# Top Secrete Farm Bill is Dead!



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

I try to keep up on things but somehow this one got by me or maybe I just forgot about it. But it seems the 'Super Committee' was try to secretely pass the new Farm Bill without having any sort of public debate. Although I find it dishartening that this committee failed miserably at trying to straighten our Country out, I will say I am glad that we Citizens will have a voice in the new Farm Bill.

http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/2011 ... ecret.html


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Bad Dog,

I not sure what it is you are hoping to accomplish by starting this thread. First off the title:



> Top Secrete Farm Bill is Dead!


The super committee was negociating more than just the farm bill. The whole secret session is dead. As it should be because 12 people shouldn't have that kind of power dropped in their lap. Nor should congress shirk their duties.



> I try to keep up on things but somehow this one got by me or maybe I just forgot about it.


It seems the harder you reach and stretch the more we can smell what you are standing in. You got this info from an Obama foody blogspot..........come on. http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/2011 ... ecret.html



> But it seems the 'Super Committee' was try to secretely pass the new Farm Bill without having any sort of public debate.


The public and/or lobbyists did not have access to the twelve Senators or Representatives. So non-profits and companies that lobby hard for your tax dollars did the next best thing. Knowing the super committee members do read the papers they ran commercial after commercial in papers and such. Just google search "lobbying" the super committee.

https://www.google.com/search?q=super%2 ... p&pdl=3000

Bad Dog, look at all the ads. There was your public debate.



> Although I find it dishartening that this committee failed miserably at trying to straighten our Country out, I will say I am glad that we Citizens will have a voice in the new Farm Bill.


Well Bad Dog.... you, swift and a few others on this webforum say what the farmers/ranchers need to do is get out there and spend many hours and much money telling agricultures story. If you as a citizen want your voice heard in the next farm bill, bashing Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, Stockmens or whatever will get you some attention. But it probably won't be the results that you seek.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The super committee was negociating more than just the farm bill. The whole secret session is dead. As it should be because 12 people shouldn't have that kind of power dropped in their lap. Nor should congress shirk their duties.


I agree completely, but as part of the bill Bad Dog is correct too. Many people watch the ag bill because it can be so habitat destructive. Payment in Kind back in the 1980's was one of the worst habitat destructive bills to come out of congress. We need to watch everything shaug, not only as a whole, but individually. Since I often agree with you politically I think you can agree with that statement. I think you just fell into that syndrome of watch everyone but me. Kind of like we want the budget cut, but not the things that benefit me. I'm not going to do that. I say watch everyone, farmers, and biologists like I was, everyone. Anything else is bias. This should not offend you shaug, and I sincerely hope it doesn't.


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

shaug
The reason I posted this thread was to make others aware, in case they were like me, unaware that the supercommittee was trying to pass 2012 Farm Bill without public involvement.



> It seems the harder you reach and stretch the more we can smell what you are standing in. You got this info from an Obama foody blogspot..........come on


 - That is why I posted the link, so you know where it came from. However, you can also search many other blogs, news, etc. and they say the same thing, that the super committee was trying to pass the 2012 Farm Bill w/out public imput. Now remember, this super committee was made up of both repulicans and democrats.



> you, swift and a few others on this webforum say what the farmers/ranchers need to do is get out there and spend many hours and much money telling agricultures story. If you as a citizen want your voice heard in the next farm bill, bashing Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, Stockmens or whatever will get you some attention. But it probably won't be the results that you seek.


 - Do not accuse me of 'bashing' farmers union, or the stockman's association, because I have not. I give the farmers union credit for starting the Carbon Credit program, and I work hard to assist the ranching community in making sure cattle/livestock remain on the landscape. Now, the farm bureau is another story. Yes, I do and will continue to go after them until they get away from their extremist views, fear mongering, and greed infested policies the last president presided over. Examples include their current items on the ballot: 'Oppossing the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area'; 'All new conservation and preservation easements should be in effect only as long as the signer of the easements owns the land. ndfb is opposed to perpetual easements.'; 'The USACOE should allow access to Lake Sakakawea for indutrial use in oil well fracturing operations.'; 'Hydraulic fracturing should continue to be regulated by the states, rather than the EPA.'; 'Conservation compliance shall not be a prerequisite for federal crop insurance.'


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bad dog, you have at times seemed reasonable in your veiws, but I must say, this last post is kinda sounding a bit like an "Occupy Nodak Outdoors" type of rant. :wink:

I am not about to get into another debate about perpetual easements, I will only say a majority of the cattle producers you say you support do not beleive these easements should be perpetual, but rather a single generation, renewable, mutually beneficial agreement. And as far as the Dakota Grasslans Conservation Area I only have one question to ask you. Once a producer has entered into the agreement with the USF&WS initially set up for this conservation program, should the govt be able to come back and change the restrictions or rules of the agreement if they wish? Please answer this question as I am interested in your answer.

As for the Carbon Credit program, there was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal regarding it a while back. As a producer that could very well have garnered monies from this program, I will be the first to say it was largely a Ponzi scheme that merely held mfg industries hostage and really had a number of flaws in it.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Bad Dog wrote,



> The reason I posted this thread was to make others aware, in case they were like me, unaware that the supercommittee was trying to pass 2012 Farm Bill without public involvement.


The super committee was supposed to look at cutting federal spending of something like one trillion over 10 years. Social, entitlements, defense, everything was on the table. You were not to be made aware of anything until after the fact. No public involvement. It wasn't solely about a secret farm bill. You are simply picking and choosing which program you want to bicker about. Why did Hurricane Katrina victims get $120,000 for their house when the folks in Minot only got $30,000?

Bottom line..........Federal spending needs to stop, it cannot continue.



> 'Oppossing the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area'


Now there is a novel idea. We are told our children will have cleaner air and water. This country borrows from China 40 cents on every dollar of federal spending. The Dakota Grasslands Proposal needs $588 million taken from the general fund of the US Treasury. Perpetual easements make the land off limits to future economic development. No oil, no coal, no mining. The land can be grazed but cannot be ploughed or possibly realize it's full potenial at some later date.

So what our children will inherit is a huge national debt, but their hands are tied with no way to pay it back. But we can all breathe easier as our children pedal their bicycles around looking for jobs that do not exist. New wealth can only be created in two ares on this earth. Mining and agriculture.

Bad Dog, if my kid gives your kid a haircut and your kid does my kids laundry, then how much new wealth was created? NONE.

The federal government borrowing money to lock up natural resources is such a bad idea.



> 'All new conservation and preservation easements should be in effect only as long as the signer of the easements owns the land. ndfb is opposed to perpetual easements.


Bad Dog, explain to me why you feel the dead hand of a former prpoerty owner should dictate the use of that land 100 years from now?



> 'Hydraulic fracturing should continue to be regulated by the states, rather than the EPA


What did we do years ago before the creation of the EPA?

Bad Dog, do you presently or at any time, work for the federal government?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Bad Dog, do you presently or at any time, work for the federal government?


Lets do something new on this thread. Lets debate the value of what Bad Dog brings up, not look for the boogieman again.

I have mixed feelings on perpetual easements. We (the American taxpayer) would be idiots to pay the same for temporary easements as perpetual easements. Since gst and I debated that our country has gone further into debt, and that gives much credibility to what you have to say shaug. I think you and I have political views so much the same that it does bother me to debate strongly with you.

In that light I could go for changing the easements, but only some kinds. For example if we pay a landowner to restore a wetland that would have to be perpetual because if he drained it all carbon stored would again be released to the atmosphere. That is if it was purchased for carbon sequestration.

As far as prairie, you never regain it ounce you plow it. At least not for a couple hundred years. You can replant some native species, but the rhizosphere that supports native prairie takes a long time to regenerate. Still, it depends on the land. Sometimes they consider things that were reseeded after the "dirty thirties" native prairie and it really isn't. I could see a temporary easement on those things. It's a tough subject to figure out what is fair. If you sell your land it's permanent and an easement can be looked at as temporary or permanent. For the temporary it would still need a time attached to it. You couldn't spend 25% on a temporary as compared to a permanent only to have the landowner die a month later and a new landowner make the lease worthless.

Rather than trying to demonize each other lets here your opinions on each and how you would implement a temporary or set date easement. I am a conservationist, not a preservationist and I put people before all els. If indeed food was the problem and people were starving I'll plow the Yellowstone Valley in Yellowstone Park myself. However, often we feed the world is a false statement used as an excuse to rape the land. When the Bible tells us we have dominion over the earth it doesn't mean we are given the freedom to tear it to shreds. It means we are to be stewards of this earth and use it wisely. I am driven by that philosophy as much as ( no more than) any biology book.

You asked Bad Dog if he was a government employee. I don't think he should answer that either way. I'll tell you I was, and I didn't have the modern attitude that I worked for the round eyed cuddly animals, but rather for the American taxpayer and more specifically the American hunter and fishermen. After all they pay much more into it than the average American. Much, much more. If you really care about the outdoors purchase duck stamps and hunting license and you will do more than ten taxpayers, or a hundred mislead, emotional based, animal rights activists.


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

gst - I appreciate the compliment and I apologize if it seems I was ranting. I suppose like other, mostly calm individuals, I can let what I have moments. By no means was I trying to rant and again I apologize if it came off that way. I know you and I disagree about perpetual easements, so I will let that lie. As for your question, as a landowner, if I signed an agreement with anyone for anything, and the agreement clauses change mid-stream, and I felt those changes were not to my benefit, I, like anyone else, would be upset. I am not aware of anything such thing happening with the Government, in recent history. Of course, one can cite all the changes that were done to the treaties the Government signed with the American Indians and then decided to change most of them at a substantial costs to those tribes. Carbon sequestion - I know there were issues with the FU program. I do applaud them for thinking out of the box and developing a program that could benefit both sides, ag & wildlife. That is the type of thinking I have and I respect.

shaug - I agree that Government spending needs to be looked at, and some programs decreased or cut. However, I also understand that if this Country is ever going to be a leader in the wold again, that will take some Governement programs, some Government spending. I find it a little dishartening not only that China basically owns this Country but that China is also the world's leader in developing alternative energy and products. Although it should also be noted that even though their a leader in this prominent economic field, most of what they develop is exported as they are still the number one carbon polluter. Dead hand - simply because that was their wish and it is a legal document. In other parts of the Country, mainly out east in the more developed areas, there are easements that state a tract of land must remain in agriculture and can not be developed for other uses. It seems this is about our heritage. EPA - Please, either you are quite young or you must have fogotten what took place in this Country prior to environmental regulation. Rivers caught on fire, in our larger cities the air at times was chocking, our wildlife numbers were at all time lows, and our life expectancy was not very high do to illness caused by this pollution.

Plainsman - Thank you for moderating. Right now there are 'easements' with term limits. There is crp, wrp, even the usfws has term programs for wetland restorations/protections. However, as a landowner, if my desire for my land is to make sure it stays in grass and has cattle on it, then I should have that right. Its about options. I also appreciate the comment about what I do day to day.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Bad Dog said:


> As for your question, as a landowner, if I signed an agreement with anyone for anything, and the agreement clauses change mid-stream, and I felt those changes were not to my benefit, I, like anyone else, would be upset. I am not aware of anything such thing happening with the Government, in recent history.


Bad dog in recent history, the lands that currently are managed by the US Forrest Service, originally were not. At the time these lands were originally sold to the govt, there was an agreement that these lands would remain forever under multi use management. That meant allowing grazing of animals on these lands as well as other uses. (and before plainsman goes off the deep end with his "opinions", yes in some cases grazing has been mismanaged and fees are not always "fair market value", but then again Federal employees make twice as much as their private counterparts so what IS "fair" in the govt? :wink: ) There has been a specific management change over the last 3 decades to disallow this multi use of these lands which the Forrest Service manages, and grazing has led the way. Study upon study has proven that controled managed grazing is a BENEFIT to these lands. Yet in not only grazing, but other public uses the Forrest Service has had policy changes to dramatically limit and in some cases end the multi use agreements these lands were sold under decades ago.

At a meeting in Minot about the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Program I asked Loyd Jones who is in charge of this program if these lands become needed at some point down the road for actual real food production under cultivation could the terms the contract was entered into under be changed by the govt to allow it. His reply was yes indeed the govt has the ability to change the terms of these PERPETUAL easements for this purpose. Stop and let that sink in a moment. The land owner enters into an agreement that is FOREVER that HE and EVERY other owner of that land must follow the terms set forth by the govt FOREVER, and yet the govt retains the ability to change said terms.

*I then asked Loyd if indeed the govt has the ability to RELAX said terms of these PERPETUAL agreements, did they also have the ability to further RESTRICT the terms of these PERPETUAL agreements as well? After pausing for quite some time Loyd admitted that indeed the govt had the ability to change and further restrict the terms under which the private landowner that entered into a PERPETUAL agreement, as well as any subsequent owner FOREVER, must follow that are more restrictive than what was originally entered into. The only recourse the landowner has is to file a "takings" claim in Federal court. These "takings" claims take years and literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue. The accepted understanding by the USFW Service as well as other govt agencies is that most landowners entering into these agreements do not have the pockets to forego these type of cases. *

Now stop and consider the change in management policy that has happened on the lands controled by the Forrest Service that were once private and ask yourself and please honestly answer, why should the people that use these lands to make their livings now beleive that at some point during PERPETITUITY, this govt or some agency of it that are ran by appointed heads will not do the very same thing on what are now privately owned lands.

Now that I have laid out a basis of why many in ag look to these programs that demand perpetual easements as being negative, please answer this one simple question. What do you beleive the founding Fathers of this country would think of a govt and govt program that has the ability to dictate what a private land owner can or can not do with his owned property FOREVER?

And yes I do realize times have changed since the 1700's, but please consider and answer honestly what did the founders of this country put forth as critical to this countries core principals regarding the control of private lands by the govt, and then ask why can not the conservation practices that are carried out in a PERPETUAL agreement not be done just as effectively in a single generation renewable one to maintain this core principal our Founding Fathers had?

As to your "right" to protect your lands in perpetutuity, you do indeed have that "right" that can easily be done privately with trusts and legal means ect...without the Federal govt becoming involved. For someone that so strongly beleives in the purity of our Constitutional writings, one would think that you would also beleive just as strongly in what was so important to our founding fathers that they would leave their home countries and come to an unsettled wilderness to carve out a country and govt whose cornerstone is the sanctity of the private landowner to control his owned properties without undue govt regulation and restriction.

If there was indeed no other alternatives to perpetual easements to proctect the conservation of these lands that is one thing. But as you have rightly stated indeed there is. So why then should the govt be allowed to walk over the basis this country was founded on simply because it is a better bang for the buck?????

The word "greed" has been bantered about on this site, what then would you call justifying these perpetual easements and trashing the ideologies that founded this country for this reason $$$$$(which by the way Loyd Jones readily did at the meeting in Minot).


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> (and before plainsman goes off the deep end with his "opinions", yes in some cases grazing has been mismanaged and fees are not always "fair market value", but then again Federal employees make twice as much as their private counterparts so what IS "fair" in the govt?


)

It didn't take you long to turn it personal did it gst. Please substantiate your claim about twice as much as private.



> multi use agreements these lands were sold under decades ago.


I was under the impression that much of this land was not sold, but that during the "dirty thirties" some ranchers just packed up and left them. With no tax payments they reverted to the government. Does anyone know what percentage was sold and what percentage went back because of tax delinquency?

gst, I'm kind of tired I guess because I can't follow what your saying. Anyway, without giving away names one of my relatives took a grassland easement on his pasture because he wants it to stay the way it is now long after he is dead. I think that should be his right don't you? I mean, it's his land now to do with as he likes right? He wants it to stay prairie, and it should. Rocky, hilly, sandy soil that is good for grazing, and no one should ever plow it. Cattle are the best way to reap the productivity of that land. Something ranchers understand but farmers often do not. I will not mention sheep or cows for leafy spurge because I don't want to start another Johnson County War.  

Shaug and Bad Dog since there has already been an attempt to inflame maybe you guys can discuss this and I can watch. I am afraid civility may be lost otherwise.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> It didn't take you long to turn it personal did it gst. Please substantiate your claim about twice as much as private.


Plainsman, I probably owe you an apology, I should have merely said prior to plainsman sharing his "opinion"! :wink: But I was simply trying to keep a "civil" discussion civil, put out a fire before it starts, ect.....call it what you wish.

As to substantiating, there are any number of stories on the findings of the analysis done by USA Today regarding Federal employees salaries as compared to correlating private employees. As a matter of fact while waiting to meet a fella to pick up a horse in Bismarck earlier today, I read an article in the Tribune by Kristen Hedger (spelling/I apologize) about this very thing.

But to simply make it easy here is a number of links to choose from.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=study+find ... k=&sc=1-35

Just to be fair, I did include the link to multiple "opinions" regarding this analysis. Including one in which it is claimed govt employees are simply "better educated" and more "skilled" than private employees. :wink: You wouldn;t suppose these would be the same folks suggesting this that came up with the slogan "I'm from the govt and I'm here to help" would you??? :roll: :wink:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Bad Dog wrote,



> Carbon sequestion - I know there were issues with the FU program. I do applaud them for thinking out of the box and developing a program that could benefit both sides, ag & wildlife. That is the type of thinking I have and I respect.


FYI, the cap and tax is dead. The credits are not worth a penny on the dollar originally spent. Al Gore doesn't look like he is missing any meals though.

Plainsman said,



> Lets do something new on this thread. Lets debate the value of what Bad Dog brings up, not look for the boogieman again.


Plainsman, I know you don't like it when I make the federal connection dots. You like to hammer on our elected representatives as know nothings. The people can't be trusted to make an informed decision, so who can we trust? There sure seems to be a lot of federal officials on this site argueing the same issues over and over. Check it out. Here is indsport, way back in 2004.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8765&p=68995#p68995



> by indsport » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:30 am
> 
> Shooter, although some may want you to think that some resident hunters are against the FB due to the posting issue, it is much more complicated than that simplification. the organization North Dakota LAND is a spin off from the Farm Bureau. they state on their website that they are strong supporters of private property rights. However, if you ask them if a land owner, or a land owner and his children taking over the farm, should be able to put a long term conservation easement on his own property, LAND is opposed. Why should the Farm Bureau oppose someone who want to exercise their property rights?
> 
> ...


Plainsman, Sen. Tom Dashcle of South Dakota helped pass Swampbuster and now he is out. Good riddance.

Plainsman, Second verse same as the first. Does it all sound familiar? I've got to hand it to you federal guys, you are consistant.
Below is some more posted by indsport back in 2004. I recommend reading the whole thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8135&p=61831#p61831



> My latest favorite subject, LAND. As I have posted before, how come the website states that private land owners should be able to do what they want with their land, but they oppose allowing a landowner to put a long term conservation easement on their own property? Second, in their latest petition, they have "The demand for the immediate repeal of Swampbuster." Third, if they support economic development in rural areas, why are they denying access if you do not sign the petition and donate $10? As Mott found out last year in the pheasant season, if you post it, they will not come.


Plainsman, for many years you guys have been hammering on your favorite subjects. Farmer/rancher bashing. Today let's talk about trust or the lack of it. Back in 2008, a former president of LAND was reading the paper and came across a High Fence article that featured Lloyd Jones. In the article Lloyd Jones gave commentary why voters should be against high fence hunting. Nothing wrong with that. But then he revealed in the article that he is a federal employee of the USFWS. That is a violation of the Hatch Act. Federal officials cannot use their badge, insignia, authority or status in a states rights issue to sway public opinion.

The former president of LAND called the ND Elk Growers to clue them in. The elk growers didn't have an immediate plan. A Farm Bureau rep was in Valley City at the winter show and asked the nice man at the USFWS booth "what is the USFWS position on HFH?" The nice man said we will get back to you and the FB rep left his email. A few days later an email came from none other than Lloyd Jones giving a position why the USFWS is against HFH. Lloyd did it on a federal computer when he was on the taxpayers nickle.

Violation Violation Violation. Lloyd Jones was taken out of the equation.

The High Fence Initiative was truly a David vs. Goliath battle. Chalk one up for the little guys. Plainsman, maybe the reason you guys hate FB, FU, Stockmens, ND Elk Growers ect. is because they get in there and screw up your best laid federal plans?

BTW, I am a member of LAND.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

gst said:


> And as far as the Dakota Grasslans Conservation Area I only have one question to ask you. *Once a producer has entered into the agreement with the USF&WS initially set up for this conservation program, should the govt be able to come back and change the restrictions or rules of the agreement if they wish?[/b] Please answer this question as I am interested in your answer.*


*



Bad Dog said:



As for your question, as a landowner, if I signed an agreement with anyone for anything, and the agreement clauses change mid-stream, and I felt those changes were not to my benefit, I, like anyone else, would be upset.

Click to expand...

Bad dog, I kind of thought perhaps the question I asked (emboldened and underlined) was direct enough to garner a simple yes or no answer. Please keep in mind when answering neither the landowner that entered into the agreement initially or anyone there after that owns that land till the end of time has the "right" to change their side of the agreement.*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, Second verse same as the first. Does it all sound familiar? I've got to hand it to you federal guys, you are consistant.


  Hardly. Trying finding anther as conservative as I am.

gst, look into the government personnel office. They have to keep official records. They don't tell the same story as the government haters do. Just like the National Forest Service looking at their management plans every ten years government also often looks into private sector salaries and compares them to federal to keep things about the same. They do that with many things. For example a federal employee on a National Wildlife Refuge staying in government housing will pay the same rent as the houses in a city within 100 miles based on the square feet. People near Long Lake will pay the same rental as people in Bismarck etc. Politician, now that may be another story.


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

shaug - LAND. That explains a lot. I am done.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, as a retired Federal employee, you may indeed think whatever you wish and give whatever "opinion" you wish regarding the links I provided to substantiate what you asked me to regarding federagl employee pay rates. Me, I will still continue to beleive the sun does in fact come up in the east. :wink:

Bad dog, if we are to have a reasonable discussion, one would hope that you would answer the simple direct question I asked regarding these perpetual easements under the Dakota Grasslands as well as addressing the points made in the response to your suggestion things like this are not happening in govt since the days of the Indian treaties.

Simply because you are not aware of something does not mean it is not happening. Heck I was unaware that Federal employees like plainsman was were receiving twice the pay out of the tax payers pockets as what their private sector counterparts were!  :wink:

But hey as we all know and they have claimed in the one link provided, govt employees are simply "better educated" and "more skilled" than private sector employees. Particularily when it comes to making salamander traps!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

from the second link from the previous link I provided.

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. *The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.*
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

Now in all fairness as I do not know when plainsman retired from his taxpayer funded Federal job, perhaps he was not able to cash in on this substantial increase in taxpayer dollars going into these Federal employees pockets so I would not wish to be acused of "insinuating" he has. But it does seem from the statistics this reporter found in the Bureau of Economic Analysis that Federal employees have thrust their hands a little deeper into the tax payers pockets over the last decade. :wink:

But hey they do claim to be "better educated" and more "skilled" than others. We all know some examples of this I'm sure. Why in fact I do know one particular govt employee who is particularily "skilled" at spending the taxpayers dollars that come into his dept wether they really have to or not so that they continue to receive the same level of funding out of the tax payers pockets the following year. :-?

Hey anyone know what a good govt mfged salamander trap goes for nowadays?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Bad Dog wrote,



> shaug - LAND. That explains a lot. I am done.


You come on this web-forum and just about all of your 65 posts to date are going for the jugular of farm organizations. I hardly think you are a new guy to this forum. Bad Dog you are regurgitating the same old agenda that has been going on here for some time. Did you you take a look back in time at that links I provided:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8135&p=61831#p61831
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8765&p=68995

The title is terrorists. Read the whole threads. Here was the gang on this web-forum leading the charge seven years ago:

fireball 
Benillibrother 
tail chaser 
jimboy
mr.trooper 
Bob Kellam......Bob says, "Here is the website for L.A.N.D. I have not been able to obtain the memberlist yet, give me time." 
Bobm
swift.....We can always count on swift to get in here and mix it up. Remember this thread is 7 years old.
Remmi_&_I 
indsport.........worked with Plainsman.
strand 
Old Hunter 
BigDDL
SHOOTINGGREENHEADS 
Drakekiller....Kevin 
KEN W 
Dick Monson 
Aythya... worked with Plainsman

Bad Dog, you have got to admit a small group of people drive what is printed here for public consumption. Seven years later and the agenda is still the same. I have figured out several on here who worked with Plainsman in the past. So permit me to pose a question to you in a different way. Did you ever work with Plainsman?

Like ever ready bunnies, they just keep going and going.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Simply because you are not aware of something does not mean it is not happening. Heck I was unaware that Federal employees like plainsman was were receiving twice the pay out of the tax payers pockets as what their private sector counterparts were!


Wow, as a farmer your one to talk. It is the most socialist system we have in this redistribution of wealth system. You know what they say about glass houses. You get twice as much to work for yourself while I have to work for the American people. :rollin: Who else gets paid to work for themselves? 
http://farm.ewg.org/
Now remember to include that income you claim under your kids and wife too when you look up your farm subsidies under the above site. 



> Hey anyone know what a good govt mfged salamander trap goes for nowadays?


I can't give it to you in today's value, but no one makes them. Material is about $20 and labor is about an hour.

gst did NDFB assign you to this site? :rollin:

I think you have the right idea Bad Dog. Keep us informed, but there are a few who are simply here to disrupt. Don't let it dishearten you just keep feeding us information. Most people understand that some are like little boys with their fingers in their ears screaming so no one can hear anyone else talk. Not that I would accuse anyone of any such thing. 

Here is something I am confused about when it comes to easments. People who already own the land don't think anyone should be able to tell them what they can do with it. However, land they don't own they think they can tell everyone else what they can't do with it. How is that double standard justified?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Wow, as a farmer your one to talk. It is the most socialist system we have in this redistribution of wealth system. You know what they say about glass houses. You get twice as much to work for yourself while I have to work for the American people. Who else gets paid to work for themselves?
> http://farm.ewg.org/
> Now remember to include that income you claim under your kids and wife too when you look up your farm subsidies under the above site


Plainsman do you REALLLY want me to go back and post all the times you as a federal employee whose ENTIRE salary came from "taxpayer pockets" have made comments about farmers having their hands in the taxpayers pockets????? :roll: You might want to remember how many "stones" you have thrown before you speak of "glass houses" You seem to get a bit touchy when what tax payer dollars went into YOUR pockets is brought up.



Plainsman said:


> Now remember to include that income you claim under your kids and wife too when you look up your farm subsidies under the above site.


 So plainsman want to bet a few hundred georges wether I have ever done what you "insinuate"??? How about an even 10 grand? 

Tell you what why don't you post a link to a website that shares all the taxpayer dollars that went into YOUR pockets for the building of salamander traps over the years. Any time someone goes into a store to buy groceries in this country, at least they receive a direct value for the tax dollar spent on agriculture. So plainsman, how many people really have a use for salamander traps? :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

gst asked: Hey anyone know what a good govt mfged salamander trap goes for nowadays?



Plainsman said:


> I can't give it to you in today's value, but no one makes them. *Material is about $20* and labor is about an hour.


Really?

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/herp ... /index.htm

From this link: Quote"*Our funnel traps cost ca. $45 per trap for materials*"

Plainsman perhaps this explains your belief that an analysis of Federal employees pay is wrong, your math doesn;t seem to add up!!!!  So is $45 dollars in govt money equivelant to $20 in private monies or how are you figuring that???  Holy crap I wonder what an hour of govt labor is worth??? Or perhaps I should rephrase that what does an hour of govt labor cost, we all know what it is "worth"!!!  :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

So bad dog, can we expect an answer and comments on the discussion that was started regarding the Dakota Grasslands Program, or are you simply going to let plainsman side track the thread with his good old farm subsidy website once again? :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Here is something I am confused about when it comes to easments. People who already own the land don't think anyone should be able to tell them what they can do with it. However, land they don't own they think they can tell everyone else what they can't do with it. How is that double standard justified?


You see plainsman here is where the misunderstanding lies. I am glad you have admitted your confusion, perhaps we can indeed straighten things out for you. NO ONE is suggesting what people who own the land should be able to do with their land. If you want to put your land in a perpetual trust as Bad Dog has said, you most certainly can. What is being advocated against is what the GOVERNMENT can do. Therein lies the difference in what you are incorrectly claiming.

I know you admitted to not being able to follow along in the comments I made about our founding fathers beleiveing in preventing the govt from having undue control over private lands, but most others would understand that this was a primary concern with the people that founded this country and our form of govt.

Claiming to be as staunch a "conservative" as you have, one would think you would be a supporter of our founding fathers ideologies of a VERY limited govt when it comes to control over private property. You would certainly beleive they should not be able to enter into perpetual agreements in which they the govt retains the ability to restrict the usage of private properties over what the original agreement was as this DGCP does if you are as "conservative" as you claim.

I guess when it comes to this particular issue, your "conservative" ideologies go out the window.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> From this link: Quote"Our funnel traps cost ca. $45 per trap for materials


Well, I only designed the trap and built the first couple. I see the publication they added a six foot lead for use in wetlands with low populations. That cost a good bit more than what I originally built. I don't know what the price of 1/4 inch steel is, but it used seven pieces four feet long. One for each corner, one at the opening to attach a lead if desired, and one each for top and bottom. It took me an hour to bend and weld it up, but the professionals in town could turn out four in an hour. Their torch and jig system proved once again what proper tools can do to help.

Anyway, I am happy you brought that up. Can you guess why we didn't use cheaper minnow traps? Do you know what made me interested in that trap to start with? It has to do with helping farmers.  Really. Oh, well I know you want answer me now so I will tell you. Remember all the three legged frogs and things showing up in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota? You can guess who the environmentalist blamed. Well way back in the early 1970's (I know old, but it fits here) when I was capturing mallards at night I noticed that one night salamanders would be on the bottom of wetlands, and some nights at the top. Some nights they were stratified at one foot deep, other nights at two feet deep etc. I was not sure if it was oxygen driven, or simply they were following food resources with a diurnal migration, such as the Cladocera. If a person had used a minnow trap and tried to compare one wetland to another it would not have worked. If you hit the right depth one night, but missed it on another wetland the next night you would totally misjudge the populations of each pond. Also, if you don't have surface access oxygen depletion would kill everything in the trap and you would have no recaptures for statistical analysis of populations.

So environmentalists were sure it was farm chemicals didn't they? It turns out that by capturing and following populations then collecting samples when populations begin to decline and sending those to the national health lab it wasn't agriculture's fault at all, it was Iridovirus, (the populations crashes in North Dakota anyway, don't know about the three legged frogs or Minnesota). We have actually done extensive work that has helped agriculture. Simply because we retain a name from the 1960's some erroneously judge the work my former employer did.

shaug:


> Aythya... worked with Plainsman


He did? PM me and tell me who he was. I sure gave him a lot of crap on the political form. I hope he wasn't my supervisor. :wink:

Hey gst, I was thinking today as I was Christmas shopping (no really) and wondering how they came up with federal employees make twice as much as ???? Anyway, maybe your right. When you first said that I thought maybe they were looking at averages. I was thinking professional to professional. You would have to compare people that I am familiar with to college professor's for a salary and profession comparison. That would be a lot different than all North Dakota salaries combined from minimum wage at McDonalds to farmers making $150,000 a year. Federal would go from GS3 which I would guess is about minimum wage to GS12 which is about $60,000. There are a handful of federal employees that are GS13 and 14. I knew two that broke 100 grand. Why don't you get a GS wage schedule. I think anyone can request that. Then for example look at your average National Wildlife Refuge manager (the guy in charge of the whole place) and I think most will be GS11. That I think is right around $45,000. Our salaries never have been secret. Anytime you take federal money you have to make things like that public. That's why the money you get is made public. Why guess at it and post incorrect data? It's not a secret.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Anyone interested I think you can find a federal pay scale somewhere here. It says charts etc.



> GS Pay Scale 2012 for Federal Employees - GS Locality Pay Tables / Charts
> Last Update: October 18, 2011
> In December 2010, President Obama signed into law a bill that included a freeze for the federal employee GS pay scale 2012 -- the second of a two-year pay freeze -- through December 31, 2012.


GS Pay Scale 2012 for Federal Employees - GS Locality Pay Tables / Charts Last Update: October 18

ahhh here it is: http://federaljobs.net/salarybase.htm

I tried to copy and paste, but it put everything in one long row up and down. What a mess. Please go look at this site for yourself (everyone).

I see that since I have been retired for four years that I am a little off. However, to be honest I'm not going back and edit my post from two or three minutes ago just to look good.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

My don't we get touchy when someone suggests YOUR hands are "in the taxpayers pockets"!  Perhaps you should consider this when throwing that accusation out there as often as you do regarding agriculture.

Tell me this plainsman, how many tax payer dollars are spent on federal employee wages and benefits excluding the millitary as compared to agricultue, and how much NEW wealth for this country to contribute to the Gross Domestic Product does this investment of tax payer dollars to these Federal employees generate? Please stop and take a look around and tell me what the house you stood in all throughout your career as a Federal employee was made out of from a "hands in the tax payers pockets" point of veiw before you let go another stone. :roll:



Plainsman said:


> *Well, I only designed the trap and built the first couple*. I see the publication they added a six foot lead for use in wetlands with low populations. That cost a good bit more than what I originally built. I don't know what the price of 1/4 inch steel is, but it used seven pieces four feet long. One for each corner, one at the opening to attach a lead if desired, and one each for top and bottom. It took me an hour to bend and weld it up, but the professionals in town could turn out four in an hour. Their torch and jig system proved once again what proper tools can do to help.


Always a story and excuse eh??? 

Plainsman I could really care less what your salamander trap cost or even what the tax payer paid you during your career, the comments were simply made to point out how childish your "hands in the tax payers pockets" comments and your repeated posting of the farm subsidy link is when you get backed into a corner in one of these "discussions". You wish to bash agriculture, but will not accept the consequences of looking in the mirror when talking of how tax payer dollars are spent.

I understand that you beleive strongly in your ideals, and you have even gone so far as to sponsor a voter initiative to further them. But yet you do not seem to see the irony when you bash other people with their ideals as "radicals" such as in this case of the NDFB measure simply because you do not agree with them. Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps many people have the same veiw of you and your "claims" and insistance that agriculture capitulate to YOUR demands to receive YOUR support? I would bet perhaps even HSUS might "support" animal agriculture if we capitulated to their demands and stopped slaughtering animals for food and raised them as pets instead. :roll:

ALL that has ever been asked of you is to simply refrain from making claims regarding agriculture you can not substantiate as fact. These "discussions" could actually perhaps be worthwhile if you could simply abide by that one request.

I understand that indeed research often times benefits agriculture, just as I know when pushed and funded by ideals that are contrary to agriculture it can seek to damage ag as well. And yet where have I ever made the kind of generalized unfactual juvenile personal claims regarding your occupation in research or your involvement in it as you have mine in agriculture? For someone that claims to "support" agriculture, I must say you have a very odd way of showing it in your posts and your unfactual "opinions" regarding it you can not substantiate when asked to.

Plainsman, I actually still have the very first PMs between us, if you would give your permission, I would post them here and let people see where this all began and your comments back then right up until I took an opposing stance to the HFH measure that you once sponsored and overnite became a "radical" in your "opinion".

Oh and by the way, as a "radical" I have never once sponsored an initiated measure! Must have a ways to go yet!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

PM means personal message. You already violated that once, and I certainly wouldn't give you permission even if I could remember what it was about. I had a great deal of respect for you when I sent those messages. When you violated the PM rule the first time much of that trust was lost. I have posted non of yours. Some you have sent me have been very bad, and I have not forwarded them to anyone either. I know you find rules tough to live by and violate them often. I guess you can do that when your important. Us poor slobs follow them though.

You often ask why things turn personal. The secret farm bill is dead, but you still have to try make someone the villain. I think I have my personal stalker.

I would ask you to stick to the subject, but I have done that before without success. Did you not notice how civil this was until you made it personal again? Of course you always wink when your out of line because you think that hides your malicious intent. Start a fight so we don't really talk about the subject. When people were treating each other well you had to do something to stop it. We can't have a discussion where people may start to understand both sides. That would be bad. Right? And you wonder why I don't complement you any more? Tough to figure out isn't it?

How about you and I leave this thread and let Shaug and Bad Dog and anyone else who wants to contribute something do so?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> PM means personal message. You already violated that once, and I certainly wouldn't give you permission even if I could remember what it was about.


Plainsman, I kow your memory is foggy so perhaps you need to be reminded that YOU were the one that finally admitted what was shared in the PM you are referencing after being told several times what you were claiming in public on this site regarding conversations held between the Fair Chase folks and HSUS was not the same as you had shared in private. This admission was indeed later even confirmed by the FC folks as the truth in the Dakota Country magaziine if you can remember. I can see perhaps there are indeed some things you shared privately way back then that you would not want made public. :wink:

I really didnl;t think you would agree to this.

I know once you tell a "story" it is sometimes had to keep the "facts" straight. I mean recall the "story" you shared on this site in another thread recently about that rancher that had a Ruger Blackhawk that was using it to intimidate you? You were very specific about it being a Ruger Blackhawk if you recall in your "stor" on here. Funny, I never knew the Blackhawk came in a .30-06!

Yes indeed it is probably best if those "stories" you shared in PM's are not made public. But you sure do seem to get alot of guns pulled on you when you are out hunting. :wink:

So if bad dog wishes to come on here and answer a couple of questions and continue the conversation he started with this thread and his comments I will gladly continue to try and have a factual direct conversation regarding that. If that seems too difficult for you to be a part of, by all means you are most certainly free to bow out of the dialogue.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Come on gst, you know better. Ag is considered a private industry not a government job. Maybe that is what you want, to become a government employee? How many other private industries outside of Ag get subsidies? That is what people are pointing out. I believe the government should get smaller with most everything moving to the private sector along with getting rid of government handouts including some Ag support. There is too much being abused!

Reading your post gst, you either have a problem with the English language or intentionally twist it. I believe it's the dishonest second.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Ag is considered a private industry not a government job.


Actually it's about 50/50 private/government right now.



> I know once you tell a "story" it is sometimes had to keep the "facts" straight. I mean recall the "story" you shared on this site in another thread recently about that rancher that had a Ruger Blackhawk that was using it to intimidate you? You were very specific about it being a Ruger Blackhawk if you recall in your "stor" on here. Funny, I never knew the Blackhawk came in a .30-06!


No one intimidated anyone. He was wearing one, and simply mouthy. He said if we didn't sign the petition we wouldn't be hunting there again. I suppose he thought the Sierra Club would ask government to throw hunters off. Any reference to 30-06 isn't connected to that story.



> Yes indeed it is probably best if those "stories" you shared in PM's are not made public. But you sure do seem to get alot of guns pulled on you when you are out hunting.


Never have had a gun pulled on me. This is just an example of you twisting things to try put false statements in my mouth. Your dishonest gst. Have some honor.

As far as HSUS you know I was behind the eight ball on that one and learning things later than you guys did. Before that I sure would not admit something I didn't know. I would not give you permission since my memory isn't that good and I know the only reason you would post anything is if you could twist it. In case you don't know this yet I would not trust you any further than I can throw you.

Like I said why don't we leave this to others. If not I may consider locking it. I know I'll get a nasty gram from you if I do, but secretly that's what you want (no conversation). Lets respect others and give them the chance they deserve. I'll consider continuation disrespect of everyone, especially the person who started the thread and wanted a civil discussion. Again another thread has been hijacked.

Oh, you can't post what I said in a PM, and I can't post what you said. However, you can post what you said and I can post what I said. Guess what, I found a PM I sent to you. There were many pleasant PM's between us gst. You just went off the deep end because of my position on some agriculture practices. I only state my opinions.



> Re: Hf fray comments
> 
> Sent: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:23 pm
> From: Plainsman
> ...


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot the list of private industries that get one form of "subsidy" or another from tax payer dollars thru govt is actually quite long. Stop and consider what Federal dollars are paid in "subsidies" to heathcare that private enterprises receive as merely one example.

What is being pointed out here is the claim that is continueally made by plainsman about whose hands are in the tax payers pockets. He seems to not be able to see the irony/hypocrasy in a former Federal govt employee whose entire salary came from the tax payers pockets complaining aout another sector having their hands in them. * It really does not matter wether it is private or public, the tax payer dollars end up in far more than just agricultures pockets including plainsmans.. *And longshot if you truly beleive what you claim about reducing govt spending then in fact you should be supporting NDFB as they are the largest ND ag org advocating govt spending be taken out of agriculture. :wink:

But hey besides all that, longshot, if you wish to join the debate, please answer the question I asked between the taxpayer dollars spent on agriculture or on Federal employees wages and benefits, which actually creates NEW wealth for this country which in return contributes POSITIVELY to this countries Gross Domestic Revenues which in return positively affect this nations deficiets?



Plainsman said:


> Ag is considered a private industry not a government job.





Plainsman said:


> Actually it's about 50/50 private/government right now.


plainsman, now is this an "opinion" that you have no facts to substantiate it, or is it a "claim" or what exactly do you want to call this statement?? :-? :roll: Did you compare govt dollars/acre to freemarket dollars/acre in determining your equation or is this again just something you pulled out of your ***? :roll:



Plainsman said:


> Any reference to 30-06 isn't connected to that story.


Perhaps the "story" you shared in the PM is a completely different time then perhaps. Perhaps I mispoke based off this private "story" in suggesting something then as I really do not any longer know which "story" is correct? The one you tell publically on here or the one you tell in PM's. Maybe in fact they are two separate incidents with two separate ranchers and two separate guns and two separate actions. With all these "stories", who really knows any longer??? All you have to do is allow these simple discussions between you and I to be posted and this can all be cleared up. :wink:



Plainsman said:


> Oh, you can't post what I said in a PM, and I can't post what you said. However, you can post what you said and I can post what I said.


Well then that indeed solves the problem, simply post ALL the PM's you have sent me regarding a "story" about you hunting in the grasslands and a rancher with a gun! :wink: Or perhaps I can send you what you sent me and then I can post that on here as something I sent you!!!!! Or perhaps I can send you the PM you sent me, and you can post what I send you that you sent me along with a "clarification" as to what you sent me that I sent you regarding that particular "story"  :-?  :wink:

If you wish to lock this thread like so many others as a "super moderator" and stifle the freedom of speech you claim to protect,I would guess that is within your power on your website. I would indeed, much rather stay on the "topic" the originator of this thread opened up with his comments regarding the Dakota Grasslands Program, but as bad dog does not seem to wish to address the questions posed that he opened the dialogue to, there is perhaps little value to be gained from the back and forth that typically occurs. Unless to get to the "truth" of this banter back and forth, you simply wish to give me permission to post one single PM regarding your story about hunting in the grasslands. :wink:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Once again gst, your bias doesn't allow you to see the difference. There is a difference. One is an employee the other is playing both sides (gets paid for the product along with a check from the government while keeping the benefits of being private industry). And yes all private industries should be "make it or break it". Also, I have never stated that I do not agree with many of NDFB views. Please show me where I have said I dissagree with most of their views.

gst said;


> longshot the list of private industries that get one form of "subsidy" or another from tax payer dollars thru govt is actually quite long. Stop and consider what Federal dollars are paid in "subsidies" to heathcare that private enterprises receive as merely one example.


BS, where the facts that you claim you always show and demand others to give. I like how you use the work "subdidy", because you know it's BS. Here's an example for you gst; a contractor gets rained out (or some other "act of God") and cannot complete a roadway project before winter. Because he didn't make the deadline he now pays damages until the project is complete. Tell me where that person can get his government check to cover his bottom line? Why is Ag more important? Good luck getting any product to market without transportation of those goods.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Longshot, perhaps swift can explain for you how medicaid "subsidies" work in the private healthcare profession.



Longshot said:


> Also, I have never stated that I do not agree with many of NDFB views. Please show me where I have said I dissagree with most of their views.


I do not beleive I claimed you " disagreed" with NDFB, merely that you should be supporting them.



gst said:


> And longshot if you truly beleive what you claim about reducing govt spending then in fact you should be supporting NDFB as they are the largest ND ag org advocating govt spending be taken out of agriculture.


Please be a little more accurate in your claims if you could. You know credibility and all. :wink:

And plainsman before you lock this thread here are a couple of posts you made on the "old" NDFB thread. Perhaps you can "explain" them.

by Plainsman » Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:07 am 
*Then I got a PM from one of his neighbors who sighned up on the site. He said the guy has posted every acre for the last 20 years and will not even let neighbors on.*

by Plainsman » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:25 am 
Remember the guy that said he would post his land if we didn't agree with him? The guy that got so abusive a few years ago that he got banned? *Well, his neighbor PMe dme and said his land had been posted for 20 years and he let no one on.*

Plainsman, did you just share something from a PM that was sent to you by this "neighbor" who "signed up on this site"? 

Say it ain't so Joe. A moderator breaking the rules???? How long do you have to sit in the corner for that???

Luuuuccyyy, you got some splaining to do!!! S


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, you say you want to get back on subject, but your not doing that. I guess I'll try set the example, please follow.

I don't know, simply posting that the Top Secret Farm Bill is Dead about ends it right there. I think Bad Dog is interested in a specific, and I agree with him. Shuag pointed out that we should be concerned about all of the secrecy and the power the supper committee has and I completely agree with him also. Where did this turn into a whiz match anyway? Is there really anything further to talk about as related to the Secrete Farm Bill? If so I'm interested.

I agree with Bad Dog and Shaug.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> I don't know, simply posting that the Top Secret Farm Bill is Dead about ends it right there


Then why would you even put your 2 cents in???



Plainsman said:


> I guess I'll try set the example, please follow


plainsman you will have to forgive me for not following any example you set. PArticularily on to "stay on topic" in any given thread. :roll:



Plainsman said:


> Where did this turn into a whiz match anyway?


plainsman, Bad dog specifically mentioned the Dakota Grassslands Program and the NDFB policy regarding it as a "greed infested policy" (everyone wishes to banter about the greed word untill it comes back on them) and we started down the road of having a discussion regarding that when you took a light hearted comment that I actually apologized for making and started whizzing. And since then, well it is more of the same. Apparently you ar the only one allowed to make "light hearted comments on this site regarding other people?

So seeing as Bad dog does not wish to answer a couple of direct question regarding the DGCP and the govt's "greedy" role in it you guys support, I merely pointed out an aspect of claims that you have once again made in this thread. You know the old farm subsidy link you like to pull out time and again. On topic of course. Say does this chastisement to stay on topic include longshot as well? You know he kinda was "off topic" a little bit in his comments and had a degree of whizzing in them as well???  :roll:

Anyway, it appears you are not going to address YOUR "breaking the site rules" regarding sharing content from PM's or substantiate your 50/50 claim as asked to as usual so as is always the case when you start talking about agriculture, there is little of value left to the discussion.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Is this the example of "on topic" from this thread you wish me to follow??? By all means. :wink:

Report this postReply with quoteRe: Top Secrete Farm Bill is Dead!
by Plainsman » Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:21 pm 
plainsman said: PM means personal message. You already violated that once, and *I certainly wouldn't give you permission even if I could remember what it was about.* I had a great deal of respect for you when I sent those messages. When you violated the PM rule the first time much of that trust was lost. I have posted non of yours. Some you have sent me have been very bad, and I have not forwarded them to anyone either. I know you find rules tough to live by and violate them often. I guess you can do that when your important. *Us poor slobs follow them though.*



gst said:


> by Plainsman » Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:07 am
> Then I got a PM from one of his neighbors who sighned up on the site. He said the guy has posted every acre for the last 20 years and will not even let neighbors on.
> 
> by Plainsman » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:25 am
> Remember the guy that said he would post his land if we didn't agree with him? The guy that got so abusive a few years ago that he got banned? Well, his neighbor PMe dme and said his land had been posted for 20 years and he let no one on.


So is this what you mean by "following the rules???, Hey Luuucccyyy you got some splainin to do!!! 

Plainsman if you are going to critisize someone for "breaking the rules", it is more credibile if you yourself have not broken them.

Oh and by the way, would you (here it comes again) "please show where" I specifically shared what was in a PM you sent me? You know kind of like you did in the two examples above. :wink: :roll:

Irony/hypocrasy/credibility


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So is this what you mean by "following the rules???, Hey Luuucccyyy you got some splainin to do!!!


Easy, I often get PM's including one just yesterday where people ask me to post information that they don't want to post themselves. One wanted me to respond to shaug, but I have not. One confirmed that most of the land in the western part of North Dakota that you mentioned was sold and had agreements was indeed not sold, but lost due to tax delinquency. This happened back in the 1930 drought.

Now that we have that out of the way. Bad Dog, do you think we will ever know some of the specifics in that farm bill? Or for that matter any of that bill. Washington as of late has a tendency to cut the good things in favor of the entitlements and welfare. The country is broke and the politicians are still trying to buy votes with the general funds.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Easy, I often get PM's including one just yesterday where people ask me to post information that they don't want to post themselves. One wanted me to respond to shaug, but I have not. One confirmed that most of the land in the western part of North Dakota that you mentioned was sold and had agreements was indeed not sold, but lost due to tax delinquency. This happened back in the 1930 drought


You always have a "story" don't you plainsman. :wink: Kinda like the fellas you "ran into" out in Billings. :roll: Or like the rancher in the grasslands that had a "ruger blackhawk", or was that a .30-06 rifle???? 

If indeed you are getting these PM's from people that wish you to make something public, why then would you not abide by the persons wishes? Particularily one that would tend to agree with your claims?? :-?

plainsman, did you ever figure out who that fella was from the "North Dakota Grazing Association" that was trying to intimidate you out hunting? I've been trying to even find wether there ever has been a "North Dakota Grazing Association" and haven;t been having much luck. Was that the rancher with the Blackhawk, or was he the one with the 06?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Shuag pointed out that we should be concerned about all of the secrecy and the power the supper committee has and I completely agree with him also.


NO, my concern is Congrees shirking its duties and instead postponing or passing the buck. The super committee was doomed from the get go. There was no secret farm bill or super secret medicare bill or super double secret defense cutting bill coming out of some super committee. But it did take the eyes and mind of every American off what really needs to be done and got all the tongues wagging about nothing. For instance; Bad Dog got this stupid thread off of an Obama foody blogspot. I suppose if a person looks long and hard enough to find some dirt on the net to fill their agenda, it can be found. An Obama foody blogspot??? That isn't even worthy of a debate.

Congress has a couple of REAL options. They can vote to extend the 2008 Farm Bill. They can try to create a new farm bill which would probably not be done until 2013. Or they can allow sequestration where-by all programs are cut equally across the board. Myself, I like the last option. But there are those who would argue that food stamps are more important than conservation, crop insurance is more important than food stamps, conservation is more important than NDSU ag research. If cuts must be, then cut the other guys program.

Bottom line federal spending has to stop it cannot continue. Everyone is standing in line with their gimme hands out. And just like Plainsman they can come up with an extreme story to plead their case. Lobbyists and lawyers know: If the law is against you, pound the facts, if the facts are against you pound the law, if the facts and the law are both against you, pound the table. Offer rhetoric over reason. Shrug off, laugh off, shout down or shut down anyone who disagrees.

And that is what happens on this web-forum. Bad Dog started another bash farming thread. But then he derailed it because he wants his pet programs funded.

Bad Dog wrote,



> Do not accuse me of 'bashing' farmers union, or the stockman's association, because I have not. I give the farmers union credit for starting the Carbon Credit program, and I work hard to assist the ranching community in making sure cattle/livestock remain on the landscape. Now, the farm bureau is another story. Yes, I do and will continue to go after them until they get away from their extremist views, fear mongering, and greed infested policies the last president presided over. Examples include their current items on the ballot: 'Oppossing the Dakota Grassland Conservation Area'; 'All new conservation and preservation easements should be in effect only as long as the signer of the easements owns the land. ndfb is opposed to perpetual easements.'; 'The USACOE should allow access to Lake Sakakawea for indutrial use in oil well fracturing operations.'; 'Hydraulic fracturing should continue to be regulated by the states, rather than the EPA.'; 'Conservation compliance shall not be a prerequisite for federal crop insurance.'


OK, let's do this one more time. The Dakota Grasslands Proposal. What is it? The USFWS would get $588 million dollars from the US General Fund to purchase perpetual easements in ND. The USFWS is the only entity in ND that can purchase a perpetual forever easement. They want to buy easements on 240,000 acres. The land would be off limits to economic development. No houses, no mining and limited ag. The land lies in a steady state. What do the taxpayers get in exchange? Conservation, cleaner air, cleaner water and a huge national debt. Borrowed money from China at interest. Our children will have to repay this debt someday but their ability to work the land to do just that will be severely hampered. Remember, new wealth can only be generated from two areas on this earth, mining and agriculture.

So who is pushing Congress to fund this jobs killer? Several non-profits (wink wink) and non-govermental (wink wink) organizations. National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Izzack Walton League, the Wildlife Society ect.

In Dec. 2010, the lame duck session Sen. Harry Reid underhandedly got the $588 million. In Feb. the new house republicans defunded it. The USFWS had several meetings in ND back in Dec. 2010 and last summer. I suppose they are looking for concensus and/or cheerleaders to grapple with Congress at some future date to get that dam thing funded. The speaker at these events is Lloyd Jones. Director for the USFWS. He is not a bad speaker. He really knows how to engage a crowd or take them on if there are persons present who oppose his views. This is the very same Lloyd Jones who was a sponser of the HFI and he ran a very effective smear campaign against the elk and deer growers until he was stopped for violating federal laws. Is he the most honest person put in charge of $588 million dollars of taxpayer monies for the DGP? Hardly.

But it is all relative here on Nodak. Plainsman knows Lloyd Jones well. This small group belong to the fronts called federations and societies.

Therefore members of farm bureau elk growers or anyone who disagrees must be shrugged off, laughed off, shouted down or shut down.

All the fighting to save a pet project at the expence of someone else's pet project needs to stop. All the lobbying to save yours over the nexts person subsidy must stop. Hunting is subsidized as surely as farming is. This bashing of farm orgs has been going on for years on this web-forum. Does anyone know how to resolve it? "Sequestration." All congress has to do is nothing. Let sequestration happen. Everyone takes a cut equally. No amount of lobbying by anyone can get them a bigger piece of the farm bill pie. No amount of smearing the other guys can win favor. Pray for sequestration, pray Congress does nothing.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I tell you what plainsman, even though it is kinda entertaining to twist your tail, the fun does wear off after abit. So keep the "stories" coming and you and bad dog debate the "secret" farm bill all you wish, just PLEASE if at all possible, refrain from making claims about agriculture you can not factually substantiate.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug, I agree with much of what you say. However, your dead wrong when you say I know Lloyd Jones well. He was in management and I was in research. I seen him once a year at the annual Wildlife Society meeting, but never talked with him. In all honesty I can't tell you a thing about the guy.

Your idea of everyone taking a cut I agree with. Otherwise people will simply want to keep what they have and cut everyone else. That's perhaps what Obama wants, all of us at each others throat.

I didn't want one of the guys from the good old boy club running for the republicans, but I have to say Gingrich is impressing me. We can only hope to get conservatives in congress too.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Shaug, I agree with much of what you say. However, your dead wrong when you say I know Lloyd Jones well. He was in management and I was in research. I seen him once a year at the annual Wildlife Society meeting, but never talked with him. In all honesty I can't tell you a thing about the guy.


Isn't that just convenient. You don't know anybody, didn't hear anything, didn't see anything.



> Your idea of everyone taking a cut I agree with. Otherwise people will simply want to keep what they have and cut everyone else. That's perhaps what Obama wants, all of us at each others throat.


This has nothing to do with Obama. There is a small community here on Nodak that has been at the Farm Organizations jugular for many years. There is a search box here on Nodak, type in Farm Bureau,

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=Farm+Bureau&start=840

Twenty-two pages about this one farm organization alone. Same people year after year leading the charge.



> I didn't want one of the guys from the good old boy club running for the republicans, but I have to say Gingrich is impressing me. We can only hope to get conservatives in congress too.


If the Republicans nominate Gingrich and the Democrats Obama, then the establishment will own both horses in a two horse race.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Isn't that just convenient. You don't know anybody, didn't hear anything, didn't see anything.


I just didn't rub shoulders with people in management or administration. Mostly I only knew people I worked with, and seen others at our annual Wildlife Society meeting. I couldn't look at 99% of the guys and tell you their name or anything about them. The Game and Fish guys were at those meetings too, but I could only name two or three, and I couldn't tell you much about them. I just didn't run in the same group. Actually I didn't run in any group, I just did my work.



> There is a search box here on Nodak, type in Farm Bureau,


I'm headed to lunch with a farmer friend in a few minutes, but I'll try sneak out of my honey do list this afternoon and check it out.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> The Game and Fish guys were at those meetings too, but I could only name two or three, and I couldn't tell you much about them.


Do you know Doug Lier? Outreach biologist for the G/F and also a moderator here on Nodak.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see him on TV, but don't listen.

Edit: I didn't know he was a moderator. I checked the conservation form where I thought I would find him, but Robert is the moderator there. Hmmm I thought he would be using his real name. What name does he use.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Plainsman, You know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. Debating GST and Shaug is insanity. GST is a child and Shaug is a Gordon Kahl wanna be. Both are too supid to understand your previous employer was the government which paid you for the work you did. They see their govt checks in the same light as yours. Just add them both to the ignore list and let the insanity start to heal.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman, Don't have to look too far. There is a dleier who is a moderator on the open forum.

Are you really a super moderator on Nodak? 

Swift stated:


> GST is a child and Shaug is a Gordon Kahl wanna be. Both are too supid to understand your previous employer was the government which paid you for the work you did. They see their govt checks in the same light as yours. Just add them both to the ignore list and let the insanity start to heal.


Swift, are you really in the medical profession? Wow!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

LT said:


> Plainsman, Don't have to look too far. There is a dleier who is a moderator on the open forum.
> 
> Are you really a super moderator on Nodak?
> 
> ...


LT one would think that a truly unbiased "super moderator" whose goal would be the best interest of this site rather than furthering personal agendas and allowing his "buddies" free rein to say what they wish, would be sure to chastise equally? :-?

We'll see if plainsmans gives swift a "time out" for "making things personal". :wink: Perhaps he will just claim he sent one in a PM so he is free from having to say anything publically. :wink:

On a side note, if one is going to acuse someone of being "stupid", it is much more impressive if you at least make sure in doing so you spell "supid" correctly.   :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Hey swift, I thought you were ignoring me, how do you know what we can or can not understand if you truly are?

Perhaps the "insanity" lies in claiming to be doing one thing while secretly not doing it!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Edit: I didn't know he was a moderator. I checked the conservation form where I thought I would find him, but Robert is the moderator there. Hmmm I thought he would be using his real name. What name does he use.


Nobody knows anybody, nobody heard anything, nobody saw anything.................

Open Forum
A place to talk about everything. 
Moderators: MSG Rude, dleier

How many dleier 's are there on this web-forum?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Swift when people bring up government salaries I see it as another opportunity to express how appreciative I am. It's also an opportunity to contrast money for work done for others as opposed to money for work done for ones self. In truth it doesn't bother me at all. Some things work different than intended.  I'll leave this world with greatest respect for the taxpayers who paid me to do a job I enjoyed. Although retired I'll never forget my responsibility to them, which is the most bang for their buck. Overtime hours without pay was ok, because I always looked at it as going the extra mile in hopes it would bring healthy wildlife populations for American hunters, the greatest conservationists on earth.

Thanks for another opportunity Swift. :thumb:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Thanks for another opportunity Swift


You really shouldn't be so hard on old swift for "making things personal" on your site plainsman! 

plainsman, do you even stop to consider what may actually affect your:

Credibility???


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> Plainsman, You know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. Debating GST and Shaug is insanity. GST is a child and Shaug is a Gordon Kahl wanna be. Both are too supid to understand your previous employer was the government which paid you for the work you did. They see their govt checks in the same light as yours. Just add them both to the ignore list and let the insanity start to heal.


plainsman recall this statement from an earlier thread?

Plainsman wrote: "Since there is no discussion left and only personal attack I will again lock it"

Lets see if you are a truly unbiased "super moderator" and lock this thread also as it appears there is "no discussion left, and only personal attack".

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree with you gst, and per your request I will lock it for you.

Hopefully other threads will contain more thought provoking ideas.


----------

