesse Beckers......................Pheasants Forever

No.17 William Cornatzer................Peregrine Foundation, Dr. from Bismarck who did the study, warnings of lead in venison

No.18 David Lambeth.....................ND Birding Society or Birding Drives Dakota

No.19 Eric Rosenquist...................Cross Ranch Preserve Manager, the Nature Conservancy's first project in ND, Wildlife Society

No.20 Jennifer Kross......................Ducks Unlimited

No.21 Aaron Price............................

No.22 Clay Jenkinson....................

No.23 Jason Mitchell......................

No.24 Keith Trego...........................ND Natural Resources Trust, Wildlife Society, former Deputy Director NDG/F

No.25 Richard Monson..................Barnes County Wildlife Federation

No.26 William Bicknell....................employee of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wildlife Society

No.27 Erik Fritzell............................former employee USFWS, 1995 President elect of the US Wildlife Society, president of the Grand Forks chapter of the ND Wildlife Federation, member ND Chapter of the Wildlife Society

No.28 Paul Myerchin......................Ducks Unlimited, former president ND Chapter of the Wildlife Society

No.29 Charles Vasicek..................vice president ND Wildlife Federation, president Missouri Valley Shooting Sports Association

No.30 William Wagner....................Pheasants Forever

No.31 Genevieve Thompson........Ducks Unlimited, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug either lacks the mental ability to comprehend or is so self-serving he can't see how looney he is. Keep listing people's names as if they're the bad guys. We all understand that you are still against any conservation effort that doesn't line your pockets first.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot, is your real name one of the 31 listed as a sponsor of the failed constitutional amendment?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug said:


> Longshot, is your real name one of the 31 listed as a sponsor of the failed constitutional amendment?


Nope.

I'm busy enough with my kids's activities that it's difficult enough keeping up with what's going on let alone being involved at that level. But maybe someday down the road.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug this is 2013 and people are busy protecting our natural resources from people with 2013 technology and 1813 mentality. I doubt it will go back to no regulations like the NDFB wants. Your dream world is never going to happen. In other words they will not put those people you listed in front of a firing squad and return all public land to you and friends. Your attempt to link longshot to the list was pathetic.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> Shaug this is 2013 and people are busy protecting our natural resources from people with 2013 technology and 1813 mentality.


Shaug this is 2013 and enviros are busy protecting our natural resources from ignorant people with technology and 1813 mentality. Fixed it for you.



> I doubt it will go back to no regulations like the NDFB wants.


I don't believe NDFB ever said no regulations, however in the future let's not pass more regulations that kill the whole economy.



> In other words they will not put those people you listed in front of a firing squad and return all public land to you and friends.


We need transparency in government. There should have been an investigation. We don't use firing squads anymore because we are gentlemen. Not to worry too much for the sponsors of their con amendment above. In 1981 the wildlife society incorporated as a non-profit under ND law to protect its membership from retaliation and financial risk.



> Your attempt to link longshot to the list was pathetic.


Not all that long ago you tried to link all Farm Bureau members as posse comitatis. Who's more pathetic?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Shaug this is 2013 and enviros are busy protecting


Radicals, when they run our of reason, revert to calling conservationists enviros (environmentalists). I guess I think of anyone who wants to breath clean air and drink clean water is an enviro of sorts. That would make all of us enviros. However, there are those who only care about their clean air and water.



> I don't believe NDFB ever said no regulations


I think I remember Swift posting something from their webpage that said do away with agriculture regulations. I think I addressed you about that and said I was sure there were some I would agree with. I asked you to post a couple that we could support. You went off the deep end and asked me why I thought I was so important that my support meant anything. It's not that I think I am important it's that I think the support of each and every individual is important. \\

What I meant by 2013 and 1813 mentality is this. In 1813 and landowner who thought he had the right to do anything to his land only had horses to accomplish improvement or destruction. Today with huge tractors and equipment what one does on their land may affect 1000 people. What they do together can destroy another farm and homes. You just can't run rampant like wildmen anymore. The old west mentality of "leave your mark on the land son" is destructive today. The land has been marked enough, now we need to conserve for future generations.

Shaug I don't suppose you will think this is good advise, but I think it's time for you to set a good example for your children. In the not to distant future if they try to strong-arm people using their legislative buddies instead of being civilized society will turn on them and remove them from the land. Our population will only increase and likewise pollution will also. The spray everything, drain everything, screw your neighbor mentality will not be conducive to their success.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> In the not to distant future if they try to strong-arm people using their legislative buddies instead of being civilized society will turn on them and remove them from the land.


This isn't 1917 Russia, no matter how much you wish it to be so.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plains wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, I absolutely do not wish it, but I do predict it. If it happens the catalyst will be people with attitudes like yours. The only thing that will save this country is people coming to their senses. We need something between radical left Obama and your radical right dream of land baron royalty. The two of you would be like choosing cancer of the left lung or cancer of the right lung. Come to think of it Washington is sort of that way.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

One of the firefighting sites I frequent insists on keeping dialogue about the "what" not the "who".....it leads to better sharing of perspective and information even though folks may never come to agree on a position. I like that.

I was born on my grandfather's farm and spent most of my childhood there. So I understand the value of knowing the neighbors and some of the benefits of a family farm. I also believe that most farmers are independent enough to not want any level of government to tell them who they can sell their land to.

If the idea of the non-corporate farm law is to preserve the era of a local family running their farm, then I can understand the sentiment behind it. ND has some of the greatest people I've met in decades. In my area of the state, one need not lock doors to either homes or vehicles. Pulling off to the side of the road (to get a phone call) is certain to have someone stop to see if you need help. Walking down Main Street one is greeted with a "hello" or a nod; cursing young people will not be encountered. 
That said, I doubt the law will ultimately withstand challenge.

I also hear a concern about corporate mega-farms. Feedlots of 600 plus acres processing tens of thousands head of cattle, acres of poultry under roof` and the associated environmental problems are legitimate concerns. Why not legislation to ban those practices? Land use zoning laws are probably more sustainable than restrictions on who or what entity is entitled to purchase property.

I do have some experience in working with "trust" organizations who purchase lands for conservation and/or public use purposes.
Lands that are sold to a public agency are supposed to be paid "market value" based on current appraised value. Since that increases as varying rates, it is certainly possible for an organization to make a "profit". I have seen occasional lands acquired at costs well above appraised value, but it did so after special legislation directed the agency to pay an inflated price. These always appeared to be "sweetheart" deals and were made with corporations, not land-trust organizations.

Balancing protection of the environment with freedom from government intrusion is always going to be a tough act. 
How to best accomplish that will require continued discussion.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> We need something between radical left Obama and your radical right dream of land baron royalty.


Obama is with the fed/gov and the Audubon Society is challenging ND Law so they can acquire land and then flip some of it to the fed/gov. But I'm the one with a land baron mentality. How much fed.gov land is enough? We really do need to put a number on it.

oldfireguy wrote,



> I do have some experience in working with "trust" organizations who purchase lands for conservation and/or public use purposes.
> Lands that are sold to a public agency are supposed to be paid "market value" based on current appraised value. Since that increases as varying rates, it is certainly possible for an organization to make a "profit".


oldfireguy, could you please finish your statement about the non-profit selling land for a profit? Who did they sell it to????????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Obama is with the fed/gov and the Audubon Society is challenging ND Law so they can acquire land and then flip some of it to the fed/gov. But I'm the one with a land baron mentality. How much fed.gov land is enough? We really do need to put a number on it.


I can't give you a number, but since the recent poor attitude of some landowners it needs to be a lot more. Look at Devils Lake and the goose problem for example. The farmers wanted to get rid of geese, but they would not let anyone on that didn't pay them. They want support prices, that comes from taxpayers not government. They want to reduce goose numbers because they say there are to many. To me that looks like the resident hunters could have helped them, but they wanted non resident hunters because the non resident hunters are already brain washed into the pay to play mentality. So since these guys no longer support their local sportsmen I think it's time the local sportsmen stop supporting them. Demand a reduction in taxes for support prices and start giving money towards the purchase of land we can hunt. It's not all about hunting that makes me feel this way it's just a natural resistance to being crapped on. No one likes to be looked at as a sucker, and the North Dakota hunter is certainly being taken for one.

I liked the old symbiotic relationship rather than your proposed parasitic relationship shaug. Lets face it what your trying to do is keep the price of land and rental as cheap as possible and don't want the competition. If two guys show up with the money to purchase a thousand acres that's for sale what business is it of yours who the landowner sells to? Many landowners like the Mott area farmers don't want public land because they make such a haul off pheasant hunters. Again it's shaft the hunter. You have a real poor public relations system. If agriculture only looks at everyone's wallet and places no value on the individual why should we hold them in such high esteem? People respect those who respect them. It's a two way street. Don't blame the hunters, the ball is in your court. In recent years the landowner/hunter relationship has become about money. It's not the hunter destroying the relationship.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> Demand a reduction in taxes for support prices and start giving money towards the purchase of land we can hunt.


OK, so the state or the fed/gov or their surrogate non-profits purchase some land so that you have a place to hunt. Public land. Geese like to feed in corn and small grain stubble. Should be interesting to know how you plan to pull that off on public land.



> If two guys show up with the money to purchase a thousand acres that's for sale what business is it of yours who the landowner sells to?


There you go again. The question is "if a guy and/or a corporation or the fed/gov or the state or a non-profit surrogate of the fed/gov show up with money to purchase a thousand acres that's for sale what business is it of yours who the landowner sells to?"

It becomes everybodies business when put into context of who is actually making the purchase.

But I will give you an "E" for the effort of trying to pass it off as merely between two guys. It is not that.



> I can't give you a number, but since the recent poor attitude of some landowners it needs to be a lot more.


Poor attitude is the excuse for now. There will other excuses and reasons why more private land must be converted to the fed/gov in the future.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Poor attitude is the excuse for now. There will other excuses and reasons why more private land must be converted to the fed/gov in the future.


I don't care if it's federal or private as long as their are outdoor activities available. Not just hunting, but things for recreation for the people of North Dakota. Camping, hiking, bird watching, photography, hunting, canoe, fish etc. The guys out west have the Badlands, but there are few opportunities east of the Missouri River.



> It becomes everybodies business when put into context of who is actually making the purchase./gov show up with money to purchase a thousand acres that's for sale what business is it of yours who the landowner sells to?"


To put it in the correct context I think everyone can be concerned, but it's not legally their business to say who can purchase and who can not. You may think it is, but any judge worth the paper his credentials are printed on will disagree. You can debate this all you want, but the first judge this comes up in front of will solve the whole thing. I can't wait for it to happen. Can I have a picture of the look on your face when it does. You will have purchased all those rounds of Black Label for legislators for nothing.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

A "Non-profit" group means its annual operation does not show a profit. Many non-profits exist at local to national levels. They hold bake sales, raffles, sell cookies etc. all for more than their cost. This is a "profit". But when the group subtracts their operating expenses (office, gas, employee wages etc) and the donations they make to other entities (scholarships, wetland restoration, or whatever) they end the year with no overall "profit". This applies to conservation groups and land-trust groups as well as the other registered non-profits. Qualification as a non-profit is reviewed by the beloved IRS.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> You can debate this all you want, but the first judge this comes up in front of will solve the whole thing.


The issue was solved years ago. The people, through their Representatives created the Anti-corporate Farming Law. Now a very small group of people wants to challenge it.



> I can't wait for it to happen.


Plains, let's take into account your batting average picking winners and losers. You are like the kiss of death when you choose a side.

oldfireguy, you didn't answer the question. Obviously a non-profit cannot sell land at a loss. For less then what they paid for it. The fed/gov or a state agency who is to be on the receiving end from its non-profit surrogate usually makes sure the non-profit makes enough money to meet parole etc. The more money they make the more people they can put on the payroll. The more people hired and the more organizations formed the more voice they have screaming need.

Like gubment agencies formed they grow and their budgets grow.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The fed/gov or a state agency who is to be on the receiving end from its non-profit surrogate usually makes sure the non-profit makes enough money to meet parole etc.


 :rollin: Shaug there's a monster under your bed. :rollin:

Shaug I think your upset because you know the North Dakota law is unconstitutional. I don't think it will stand when challenged. We will see. Unfortunately our legislature again is going to make us all look stupid. When was it they passed the law that county commissioners had to approve sales to the U S Fish and Wildlife? Was it 1977? I didn't like that since I believe the further down the political food chain you go the cheaper it is to purchase a politician.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> Shaug there's a monster under your bed.


Not really. Plains, did you know that there were only four posts made today all day on this web-forum besides yours. Just keep posting.



> Shaug I think your upset because you know the North Dakota law is unconstitutional. I don't think it will stand when challenged.


Over the years I have witnessed you make this early predictions many times. Can't remember the last time you got one right.

It was a nice day today and I was outside all day. Looked at FBO just now and saw you have been at it all day arguing about Muslims. Pathetic.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plains wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shaug you do realize we live under a Republic form of Gov not a Democracy. Under a republic form of Gov even minority rights as would be the case when you say a small group are challenging the law are protected. Thus a judge is charged with determining if passed laws fit the Constitution at both a state and Fed level. It is why even though gay marriage was voted down in CA! If the law passed violates either constitution all or part can be struck down. Does not matter that the people voted against gay marriage. So regardless of when the law was passed if it does not fit within the constitution it will be nullified. Similar to when we had a prohibition on out of state G&O. That law was not going to past muster and the Leg had the good sense to fix it. Not that I liked the change but it was the right thing to do. This law is so similar but the strong lobby of the farm organizations that oppose any conservation lands has prevented the Leg from acting. Three times that I know of fixes have been presented for this issue and none have been taken up. Zoning is the place for restrictions at county and state level to prevent the big hog farms and dairy operations. Not restricting a landowner from selling his land to whomever they chose. So instead of harping about Plainsman why not address the issue of the law and how as it is written and the procedure for selling to a non profit or even the state or Fed gov how said restrictions and hops do not run afoul of the commerce clause or for that matter personal property rights. Maybe we need tweaking to the law that does not allow certain numbered non profits from avoiding property taxes, or other avenues that will protect the tax base of local municipals and counties. Maybe we need to change the formula on property tax overall on farm land and the list goes on and on, but the argument that since the Leg passed the law it should stand on that alone is bogus! If that where the case then ND or any state could pass laws including servitude and debtor prisons or make it such that only real property owners could vote or go back to a poll tax where unless you can pay the fee you cannot vote. While not apples to apples the underlying premise is the same that all of the above things at one time where laws passed by a leg body and found not to be within the framework of the either the state or Fed constitution or both.

You must have a better argument than the Leg passed it!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Ron wrote,



> Maybe we need tweaking to the law that does not allow certain numbered non profits from avoiding property taxes, or other avenues that will protect the tax base of local municipals and counties.


There is more than just the tax base at issue here. There is the jobs base. Land that is idled doesn't create many jobs on it. Sportsmen like most people need jobs.



> Maybe we need to change the formula on property tax overall on farm land and the list goes on and on, but the argument that since the Leg passed the law it should stand on that alone is bogus!


The anti-corporate farming law became a law because the people took it to their Representatives, debated it at the Capitol and then passed it. It is the duty of the court to decide if something is constitutional or not.



> So instead of harping about Plainsman why not address the issue of the law and how as it is written and the procedure for selling to a non profit or even the state or Fed gov how said restrictions and hops do not run afoul of the commerce clause or for that matter personal property rights.


I realize that people on this forum would like to debate nothing but issues. Not harping about people like plainsman or other names. However, the names are the issue. The very same names that are pushing this issue against the anti-corporate farming law are the very same who wanted the 5% oil revenue rip off money from the state treasury so they could use it to purchase land. The very same people brought to us the anti-baiting wars and the fair chase wars that lasted five years.

Do you remember the fair chase wars Ron? They (a sportsmens org wink wink) told you they would never accept any funds from the Humane Society of the United States. You Ron, posted on here and FBO about 5 thousand times that there was no HSUS connection. Ron, you got duped.

Now these very same people want to lecture others about personal property rights. Psh!!!!!!!

Ron, you can stick your two cents in here if you want to, but, right now these very same individuals are looking for dupes to carry their message. Period.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug was for property rights before he was against them! :rollin:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot,

May one of these come to your area soon. Put it right beside some Ducks Unlimited land. ND can be the duck factory and the chicken factory.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 16312.html

Poultry-Plant Fire in China Kills Dozens By JAMES T. AREDDY

SHANGHAI-At least 119 people were killed and dozens injured in a fire at a chicken slaughter house in north China, according to provincial officials, the latest reminder of the country's poor industrial-safety record.

Chinese state media quoted workers saying that all but one of the doors to the plant were typically locked from the outside.

A deadly fire at a Chinese poultry factory underscores growing concerns about China's food-production regulations. The WSJ's Carlos Tejada discusses the latest scrutiny of China's industrial oversight.
.The fire at the facility in Jilin province came as American regulators and consumers begin to scrutinize a bid by Chinese food company Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd. to buy U.S. pork producer Smithfield Foods Inc. SFD -0.06%One concern is how Chinese ownership of the No. 1 global pork producer might affect U.S. food security.

Industrial accidents have gone hand in hand with China's emergence as a world powerhouse in production-including of food. And while poor factory safety doesn't necessarily equate to unsafe food, industry officials say workplace problems of any kind around food raise risks it will be contaminated during processing.

Provincial officials say an ammonia leak sparked an explosion that led to the fire in the facilities of Jilin Baoyuanfeng Poultry Co. For hours after the early-morning blast north of the provincial capital Changchun, rescuers located bodies in the charred buildings. The flammable chemical ammonia is often used in refrigeration systems. Company officials couldn't be reached.

China Central Television, the government broadcaster, said the blast affected an area of 17,000 square meters.

"In my memory, this is the most serious accident in the meat-processing sector," said He Zhonghua, an analyst with China Meat Industry Network, a consultancy owned by the semiofficial China Meat Industry Association.

As China's food exports surge, its food-production practices are an area of growing concern outside the country.

The industry can anticipate a new level of attention from U.S. legislators, regulators and consumersfollowing Shuanghui's deal to acquire Virginia-based pork producer Smithfield Foods. The4.7 billion dollar buyout offer, potentially the biggest Chinese takeover of a U.S. company, is subject to regulatory approval.

The Chinese suitor said last week when the deal was announced that it hopes to learn from Smithfield's production processes, not impose its own on the U.S. business. People involved in the deal said it could open China's market more to Smithfield sausage, hams and other meat, instead of pave the way for broadening channels into the U.S. for the Chinese company's products.

Chinese industrial accidents have killed over 70,000 people in each of the past two years alone, according to official figures. Less than two months ago at a pork processor in south China, for example, around 400 people were endangered by an ammonia leak like the one blamed for Monday's fire, according to the official news agency Xinhua.

Enlarge Image

CloseAssociated Press

Firemen carried out bags containing bodies of those killed Monday at a poultry processing plant that was engulfed by a fire in northeast China's Jilin province's Mishazi township.
.Away from the factory floor, worries about unsafe poultry are already high in China. In early April, Chinese health officials reported an outbreak of a new strain of avian flu in chickens and ducks; though Chinese authorities say risks to humans have diminished, they haven't permitted sale of fresh poultry in some Chinese cities. Late last year, U.S. fast-food groups Yum Brands Inc. YUM +1.17%and McDonald's Corp. MCD +0.95%were accused by Chinese media of selling chicken that had been raised with unsafe levels of antibiotics. Both companies said they would strengthen supervision of suppliers.

More broadly, industrial accidents in China are taking on increasing resonance for U.S. companies and consumers. After explosions of combustible dust at two Apple Inc. AAPL -0.95%suppliers in China that left four dead and at least 59 injured in 2011, the U.S. computer maker last year said it issued new guidelines for its contractors for handling the material.

The plant that caught fire on Monday illustrates the challenge to imposing uniform safety standards on China's fragmented and fast-expanding food business.

Thousands of families raise chickens in the city of Dehui, where the plant is located, not far from the North Korean border, which pitches itself as a broiler city.

In a popular series of art works, Canadian Edward Burtynsky drew attention to Dehui's vast chicken-production facilities in photographs showing uncountable thousands of poultry workers in a single room, all wearing pink coveralls and blue aprons.

The northern region around Dehui is sometimes called the Iowa of China. But four-year-old Baoyuanfeng, like many companies in China's food industry, is relatively small, with a processing capacity of 100,000 birds a day, according to a profile of the company published on a local website. Mr. He, the consultant, said he expects China's poultry business to face new pressure to consolidate smaller operators into bigger companies that are easier to monitor.

North Dakota's anti-corporate farming law may not be antiquated as some suggest.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Good article but it does not change the fact that the current law is likely to be overturned once a non ND court hears it. Why is it that when talk of the law and its actual constitutional value come up people like you try to direct away from the actual issue and instead invent conspiracy theory messaging. Heck my own conspiracy theory is that since FB,FU,SA etc.. all publicly are opposing any changes to the current law they secretly are hoping for it to be overturned. That makes as much sense and has the same value as your half baked ramblings do.

So tell us again how current law is going to meet the litmus test on the Constitution! Does not matter that a majority might have voted for it, does not matter that it is intended to protect tax bases, what does matter is that groups and the state control who a landowner is allowed to sell to!

I am not in favor of the current law being tossed, but if it does, just go to the head and past leaders of the farm groups in this state and thank them, because they are the ones that caused it. NOT ANYONE HERE!

Oh and by the way wasn't it your claim that property rights ruled on the HFH issue but when it comes to selling they are worthless as used toilet paper!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Ron wrote,



> I am not in favor of the current law being tossed, but if it does, just go to the head and past leaders of the farm groups in this state and thank them, because they are the ones that caused it. NOT ANYONE HERE!


Cargil, Smithfield, JBS Meats and other corporations are not the ones challenging ND's anti-corporate farming law. Someone here is.



> Oh and by the way wasn't it your claim that property rights ruled on the HFH issue but when it comes to selling they are worthless as used toilet paper!


Longshot wrote,



> shaug was for property rights before he was against them!


That is funny. I think I shall borrow it. If it works for him it should work for me. You see, it was the wildlife society and the wildlife federation who claimed they were not trying to take property from the cervid growers. But then later on Dick Monson and Mike McEnroe admitted in Dakota Country Magazine that they were the ones who made the decision to accept $150,000 from the Humane Society of the United States because they were getting beat up on the property rights issue so bad they thought what could it hurt?

So the wildlife society and the wildlife federation are now of the opinion that a landowner (a willing seller) should be able to sell to anyone he wishes (a willing buyer) even a corporation. But a landowner should not be able to sell a cervid in the same.

They were against property rights then but now they are for them. Is this the part where I should put the rolling laughter emoticon?

Ron, have you ever considered in all this the old saying, dupe me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?

Ron, you made about five thousand posts that there was no HSUS connection during the fair chase wars. Five thousand more defending the non-profits in their pursuit of more mischeif probably won't end well this time either.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Defend the law based on the constitution shaug try that! Tell us how it does not violate the commerce clause and a host of other parts of the Constitution. It does not matter one way or the other where or what I have posted on in the past but it does matter that the very people whom you listed are the primary reason that the law is being challenged by those whom they have infringed upon.

So when will you grow a set and address the issue of what is being challenged? The simple RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO SELL HIS PROPERTY TO WHOMEVER THEY WANT AND FOR WHAT PRICE THEY WANT! THAT IS THE ISSUE SHAUG! Not where plains worked or what I or Dick may have supported for legislation in the past. Those issues will never be heard in a court regarding this issue. BUT THE POLICY TO SAY NO BY the above organizations regardless of merit will! So like I said before you can look to them as a reason why, the board of review was set up to be a fair place to vet such sales, but when a NO IS IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL SALES the fairness of such a board no longer exists!

This is as wrong as what the IRS is doing!

SO again shaug one more time without tossing mud how will they defend the law against the constitutional challenge? Just keep in mind that the passage and age of the law is not relevant as to whether or not it meets Constitutional standards!

I gave you an example of the G&O law being taken off and with case law on the books now in the District courts regarding other states with laws like ND having lost, why did your group and other farm groups not try and fix this law to prevent corp farms within the Constitution? Your realization was that this would mean having to allow Conservation purchases and that is what galls all of you thus lets just stick our heels into the mud and see how long we can hold on without falling down into that mud!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Ron,

you certainly are an opinioned one. I can remember when you used to call into Joel Heitkamp frequently. He said, "Ron I recognize the voice but I'm more interested in what others have to say" and then he politely hung up. Damn I laughed.



> Defend the law based on the constitution shaug try that! Tell us how it does not violate the commerce clause and a host of other parts of the Constitution. It does not matter one way or the other where or what I have posted on in the past but it does matter that the very people whom you listed are the primary reason that the law is being challenged by those whom they have infringed upon.


If I'm understanding this right, you want me to defend a Law that is already a Law. I believe the onus is on those to prove they have beened wronged by existing Law. You will need to put their court room arguments here first.

In fifty pages or less.............................................I probably shouldn't get you started.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Just cannot help yourself when faced with debating an actual issue and that issue is the validity of the law based on the Constitution. So like it or not shaug this issue is going to be settled in court, it may make you feel better or superior in your mind by trying to cast dispersion on others that do not agree with you, but it does not make your position more valid.

The reality is simple, other states that had laws prohibiting corp from purchasing land have either changed the laws or had the law ruled unconstitutional. The reason that this law is challenged is because of the actions of the states farm groups who have been representatives sitting on the review board for any non profit purchases which are allowed. Since the review board is suppose to be a fair hearing of the sale the very act of having a policy of voting NO on all these sales makes the review board no longer unbiased or fair. Granted the Gov is given the final say but such action call into question the actual need for such a board. If the board recommendation is not listened to or is listened to both pose a problem for this law in court.

Case after case will be sited where a willing buyer and seller where prevented from making a legal deal only to have the seller later take a substantial financial hit when they eventually did sell it. That alone will be hard to overcome in a court of law.

So all the years of published policy and NO votes will make it much easier to demonstrate that not only is the law being used in a manner never intended but that those on the review board are not listening with an open mind.

So what is the real issue, certainly not what Plains did for work or what Dick or I may have supported in the past, the issue is will the current law as it sits pass a court test outside of a ND court. So kick and toss all the crap you want it will not matter one bit on the outcome of this as it no longer is a public opinion matter that you can try and sway. It is now a court case where actual damages of the law can and will be presented and how it runs afoul of the commerce clause which is pretty broad in scope on what it covers. Since land purchases are not restricted to ND residents only for farm land, this means all are to be treated equally in their endeavors.

You want to explain how current restrictions are not in direct conflict with the commerce clause shaug why not talk and debate something of merit instead of trying to be an internet tough guy who throws mud?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Ron, I knew this was going to happen with you. This issue has already been debated at length.



> The reason that this law is challenged is because of the actions of the states farm groups who have been representatives sitting on the review board for any non profit purchases which are allowed. Since the review board is suppose to be a fair hearing of the sale the very act of having a policy of voting NO on all these sales makes the review board no longer unbiased or fair. Granted the Gov is given the final say but such action call into question the actual need for such a board.


So the non-profits are saying, "give us what we want or else?"



> Case after case will be sited where a willing buyer and seller where prevented from making a legal deal only to have the seller later take a substantial financial hit when they eventually did sell it. That alone will be hard to overcome in a court of law.


Land is selling for unheard of prices and you want to convince people that there are sellers who have to take a substantial financial hit because an incorporated non-profit isn't able to be the highest bidder. I don't beleive that the people of ND want land being sold to the highest bidder to say a Chinese National or the King of England or Sow Central Hog Corporation.



> So all the years of published policy and NO votes will make it much easier to demonstrate that not only is the law being used in a manner never intended but that those on the review board are not listening with an open mind.


I'm not on the board nor do I pretend to represent those who are. But what I do take from your posts is that this board had better give the non-profits what they want or else. As for me, I think the State and fed/gov have enough land.



> So what is the real issue, certainly not what Plains did for work or what Dick or I may have supported in the past, the issue is will the current law as it sits pass a court test outside of a ND court. So kick and toss all the crap you want it will not matter one bit on the outcome of this as it no longer is a public opinion matter that you can try and sway. It is now a court case where actual damages of the law can and will be presented and how it runs afoul of the commerce clause which is pretty broad in scope on what it covers. Since land purchases are not restricted to ND residents only for farm land, this means all are to be treated equally in their endeavors.


Give us what we want or else we are going to court to rip apart the anti-corporate farming law. The Case could turn out bad for everybody especially with the persons from the non-profits involved. They'll figure out a way to horse up everything.



> You want to explain how current restrictions are not in direct conflict with the commerce clause shaug why not talk and debate something of merit instead of trying to be an internet tough guy who throws mud?


No, you will have to go first and explain how it is in direct conflict. It's their Case, the aggressor, go ahead plead their Case. I'm sure you have their whole testimony (argument) laid out already.

I have witnessed these guys in oral testimony before and I am quite sure they will figure out a way to screw things up.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

No need arguing with shaug, his questions have been answered but he either has a problem understanding English or is choosing not to understand so that he can ask them over and over as if they haven't. He is no friend to conservation or hunting he has proven that time after time in these forums. I think most people have him pegged for what he is so why continue? Shaug how about you be truthful and tell us who it is you are here to represent and what your true intentions are?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

longshot I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap out a better argument than he makes. His only argument is to attack personally people. Like I have said they have not given a single argument that will hold water against the commerce clause as to why this law is constitutional. There is not a single court outside of a ND court that will uphold the blocking of a sale from a willing seller to a willing buyer and once that happens counties and townships are going to have to implement zoning restrictions to control the hog farms etc... but we are destined to see the ability of Cargill and the like to buy land. Will they do so, I think they will unless counties start now putting in zoning restrictions because once a hog farm is in place other than environmental issues they are not going to stop them.

So to shaug all others who think somehow this law is going to stand as is. I would suggest getting busy at the local level and getting proper zoning in place well before the courts dump this law!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So to shaug all others who think somehow this law is going to stand as is. I would suggest getting busy at the local level and getting proper zoning in place well before the courts dump this law!


Excellent advise Ron.

Shaug instead of standing with your pants around your ankles wanting to shaft everyone why don't you start encouraging your friends to adopt zoning so they are not the ones shafted. Being stubborn about this will damage agriculture as much as the rest of us. When challenged the North Dakota law will bite the dust. Isn't it best to be prepared? Simple concept is to have plan B isn't it?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

You guys crack me up. Now your answer is to place zoning laws to curtail ag corporations from buying land. The very thing incorporated non-profits are after.

I believe it was 2007, I attended a legislative hearing about this very subject. A retired Colonel from the Minot Air Force Base bought some property out in the country. (Ramsey County) He then organized the township to pass zoning to prevent any animal agricultural activity he considered too large. If a farm had "X" amount of animals they would have to get a permit that had to be renewed every five years. If any persons living around there had a beef with the farm the permit could be revoked or not renewed. Who would invest in an economic development venture under those terms? The Colonel didn't make his livelyhood from the land and he was retired.

The State of ND passed legislation that all townships fall under the umbrella of the State and they simply cannot make up a bunch of their own rules. But it was fun to listen to the Colonel and his non-profits such as the Dakota Resource Council play the emotion card. The DRC gets its funding from out of State.

Plains wrote,



> When challenged the North Dakota law will bite the dust.


Over the years Bruce, you have made a lot of early predications. All failed.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

More the reason for the right to farm amendment to be voted down when it hits the ballot. Because Cargill can claim that a hog operation on a grand scale would qualify! You guys are your own worst enemies at times. So short sighted thinking you are getting a leg up on the fence all the while not realizing that your step stool to get that leg up is nothing more than rotting manure that you are sinking into.

Funny how you have nothing what so ever in how the state will be able to defend the current law. If I where the lawyers I would subpoena all current Pres and past presidents going back to 1977 of every farm organization as well as the people who sat on the boards and grill them. The case up around Grand Forks is the best where one of the county commissioners voted to deny the sale of land to a conservation group then bought the same land for 25% less if memory serves me at a later date. That alone as antidotal will be enough for any judge outside of ND to toss the law.

Your organizations banked on the fact that none of the non profits or corp would spend the money to fight the law, well my guess is that bank is busted now !

Like I said prior, simple fixes and change in attitude would have allowed the law to go unchallenged. Cargill and other companies like it would not spend the money prior to challenge it, but you can bet once the door opens up thanks to the bullheaded organizations that they are going to be competing with you and other farmers in the near future. TO bad for those that where not pigheaded, but I am not sorry for people like mind as you that will either have to pay more or go without.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Ron wrote,



> More the reason for the right to farm amendment to be voted down when it hits the ballot.


Measure 3, the right to farm and the right to ranch, already passed handily in the last general election. It is now the last amendment to our state constitution. The second to last amendment defines marriage as that between one man and one woman and the third to last amendment to our state constitution is the one guaranteeing the people the right to hunt.

All good, and all three challengable by interests outside of the State. Ron, and again you are talking about a judge from out side the State striking down ND's Corporate farming law. So far, that's all you have got.

http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/asse ... slands.pdf

pages 25 through 32

Again Ron, you keep repeating that an out of state judge will surely vote down the ND corporate farming law because of things like the commerce clause. Are you absolutely 100% sure? Read 'em pages 25-32.

Longshot wrote,



> Shaug how about you be truthful and tell us who it is you are here to represent and what your true intentions are?


I am a sportsmen and a long time member of the United Sportsmen of North Dakota. My true intentions? Over the years I have watched these pretend sportsmens orgs, wrapped in orange camo, raise the battle flags and proclaim they represent sportsmen. Follow us. And then time after time they screw up cause after cause. Just like nodak their numbers are dwindling because hunters refuse to join providing them with cannon fodder.

This ND Corporate Farming Law is another one of those issues. These non-profits will find a way to screw it up.

Ron, you have been at this corporate faming law debate for quite some time. Many years in fact. Too long.

http://www.oahewings.com/governor_rejec ... se?app_p=4

Longshot will continue to make his wise cracks and Plainsman will continue to pound his keyboard from his hidey hole admonishing hunters to get on board with these issues and to follow him over the cliff. I'm going outside.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Nice try shaug, but I don't believe a word you say about supporting hunting or conservation. Your comments here do nothing but prove the opposite. Most hunters DO support conservation to sustain the game they enjoy hunting without having to pay you to pursue that public wildlife. The only thing you support is your own pocketbook regardless how it affects anyone else. You can't stand seeing anyone succeed in conservation without you somehow profiting. That's why you will not and have not supported any conservation efforts that do not first get the ok from you and the ag community. As I said before it matters not what you think as you have not and will not be a friend to conservation or hunters no matter what anyone has to say or what the argument may be. You are only here to disrupt and try to create a boogeyman that doesn't exist. Since I support conservation that does not involve ag I guess that makes me one of those terrible people.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot wrote,



> Since I support conservation that does not involve ag I guess that makes me one of those terrible people.


Do you support the conservation provisions in the Federal Farm Bill?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Unfortunately there are two extremes, you and the bunny huggers (nothing or too much) and it seems these are the only choices we have. You don't want the 5% local funding and you don't want the nearly $4 billion proposed in the farm bill. I would prefer to do it locally using oil revenue to offset the impact the oil industry is having to wildlife out west. I believe everything needs to be stripped from the farm bill such as the food stamps (with large cuts) and conservation (with large reductions for now) and these things need to stand on their own merits as their own bills. Do I support conservation such as in the proposed farm bill, yes, but with the current economy, no.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot,

Now you want to argue the middle ground.



> You don't want the 5% local funding and you don't want the nearly $4 billion proposed in the farm bill.


Show me where I've ever said to cut "all" conservation from the Farm Bill? In 1999 non-governmental orgs made a push for $40 billion in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. Oil lease monies from the Atlantic Continental Shelf were to be diverted from the US General Treasury to their coffers. They wanted to use a bunch of the money to purchase land. It failed but the NGO's did get a compromise, the States Wildlife Grants program worth $350 million.

Fast forward to ND today and it is interesting to see how the template is always the same.



> I believe everything needs to be stripped from the farm bill such as the food stamps (with large cuts) and conservation (with large reductions for now) and these things need to stand on their own merits as their own bills.


Everyone can agree that there are far too many things that get inserted into Bills that have little to do with a Bill but got put in there because they are pork and would never pass standing alone. A few years ago Sen. Kent Conrad got a Bill passed called Sportsmens Afield or something for $50 million. A Bill to subsidze access. What was that doing in the Farm Bill?



> Do I support conservation such as in the proposed farm bill, yes, but with the current economy, no.


Well then, you "do" support conservation that does include Ag. The trouble is the Nation has a spending problem and does not have a bunch of money. But North Dakota does. Should we pick up the tab for where the fed/gov has fallen short? In theory that sounds OK. The fed/gov has offices and technical staff all over the place but little funding to get things done. The $30 million per bienum Bill that came out of the ND legislature will do just that. The soil conservation services were there and testified in favor of HB 1278.

But the conservation boyz who belong to NGO or non-profits had other ideas. They didn't want to share. They didn't want what's mutually beneficial to everybody. The 5% oil revenue rip off gang wanted the make up of the panel or board over-seeing that money to be their people and wanted to use ND treasury funds to purchase land and other schemes. They didn't want to share with NRCS and other programs that already serve the people well.

Longshot, there is a reason Washington DC is in the RED. Just say no.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I have never said I do not support conservation that includes the ag industry, but unlike you I also give merit to those outside ag in thier conservation efforts. Both have thier place here and both have their strengths and knowledge to do good things. As to the federal side of things, at this time, we cannot continue to spend money we do not have and at the same time we cannot afford to condone poor land practices.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot wrote,



> we cannot continue to spend money we do not have and at the same time we cannot afford to condone poor land practices.


Who is doing poor land practices? Are the NRCS and other state and federal agencies not doing their jobs? Hb Bill 1278 will get some money to them if short.

If the NGO's go to the people and tell everybody everything is fine will the people give them money? No. So they resort to fear and need and warnings about what we need to do to avert catasrophe.

Longshot, when your Senator or Congressman gets to DC the first 500 people they meet are lobbyists with their hands out. How much of the taxpayers money is given to these non-governmental (wink wink) non-profit organizations annually? An IRS 990(?) search should be conducted on all of these organizations in which to build a case to equate their relationship to the federal debt.

Did you know that Ducks Unlimited alone gets $75 million dollars? They have a very nice headquarters on Burnt Boat Drive in Bismarck. Parking lot full of new pickups with ATV's in the truck beds. Do you think your $20 dollar membership paid for it all?

Longshot, you had better be able to learn to say no. There is a reason why ND is in the "black" and the fed/gov is in the "red".


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

And longshot position or view of conservation has what bearing on the constitutional value of the current corp farming law? NOTHING! Just another example of shaug trying to deflect away from the fact that he cannot give a single outside of ND legal support for this law to not be dumped. Again and again you run from that issue shaug like a hooker from the vice squad!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Shaug, what part of your babble do you think I don't already know? Your self absorbed arrogance is one of the reasons why what you say has little relevance. It's only a matter of time before your law goes in the red so you better prepare now.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Not sure which part you roundheads can't grasp? It is already a law. If you want to challenge it you will have to prepare a case.

The Judge will need a little more info to make a legal opinion than, a handful of us don't like it much.

The Case; give me a brief synopsis.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Is not the law being challenged? That is the point of all of this what the projected outcome is going to be! Not what I support or longshot or who Plains worked for etc... or for that matter the new farm bill! You have given no input as to why this law will remain and how it can be defended.

Your babbling about all the other issues is just babble as longshot points out. I firmly believe that the current law runs afoul of the Constitution in a number of areas but the most common and easily to link to is the commerce clause in that the law as it sits and has been applied restricts a legal landowner from selling his property to whom he chooses. As pointed out with past cases where people where denied a sale and in a good number of cases when they did sell it was for less than what they had an offer on the table for.

A good comparison would be a bunch of non farmer sitting on a board saying to the elevator he cannot buy your corn or beans shaug for current market prices and deny the sale. You then have to sell it down the road to the feed lot for less than the elevator was willing to pay. Really that is the basis of law now as it has been applied, and that will not pass the smell test before even the most bias of Fed judges!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Ron wrote,



> Is not the law being challenged? That is the point of all of this what the projected outcome is going to be! You have given no input as to why this law will remain and how it can be defended.


Dick wrote,



> Re: ND Versus Audubon Society
> by Dick Monson » Sun May 19, 2013 10:28 am
> 
> I have seen no published story, just an inside source, that ND folded the case because of fear of losing and thus setting legal precedent, which would negate the illegal ND law now in place. (Easy to see the Audubon signs are in place on their property.) The same "law" that has consistently been overturned in other states where it has been challenged. And that is a win for everybody.
> ...


When you don't have a lot to work with..........you don't have a lot to work with.

You'll have to take Monson at his word. Might be the root of the problem.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

NOT THE ONLY ENTITY INVOLVED IN THIS LAW SHAUG!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

North Dakota Supreme Court Opinions Filed Apr. 8, 2014

http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20130279.htm

¶40] We affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the State's corporate farming enforcement action against Audubon, concluding the equitable defense of laches bars the State's divestiture claim. *We decline to address the constitutionality of the Corporate Farming Law because the affirmative defense of laches provides an alternative basis upon which the case may be resolved.*

[¶41] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Daniel J. Crothers
Allan L. Schmalenberger, S.J.

[¶42] The Honorable Allan L. Schmalenberger, S.J., sitting in place of McEvers, J., disqualified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would seem to a layman that the ND Supreme Court was possibly unwilling to address the constitutionality of the ND Corporate Farming Law. Audubon won another round. ND versus Jim Cook might decide the issue.

Edit: *laches*
n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of "legal ambush."


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Scooped it first.

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/land_purcha ... ic?app_p=1

Caught you sleeping Dick.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Dick Monson said:


> North Dakota Supreme Court Opinions Filed Apr. 8, 2014
> 
> http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20130279.htm
> 
> ...


Old people need more sleep Dwight. Anyway, I know nothing about law but the whole opinion is a good educational read, especially the dissenting opinion. Which leads one to ask, why the court would decline to address the constitutionality of the Corporate Farming Law?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick, you shouldn't try to read into more than what is there.

First:

The court denied the State's motions for summary judgment on the affirmative defenses of laches and the statute of limitations.
(laches; the State was sleeping on its rights.)

Second:

The court also denied Audubon's motion for summary judgment based on the "alleged" violations of the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. 
(estoppel by laches; precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse.)

Dick, the court simply had no need to procede to the constitutionality of the Corporate Farming Law.

Crosslands Inc. is a whole different can of worms. One thing about the Corporate Farming Law is that either the land is totally closed to hunting because it is a preserve or resting place or the land is totally open to hunting. I beleive Jim Cook posted the land and used it for hunting with his buddies. Strike one.

He can actually do that. Purchase it in his own name, own it as an absentee landlord, farm it, rent it out or whatever. Just can't own it in the name of an out of State Corporation. What is he splitting hairs about? He can sell the 949 acres of Crosslands INC. holdings to himself as a private individual.

http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20090199.htm


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The ND Supreme Court chose not to address the corporate farming law with the laches defense. What is unusual is if one Googles laches, the explanation is that courts seldom use it. Hummm... But, it doesn't matter since Audubon won the case.

Just thinking farther out, since SCOUTS had decided in 2010 that "corporations are people", how can state law discriminate against a minority like corporations? Odd deal.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick wrote,



> Just thinking farther out, since SCOUTS had decided in 2010 that "corporations are people", how can state law discriminate against a minority like corporations? Odd deal.


The SCOTUS also found in favour of the city of New London vs Kelo that a city can take your property for economic use. We the people believed the SCOTUS got it wrong. Odd deal ya think?

North Dakota didn't even have a legislative session in 2006, yet it still managed to pass one of the nation's strongest constitutional amendments because of the hard work of concerned citizens. A citizen initiative placed an amendment on the ballot that declared, "a public use or a public purpose does not include public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health. Private property shall not be taken for the use of, or ownership by, any private individual or entity, unless that property is necessary for conducting a common carrier or utility business."

When this amendment was presented to voters during the November 2006 elections, it found overwhelming support. While North Dakota has not had nearly the problems with eminent domain abuse that have been characteristic in other states, residents can be proud that they have ensured the strongest possible protection for essential property rights. This state's successful reforms are a shining example to all American citizens of what is possible when people resolve to stand up for their freedoms.

In 2007, Senate Bill 2214 was signed into law, amending the Century Code to reflect the changes made by Measure 2.

Dick, there is one helleva bunch of people that think the SCOTUS got the one corporation equals one person argument wrong also.

Dick, I collected signatures for the reform the eminent domain law. Fell one the right side of that one too. No accident.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

shaug said:


> Dick wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No disagreement there, Dwight. However we're stuck with the road we drive unless we change it ourselves through the process.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

It's not that we are stuck with the road we drive ....... as much as you need to stop driving on the wrong side of the road.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

I don't think the SCOTUS ruled that a city could take private property to benefit a corporation. I think they said the US Constitution does not prohibit such. Fine point is that if people do not like that, they should pass laws or state constitution amendments to prohibit such actions. The US constitution does not address all issues. It leaves many decisions to the States...as well it should.


----------



## Christopherd74 (May 29, 2015)

I don't understand why they just don't leave it how it is. It's not hurting anyone. :roll:


----------

