# value of hunting and fishing



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

http://bismarcktribune.com/lifestyles/o ... 963f4.html

Roughly 4% of the state's GDP

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/news/newsrelease ... -7-billion


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hmmmmm 4% of the state GDP 4% of the oil revenue. Sounds about right doesn't it?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The demands of commercialized hunting are in a race with public access to North Dalota habitat. SCR-4027 could have changed that but it appears ND sportsmen opted out again. There is a lovely brochure making the rounds of ND farm country right now advertising for land owners to sign on with a brokerage company for private leasing.

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... sher_ID/1/


----------



## riverrat47 (Sep 25, 2010)

Boy, you don't want that. Here in Illinois, all the major deer hunting counties are totally leased up for deer hunting. The worst problem with that is the leasors don't want ANYONE on the property, doing anything throughout the year. Just normal ag access. They don't even want the farmer to allow spring mushroom hunting or, if there's a farm pond, fishing! It might disturb their precious deer.
DNR no longer controls the deer herd in many of the prime deer hunting counties. Outfitters and leasors run the show. 
In the 25 years or so since leasing really gotten a foothold, I've watched upland hunting totally die, partially due to access problems. The number of waterfowlers that show up on public land has skyrocketed, as they've lost access to private wetlands due to deer leasing. 
Do whatever you have to do to halt this in your state!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

riverrat I have tried to get that through the head of North Dakota hunters for years, but the landowners have them convinced that everything falls under landowner rights. It started with guiding and moved on to high fence hunts. It will only get worse and when our hunters at last wake up it will be to late. I don't think our hunters get it.

Some of our hunters want to hunt, but they don't want to be involved with anything political to support it. They just want to hunt. Othes think it is a landowners right. Still others think if they kiss up to landowners they will always have a place to hunt. It's foolish, but at this point they don't see the handwriting on the wall. They stand with their eyes closed while their most prised posession vanishes. What the landowners don't understand is that they will also loose, but just a little later. It tells me why people like Obama get into office. We get what we ask for.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

When I was young we used to go to Morast Bay on the south side of Lake Sakakawea between Beulah Bay and Hazen Bay. Thousands of acres of Corps land. Camping biking hiking fishing hunting partying campfires four wheeling you name it.

We called it Morast Bay but I think the official name is Expansion Bay. Morasts had a few cattle in there. A good time was had by all. In the fall of the year the campers and fishers didn't go there because of the weather but then the hunters took over and so I mean this was one of those where everybody got along and it was purely multiple use. About 12 years ago the Corps of Engineers gated it off and padlocked it. Walking access only.

It is a mile and a half from the gate to the water. Now nobody uses it. Accessed denied.

There are a certain few individuals on this forum that think the answer is to pass something like the Outdoor Heritage Fund and allow the use of taxpayer money for the purchase of more private real property and convert it to public. Ducks Unlimited the Natural Resources Trust etc. could lead the charge facilitating these purchases. However they can not hold on to real property for an extended period of time so then they turn it over to who?

Uncle Sam already owns a great percentage of American landscape. If the few remaining sportsmen on this forum were truely conserned about access then they would pressure the Corps to reopen Hille Wildlife Management Area at Expansion Bay.

It seems the fed/gov is most interested in making all public land private and all private land public. They use their surrogates such as the ND Natural Resources Trust, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Wildlife Society, Wildlife Federations to carry their water. Tell the side walk outdoorsman that he will have one more pheasant or one more deer to shoot at and he will vote for what amounts to little more than a federal land grab. SCR 4027 needed to be voted down forthwith and I can only support HB 1278 while holding my nose.

LET"S KEEP PRIVATE LANDS IN PRIVATE HANDS

Oh and by the way Dick, I have seen the letter from the USFWS asking landowners to come in and inquire about USFWS's easement schemes but I have not seen this lovely brochure making the rounds of ND farm country right now advertising for land owners to sign on with a brokerage company for private leasing. Dick can you reproduce it right here?


----------



## hennry369 (Mar 14, 2013)

Henry I don't understand what your trying to say, and you included a site url. It looks like all spam to me so I deleted it. If there was something or some point you wanted to make give it another shot.

Edited by Plainsman


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

As I've pointed out here before shaug, you are no friend to hunters and outdoorsman. You have proven that time after time. Why should any of us care or believe what you have to say?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot said:


> As I've pointed out here before shaug, you are no friend to MILITANT CONSERVATION BIOLOGISTS and FEDERAL LAND GRABBERS. You have proven that time after time. Why should any of us care or believe what you have to say?


There fixed it for you.

Case in point. The article in the Bismarck Tribune.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/m ... f887a.html

Look closely at the picture and the caption. The guy wearing his hat in the State House is David Alan Brandt, federal biologist with the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown. Plainsman used to work with him. David was a sponsor of the failed constitutional outdoor heritage amendment. Most of the people reading the Tribune couldn't know that. He is in camouflage.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug I'm sure he was there as a hunter as others were to represent ND sportsman. I don't see why his career makes any difference. This does nothing more than shows your dislike of hunters and Federal employees. You are obviously a radical nut case. I hope you keep it up so everyone sees who you really are. Once again you prove to be no friend to hunters.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot said:


> shaug I'm sure he was there as a hunter as others were to represent ND sportsman. I don't see why his career makes any difference. This does nothing more than shows your dislike of hunters and Federal employees. You are obviously a radical nut case. I hope you keep it up so everyone sees who you really are. Once again you prove to be no friend to hunters.


Longshot, you make me laugh. You never ad anything to the discussion other than your attempts to discredit.

Here is what happened. Dave Dettloff, regional director from the National Wildlife Federation came to ND from Montana back in the fall of 2011 and explained to ten ND wildlife federation members how the Outdoor Heritage Fund Constitutional Amendment was going to be put on the ballot. The arch-salesmen at the National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy and Pheasants Forever were proposing it. These National orgs were originally created by the fed/gov. They even told those ten members of the NDWF that getting on board may help the image of the NDWF.

The leadership of certain orgs in ND were aware of this but didn't tell the rank and file where this thing came from. That would explain why the rank and file didn't get out and carry the petition.

So far we have had the NDSU football player debacle to HB 1278 to the SCR 4027 wreck and now back to HB 1278 which is still in committee and the Senate still has taken no action on it. It's a hot potato.

The rank and file have no clue what has transpired in all this and the leadership at the wildlife federation, the wildlife society, ducks unlimited, ND natural resources trust, pheasants forever are already planning more folly.

It's like a fish rotting from the head.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Shaug, some of those organizations have benefitted hunters over the years. If a bill benefits hunters you attack it any way you can including trying to discredit people of those same organizations. You yourself "never add anything to the discussion other than your attempts to discredit". You need to look in the mirror. Most every group there is you will find someone you do not agree with or like. That alone does not change or discredit the basis of a bill or belief that in this instance would benefit wildlife and hunters alike. We understand you dislike many of the organizations and many of the people in them. I also believe underlying that is your dislike for hunting or at least the ability for hunters to access land without paying you first. Not everything has to benefit you shaug, there is a world outside your own.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot wrote,



> I also believe underlying that is your dislike for hunting or at least the ability for hunters to access land without paying you first.


The above again was a whole lot of words not adding nor subtracting anything. Unless you are trying to discredit again.

Like a steer, all you can do is try.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> These National orgs were originally created by the fed/gov.


More black helicopter bs. That's like saying the NRA was created by the fed gov. Don't you understand that many hunters belong to these organizations and know that they were not created by the fed gov.



> wildlife federation, the wildlife society, ducks unlimited, ND natural resources trust, pheasants forever are already planning more folly.


I don't belong to any of those now, but in the past I did belong to the wildlife society. I can tell everyone you know nothing of which you speak when you talk about the wildlife society. You simply spew this stuff like a racist spews hate. The wildlife society was formed by professionals who wanted to keep abreast of the latest research and management techniques. They talk about the new findings in wetlands, breeding birds, predators, fisheries etc. It's for people to keep up to their profession after college. Some people go back to school for a semester, some work as an apprentice to a world renowned professional, teachers to to their annual association meetings, police go to training, and the wildlife society is for professional wildlife and fisheries biologists to keep up to date. If you belonged to something besides North Dakota Farm Bureau maybe you would have a more realistic view of the world.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,

I always promised you we should go through those names who sponsored the Outdoor Heritage Amendment.

:computer: No bs here. Just the facts.

What is obvious is that certain non-profit , fellow travelers are looking for a dedicated source of funding.

The 31 sponsors of the Outdoor Heritage Constitutional Amendment submit the petition to the Secretary of State Jan. 12th 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Shaug, and your point it's? Many hunters belong to those same organizations. Just because it's not the Farm Bureau they are not worthwhile? You just continue to prove you are no friend to hunters or wildlife.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug I have thought about joining the Stutsman County Wildlife Federation, but my schedule has a conflict. They put out a lot of bales for wildlife, build a lot of nesting structures, give out tons of bird seed etc. Most of the people I know who are serious duck hunters belong to Ducks Unlimited, the upland guys belong to Pheasants Forever, I had paid my dues for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, but have not kept up with that. I have belonged to United Sportsmen for years and need to pay my dues. The old pastor who always hit me up for my dues passed away last year. I guess I'm going to have to remember for myself now.

Shaug it's very clear your not here to support anything but agriculture. You may pick up a rifle or shotgun once a year, but that is not your interest. You see when anyone gets anything it means your not getting it. Does that mean you should always get the whole pie and anyone else's interests have no value?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I too used to be a member of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Even won a rifle once on a $20 dollar raffle.

And used to belong to Ducks Unlimted. Go to a banquet once a year, eat a meal, swill some schlud and swap some stories. But how many of us should have to look back over our shoulder and keep an eye on the leadership and make sure that they are not including us in their head count when they go forward with folly.

Do they represent the local sportsmen? Nope. The National orgs dreamed up this 5% oil revenue rip off scheme.

It's a fish rotting from the head.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Nd is screwed, or rather, ND sportsmen are screwed....

Shaug, g/o, gst ,etc etc etc, you guys win. You guys have been winning. Why you waste your time on a ND hunting website is beyond me.

But know this, much like you claim some on here do more harm than good to landowner/hunter relations, you guys have the same affect.

I was opposed to that HF measure years ago......I think we should vote it again.

I'm tired of getting ***** slapped in the face, all in the name of landowner fuking rights.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

When you look at the original post about the dollar value of hunting and fishing in North Dakota, ($1.4 billion) you have to wonder why ND Tourism was conspicuous by their absence during the Outdoor Heritage bill hearings? When you look back at the HPC debates of 10 years ago that industry was lined up out the door to get a few more duck hunters into ND.

But when it comes to providing habitat for wildlife that would attract hunters those same folks are AWOL. Speaks volumes.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson said:


> When you look at the original post about the dollar value of hunting and fishing in North Dakota, ($1.4 billion) you have to wonder why ND Tourism was conspicuous by their absence during the Outdoor Heritage bill hearings? When you look back at the HPC debates of 10 years ago that industry was lined up out the door to get a few more duck hunters into ND.
> 
> But when it comes to providing habitat for wildlife that would attract hunters those same folks are AWOL. Speaks volumes.


That's an easy one Dick,

ND Tourism and The ND chamber of Commerce started somethin called Hunting Work$.

http://huntingworksfornd.com/our-partners/

At the Future of Hunting Conference number one back in March of 2012 they had two persons there. Leslie Rosedahl was one and I forget the other gentlemens name. After the Conference, Bill Mitzel in Dakota Country rag mag wrote a scathing piece about the one gentlemen and Hunting Work$. I emailed Leslie :computer: and sent her the list of the 31 sponsors and their affiliations.

They don't like you, nobody does.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson said,



> When you look at the original post about the dollar value of hunting and fishing in North Dakota, ($1.4 billion) you have to wonder why ND Tourism was conspicuous by their absence during the Outdoor Heritage bill hearings?


That 1.4 billion dollar figure thrown out there somehow became an accepted number, but......

According to Huntingwork$......http://huntingworksfornd.com/economic-data/



> Economic Data
> HUNTING IS PART OF NORTH DAKOTA'S CULTURE
> 
> •82,000 people hunt in North Dakota each year.
> ...


Again where did that $1.4 billion dollar number come from? indsport posted this link to the NDG/F way above.

http://bismarcktribune.com/lifestyles/o ... 963f4.html



> March 07, 2013 3:00 am • By BRIAN GEHRING | Bismarck TribuneA report from North Dakota State University shows the hunting and fishing activity in North Dakota contributes an estimated $1.4 billion to the state's economy annually.
> 
> The report was commissioned by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and conducted by the Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics at NDSU.
> 
> ...


According to the ND Chamber of Commerce the combined ripple effect from hunting is $199,000 million. Ok, it is said that every new dollar generated creates a multiplier effect times seven. Take $199,000 times seven and walla.....$1.4 billion

But that is assuming a lot of things into the multiplier effect.

So Dick Monson and the conservation boyz want $100 million dollars for a $199 million dollar industry. After that then we have to factor in the multiplier effect.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

If Mr. Shaug has a problem with the methodology of NDSU analysis of the benefit of hunting and fishing, he should have the same problem with the methodology of the same studies done on the benefits of agriculture and the oil industry (including those done by NDSU and the North Dakota Farm Bureau). As to the petitioner sponsors and their affiliations, three things come to mind. When petitions on agriculture were put on the ballot, many of the sponsors are members of the Farm Bureau or Farmers Union. Second, why should an individual's affiliation be an issue to be a sponsor? they sign as individuals, not as a member of a group. Third, the bill of rights first amendment guarantees freedom of association so to limit individuals from being sponsors based on their affiliation denies them their first amendment rights. If affiliation means you should not be a sponsor then any member of the Farm bureau should not be allowed to sponsor any petition on agriculture. Lastly, as to the NDSU study, take it up with the school, give them your superior arguments and your qualifications and let us know what you get for a response.

Let's add one more to the list. The majority of the hunting works for North Dakota report comes from the US Fish and Wildlife service report and guess what, the methodology used in that report for economic data (direct and indirect benefit) is almost identical to the methods used by NDSU.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Permit me to rephrase. At the very best an industry "can" have a multiplier effect of up to seven times. I believe agriculture, according to NDSU research is 3 to 4 times. ND Tourism, where hunting would fall is about 2.5 times.

Did somebody stretch the numbers to appear larger?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Permit me to rephrase. From the article and study I originally cited, $727 million indirect /$642.9 million direct You do the math
As to the total, it is not 199 million, but over 1.4 Billion (with a B). Did someone stretch the numbers from the original citation I made?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> $642.9 million on equipment, vehicles, boats, travel, lodging, food and many other items.


They forgot to throw in the kitchen sink. What a reach?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug lets clear something up for the North Dakota sportsmen and women who read these pages. You talk about special interests. Isn't it the truth that your here only to protect and push your special interest? You don't respond to anything that doesn't directly affect your special interest. One of the things you do is attack anything related to conservation because you want all of the money for your special interest. As a matter of fact isn't it your goal to have it all, and if it looks like someone may get a small percentage you attack? Pot, kettle, black. 
Do you not represent the North Dakota Farm Bureau? Are you not here to stop any money from going to conservation? Isn't your goal to stop it from going to conservation and redirect it to your special interest either directly or indirectly?

Are you against more public land?
Are you for pay hunting or no access on all private land?
Would you support even one percent of the oil revenue going to wildlife conservation?
You speak of taxpayer money, but isn't the 5% people want an oil revenue?
Since wildlife and habitat are affected heavily by the oil industry don't you think they should be compensated?
Don't you think the farmers that are becoming millionairs with oil on their land are being compensated enough?
If your a landowner without oil do you think your entitled to any compensation?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Ah, understanding how indirect economic benefit is actually calculated for the uneducated reader is the problem. "$642.9 million on equipment, vehicles, boats, travel, lodging, food and many other items." is actually how it is done, whether for wildlife or agriculture, the oil industry or any other economic activity.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug said:


> Do they represent the local sportsmen? Nope. The National orgs dreamed up this 5% oil revenue rip off scheme.
> It's a fish rotting from the head.


shaug, do you have any proof that this did not originate within the local chapters? Can't you say the same thing about the national organization that you promote, Farm Bureau? You will say anything to discredit these organizations if true or not. You know very well that a local chapter may come up with a program, but will always look to the national organization for help just as the Farm Bureau does. Why don't you be honest shaug and admit that you only look out for your own pocket and will do anything to discredit any program for wildlife or hunting. When an industry impacts something the taxes are to offset those impacts be it wildlife, roads, or local facilities. You know this but you still want it all.

self·serv·a·tive (shaug)
[self-serv-uh-tiv] noun

1. A person promoting a sociopolitical agenda ostensibly as a means for the betterment of society as a whole, while in fact being only concerned with the ultimate promotion and betterment of themselves and their associates


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot wrote,



> shaug, do you have any proof that this did not originate within the local chapters?


Like I said before. The National Wildlife Federation sent Dave Dittloff their regional director out of Montana to come to ND in the fall of 2011. He delivered the message how the Outdoor Heritage Consitutional Amendment was going to be proposed, an initiated measure to acquire 5% of production and extraction taxes from oil development . National orgs such as NWF, Ducks Unlimted and Pheasants Forever were going to present it to the ND Secretary of States Office. He explained the make up of the panel of nine, the funding mechanisms and how they were going to hire a consulting firm to acquire the needed signatures. There were ten men in the room listening to Dave Dittloff's presentation.

Don Baasch.......past president ND wildlife federation

Mike Donahue....lobbyist for the ND wildlife federation

Laurence Kroeger....

Mike McEnroe....former federal employee of the USFWS, lobbyist for the wildlife society, president NDwf, president Bismarck lewis and clark club

Rodney O'Clair.. federal employee with the Natural Resources Conservation Service

Dale Patrick......ND wildlife federation treasurer

Tom Sklebar. .former federal employee USGS, wildlife society, ND wildlife federation

Gordon Toeple...

Kerry Whipp..... secretary ND wildlife federation

Charles Vasicek..vice president ND wildlife federation

Longshot,

What you need to do is ask one of those men, "What did you know and when did you Know it?"


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Shaug lets clear something up for the North Dakota sportsmen and women who read these pages.


People who read these pages???????? This web-forum is practically on life support.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Longshot, all the members of the north dakota wildlife federation on shaug's list are members of their local sportsmen club first before they serve in any capacity for the north dakota wildlife federation. Any member of any sportsmen's club whose club is affiliated with the north dakota wildlife federation are also members of north dakota wildlife federation. Meetings of the north dakota wildlife federation board are open to anyone who is a member of the federation. They are not secret or restricted. Any member could have been at that same meeting if they wanted to be there. It was not secret or restricted. The list just happens to be those who cared enough to come.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

indsport said:


> Longshot, all the members of the north dakota wildlife federation on shaug's list are members of their local sportsmen club first before they serve in any capacity for the north dakota wildlife federation. Any member of any sportsmen's club whose club is affiliated with the north dakota wildlife federation are also members of north dakota wildlife federation. Meetings of the north dakota wildlife federation board are open to anyone who is a member of the federation. They are not secret or restricted. Any member could have been at that same meeting if they wanted to be there. It was not secret or restricted. The list just happens to be those who cared enough to come.


I understand indsport, what I want to point out is that shaug has no point. He only list people to try to create some kind of boogieman that does not exist (more untrue innuendos from shaug). He hopes that posting people's names will discourage others from attending. I hope those who he talks to him and those that read this site (yes many read but do not post) and his posts understand that he is an extremist. He is no friend to wildlife or hunting nor is he a good representative of land owners or farmers.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

AdamFisk said:


> Nd is screwed, or rather, ND sportsmen are screwed....
> 
> Shaug, g/o, gst ,etc etc etc, you guys win. You guys have been winning. Why you waste your time on a ND hunting website is beyond me.
> 
> ...


X1,000,000,000 :bop:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport wrote,



> Longshot, all the members of the north dakota wildlife federation on shaug's list are members of their local sportsmen club first before they serve in any capacity for the north dakota wildlife federation. Any member of any sportsmen's club whose club is affiliated with the north dakota wildlife federation are also members of north dakota wildlife federation.


indsport, you kind of pulled up and stopped short. Permit me to finish what you started. Any member of any sportsmen's club whose club is affiliated with the north dakota wildlife federation are also members of north dakota wildlife federation and the NDwf is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. The NWF was created between 1936 and 1938 by FDR, the greatest socialist president this country has ever known.

In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed political cartoonist Jay Norwood "Ding" Darling to be the chief of the U.S. Biological Survey. The US Biological Survey was the forerunner to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1938, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped "Ding" Darling become the first chairman of his new creation, the National Wildlife Federation.

It was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who coined the phrase, "nothing in politics happens by accident, you can bet it was planned that way."


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Poor shaug, always the diversion and distortion. FDR did not form the federation. Yes, he did send out invitations for the first ever North American Wildlife Conference (and still in existence) but that was it and he was not responsible for the formation of the organization (or its incorporation) and Ding Darling was elected to the position as first president of the federation, not appointed. http://www.nwf.org/Who-We-Are/~/link.as ... 44B6C&_z=z

Your socialist paranoia is showing again but sadly, facts don't appear to have any influence on your incorrect opinions.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Londshot wrote,



> He only list people to try to create some kind of boogieman that does not exist (more untrue innuendos from shaug). He hopes that posting people's names will discourage others from attending.


I completely understand that you do not like peoples names put out there. But that is where the connection is.

For instance. Go back to the 31 sponsors. There are three who work at the ND Natural Resources Trust. Anyway, Genevieve Thompson used to. Don't see her name there right now. Maybe because NDNRT has fallen on hard times. It's a Trust. They live off the Trust interest income or the $25 million put in there by the fed/gov at the end of the Garrison Diversion Project. First they wrecked the project and then they were made facilitators between what constitutes public verses what is private. Psh!!!

Keith Trego
Karen Kreil
Genevieve Thompson

Anyway, let's go to their website and board of Directors

http://www.ndnrt.com/?id=66

Tom France

Tom received his B.A. in History/Political Science and his Juris Doctorate from The University of Montana. In 1981 Tom accepted a position with the National Wildlife Federation and is currently Regional Executive Director and Counsel of the Northern Rockies & Prairies Regional Center. He also supervises the natural resource clinic program, run in cooperation with the University of Montana School of Law. Tom has participated on the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment on coal leasing and the Hydro Assessment Steering Committee of the Northwest Power Planning Council. He is a past member of the Montana Environmental Quality Council and past-Chairman of the Missoula Solid Waste Task Force. Tom also served on the Missoula Mayor's Roundtable and the Governor's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear roundtable. Tom is a past chairman of the board for the High Country News Foundation and is currently chairman of the board for the Clark Fork Coalition. He has been involved in campaigns to restore wolves and grizzlies in the northern Rockies, reform hard rock mining in the West, and promote effective private lands conservation through the Farm Bill. Tom was lead counsel in Montana Environmental Information Center v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, which established a fundamental right to a clean and healthful environment for Montana residents, and National Wildlife Federation v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, which required the full reclamation of hard rock mines, including open pits. Tom lives in Missoula, Montana, and really likes to coach youth hockey.

Longshot, you have to admit, this is quite a resume. Did you know this Tom France guy hangs out with those regional directors for the NWF? He knows Land Tawney and Dave Dittloff quite well. While Dave Dettloff was educating certain members of the NDWF on how this 5% oil revenue thing was going to play out, "THE PLAN" did Tom France from Montana give Keith Trego the heads up?

There is no environmental movement, not even a sportsmens one, which does not operate in the interest of money, in the direction indicated by money and for the period permitted by money; and all this without the idealist in its ranks having the slightest suspicion of the fact.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport said:


> Poor shaug, always the diversion and distortion. FDR did not form the federation. Yes, he did send out invitations for the first ever North American Wildlife Conference (and still in existence) but that was it and he was not responsible for the formation of the organization (or its incorporation) and Ding Darling was elected to the position as first president of the federation, not appointed. http://www.nwf.org/Who-We-Are/~/link.as ... 44B6C&_z=z
> 
> Your socialist paranoia is showing again but sadly, facts don't appear to have any influence on your incorrect opinions.


Poor indsport, you took that from the National Wildlife Federations website. Why would they give you any unfacts?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

insport wrote,



> and Ding Darling was elected to the position as first president of the federation, not appointed


What I wrote was FDR "appointed" Ding Darling chief of the US Biological Survey and "helped" Ding Darling got elected to chairman of the national wildlife federation.

Somehowhere you got confused.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I completely understand that you do not like peoples names put out there. But that is where the connection is.


Yes, and you have called people cowards who will not post their name. However, you have never posted yours. I think there is a connection with you and the real enemy of wildlife and habitat and that is the North Dakota Farm Bureau. When I asked you before you said "go fish", but then I posted GST's comments telling me you were a NDFB representative. So shaugs why don't you tell us who you are, who your connected with, and what are your objectives. Remember you said the names make the connections. We want to know your connections.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> > I completely understand that you do not like peoples names put out there. But that is where the connection is.
> 
> 
> Yes, and you have called people cowards who will not post their name. However, you have never posted yours. I think there is a connection with you and the real enemy of wildlife and habitat and that is the North Dakota Farm Bureau. When I asked you before you said "go fish", but then I posted GST's comments telling me you were a NDFB representative. So shaugs why don't you tell us who you are, who your connected with, and what are your objectives. Remember you said the names make the connections. We want to know your connections.


Not only that but shaug must live in a little world to not have had to deal or work with people you do not agree with on other issues. He claims to be "connected" but doesn't understand that when you work with people on an issue there are always those who you really don't care for or really disagree with on other issues. He obviously either doesn't get out much, or has been unbelievably lucky, or is hiding those connections as you pointed out.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'll tell you what shaug is hiding longshot. At the very least he is hiding his objectives just like Obama because if the public knew what either of them were up to they would rise up against them. My opinion is outdoors people of all stripes better understand that guys like shaug, and organizations like North Dakota Farm Bureau put no value on your hunting rights. Further I think Shaug is here to run interference for practices that will destroy our outdoors. People need to decide if the outdoors for them has value beyond the dollar.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

It would seem you guys went a little berzerk when I pointed out the ND Natural Resources Trust connection.

If that is a source of irriatation.....well.....let's go there.

What we know to be fact is that Dave Dittloff from Montana the regional director for the National Wildflife federation came to ND in the fall of 2011 to educate the ND wildlife federation leadership about "THE PLAN." The 5% oil revenue rip off or Outdoor Heritage Amendment.

So how did Keith Trego and the ND Natural Resources Trust become involved? They have a board of directors who supposedly watch how the money is spent. The National Wildlife Federation was allowed one seat on the board. They represent the federal interest. The fellow currently seated on that board is one Tom France. The question is, did Tom France tell Keith Trego about "THE PLAN"? Did he encourage Keith to be a sponsor and show him how the wildlife federation shakes money out of the taxpayers? You know he did. Look:

http://www.nwf.org/Rocky-Mountains-and- ... iates.aspx

Scroll down to Missoula Staff, there they both are. Co-conspirators???

The North Dakota Natural Resources Trust was set up at the end of the Garrison Diversion Project. The fed/gov put something like $25 million into the Trust. They are to use the interest earned as facilitators between public and private interests. It would seem lately their only interest is converting as many private lands and assessts as quickly as possible to the public arena.

Their biggest problem is interest rates. They are low and the Trust has little income. A new source of funding like the 5% oil revenue rip off would be nice.

Right now they are probably just meeting administrative fees and payroll.

The Staff:

Keith Trego............wildlife society

Linda Roeder..........used to work at ND G/F

Terry Allbee...........wildlife society

Karen Kreil............wildlife society/ducks unlimited married to Randy Kreil ND G/F

Maybe it is time to shut down the NDNRT and hand the $25 million back to the fed/gov. The US Treasury could certainly use the money and we in ND couldn't certainly use a time out from all the mischeif.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

shaug you crack me up. I don't have a problem with any of these people. Yes I may not agree with everything they believe or have done, but some of us have grown up to realize that is life and it doesn't mean you may also agree on some issues. Your claim is that these groups are bad because they have a national link. Funny this is also true of your beloved Farm Bureau. It's almost funny how self serving you are. Why wouldn't you want people who have dedicated their life to conservation and the most knowledgeable to work with these programs? Oh that's right because it isn't the all knowing farmer in charge and it's not filling your pocket. Keep at it shaug your pushing people to the conservation side every day. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It would seem you guys went a little berzerk when I pointed out the ND Natural Resources Trust connection.


Shaug you have all kinds of black helicopter theory. It doesn't bother me at all. I just hope we can keep you tipping your hand so people begin to understand you hate everything conservation. It must keep you up at night thinking that 5% of oil revenue may go to conservation. You didn't mention that one of those conservation efforts is money to new farmers who apply conservation ag. Oh, that's right you don't like conservation even if a farmer does it.

What is your goal shaug? How much money should conservation get? Do you think habitat and wildlife are damaged by the oil industry. Don't you think there should be some mitigation. Do you understand that out of the hundreds of thousands of people in North Dakota not all put agriculture first? There are other things of value in this world. That doesn't diminish the importance of agriculture, but agriculture isn't the only thing deserving.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> I'll tell you what shaug is hiding longshot. At the very least he is hiding his objectives just like Obama because if the public knew what either of them were up to they would rise up against them.


Yes, something is hidden from view. What we do know is that Dave Dittloff came to ND with "THE PLAN" to a meeting with leadership of NDwf. Question is, Did Tom France from MT who is on the board at ND Natural Resources reveal "THE PLAN" to Keith Trego? I mean Dave Dittloff's superior is Tom France at:

http://www.nwf.org/Rocky-Mountains-and- ... iates.aspx

If you look closely at that link you will see another familiar face, Land Tawney. He used to be the North Dakota regional area guy for the national wildlife federation. Many on this site know and/or remember him.

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=41305&p=319397&hilit=Land+Tawney#p319397

Land Tawney, Dave Dittloff and Tom France from the NWF are involved in a lot of things. Some of it may start catching up to them.

http://www.propublica.org/article/in-mo ... enate-seat

That's a long read but one thing is certain, no matter how hard Republican candidates try to appease these enviro's wrapped in camo, they will consistantly vote democrat.

ND Republican Representative Todd Porter for too long has brought hunting/fishing Bills forward for this very camp. In return they threw him under the bus.

We know that the oil revenue rip off gang didn't get enough signatures to put their own private slush fund on the ballot in 2012.
We know that Steve Adair from Ducks Unlimited and Keith Trego from NDNRT boasted in the papers in September 2012 they were going to run another Consitutional Amendment attempt. We know the People First Coalition that Todd Porter was part of tried to get them $30 million. But they would have to share with all the people of ND. HB 1278 was created. We know the oil revenue rip off gang didn't like it so they tried to amend it to $100 million. That didn't happen so they bolted from the table with an end run and tried to create SCR 4027 with all democrat senators and representatives. That failed.

Rep. Todd Porter was very angry and when he introduced HB 1278 on the Senate side, he told them they can pass it but when it comes back to be finalized he said he is going to Amend it to exclude pheasant forever, ducks unlimited and the ndnrt. No money for them. It is about time that Republicans realize their is nothing you can give these enviro conservation boyz. They will always vote democrat.

In all of this, it would seem the ND conservation boyz have been getting some bad counsel from their handlers in Montana.

Right now HB1278 is the only Bill hanging in there. It is the best looking horse in the glue factory.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

so conservation is bad?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

KurtR, I do believe you know the difference. Conservation is good, but bad legislation should not be pursued at any cost in the name of conservation.

Have been gone for a few days. Last week there was something of interest that happened at the Capitol that Nodaks cheerleaders missed. If HB 1278 is passed on the Senate side there will have to be money allocated to the funding mechanism.

On Friday the Senate looked at it. http://video.legis.nd.gov/DayView.aspx? ... 22&tnid=10. On the far right click on agenda. Click on the eighth order of business (there are two, it's the one near the bottom) listen to Senator Wardner. He hands out an amendment regarding HB 1005. He mentions the outdoor heritage fund in discussion of the Section 3. It's not a lot of money, it's only $12,771.

The Senate passed a $12,771 amnendment to the treasurers budget to cover the cost of changes to the oil and gas distribution fund. These are software and proceedural changes that will be needed to fund the $30 million dollar hertiage fund if it passes.

Whenever another layer of Government is passed the very first thing it needs is more of the taxpayers money. And as time passes these new agencies bloat at the public trough. They hire more people who then cry need and want. It gets harder and harder to just say no. Cut the funding cut their jobs. In America, the number of persons employed by the State and fed/gov has surpassed the numbers working in manufacturing.

What we need is a simple Bill that rewards people for their conservation efforts. A tax incentive. Plant a tree row get a write off. Plant a grassy waterway get a write off. Build a dam, collect the run off of several hundred acres and then slowly release it through a small pipe in the bottom get a write off. People are very inventive and if their ideas have merit and hold water then include them.

Creating a giant slush fund for special interest groups with the taxpayers money will only accomplish one thing. A giant sucking sound.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In America, the number of persons employed by the State and fed/gov has surpassed the numbers working in manufacturing.


That's sort of a slight of hand statement. If this is true I have a theory why. I don't think it's because we have increased government employees as much as we have driven manufacturing overseas. There are not more employees, we just have an administration and congress that have taxed and punished manufacturing so they have left the United States.

Sorry for getting off topic, but it's a statement that misleads and needed an answer.

As a conservative I do agree with you that government at any level will always struggle to increase, and will always want more. However, you may not see that every occupation is that way including farmers and ranchers. I think right now your against conservation because you want that money. Your struggling to grow at the expense of habitat and wildlife because your farm or ranch is your priority. If people on this outdoor site value their hunting and other outdoor experiences they will support conservation efforts as their priority, or at least second or third palace in their list of priorities.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> As a conservative I do agree with you that government at any level will always struggle to increase, and will always want more. However, you may not see that every occupation is that way including farmers and ranchers. I think right now your against conservation because you want that money. Your struggling to grow at the expense of habitat and wildlife because your farm or ranch is your priority.


Let's not forget who are the ones asking for more of the taxpayers money or trying to run their 5% oil revenue rip off scheme.

They believe.......socialism=solutions


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> They believe.......socialism=solutions


I don't think you understand socialism shaug. Socialism is taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. The oil companies pay a tax to offset damages etc. Wildlife is damaged because habitat is damaged. The money going to conservation isn't socialistic it's mitigation.
It's odd a farmer or rancher accusing anyone of socialism. You see the taxpayer gives money in April and the government gives it to you at harvest as a support price. If you fail they give even more. Your far more of a socialist than the people who want 5% for mitigation of damages. The problem is you want our tax dollars and the oil revenue tax also. That's why your knocking the 5% for conservation. Your in this fighting for your wallet. I'm debating for wildlife and habitat as every outdoorsman should be doing. A bushel of wheat and a ribeye steak are not the only measures when considering a persons standard of living. I like them both, but don't measure my standard of life by those things only. I eat to live not live to eat.

The bottom line shaug is that hunting is 4% of our GDP. If habitat and wildlife are being affected by the oil industry what do you think is a fair percentage for mitigation? Considering that wildlife is being disproportionately affected on public land perhaps the percentage should be closer to 10%. That's not because there are more oil wells on public land, but that there is more natural undamaged habitat on public land, hence more damage. There is little damage you can do to a plowed field, and private landowners are already compensated (often in millions of dollars) while native unaltered habitat is greatly affected with no compensation. This affects wildlife populations which directly affects the quality of life for many North Dakota citizens.

Shaug it becomes increasingly clear that in your world quality of life means agriculture. For others though it is measured in many things. I measure my quality of life in freedom, freedom of religion, ability to fish and hunt, undisturbed land for photography, camping, bird watching, hiking. I can not claim I don't like to eat, but I find beauty in undisturbed prairie, clear skies, clean water, and public land that lets me enjoy it with my low retirement income.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> A tax incentive. Plant a tree row get a write off. Plant a grassy waterway get a write off. Build a dam, collect the run off of several hundred acres and then slowly release it through a small pipe in the bottom get a write off.


Isn't this kinda like what they do for farmers?????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Creating a giant slush fund for special interest groups with the taxpayers money will only accomplish one thing. A giant sucking sound


.

Are you not a representative for one of those special interest groups? I hear a sucking sound. oke:

I think the truth is you don't want any other special interest group to have any money because your special interest group wants it all. Pot, kettle, black.

Shaug I have heard you refer to this money from the oil revenue as taxpayer money. That shouldn't worry you because people in your profession don't pay taxes do they? If you do you need a new tax accountant. Also, the oil tax is not an income tax. It's not like the taxes I pay. The oil revenue tax is more of a tax to provide mitigation. It's to pay for roads they damage. I forget the county, but they just passed a new frost law. It's a law to tax the oil companies through a permit process for driving on roads when the frost has softened them. I'm all for drilling, but they do cause habitat and wildlife damage. As I have previously said they don't hurt a plowed field and even if they do the landowner is becoming a millionaire anyway so he should be satisfied. Without the 5% habitat and wildlife are not being mitigated. I think they should have more than 5%.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Savage260 said:


> > A tax incentive. Plant a tree row get a write off. Plant a grassy waterway get a write off. Build a dam, collect the run off of several hundred acres and then slowly release it through a small pipe in the bottom get a write off.
> 
> 
> Isn't this kinda like what they do for farmers?????


Savage, you don't have to be a farmer. All you need is a little bit of land and an imagination to come up with a good conservation idea.

Plainsman wrote,



> Shaug I have heard you refer to this money from the oil revenue as taxpayer money. That shouldn't worry you because people in your profession don't pay taxes do they? If you do you need a new tax accountant. Also, the oil tax is not an income tax. It's not like the taxes I pay.


Currently the oil revenue tax money goes into the ND General Treasury. It's everyone money. Five percent here and five percent there and I don't suppose it would take long to earmark all the oil tax money away from the General Treasury.

And yes farmers do pay taxes. Everytime I purchase a new tractor tire or a tow chain there is a tax. New wealth can only be derived from mining and agriculture. The money disseminates out from there.

Bruce, I'm not sure where you were going with your statement, "the oil tax is not an income tax." Of course not. When new wealth is created there is tax money that goes into the general treasury and then the poeple decide things such as, maybe they want to hire people for a certain service. Like building a road, keeping it snow plowed and we have even been known to hire salamander trappers.

In all of this Bruce you are a dollar recycler. You worked for the fed/gov and provided to the people a service that they asked for. Your income was taxed but where was it derived from? Where did the people get the money to pay your wages? It may have been dug out of the ground. Just think Bruce, your wages came from land miners. Your whole life is a lie.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

You didn't answer the question, but then again, from reading your posts, you never really do answer questions.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> And yes farmers do pay taxes. Everytime I purchase a new tractor tire or a tow chain there is a tax.


You don't pay a sales tax like every other American. One of my relatives run out and bought a combine in December or he would have had to pay income tax. Oh shudder. He has never paid income tax, but he complains about where his taxes go. I like the guy, but he sure is full of bs sometimes. He complains about farm income too, but he has a nice farm house and a huge setup on the lake. Biggest boat of anyone around, travels to Europe, hunts Canada and a half dozen states, goes to Vegas three times a winter, writes of the Vegas trips by going to some farm expo, gets ticked if someone buys land in "his township", hates the game and fish if he doesn't get a buck license every year because "he pays their salary". Sound familiar?



> New wealth can only be derived from mining and agriculture. The money disseminates out from there.


Your going to break your arm patting yourself on the back. If you count fishing the ocean as farming or mining perhaps, if you count forestry as farming perhaps, if you count harvesting wildlife as farming perhaps, if etc etc.

I can see where that definition makes you feel good. I think a carpenter who takes wood for X amount of dollars and builds something worth 2X has created wealth. I think wealth needs a broader definition or Bill Gates is not a wealthy man. I think labor creates individual wealth. Your looking at the definition while being to self centered.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> Sound familiar?


Yes I do recognize "it". Now lay back down on the leather couch and tell us your belly ache story. Are you going to your relatives house for Easter and how small does he make you feel?



> You don't pay a sales tax like every other American. One of my relatives run out and bought a combine in December or he would have had to pay income tax. Oh shudder. He has never paid income tax, but he complains about where his taxes go. I like the guy, but he sure is full of bs sometimes. He complains about farm income too, but he has a nice farm house and a huge setup on the lake. Biggest boat of anyone around, travels to Europe, hunts Canada and a half dozen states, goes to Vegas three times a winter, writes of the Vegas trips by going to some farm expo, gets ticked if someone buys land in "his township", hates the game and fish if he doesn't get a buck license every year because "he pays their salary". Sound familiar?


It must be very painful for you to have to listen to that. Is this realtive your wifes' brother? Might be a little inheritance in it for you if you can keep your mouth closed about how badly you hate farmers. How many brothers does your wife have? Isn't it a dairy farm? How many acres


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I didn't say in-laws genius, I said relative.



> Yes I do recognize "it". Now lay back down on the leather couch and tell us your belly ache story. Are you going to your relatives house for Easter and how small does he make you feel?


Nope, not going there, but it would not make me feel small. I feel like the American people carry those who fail at farming like one would carry a crippled child. I pointed out the lack of sales tax with the foolish idea you could perhaps appreciate the support of the American people. I guess I over your capacity for appreciation. As a former public employee I appreciate the "salary" I earned through work for others. I just thought you might appreciate the support prices and lack of taxes you get from the American people for working for yourself (welfare). To quote you:


> how small does he make you feel?


Does it make you angry to be treated with the same words you treat others?  Lets look at these things through the glass of reality. Getting back that land is just another form of welfare. It's just another form of robbing the American people for the thousandth time. It is a prme example of greed. Shaft the hunters again.

I wasn't trying to be insulting shaug, I was just giving you a taste of your own kindness. :wink:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks for these post shaug. I really appreciate it as it makes for great emails to friends to inform everyone as to the extreme greed of those opposed to conservation. Keep up the good work! :beer:


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Good save Plains.......nice backpedal......


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Longshot said:


> Thanks for these post shaug. I really appreciate it as it makes for great emails to friends to inform everyone as to the extreme greed of those opposed to conservation. Keep up the good work! :beer:


Really Longshot, I'm not the one trying to create a $100 million dollar per year slush fund through a 5%oil revenue rip off scheme.

How about you guys create a Bill that any person can get a tax incentive for performing a conservation good idea. Some old fashioned people ingenuity. A person doesn't even need to possess a degree in biology, ecology or wildlife management. All they need is an imagination, a creative mind, some soil and a good idea that benefits soil air water health. Everybody becomes a partner.

The only thing you guys have come up with is a huge slush fund where the panel is stacked with your people. Creating another layer of bloated bureaucracy with all the graft and incompetance associated with it. Envision it, one guy bent over planting and weeding trees, five technical service providers bossing him. The biologist, the ecologist, the wildlife manager, the weed board guy the botanist all wearing blue hard hats and white trench coats. That $100 million of the taxpayers money isn't going very far. Not until these guys get some dirt under their nails.

Just give the people a simple Bill. A tax incentive for conservation. But then again, the Steve Adairs at Ducks Unlimited, the Mike McEnroes at the NDWF and the Wildlife Society, the Keith Tregos at the ND natural Resources Trust probably wouldn't support that. Not a lot of money in that to support their life styles. What they do support is their $100 million dollar oil revenue
scheme. Their waist lines and that of the technical services providers will grow under their plan, not so much under a simple plan such as a tax incentive to regular persons with equally good ideas.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Good save Plains.......nice backpedal......


Show me where I backpedal. All I did was correct your jumping to conclusions. I can't control the fallacies that run through your mind, only the words people read.

I don't know if what you propose could work shaug. If it could be made to work I would support it. The nine man committee I wouldn't want stacked with landowners, because it would simply be robbed. You don't want biologists on it for some reason. Why because their idea of conservation and yours are not the same. I would bet they are not.

As a matter of fact I don't trust anyone with $100 million. I don't trust our legislature to do the right thing with it. I don't trust landowners with it, I don't trust government that may be invaded with tree hugging mentality. What to do? I think a committee would be best, but somehow answerable to the people. I know you think that means answerable to farmers. I think it means answerable to all people. I don't know how to accomplish that. I know it can't be accomplished through our biased legislature.

So what's your plan shaug? All the money goes to a committee of farmers? No thank you. I don't even like it going to a committee of my fellow biologists. I often disagree with my fellow biologists, and I disagree most of the time with the politicians. I can't tell you why, but politicians seam to always gravitate towards the liberal extreme. I have experienced all these things that most of you guess at. I have farmed, I have worked for the state, I have worked construction, I have worked law enforcement, and mostly I have worked as a biologist. I don't want any one group in charge of this amount of money, especially politicians.

So if you have a better plan lets hear it. I'll give you a very rough idea of what I would like to see done with $100 million, then you tell me what you would do. 
$20 million for wetland restoration. Different payment schedule for 20 year, 50 year, and perpetual. Different payment schedule for posted vs public access. Three times the payment for public access. Very little for posted.
$20 million for prairie restoration. light grazing required. Public access required September through April. 
$20 million, for wetland buffer zones (plant grass between ag and wetlands). For grass in high erosion areas. For other ag conservation practices that intelligent people come up with (trying to make up for my short fast list). Different pay schedule for posted vs public access. General field erosion should be through the Natural Resource Conservation Service and not this fund. 
$20 million for direct land acquisition.
$20 million set aside to offset costs rather than cost being put on the general public through taxes. This should go to the Game and Fish to manage lands purchased. It's up to the people through their legislature (yuck) and governor to see that the Game and Fish is not overrun with tree hugging biologists. They actually work for the people not the round eyed fuzzy animals. Some mechanism must be put in place that makes our politicians responsible to all of the people. Now they are not.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> So what's your plan shaug? All the money goes to a committee of farmers? No thank you. I don't even like it going to a committee of my fellow biologists. I often disagree with my fellow biologists, and I disagree most of the time with the politicians. I can't tell you why, but politicians seam to always gravitate towards the liberal extreme. I have experienced all these things that most of you guess at. I have farmed, I have worked for the state, I have worked construction, I have worked law enforcement, and mostly I have worked as a biologist. I don't want any one group in charge of this amount of money, especially politicians.


Plains, by your own admission you don't trust farmers, biologists or politicians nor anybody with $100 million dollars of the peoples money. So why do you then advocate for this outdoor hertiage fund that would create another layer of government and then place $100 million into the hands of an unelected few on a panel?



> So if you have a better plan lets hear it. I'll give you a very rough idea of what I would like to see done with $100 million, then you tell me what you would do.
> $20 million for wetland restoration. Different payment schedule for 20 year, 50 year, and perpetual. Different payment schedule for posted vs public access. Three times the payment for public access. Very little for posted.


Twenty million for wetland restoration??? You mean easements. Your payment formula paying less for land that is posted, is little more than a carrot and stick to get sportsmen to back your easement schemes. Three times the payment for public access??? Bruce, are you suggesting subsidized hunting?



> $20 million for prairie restoration. light grazing required. Public access required September through April.


Rain equals restoration. The cow man can't simply buy when there is grass and sell his cows when it is short or when bureaucrats decide.



> $20 million, for wetland buffer zones (plant grass between ag and wetlands). For grass in high erosion areas. For other ag conservation practices that intelligent people come up with (trying to make up for my short fast list). Different pay schedule for posted vs public access. General field erosion should be through the Natural Resource Conservation Service and not this fund.


A simple tax incentive is all that is required. And you won't find a more intellegent person with years of experiance then the one who lives there with his boots in the mud. Different pay schedule for posted vs public access??? More subsidized hunting?



> $20 million for direct land acquisition.


Which part can't you comprehend, the "N" or the "O"



> $20 million set aside to offset costs rather than cost being put on the general public through taxes. This should go to the Game and Fish to manage lands purchased.


First you want to purchase more land then you want money to manage it. What Game and Fish needs to do is manage the lands they already have. Maybe buy some back pack sprayers and strap them onto the biologists so they can spray some weeds.

But I do like the way you keep promising the sportsmen the carrot. Very clever. They get to pursue their wildlife across private property (subsidized) in exchange for helping the fed/gov and its surrogates get what they want.



> It's up to the people through their legislature (yuck) and governor to see that the Game and Fish is not overrun with tree hugging biologists.


That is why Duane DeKray was a good pick for G/F Deputy Director.

Plains, what you need is more democrats in office to help you with your agenda. Remember when Joe Satrum ran for Governor? He was later hired by Ducks Unlimited. Then he got involved with the Theodore Roosevelt Elkhorn Ranch purchase. He was one of those valedictorians who didn't know that the gravel rights had been severed and couldn't read an abstract.

People like that should never be put in charge of $100 million of the publics money to make purchases of real property.

Republicans need to figure it out that no matter how much they give these ecco-carpetbaggers, they will always vote democrat.

Plains you want my plan? A simple tax incentive to persons who perform conservation. It's non-partisan.

More and more this is starting to look like an easement and private property grab instead of a hunting issue.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plains you want my plan? A simple tax incentive to persons who perform conservation. It's non-partisan.


Then it just ends up giving farmers money with no benefits for the rest of society. I wasn't trying to subsidize hunting as much as I was trying to give the farmer something if he was willing to share. If that isn't good then outright land purchase is the way to go. Something has to be done for wildlife and habitat mitigation. It's clear to see you want to cut out the hunters, and also clear to see I wanted to include the farmers.

It's kind of like the old CRP thing where hunters pay their taxes, landowners take their money, then landowners post, then they ask $100 per gun per day. All one sided. My post included farmers, hunters, habitat, and wildlife benefiting. Your plan includes farmers benefiting. Soooooo who is the greedy guy here?

Your right I don't much trust anyone with $100 million. However, if wildlife and habitat are to be mitigated then there has to be a choice. My choice is the Game and Fish to keep control within North Dakota, with safeguards to make sure that we don't have a Game and Fish that turns tree hugger. I doubt that is going to happen, but in this day and age if they hire what the Universities are turning out it's a possibility. So who do you trust with $100 million earmarked for conservation. What type of conservation would you consider good conservation practices? How much would be payment to farmers? Isn't it about time you answer some questions instead of hiding your agenda? Are you afraid no one will support your agenda?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> If that isn't good then outright land purchase is the way to go.


Are you talking about using your money or are you talking about using other peoples money?



> However, if wildlife and habitat are to be mitigated then there has to be a choice.


Mitigated, who said wildlife and habitat are to be or have to be? Landowners are already very good stewards. With a tax incentive or write off for conservation works they just could turn this place into a better hunting mecca.

Mitigated, legal jargon to justify easments schemes. Psh!!!!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> I wasn't trying to subsidize hunting as much as I was trying to give the farmer something if he was willing to share


Wait a minute, you cannot "give" a farmer or anybody anything without first taking it from someone else.



> Then it just ends up giving farmers money with no benefits for the rest of society.


For years this forum has pounded the table about farm subsidies and posted peoples names and the money they have received using a website called EWG or Environmental Working Group. Plains, even you are most guilty of quoting from that site.

Now after years of embedding the message that taking money is bad, you turn right around and want to "give" money to farmers.
Unless of course there is a perceived benefit to society with you and yours determining (defining) what that benefit is.

This issue is less and less about hunting and looks more and more like social planning.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Although the conversation has gotten completely away from my original post pointing out the value of hunting and fishing, here are my questions for shaug as well as a definition

Questions for shaug:

"Plant a tree row get a write off. Plant a grassy waterway get a write off. Build a dam, collect the run off of several hundred acres and then slowly release it through a small pipe in the bottom get a write off. People are very inventive and if their ideas have merit and hold water then include them. "

Okay, many of the conservation measures you mention are already subsized by taxpayer money (e.g. USDA cost share). Are you saying you want more taxpayer money? Second, who decides how much taxpayer money is given to the landowner for those items you mention? Who decides how much your items are worth?

For the benefits of Plains and shaug, this is what I think most of us use as the definition of mitigation (it has little to do with easements)

Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good job indsport. The things you mention are exactly my idea of mitigation specifically:


> Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.


The only difference between my idea and shaugs is he wants control. Both ways landowners are compensated for conservation practices. However like you say they are already compensated for many of these things. Shaug simply doesn't want it coming out even, he wants to make money at doing what is best for his operation already. It would be like the government paying $5000 for my new $8000 roof, and then wanting another $5000 from oil revenue. Like I said many of those things should be through the NRCS and this money used to mitigate wildlife in other ways.

Since shaug represents agriculture and doesn't want to play I guess outright land purchase may be the way to go.



> Wait a minute, you cannot "give" a farmer or anybody anything without first taking it from someone else.


You mean like the money they take from me on April 15 and give a large portion to you?

The oil revenue money is being taken already. It's meant to compensate for things. Now the people of North Dakota will need to decide what is worthy of being compensated for. Mitigation is a bad word for you, but maybe compensated would be better. When the roads in your township are torn up should any oil revenue be used to mitigate/compensate for the damages so it can be repaired? We all know the habitat is damaged with oil drilling, and when habitat is damaged wildlife suffers. So some people in North Dakoa think habitat should be mitigated/compensated. Is there a word I can use that you will not try hide behind?

It's odd hearing a farmer/rancher talk about taking from someone and giving to someone else when that is where half their income comes from. Shaug you get the number 1 hypocrite award. Is there any other vocation that gets as much taxpayer support? I don't think so. Oh, and by that I mean is there any other job where a man works for himself rather than others and still hauls in public funds?

I don't begrudge those funds to most farmers, only the ones that take me for a sucker.

Edit: I also don't have a problem with some of he oil revenue money going to ag conservation. I just don't want double dipping so it becomes a money siphoning scheme as we are seeing suggested here.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport wrote,



> Okay, many of the conservation measures you mention are already subsized by taxpayer money (e.g. USDA cost share). Are you saying you want more taxpayer money? Second, who decides how much taxpayer money is given to the landowner for those items you mention? Who decides how much your items are worth?


Nope, right from the start I have stated that the fed/gov doesn't have the cash to fund soil conservation like it used to. The infrastrucure is already there. Buildings staff etc. Get some money to them. We already have a good working relationship with the soil conservation districts. Under HB 1278 or the $30 million dollar plan that is going to happen to some extent. The soil conservation guys were at the Hearings. Good people.

The conservation boyz like DU, FP and NDWF etc. were there too. They behaved so poorly that they got themselves amended out from any grant money. :rollin:

Plains wrote,



> The only difference between my idea and shaugs is he wants control. Both ways landowners are compensated for conservation practices. However like you say they are already compensated for many of these things.


The conservation boyz wanted control and for their greedy efforts the legislature rewarded them by amending them out. Anyway that is what Rep. Porter said he is going to do. I hope he sticks to his guns. I have been in contact with my Rep. saying get in there and support Porter.

Today I beleive is the Hearing on 1338 at the Capitol. The State land grab from the Corps. Plains you have been telling sportmen to get over there and do something yet you are doing what today? :computer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There has to be more farmers out there like my father was on the farm. He did the right thing simply because it was the right thing. Conservation practices keep your soil from washing downstream and preserve it for your children. That's like any working man putting money in the bank for his children. Why is it we must pay for a farmer to do the right thing? So be it if it must be, but must that same farmer treat the people who pay those taxes he takes like the enemy?

There are funds available. Everyone wants some of those funds, and some people want all of the funds for themselves. The oil impacts many parts or our society some good some bad. Luckily the oil industry and our people have come up with a way to compensate (mitigate) for the bad impacts. Now some of the greedy want to take the funding that impacts others all for themselves, or they want to manipulate the system so it looks like they are doing us all a favor by taking the money. Shaug agriculture already gets a chunck of money that makes wildlife look trivial. If we pay more is it to much to ask to have a program that also benefits others?

Shaug wrote:


> Plains you have been telling sportmen to get over there and do something yet you are doing what today?


Mostly I have been telling them that from Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri etc. Home today and getting prepared for the grandchildren to come for the week-end.

Shaug, why is it you rarely answer questions?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Indsport, I had a double post and tried to delete one, but somehow I deleted yours. Sorry, can you re-post that please.



> The conservation boyz like DU, FP and NDWF etc. were there too. They behaved so poorly that they got themselves amended out from any grant money.


What were they doing breathing your air without paying?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I'm trying to stay out of this pie fight, but WOW shaug, you are a master at avoidance and deflection. Do they teach this stuff at NDFB.

Huntin1


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> What were they doing breathing your air without paying?


Nope, however, the conservation boyz did waste their own breath on SCR 4027. For that bad move, I believe Rep. Porter will make them pay.



huntin1 said:


> I'm trying to stay out of this pie fight, but WOW shaug, you are a master at avoidance and deflection. Do they teach this stuff at NDFB. Huntin1


I plead the fifth.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Nope, however, the conservation boyz did waste their own breath on SCR 4027. For that bad move, I believe Rep. Porter will make them pay.


So your saying Porter is small and vindictive. Thanks for the character assessment. I had no idea what the man was like.



> huntin1 wrote:I'm trying to stay out of this pie fight, but WOW shaug, you are a master at avoidance and deflection. Do they teach this stuff at NDFB. Huntin1


shaug wrote:


> I plead the fifth.


We all know that means ----------- affirmative.

Shaug it's abundantly clear you and friends are going to try siphon as much as you can while condemning others who only want a small fraction of the oil revenue.

So shaug since hunting represents 4% of the North Dakota economy is that enough to make sure it continues, or are those industries that represent 25% of the industries only the important ones? I seriously ask that because it would appear you place no value on it. The only way for it to continue as it has in the past is to ensure populations to hunt and access to the habitat they are found in.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,

You always try to wrap words around your axle.

I believeRep. Porter will make them pay.



> We all know that means ----------- affirmative.


Not we, I was talkin' to Huntin1. He is/was a cop ya know.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

shaug said:


> Not we, I was talkin' to Huntin1. He is/was a cop ya know.


Still am, and literally, the 5th Amendment applies to self-incrimination of a crime. Avoidance and deflection are not illegal, nor is attending a class teaching avoidance and deflection. So, that being the case, the 5th doesn't apply. 

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I believeRep. Porter will make them pay.


OK, so you think he is a small vindictive man. I don't know if I would want to take your word for that. I would have to meet the man myself.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Indsport, I had a double post and tried to delete one, but somehow I deleted yours. Sorry, can you re-post that please.


What would gst say???



> OK, so you think he is a small vindictive man. I don't know if I would want to take your word for that. I would have to meet the man myself.


There you go again twisting words around your axle. What I said was I hope he sticks to his guns and means what he says and says what he means. When he introduced HB 1278 to the Senate side he was angry that the conservation boyz pulled that dumb stunt SCR 4027. For their efforts he said he was very disappointed and wants to amend them out of HB 1278. No grant money for them. They really burned a bridge there. Porter has carried their Bills forward for years. Republicans learned that no matter how much they give to these ecco-carpetbaggers it won't matter. They will always vote democrat.

Plains, if you want to meet Porter you will first have to climb out of your hidey hole.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

"Nope, right from the start I have stated that the fed/gov doesn't have the cash to fund soil conservation like it used to. The infrastrucure is already there. Buildings staff etc. Get some money to them."

Tell me Shaug, where does the "some money" come from? From the taxpayer? From revenues?

Second, do you know how much money would be needed to pay the landowners on waiting lists for conservation dollars to do exactly the items you mention ("Plant a tree row get a write off. Plant a grassy waterway get a write off. Build a dam, collect the run off of several hundred acres and then slowly release it through a small pipe in the bottom get a write off.)? Last estimate I got from the state USDA offices was north of 80 million dollars.

Second, answer my previous questions. Who decides how much money is given to the landowner for those items you mention? Who decides how much your items are worth?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman wrote:


> Indsport, I had a double post and tried to delete one, but somehow I deleted yours. Sorry, can you re-post that please.


Shaug wrote:


> What would gst say???


Edit: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX :homer:

Lets just say I enjoyed your humor.

shaug wrote:


> I believeRep. Porter will make them pay.


Shaug says he wrote:


> What I said was I hope he sticks to his guns





> Republicans learned that no matter how much they give to these ecco-carpetbaggers it won't matter. They will always vote democrat.


So Porter is angry because he can't buy their vote? I know some of these people and I will agree they are on the liberal side. For the life of me I don't know why because they have some ideas I would think are conservative, but for some reason the democrats have convinced them that us conservatives are anti environment. Maybe it's guys like you that give them that idea.



> For their efforts he said he was very disappointed and wants to amend them out of HB 1278. No grant money for them.


So he isn't willing to put on his big boy pants and understand that the grant money isn't for them it's for the resource. Still sounds small and vindictive to me. Keep talking.

Disclaimer: I don't know Porter at all. He is perhaps a very good man. All I can go by is shaug's very low assessment of him.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Disclaimer: I don't know Porter at all. He is perhaps a very good man. All I can go by is shaug's very low assessment of him.


This conversation has really gotten stupid. My comment about Porter will make them pay was supposed to be a humorous retort to your comment about the conservation boyz being in the room, breathing the air, and not paying for it. That's all.

Glad you liked the insider gst humor.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug should we try something different?

Lets try find some common ground. I think this will do: I don't trust many people with $100 million dollars. As much as I debate and poke you shaug I may trust you and I together with it. Could we ever agree on the right way to spend it?

I actually thought your comment was you wanting to get even with those guys, but I don't know what for.


----------

