# ND Farm Bureau Priorities



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I heard a radio report that NDFB created a PAC to get their candidates into ND State government. Roger Johnson is the only one that I know of that is going to be challenged by Doug Goehring who was just re-elected NDFB VP for another two years.

Here is a list of the priorities they set at the annual meeting

Delegates decide policies
North Dakota Farm Bureau delegates supported policies designed to protect property rights, respond to animal agriculture conflicts and address tax issues during the 63rd annual convention, held November 17-20, 2005, at the Ramkota Hotel in Bismarck.

"Property taxes are becoming increasingly burdensome on all property owners, whether it be homeowners, commercial property owners, or farmers and ranchers," said NDFB President Eric Aasmundstad. "The financial demands on local governmental jurisdictions becomes greater every day in part because of mandates passed down by the federal and state governments."

Following the close of the convention, representatives from county Farm Bureaus across the state met to prioritize policies at the Focus meeting. The NDFB Board of Directors then approved those priorities following the Focus meeting.

Priorities for 2006 include support for a constitutional measure utilizing eminent domain only when necessary for public projects, property tax relief and responsible state funding for education, expansion of the livestock industry through farmer-friendly zoning ordinances, support for expanded research and development of the livestock industry and biotechnology, development of proposals for the 2007 farm bill debate, and increased focus on the adverse consequences of high rail rates, fuel surcharges and inadequate rail car availability.

"Our members believe that private property should only be taken by government for public need such as infrastructure development. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this past summer that an individual's property could be condemned by government to be handed over to private developers for projects that might increase the tax base. This is plain and simply wrong-headed thinking and goes against the basic fundamental principles upon which this great country was founded," Aasmundstad said.

The development of animal agriculture also topped the Farm Bureau priority list, Aasmundstad said, "because there is no reason that we should ship our animals out and ship our feed out. Unfortunately there are groups out there that, in the name of 'sustainable development,' are actively opposing any attempts by farmers and ranchers to effectively expand their livestock operations. We must develop farmer-friendly, responsible zoning ordinances at the township and county level to allow this important contributor to the state's economy to flourish."

Farm Bureau members continue to support the development and advancement of technologies that will allow production agriculture to maintain a competitive advantage for North Dakota and U.S. farmers.

With debate beginning over the 2007 farm bill, development of alternative proposals for Congressional consideration was identified as a high priority issue for Farm Bureau members. President Aasmundstad commissioned a special committee two years ago to begin work on developing farm bill policies. The committee has spent considerable time in its efforts and needs to continue to pursue initiatives and monitor debate as the new farm bill is deliberated.

Transportation matters were renewed as a major concern to Farm Bureau members. Excessive rail freight rates, exorbitant rail fuel surcharges, and the difficulty associated with obtaining rail grain cars is becoming increasingly burdensome to members and has huge impacts on the profitability of production agriculture.

"While these are priority issues for the coming year, Farm Bureau will also address an array of other concerns that are important to North Dakota agriculture," concluded Aasmundstad. "Farm Bureau members expect their organization to respond to emerging issues in a responsible fashion. Our members deserve no less."

*Do you Agree? Disagree?*

Bob


----------



## The Dak (Nov 23, 2003)

I was a FB member for about 6months. They send out monthly newsletters that was particularly interested in seeing. I quit and dropped my insurance with Nodak Mutual after Eric Aasmunstad (in his infinite wisdom) wrote about pig farming in NE ND.

What chapped my a$$ the most was not so much the fact that he apparently ignores how people feel about pig operations within 5mi of their house, but the fact that he went on to say (_paraphrased_) that small communities should FEAR habitat conservationists AND that conservation is driven by people who only want wildlife/water/habitat conservation so that they can have jobs/make money. Basically, he is either blaming conservation for the downfall of rural ND or setting it up to be blamed.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Can someone help me out here? Isn't it the FB that is pushing fee hunting along with supporting g/o's AND fighting resident sportsmen?

Now they are blaming conservation for the downfall of rural ND??

Is something completely out of whack here????


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

live2hunt

You are correct on all comments!

Bob


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

No Brains..... No Headaches


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Heard last week that there is a hog slaughter plant going into Manatoba that will double their current kill capacity. The owners are expecting a good portion of the pigs to be supplied from northern ND. The folks up in the northern tier of counties can expect more mega factory farms like the one at Cando. Like Dak, I dropped my membership also. Way too radical in the legislature.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The problem I cannot resolve with the Farm Bureau is the policies of their spin off organization LAND. LAND professes on their web page (and their testimony in the legislature) to support private property rights for the right of any land owner to do what they want with the land while simultaneously opposing, both in policy and in legislative testimony, the right of a land owner to put his/her land into a conservation easement or sell their land to a conservation organization. If the FB is forming a PAC, it appears to me that they are being selective in their advertising and their own written policies appear to oppose conservation practices that benefit wildlife.


----------

