# ND Wildlife in Trouble/Fargo Forum Special Edition



## Dick Monson

Wildlife across the state is in serious trouble.

http://www.inforum.com/content/forum-sp ... fe-trouble



> "The momentum of what's going on is so large that it seems unstoppable," said Al Sapa, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist and active member of the Wildlife Society. "We're just getting overrun."





> Mike McEnroe, a retired wildlife biologist from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said passage of a proposed constitutional amendment to set aside 5 percent of oil revenues could provide enough money to fund a state version of the dwindling Conservation Reserve Fund.





> "The habitat base is the key," he (Randy Kriel) said, adding that he is not taking a position on any ballot proposal. "All trends are pointing downward."
> 
> Kreil added: "The decisions we make in the next several years will determine what sort of hunting and fishing opportunities we have in the future. North Dakota has to decide."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's how you spell the ND Clean Water, Wildlife, and Conservation Measure.

Home page: http://www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/

Measure Language: http://www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/amendment-text


----------



## Dick Monson

I need to add one more article from NDGF North Dakota Outdoors:

http://gf.nd.gov/magazines/aug-sep/plots



> (KEVIN KADING is the Game and Fish Department's private land section leader)
> Surveys point to loss of access as one of the key reasons that hunters drop from the ranks. While Game and Fish has always encouraged hunters to develop contact with private landowners and not rely solely on PLOTS acres, we know that most hunters find themselves on PLOTS tracts one or more times in a given fall.
> While the access is important, the quality of those acres must be good enough so that the hunting public will continue its support.
> 
> North Dakota is at a crossroads with habitat changes, but there are still opportunities to address the problem, but it will take money, time and energy from hunters to do so.
> 
> * Now more than ever, hunters need to rise to the occasion and help protect the things we enjoy*.


----------



## g/o

A different view Richard,

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/hurt-n ... op-prices/


----------



## north1

As it seems with everything, the truth is somewhere in the middle between the two opposing views. I can speak directly about CRP though. When the one quarter of crp I am involved with came up for consideration, I had only a few days to make the decision to put it back in. This was because the government significantly lowered the number of acres which could be re-enrolled and once this was filled-no dice. So I made the hasty decision to place it back in, although it wasn't a hard decision for me. I do know that the fsa office was dealing with a lot of absentee landowners who they just couldn't contact in time. They probably had no choice but to take it out of crp and rent it out. Also, I seem to remember that only certain land classifications could be left in crp. Due to reduced funds I suppose Uncle Sam had to find concrete limitations to reduce the amount of acres that could be re-enrolled.

I have serious reservations about taking the large amount of tax payer dollars that are being discussed and putting it in the hands of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. If they had 12 infractions out of 20 investigated that is not a very good track record for handling millions of dollars of these funds. What is the best answer, I wish I knew. I do agree more has to be done to protect wildlife and in some cases re-establish the areas in which they live.


----------



## Dick Monson

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content ... matters-nd

OUR OPINION: *Minnesota amendment's support matters to N.D.*
By Tom Dennis on Jul 27, 2014 at 7:30 a.m.



> In November, just as North Dakotans vote on an amendment to embed conservation funding in their constitution, Minnesotans will mark the six-year anniversary of their own vote to do the same. So, how has Minnesota's Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment fared?
> 
> Let's ask Minnesotans themselves.
> 
> Earlier this year, the Minnesota Environmental Partnership did just that, and North Dakota voters may want to take note of the results.
> 
> The result: The poll showed that "71 percent of Minnesotans favor the 2008 amendment, compared to the 57 percent of Minnesotans who voted for the amendment in 2008," wrote Steve Morse, the MEP's executive director, in an April letter to lawmakers.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Dick,

As a MN resident who was in favor of this bill. It was good legislation and I am still glad we did it. But (and a big one)... OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE USING IT FOR OTHER THINGS!!

Now this bill was toted as helping with boat landings, getting more access to land or purchasing land for public use, cleaning up parking lots or making parking lots at public land access points, doing stream improvements, lake improvements, etc. Which some of the money has gone towards that.

Now lots of this money is being grabbed by the "metro" area's and they are putting in walking paths, bike trails, dog parks, up dating parks and equipment etc. The elected officials in the "metro" say since most of that revenue is generated there it should be spent there. Now people are not deer, duck, pheasant, etc hunting in Minneapolis. They are going out of state. Now I don't disagree with them taking some of that money for those projects. But they want the lion's share of it and it has been a battle between the Metro and the rest of the state.

So that is one big thing that needs to be kept an eye on. Make sure the "money grab" of the metro elected officials doesn't get too big or the money starts to go towards "pet projects" instead of what it was intended for.

But it was a good bill and i still like that it passed. Just now the "greed" is taking effect.


----------



## Dick Monson

And today's Sunday edition editorial from the Fargo Forum concerning the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Measure :

Jack Zaleski: *Undermining voters is a losing strategy*



> When it comes to respecting voters, the group calling itself "North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation" has all but jettisoned common sense in favor of a curiously offensive strategy. It's destined to fail.......
> 
> But the "common sense" crowd has been dissing the voters by attempting to kill the debate before the amendment even gets on the November ballot. Their campaign has urged people not to sign petitions that would place the question on the ballot if enough signatures are gathered and validated.
> 
> Got that? The chamber and its allies don't want North Dakotans to vote. They don't want North Dakotans to have a say on an issue that has emerged as one of the most important public policy challenges in decades: How to conserve and enhance the state's natural outdoor heritage in the face of unprecedented industrial-style oil and gas development.....


Complete editorial: http://www.inforum.com/content/jack-zal ... g-strategy


----------



## spentwings

*Right on Jacky boy!*


----------



## slough

Very interested to see how this vote turns out. I've been asking around quite a bit and have found quite a bit of support for it, which is exciting.


----------



## Dick Monson

Good for you. 41,000 plus North Dakota signatures on the petitions, needed 27,000. Had to stack the boxes 2 deep on the Secretary of State's desk. Hopefully the best is yet to come.


----------



## Dick Monson

Letter: *Wildlife is good business*
By H. Ted Upgren Jr. from Bismarck on Aug 7, 2014 at 11:24 p.m. http://www.inforum.com/content/letter-w ... d-business



> The Greater North Dakota Chamber exists to create a strong business climate. It began in 1924 (as the Greater North Dakota Association) to attract tourists and settlers. Today it remains a business advocate, but it seems to be missing the boat when it has chosen to oppose the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment. Instead, it should be an enthusiastic supporter of the amendment. Here's why: There's big business in conservation......





> Farmers and ranchers have been our greatest conservation partners. We'd have never floated more than 3 million acres of CRP without them. CWWP along with other state and federal funding will develop new wetlands and grasslands programs with competitive landowner incentive payments. Do this and many of our past conservation partners will re-up to be our future ones.


Upgren is retired from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.


----------



## dakotashooter2

I just talked to a farmer who said he thinks the increased use of farm chemicals is also having an effect. He referenced a weed killer that had a three year lifespan, that is being used on CRP. Supposedly it is wildlife safe but he said he had experience with cattle grazing on the land or being fed hay from the CRP wherein wherever they dropped their "waste" even the grass was killed for a couple seasons. And when did farmers start spraying their grains with roundup before they harvest them?


----------



## g/o

In his Aug. 8 commentary in The Forum, Ted Upgren states that the Greater North Dakota Chamber should support the proposed Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment because there's potentially billions of dollars in hunting and fishing revenue at stake. According to Upgren, the Greater North Dakota Chamber should support this amendment because we support businesses.

Much of his information about the CWWPA is misleading if not downright false.

To begin, he assumes that without CWWPA funding, our state's great outdoor resources will diminish and eventually disappear. He fails to mention that North Dakota spends almost $70 million per year on conservation and related efforts, not to mention the more than $300 million that is directed toward conservation efforts through local spending and federal programs. For those keeping track, it adds up to more than $370 million allocated for conservation projects in North Dakota every year.

Upgren also mentions the decline of the CRP program and suggests CWWPA funding could be used to bolster it. He rightly points out that farmers and ranchers are the state's greatest conservationists. Of course, he fails to mention that virtually every ag-related group in the state is a member of North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation, the coalition opposing the CWWPA.

If farmers and ranchers would benefit from enhanced CRP payments through CWWPA funding, why do they oppose it? Because the out-of-state groups funding the amendment have a history of being hostile to the ag industry and there's no way to make sure the money will be spent how CWWPA supporters claim it will be spent. We believe that when North Dakota's farmers and ranchers - the backbone of our state's agricultural heritage - take a stand against something, it's important to take notice.

Upgren claims that an unnamed "reliable source" told him visitation to Theodore Roosevelt National Park is down because it's so dangerous. My reliable source, the National Park Service's Monthly Public Use Report for July 2014, shows that visitation in the park is actually up by 16 percent over the same time last year.

But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend for a moment that our other criticisms of the CWWPA don't exist. Let's pretend that the amendment isn't being funded by out-of-state special interest groups; let's pretend that the CWWPA is going to do all the great things Upgren says it will (even though he, like the amendment itself, is skimpy on the details of exactly how that'll happen). Let's pretend the CWWPA is the golden ticket its supporters claim it to be.

The Greater North Dakota Chamber and North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation would still oppose the amendment.

Why? Because enshrining any special-interest spending in the state constitution is bad policy, regardless of the issue. It says that your issue is more important than any other funding priority in the state - education, infrastructure, health, human services, law enforcement, etc. The coalition of organizations, including the Greater North Dakota Chamber, opposing this proposed measure believe it is essential to have a balanced approach to funding for all the state's needs. From conservation and education to infrastructure and public safety, using our vast resources to benefit all North Dakotans is essential in this time of dynamic change.

That's why we don't support the CWWPA. And neither should North Dakotans.

Godfread is leading the Greater North Dakota Chamber's campaign to defeat the conservation amendment


----------



## alleyyooper

Not being from or in ND The only comment I can make is::: 
Not a surprise they are using the funds for other things in Minnesota. and they will also in ND I am sure. They have robbed funds set aside in Michigan for wild life habitat improvement, They have went so far as to give funds to some farmers to clear old fence lines and make bigger fields. That last one is in a court at this time a suit filed by a sportsman who owns property next to said farmer.

Really Ticks me off to no end that funds should have to be used to clean up boat launch sites and parking lots for hunting public lands. I would think sports persons REAL SPORTS PERSONS would take care to clean up behind them selves. But like in all things there are slobs which you and I should turn in when ever we see them littering.

 Al


----------



## Plainsman

> Much of his information about the CWWPA is misleading if not downright false.


I don't think that's true. I think some people have a different perspective. Often the question is asked "what is truth". Well, I'm one of those guys that believe in absolute truth meaning what is true for one is true for all or it is not true.



> To begin, he assumes that without CWWPA funding, our state's great outdoor resources will diminish and eventually disappear. He fails to mention that North Dakota spends almost $70 million per year on conservation and related efforts, not to mention the more than $300 million that is directed toward conservation efforts through local spending and federal programs. For those keeping track, it adds up to more than $370 million allocated for conservation projects in North Dakota every year.


Given time it would disappear because we are not keeping up with the losses that are occurring. If you have a piggy bank that holds one thousand dollars and someone is taking out 100K a year and you only put in 25K a year eventually it's gone. The same applies to our natural resources in North Dakota. It makes no difference how much you spend if it doesn't compensate for the destruction.



> Upgren also mentions the decline of the CRP program and suggests CWWPA funding could be used to bolster it. He rightly points out that farmers and ranchers are the state's greatest conservationists. Of course, he fails to mention that virtually every ag-related group in the state is a member of North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation, the coalition opposing the CWWPA.


I think he is wrong. The farmers and ranchers are not conservationists they are businessmen. When corn hit it's peak they dug up conservation and destroyed it for profit. Most everyone would have, but lets not be foolish and call farmers and ranchers conservationists. They are conservationists when there is a profit in it for them. Follow the money and you sill see why they are not for CWWPA.



> If farmers and ranchers would benefit from enhanced CRP payments through CWWPA funding, why do they oppose it? Because the out-of-state groups funding the amendment have a history of being hostile to the ag industry and there's no way to make sure the money will be spent how CWWPA supporters claim it will be spent. We believe that when North Dakota's farmers and ranchers - the backbone of our state's agricultural heritage - take a stand against something, it's important to take notice.


They would benefit, but apparently they see other ways to benefit more. I don't think they want it because it could lead to competition and they don't want competition for land rental or purchase.



> Upgren claims that an unnamed "reliable source" told him visitation to Theodore Roosevelt National Park is down because it's so dangerous. My reliable source, the National Park Service's Monthly Public Use Report for July 2014, shows that visitation in the park is actually up by 16 percent over the same time last year.


I don't know anything about this. I would guess it's up to interpretation. It could be as simple as the difference in a two year and ten year average. I don't know.



> But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend for a moment that our other criticisms of the CWWPA don't exist. Let's pretend that the amendment isn't being funded  out-of-state special interest groups; let's pretend that the CWWPA is going to do all the great things Upgren says it will (even though he, like the amendment itself, is skimpy on the details of exactly how that'll happen). Let's pretend the CWWPA is the golden ticket its supporters claim it to be.


Farm Burea is as much an out of state special interest group as ducks unlimited. Most of the farm organizations are national not North Dakota. When an ag interest comes up out of state special ag interests flood the state with money. The out of state special interest is just a scare mantra the ag community uses. It's a pot calling a kettle black.



> The Greater North Dakota Chamber and North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation would still oppose the amendment.


We need to look at the management of the Greater North Dakota Chamber and ask why they go that way. I'm very suspicious of who is in charge and why they think the way they do. Do people visit North Dakota to hunt, fish, bird watch, visit national parks etc, or do they come to look at a corn field?
The North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation is one of the biggest twists of thought I have seen. There is only a special interest in that group. It certainly is not common sense conservation, it's senseless abandonment of conservation.



> Why? Because enshrining any special-interest spending in the state constitution is bad policy, regardless of the issue. It says that your issue is more important than any other funding priority in the state - education, infrastructure, health, human services, law enforcement, etc. The coalition of organizations, including the Greater North Dakota Chamber, opposing this proposed measure believe it is essential to have a balanced approach to funding for all the state's needs. From conservation and education to infrastructure and public safety, using our vast resources to benefit all North Dakotans is essential in this time of dynamic change.


We would have to delete much of our state constitution to relieve it of special interests. A balanced approach to funding as you call it leaves funding in the hands of politicians subject to lobbyists from the special interests with the thickest wallets. What you say all sounds good, but it's all smoke and mirrors.



> That's why we don't support the CWWPA. And neither should North Dakotans.


I don't believe that g/o. They don't support it because of their own personal special interests. Everyone has a personal special interest. To point out conservations as a special interest may be correct, but it's no different than anyone else having special interests including ag, law enforcement, teachers, all the organizations you previously mentioned. Calling people for this conservation effort special interests in hopes it will become a boogie man while at the same time presenting themselves as common sense North Dakotan's is a perversion of common sense.

Godfread is leading the Greater North Dakota Chamber's campaign to defeat the conservation amendment
g/o Supporting Member Posts: 2173Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:13 pmLocation: Bertsville


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I think he is wrong. The farmers and ranchers are not conservationists they are businessmen. When corn hit it's peak they dug up conservation and destroyed it for profit. Most everyone would have, but lets not be foolish and call farmers and ranchers conservationists. They are conservationists when there is a profit in it for them. Follow the money and you sill see why they are not for CWWPA.


Give a man the secure posession of bleak rock, and he will turn it into a garden; give him a nine-year lease of a garden, and he will convert it into desert....The magic of property turns sand into gold. -Arthur Young



> We need to look at the management of the Greater North Dakota Chamber and ask why they go that way. I'm very suspicious of who is in charge and why they think the way they do. Do people visit North Dakota to hunt, fish, bird watch, visit national parks etc, or do they come to look at a corn field?


Tourism or corn production?

While touring around in their cars, tourists like ethanol.


----------



## Plainsman

> While touring around in their cars, tourists like ethanol.


No most do not. While passing through Oklahoma this winter nearly every gas station has signs that say no ethanol here. Once the nation understands that it's a net energy loss they will turn away from it. Already the price of corn is going down. Soon many will realize that ethanol had a domino affect and raised the prices on many things including groceries. Corn cost more so feeding cattle cost more, and the price of meat goes up. Americans paid a high price for a socialist program.


----------



## shaug

Plains,

You couldn't be more wrong. It is not an energy loss. You conservation boyz never mention distillers grains brings more per ton than corn because it is concentrated.

The price of corn is going down because the farmers raised a monster crop this year. It's cyclical.

The price of cattle didn't go up because of the price of corn. Cattle numbers are the lowest they have ever been because of wide spread drought down south and some winter kill in the north etc. Supply and demand.

So permit me to understand...you feel the promotion of corn is/was a socialist program while your CWWP advocating for more idle acres is not?


----------



## Plainsman

> You couldn't be more wrong. It is not an energy loss. You conservation boyz never mention distillers grains brings more per ton than corn because it is concentrated.


Things like switch grass are more efficient, but that's not what they use. Currently the way things are done are a net energy loss. It's simply an ag welfare program now.



> So permit me to understand...you feel the promotion of corn is/was a socialist program while your CWWP advocating for more idle acres is not?


Absolutely. The ethanol program is redistribution of wealth because it takes from one taxpayer and through subsidies gives it to another. The CWWP is simply the sharing of a natural resource for the benefit of all people not an individual.


----------



## shaug

> Things like switch grass are more efficient, but that's not what they use. Currently the way things are done are a net energy loss. It's simply an ag welfare program now.


Baby steps. ....The technology for (switch grass) cellusic alcohol produced in massive quantaties isn't available yet. Much is yet to be learned from ethanol plants.



> Absolutely. The ethanol program is redistribution of wealth because it takes from one taxpayer and through subsidies gives it to another. The CWWP is simply the sharing of a natural resource for the benefit of all people not an individual.


It seems you want more subsidized hunting subsidized fishing and subsidized bird watching.

It is fun to watch you spin though.....

Subsidized corn is.......................bad

Subsidized hunting is ..................good.

And......it wasn't just the farmers who lobbied for ethanol plants. The oil companies needed the oxygenated fuel to blend.


----------



## Plainsman

> The oil companies needed the oxygenated fuel to blend.


Like you and gst like to say prove it. Are you telling me they could find no other way? Simply more of your BS smoke and mirrors.



> Subsidized hunting is ..................good.


So the only value you see to conservation is hunting. Notice that was no question mark it's evident how you think. If that was the only value to conservation then you would have a right to complain. However, there are a myriad of reasons for conservation. I would guess the first and foremost is to mitigate the habitat destruction and the species that diminish because of it. Your much to narrowly focused and don't see the big picture. Think beyond the nose of your horse.

Perhaps it's simply that you don't want hunters to have the freedom to get beyond your grasp. You run and own Red Butte hunting preserve right? Would it benefit you if hunters had nowhere to go?


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> The oil companies needed the oxygenated fuel to blend.
> 
> Like you and gst like to say prove it. Are you telling me they could find no other way? Simply more of your BS smoke and mirrors.


I believe this USDA report is from 2002. But it spells it out for you.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

In 1990, ethanol production received a major boost
with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAA) of 1990. Provisions of the CAA established the
Oxygenated Fuels Program and the Reformulated
Gasoline (RFG) Program in an attempt to control
carbon monoxide (CO) and ground-level ozone prob-
lems. Both programs require certain oxygen levels in
gasoline: 2.7 percent by weight for oxygenated fuel
and 2.0 percent by weight for reformulated gasoline.
Blending ethanol with gasoline has become a popular
method for gasoline producers to meet the new oxygen
requirements mandated by the CAA. Methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE), the only other oxygenate used in
the United States, may soon be substantially reduced
or eliminated, because of its propensity to contaminate
ground and surface water (Blue Ribbon Panel, 1999).
At least 18 States, including California, the State with
the largest consumption of MTBE in the country, are
considering a phase-out of MTBE.



> Perhaps it's simply that you don't want hunters to have the freedom to get beyond your grasp. You run and own Red Butte hunting preserve right? Would it benefit you if hunters had nowhere to go?


You are grasping at straws.


----------



## Plainsman

Ethanol is not the only fuel oxygenator Shaug. I think the only thing that makes it economically feasible is the huge taxpayer funded subsidies. When the subsidies stop lets see what is used for an oxygenator then.

Plainsman:


> Perhaps it's simply that you don't want hunters to have the freedom to get beyond your grasp. You run and own Red Butte hunting preserve right? Would it benefit you if hunters had nowhere to go?


Shaug:


> You are grasping at straws.


I doubt it's grasping at straws. That is the death grip on hunters in Texas. Want to hunt quail you will pay by the acre. Were headed there and your leading the charge. I sincerely believe it's why your anti conservation. I don't think the hunting preserves like good habitat and high wildlife populations. If the only animals to hunt are behind their fences they have the market cornered right?


----------



## shaug

Plains,

Then what you are saying is that you would like to see pheasant preserves banned.

I think there is enough room for everybody but it seems some of you and yours at the wildlife society do not share the same opinion. At a 2005 wildlife society meeting, two South Dakota Game and Fish personnel were brought in to rail against pheasant preserve owners in SD. Those greedy preserve owners doing it for money and gain.

Plains, you should learn to sip in moderation.

The preserve owners are not against conservation. Most have some of the most beautiful lands groomed for hunting. 
Capitalism is about competion and raising the standard. Socialism is about fairness and lowing the standard to make everyone equal.


----------



## Plainsman

> The preserve owners are not against conservation. Most have some of the most beautiful lands groomed for hunting.


Of course it is, it's their land. They are not idiots, they are businessmen. The problem is it appears to many of us that your against conservation of public land or conservation on open private land.



> I think there is enough room for everybody but it seems some of you and yours at the wildlife society do not share the same opinion.


Tell me something I don't know. I don't care if they make money of imported species. I don't care about the African animals in Texas unless they start spreading disease to native species. I care about the American Bison, but not so much how they hunt them because they are a different animal to hunt even in the wild. Also the more they raise the better because they came so close to extinction that the genetic diversity was severely reduced. My view combines conservation, hunting, wildlife management, healthy ecosystems, etc. I don't look at these things from a narrow view.


----------



## shaug

Pheasants are an imported specie. They were farmed raised until some escaped.

I believe you attended that 2005 wildlife society meeting at the Seven Seas in Mandan. Remember the two Game and Fish employees from South Dakota. One was in a wheel chair. They showed slide after slide denouncing pheasant preserves in SD. Look at these greedy farmers, they all have to have a big sign at the drive way and look at how they converted this old dairy barn into a lodge complete with deer heads on the walls and field rock fire places. They showed slides of the $90,000 stretch hummer used for taking hunters out to the fields and for the finally, they trotted out that out story about the preserve owner who went to Germany and purchased a Shorthair for $20,000. They couldn't get him to listen and then they figured out the dog couldn't understand Enlish commands. Oh how the crowd laughed at that old joke.

And then there was the enviro lady who wanted some ranchers head on a platter for the two buffalo that were loose that whole winter in 2005 south of Mandan. She went after Dr. Susan Keller why wasn't this or that rule or regulation being followed. Why why why. She was relentless. Finally Dr. Keller said the animals were from the Fort Yates Reservation. The enviro lady sat down and that was the end of it.

Wildlife society types are.......different. Narrow view.


----------



## Plainsman

> I believe you attended that 2005 wildlife society meeting at the Seven Seas in Mandan.


Wrong again. Retirement was just around the corner and the part of ones performance standards that say you have to keep up with current research and literature didn't mean squat to me at that time. I have never been back. It's getting to liberal for me. Actually I would give you more opinion, but I did that for another fellow on here and he couldn't keep his mouth closed on fishingbuddy.



> They showed slides of the $90,000 stretch hummer used for taking hunters out to the fields


Actually I don't care if it was $900K. You don't get jobs from poor people. I'm betting he employed a few people.



> they trotted out that out story about the preserve owner who went to Germany and purchased a Shorthair for $20,000


If that part of the story is a true part the guy overpaid for that dog. I suppose a grand champion field trial dog is worth a lot, but I have no idea. I'll bet anyone who sells a dog for that much has a big smile on their face. If you have enough money the guy buying may have a smile on his face too. I don't begrudge people who are rich. I wish I was one.

You have a lot of stories Shaug. The nasty lady who don't like buffalo sounds exaggerated.


----------



## shaug

I didn't say the enviro lady doesn't like buffalo. Seemed more she doesn't like persons who raise them. Wanted to know about this rule and that regulation and why wasn't the protocal being followed to the tee to get at the ranchers who were so irresponsible as to not follow the law.

She was mostly there to hear Dr. Valerius Geist. She took notes and hung on his every word. That is until he started talking about diet. She stopped taking notes. She was a lot on the plus side. Not missing too many meals.


----------



## Plainsman

> two buffalo that were loose that whole winter in 2005 south of Mandan





> why wasn't the protocal being followed to the tee to get at the ranchers who were so irresponsible as to not follow the law.


I don't know why that makes you feel like she was trying to get at the ranchers. The entire winter is a long time. I think if they wanted they could have done something about getting them back in. All winter? Something was wrong.



> Not missing too many meals.


Maybe it drove her nuts to see them and not be able to eat them.


----------



## north1

My problem with the term "public lands" is that it is a misnomer. When it falls into federal and state hands it is their land, not the general publics. I could not count the number of times I have been told by fish and wildlife that the deer are theirs. Our deer they say. Or how many times I have heard "our wetlands" or "our wetland easements". I can't believe people can be naïve enough to think they will have all these hunting opportunities if the taxpayer conservation money grab occurs. It will be like the fish and game land in Montana sold to Ted Turner. Fences put up and access denied. Well maybe you could hunt their if you win the lottery. The "deer lottery" that is. Most of the people I know were turned down for a hunting license the last two years. What a joke!!


----------



## Plainsman

I got in a little debate with a refuge manager over that very thing a few tears ago. I told her this isn't our land it belongs to all Americans. I guess it was more than a little debate. I think she hated my guts after that. It is public land and some people need to be reminded often.


----------



## indsport

I agree that some managers of public lands over reach in using the term "theirs" even though they may usually feel responsibility for its management. As to the term "our", not so much. I assume managers of such lands are using "our" as an all inclusive term meaning the public. Managers are the public as well.


----------



## shaug

Dubbed, the non-profit employee full employment fund. It's 50 minutes long but it's the best debate to date.

https://www.ndchamber.com/nd-policy-summit-the-agenda/

A bold move to be sure - asking the state for $4.8 billion dollars to be constitutionally dedicated for conservation efforts in North Dakota. But is it a wise move and will it set a precedent for other groups to attempt the same thing for their pet projects? Andy Peterson, president & CEO of the Greater North Dakota Chamber, called it a "greedy money grab." Others think it is the best thing since sliced bread was invented. Which view is right and how should you vote is what will be discussed. Expect a lively discussion.

Jon Godfread - Greater North Dakota Chamber
Dan Wogsland - North Dakota Grain Growers Association
Steve Adair - North Dakotans for Clean Water, Wildlife & Parks
Carmen Miller - Ducks Unlimited

At 29 minutes Carmen Miller mentions a farmer who is strongly in favor of this. Dick Monson. One farmer for it and Dan Wogsland correctly points out that the entire ND Ag Coalition voted to strongly oppose. I was at that Ag Coalition meeting and can attest to the strongly opposed position.


----------



## Habitat Hugger

You guys both have some good points, so don't lower yourselves to the GST level over on FBO! Everyone I talk to who reads his stuff now tunes him out and automatically oppose anything GST advocates. He's destroyed his credibility so Shaug, don't go overboard lIke GST! You'll end up alienating far more would be supporters than capturing any of them.
IMO There should be some kind of compromise, though that's a bad word nowadays and with the farm groups that'll never happen! It doubt this measure would have come up if the Farm community would have been more supportive of conservation efforts by groups like DU, Delta, PF and wildlife stuff in general. Being too hard nosed and stopping many many good projects by such groups might backfire. At this point I sure hope so. Otherwise if the antis win this, ND will forever go down in history as the most ANTI wildlife/conservation/hunting state in the Union. Years down the road there'll be the few hunters complaining about no opportunity for anything other than maybe fishing, no hunting, no hunter Ed instructors..........heck, the G and F might as well change their name to ND FISH dept! Cause there won't be anything left. Of course then. The Farm Bureau heads will blame things on Obama, or Bush, or Jimmy Carter!  
Also Shaug, IMO more of the rancher/ farmers that I know are more FOR this measure than against! Don't be too cocky. There is sure no unanimity of opinion, especially when you get into the confidential private ballot phone booth! All my rancher buddies seem to realize that the only way to foster conservation and hunting opportunities is to. Get it past the farm bureau big chiefs, etc. 
I'm out of here. If responsible outdoor enthusiasts vote against this, then IMHO they'll get exactly what they deserve!


----------



## Dick Monson

Habitat Hugger said:


> If responsible outdoor enthusiasts vote against this, then IMHO they'll get exactly what they deserve!


To the "responsible outdoor enthusiasts" group there can be added landowners with some marginal ground, steep, sandy, always wet, high ph, stoney as heck, etc.

They could sign up for an annual payment to put it into grass. And still have some grazing and haying.

Multiple use for the landowner with a good payment for conservation practices.

Help the cattleman with the cost of cross fencing so he can rotational graze and bump up his beef production on the same amount of acres.

Or hold some water for awhile so it doesn't all hit the river at the same time. Let the sediment settle out. And the nutrient overload. Got cattails with no use for them? Payment for those acres that clean up the water.

Add another level of payment for specific types of cover.

Then add another level of payment for public access through PLOTS.

North Dakota has the second lowest acreage in state parks in this nation. Only Rhode Island has less. Nothing to be proud of there.

The money from Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks would go to North Dakota landowners but the benefit would be statewide for all the people. And if landowners didn't want to participate they could go their merry way and do what they prefer.

The measure is about choices.....which have never been available before.


----------



## Plainsman

> The measure is about choices.....which have never been available before.


That is absolutely correct, and so is Habitat Hugger. Many say we have our choice through our representation, but we can't compete with the deep pockets of the lobbyists they send to Bismarck.

When Habitat Hugger said we get what we deserve he is absolutely right. We complain about Obama, but we got what we deserve. We have passed liberal laws, and fallen for our media who presents lies rather than the truth. Our nation has voters without a clue and look where it has us.

Shaug you think landowners are unanimous against this conservation measure, but they are not. You may not even be aware, but you hang with radicals that create this illusion you have. Come out of the hiddy hole as you say and rub shoulders with real people.


----------



## g/o

Habitat you and Plainsman like to always bash the Farm Bureau. Being liberals like you are I can understand that. Funny thing is Farmers Union the left side of farming opposes this also.

North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation (NDCSC) announced its opposition to the proposed Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment. NDCSC is a coalition of more than 20 North Dakota industry, agriculture, business and government associations committed to common sense stewardship and enhancement of North Dakota's natural resources. For more information, connect to the coalition.

NDCSC opposes the proposed amendment because it would spend too much money with too little flexibility, according to Jon Godfread, vice president of governmental affairs for the Greater North Dakota Chamber.

The proposed amendment would commit five percent of North Dakota's oil extraction tax to a new massive conservation fund. Five percent is conservatively estimated at $300 to $400 million per biennium, based on projected oil production rates. That totals an estimated $4.8 billion over the 25-year life of the amendment. Under the proposed amendment, at least 75 percent of the fund must be spent each biennium.

"The spending requirement in this initiative means that whether or not there are legitimate conservation needs, some $3 million per week on average would have to be spent on conservation projects, regardless of needs in other critical areas like schools and our children's education," said Godfread.

Godfread also noted that the supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment are being funded primarily by out-of-state special interest groups. Reports filed with the Secretary of State's office show the group received 96 percent of its contributions for 2012 and 2013 -- $662,000 -- from groups outside the state. Their campaign is also being run by the Washington, D.C., firm Hamburger Strategies LLC.

Speaking out against the proposed amendment, North Dakota Farmers Union President Mark Watne said, "One of the most alarming aspects of this measure is that the massive conservation funding it would provide could be used to buy farm land. It would drive up land prices and make it more difficult for agricultural producers to compete, especially new farmers and ranchers."

Watne noted that once the non-profit groups purchase land, they would be able to do whatever they want with it, including taking it out of production agriculture, restricting public access or closing the land to hunters and fishers.

"No one cares more about taking care of our land than farmers and ranchers, but we believe in a balanced and responsible approach," said Watne. "This measure is neither balanced nor responsible."

For more information about the North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation Coalition, visit www.NDCommonSenseConservation.com.


----------



## Plainsman

> common sense stewardship


It's not common sense stewardship it's self centered and self serving opposition.



> Speaking out against the proposed amendment, North Dakota Farmers Union President Mark Watne said, "One of the most alarming aspects of this measure is that the massive conservation funding it would provide could be used to buy farm land.


There you have it. Could be used to buy farmland. They don't want any competition. Even though North Dakota has less public land than most states the above tells me they want it all. I get hounded when I call it greed, but what else can it be? Compare 95% to 5% and they think that's to much. That tells me again that they want it all.

The far right and the far left (North Dakota Farm Bureau and North Dakota Farmers Union) seldom agree, but they do on this. Some present that as proof that it's a bad thing. Some don't like gridlock in Washington. Can you imagine the destruction without gridlock? Now we have two groups that both represent the same special interest, and because they agree some think that's proof it's not good. It means nothing when they both represent the same special interest. It's simply two feathers from the same bird.


----------



## indsport

Fact: the proposed amendment does not change any existing North Dakota laws for purchase of farm land by non profits. How many land purchases by non profits have been approved in the past four decades? Few. Does the amendment opposition believe the governor and the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee and the county commissions will suddenly change their minds if the amendment passes? That is the question.


----------



## north1

I have less of a problem with state owned land then federal. Maybe because I believe states rights have been infringed upon and usurped by the federal government far too often. The feds own roughly 640 million acres in the U.S. or approximately 28% of the country. In North Dakota they(I say that because I really don't feel we are part of they) own 1,735,755 acres or roughly 3.9% of the state. I believe North Dakota ranks 31st in that regard. I would have far less of a problem with the feds turning over a large portion of these figures to the respective states. I firmly believe our forefathers did not intend for disparity in private vs state/fed owned land.


----------



## g/o

Is the ND Game and Fish a non profit?


----------



## Plainsman

I sort of agree with you north, but there are a couple of ways to look at it. First off we were part of the Louisiana Purchase and all land was federal. Through things like the Homestead Act they distributed that land to individuals. At that time it was necessary for the growth of the nation. Today so few people own so much that it leaves less and less opportunity for people to enjoy the outdoors. I know government wants to grow, but I think they want to grow in power not land. It's the people who want more public land. 
I would like to see more public land, but somehow with assurance that it would always be open to everyone. Rather than spray to manage weeds and woody species I would like to see it grazed every three to five years dependent on need of the habitat.


----------



## indsport

North, agree with your total but USFWS owns less than one third of that total and half of the USFWS land is WPA's purchased with Duck Stamp dollars. I do consider federal land to be public land for all the public.


----------



## g/o

indsport, again is the ND Game and Fish considered a non profit?


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> indsport, again is the ND Game and Fish considered a non profit?


I'm curious about your question. The ND Game and Fish is a government agency so I don't think they would be considered profit or non profit. Doesn't non profit restrict itself to private organizations? I don't think the ND Game and Fish files with the IRS to maintain a non profit status.


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, Frank Kartch, a former Advisory Board member wrote an excellent LTE of the Bismarck Tribune, that might answer your question:


> *Since 2010, the political interference at the Game and Fish Department has become palpable. As a natural resource agency, it has gotten the message not to get in the way of the rush-to-the-bank mentality that has come with the poorly-managed energy boom.*


 http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion ... f887a.html

While the professionals that currently work for NDGF and other conservation agencies are muzzled by politicians, those that are retired are not restricted from speaking out in favor of the Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Measure. Hats off to those many folks for coming forward.


----------



## indsport

Non profits as shown in NDCC 10 06.01 are groups given a 501 c 3, 501 c 10, 509 a 1 or 509 a 3 status by the IRS. Since NDGF is none of those, it is not classed as a non profit by ND state government. BTW, that also excludes religious organizations and certain private foundations.


----------



## shaug

indsport wrote,



> Fact: the proposed amendment does not change any existing North Dakota laws for purchase of farm land by non profits. How many land purchases by non profits have been approved in the past four decades? *Few*. Does the amendment opposition believe the governor and the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee and the county commissions will suddenly change their minds if the amendment passes? That is the question.


"While Ducks Unlimited hasn't fared very well in its dealings with the acquisition committee - only one of three proposals have been approved - a review of proposed nonprofit purchases since 1997 shows the panel has recommended approval 13 of 19 times. The governor ultimately approved 14 requests and denied five."


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Not trying to bash the Farm Bureau per se g/ o! Sorry to come across that way. Most of my closest friends and associates and guys and gals I hunt and fish with are farmers and ranchers and a lot of ex Farm Boys like me.
Just saying that IMO some of the agricultural groups are their own worst enemy. Continually blocking any acquisition of marginal land by outdoor groups likeDU, PF, RMEF and a list of others. Yes, you say its a slippery slope and " give Em an inch and they'll take a mile" but it's this sort of unbending attitude that stimulated this bill in the first place! Would they have been a bit more receptive to outdoor acquisition and conservation easements, etc. I doubt this would be an issue now,
I may be wrong, but in my experience, there are a LOT of farm people who are FOR this bill. One rancher said to me last weekend while fixing fence, if this does't pass. All hope for any conservation projects for ND will go forever! 
A perfect bill? nope, but it's still the best thing to come along so far, and IMO will benefit many generations down the line, similar to Teddy Roosevelt's contribution to the nation. if he hadn't gone to war with lumber, railroad, mining and in this century probably agriculture to a degree, I'd have long ago sold my elk rifle. Wouldn't probably have bought it in the first place,
So not dissing the Farm Bureau, just wondering why they haven't been more pro conservation, and more pro compromise. I realize the concept of compromise is an old has been concept these days, but IMO that attitude is sinking the country pretty rapidly, though that's another topic......
A possible off topic question? Is Farmer's Union insurance a farmer run company or just a name? I've had its for close to 40 years, farm policies till I sold out, and have always been curious.


----------



## shaug

HH wrote,



> Yes, you say its a slippery slope and " give Em an inch and they'll take a mile" but it's this sort of unbending attitude that stimulated this bill in the first place! Would they have been a bit more receptive to outdoor acquisition and conservation easements, etc. I doubt this would be an issue now,


Extortion or Coercion: the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. These are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way.

Give us, the conservation boyz, what we want or we will behave like a bunch of dog gone babies.


----------



## g/o

Get real Dick,of course game and fish employees are in favor of this. Same reason farmers are against it(except you and habitats buddy). Professionals? How did the audit go? The game and fish needs a major overhaul.

HHUgger, I have no idea where you're coming from? Your buddy needs some education their is all kinds of programs for habitat if you want to do it. You mock GST because you feel are so much better than he is. Dick Monson and the rest of the so called wildlife experts have told me how bad I am because I have been a outfitter I'll put my and Gabe's conservation up against Dicks and Ron Gillmores any day. I'm not some rich doctor or banker or pro athlete who can buy a bunch of land and use for a play ground. I like GST are **** on the shoes farmers. We make our living from the land, we know what conservation is all about do you? I want to keep the land in this state in the hands of people who care for it and not a bunch of people who read about in a book.


----------



## Dick Monson

> Location: Bertsville


Bertsville? Explains a lot. :rollin:

Anyway, you bring up an interesting point. Purchasing land. The measure opponents want to buy land cheaper so they wish to restrict who can purchase it. Cut down on the pool of bidders. They want to cheat the landowner out of the true value of his property. Who really represents the landowner best interest? Those who would cheat him of his assets or those who would pay a going rate? Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks could lease at a going rate.

Which brings up another point. Why would any farm org, (or anybody else), care who bought a cattail slough? Can't drain it, can't tile it, can't raise any crop on it, but opponents still block the sale. Dogs in the manger. Can't eat the hay but damn if they'll let the horses have it. I don't think you will see opponents dig into their own pocket to make up the difference to the landowner they are cheating. But I could be wrong. Maybe measure opponents are passing the hat right now.


----------



## g/o

Dick, been bertsville for years remember Bert? One of the many you had banned from this site. So you been to Colorado lately because whatever you're smoking must be good. When was the last time you were at a land sale? Land is selling way over appraised value. As far as sloughs go farmers around me can't sell easements to the fish and wildlife fast enough they are paying 3to5 thousand an acre. You should consider doing it but you'll have to plug your ditches.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Seems now that a very substantial number of extra signatures where gathered, the smear machine is in full speed!!!! So here it is in a nut shell, the voters are going to decide which is exactly what our constitution allows for. From simple conversations with a wide group of people in various walks of life are very interested in this. Many see the huge surplus and the behavior of the Leg as needing a fix. Many more see this as a good offset to the oil boom impact to wildlife. Others do not like it for various reasons, but the most telling thing is that the overwhelming majority are disgusted with the anti ads including a large majority of the people who are against it.

So spin away, swipe, snipe etc... the reality is that this is going to pass or fail based on wants of the people. Not the BS trumped up crap that FB and FU and the Chamber come up with as they spend the out of state money from big oil!!


----------



## shaug

Dick Monson said,



> I don't think you will see opponents dig into their own pocket to make up the difference to the landowner they are cheating.


The Corporate Farming Law barring non-profits and out of State Corporations from purchasing land was passed back in 1932. It was an Initiated Measure. The people have spoken. It would take another Measure drive to undo it.



> The measure opponents want to buy land cheaper so they wish to restrict who can purchase it. Cut down on the pool of bidders. They want to cheat the landowner out of the true value of his property. Who really represents the landowner best interest? Those who would cheat him of his assets or those who would pay a going rate?


That is quite an accusation.


----------



## shaug

As usual, Ron Gilmore projects victory early.

Kiss of death.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

shaug I have no idea if this is going to pass, just that there is a lot of interest in it. But the majority so far seemed favorable to it. But the one thing that was apparent was that your groups attempt to demonize the supporters is not working. The people see big oil as the financier of the opposition and they do not see them as ND companies even if they are doing business here.

Enough people have heard your mouth piece that is doing the talk radio trek avoid admitting to outside of ND funding to fight it while complaining that out of ND money was supporting it. Lost a lot of credibility on that!


----------



## g/o

Ron, So are you now supporting non resident hunters? Let's see if I remember those guides were going to be bringing in all those evil non resident hunters for the early goose season. You were against that also, now you want them???????????


----------



## Ron Gilmore

You need to catch up! The issue that has most annoyed people is the hypocrisy of those opposed. In their attempt to paint out of state money as bad and implying that they are not using said money and even going to the point of justification of if those opposing it are OK if out of state money if they employ people in ND. But the mouth piece really stuttered when it was pointed out that DU and others also have employees in the state. Then it was a claim on paying taxes and when it was pointed out some NR do again the stuttering!! For kool aid drinkers it does not matter to them, they will believe the grey elephant is pink if told by FU or FB that it is such, but the majority of people would like this shake their head in disbelief that they are trying to parade a grey elephant around as pink!!!

That is all! But twist away!! Spin it anyhow you wish, on this matter the voters seem to be paying attention to the amendment and not the BS surrounding it supplied by the Chamber etc... If it passes it is IMHO going to be voters wanting to invest in ND habitat! If it loses it will be that they want the money spent elsewhere. The scare tactics are not resonating nor the bs claims.


----------



## Plainsman

> The issue that has most annoyed people is the hypocrisy of those opposed.


Ron, it isn't just the out of state money that is hypocritical. It's also the claim of special interests. Agriculture is as much a special interest as hunters wanting conservation. If you support DU that's a special interest, but if you support FB or FU those also are special interests. To me crying special interest is the ultimate of hypocrisy. I often think of the grazing associations making a grab for more control of Forest Service land in the Badlands. They called the Sierra Club a special interest with outside money. As if they didn't have special interests in mind when they wanted more control. They know it's hypocrisy, but there is a percentage of under informed and not to bright who will fall for it. What ever happened to integrity.


----------



## g/o

Dick Monson said:


> Location: Bertsville
> 
> 
> 
> Bertsville? Explains a lot. :rollin:
> 
> Anyway, you bring up an interesting point. Purchasing land. The measure opponents want to buy land cheaper so they wish to restrict who can purchase it. Cut down on the pool of bidders. They want to cheat the landowner out of the true value of his property. Who really represents the landowner best interest? Those who would cheat him of his assets or those who would pay a going rate? Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks could lease at a going rate.
> 
> Which brings up another point. Why would any farm org, (or anybody else), care who bought a cattail slough? Can't drain it, can't tile it, can't raise any crop on it, but opponents still block the sale. Dogs in the manger. Can't eat the hay but damn if they'll let the horses have it. I don't think you will see opponents dig into their own pocket to make up the difference to the landowner they are cheating. But I could be wrong. Maybe measure opponents are passing the hat right now.
Click to expand...

Also speaking out against the proposed amendment was North Dakota Farmers Union President Mark Watne. "One of the most alarming aspects of this measure is that the massive conservation funding it would provide could be used to buy farm land," said Watne. "It would drive up land prices and make it more difficult for agricultural producers to compete, especially new farmers and ranchers

I guess Mr Watne is correct, thanks Dick for admitting you will be driving up land prices  :lol: :rollin:


----------



## Dick Monson

I doubt current North Dakota landowners who are selling ground want lower land prices. After all they are the owners. But they always have have the option of taking less. Plenty of land for sale in the paper. So ask the sellers if they want less money. Good luck with that.

The Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks measure doesn't have to buy ground to make landowners more money. There would be far more bang for the buck in leases similar to CRP but as a state run program. Local control right there. Flexible contracts. Have a Grassland Reserve. Multiple use. Layers of payment for layers of use.

The opposition form letters pump out the tired and disproved point that young farmers can't get started because of conservation efforts. Baloney. Just lip service. Look in a county atlas who buys the land. It isn't conservation. If farm orgs were serious about helping young farmers get a step ahead, they'd send their membership a letter telling them to let the young guys have the bid at the auction. Good luck with that too.


----------



## Plainsman

> I guess Mr Watne is correct


I know Watne. Very liberal. It's my opinion he is just saying what you want to hear to strengthen his position.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, I'm sure you know Mr Watne you liberals stick together. What Dick said did confirm what Mr Watne stated that IF this passes they will be paying premiums for land making it more difficult to compete with them, especially beginning farmers.

Dick, Of course conservation groups have not been buying land, but IF this passes it will be a different story which you already have stated to be a fact. :evil: :******: :eyeroll: IF this would pass you could buy a half a section of land a week for $1800.00 an acre. As a farmer some how you think this will be good for North Dakota. Hello Buffalo Commons


----------



## Dick Monson

Tisk, tisk....Call the Gov and ask him if he will approve the purchase of land as you state:

Office of Governor
State of North Dakota
600 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58505-0100 
701.328.2200: phone
701.328.2205: fax

As long as you're looking for more facts, ask Ag. Commissioner Goering too.

Agriculture Commissioner
Doug Goehring
701-328-4754
[email protected]

Let us know how that turns out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a *real *fact for folks:










The print transfers in small type so it's easier to read at HuntingLife.com : http://huntinglife.com/parks-important-north-dakota/

If you add in TRNP there are actually about 1,700,000 national and state park visitors in ND per season. Probably a few 100,000 more for county parks too. That's the equivalent of 8+ sell out big name events at the Fargo Dome....per month. Katy Perry can't top that, yet ND is 49th in the nation for park acreage. That ranking is a dismal.


----------



## duckp

Dismal indeed.Not my State but get a big chunk of that fricken oil $$ and save your environment,wildlife and outdoor traditions.


----------



## north1

North Dakota has 62 national wildlife refuges covering 289,300 acres. I would not object to having parks created out of some of them.


----------



## Plainsman

north1 said:


> North Dakota has 62 national wildlife refuges covering 289,300 acres. I would not object to having parks created out of some of them.


I forget the real acreage. I do remember during the debates about Garrison Diversion that those for Garrison Diversion exaggerated the amount of land the Fish and Wildlife had. It was explained to them so after the explanation it went from a mistake to an outright lie. This is how it was done. People complain about government waste of money, but the problem came about with the Fish and Wildlife trying to save money. When they took out a wetland easement of lets say 15 acres rather than spending the money surveying everything they simply described it by the quarter it existed in. SW 1/4 of section 10 township???? Range??? So rather than looking like they owned 15 acres it looked like they owned 160 acres. The Fish and Wildlife explained it at the time, but the proponents continued to exaggerate on purpose. I think they were saying a half million. Yours may be correct, I don't remember. 
I don't think we should take refuges however. That would be taking money from American hunters to benefit North Dakota.


----------



## Dick Monson

Front page of the Fargo Forum again today:

http://www.inforum.com/content/backers- ... rk-acreage



> "We don't need a constitutional measure to build a state park," said Jon Godfread, vice president of governmental affairs for the Greater North Dakota Chamber and a leading voice of the Common Sense Conservation coalition opposing the measure.


Godfread doesn't get it. "A" state park? Like "a" state park would make up the difference? Sort of like "a" oil well.


----------



## Dick Monson

August 31, Sunday Fargo Forum editorial: http://www.inforum.com/content/forum-ed ... s-changing



> *Sentiment on parks changing*





> 'Does North Dakota need more parks?" the headline asked. (Forum, Aug. 26.)
> The accompanying article by the The Forum News Service's Mike Nowatzki had the answer: A resounding "yes!"


----------



## shaug

Mike Nowatzki does a very good job at embedding the message that most people want more public land. What isn't mentioned is those same people also want more land to build a home and raise their families. They also want more land where they can build their business on or go to work for some industry that is already making use of a parcel of land.

Trouble is.......there isn't any new land being created. Put into context, Mike Nowatzki's poll is little more then asking the exact question to arrive at the desired outcome.

Hey Dick, I signed a petition to start school after Labor Day. Three days ago I received a post card from the Secretary of States Office asking if I had indeed signed it and then to promptly return it. It seems awful late to be still validating signatures. The SOS Office most be swamped.

Back in the June primary we voted for giving the SOS Office 120 days instead of the 90 days before an election so they have more time. Good idea bad idea....your thoughts. If I remember right, you were against that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

The purpose was never to make the job easier for the SOS! The intent was to take away the ability of people to gather signatures at the State Fair!! I think we should start a new change to the Constitution that would prevent the Leg from putting forth any change to the state Constitution that would restrict or or reduce any of our current rights and privileges!


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Shaug. I dunno how to quote your extortion or coercion post! I'm I pad computer illiterate! 
The problem as I see it is that after conservationists try to work out things with hard nosed groups that are unbending, then they turn to the initiated measure direction. I doesn't call this extortion. I simply call it mobilizing outdoors people of every interest and stripe to try to use some of the temporary bonanza ND has to preserve some land, largely unused by their present owners, for outdoor wildlife enthusiasts and wildlife itself. 
Heck, the only conservation extortion thing I can think of is Teddy Roosevelt trying to work with mining, timber, railroads back 114 years ago, they were hard nosed,and unyielding, so Teddy did an end run around them. He used blatant trickery , might not even have been legal ........while in ND in 2014, the would be conservationists are using absolute 100% legal and honest methods to try to get support through the ballot box! You'll say " honesty in advertising??" Depends what side of the fence you are on.....what liar do you believe??? 
Yet whe I Elk hunt on public land out west, I NEVER hear any ND farmer/ ranchers hunting elk or Mulleys with me complaining about Teddy's underhanded methods to created millions of acres of public hands for us little tax payers! 
Oh wait, you would complain as you probably feel every elk hunter should be forced to pay to shoot captive elk on your place with no public land ever available! LOL. Just jerkin your chain Shaug! I do like you and consider you a friend. 
But EXTORSion.. C'mon, SHAUG......get real.....you sound too much like GSt when you say stuff like that.


----------



## shaug

HH said,



> Shaug. I dunno how to quote your extortion or coercion post! I'm I pad computer illiterate!
> The problem as I see it is that after conservationists try to work out things with hard nosed groups that are unbending, then they turn to the initiated measure direction. I doesn't call this extortion. I simply call it mobilizing outdoors people of every interest and stripe to try to use some of the temporary bonanza ND has to preserve some land, largely unused by their present owners, for outdoor wildlife enthusiasts and wildlife itself.


Yes extortion. At the lesgislature, the hard nosed conservation boyz pretty much gave the ultimatum, give us money or we will do another measure drive.



> Oh wait, you would complain as you probably feel every elk hunter should be forced to pay to shoot captive elk on your place with no public land ever available! LOL. Just jerkin your chain Shaug! I do like you and consider you a friend.


I realize that you were just messin' with me. There is plenty of room for both. High fence low fence or no fence.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Yes extortion. At the lesgislature, the hard nosed conservation boyz pretty much gave the ultimatum, give us money or we will do another measure drive


So the Leg instead went and initiated a measure of their own to stifle anyone that disagrees with them. Sounds like tit for tat!


----------



## shaug

Ron Gilmore said:


> Yes extortion. At the lesgislature, the hard nosed conservation boyz pretty much gave the ultimatum, give us money or we will do another measure drive
> 
> 
> 
> So the Leg instead went and initiated a measure of their own to stifle anyone that disagrees with them. Sounds like tit for tat!
Click to expand...

It wasn't a measure. It was a House Bill 1278.

Tit for tat?..........Children

If this Con Amendment fails....some little boys need to be taken out back.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

The issue of the time change in presenting a initiated measure was a direct attack against the public thwarting the Leg nothing more. Had they not ran that out there I really think the CWA would not have came about in the manner it did. I think it is got a good chance of passing based on responses and comments at least in the populated areas of the state.

But we shall see. In regards to taking someone out back I think the likes of the mouth piece of the opponents is in a bigger need for that as well as FB as well!


----------



## Plainsman

> If this Con Amendment fails....some little boys need to be taken out back.


Hey shaug can you drop the asinine third grade bully bs?


----------



## Dick Monson

The ND Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks measure is approved for the Nov. ballot as Measure #5.



> BISMARCK - North Dakota voters will decide in November on ballot measures that would create a conservation fund supported with oil tax revenue and require schools to start classes after Labor Day, bringing the total number of measures on the Nov. 4 ballot to eight, Secretary of State Al Jaeger said Friday.
> 
> Sponsors of the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks constitutional amendment - which will be listed as Measure 5 on the ballot - submitted more than 41,000 signatures and needed 26,904 to get on the ballot. Jaeger's office accepted 39,755 signatures.


http://www.inforum.com/content/conserva ... -ballot-nd


----------



## Dick Monson

http://gf.nd.gov/magazines/august-septe ... ng-outlook



> The Song Remains The Same: Habitat Is The Key
> by Randy Kreil
> 
> It has been my privilege as wildlife division chief the last 20 years to provide North Dakota hunters with an overview of what the upcoming fall seasons will bring. This is my 20th and final fall outlook article, as I plan to retire at the end of August.....
> 
> The Northern Great Plains is a highly variable and dynamic ecosystem, where weather patterns play a large role in wildlife population trends. Even with these unpredictable, yet expected highs and lows in weather patterns, we have learned that with a solid and secure habitat base, wildlife populations can quickly rebound. However, recent and continuing trends in habitat loss across North Dakota may soon reach a point where wildlife populations will not have that foundation from which they can rebuild.
> The loss of nearly 2 million acres of CRP, an increasing amount of native prairie converted to cropland, an increase in energy development, removal of hundreds of miles of tree belts and plantings, and acceleration of wetland drainage, are all reasons for concern about the future of wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities in this state.
> 
> But there are ways to stem the tide of these losses.
> 
> A key consideration in this discussion is the reality that more than 90 percent of the land in North Dakota is privately owned. Therefore, if we are to make any progress in slowing or reversing the loss of habitat and wildlife populations, it has to involve private landowners.
> 
> *To accomplish this, people who make their living from the land need to have viable and economically competitive conservation options available to them. After personally dealing with private landowners for the past 20 years, it is clear that many are interested in wildlife and hunting, and are willing to "farm the best and leave the rest" if they are assured a reasonable economic return on "the rest."*
> 
> It will take a strong and committed cooperative effort on all fronts - from our congressional leaders, state political leaders, conservation agencies and organizations, local governmental entities, and most importantly, individual hunters who are willing to work with these groups to encourage the offer of options that producers will use.
> 
> We have no time to lose. The loss of habitat is happening rapidly, and we must collectively roll up our sleeves and get to work immediately if we want to maintain the wildlife populations and hunting opportunities we have experienced in the past several decades.
> RANDY KREIL, the Game and Fish Department's wildlife division chief since 1994, retired at the end of August, 2014.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How to fund it? Vote YES on #5, CLEAN WATER, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS MEASURE


----------



## indsport

As Randy Kreil said in his column, "farm the best and leave the rest" if they are assured a reasonable economic return on "the rest." That is one of the potential uses of funds available in Measure 5. I would expect most agricultural producers would be interested in such programs. Within 10 miles of my home, there have been 5 farmers that pulled land out of CRP because it wasn't re enrolled in the federal program but would have gladly kept it in CRP even if the payments were the same as the federal program. What if more funding was available. State CRP program or a supplemental in addition to the federal CRP payment to keep land in CRP? If it is all about the rate of return, what if the money was there that would exceed federal CRP rates?


----------



## Plainsman

I hope that the opposition can not successfully make this a political thing. It is not. It will decide if or not we have viable hunting opportunities in the future. If your satisfied with a buck license once every ten years then vote however you like. If you would like a buck license at least once in three years then people better vote for this measure. It's not liberal or conservative it's hunt or don't hunt. Wildlife populations are not spontaneous generation, they require suitable habitat.

I have talked to farmers for and against. I have run into farmers for the measure that are Farm Bureau and Farmers union, but every farmer that I have talked to that is against it is either Farm Bureau or Farmers Union. It would appear that a few march in lockstep to whatever an organization they belong to tells them. This isn't a new phenomenon we see it in the political arena as well and with other organizations like PETA and HSUS. Hopefully North Dakota is different and a majority will think for themselves.

Many of our fellow hunters say start a kid hunting. If you truly feel that way then vote for measure number 5. It would be unkind to start a kid hunting, then vote no jerking the mat (opportunities) out from under them.

There are many pro agriculture things about this measure. Perhaps the best advise is don't listen to anyone. Dig deep and educate yourself about this measure. You owe that to yourself and the next generations that will be here after we are gone.


----------



## slough

*ON GODFREAD: Count on it: Nonprofits plan on buying land
By Jon Godfread Today at 6:30 a.m.
Email 
BISMARCK - It's never wise to challenge a newspaper, but there are some things in the Herald's editorial, "Measure keeps limits on nonprofits buying land," that need to be clarified (Page A4, Sept. 9).

The editorial rightly points out that North Dakota nonprofits looking to buy land have to go through a screening process by the Natural Areas Acquisition Advisory Committee. The committee safeguards the state's landowners against nonprofit groups trying to buy up land, which shows the respect the people in our state have for landowners' rights.

It's also the case that the conservation amendment would leave that process unchanged.

But one of the amendment's fatal flaws would make it easier for nonprofits such as Ducks Unlimited to start buying up large parcels of land. According to the amendment, "the commission must allocate no less than 75 percent nor more than 90 percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis." So, what happens when the advisory committee recommends to the commission grants that would use 75 percent of the funds to buy land?

The commission will be under incredible pressure to either approve the land purchase or spend money on projects that don't have a clear plan. Their other option would be to violate the North Dakota Constitution.

It's easy to see how this amendment very quickly could lead to the purchase of large swaths of land. And let's not forget that the amendment would make available more than $300 million over the next two years. You sure can buy a lot of land with $300 million.

All we have is DU's guarantee that the group "doesn't want to buy land," which it continues to say even as it tries to buy land in Grand Forks County. I think people will have a hard time trusting DU when it says one thing and does another.

For the sake of argument, let's say DU doesn't try to buy land. That doesn't stop the group from trying to put perpetual easements on private land that restrict landowners' use of their property.

Steve Adair, DU's chairman, already was quoted in the Herald as saying that the group needs the conservation amendment because it wants to put "longer-term easements" on land. The Outdoor Heritage Fund already allows 20-year easements, so if that's not long enough, there is real concern that nonprofits will try to put perpetual easements on land that would take it out of agricultural production indefinitely.

On several occasions during the course of their campaign, the groups supporting the conservation amendment have referred to North Dakota's law safeguarding landowners from nonprofits trying to buy up land as "antiquated." To them, we're behind the times because we believe in landowners' rights.

If the amendment passes, DU and other groups will see $300 million go in support of conservation, which will free up their other funding for political activism that challenges our longstanding law.

Right now, DU is playing a long game. I haven't seen their playbook, but I bet it looks something like this:

1. Pass the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment;

2. Repeal "antiquated" law that protects landowners;

3. Buy large swaths of land in the name of conservation.

Considering the $300 million the new conservation amendment provides, DU and other nonprofits would have the resources they'd need to change our state's longstanding protections for landowners and buy massive amounts of land. That not only would undermine our state's values, but also put our flourishing agricultural industry at risk as more and more farmland gets taken out of production.

Stop the Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Amendment. Vote No on Measure 5.

Godfread is vice president of governmental affairs for the Greater North Dakota Chamber and chairman of North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation.*

I think this amendment would be much more likely to pass if it had more detail on how the money would be spent so guys like Godfread couldn't just make stuff up about what they "might" try to spend it on. Love how he talks about easements - landowners have to agree to these, do they not? They're not forced into them. I'm sure some argue that then the next owner has to deal with it, but just like anything else, don't buy it if you don't want the strings attached.


----------



## Plainsman

.


> The committee safeguards the state's landowners against nonprofit groups trying to buy up land, which shows the respect the people in our state have for landowners' rights.


My question would be, if they don't own the land how can it be landowner rights? If it's a true landowner rights issue, then the person who does own the land would have the right to sell to who he wishes. It's not the respect of the North Dakota people, but rather the disrespect of our legislature for those who are not already landowners.


----------



## Dick Monson

We know what the alternative is to the Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Measure. It is what we have now.


----------



## Plainsman

Dick Monson said:


> We know what the alternative is to the Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Measure. It is what we have now.


Your an optimist Dick. I think it will be much worse than what we have now. Wildlife is on a downhill slide and it's not the fault of our Game and Fish.


----------



## indsport

Plains, good point. Why does North Dakota law restrict private land owner rights and why does the opposition to CWWP want to tell the landowner what they can or cannot do with their land?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

The law came about when during the Great Depression much of ND farm lands where owned by Ins companies and banks. ND passed the law to prevent ND from be a state of share croppers like MS and others where. The advent of restricting lands to non profits came about as a slap back to the Fed over Garrison Diversion. Prior to that the only restriction was a willing landowner. Other states as has been stated have had laws like ours stripped and to the point where large Corp farms have become the norm. It is why much of the pork industry is controlled by the packing companies as they are the producer and processor.

The other issue remains the same and that is one of greed. FB and FU have a belief that if a farmer is buying the land then the price can be whatever it is. If a non profit is buying the land then the seller should be taking a reduced price for the land or not be allowed to sell it at all. They champion property rights but want to restrict them as well. Sad really but it is how we have arrived here.

I am as I stated before intrigued as to if this will pass. Most people favor the idea, but a good number are concerned with the dollar amounts. Many who oppose it do so on that alone, not on the idea itself. What has been clear though is that the scare tactics are not making to much of an inroad on people. The majority I have encountered are doing a lot of critical thinking on this issue and that is good.


----------



## shaug

> Plains, good point. Why does North Dakota law restrict private land owner rights and why does the opposition to CWWP want to tell the landowner what they can or cannot do with their land?


Mr. Sklebar, you federal boyz keep advancing the same old question hoping to embed the message that the sellers rights are being infringed upon. If you desire to increase the federal estate or State land inholdings, you sir should find another avenue.

The ND Corporate Farming Law does infringe upon the fed/gov and State trying to acquire more land.

Ron Gilmore rightly mentions the ND Corporate Farming Law was passed during the thirties but fails to mention it was an initiated measure. The people have spoken. It would take another measure drive to undo it. But that isn't how this will play out. First, concentrate on getting the 5% oil revenue rip off (CWWP) passed and then challenge the Corporate Farming Law in court.

Get the money first, don't put the cart before the horse. The Cook challenging the State of ND case is still pending.


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Shaug, there's one of those dratted Liberal out of state organizations holding a fund raising banquet nest week here in Bismarck! I've been a Liberal for 40 years by going to those things! It's called Ducks Unliberals, or something like that! :wink: See you there and a dirty rotten Commie Liberal like me can buy an upstanding Patriot Conservative like you a drink! :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

> hoping to embed the message that the sellers rights are being infringed upon.


There is no question that the owners rights are being infringed upon. The people who tell a landowner that he can't sell a section to the Fish and Wildlife for $1200 an acre should have to pay the difference if all he gets is $900 an acre from his neighbor shaug.


----------



## shaug

Habitat Hugger said:


> Shaug, there's one of those dratted Liberal out of state organizations holding a fund raising banquet nest week here in Bismarck! I've been a Liberal for 40 years by going to those things! It's called Ducks Unliberals, or something like that! :wink: See you there and a dirty rotten Commie Liberal like me can buy an upstanding Patriot Conservative like you a drink! :lol:


Oh what the heck, the coot and carp club is having a banquet already. In my area they usually are in the winter. Sometimes I go just to keep a thumb on the pulse.

I won't be at the banquet in Bismarck. But if I do show, I'll hit you up for that drink early, just before they throw me out.

It's an inside joke. Ask Dick Monson.


----------



## indsport

Shaug, It is simply a question of the right of a willing seller to sell to anyone, whether a private buyer or any other buyer. It is not about federal or government ownership of land or any other ownership or purchase. I said nothing about it either. You brought it up and diverted the discussion.

Be that as it may, you are incorrect in your statements and here are the facts. The corporate farming clause in NDCC section 10 (corporate and non profit land purchase) does not regulate federal or state land purchase. NDCC Section 20.1-02-18 governs acquisition of land by USFWS. Other sections of NDCC govern purchase by other federal agencies. NDCC Section 10-06.1-10 governs only non profit acquisition and further within that code it specifically states, "Land acquired in accordance with this section may not be conveyed to the United States or any agency or instrumentality of the United States.

Off to hunt private land for sharptails and those landowners are farmers and support the CWWP amendment and plan to vote in favor.


----------



## shaug

indsport,

The fed/gov's surrogate non-profits want to act as facilitators looking for those willing sellers. The non-profits can't own it. If the peoples General Fund Monies are used to make a purchase, what agency will oversee the property and in who's name will this public trust land be in?

Using the Cross Ranch as an example. Eric Rosenquist is the head guy and a sponsor of this 5% oil revenue rip off.

And then we have the Lewis and Clark Entirpative Center. David Borlag is the head guy and is also a sponsor of the 5% oil revenue rip off.

Every time a Park is created it seems like the head guys are leading the charge for more Parks etc. More jobs creating more jobs for themselves.

We'll have to go through the sponsors again. Most of them have never worked private industry, always having a gubment job.


----------



## Plainsman

> Every time a Park is created it seems like the head guys are leading the charge for more Parks etc. More jobs creating more jobs for themselves.


Kind of like the agriculture special interest groups. Name one special interest group like Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, Ducks Unlimited, March of Dimes, United Way, Stockman's Association, National Rifle Association etc that doesn't promote their special interest. Some people are simply so self absorbed they don't see it in their own organizations. Kind of like the parent who tells their child do as I say not as I do. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the guy working for the park does so because he sees value in it. Perhaps that's why they promote it. I see value in state parks. I very much enjoy Grahams Island State Park. I see it's full most of the time so I can't be the only one.


----------



## Dick Monson

From the landowner standpoint the Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks measure is a win-win. Here's why:

Erosion like this is widespread across ND and diminishes the value of the owners investment. Grass it in for a decent payment. Problem solve and the land value rises.










Very common to see attempts to farm permanent wetlands. No crop produced, same input expenses, effort wasted. Sign it up under CWWP for a decent payment. Add another payment for a buffer strip. Then add another for PLOTS. Money in the bank for doing the right thing.










Nearly every ND crop field has some of these unproductive acres. Same input expense and time wasted. Every year. High ph ground and salt that won't raise a crop. Nobody wants it for cropping, but good for wildlife if planted with the right grass.










Like Randy Kreil said, "farm the best, conserve the rest". The Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks measure makes financial sense for farmers and conservation sense for ND.


----------



## g/o

Dick, "IF" a farmer wants to address these problems he can by enrolling those acres in CRP. Drain tile would solve the problems of the bottom two if wanted to go that route. You can't force a farmer to put his land into a program such as CRP or your dream, it's voluntary. Unless the landowner wants to, you'll get zero acres. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> Dick, "IF" a farmer wants to address these problems he can by enrolling those acres in CRP. Drain tile would solve the problems of the bottom two if wanted to go that route. You can't force a farmer to put his land into a program such as CRP or your dream, it's voluntary. Unless the landowner wants to, you'll get zero acres. :bop:


I agree g/o it is voluntary. However, looking at those photos I'm not sure tile will solve the problems. It looks very flat for a long distance and this is the low point. Where do you drain to? If it is the low point it's geologically a hydrological stagnation area or a hydrological discharge area. It could concentrate salts further, and if tiled could make the landowner responsible for point source pollution. We are on the brink of making point source pollution the next big debate in North Dakota. Federal law will hold people responsible and it's going to be a crap storm coming down the line. Not all peaches and cream like some think. Get a good lawyer before tiling some land. 
I don't present this as a form of disagreement, I just present it as what I see happening. I think often government is to intrusive, but often farmers are to careless. In this case I guess that intrusive government will have to protect us from those who think they have the right to dump on everyone else ---- including other farmers. It isn't a farmer vs government, or farmer vs environmentalists, it's attitude vs all other interested parties including other farmers. I know a number of farmers all for draining, until they ended up at the low end of all that draining. Then who do they blame? Usually the government not their neighbor. That I don't get.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, You're correct we don't know where this goes but if proper drainage was available it would take care of it. I have a area similar to the second picture last summer that's how it looked. This year I have beans in there that are over 4 foot tall. As a former federal biologist you should be aware of the wetlands easement that you can farm these lands just can't drain or fill. The point I'm trying to make is you guys are promising we are going back to the CRP days and lots of public hunting if this measure passes. Unless farmers sign up it goes nowhere, so you have a bunch of money spend if you can't buy land as you say the only thing left is to send it out of state. How is that going to help? It's just buyer beware


----------



## indsport

Two more pieces of information. The proposed measure states "The commission may not use the fund, in any manner, to finance d. Projects outside this state or projects that are beyond the scope of defined activities that fulfill the purposes of this section;"

As to whether the demand is there, the 3 most recent signups for federal CRP in North Dakota showed the number of acres offered by landowners for signup was between 30 and 40% LARGER than the number accepted into the program. The backlog for North Dakota landowners that want to sign up for USFWS wetland easements is over 500 (funding ran out). For USDA programs such as EQIP at the latest signup, only 23% of offers could be fulfilled because of lack of funding. There is more demand than available funding.


----------



## g/o

indsport, Partially true at best the main reason is because one of your supporters and former FSA employees gave out more contracts than ND was allowed. In dewing so he created a back log, if want enroll it you can put it into PLOTS they are paying over $100.00 an acre. So why don't you inform your so called farmer friends about that?


----------



## Dick Monson

Of course conservation programs are voluntary now, and would be voluntary under the ND Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks measure.
The difference is the *higher payment rates to land owners* with CWWP. Right now 5 quarters west of me are in CRP. The owner cannot re-enroll that ground even though he wants too because it no longer qualifies. CWWP could enroll it. A couple years ago in the re-enrollment wetlands in a current CRP contract were disallowed. Only the surrounding upland qualified. So a third of the acres had no payment. Under CWWP all the acres in that could qualify.

Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks means ND landowners will get bigger payments for conservation practices than current programs.


----------



## g/o

Tell him to put it into PLOTS, Come on Dick you've always been such a big promoter of PLOTS. They will take it and pay him over $100.00 an acre.


----------



## g/o

Here you go Dick, tell your neighbor to go for the sure thing!!!!!!

http://www.inforum.com/content/outdoor- ... t-funds-nd


----------



## indsport

Good to see the OHF finally funding NDGF, but even with the grant, it is less that 45% of what NDGF would need to fully fund the program (7.3 million) and get the maximum match. http://www.nd.gov/ndic/out/applications/r3/gr3-011.pdf. Further, CREP requires the land to meet CRP eligilbility, therefore the land that Dick describes would not qualify.


----------



## Dick Monson

These last nights PBS is running "The Roosevelts" documentary by Ken Burns. Fascinating stuff. Every argument that Big Biz had against Teddy Roosevelt's conservation ethic is the same used today by opponents of CWWP measure. Funny how things never change in a 100 years. Clean water and wildlife be damned, we want the money now.


----------



## g/o

indsport, If Dick's neighbors land is in CRP he can take a extension for one year unless it's a 15 year contract. If it was a 15 year contract I 'm sure PLOTS would love to have it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Pretty wel done and pointed ads running in support of Measure 5. Scare tactics are not going to work against that ad in any way shape or forum. Must be making you and others like you nuts g/o! LOL!


----------



## Plainsman

I think many of the landowners who have good habitat and charge to hunt don't want to see the rest of the state promote conservation. There are a couple of guys on fishingbuddy who I am sure want to be the only game in town. They don't want good habitat and good wildlife populations. Rather they want hunters to be dependent on them. 
Farmers who do not charge to hunt I find in large part support this measure. I was surprised that one of the farmers I know who has to be one of the largest in the state isn't against the measure. It doesn't get him excited, but he isn't against it. What surprised me is he plows out one rows that are still alive, bulldozes farmsteads when he buys land, plows middle of section to middle of section etc. He mines the land, but still has no big problem with the conservation measure. I was completely caught off guard on that one. He is also very conservative, but not against the measure. I'm not sure how he will vote. Even though he plows everything he enjoys seeing wildlife.

Edit: g/o just for your information the above was not a shot at you. Over the years I have learned you don't go out and lease to keep others away. You also provide much in services for those that hunt with you. For those like you we appreciate the conservation you do on your own land. Now please let us do it on other land.


----------



## indsport

g/o, My previous comment was about the money NDGF has to match CREP program dollars and no, Dick's neighbor's land will NOT qualify for CREP.


----------



## shaug

Plains wrote,



> I think many of the landowners who have good habitat and charge to hunt don't want to see the rest of the state promote conservation. There are a couple of guys on fishingbuddy who I am sure want to be the only game in town. They don't want good habitat and good wildlife populations. Rather they want hunters to be dependent on them.


Market share. Who is the aggressor here?

There is plenty of room for everybody. If someone wants to plant trees, brush, forbes, leave crops standing and then charge a fee for access to recoup his investment, that is good for wildlife non-game species and business. That is when you guys start screaming commercialization of wildlife and encroachment.



> Now please let us do it on other land.


Now please let us beggar the State for $150 million a year using the publics General Treasury funds to fund doing things our way on other peoples property. Trust us!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

> publics General Treasury


That sounds right on the surface, but it isn't Tom, Dick, and Harry's income tax it's an oil tax. Like Alaska that tax should belong to all of the people. Also, that tax should go to mitigate for the habitat and wildlife damaged by the oil industry. Are we such slaves to the almighty dollar that we can't be civilized enough to take care of our state. I guess it just comes down to priorities and what we value. If you value money more than wildlife, if you see more beauty in asphalt and concrete than you do prairie and trees then vote against it. If you see value in other things besides money, asphalt and concrete then vote for measure 5.


----------



## Dick Monson

Critics of the measure funding present faulted mathematical conclusions either out ignorance or malicious intent.

The ND state budget is apx. 7 billion dollars per year.

ND Clean water, Wildlife, and Parks would receive 75 million $(ND BOA figure) or up to 150 million $ (critics figure).

NDCWWP figure would be .011% of the state budget.

Critics figure would be .014% of the state budget.

The scare tactic of no money available is just that. A scare tactic. Either amount is peanuts.

The CWWP proposal amounts to 3% of the combined production and extraction taxes.

What critics hide from the public is that if the 3% CWWP amount rises to 150 $ million per year, the other 97% of the oil tax revenue rises by the same proportion.

That generates an additional apx. 40% of new revenue for the state budget for other needs. About 2.8 BILLION dollars for new spending on education, infrastructure, health care, etc.

Now add in the fact that the ND sales tax accounts for 50% of state revenue and tracks the oil tax. (According to the Governor's budget statement). So that will increase revenue by the same proportion, providing even more new revenue.

The CWWP measure will short no one's other needs.

Fell free to forward to your address book.


----------



## Plainsman

Dick I sincerely believe the opposition knows all this. I also believe that the people against it are not friends of sportsmen, but rather want to deceive them for their own benefit. I really believe they would like to see dirt from right of way to right of way and the only hunting is their pay to play hunting. If they can destroy our free range wildlife they are the only game in town. They want control, power, manipulation, and money. They keep saying follow the money. I say yes do that.


----------



## shaug

Hello Dick,

According to North Dakotans for Commonsense Conservation, the CWWP would create the sixth highest funded State agency.

http://www.ndcommonsenseconservation.co ... aphic2.pdf

Plainsman would certainly like to embed the message that anyone opposed is anti sportsmen. Not true. Dick, had you stuck around after you testified on HB 1278 you would have heard what I had to say. What I am against, is giving money to certain non-profits. Some of leadership of these non-governmental orgs are pond scum.

The real sportsmen of ND need to take back these sportsmens non-profits and drive the pretenders out.

The trouble now days is volunteerism is lacking. Line up ten potentials for President of the ND wildlife federation and nine will take one step back leaving someone like Mike McEnroe standing unopposed. When the leadership are all former retired federal employees then are these sportsmens orgs grass roots or are they surrogates?

"We're from the fed/gov and we are here to help." ......Psh!! No one trusts these bastages. They will continue to wear hunter orange/camo and hide amongst the sportsmen for as long as an unsuspecting populace sleeps.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug, I am a life long native North Dakotan. My grandparents settled here in the 1870's and most of our family has farmed ever since. I learned to like wildlife first from the seat of a Ford tractor raking hay when I was in the third grade, and by the fourth grade summer fallowing with a U Minneapolis Moline with a hand clutch.

The social services would be after my parents today. They don't think a kid should have a BB gun when they are ten. I had a bolt action Marlin 22 when I was seven. I have hunted all of my life. I shot my first deer with a bow in 1960 when I was 12 years old. I was hunting when you were still messing your diapers. Now you try tell me I'm a pretender? What an a$$.

Your also are like the people who are prejudice against minorities. I say this because you foolishly lump all federal employees, current and retired into one pile. No group of people fit a single profile like you try to present. I know liberal feds and conservative feds. I know some very conservative feds, some Christian and some Mormon, and some atheist. Myself I voted for Reagan and have voted conservative ever since. What you want is conservatives to fit the form you want to mold them into. That is anti conservation and anything for a buck. Most conservatives are not that way. Liberals try paint conservatives as anti environment. Conservatives try paint environmentally concerned people as all socialists. Things are not that cut and dried Shaug. Growing up on the farm my parents I would consider poor, but still they did nothing that would negatively impact a neighbor. I guess they were environmentalists. It's the stubborn a buck for anything attitude of a very few radicals within the conservative party that lets the liberals use the anti environmental label as a club to beat on us. The average conservative is not anti environmental. Most like myself will change slightly as conditions require. If the dollar trumps everything for some we will back off and support more environmental things. If the nations needs more energy independence we will set our priorities in favor of fracking and drilling for more oil. Most of us do not blindly move in a singular direction all of our lives with no questions asked. We think for ourselves and don't let people like you push us to the radical agendas.

In the past you have even said this money should go to pay down the dept. This money does not belong to the entire nation it belongs in North Dakota where the drilling and habitat damage are taking place. The people will decide how much goes where. I think most will think as I do that 5% is not out of line to mitigate the loss of habitat and wildlife. I hope some radical group doesn't have an add supporting it. The radical right would use that as a scare tactic just as the radical left uses anti environmental radicals to turn public opinion against all conservatives. They should lock you and a couple of PETA folks in a cell together for a month.


----------



## Dick Monson

The vote NO crowd got shook up last week. They must be way behind in the polls. The American Petroleum Institute, (East Coast Oil), kicked in one million dollars for the vote No crowd. Then yesterday ND Gov. Jack Dalrymple panicked and offered a bribe to North Dakotans to derail the YES vote for Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks, by supposedly upping funding for parks and the Outdoor Heritage Fund.

It's the same trick though, there is no firm appropriation of money, just a smoke and mirrors statement to raise the level of the cap on the fund. Big difference between a solid appropriation and a cap on the amount.

Big oil is scared skinny that if CWWP passes, North Dakota voters will go after the tax loopholes given to them by the legislature. IMO, the vote no crowd is an empty glove and Big Oil is the fist inside that glove. The fist that has squeezed North Dakota dry.


----------



## Plainsman

Dick I sure hope your right. It's discouraging to talk (debate rather) with people who put little to no value on our natural resources. So many people in charge of the land are not stewards of the land as they were when I was a kid on the farm back in the late 1950's and early 1060's. It appears they want to get as much out of it with no concern for the damage or the future. I don't know if it's greed or ignorance or both.

I voted for Dalrymple, but I'm terribly disappointed because I too seen this empty offer of his as a way to derail the yes vote. One would have to be extremely foolish to believe it will be carried through if the no vote wins. They will say they have been given a mandate not to spend on conservation.

Being caught between democrats and republicans is indeed being caught between a rock and a hard place. My conscience will not let me vote liberal, but the republicans in this state are not conservative they are money worshipers. Are there no liberals who respect life, and are there no conservatives who value conservation?


----------



## north1

People often ask me if I am a Republican or Democrat. When I don't say it's none of your dam business I answer, " I am a Conservative Libertarian". Get some great looks with that answer.


----------



## Plainsman

north1 said:


> People often ask me if I am a Republican or Democrat. When I don't say it's none of your dam business I answer, " I am a Conservative Libertarian". Get some great looks with that answer.


I'm guessing 75% of voters don't know what a libertarian is. All they hear is democrat and republican. Maybe 50% don't know if they are liberal or conservative. They know what the Kardashians ate for breakfast yesterday though. We are in so much trouble.


----------

