# ND Farmers Union supports caps on payments.



## swift

Not suprising the NDFB not so much. Arent they the group calling for the end of farm payments? Actions are louder than words.

A new proposal to place a hard cap on farm payments to individual farmers has the strong endorsement of the president of one of North Dakota's two largest farm groups.

The president of the other farm group said "reasonable limits" are needed, although it's difficult to say exactly what they should be.

Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Wednesday introduced legislation that would limit farm payments to $250,000 per married couple and close loopholes that allow nonfarmers to qualify for federal farm payments.

"We strongly support this legislation," Woody Barth, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union and a Flasher, N.D., farmer and rancher, told Agweek.

His counterpart at the North Dakota Farm Bureau, Doyle Johannes, an Underwood, N.D., farmer, said, "We need to have reasonable limits" on farm payments.

Johannes told Agweek that he hadn't seen details of the proposed legislation and that his initial response reflects his own views, not necessarily those of his organization.

He noted that efforts in the past to limit payments to individual farmers have been resisted by big rice and cotton farming operations.

Barth said the new legislation from Grassley and Johnson has a better chance of passing because of pressure to cut federal spending.

The North Dakota Farmers Union has a long history of supporting payment limitations, Barth said.

In a prepared statement from Johnson's office, Johnson and Grassley both said that the farm bill should better target payments to benefit small- and mid-sized farmers.

The U.S. farm bill, the federal government's main food and agricultural policy tool, expires at the end of the year and must be renewed. A number of changes could be made to the existing farm bill, including the elimination of direct farm payments.

According to the information from Johnson's office:

The new Grassley-Johnson legislation would set a hard cap on marketing loan gains of $75,000, or $150,000 per couple. The remainder of the payment limit would be a cap on the total amount a farmer can receive in safety net payments in general.

Also, the bill would set "a measurable standard for someone to qualify as actively engaged in farming by providing management for the operation," according to Johnson's office.

The bill provides an exception where there is only one manager of the farm, which should help the U.S. Department of Agriculture administer the standard, according to Johnson's office.


----------



## Plainsman

In the past I was always in favor of those support prices. Now after reading Politics - According to the Bible I have a conflict with it. I can't help but look at that $250,000 and think what does a teacher make about $40,000, and a policeman perhaps $40,000, and a federal GS-9 about 35,000 and a GS-11 about 42,000, and a ----------- All these people work for the public and then we pay 1/4 of a million to someone who works for themselves?

People who work for themselves like contractors, carpenters, electricians etc make more than the police and teachers, but still very few make 1/4 million a year. Wow. I would have felt like the luckiest man on earth with $100,000.

I thought the NDFB wanted to get rid of all support prices. Am I mistaken?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> His counterpart at the North Dakota Farm Bureau, Doyle Johannes, an Underwood, N.D., farmer, said, "We need to have reasonable limits" on farm payments.Johannes told Agweek that he hadn't seen details of the proposed legislation and that his initial response reflects his own views, _not necessarily those of his organization_.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *In the past I was always in favor of those support prices.* Now after reading Politics - According to the Bible I have a conflict with it. I can't help but look at that $250,000 and think what does a teacher make about $40,000, and a policeman perhaps $40,000, and a federal GS-9 about 35,000 and a GS-11 about 42,000, and a ----------- All these people work for the public and then we pay 1/4 of a million to someone who works for themselves?
> 
> People who work for themselves like contractors, carpenters, electricians etc make more than the police and teachers, but still very few make 1/4 million a year. Wow. I would have felt like the luckiest man on earth with $100,000.
> 
> I thought the NDFB wanted to get rid of all support prices. Am I mistaken?


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40782&start=0

Plainsman, your very first post in the above thread from 2007 "in the past".


by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:44 am 

Quote"*I don't think there should be support prices for grain at all[/*_u]. It's like a puppy chasing it's tail. More support prices, the farmer makes more money, so he goes out and tears up prairie to plant more. Production goes up, the surplus increases, prices go down, and the farmer needs more price support. He gets his price support, and goes out and tears up more prairie.
I think we should pay for more conservation programs like CRP. Take land out of production, reduce the surplus, and the market will adjust to higher prices. Of course the danger then is the farmer will leave his CRP in and tear up more prairie. That's already happened. Still, it's a better answer than support prices. Direct payments lead to more surplus. That's why the farmers agree that no one should be able to sell anything to Cuba except for them. Somehow they need to dump their surplus. When we were in the cold war we were selling wheat to Russia. Our prices went up in the grocery store and in essence we were supporting the farmers and Russians.
So what do we get out of it. We pay for conservation, and we would pay more at the grocery store. Well, we get to be humanitarian and that's about it. Oh, it would be a novel idea if the government didn't allow conservation acreage to be posted. After all it is public funds paying for it. If farmers don't like it, don't enroll. CRP started that way, but farmers lobbied and got the no posting removed. We will need a lobbyist in Washington also"._end quote

To me it seems from the above post, this claim you now make _"In the past I was always in favor of those support prices_"
may not be as factual as you would like people to beleive.

In your veiw plainsamn, considering what you wrote "in the past" back in 2007 in a thread specifically title "Farms Subsidies Gone Wrong" , is what you wrote just now in this thread, that is underlined and emboldened at the top of this post the truth?

Yes or no?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In the past I was always in favor of those support prices.* Now after reading Politics - According to the Bible I have a conflict with it. I can't help but look at that $250,000 and think what does a teacher make about $40,000, and a policeman perhaps $40,000, and a federal GS-9 about 35,000 and a GS-11 about 42,000, and a ----------- All these people work for the public and then we pay 1/4 of a million to someone who works for themselves?
> 
> People who work for themselves like contractors, carpenters, electricians etc make more than the police and teachers, but still very few make 1/4 million a year. Wow. I would have felt like the luckiest man on earth with $100,000.
> 
> I thought the NDFB wanted to get rid of all support prices. Am I mistaken?
> 
> 
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40782&start=0
> 
> Plainsman, your very first post in the above thread from 2007 "in the past".
> 
> 
> by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:44 am
> 
> Quote"*I don't think there should be support prices for grain at all[/*_u]. It's like a puppy chasing it's tail. More support prices, the farmer makes more money, so he goes out and tears up prairie to plant more. Production goes up, the surplus increases, prices go down, and the farmer needs more price support. He gets his price support, and goes out and tears up more prairie.
> I think we should pay for more conservation programs like CRP. Take land out of production, reduce the surplus, and the market will adjust to higher prices. Of course the danger then is the farmer will leave his CRP in and tear up more prairie. That's already happened. Still, it's a better answer than support prices. Direct payments lead to more surplus. That's why the farmers agree that no one should be able to sell anything to Cuba except for them. Somehow they need to dump their surplus. When we were in the cold war we were selling wheat to Russia. Our prices went up in the grocery store and in essence we were supporting the farmers and Russians.
> So what do we get out of it. We pay for conservation, and we would pay more at the grocery store. Well, we get to be humanitarian and that's about it. Oh, it would be a novel idea if the government didn't allow conservation acreage to be posted. After all it is public funds paying for it. If farmers don't like it, don't enroll. CRP started that way, but farmers lobbied and got the no posting removed. We will need a lobbyist in Washington also"._end quote
> 
> To me it seems from the above post, this claim you now make _"In the past I was always in favor of those support prices_"
> may not be as factual as you would like people to beleive.
> 
> In your veiw plainsamn, considering what you wrote "in the past" back in 2007 in a thread specifically title "Farms Subsidies Gone Wrong" , is what you wrote just now in this thread, that is underlined and emboldened at the top of this post the truth?
> 
> Yes or no?
Click to expand...



What do you want gabe?


----------



## Plainsman

gst, your right. I have jumped back and fourth. In the past I have supported grain price support until some loudmouth who doesn't appreciate the taxpayer pipes up with smart remarks (not aiming this at you Gabe). Then I get ticked and say to heck with all of them. After the guy shuts up for a while and I think of my friends and relatives and the hard work most farmers do I calm down and again I supported the idea of price supports for grain. Now I am reluctantly against those price supports. That's about as best I can describe my ups and downs on this subject.

Who was I debating back in that post, I didn't look, but I seen my comments in the quote portion of your post. I thought I would make my comments above before I checked. Maybe I was arguing with one of my relatives. :homer: I like most of them, but I have argued with them a time or two. Mostly about draining wetlands. 

Edit: My curiosity got the best of me so I went back. It wasn't a person that ticked me off. I remember seeing the CRP bill that the general public didn't get to see. It would have included as one of the benefits hunting opportunities. However, the pay to play landowners revolted and got that out of the CRP bill. g/o wondered how I knew. I knew because government agencies got to review those things that affected their work. So at that time I figured those ungrateful buggers take their support price and shove it. You see groups like NDFB have always worked for the dollar for farmers. I have no problem with that. However, they also often do it to shaft others, and it appears they always work against hunters.


----------



## Longshot

gst, you either have a problem understanding the word "past" or you are so caught up in character assassination that you are loosing it. That or plainsman was born in 2007 when he made that post. :rollin: gst you claim you would like a clean debate, but with you it will not happen. Even when someone agrees with you it's still an argument from you. It's obvious you are only here to stir the pot having nothing better to do.


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, gst those times I was ticked I should also tell you they were temorary. Hence my thoughts that I have always supported those price supports in the past. If I have to justify that with you I would say I supported them 99% of the time, but got ticked of by some greedy people ever once in a while and wanted to do away with them. Ever get ticked off like that yourself?


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> gst, you either have a problem understanding the word "past" or you are so caught up in character assassination that you are loosing it. That or plainsman was born in 2007 when he made that post. :rollin: gst you claim you would like a clean debate, but with you it will not happen. Even when someone agrees with you it's still an argument from you. It's obvious you are only here to stir the pot having nothing better to do.


longshot, what was the intent of this thread if not to "stir the pot"???  I would be interested in hearing your answer to this question.

No problem understanding the past, isn't that the time prior to the present? 

Nor understanding the "assasination" of a particular ag org that happens regularly on this site. :-?

Swift, plainsamn, longshot, can you answer one question. Has NDFB taken an official stance on this proposed legislation?

I guess given the poster of this threads admitted hatred of this particular ag org and his distorting of the facts regarding the PAFB in another thread he started with the purpose of poking FB in the eye, I was just pointing out some inconsistancies in this thread that have occured already! :wink: 

If NDFB does indeed take a stance on this, one would hope it is consistant with their established policies. Until then, how about we hold off on the eye poking! :wink:

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

- Mark Twain


----------



## gst

plainsman, whatever explanation you wish to give that convinces you what you posted was true is entirely up to you. :wink:

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

- Mark Twain


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> In the past I was always in favor of those support prices. Now after reading Politics - According to the Bible I have a conflict with it. I can't help but look at that $250,000 and think what does a teacher make about $40,000, and a policeman perhaps $40,000, and a federal GS-9 about 35,000 and a GS-11 about 42,000, and a ----------- All these people work for the public and then we pay 1/4 of a million to someone who works for themselves?
> 
> People who work for themselves like contractors, carpenters, electricians etc make more than the police and teachers, but still very few make 1/4 million a year. Wow. I would have felt like the luckiest man on earth with $100,000.


It just isn't fair..........where is the equality???? The liberty and fraternity.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug fair has nothing to do with it. Not becoming socialist is more realistic. Where a person either works for a salary or works for themselves and settles for what they earn on their own. I am still torn on the support price thing, but your attitude helps. 



> gst, your right. I have jumped back and fourth. In the past I have supported grain price support until some loudmouth who doesn't appreciate the taxpayer pipes up with smart remarks (not aiming this at you Gabe). Then I get ticked and say to heck with all of them. After the guy shuts up for a while and I think of my friends and relatives and the hard work most farmers do I calm down and again I supported the idea of price supports for grain. Now I am reluctantly against those price supports. That's about as best I can describe my ups and downs on this subject.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I am still torn on the support price thing





Plainsman said:


> gst, your right. I have jumped back and fourth. In the past I have supported grain price support until some loudmouth who doesn't appreciate the taxpayer pipes up with smart remarks


by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:44 am 

_I don't think there should be support prices for grain at all._

Jumped back and forth eh? 

Always an "explanation" eh Bruce. 

It didn;t really appear that you were "torn" back in the "past" when you clearly opposed support prices for grain. I mean you even admit in your "edited" post above back then there was no "loudmouth" person that had ticked you off, so what was the deciding factor back when you posted that quote in the past date of 2007 when you clearly opposed them contrary to what you claimed now?

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

- Mark Twain


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Who was I debating back in that post, I didn't look, but I seen my comments in the quote portion of your post. I thought I would make my comments above before I checked. Maybe I was arguing with one of my relatives. I like most of them, but I have argued with them a time or two. Mostly about draining wetlands.
> 
> Edit: My curiosity got the best of me so I went back. It wasn't a person that ticked me off


From the "present". :-?

by Plainsman » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:19 am 

_*In the past * I was always in favor of those support prices_

From the "past"! :wink:

by Plainsman » *Fri Jun 15, 2007 *5:44 am 

_*I don't think there should be support prices for grain at all*._

:roll: :iroll:

So Bruce, how can what you claimed now be the truth?


----------



## Plainsman

Go back a couple of post gst and read the whole thing. You missed an important point.


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> Get your facts first, then you can distort them as
> you please"
> - Mark Twain


Love your quote there gst. I see you follow that religiously. Especially the last part. 

Huntin1


----------



## gst

huntin 1, "please show me" an example of what you claim.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Go back a couple of post gst and read the whole thing. You missed an important point.


So Bruce what "important point" did I miss?

plainsman, the "important point" I noticed is your "explanation/excuse" was contingent on you being "ticked" at some "loudmouth". You even printed it out in enlarged letters. :-?

plainsman wrote:
_In the past I have supported grain price support until some loudmouth who doesn't appreciate the taxpayer pipes up with smart remarks_

But you admitted that was not the case in the post from the "past" back in 2007. 

plainsamn wrote:
_Edit: My curiosity got the best of me so I went back. *It wasn't a person that ticked me off*. I remember seeing the CRP bill that the general public didn't get to see. It would have included as one of the benefits hunting opportunities. However, the pay to play landowners revolted and got that out of the CRP bill_

So if it was not the reason of a "loudmouth" that made you clearly *NOT* support price supports in the "past" as you claimed you "*always*" had in the"past", is this new reason for NOT supporting price supports in the "past" the truth? 

Are there any other "reasons/explanations" we should know about that kept you from "*always*" supporting" price supports in the past? :-?

Just trying to figure out what is the truth and the facts here plainsman. 

From the "present".

by Plainsman » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:19 am

_In the *past* I was *always* in favor of those support prices_

From the "past"!

by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:44 am

*I don't think there should be support prices for grain at all.*

It appears the "facts" here that are in your own words in black and white that were shown in their entirety and in context above are not exactly what many people would consider the truth. Perhaps you can live with your "explanations" as justifying your claims, but they ring hollow in substance.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Edit: My curiosity got the best of me so I went back. It wasn't a person that ticked me off. I remember seeing the CRP bill that the general public didn't get to see. It would have included as one of the benefits hunting opportunities. However, the pay to play landowners revolted and got that out of the CRP bill. g/o wondered how I knew. I knew because government agencies got to review those things that affected their work.


plainsamn, can you provide us with any proof of this claim underlined above?

You have made it on more than one occasion on here.

By "included as one of the benefits hunting opportunities" do you mean that if you signed up for CRP the public would have uncontroled access to your land?

I'm wondering because it would be many more than just the "pay to play" landowners that would have opposed this as you claim.

Can someone from the FSA office, the NRCS office, anyone ??? substantiate this?

Just trying to at least get the facts straight before they get "distorted"! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsamn, can you provide us with any proof of this claim underlined above?


That's what has been asked before, but I am retired so I have no access to any of that.

Edit: I don't know if any of those other offices can substantiate that. Why don't you call and ask them.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> huntin 1, "please show me" an example of what you claim.


An example of you distorting something gabe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     Are you freaking kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!lol You really don't have a clue do you. :rollin:


----------



## huntin1

As you like to say all the time gst, didn't you see the little winking smiley face there at the end?

Lighten up sparky, you're a$$ is showing.

huntin1


----------



## gst

So huntin 1 does that mean you aren;t going to give any eaxmples of what you insinuate??? 

Plainsamn jumped all over me about suggesting he has not been completely honest in all his claims on this site at times. This clearly was an example of one of those times.

But I guess as long as there is an "explanation" as to why the two contradicting statements were made, it is alright and must be the truth.

Plainsman, I have asked on more than one occassion people in both those particular govt agencies about this policy you claim existed as part of the original CRP program and no one seems to know anythig about it (even some of the older people involved) :wink: . If it does actually exist, as a former govt employee there must be someone you know that was involved at that time that also saw this CRP bill that can verify it's existance. I mean if it was a bill someone must have introduced it and sponsored it right?

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

- Mark Twain


----------



## Plainsman

I suppose a bill means it's all put together. This was more like a draft left open to debating like we do here. Perhaps even a rough draft. It was one of those things that goes through a number of agencies and I would have thought private groups to. Sort of the ironing out process. Ask those old guys again.

Do any of those same old guys remember groups like Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy etc. going to the government and asking the GAO to add wildlife values to the cost benefit ration of CRP so it would pass the GAO cost benefit ratio? That would be one of those times CRP was renewed. Ask those old guys about that. Asks someone that isn't out in one of those little country offices. Your going to have to get a little higher before they really knew much about what was going on.


----------



## gst

How about you just prove your own claims????? :-? One would think you would know someone that can substantiate your story! :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I suppose a bill means it's all put together. This was more like a draft left open to debating like we do here. Perhaps even a rough draft. It was one of those things that goes through a number of agencies and I would have thought private groups to. Sort of the ironing out process. Ask those old guys again.


Nice dodge Bruce!!!!!!!



> Do any of those same old guys remember groups like Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy etc. going to the government and asking the GAO to add wildlife values to the cost benefit ration of CRP so it would pass the GAO cost benefit ratio?


When the CRP program came out back in like 1988, it was about curbing over production and soil conservation. Ten years later conservation groups wanted wildlife and the benefits to wildlife added to the program if a person was looking at renewing the contract. In the beginning the CRP program wasn't about wildlife.



> Ask those old guys about that. Asks someone that isn't out in one of those little country offices. Your going to have to get a little higher before they really knew much about what was going on.


Bruce, if you are looking for something to substantiate your claim, why don't you do a "freeedom of information act". You probably saw it when you worked at the USGS as a "scientist". They collect data there you know.



> I remember seeing the CRP bill that the general public didn't get to see. It would have included as one of the benefits hunting opportunities. However, the pay to play landowners revolted and got that out of the CRP bill. g/o wondered how I knew. I knew because government agencies got to review those things that affected their work. So at that time I figured those ungrateful buggers take their support price and shove it. You see groups like NDFB have always worked for the dollar for farmers. I have no problem with that. However, they also often do it to shaft others, and it appears they always work against hunters.


Or.....if you do not have access to that info because you no longer work for the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, than just simply have your old co-worker David Alan Brandt get it for you.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, shaug, you guys have not got a clue. Wow.


----------



## gst

plainsman, then clue us in!!! :-? Preferably with something other than a "story".

It IS your story and claim, shouldn't you be the one substantiating it? 

I mean maybe what you claim is true, it would be nice to know for once. 

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

- Mark Twain

Unless it is only an "opinion" then you don't even need to get your facts straight first!!! :wink:


----------



## shaug

Bruce, let's get back to what you originally said.



> I remember seeing the CRP bill that the general public didn't get to see. It would have included as one of the benefits hunting opportunities. However, the pay to play landowners revolted and got that out of the CRP bill. g/o wondered how I knew. I knew because government agencies got to review those things that affected their work


As a federal employee, you are saying you had access to information not privy to the public. You are claiming the pay to play landowners didn't want "access" to their land as part of the CRP program because they and they alone knew ahead of time that the wildlife population was going to explode and they wanted to profit from it.

Back in 1988 no one had a crystal ball and could foresee the raise in pheasant populations and the raise equally in more guiding and leasing.

Now then Bruce, you made the claim that pay to play landowners revolted to get that out (access) of the farm bill. You will need to prove that claim.

-if the facts don't fit the theory, than change the facts.


----------



## swift

> Back in 1988 no one had a crystal ball and could foresee the raise in pheasant populations and the raise equally in more guiding and leasing.


CRP was first written into the farm bill of 1985 get your facts straight. The wildlife boom during the soil bank years was surely a predictor of what was to come with CRP. It's not that hard to figure out if you try. But that would mean thinking for yourself and forming your own opinions instead of just regurgitating the opinions of the FB.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> CRP was first written into the farm bill of 1985 get your facts straight.


You're kind of attacking this morning swift. Irritable?????



> The wildlife boom during the soil bank years was surely a predictor of what was to come with CRP. It's not that hard to figure out if you try. But that would mean thinking for yourself and forming your own opinions instead of just regurgitating the opinions of the FB.


I have had many conversations with Eric Aasmunsted and new FB prez Doyle Johannes. They are so much more pleasant to visit with.


----------



## Plainsman

> I have had many conversations with Eric Aasmunsted and new FB prez Doyle Johannes. They are so much more pleasant to visit with.


Can you prove that? :rollin:

I don't know Doyle Johannes, but I have relatives farming near Eric Aasmunsted, and talked to a fellow right here in Jamestown that thinks he is very radical. FB talks about getting rid of regulations and support prices, but I have heard Aasmunstead wants to get rid of the regulations, but he really likes the government money in his pocket. I have never met the man personally. Only opinions like yours, and the other side of the spectrum. However, I hear many more from the other side of the spectrum. Two that have had good things to say about him that I know I think both were raving maniacs. If either of those two guys had their way we would all be slaves and they would have to kill each other so one could be king.

And you think they are pleasant to visit with do you? That's insightful. My mom always said every cloud has a silver lining. Maybe our economy going in the ditch will get the parasites like those two guys I know off our back.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I don't know Doyle Johannes, but I have relatives farming near Eric Aasmunsted, and talked to a fellow right here in Jamestown that thinks he is very radical. FB talks about getting rid of regulations and support prices, but I have heard Aasmunstead wants to get rid of the regulations, but he really likes the government money in his pocket. I have never met the man personally. Only opinions like yours, and the other side of the spectrum. However, I hear many more from the other side of the spectrum. Two that have had good things to say about him that I know I think both were raving maniacs. If either of those two guys had their way we would all be slaves and they would have to kill each other so one could be king.
> 
> And you think they are pleasant to visit with do you? That's insightful. My mom always said every cloud has a silver lining. Maybe our economy going in the ditch will get the parasites like those two guys I know off our back.


Now I'm laughing too!!!! Bruce, your retorts crack me up.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> get your facts straight


You mean like you did in the HSUS PAFB thread????? 



swift said:


> But that would mean thinking for yourself and forming your own opinions


I thought "opinions" on here didn't have to be based on fact??? 

Especially if they are aimed at Farm Bureau!!!!  :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> that thinks he is very radical.





Plainsman said:


> Two that have had good things to say about him that I know I think both were raving maniacs.


 :roll: :wink: :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

From the "present". 

by Plainsman » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:19 am

In the *past* I was always in favor of those support prices

From the "past"!

by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:44 am

*I don't think there should be support prices for grain at all.*

Kind of a "radical" swing in position here wouldn't you say?

So Bruce, for the record, so we can tell where you stand (at least for now  ), are you in favor of price supports for grain? Yes or no?


----------



## Plainsman

> So Bruce, for the record, so we can tell where you stand (at least for now ), are you in favor of price supports for grain? Yes or no?


Boy I wish I was sure. I think of the kind farmers that are my friends and I want to help. I think of my relatives and I want to help. Then I run into the entitlement mentality coming from you and shaug and I don't want to support it. Then I read a Christian perspective which included opinion from ag economists at universities and if it really hurts that many people it bothers my conscience to support it. Things change from day to day for all of us (normal people anyway). Some things we have supported all of our live, while other things we have opposed all of our life. Most things are in between, and some really put you on the fence. Currently I find myself weighing and balancing pro and con and have a hard time coming to a decision. It would be easier if society wasn't such a bunch of fools and think you have to have the same opinion all of the time. You just can't give those type of people solid answers. I guess they don't find themselves thinking every day and adding new information to the equations that help them make decisions.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Boy I wish I was sure. I think of the kind farmers that are my friends and I want to help. I think of my relatives and I want to help. Then I run into the entitlement mentality coming from you and shaug and I don't want to support it


plainsman, I beleive both shaug and I have gone on record supporting the end of govt subisides in agriculture.

by Plainsman » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:19 am

In the past I was *always* in favor of those support prices

From the "past"!

by Plainsman » Fri Jun 15, *2007* 5:44 am

*I don't think there should be support prices for grain at all.
*

plainsman, it really is not about wether you support these or not, it is about wether what you claim on here is true and factual.

Anyway you wish to explain it Bruce the claim you made above simply is not true. You have NOT "always" supported crop subsidies in the past, your own words substantiate it.

Bruce if you are going to bring your Bible study and Christian "perspective" into the discussion, please expect to be held to the same type standard of what is the truth and what is not.

One would think as a moderator on this site, that standard of truth and fact would be important to you in these "discussions".


----------



## swift

> You're kind of attacking this morning swift. Irritable?????


Yea maybe a little, After three suicide attempts in 3 days in the ER watching families torn apart and kids barely breathing I did wake up a little irritable. Then, I see how tough you millionaires have it and how you claim to not want tax dollars but try to prevent anyone else from benefitting from them it tipped me over. For that I apologize. Your Right Shaug and GST you know whats best for the world. Take all you need so we can eat cheap and don't worry about anyone outside your little eutopia. Good luck in the future with your "causes" and don't worry how they affect other people. You haven't seemed to give a damn thus far so it should be easy.


----------



## Plainsman

Swift, hope you have a better tomorrow.

You know why the liberals are so successful with class warfare? Because the guy who makes $50,000 looks at the guy who makes $200,000 and thinks of himself as the little man. Then the guy who makes $200,000 looks at the guy who makes a million and thinks of himself as the little guy. Then the millionaire looks at the guy who makes a billion and thinks of himself as the little guy. Everyone thinks of themselves as the little guy or poor folk. Even those who pass on a couple of million in land to their kids. Then they want ag regulations gone so they can dump on the environment and everyone around them to make more money. That's why we have ag interests on here haranguing sportsmen. Name one other business that has no regulations. Name one other business where you pay no taxes on your house because of your business. Man the bennies go on and on, but it's so tough to make it without destroying the environment. :eyeroll:



> Anyway you wish to explain it Bruce the claim you made above simply is not true. You have NOT "always" supported crop subsidies in the past, your own words substantiate it.


Yes, yes, I have had one hour times of disgust after running into guys who can't shaft the taxpayer enough and have been against it. Usually those times have been very short and I still consider myself having always supported it in the past. I guess it's like the guy who has a cigar with a friend once every two or three years when they have a kid. Would you consider them a smoker? You haven't a thing to stand on but your knit picking. You never stick to subjects because that's why your here to make sure no one does talk about subjects that could poke a hole in your gravy trough. I think everyone is catching on so I actually like keeping you around for display purposes.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Then, I see how tough you millionaires have it and how you claim to not want tax dollars but try to prevent anyone else from benefitting from them it tipped me over.


swift want to trade net incomes?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> That's why we have ag interests on here haranguing sportsmen. Name one other business that has no regulations. Name one other business where you pay no taxes on your house because of your business. Man the bennies go on and on, but it's so tough to make it without destroying the environment.


So plainsman, is this a statement of fact or merely your "opinion"?? :-? 

Bruce you simply can not help yourself spouting off the rhetoric. :roll: :eyeroll:

Tell you what you do plainsman, print ot the post where both quotes you made were included in their entirity and take it to your next Bible study. Then ask the people there if the claim you made at the start of this thread was the truth.  :wink:

You call it "nit picking", I call it "credibility".


----------



## Plainsman

> swift want to trade net incomes?


I think swift would love to as long as you base it off what you really make, and not what you tell the IRS you make. :wink:



> So plainsman, is this a statement of fact or merely your "opinion"??


So how much do you pay in taxes on your house? If this property tax thing passes will you have any taxes of any kind? I'll bet you have never had a year where you paid out close to what you have brought in from the government. What was that again leadfed? I think people should have to show a net contribution on their tax form before they vote. That way our country will survive those who sell their vote for tax dollars.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think swift would love to as long as you base it off what you really make, and not what you tell the IRS you make


plainsman if you recall swift has publically stated where his tax burden lies on here.

Net incomes, not taxable incomes.

Hell plainsamn, there has been a number of years that I would have swapped my net income for your taxpayer paid salary net income! :wink:



Plainsman said:


> So how much do you pay in taxes on your house? If this property tax thing passes will you have any taxes of any kind? I'll bet you have never had a year where you paid out close to what you have brought in from the government. What was that again leadfed? I think people should have to show a net contribution on their tax form before they vote. That way our country will survive those who sell their vote for tax dollars.


plainaman, how much did th taxpayers pay you over the years? :-?

How much are they still paying you? 

Would paying back a portion of tax payer dollar salary you received in taxes give you the right to vote?

Did you show a nontaxpayer dollar salary net contribution on your tax form?

So how does that work in your little oligarchy if you are using other tax payers dollars to pay YOUR taxes, do you get to vote?  

I know, I know, YOU "worked" for those taxpayer dollars building salamander traps, unlike those in ag that apparently do no work or provide anything of value to society.

I don;t care if it is called a salary or a subsidy, the source is the same.

THAT is a fact.

Please recall plainsamn that this is a democratic society. A fact even you can not deny is for many decades the numbers of voters directly involved in production agriculture have been vastly outnumbered by the non ag voters. So explain, how can these few votes in the grand scheme of things tip the scales???

The fact is for many decades the American voter realized this govt's cheap food policy was working and so it was supported by the MAJORITY of voters that elected the people that created this cheap food policy. The fact is the votes that were "for sale" as you condemn were as much the consumer's as much as it was the producer's.

Now after decades of cheap food it is being taken for granted and people are demanding other things take precedence. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. But for some reason I imagine these same people will be the loudest ones complaining about what percentage of their disposable income ends up being spent on food.

What you do not seem to remember palinsman is I have told you before, I never once voted for the three Democratic representatives that "brought home the bacon" to ND for decades. So exactly how did I "sell my vote"??


----------



## Plainsman

It sounds like were close to agreeing on the no price support. If we had gotten to that right away would you still be arguing? I'll bet you would. :wink:

You know I wouldn't even bring some things up if you didn't start with the cheap food bull droppings and things like that.


----------



## gst

Okay so here we have it, NDFU supports capping subsidy payments.

NDFB supports eliminating subsidy payments.

Both of the state ag orgs are on record "doing their part" in the "everybody will have to cut in this time of "extreme" national debt".

Plainsman for being the person that stated "everyone will have to cut" it appears ag is doing their part, would you care to go on record stating where you beleive sportsmen (as a part of "everybody" as YOU stated ) will have to cut?? :wink:

So plainsamn if a candidate ran on a platform of taking dollars allocated for agriculture and applying them to conservation progarms and wetland renovations instead would you "sell" your vote??? 

I think most already know the answer. :roll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You know I wouldn't even bring some things up if you didn't start with the cheap food bull droppings and things like that.


?????????????????

Bury your head a little deeper in the sand plainsman, you have to be blindly biased to not to understand this countries ag policies are the heart of this nations food security policy which included abundant cheap food. :roll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It sounds like were close to agreeing on the no price support. If we had gotten to that right away would you still be arguing? I'll bet you would


plainsamn, I have told you my position on price supports many times in the past and yet here you are still making accusations and argueing. :wink: :roll:

So Bruce what is YOUR position on where sportsmen can cut in this time of "extreme national debt"?

Or are you going to continuneally dodge answering your own statement of "everyone will have to cut"???


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsamn if a candidate ran on a platform of taking dollars allocated for agriculture and applying them to conservation progarms and wetland renovations instead would you "sell" your vote???


No need, just charge anyone who drains for water coming off their farm. I don't know how about $1000 per acre foot and we apply it to the national debt.



> So Bruce what is YOUR position on where sportsmen can cut in this time of "extreme national debt"?


Plainsman said: "everyone will have to cut"
gst asks: "will sportsmen have to cut"
Plainsman said : " everyone"
gst asks: "will sportsmen have to cut"
Plainsman said: "everyone"
gst asks  
Is there anyone else who doesn't get it? :rollin:

gst, this question gets more humorous every time you ask it. I have to make sure nothing is in my mouth or I am going to short out my keyboard. Night night I'm going to bed smiling.

I'm on the fence on support price. Can anyone tell me which way to go? :wink:


----------



## huntin1

Ahh, give him a break Plainsman, he's just trying to get his facts first. :wink:

huntin1


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman said: "everyone will have to cut"gst asks: "will sportsmen have to cut"Plainsman said : " everyone"gst asks: "will sportsmen have to cut"Plainsman said: "everyone"gst asks Is there anyone else who doesn't get it? gst, this question gets more humorous every time you ask it. I have to make sure nothing is in my mouth or I am going to short out my keyboard. Night night I'm going to bed smiling.


plainsman,

There seems to be a simple misunderstanding on your part. :-? I am not asking "will sportsmen have to cut", I understand and have made it very clear that "everyone" includes sportsmen as well as farmers.

What is being asked is WHERE these sportsmen as in "everybody will have to cut" should "cut" in your opinion.



gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like were close to agreeing on the no price support. If we had gotten to that right away would you still be arguing? I'll bet you would
> 
> 
> 
> plainsamn, I have told you my position on price supports many times in the past and yet here you are still making accusations and argueing. :wink: :roll:
> 
> So Bruce what is YOUR position on *where[/b]** sportsmen can cut in this time of "extreme national debt"?
> 
> Or are you going to continuneally dodge answering your own statement of "everyone will have to cut"???*
Click to expand...

*

So plainsman, are you going to answer WHERE sportsmen can "cut" as "everyone will have to cut in this time of extreme national debt" or are you going to continue ducking the question while lambasting agriculture groups that are advocating doing their part? :wink:

I mean YOUR the one that said "everyone will have to cut" I'm simply wondering WHERE you think sportsmen should cut.

Step up as a concerned conservative and identify some specific govt dollars going to sportsmen programs you beleive should be cut.

Or simply continueing to duck answering the question.

I think everyone "gets it " Bruce! :wink:*


----------



## gst

huntin1 said:


> Ahh, give him a break Plainsman, he's just trying to get his facts first. :wink:
> 
> huntin1


Indeed I am huntin 1.

I am trying to get plainsman to identify WHERE these cuts he said "everyone" will have to make can come from concerning the sportsman.

Huntin 1, do you also beleive as plainsamn claims "everyone will have to cut in this time of extreme" national debt"?

I mean hey I agree with him. Ag groups agree with him. They have identified the area of govt price supports in agriculture to cut.

*WHERE[/*size] have you two sportsmen identified *WHERE *sportsmen should cut?

At least someone on here is trying to get some "facts" out there in a discussion. 

It would be a nice change from how things ususally work on here! :-? :wink:

Hey huntin 1, weren;t you supposed to be finding some "facts" of your own to back up a claim you made?  :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Well gst first I would have to find out what government money is coming in. I should pay more attention to that, but I have not. Second I would want to know the source. For example I don't want NDFB getting part of the 11% excise tax that hunters pay because the exaust fumes from their pickup corrodes their mailbox when hunters drive by and their government checks get wet. :wink:

I'll give shaug credit about keeping track of some of those things. Maybe he or you should start a thread on that. I will find some time to dig into some money coming to sportsmen. I know shaug talks about some grassland thing, but I don't identify that as specifically for sportsmen.

For this subject at least the Farmers Union is backing off their normal far left liberal ideas. Cutting to a 1/4 million doesn't appear to be even close though. What would you guys say if the government was going to cut back to 1/4 million towards wildllife based on each hunter out there. Wow I can almost hear shaug crying from here. Shaug your an important guy can't you get the Farmers Union to shift just a little to the right of Karl Marx Maybe next time your yucking it up with the govenor you could talk to him about it. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Well gst first I would have to find out what government money is coming in. I should pay more attention to that, but I have not. Second I would want to know the source. For example I don't want NDFB getting part of the 11% excise tax that hunters pay because the exaust fumes from their pickup corrodes their mailbox when hunters drive by and their government checks get wet. :wink:
> 
> I'll give shaug credit about keeping track of some of those things. Maybe he or you should start a thread on that. I will find some time to dig into some money coming to sportsmen. I know shaug talks about some grassland thing, but I don't identify that as specifically for sportsmen.
> 
> For this subject at least the Farmers Union is backing off their normal far left liberal ideas. Cutting to a 1/4 million doesn't appear to be even close though. What would you guys say if the government was going to cut back to 1/4 million towards wildllife based on each hunter out there. Wow I can almost hear shaug crying from here. Shaug your an important guy can't you get the Farmers Union to shift just a little to the right of Karl Marx Maybe next time your yucking it up with the govenor you could talk to him about it. :wink:


plainsamn, this is nothing more than an example of the rhetoric and dodging that keeps you from having a "serious" discussion regarding anything involving agriculture on this site.

Perhaps if you are going to come on here condemning agriculture you should better inform yourself so you do not have to continueally make excuses rather than answering simple direct questions.

As a sportsman condemning ag for accepting govt dollars, as a conservative claiming "everyone will have to cut" , shouldn;t you as a conservative sportsman know what govt dollars YOU can advocate sportsmen cutting????

That "grassland thing" is the Dakota Grassland Initiative. If "everyone will have to cut" why not start here?

Come on Bruce list some specific programs that are beneficial to sportsmen that are govt dollars that can be cut.

Remember it is a time of "extreme national debt" so as a concerned sportsman and conservative it is your responsibility to know enough to at least answer what programs you think should be cut particularily when you are on record saying "everyone will have to cut" a number of times! :wink:

WHERE?


----------



## swift

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well gst first I would have to find out what government money is coming in. I should pay more attention to that, but I have not. Second I would want to know the source. For example I don't want NDFB getting part of the 11% excise tax that hunters pay because the exaust fumes from their pickup corrodes their mailbox when hunters drive by and their government checks get wet. :wink:
> 
> I'll give shaug credit about keeping track of some of those things. Maybe he or you should start a thread on that. I will find some time to dig into some money coming to sportsmen. I know shaug talks about some grassland thing, but I don't identify that as specifically for sportsmen.
> 
> For this subject at least the Farmers Union is backing off their normal far left liberal ideas. Cutting to a 1/4 million doesn't appear to be even close though. What would you guys say if the government was going to cut back to 1/4 million towards wildllife based on each hunter out there. Wow I can almost hear shaug crying from here. Shaug your an important guy can't you get the Farmers Union to shift just a little to the right of Karl Marx Maybe next time your yucking it up with the govenor you could talk to him about it. :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> plainsamn, this is nothing more than an example of the rhetoric and dodging that keeps you from having a "serious" discussion regarding anything involving agriculture on this site.
> 
> Perhaps if you are going to come on here condemning agriculture you should better inform yourself so you do not have to continueally make excuses rather than answering simple direct questions.
> 
> As a sportsman condemning ag for accepting govt dollars, as a conservative claiming "everyone will have to cut" , shouldn;t you as a conservative sportsman know what govt dollars YOU can advocate sportsmen cutting????
> 
> That "grassland thing" is the Dakota Grassland Initiative. If "everyone will have to cut" why not start here?
> 
> Come on Bruce list some specific programs that are beneficial to sportsmen that are govt dollars that can be cut.
> 
> Remember it is a time of "extreme national debt" so as a concerned sportsman and conservative it is your responsibility to know enough to at least answer what programs you think should be cut particularily when you are on record saying "everyone will have to cut" a number of times! :wink:
> 
> WHERE?
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand is Sportsman give more than they take. It's an odd idea for you to grasp. There is NO sportsman mediated governmental agency. We give by paying our taxes on all the property we own, By funding the Pittman/Robertson coffers, by paying tresspass fees. Where can you show me a "sportsman" tax break or a payout to sportsman of the country? Where it is specific that only sportsman benefit from a release of tax dollars? Save your questions and rhetoric because there isn't any. I have heard of a farm bill but I have never heard of a "sportsman bill" Try giving back you might like the feeling.


----------



## huntin1

gst said:


> Hey huntin 1, weren;t you supposed to be finding some "facts" of your own to back up a claim you made?
> gstguest Posts: 2488Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:30 pm


Hey gst, guess what? I have to respond to the "demands" of my wife and my boss, you, not so much. Unlike you I'm rather busy. I don't have time to search the forums for the "facts" you seek. And as I stated in the post, I followed what you normally do and included a ( :wink: ) like you, I don't have to back that "claim" up, I winked. :wink: :lol:

huntin1


----------



## gst

huntin 1, don;t feel too bad, I as wellas many others have gotten used to people making claims on this site and then not backing them up when asked because they simply can not because they siomply are ot true! :wink:

Swift, you seem to be confused. It was plainsamn in a different thread, not I that suggested "everyone" must cut in this time of "extreme national debt".

I merely asked even sportsmen? And plainsamn has reiterated "everyone" several times if you recall insinuating sportsmen are included.

So as plainsamn has insinuated even sportsmen will have to "cut in this time of extreme national debt", I am merely curious WHERE he beleives these cuts should come from.

As he has not suggested any places sportsmen should cut, perhaps his claim regarding this rings as untrue as his claim he "always" supported ag support payments in the past. :wink:

After all, as he suggests his own words can be used to understand the meaning of his intent!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97402&start=160

Re: farm bureau aligns with HSUS...

by Plainsman » Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:52 pm 

_Records of their desire is enough to judge their values_

Now from that 2007 thread regarding farm subsidies, a "record" of plainsmans "desires"! :wink: .

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40782&start=40

by Plainsman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 am 

_I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it. I don't care if it only cost me a penny._

 :wink:

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

- Mark Twain


----------



## Plainsman

Swift was right about there being no sportsman's bill. The grassland thing is more to help farmers again.

I guess sportsmen cutting back just happened for me. I saved enough for a new pickup, but the stock market screwed me up. Now I hope I can buy a used 2012 in two years. The only problem is I pay 15% to pull my money now, but Obama wants to make it 43.4%. I can't buy a used gas for that. So I will be cutting back. I see beef has about doubled in the grocery store. Will you be checking out Mercedes to see if they make a pickup? :rollin:


----------



## gst

Keep dodging and ducking having to answer where sportsmen as part of "everbody will have to cut in this time of extremenational debt" will have to cut Bruce,your getting pretty good at it! :wink:

It is beginning to look as if "everybody" does not include the sportsman who benefitsfrom billions of govt dollars that are not derived from sportsmen themselves tht could most certainly go to help with this "extreme national debt"!!! :wink:

Ag orgs are stepping up and identifying specific cuts, plainsamn, how about you! :-?


----------



## Plainsman

There are no direct programs for sportsmen. Even the 11% excise that should all go to sportsmen has been parsitised by non game interests. At one time an 11% excise tax idea was floated so that bird watchers, campers, etc and other people who say they enjoy the outdoors like hunters could also support wildlife habitat and research. They about flipped out. Hunters pay their own way, and anything that is beneficial to hunters is more or less like an accident. The wetland drainage resistence comes more from society that hunters. Of course landowners get angry with hunters about that. As if the guy drowning in Valley City who doesn't hunt doesn't care. Right. :homer:

I see your good friend on fishingbuddy is spoiling for a fight about NDFB. That old boy is a couple of fries short of a happy meal. He may be right though about the people knowing that NDFB is just using HSUS for an excuse to destroy the wetlands and hydrological integrity of the environment.


----------



## Plainsman

> In a prepared statement from Johnson's office, Johnson and Grassley both said that the farm bill should better target payments to benefit small- and mid-sized farmers.


You can tell that's from the liberal Farmers Union. What makes small and mid-sized farmers better than big farmers? More class warfare from liberals? Redistribution of wealth? Simply cut payments to individuals. How many people in North Dakota make $250,000 a year? That sounds like Obama's magic number where he will not tax people below that. If farmers can't make it on $50,000 perhaps they should learn to live within the boundaries other people live in. You know, the peasants like teachers, policemen, biologists :wink: , carpenters, electricians, waitresses etc.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> There are no direct programs for sportsmen.


So know palsinamn are you backing away form your previous claims "everyone willhave to cut inthis time of extreme national debt"?

Simply because sportsmen do not receive direct subsidy payments, are you now claiming Federal dollars that go to programs that DIRECTLY benefit sportsmen should not be cut and used to pay down this "extreme national debt"???

Plainsamn you have been told where the dollars to fund the DGI are being originated from. Offshore oil and gas leases. These dollars couldeasily be directed to address this "extreme national debt". Are you saying that these dollars and others like them should NOT be used to address this "extreme national debt" ?

So plainsamn once again, WHERE should sportsmen (as a poart of "everyone"" see and advocate cuts to Federal dollars being spent in their benefits.


----------



## Plainsman

You can't cut something that doesn't exist. :wink:

I would have to know where dollars are spent before I can advocate cutting them. Since shaug is such a wildlife hater perhaps he can clue us in where all those bad sportsmen are getting money from. Then we can perhaps cut from that list. Make sure it isn't tax dollars specifically paid by hunters though.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Shaug your an important guy can't you get the Farmers Union to shift just a little to the right of Karl Marx Maybe next time your yucking it up with the govenor you could talk to him about it.





> Since shaug is such a wildlife hater perhaps he can clue us in where all those bad sportsmen are getting money from. Then we can perhaps cut from that list. Make sure it isn't tax dollars specifically paid by hunters though.


Bruce, you keep bringing up my name in your last few posts. Spoiling for a debate?????

I attended the Future of Hunting Forum on Friday. Didn't see you there Bruce. As important as you would have us believe that hunting is to you, a person would have thought you would have made every effort to be there.



> Doublewood Inn, Bismarck
> 
> Schedule
> 
> Friday, March 30, 2012
> 
> 1:00 p.m. Welcome and Introduction of Governor by Terry Steinwand, Director, North Dakota Game and Fish Department
> 
> 1:05 p.m. Governor Jack Dalrymple or Lt. Gov. Drew Wrigley
> 
> 1:15 p.m. Opening comments by Mike McEnroe, President, North Dakota Wildlife Federation
> 
> 1:25 p.m. Opening comments by Brian Kietzman, Past-President, North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society
> 
> 1:35 p.m. Variety and scope of hunting in ND, 1951-2011; hunter and license numbers, deer, upland game, waterfowl, residents and non-residents; Randy Kreil, Chief, Wildlife Division, NDGFD
> 
> 2:00 p.m. Moderator: Kerry Whipp, North Dakota Wildlife Federation, Courtenay, ND
> Hunting Panel Discussion: Views of the Future:
> Terry Steinwand, North Dakota Game and Fish Department
> Leslie Rosedahl, Hunting Work$ for North Dakota
> Legislative perspective, Darrell Nottestad, retired State Rep., Grand Forks
> National perspective, Bill Creighton, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting
> Sports
> 3:20 p.m. Break
> 
> 3:40 p.m. Moderator: Casey Anderson, ND Game and Fish Department, Bismarck
> Access for Sportsmen; Panel Discussion:
> Agency perspective, Kevin Kading, NDGFD, State Lands, PLOTS and CRP
> Federal lands; Rick Nelson, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck
> Landowner/farmer perspective, Woody Barth, farmer and rancher, St. Anthony
> 
> 4:50 p.m. Wrap-up for day and introduction to process for Saturday
> 
> 5:00-7:30 p.m. Social hour and snacks, cash bar; hosted by Hunting Work$ for North Dakota
> Saturday, March 31, 2012
> 
> 8:00 a.m. Re-cap of yesterday's input
> 
> 8:15 a.m. Moderator: Dave Dewald, ND Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Bismarck
> Panel Discussion; Sharing the Resource in the Future
> Business, Gene Veeder, McKenzie County Economic Development, Watford City
> Energy, Kari Cutting, North Dakota Petroleum Council
> Sportsmen, Wayne Beyer, Red River Valley Sportsmens' Club, Wahpeton
> Guides and Outfitters, Nicole Haase, Cannonball Company, Regent
> 
> 9:30 Input from Participants; what is most important to the sportsmen/women
> 
> 10:00 a.m. Break
> 
> 10:30 a.m. How to get to what's most important? programs, costs, people, legislation
> 
> 12 noon- 1:00 p.m. Lunch, sponsored by the North Dakota Wildlife Federation and the
> North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society
> 
> 1:00 p.m. What will the clubs and sportsmen/women do? Input for agencies and the
> conservation organizations
> 
> 2:00-2:30 p.m. Synthesis and summary of comments and conference, Keith Trego,
> Executive Director, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust, Bismarck
> 2:30 p.m. Wrap-up and conclusions, schedule for written summary on conference, uses
> and distribution of conference summary
> 
> Thank you to all participants and supporters of the Future of Hunting in ND Conference:
> 
> The Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation for financial support.
> Hunting Work$ for North Dakota for financial support and supper on Friday evening.
> ND Game and Fish Department for administrative and logistical support, and the North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society and the North Dakota Wildlife Federation for major financial support and organization of the conference.


Plainsman, On Saturday and Sunday I attended the ND Republican Convention. On Saturday morning the floor was open between 7:30 and 9:00am. Bruce, guess who I saw? He was alone just looking around. Your old buddy, Roger Kaseman.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I would have to know where dollars are spent before I can advocate cutting them.


palinsamn, any number of times you have been told where the monies are being spent and they are NOT dollars paid in by sportsmen in the DGI.

This is a program where as said numerous times already, the govt enters into perpetual easements that THEY retain the right to alter.

Yet not only do you NOT condemn that action, but support it as well as NOT having these oil and gas extraction dollars going to pay down our "extreme national debt".

Bruce you know where these non sportsman Federal dollars are being spent and yet you duck and dodge having to answer to a statement YOU made.

"Everyone will have to cut in this time of extreme national debt."

Right up until it affects you as a sportsman.


----------



## Plainsman

> palinsamn, any number of times you have been told where the monies are being spent and they are NOT dollars paid in by sportsmen in the DGI.


Yes they are paid in by sportsmen. You better go read indsports post this morning.

You guys trying to rob DGI is just like the NDFB trying to rob the Game and Fish to repair township roads. That's just like trying to come and take funds from NDFB and NDSA to buy habitat. Wow would that make you squeal.

You know I was thinking about that $250,000 limit last night. That would still fully fund 99.9% of the farmers it does now. It's really not a cut at all. It just skims the cream from a very few big farmers. What would that be five farmers in all of North Dakota? I wondered why such a liberal group as the Farmers Union would support a cut. The cut is so minuscule that it's meaningless. I just about got duped.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I just about got duped.


plainsman, read ind's post. It appears you are getting "duped"

How much of the funding of the Dakota Grasslands Initiative comes from sportsmen dollars and how much comes from off shore oil and gas leases? 

Here's a compromise for you. How about you keep the sportsmen generated dollars and fund programs, and advocate for the rest of the oil and gas monies to be put towards paying down the "extreme national debt" this country is in. :wink:

You can only put as many acres into the program that these sportsmen generated dolars can pay for. 

Plainsman, are the dollars going into the state 5% measure here in ND sportsman generated dollars?


----------



## gst

palinsamn, where do the dollars for the WHIP (Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program) program come from?

Where do the dollars for the PFW (Partners for Fishand Wildlife) progarm come from?

Where do the dollars for the DFN (Debt for Nature) program come from? (you should like the name of that one!!) 

Where do the dollars for the FWP (Farmable Wetlands Program) come from?

Where do the dollars for the WRP (Wetlands Reserve Program) come from?

http://www.absenteelandowners.org/compo ... article/60

Note all of these taxpayer funded programs have wildlife habitat as a primary resource oncern. They are programs that benefit the sportsman directly. They are programs that are funded with nonsportsman generated dollars that could be going to pay down the "extreme national debt"

Plainsamn should any of these programs be cut?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, isn;t the ND Wildlife Society identified as a permanent seat on the panel of the 5% ND measure being circulated for signatures?

http://joomla.wildlife.org/index.php?op ... Itemid=250

It appears their national parent org does not share your oncerns over our "extreme national debt" 

They are calling for INCREASED Federal spending on wildlife programs.

They are calling for DECREASING revenue collections on taxes on perpetual easement payments.

These are not sportsman generated dollars plainsman, they are taxpayer dollars no different than a crop subsidy dollar.

Should these paymens be cut as well in this time of "extreme national debt?

I mean I agree with you, something needs to be done. So how about I pen a letter to the National and state chapters of The Wildlife Society advocating these dollars be spent paying down our national debt rather than deficiet spending on these wildlife programs and you can sign on supporting it? :wink:

I mean you said EVERYONE will have to cut right??

If you are truly serious about "everyone havin to cut" here is a reat place we can work together to acheive these cuts!! 

Hey plainsman weren't you kind of critical of tax breaks farmers get?

What is your position on the tax break incentives that apply to dollars collected for perpetual easements? There is a significant tax liability exemption for these dollars that farmers receive for these payments. Should these tax breaks be dropped as some beleive all other tax breaks for agriculture should be?

Every little bit helps plainsman, lets get busy on that letter shall we?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsamn should any of these programs be cut?


Incentive programs etc. Sure sounds like a lot of ag programs rather than wildlife. I think you just have a bur under your saddle about wildlife.


----------



## gst

http://www.absenteelandowners.org/compo ... article/60

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Resource Concern
Soil erosion, Water quality, *Wildlife habitat*

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) 
Resource Concern
Water quality, *Wildlife habitat *

Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) 
Resource Concern
Water quality, *Wildlife habitat*

Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP) 
Resource Concern
Water quality, *Wildlife habitat*

Debt for Nature Program (DFN) 
Resource Concern
Soil erosion, Water quality, *Wildlife habitat*

Plainsamn where does it list ag producer "incentives" in the Resource Concerns?

No burr under my saddle for wildlife, just wondering if your claim "everyone will have to cut" in this time of "extreme national debt" that includes sportsmen programs funded by taxpayer dollars was just so much lip service. '

You have now been shown a number of Federally funded programs benefiting sportsman thru wildlife haitat enhancement that are being deficiet funded.

Do you now have any suggestion where sportsmen could "cut"?

plainsamn, perhaps you could explain why these programs that have a specific wildlife habitat concern and goal are being funded out of the Ag budget by taxpayer dollars?


----------



## gst

Please note I really do not have an issue with these programs as long as they are renewable, I am merely curious if someone that condemns the spending of taxpayer dollars on ag programs and rails about how many taxpayer dollars are spent in the ag dept budget (recall your untrue claims of being second only to defense) understands the programs that fall under this dept's funding and wether this is to be considered having ones "hands in the taxpayers pockets" as well. :wink:

That is a phrase you use when talking about govt program payments is it not Bruce?

What say you plainsman?

Perhaps the author of this thread can weigh in and tell us if his CRP payment he receives under a similar program is considered having his "head in the mailbox"?

That is a phrase you have used to describe the receiving of govt program payments is it not swift?


----------



## Plainsman

Say, you have never responded to my comment that there would be little to no change with the Farmers Union proposal because 99.9% of the farmers would still get all of the payments they have in the past with the limit of $250,000. Isn't that right? Now why did you ignore that and start asking me 20 questions?



> plainsamn, perhaps you could explain why these programs that have a specific wildlife habitat concern and goal are being funded out of the Ag budget by taxpayer dollars?


Because they are actually ag programs camouflaged to look like wildlife programs. They through some wildlife values in so they pass the cost benefit ratio and on paper don't look like they only benefit farmers. They do of course benefit wildlife, but that's not their main objective. Much like the school lunch program has been used to eat up the surplus.


----------



## gst

plainsman, I unlike others on here I do not make it a priority to examine what someone is receiving in Federal subsidy payments. If you choose to keep track of this and are concerned, perhaps a conversation with someone from NDFU would get you the answer you seek.

As to the twenty questions, it takes that many in the chance you might actually answer one!!! :wink:

Do you have any suggestions of programs where sportsmen can cut in this time of "extreme national debt" or not? :-?

Credibility.


----------



## Plainsman

Your just trying to get everyone off subject again gst, because you don't want us talking about the subject. So if the FU proposal is implemented how much money will that save? Give it to me in a percentage please. :thumb:


----------



## gst

plainsman, not trying to get anyone of the subject. If you wish to know percentages, it seems you are watching what payments are being made. (perhaps led could help you)  You seem to make these claims and then expect others to substantiate them for you.

How about you handle this one yourself. :-? Please do a little better math than what you did when you claimed ag spending was second only to defense! :wink: You do remember that claim right plainsman? :-? What was your "explanation" for that whopper? 

It appears you will have time as you do not seem to be trying to identify any wildlife/sportsmen programs that receive taxpayer dollars that could be cut in this time of "extreme national debt" where as you stated "everyone will have to cut" :wink:

Guess you kinda were just joshin there.

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please"

- Mark Twain


----------



## gst

Hey plainsamn, while your doing the math, if the NDFB policy is implemented what percentage will that save? :wink:

Seems like the NDFB is more concerned with doing something about this "extreme national debt" than what you are? 

As to taking it "off topic", if I remember right from the first couple of posts, the topic really wasn;t about FU and their policies and the percentage affect it would have on our national debt, but rather yet one more bash NDFB thread. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Always question never answers right? Ask one question and you have a dozen. A dozen that are off subject. So gst lets make it easy. Take a guess at the percentage of landowners a $250,000 limit will have an affect on. I would guess less than one percent. What's your guess? My point is this is a do nothing proposal made to serve as smoke and mirrors to the public.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Always question never answers right?


Indeed you never give any answers plainsamn, lets just agree that you do not think sportsmen programs should be cut and the claim you made that they should rings as true as most other claims on here.

plainsman, if you would rather guess and make claims rather than do a bit of research and find out factually that is certainly in line with what happens on this site quite regularly.

Kinda like your "guess" that ag spending was second only to defense spending! :-?

Plainsamn, what perecentage would you guess NDFB proposal would cut if implemented? :wink:

So you understand this question is "on topic" the very first sentenece from this thread:

swift » Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:46 am 
_Not suprising the NDFB not so much. Arent they the group calling for the end of farm payments? Actions are louder than words._

And from your very first post in this thread:

Plainsman » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:19 am 
_I thought the NDFB wanted to get rid of all support prices. Am I mistaken? _

So plainsamn if the NDFB policy of ending all govt subsidy paymets is implemented by the elected representatives of all citizens, what percentage do you "guess" that would "cut"?

It appears NDFB has identified an area that can be cut in this time of "extreme national debt" so this ag group has identified their part in "everyone cutting" .

Plaisnman will you as a moderator on an outdoor/sportsman site step up and follow thru with YOUR OWN WORDS and identify any programs funded with Federal nonsportsman dollars that YOU beleive can be cut as you suggested is needed in this time of "extreme national debt"?

What say you plainsman.


----------



## Plainsman

I say you always have questions and never have answers.

Lets make this simple. Look at the site that shows what the farms in North Dakota get. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=38000

Now look and see how many get more than $250,000. I'm sure you will find that this proposal by FU doesn't affect more than 1/2 of one percent of farmers in North Dakota. So what does it do. It makes people think an agriculture organization is actually doing something about the debt when the truth is it does next to nothing.

So is that right or wrong? Come on gst get enough nerve to tell us the truth.

I'll be the closer I get to the truth the more frantic you will become.


----------



## gst

palsinamn, I do not know how to say it any plainer, I do not spend time on the site you and led seem to have earmarked showing what others make in subsidy payments. :-?

If you wish post the total number of farmers receiving over $250,000 and then the total number of farmers receiveing any payments and do the math. Why should someone else have to do this for you.

If someone thinks your math is off (as in your claim ag spending was second only to defense) they can check your homework for you and for themselves. 

*If your math is actually correct and true this time*, it would appear these caps will affect very few people and as such are no big deal in reducing what monies are spent here in ND.

Now that we have established that, how about you do the math on what the NDFB supoports when it comes to subsidy payments and what percentage of farmers here in ND that would affect? Because from the first posts in the thread, isn't bashing NDFB what this is all about? :wink:


----------



## swift

> Perhaps the author of this thread can weigh in and tell us if his CRP payment he receives under a similar program is considered having his "head in the mailbox"?


 Answer... No it isn't, I get direct deposited my CRP payments every October. With the rapid decline of CRP in the area I see our local economy tanking since many of our small town businesses rely on the pheasant for a boost. My county hosted over 20,000 out of state hunters last year that helped our businesses. In the near future there will be few pheasants with few spots to nest. I'm doing my part to propagate our local economy. And BTW, I donate all of my CRP check plus some to our local hospital foundation.

I see you can't have a real conversation since your getting your butt kicked.

Answer me this simple question. Whose pocket does the majority of those monies you posted above end up in?

The benefit of the sportsman is a side effect of those programs that pay primarily farmers to increase habitat. The money primarily ends up in the pocket of farmers that have an interest in all things, not just increased yields. I am greatful that there are still stewards of the flora and fauna out there. They deserve my support. Those that failed to study the history of ditch to ditch farming are destined to live through the detriments of it, like those folks that did it in the 70's and early 80's.


----------



## swift

You can call this FB bashing. I prefer to call it FB exposing. If there weren't so many nonsensical policies and hypocritical press releases there wouldn't be anything to bring up. Just like the NDFU doesn't see any "bashing" on this site by me. They seem to have more than controlling everything in their agenda.

BTW what is the "official" view of the payment caps by the NDFB? If they truely felt as they claim it should have been out quickly and the "new" president would have been reprimanded for opining as the spokesperson of the NDFB.


----------



## gst

swift, all payments are "direct deposited and not received thru the mail.



swift said:


> gst wrote: Perhaps the author of this thread can weigh in and tell us if his CRP payment he receives under a similar program is considered having his "head in the mailbox"?
> 
> swiift wrote: Answer... No it isn't,


So lets get this straight, when a ag producer receives a payment from the Federal govt you have called it having their "head in the mailbox", but when YOU receive a payment from the Federal govt it is not having YOUR "head in the mailbox"??? 

Kind of a different veiw point when you are looking in the mirror eh swift? :wink: :roll:

You seem to be missing the point that was being made that this type of juvenile rhetoric that is so common on this site does little to foster any sort of respect or willingness to work cooperatively.

But hey if bashing ag orgs are more important, go ahead, there are actual orgs that work together with production agriculture to develope mutually beneficial programs for wildlife, sportsmen and ag producers.

Hey swift can you show us one single thread talking about any of these groups and programs on here?

One single thread?

Anyone?


----------



## Plainsman

> Hey swift can you show us one single thread talking about any of these groups and programs on here?












I thought that's what we were doing now????????


----------



## gst

gst said:


> there are actual orgs that work together with production agriculture to develope mutually beneficial programs for wildlife, sportsmen and ag producers.


 plainsamn, it appears you missed this part of the statement. Where has there been one single thread on your site about any of these orgs and the programs they have????

Can you show me one single positive thread about these orgs?

One single thread?

It seems you only caught the first part of what I said Bruce! :wink:



gst said:


> *But hey if bashing ag orgs are more important, go ahead*





Plainsman said:


> I thought that's what we were doing now????????


Indeed it is plainsamn, indeed it is. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

Hey gst, you split the thing into paragraphs. If you don't know how to write don't blame me. I didn't miss anything.

I'm sure you wanted something positive about your pet farm/ranch organizations. If you want that go to one of their sites. An outdoor site is going to talk hunting and fishing, and what affects them. When your organizations shafts the hunter it will get a bad review on here. When you try to rob the Game and Fish you will get a bad review on any outdoor site. If you want your rear kissed up to don't look to me for that. Isn't that essentially what your asking for? It looks that way to me and I find that offensive.


----------



## gst

plainsman, if you don;t know how to read don't blame me! :wink:

All that is being asked is to provide one single example of a positive thread about what orgs working together (Ag and conservation/wildlife) accomplish from this site?

You do not have to "kiss up", just provide a thread as an example! :wink:

If you find that "offensive" perhaps it is an indication of why this site is what it is. :roll:

So Bruce can you provide an example of a positive thread regarding agriculture and conservation groups from this site? :-?

One single thread?

Just one?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> gst wrote:But hey if bashing ag orgs are more important, go ahead
> 
> Plainsman wrote:I thought that's what we were doing now????????
> 
> Indeed it is plainsamn, indeed it is.


 :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Nice try gst, but I am sure people can see how out of context that is. OK, your not capable but I will tackle the real objective of the Farmers Union.

Their proposal does nothing to help the budget. It's smoke and mirrors to confuse people and make them think they are cooperating. It still shovels out all that money to agriculture with a meaningless reduction in government expenditures. Looks good in the news, but does nothing.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> plainsman, if you don;t know how to read don't blame me! :wink:
> 
> All that is being asked is to provide one single example of a positive thread about what orgs working together (Ag and conservation/wildlife) accomplish from this site?
> 
> You do not have to "kiss up", just provide a thread as an example! :wink:
> 
> If you find that "offensive" perhaps it is an indication of why this site is what it is. :roll:
> 
> So Bruce can you provide an example of a positive thread regarding agriculture and conservation groups from this site? :-?
> 
> One single thread?
> 
> Just one?


Wow gst, once again you think we have to do things your way. I don't know of any rule that requires a site to have the thread you are requiring. Most people have a word for that gst, it's called arrogance. It is a bit entertaining to see how long you stay on this site yet do nothing but complain about it.

Must be nice to have a job where you can sit at home on the computer all day and watch "The View". oke: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

gst you told me how everyone agrees with you on fishingbuddy. Your getting your rear end handed to you over there. Even more than here. :rollin:

Lets call this Farmers Union proposal what it is, a snow job.


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift, all payments are "direct deposited and not received thru the mail.
> 
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> gst wrote: Perhaps the author of this thread can weigh in and tell us if his CRP payment he receives under a similar program is considered having his "head in the mailbox"?
> 
> swiift wrote: Answer... No it isn't,
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. I was joking with the direct deposit remark. You really need to put your hatred away and lighten up. I do not make any money on my 55 acres of CRP. I don't even cover costs to be honest. And since I got involved with it I have learned a few things. GST can you tell me the last time I used the term head in the mailbox. It's been a few years, I've had a change of attitude about it. I maybe even considered some of your statements, unlikely but maybe, as understanding my foolishness on the matter.
> 
> So lets get this straight, when a ag producer receives a payment from the Federal govt you have called it having their "head in the mailbox", but when YOU receive a payment from the Federal govt it is not having YOUR "head in the mailbox"???  I do not derive my livlihood or even spending money from my crp check.
> 
> Kind of a different veiw point when you are looking in the mirror eh swift? :wink: :roll: I don't understand this statement.
> 
> You seem to be missing the point that was being made that this type of juvenile rhetoric that is so common on this site does little to foster any sort of respect or willingness to work cooperatively.That door swings both ways GST, When you quit using quotes from 3 years ago and quit the hatred speech and openly admit that the NDFB needs to do something to improve public perception we can stop the juvenile rhetoric coming from both sides.
> 
> But hey if bashing ag orgs are more important, go ahead, there are actual orgs that work together with production agriculture to develope mutually beneficial programs for wildlife, sportsmen and ag producers. Again no bashing just exposing the FB for what it ultimately is, anti freelance hunting. Anti landowner rights and advoctes of elitism.
> 
> Hey swift can you show us one single thread talking about any of these groups and programs on here? THIS IS A HUNTING SITE. TOPICS ARE DISCUSSED THAT ARE A THREAT TO HUNTING. iT'S NOT MY FAULT THE NDFB HAS TAKEN AN ANTIHUNTING/CONTROLLING HUNTING STANCE.
> 
> One single thread? Do you know how to start a thread? It seems if you want an ag friendly thread you could start one. I did start WHAT IS RIGHT ABOUT THE AMENDMENT. I was looking for some positive posts from people other than the same few. I didn't get any. Nothing positive from anyone. Why? Look in the mirror.
> 
> Anyone?
Click to expand...


----------



## swift

Plainsman said:


> gst you told me how everyone agrees with you on fishingbuddy. Your getting your rear end handed to you over there. Even more than here. :rollin:
> 
> Lets call this Farmers Union proposal what it is, a snow job.


Plainsman please don't confuse the Farmers Union with the FB. The FU supports caps. The FB will not release an official response. I guess their president's response isn't that of the FB itself.


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> gst you told me how everyone agrees with you on fishingbuddy. Your getting your rear end handed to you over there. Even more than here. :rollin:
> 
> Lets call this Farmers Union proposal what it is, a snow job.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman please don't confuse the Farmers Union with the FB. The FU supports caps. The FB will not release an official response. I guess their president's response isn't that of the FB itself.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's right on fishinbuddy it's the NDFB constitutional amendment that they are getting greased on. I like the attorney speaking up about the amendment and saying the second sentence had the teeth that no new law could be made. It is what it is.

As for the Farmers Union who would expect them to do anything other than follow their socialist policies. They want big government and all the government money they can get. At the other end of the spectrum is the NDFB who wants no regulations and no new laws.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst you told me how everyone agrees with you on fishingbuddy.


Yet once agaiin palinsamn, "please show me" where I have ever stated what you claim. If you can not this statement is a lie.

If you wish to continue making claims I have said things I have not and can not substantiate them, these claims will be called what they are plainsman.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Of course it is. I was joking with the direct deposit remark. You really need to put your hatred away and lighten up. I do not make any money on my 55 acres of CRP. I don't even cover costs to be honest. And since I got involved with it I have learned a few things. GST can you tell me the last time I used the term head in the mailbox. It's been a few years,  I've had a change of attitude about it. I maybe even considered some of your statements, unlikely but maybe, as understanding my foolishness on the matter.


Swift, you might want to reconsider your time frame to a little more recently. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> gst you told me how everyone agrees with you on fishingbuddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet once agaiin palinsamn, "please show me" where I have ever stated what you claim. If you can not this statement is a lie.
> 
> If you wish to continue making claims I have said things I have not and can not substantiate them, these claims will be called what they are plainsman.
Click to expand...

Oh, it was one of those times you were crying about me. They agree, or they are polite, or something that I wasn't. :wink:

Anyway, I was very happy to see many reasonable people over there not buying your song and dance about the NDFB amendment. Makes my day to see people really thinking.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> gst you told me how everyone agrees with you on fishingbuddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet once agaiin palinsamn, "please show me" where I have ever stated what you claim. If you can not this statement is a lie.
> 
> If you wish to continue making claims I have said things I have not and can not substantiate them, these claims will be called what they are plainsman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, it was one of those times you were crying about me. They agree, or they are polite, or something that I wasn't. :wink:
> 
> Anyway, I was very happy to see many reasonable people over there not buying your song and dance about the NDFB amendment. Makes my day to see people really thinking.
Click to expand...

Plainsman, did I or did I not make the statement you claim I did? It seems you are backpedaling from a claim once again Buce.

Post the statement where I said what you specifically claim or it is simply one more lie told.

I suppose you can always go with the disappearing posts thing again! :roll:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> I like the attorney speaking up about the amendment and saying the second sentence had the teeth that no new law could be made.


Bruce, In 2010 Joseph put up vote NO on Measure Two signs. Do you still like that attorney? :rollin:


----------



## swift

> Swift, you might want to reconsider your time frame to a little more recently.


 Prove it GST Substantiate that claim. Or are you just lying?


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Plainsman said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the attorney speaking up about the amendment and saying the second sentence had the teeth that no new law could be made.
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce, In 2010 Joseph put up vote NO on Measure Two signs. Do you still like that attorney? :rollin:
Click to expand...

Yup, still like him. I don't know what his reason was on measure two, but like I have told you guys in the past I would rather have seen it a hunter regulation than a landowner regulation. You say this NDFB protects these farms, yet if they make a law that no one can pay to hunt enclosed animals ----- well, it isn't a law against high fence, but who are they going to sell to? The NDFB doesn't protect them at all. So what does it do? I think it lets them drain on their neighbor, if their spray kills a neighbors trees tough luck, if a local road has a load limit they can just ignore it because it's restricting modern huge farm trucks, etc. No limits, plows down, dang the torpedoes.

You know why you guys keep changing the subject. Because you know the Farmers Union proposal does nothing, but you want people to think your cutting back. Ya, you bet, and I have some swamp land for sale.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Yup, still like him. I don't know what his reason was on measure two, but like I have told you guys in the past I would rather have seen it a hunter regulation than a landowner regulation. You say this NDFB protects these farms, yet if they make a law that no one can pay to hunt enclosed animals ----- well, it isn't a law against high fence, but who are they going to sell to?


Bruce, I think you just said you would like a law that no one can pay to shoot an animal on the farm. On farm slaughter is already banned in Canada. Another freedom lost. Sad.



> Because you know the Farmers Union proposal does nothing, but you want people to think your cutting back.


It is Farm Bureaus measure, not Farmers Union. When I was at that Future of Hunting Forum the other day, federal employee Rick Nelson, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service said most people cannot recognize the difference between BLM, USFWS, or the ND Game and Fish. He said if you are out on public land you had better know which is which.

Keep them straight Bruce.


----------



## Plainsman

> It is Farm Bureaus measure, not Farmers Union.


I was speaking of this to get back on subject:



> ND Farmers Union supports caps on payments.


So are you telling me this cut back to $1/4 million is NDFB? I thought you guys wanted to cut back to zero.


----------



## shaug

Bruce, if you don't like the farm bill than gut it across the board. All of it.

Conservation programs help farmers address environmental concerns
Conservation programs have led to a widespread reduction of soil erosion over the past seven decades. More recently established environmental programs address new challenges arising from demands for improved water and air quality, enhanced wildlife populations, water conservation, open space, carbon sequestration, and energy production and conservation. The two largest agri-environmental programs in terms of funding are the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The 2008 Farm Act established the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), which replaces the Conservation Security Program established under the 2002 Farm Act. To participate in CSP, producers must demonstrate stewardship by showing that they have addressed at least one resource concern (e.g., soil quality or water quality) on their farm and agree to address at least one additional resource concern over the life of the 5-year contract. Payments are to be based on new practices adopted or installed under the CSP contract. The 2008 Act increases funding for programs such as EQIP and CSP that address environmental needs for land that remains in production, while reducing expenditures on the CRP, a land retirement program, by lowering the cap on total program acreage. This will likely shift spending to primary production regions such as the Corn Belt and Delta States.


----------



## Plainsman

> Bruce, if you don't like the farm bill than gut it across the board. All of it.


That's so far off base the rest isn't worth reading. I don't think the farm bill should be gutted. I don't have anything against helping farmers. However, with that help their is a right to have some say in practices. I am more willing to pay for conservation practices like CRP than I am support prices on surplus grains etc.

The Farmers Union proposal does nothing but sucker the simple minded.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> However, with that help their is a right to have some say in practices. I am more willing to pay for conservation practices like CRP than I am support prices on surplus grains etc.


So then you are for ag subsidies?


----------



## gst

shaug remember plainsamns own words from a while back.

Plainsman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 am

*I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it.*_ I don't care if it only cost me a penny. The truth is agriculture cost a heck of a lot more than the Iraq war, but you don't hear much about it_


----------



## Plainsman

I consider a subsidy paying a support price on grain that is in surplus. Farmers keep complaining about the price of grain, but it's something they have done to themselves. We keep hearing about feeding a starving world, but the problem there is corrupt governments and greedy people. I watch people break up prairie every year to plant more grain to make more money, but they drive the price down and no one makes more money. So their answer is the government has to pay them a support price. One of these years farmers have to understand that we are a free market country and start operating that way.

If I pay a farmer to plug a wetland I don't pay for downstream damage. I also don't worry about eutrophication in our reservoirs. I also don't worry as much about pesticides coming downstream. If I pay for CRP I am investing in the future. Soil doesn't erode but gains topsoil. Tomorrows farmers will need to grow grain and tomorrows population will need to eat.

One group is conservationists and the other group is the rip, rape, and run crowd, that like children don't think about the future and only about them, and only about today. That sound a lot like the NDFB and their desire for no regulations. It also sounds a lot like their amendment proposal where no one would have no accountability. I think this desire for abolishment of regulations and an amendment to our constitution that put them above all other citizens showcases their irresponsibility and lack of respect for the rest of society.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> shaug remember plainsamns own words from a while back.
> 
> Plainsman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 am
> 
> *I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it.*_ I don't care if it only cost me a penny. The truth is agriculture cost a heck of a lot more than the Iraq war, but you don't hear much about it_


Ones opinions change as the things around them change. If your mind is stagnant that's no surprise. You need to come out of the cave once in a while. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I am more willing to pay for conservation practices like CRP than I am support prices on surplus grains etc.


It appears as long as you are getting "something" out of it you still favor redistribution of wealth. Because any way you slice it, using taxpayer dollars to pay for copnservation programs is no different than using them to mantain a cheap food policy. They are BOTH "redistribution of wealth" .

You just seem to be forgetting that you are "getting something out of it" everytime you go to the grocery store. :roll:

How much do you want to bet you have saved far more in food costs because of this govt policies thatn you have paid in in taxes that go to fund these policies.

You like many others have simply began taking for granted where the food you consume comes from and that you will pay the lowest percentage of your disposable income for it than any other modernized country in the world.


----------



## Plainsman

Still selling swampland I see. Tax dollars for conservation is a lot different than tax dollars going to pay for grain that you raise a surplus of and drove the price down. A comparison would be the American people want a million cars, but Detroit builds two million. All of a sudden the $40,000 doesn't sell so they drop the price to $30,000 and want the government to pay them the other $10,000. That's grain support price.

As far as conservation payments lets say 70% of the taxpayers say we want our money to go to X (conservation). Should 5% (maybe less) of the people who farm say no you have to spend it on Y (support price). Who are the arrogant here?

Don't even start the cheap food bull droppings. If we didn't have import laws protecting you we could buy cheaper in other places. Even from state to state you have protection. A grocery store here in Jamestown got in trouble for bringing in Minnesota milk. Redistribution of wealth you say? Ya, I want to buy milk from a Minnesota farmer, but you say I can not. Your trying to control the whole game. People are getting tired of it.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> If I pay for CRP I am investing in the future.


Bruce, how much are you paying these days or do you plan on using other peoples money to fund your idea?


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I pay for CRP I am investing in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce, how much are you paying these days or do you plan on using other peoples money to fund your idea?
Click to expand...

Oh, I am just talking as one of millions of taxpayers. Now if you ask all of the taxpayers if they want to pay you to go out and break up prairie so you can't plant more grain which there is already a surplus for, and you can't make a living on the free market what do you think they will say? Or if you go out and ask those same taxpayers if they would like some of their dollars to go towards conservation which benefits include flood abatement, soil erosion control, topsoil buildup, lowers bushels of surplus grain so they don't have to support you, etc etc etc. which do you think they will choose?

So I see you guys are afraid to answer the question about what will this $250,000 limit accomplish. How about we limit it to what a teacher or policeman makes? How about we limit it to about what the top fed employees make. Wow, I would have been happy with $75,0000. How about we make that limit $75,000. If teachers, police, biologists, carpenters etc can live on $75,000 why can't farmers? How much is enough?

I would really like to see the answers to some of those questions. Either of you FU worshipers want to take a shot at it?


----------



## gst

Again with suggesting this countries long standing cheap food policies are "bull droppings".

When you make those statements Bruce it shows either how little you know about this nations ag policies or you are simply blindly bias.

You do not want redistribution of wealth unless you get something out of it, but yet you are not willing to acknowledge the differnce you pay in a much lower amount for food than any other modern country inthe world. :roll:

The reality is if you take the few pennies you pay in taxes each year that go towards this ag programs in "support payments" you actually are getting a substantial "something out of it".

But you are simply letting your personal animousity cloud your ability to see what is fact.

And if we wish to get down to brass tacks here plainsman, the monies you pay in in taxes are already someone elses taxes that were "redistributed" into your pocket. :wink:

I really do not put much substance to what FU devopes in policy.

So how about we talk about what you mentioned in your very first post in this thread plainsman, how much in payments does NDFB wish to see cut????

Once again Bruce, "please show" where shaug or I have advocated for a limit of $250,000 cap on payments.


----------



## huntin1

Don't hold your breath plainsman, they're both just going to nitpick on past statements, most of which they take out of context.

Smoke and mirrors.

Huntin1


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Oh, that's right on fishinbuddy it's the NDFB constitutional amendment that they are getting greased on. I like the attorney speaking up about the amendment and saying the second sentence had the teeth that no new law could be made. It is what it is.


plainsamn, what did this attorney really say?

I don;t beleive his final opinion was what you are claiming. I do beleive in fact he admitted this measure will NOT prevent the state legislature from enacting laws to regulate agriculture as long as they are designed to regulate and not ban.

Now that someone within the legal profession has given this opinion, will you accept it or will you continue to make the claims this measure will prevent feedlots from being built on river bottoms, raising of illegal things, irresponsible pesticide use ect........

Or as you claimed an "enviromental disaster that would put the gulf coast oil spill to shame"


----------



## Plainsman

huntin1 said:


> Don't hold your breath plainsman, they're both just going to nitpick on past statements, most of which they take out of context.
> 
> Smoke and mirrors.
> 
> Huntin1


Ya, I know that. Next they will want to discuss the chaos theory if that will get our mind of the real subject. The FU proposal does nothing. Limit farmers to $250,000 in subsidies. How many of you wish you made half that much total in one year? Ya, and this they think is sacrifice. Umhummm

I think it's interesting that the liberal FU has the same magic number as Obama's tax threshold.


----------



## gst

plainsman,

Did the attorney on FBO state the NDFB measure will NOT prevent the state legislature from enacting laws regulating agriculture?

What is the cap level NDFB supports on payments?


----------



## Plainsman

> Did the attorney on FBO state the NDFB measure will NOT prevent the state legislature from enacting laws regulating agriculture?


I guess I will have to start that ask a question instead of answer a question game. So heeeeeere goes: gst what makes you think your so special that your industry should have protective constitutional amendments that no other industry in this nation has. Please don't compare it to women's rights, hunting rights, or any of that stupidity that doesn't even come close to apples and oranges. It's more like apples and bull droppings. :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsamn perhaps I will have to start answering my own questions instead of expecting one from you. :wink:



gst said:


> plainsman,
> 
> Did the attorney on FBO state the NDFB measure will NOT prevent the state legislature from enacting laws regulating agriculture?
> 
> What is the cap level NDFB supports on payments?


The answer to the first question is yes, the only person with a license to practice law here in ND that has weighed in on the discussion of this measure stated this measure as worded will NOT prevent the state legislature from enacting laws that REGULATE agriculture, only those that ban a practice entirely.

That is a SUBSTANTIAL contradiction to what you and others on here have been claiming since the very start of this debate.

So plainsman do you still like what this lawyer over on FBO had to say? :wink:

Oh and the answer to the second question is $0.

plainsman, please explain why hunting should have constitutional protections?

I will ask the same question here as I did on FBO. Can anyone show me a thread claiming the constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt was not needed on this site at the time it was being considered?

*Plainsman, can YOU show where YOU opposed this "constitutional protection" for hunting?*

Perhaps your veiws on these constitutional protections are the same as your veiws on the redistribution of wealth,

Plainsman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 am 

_I don't like redistribution of wealth *when I get nothing out of it*_. :wink:

As long as the "constitutional protections" being considered are of benefit to you, you support them, but others concerns that have no benefit to you are simply to be dismissed. :roll:

So plainsamn, can you show where you opposed this "constitutional protection" hunting received or not?


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsman do you still like what this lawyer over on FBO had to say?


Did I miss something? I thought he said you misinterpreted what he said.

Edit: Nope I didn't miss anything, you twisted what he said. Here is his latest clarification:


> It guarantees the right to farm and ranch any way you see fit as long as you can argue its a modern practice.


So what's your excuse for this gst? I don't spend much time looking back at past posts (don't have ten people doing it for me) etc, but I'm not so lazy I didn't just pop over and check out what you said. Your shoveling bull droppings again gst. :wink:



> What is the cap level NDFB supports on payments?





> Oh and the answer to the second question is $0.


So your saying they are for $0 caps. I'll bet many of their members are for zero caps.

Now I don't know what the constitutional amendment has to do with this thread. Oh, wait, it has nothing to do with it. What does NDFB have to do with it? Hmmm nothing is the answer again.

Lets talk Farmers Union gst. This proposal by FU, what will it accomplish as far as the ag budget? Lets make it easy. Do you think it would make 5% difference in the money paid out? :wink:

I think it would be less than 1%. Peope should go to http://farm.ewg.org/ and check out the number of farms who get this much. Total up the dollars they get, and divide by the whole for North Dakota. Then compare North Dakota to the rest of the nation. There is many ways to look at the data on this site that will teach you many things.

Edit: gst I would be more than pleased to talk about these other subjects, but in the proper threads. They are already active you don't even have to start one. I truly think you fear telling the truth on this thread that's why you have all these other questions. I"m challenging you to tell us what good you think the Farmers Union proposal will do. It's time to put up old boy. If you have more questions about the NDFB it simply means you don't have the nerve to take on this subject. No guts no glory. :wink:


----------



## gst

palsinman, I already tld you how to figure out what FU's position would do. Like I said, you and led are the ones crusing the subsidy payment site, do the math yourself. I have no idea how many farers make over the $250,000 cap proposal nor am I interested. This is YOUR stroy, you can do the math.

As I said, just do a little better job than you did when caliming ag spending was second only to defense! :wink:

As to what espringers stated as his opinion on FBO here it is in it's entirity.

espringers wrote:
_once again gst... it won't end regulation of farming/ranching altogether. it will just end any regulation that could/would result in the prevention or banning of anything that could be looked at as a modern practice._

And here he is confirming his opinion once again.

Re: NDFB constitutional amendment
by espringers on 04/09/2012 11:06 AM | Reply #182 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |

_I am not backing away from my opinion. I stand by it. _

You seemed to overlook those statements plainsman.

Here is the only legal professional that has entered the discussion whom you agreed with early on when he opposed this measure.

Since your post on here commenting on people "getting greased" he still opposes the measure, but stated his opinion this meausre will NOT prevent the state legislature from ennacting laws to regulate agriculture. A claim directly opposite of what YOU have repeatedly claimed.

You now have a legal professional making the same statement I have made and now suddenly you do not agree with him????

Go figure.


----------



## Plainsman

> And I find it funny how my opinion is all of the sudden credible because it happens to jive w ur point of view on the issue of whether or not the measure will end all regulation. But its just another opinion when we are talking about how it will prevent the legislature from banning even the most extremely harmful practices imaginable.


I think he has told you often that you don't understand what he said. Post out of context all you want gst.

As far as the Farmers Union I don't remember you saying much of anything other than trying to duck the topic of this thread.


----------



## gst

plainsamn, here is the link to the discussion so the few people left reading this on this site can check it out for themselves.

http://www.fishingbuddy.com/ndfb_consti ... _amendment

I think they will find the first legal professional to have an "opinion" on this measure has stated he beleives this measure as worded will NOT prevent the state legislature from enacting laws to regulate agriculture as long as those laws do ot outright ban a practice.

As this is in direct opposition to what YOU have claimed all along regarding this measure (remember your feedlot, pestiicde and poppies claims) I can see why you wish to try and muddy the waters.

And palsinamn, I can not be held responsible for your bad memory. :wink:

As to the topic of this thread from your very first post (the second in the thread) I thought the toic you wished to discuss was NDFB's position on support payments? 

Re: ND Farmers Union supports caps on payments.

by Plainsman » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:19 am 

[i_]In the past I was always in favor of those support prices. Now after reading Politics - According to the Bible I have a conflict with it. I can't help but look at that $250,000 and think what does a teacher make about $40,000, and a policeman perhaps $40,000, and a federal GS-9 about 35,000 and a GS-11 about 42,000, and a ----------- All these people work for the public and then we pay 1/4 of a million to someone who works for themselves?

People who work for themselves like contractors, carpenters, electricians etc make more than the police and teachers, but still very few make 1/4 million a year. Wow. I would have felt like the luckiest man on earth with $100,000.

*I thought the NDFB wanted to get rid of all support prices. Am I mistaken*_*?[/*i]

You need to make up your mind plainsman?  Do you wish to talk about NDFU or NDFB?????

So Bruce exactly what is NDFB policy on farm subsidy payments and what "percentage" of producers will that affect?

hint, this math is incredibly easy so that even you should come up with the correct answer this time! :wink:


----------



## swift

> So Bruce exactly what is NDFB policy on farm subsidy payments and what "percentage" of producers will that affect?


According to the FB president he claims reasonable caps???? whatever that is???? It should have been easy to follow your policy book and say cap subsidies at $0. We don't want any. but he didn't???? It seems your top guy is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or maybe the FB elected the wrong president????


----------



## Plainsman

You hear Farm Bureau talk about they want government out of their business. In private there is no way they want to give up any of the gravy train. They are hypocrites pure and simple. They want government out of their hair ----CODE----- we don't want no stinking regulations, we want to crap on all the rest of you with no consequences. That is the desire of the amendment the NDFB proposes. OK so I'm off subject to keep gst happy.



> And palsinamn, I can not be held responsible for your bad memory. :wink:


Ouch, that's a sore spot. :wink:

gst are we talking about espringers? At least I thought he was the attorney you were talking about. I see he is still debating you about his meaning of his statement. You interpret it different than he meant it. Still as always your trying to tell him what he meant. Don't you think the man knows what he intended to get across to people. I didn't interpret it anywhere close to the way you did.


----------



## gst

So plainsamn, now you are picking an choosing what policies NDFB "really" wishes to see happen????

What aboutthe G&F monies one you continueally bring up???

You seem to beleive they "reallY" want that one, yet dismiss the farm subsidy policy as hypocritical postureing???? :roll:

I posted the link to FBO and the thread we are taking about. People can make up their own minds what espringers opinion stated.


----------



## Plainsman

> You seem to beleive they "reallY" want that one, yet dismiss the farm subsidy policy as hypocritical postureing????


I don't know a bunch of NDFB members, but I know a few. One guy I would give the shirt off my back. He is simply a conservative like myself and that's why I ask what regulations would you guys like to see gone. I wish NDFB would bring them up separately so we could support them. I know when we get liberal administrations we often get regulations that do nothing but simply hamper. There are many people out there that would support NDFB in trying to remove those, but very few people who would want all regulations gone.

I know more NDFB members that want all regulations removed, they want that Game and Fish license money, and they still want more subsidies. People I talk with in person have a lot more influence than those we talk with on the internet. It's perhaps why I sometimes call people greedy. However, I don't paint with a wide brush. I have a couple of very good friends that belong to NDFB, oh and relatives. I see a wide spectrum within the NDFB of people who simply want to get rid of some regulations, to those who want to get rid of all of them and get money any way they can. It frustrates a person because you can't just dump on farmers because you would hurt some very good people. All we can do is try stop the radical NDFB when they try for things like this ridiculous constitutional amendment.

Now about the FU they have proposed nothing of value. Why don't we move over to the constitutional amendment thread if we want to continue talking about it?


----------



## swift

> You seem to beleive they "reallY" want that one, yet dismiss the farm subsidy policy as hypocritical postureing????


When the president of the NDFB is quoted 'wanting reasonable caps on subsidies' and the Policy book, of the Org that he is the head of, says they want NO subsidies, then YES it does look like hypocritical posturing. What does it look like to you GST just a misunderstanding? And don't give me the line he wasn't speaking for the FB it was his opinion. He is the HEAD SPOKESMAN for the FB and was interviewed because he is the president of the FB. Anything he says in an interview regarding agriculture is a reflection of the FB. Like it or not.

BTW what is the official opinion of the FB? I haven't heard that one yet.


----------



## shaug

swift wrote,



> BTW what is the official opinion of the FB? I haven't heard that one yet.


Swift, many times I sit beside Doyle Johannes at meetings. Next time I'll ask him a question for you. Swift wants to know this or that but.......well, Doyle might ask, Swift who? What would like me to tell him? I don't exactly know your name. Is it Lance ?

When I ask Plainsman questions and I am asked who is Plainsman, I respond former federal employee for the USGS. Usually someone will ask me if that stupid stuff Plainsman says is the official postition of the USGS. I respond, not exactly, but he is a very important person on a dying web-forum.

Swift, I am not going to ask Doyle questions presented to me by someone hiding behind a psuedo-name. If you would like I'll introduce you directly.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> I don't know a bunch of NDFB members, but I know a few. One guy I would give the shirt off my back. He is simply a conservative like myself and that's why I ask what regulations would you guys like to see gone. I wish NDFB would bring them up separately so we could support them. I know when we get liberal administrations we often get regulations that do nothing but simply hamper. There are many people out there that would support NDFB in trying to remove those, but very few people who would want all regulations gone.
> 
> I know more NDFB members that want all regulations removed, they want that Game and Fish license money, and they still want more subsidies. People I talk with in person have a lot more influence than those we talk with on the internet. It's perhaps why I sometimes call people greedy. However, I don't paint with a wide brush. I have a couple of very good friends that belong to NDFB, oh and relatives. I see a wide spectrum within the NDFB of people who simply want to get rid of some regulations, to those who want to get rid of all of them and get money any way they can. It frustrates a person because you can't just dump on farmers because you would hurt some very good people. All we can do is try stop the radical NDFB when they try for things like this ridiculous constitutional amendment.


Peat and repeat, you already said that very same thing hundred times. Nothing new here except an old cliche rings true. A dog always returns to its vomit.


----------



## huntin1

shaug said:


> Swift, I am not going to ask Doyle questions presented to me by someone hiding behind a psuedo-name. If you would like I'll introduce you directly.


Says the guy that hides behind a psuedo-name. :eyeroll:

Post up who you are, maybe you'll have better luck when you ask others to post their names.

huntin1


----------



## swift

shaug said:


> swift wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW what is the official opinion of the FB? I haven't heard that one yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Swift, many times I sit beside Doyle Johannes at meetings. Next time I'll ask him a question for you. Swift wants to know this or that but.......well, Doyle might ask, Swift who? What would like me to tell him? I don't exactly know your name. Is it Lance ?
> 
> When I ask Plainsman questions and I am asked who is Plainsman, I respond former federal employee for the USGS. Usually someone will ask me if that stupid stuff Plainsman says is the official postition of the USGS. I respond, not exactly, but he is a very important person on a dying web-forum.
> 
> Swift, I am not going to ask Doyle questions presented to me by someone hiding behind a psuedo-name. If you would like I'll introduce you directly.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in what you think Shaug. It means nothing to me. You have proven yourself to be a company man that cannot admit the Org you love so dearly may not be perfect.

Your president made a statement directly opposite of your policy book. This should be enough for you to ask why this statement was made. But as always you blindly follow like the sheep you are.


----------



## gst

_
Post up who you are, maybe you'll have better luck when you ask others to post their names._
huntin1

Gabe Thompson Jr. Antler ND

Huntin 1, swift,care to put a name to the comments?


----------



## huntin1

Ha, we already knew who you were gst. I'm waiting for shaug, but I ain't going to hold my breath. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## gst

huntin1 said:


> Ha, we already knew who you were gst. I'm waiting for shaug, but I ain't going to hold my breath. :roll:
> 
> huntin1


So why not sign your statements with something more than "huntin 1" so we "know" who is making the comments you share?

Or don;t you wish your name to be publically connected to the comments you make?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I'm not really interested in what you think Shaug. It means nothing to me. You have proven yourself to be a company man that cannot admit the Org you love so dearly may not be perfect.


And swift, if would be hard to argue that you simply do not have a personal dislike for this org, so why should anyone be "interested in what you think" and post as a personal diatribe against this org?


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested in what you think Shaug. It means nothing to me. You have proven yourself to be a company man that cannot admit the Org you love so dearly may not be perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> And swift, if would be hard to argue that you simply do not have a personal dislike for this org, so why should anyone be "interested in what you think" and post as a personal diatribe against this org?
Click to expand...

I didn't see your name in that "diatribe" GST, so if your really on this site to set things straight admit the NDFB has fundemental problems and work to fix them. And speak when spoken to. Mr. Shaug can speak his own mind he doesn't need you to fight his battles, Or does he?


----------



## Plainsman

I find shaug a huge hypocrite when calling out people about their name. He calls me by name, calls out others, but doesn't use his.

I think knowing who some one is gets over rated. There are idiots out there on the internet and I don't think we should use names. When people use names they are just hoping people get harassed. gst, you used your name voluntarily since you are a official representative of the NDSA. If I were you I would not even do that. Not that you fear retaliation from reasonable individuals, but that you want to avoid the mentally unbalanced. I have one guy now over on fishingbuddy that I think is mentally unbalanced. You may think I am being nasty saying that, but in his case I am thinking about old age and dementia. He has an unreasonable hatred. Don't endanger yourself with nut jobs.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> GST, so if your really on this site to set things straight admit the NDFB has fundemental problems and work to fix them


Swift, if you recall I have admitted every organization out there has it's faults. I have also stated that I do not agree with every position that some orgs I belong to maintain.

swift do you have any knowledge of the positions I have advocated for within these various orgs?

swift, here is a news flash for you. These orgs are not a part of the little oligarchy you and a handful of others try to maintain on Nodak.Just because YOU and your fellow oligarchians may not agree with the policies, does not mean that they are wrong and need to be "fixed".

and if you actually understand these grassroots orgs, you would know that while not everyone may agree with the position and they have the right to advocate for their differeing position, it is the majorities wishes that are represented.Something that is foreign in concept to the oligarchian. :wink:



Plainsman said:


> He has an unreasonable hatred.


kinda like what we see on this site??? 

kinda like someone demanding you only "speak when spoken to" on an internet site? 

So plainsamn, what comments actually measure up to "unreasonable hatred" levels on this site you moderate? :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsamn, what comments actually measure up to "unreasonable hatred" levels on this site you moderate?


Well for one thing I have talked about people using real names. No sooner had I done that and you started using mine. I don't remember using yours. I think those who do hope to cause trouble for others. I think you did it because you were simply being vindictive. You like to bring up what others say, but after using names and calling people liars you need to look in the mirror. Then you will see the person exhibiting the worst behavior on this site.

I see your lack of reasoning on here and on fishingbuddy. Your not here to protect agriculture your here to assure your right to abuse anything you want for profit. You contribute nothing, and when people get angry you start pointing your finger. I have question for you: have you ever felt shame? Would you feel shame about flooding a neighbor even if you didn't get caught?

Your right I don't know you. I can only go with what I read on this site and fishingbuddy. I think anyone who supports the NDFB constitutional amendment should hang their head in shame. It's nothing less than saying "let me dump on you and please say thank you". We constantly hear about landowner rights. Is there such a thing as citizens rights? Do I have the right to clean water, or do your rights to drain, tile , spray, etc over ride my rights?

On our farm we had a huge patch of juneberry. Our family looked forward to those berries every year. It was a treat because our income didn't allow the luxury of fresh berries from the store. The ajacent landowner sprayed with an east wind and killed every last bush. Two farmers, but the one with the biggest tractor and sprayer had more rights I guess. That's what you have to offer us, freedom to do as you please because you see yourself as more important than anyone.

This is the picture you draw for us every day. So does shaug.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> *Your right I don't know you.* I can only go with what I read on this site and fishingbuddy.


And there in lies the value of having your name tied to what you post. You become something more than an anounimous person making unsubstantiated claims.

One can actually be held accountable for what they say. (I can see where some on here would like to avoid that responsibility)

If it was important to you to actually know someone before you started making accusations about them plainsman knowing their name is a good place to start.

That is if you are concerned with your accusations actually being factual! :wink:


----------



## huntin1

> One can actually be held accountable for what they say. (I can see where some on here would like to avoid that responsibility)


Like shaug, for example?

He is the one that wants to know peoples name, where they work and who they worked with. I don't feel compled to post my info while he hides behind a screen name demanding that everyone else post their name.

If you are really that curious gst I'll PM you.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

> If you are really that curious gst I'll PM you.


I would not do that huntn1. The only reason these people want names is to look for ways to back stab you. Maybe a relative that will retaliate. Maybe a boss than can be talked into giving you a hard time. Anyway they can to get at you. That's their MO.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I would not do that huntn1. The only reason these people want names is to look for ways to back stab you. Maybe a relative that will retaliate. Maybe a boss than can be talked into giving you a hard time. Anyway they can to get at you. That's their MO.


Plainsman, are you faking paranoia now??? Huntin was a cop, you know that. He can take care of himself.


----------



## Plainsman

Nope, I'm speaking from experience. That may not have been your reason for all the questions, but that is the reason some people ask. Some people go off the deep end easily. I would not want to see you suffer that sort of harassment either. I give you a bad time about names, not because I want to know your name, but because you hide just like others do, but you give them a bad time about it. I actually find your double standard amusing.

Your not gst's young pheasant farmer are you? :wink: Just in case you are, great job young fellow.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Nope, I'm speaking from experience. That may not have been your reason for all the questions, but that is the reason some people ask. Some people go off the deep end easily. I would not want to see you suffer that sort of harassment either. I give you a bad time about names, not because I want to know your name, but because you hide just like others do, but you give them a bad time about it. I actually find your double standard amusing.


It is not harrassment. I wouldn't say anything behind someones back that I wouldn't say to their face. With that said, I have extended an invite to Swift, Ron Gilmore and yourself to come to some AG Coalition functions and explain your side of an issue. No takers!!!!! Just more rocks cast from behind screen names. I actually find your double standard amusing.


----------



## swift

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I'm speaking from experience. That may not have been your reason for all the questions, but that is the reason some people ask. Some people go off the deep end easily. I would not want to see you suffer that sort of harassment either. I give you a bad time about names, not because I want to know your name, but because you hide just like others do, but you give them a bad time about it. I actually find your double standard amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not harrassment. I wouldn't say anything behind someones back that I wouldn't say to their face. With that said, I have extended an invite to Swift, Ron Gilmore and yourself to come to some AG Coalition functions and explain your side of an issue. No takers!!!!! Just more rocks cast from behind screen names. I actually find your double standard amusing.
Click to expand...

Shaug with the unreasonable mindset of the two spokesman for the ag orgs on here why would anyone want to go "give their side"? You and GST have been consistant in disregarding any concerns, ideas or opinions of anyone outside of your small group. Your inviting us the same say Hawaiians invite a pig to a Luau. No thanks.


----------



## gst

ALWAYS the conspiracy eh plainsman?

Why is it so hard to accept that people simply find it easier to place credibility on what someone says that uses their own name rather than a puesdonym.

You see plainsamn, you know who I am. If it was truly important to you to know a little bit about me and my operation and how it is run before you throw around the accusations you do, you could easily find someone that is a friend, neighbor, fellow board member, relative, ect..... that could give you a little insight. ND is a pretty small state.

But apparent;y knowing any real facts are not as important to you as simply throwing around claims and accusations you can not backup when asked.

So continue with the "everyones out to get me" conspiracy theories" plainsamn and post what ever unsubstantiated claims and accusations you wish as you have done.

plainsamn, one question, why should ones coments they make on here get them in trouble with their boss or relative or ect... ? :-?

Unless one is being disingenuous with that person in comments you share with them as compared to what you write on here? 

Or unless one is making accusations and claims that can not be substantiated or backed up as the truth? :-?

Huntin 1 it is entirey up to you if you wish to put a name with the comments in a PM on not. As long as people are honest in what they post what is shared in a PM will remain as such.


----------



## Plainsman

> Why is it so hard to accept that people simply find it easier to place credibility on what someone says that uses their own name rather than a puesdonym.


I'm not so sure that makes a difference. I know who you are and I don't put any credability in your opinions. :wink:



> plainsamn, one question


Don't lie to me. One question??? :rollin:



> ALWAYS the conspiracy eh plainsman?


Not really, one of your allies from out of state who is a nut job has been in Jamestown at a local implement dealer (where I have friends) complaining and whining about me. The guy needs to speak to his doctor about dementia next time he goes in for his annual physical.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I'm speaking from experience. That may not have been your reason for all the questions, but that is the reason some people ask. Some people go off the deep end easily. I would not want to see you suffer that sort of harassment either. I give you a bad time about names, not because I want to know your name, but because you hide just like others do, but you give them a bad time about it. I actually find your double standard amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not harrassment. I wouldn't say anything behind someones back that I wouldn't say to their face. With that said,* I have extended an invite to Swift, Ron Gilmore and yourself to come to some AG Coalition functions and explain your side of an issue. No takers!!!!! *Just more rocks cast from behind screen names. I actually find your double standard amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

swift wrote:
_Shaug with the unreasonable mindset of the two spokesman for the ag orgs on here why would anyone want to go "give their side"? You and GST have been consistant in disregarding any concerns, ideas or opinions of anyone outside of your small group. Your inviting us the same say Hawaiians invite a pig to a Luau. No thanks.[/_quote]

Swift if what you suggest is true, what better reason would you need then to personally go and share with the ag orgs we are involved with your concerns directly so there is no doubt what you wish to have heard in regards to your "concerns" or "opinions" is what is presented?????

You guys consistantly claim the "opinions" and veiws we share in response to yours is not mainstrem ag. Why then not accept these invitations and go to these orgs and coalition firsthand and share with others your opinions and concerns and here theirs firsthand??

Shaug and I come onto these outdoor sites to share a different perspective than what a small handfulof the same people over and over on here that are NOT directly involved in production agriculture share regarding agriculture. We are involved and engaged rather than sitting back and *****ing.

So why not do the same and become more involved and go dierctly to these ag orgs when invited and share your concerns and opinions???

The Ag Colaition is represented by most all the ag orgs here in ND, You would have the ear of agriculture as a whole at one single meeting.

If you truly are concerned with doing something more than what we see on this site, take the opportunity to express your concerns and opinions.

But please realize, these people expect people to be willing to take responsibility for what they say. You will have to put a name with your comments.

Perhaps this unwillingness to do so is indicative of why you will not attend these meetings and make the same comments there as is done from behind your computer here.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Why is it so hard to accept that people simply find it easier to place credibility on what someone says that uses their own name rather than a puesdonym.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure that makes a difference. I know who you are and I don't put any credability in your opinions. :wink:
Click to expand...

plaisnamn you may know the name, but you have put NO effort into actually getting to know me or my operation or my commitment to conservation and hunting.

So you are making your accusations of "greed" adn "rip, rape, and run" ect... based on what?


----------



## swift

> Huntin 1 it is entirey up to you if you wish to put a name with the comments in a PM on not. As long as people are honest in what they post what is shared in a PM will remain as such.


Honesty is a funny concept. Is it honest to misrepresent ones opinion? Much like you did with espringers. He told you many times you were posting out of context but in true GST arrogance you kept telling *him* what *he meant *with *his posts. *


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Shaug with the unreasonable mindset of the two spokesman for the ag orgs on here why would anyone want to go "give their side"? You and GST have been consistant in disregarding any concerns, ideas or opinions of anyone outside of your small group. Your inviting us the same say Hawaiians invite a pig to a Luau. No thanks.


LAME!!!

There used to be a man on here who called himself bioman. He spewed much hatred and vitriol. Adding nothing to any conversation. Very attacking. Condescending. When his identity was revealed he disappeared.

Ryan actually has a good job with a company that is very focused on good public relations. I believe they would have frowned on his poor behavior here.

Swift, if I ever figure out who you are, will you disappear also?? The offer still stands swift. I invite you to come to a meeting where you can ask all the right people those questions you pose.

I wasn't at any Game and Fish Advisory Board Meetings this spring but I do attend. I step out into the open. I represent my side. You should do the same. If you choose to instead shoot from behind a screen name than sorry but I cannot give you any creditablity.


----------



## Plainsman

> Ryan actually has a good job with a company that is very focused on good public relations. I believe they would have frowned on his poor behavior here.


Did you call his boss? Did you make any threats? Did you call your congressman and complain about him? Did you back door stab him? I'll bet dimes to dollars someone did. Or he was afraid you would. You guys deal in fear. There is always a threat coming from some. We have one fellow on fishingbuddy that hates like a radical Muslim hates Jews who often insinuates threats like the above. It's for this reason no one goes to any ag meetings. If your mainstream ag that means there is little use in talking. The truth would only make more people hate. You fellows simply want your way at any cost and you both know that there would be little reason to go to an ag meeting unless you enjoy abuse.

If this was not true we would be talking about NDFU and what their proposal would or would not accomplish. You need to creat a boogie man. If none exists you will make one of anyone you can.

Again, not anyone in particular it's just the way I write. It may or may not fit you shaug, or gst. It sounds like it does, but I can't look into a man's heart through my computer screen.


----------



## gst

Once again plainsamn,

plainsamn, one question, why should ones coments they make on here get them in trouble with their boss or relative or ect... ?

Unless one is being disingenuous with that person in comments you share with them as compared to what you write on here?

Or unless one is making accusations and claims that can not be substantiated or backed up as the truth?

So plainsamn, if you are a straight forward kind of person with everyone, why should the comments one makes on a internet site get them in any kind of trouble?

Not everyone is out to get you plainsamn! :wink:


----------



## gst

swift once again here is the link to the comments on FBO so people can judge for themselves.

Here is the direct quote in it's entirety where espringers states in his "opinion" this measure will NOT prevent the regulation of agriculture as people on here have claimed.

Re: NDFB constitutional amendment
by espringers on 04/06/2012 12:47 PM | Reply #137 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" | 
espringers
Joined: 07/25/2007 
Location: ND

_ once again gst... it won't end regulation of farming/ranching altogether. it will just end any regulation that could/would result in the prevention or banning of anything that could be looked at as a modern practice. if a "modern practice" proves to be harmful, why shouldn't our legislature have the power to ban it? how can you justify taking that power away from them? and i don't think you need to be a constitutional scholar to look at the language of this measure and come up w/ the same interpretation. in fact, you've got to try REALLY hard to twist things into anything else. _

Swift, did espringers on more tahn one occassion after making this initial opinion back it up and stand by it?

Now swift, I will leave it to you to show where I "misrepresented" espringers opinion by directly quoting where it was done.


----------



## Plainsman

:rollin: :rollin:


> plainsamn, one question,


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: See I knew you were lying to me.



> plainsamn, one question, why should ones coments they make on here get them in trouble with their boss or relative or ect... ?
> 
> Unless one is being disingenuous


You need to get out in the real world. The truth can get you into more trouble than a lie in our current nation. As a matter of fact dealing with the NDFB, shaug, and you brings this to mind.



> In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.





> Not everyone is out to get you plainsamn!


Oh, I know that. I get many supportive PM's and emails saying they are happy I say it because they don't dare. The feel the same way, but you know employment, personal relations etc sometimes you can't speak your mind. There is one reason to be here. That is to keep eveyone in line so you can continue to line your pockets at the expense of the taxpayer and environment. No one cares about people in Fargo flooding. You think they are stupid to live there don't you. Remember your fast edit? :wink:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Oh, I know that. I get many supportive PM's and emails saying they are happy I say it because they don't dare. The feel the same way, but you know employment, personal relations etc sometimes you can't speak your mind.


and



> You need to get out in the real world.


Plainsman, unknown persons are sending personal messages to you on a dying web-forum. Do you honestly believe you live in the real world?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, unknown persons are sending personal messages to you on a dying web-forum. Do you honestly believe you live in the real world?


 :rollin: :rollin: No doubt your going to want their names. :rollin: :rollin: I suppose where they worked you would find useful also. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: Do you want to also know if they have ever worked with me? :rollin: :rollin:

Not often, but about once every two weeks I run into this farmer I know. He laughs and tells me the first thing he does each morning while he has his first cup of coffee is read the debate between gst and myself. He doesn't get angry with either of us, but thinks it's a hoot. I don't suppose many find it as entertaining as he does. His greeting is "you and gst hugging yet"? Then he cackles like a nut. I think the guy is going to be disappointed if we stop.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Remember your fast edit?


Again with the "disappearing posts" claim! :roll:

Say plaisnamn is this farmer fellow you know related to the fellas from Billings? Perhaps he knows the fella that pulled a Ruger Blackhawk on you from that "grazing organization" (which one was that again??) , or was it a rifle, I can never keep your stories straight! :wink:

plainsmn, make whatever claims and accusations you wish to make on your internet site. Yet you and others repeatedly decline shaugs offer to come out "into the real world" from behind your computer screen and make these same claims and accusations directly to the people at the heads of these ag orgs you love to hate in a "real world" open forum where you will be directly held accountable face to face for what you state. . :-?

WHY?

Indeed the anonimity of the internet! :wink:

Perhaps you had better rethink your "real world" comments ! :wink: :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> Again with the "disappearing posts" claim!


Between you and I gst you know darn well what I'm talking about. I say you have not got the guts to put that back up. come on show me your bravery. No guts no glory. Need help? Hint, the one about Fargo and flooding. :wink:



> I can never keep your stories straight!


Your right, but then you seldom do keep anything I say straight. You have the same problem on fishingbuddy. A guy who opposes you gets his words twisted and you come on here and say he supports you. Wow. What a shovel load of bull droppings.

I'll tell you another one. My friend is safe now because he died of cancer about ten years ago. He was an elevator manager, and his opinion was about the same as mine. However, do you think in that position he could voice his opinion? There are many more that feel like I do gst.

I hope people think before they vote this fall. The people who want to get rid of property tax I hope loose. Guys like you gst don't pay income tax. The write everything off. If those people don't pay property tax they will pay no tax at all. Farmers don't pay sales tax on many things, few pay income tax, and property tax is the only thing some pay. Are you a contributor to America, or only at the trough? I think people should have to show last years tax records before they vote. If you didn't pay a couple of thousand you shouldn't get to vote yourself wealth.

I'm conservative and don't like taxes, but a conservative doesn't duck responsibility either. Also a conservative doesn't support socialist programs like the agriculture program. So decide if your a conservative or a socialist. Do you stand on your own feet or do you live off the sweat of others? There are some thoughts here where I think very close to the NDFB. However, I don't agree with their no regulations, or no laws to regulate rip, rape, and run. It all comes down to if your a responsible person who thinks his neighbors life has any value at all. Not just the neighbor next door, but also your neighbor in Fargo.


----------



## gst

plainsman, don;t try to pawn your senility off on other people.

You made this same claim over on FBO remember and held to that claim,right up until it was proven to you after 30 minutes you can NOT edit your posts on that site.

So continue to make claims such as these if you wish. :roll:

Plaisnamn are you sure it was not YOU that edited my posts??? 

After all you are the only one on this site that has the abiltiy to edit OTHER peoples posts right? :wink:

As too having to pay a "couple of thosuand" in taxes to be able to vote, you were asked once plainsamn, if you are using OTHER peoples tax dollars to pay YOUR taxes would you still get a right to vote???? :wink:

You never answered that one plainsman.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Also a conservative doesn't support socialist programs like the agriculture program. So decide if your a conservative or a socialist. Do you stand on your own feet or do you live off the sweat of others?


From the "Farm Subsidies Gone Wrong" thread

plaisnamn wrote:
"_I don't like redistribution of wealth *when I get nothing out of it*. I don't care if it only cost me a penny._"

Indeed a true conservative stance! :wink:

Plainsamn, the "sweat of others" paid your salary building salamander traps for how many years? :-?

Out of the people on this site that could make comments such as these and have a degree of credibility for not having ever received the benefits of others tax payer dollars going into their pockets, you Bruce, as a retired Federal employee living off the "sweat of others" are not one of them. :roll:

I guess as you "got something out of your Federal salary paid for by the"redistribution of wealth" you had no problem accpeting that "socialist" payment. :roll:

Plaisnamn, tally up what dollar amount you would have had to take out of your hunting and rifle fund if you would have had to pay 10% more i food costs outr of your disposable income over the years.

And then tell me you didn;t get "something" out of the socialist cheap food policy this country maintained with this "redistribution of wealth" as you calim.

I guarantee it will be substantially more than the total dollars of the percentage of your taxes that went to these ag programs.

But then again, people that wish to form their own little oligarchy with rules who should vote and who should control land and such seldom think about these things until it actually starts to bite them in the ***. There are any number of examples of that thruout history.

So dismiss these ag programs you clearly know nothing about the itent behind and make what claims you wish on your internet site here plainsman, instead of coming out "into the real world" and accepting shaugs offer to meet in front of the coalitions of most of the state ag orgs to speak your piece.

Remember if you do, they will expect you to accept the responsibilities for the claims and acusations you make. :-?

Perhaps you are better off hiding on this web forum palinsman! :wink:

I mean how will you substantiate your conspiracy theories, everyone is out to get me paranoia and disappearing posts claims in the "real world"! 

Hey I got an idea how about you and led both go to the next ag coalition and led can ask which one of those orgs, directed/paid me to come on this site!!!!  :wink: :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> And then tell me you didn;t get "something" out of the socialist cheap food policy this country maintained with this "redistribution of wealth" as you calim.


Cheap food? I could get that from Brazil, Canada, Australia, etc. I could get much cheaper milk from Minnesota. Oh, that's right our grocer can't import from Minnesota. We have to pay much more to ------ why can't we buy from a neighbor? Is there something wrong with free market? Their operating costs are just as much in Minnesota as North Dakota right? So do they make a bundle in North Dakota? They have a captive market.


----------



## shaug

It is my turn to tell a story.

I was visiting with Plainsmans doctor. He said Bruce came to his office one day not feeling his old self. So the doctor said, "here drink this." When he got done Bruce said, "this tastes like bull droppings." The doc replied, "you should be good as new, you were about a quart low."


----------



## Plainsman

It's about time we had some humor. However, I don't need a prescription there was plenty in that story about cheap food. :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman, you continueally reference the STATE law regarding the importation of milk, You do realize this is a STATE law which has NOTHING to do with the FEDERAL farm program policies of which we are talking right????

Bruce, why do you as an American pay the lowest percentage of your disposable income for food than any other modern industrialized nation?

"Bull droppings" ? :roll:

plainsamn it is clear your bias is so strong you are unwilling to understand this govt's ag policies that began after the Great Depression of the 1930's to accomplish two purposes. Provide parity to the nations historically largest sector which at the time created the most wealth for the country, and ensure a readily avalible cheap food supply to this country.

There are a number of reasons the govt beleived these two protections necessary and beneficial to this country, all of which are connected to it's stability over a several decade time frame and have been a large part of our global ag policy.

For the time frame from the 40's thru the early 80's, the focas on Ag policy and programs were producers orrientated to ensure the prodcution of food in this country remained in the individual producer private sector. Beginning in the 80's a shift in focas of the "Farm Bill" begin to include actual direct food assistance programs to couple with ag subsidy policies. Over the last couple of decades these "food" policies within the Farm Bill have began to dominate and will continue to as food cost begin to increase.

Plainsamn, over the years what percentage of the dollars allocated to the Farm Bill actually go to producers as subsidies and what are the rest of the dollars used for???

Why are these "food" programs a part of the "Farm Bill"? ?

If the answer to these two questions do not allow you to realize a large portion of the intent behind the "Farm Bill" you are simply to biased to allow yourself to see clearly.

Argue wether they are needed, aurgue their effectiveness, argue wether ultimately they have beeen good for this country or agriculture, but at least be honest enough to admit these polices within our govt exist.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, you continueally reference the STATE law regarding the importation of milk, You do realize this is a STATE law which has NOTHING to do with the FEDERAL farm program policies of which we are talking right????


My freedom of choice nor my wallet can tell if it's a state program or a federal program. What's the difference?



> Bruce, why do you as an American pay the lowest percentage of your disposable income for food than any other modern industrialized nation?


That's not counting all the hidden costs through taxation. Also, wow there was a liberal phrase "industrialized nation". That gets me to thinking. You guys talk about being conservative. I just noticed a quote by old mauser a buddy of yours. He didn't like it that I don't like grain subsidies. Evidently you guys are conservative when it comes to minorities or poor people getting tax dollars, but your sort of closet Marxist when it comes to you getting tax dollars. I guess everyone can be had for a price. I wonder how many true conservatives are out there, or can we all be bought? I'm really disappointed in false conservatives I have discovered lately.

I'm beginning to think the only true conservatives is the guy who works for a salary and doesn't have any tax shelters. Pays full taxes unlike you gst, and it goes to the poor and needy plus the rich with tax shelters. Wow the middle income salary people are getting shafted from both ends.


----------



## swift

> I'm beginning to think the only true conservatives is the guy who works for a salary and doesn't have any tax shelters. Pays full taxes unlike you gst, and it goes to the poor and needy plus the rich with tax shelters. Wow the middle income salary people are getting shafted from both ends.


hey! thats me


----------



## gst

plainsamn, were the tax dollars you paid into the Federal govt actually other peoples "wealth" that had been "redistributed" into YOUR pockets??? 

So plainsamn in reality have you EVER paid any taxes that was actually your dollars and not someone elses? :-?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I just noticed a quote by old mauser a buddy of yours. He didn't like it that I don't like grain subsidies


Okay plainsamn, I thought you "always" supported grain subsidies????  
From earlier inthis very thread. 

by Plainsman » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:19 am 

_In the past I was always in favor of those support prices. _

Bruc, you are going to have to pick a story and stick with in for once! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> plainsamn, were the tax dollars you paid into the Federal govt actually other peoples "wealth" that had been "redistributed" into YOUR pockets???
> 
> So plainsamn in reality have you EVER paid any taxes that was actually your dollars and not someone elses? :-?


That's two questions gst. :wink:

To answer both, I worked for a salary. That means the government was told by the people they want something. The government hires people to do that sort of job. I worked so I earned. That's the difference between a salary and a subsidy. A salary you work for someone else while a subsidy you get paid to work for yourself. So since I earned those dollars the taxes I paid were actually my dollars. Thanks for giving me that chance to explain it to everyone. :wink:

Oh, as far as grain subsidies. I have always in the past supported them. except when some ingrate ticks me off then I tell them I don't. I wish I could pick who I gave my tax dollars to for subsidies. :wink: Anyway, since reading Politics According to the Bible my conscience doesn't let me support them anymore. It harms far more people than just the poor slob on a salary paying taxes. Also, since the farm income the past few years has been a gold mine they really don't need it. Of course the high price of corn was because of ethanol subsidies so even though it was indirect it still benefited the farmer. We have to get rid of that program though because not only is it expensive it's making us more energy dependent.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> plainsamn, were the tax dollars you paid into the Federal govt actually other peoples "wealth" that had been "redistributed" into YOUR pockets???
> 
> So plainsamn in reality have you EVER paid any taxes that was actually your dollars and not someone elses? :-?


gst, obviously you haven't had a real job, that's why you can't see the difference.


----------



## Plainsman

That's seriously a good point longshot. gst, have you ever had a job where you worked for a salary?

Ooops I did that wrong. One question if you please gst. Have you ever had a job where you worked for a salary?

As a matter of fact I would like to ask shaug that question also. Have either of you worked for a salary, or were you just handed a million dollar ranch/farm from your parents?


----------



## gst

To directly answer a question so some can see how it is done, yes indeed I have had jobs that I received a salary for for working for someone else.

And I have even paid salaries on more than one occassion.



Plainsman said:


> As a matter of fact I would like to ask shaug that question also. Have either of you worked for a salary, or *were you just handed a million dollar ranch/farm from your parents*?


plainsamn, if one did not know better, it would seem you and a small handful of others have a burr under your saddle for those who may have been directly involved in a generational transfer of a farming or ranching operation.

One could wonder if it is jealousy or anger that causes this burr to irritate as much as it seems to?

So now perhaps plainsamn, you would anser just one question.

As a Federal employee, have you ever paid a dollar in taxes that was not first paid you from someone elses taxes?


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> plainsamn, were the tax dollars you paid into the Federal govt actually other peoples "wealth" that had been "redistributed" into YOUR pockets???
> 
> So plainsamn in reality have you EVER paid any taxes that was actually your dollars and not someone elses? :-?
> 
> 
> 
> gst, obviously you haven't had a real job, that's why you can't see the difference.
Click to expand...

Indeed being in business for ones self in the ag industry is not a "real job"! :roll:

longshot did not both the ag subsidy and plainsamns paycheck come from other people "wealth" that was "redistributed" by the govt?

Can you please show where I have claimed a salary or a subsidy are the exact same, only that in the case of plainsamns paycheck, they came from the same place, the taxpayers pocket! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

One was a salary for working while a subsidy is a gift.

I don't begrudge farmers or ranchers. I'm happy if your rich.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Cheap food? I could get that from Brazil, Canada, Australia, etc. I could get much cheaper milk from Minnesota. Oh, that's right our grocer can't import from Minnesota. We have to pay much more to ------ why can't we buy from a neighbor? Is there something wrong with free market? Their operating costs are just as much in Minnesota as North Dakota right? So do they make a bundle in North Dakota? They have a captive market.


Bruce, when you purchase products from Brazil it sends a market signal to the Brazilians. Produce more to service your need. Cheaper products come at the expense of the rain forest.

And then your question about dairy farmers making a bundle because you believe they have a captive market. Bruce you don't get out much do you. How many dairies are left in the state????? In some ND counties they are down to one or two. Maybe you should look at starting a dairy or going into a partnership. Just look at the big bucks you are missing out on.


----------



## Plainsman

My brothers neighbor milks a lot of cows. He has done well, but what a job. Never a vacation. I wouldn't trade places with him for the world. They have made a good living since the boys are building multi million dollar businesses. Still, they earned every penny. However, I still don't like being told I have to buy anywhere. That isn't free market.

Like I said other places I have listened to debates between liberals and conservatives. I have listened to liberal politician promise the world to those who will vote for them. I have listened to conservatives talking about letting those who earn their money keep their money. However it's beginning to look like they all want to rip off the middle class. They are both for subsidies they just want to give it to different people. Are there any true conservatives left?

It isn't an ag thing, I am starting to wonder if anyone should get subsidies. I was watching a special with John Stossel tonight and college tuition has gone up 750% since 1987. Even Joe Biden was on record admitting that the more government pays the higher colleges jack their tuition. Obama was on tape saying it, but seconds later talked about how much more he was going to spend on higher education than anyone else. What is the deal is the whole country on the take? So who pays? I know one group that pays more than anyone, and that is the men and women working for a salary. So with no bias I say take away all of the subsidies and let those who can't survive work for those who can. After all isn't this country at least supposed to be capitalist?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So with no bias I say take away all of the subsidies and let those who can't survive work for those who can.


plainsamn, are you a NDFB memeber???  Isn't that what their policy states? :wink:

Bottineau Counties last dairy sold out a couple of years ago.

plainsamn perhaps you missed that question I asked as you did not answer. Would you care to do so now?

As a Federal employee, have you ever paid a dollar in taxes that was not first paid you from someone elses taxes?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> As a matter of fact I would like to ask shaug that question also. Have either of you worked for a salary, or were you just handed a million dollar ranch/farm from your parents?





Plainsman said:


> I don't begrudge farmers or ranchers. I'm happy if your rich.


riiiiiiiight!!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink:


----------



## Longshot

Longshot said:


> gst, obviously you haven't had a real job, that's why you can't see the difference.





gst said:


> Indeed being in business for ones self in the ag industry is not a "real job"! :roll:


The difference is that most "real jobs" don't get a free ticket when times get tough. They don't have the government hand over tax payer money if you can't keep your business in the black. Then again for farm subsidies its anytime.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> It isn't an ag thing, I am starting to wonder if anyone should get subsidies. I was watching a special with John Stossel tonight and college tuition has gone up 750% since 1987. Even Joe Biden was on record admitting that the more government pays the higher colleges jack their tuition. Obama was on tape saying it, but seconds later talked about how much more he was going to spend on higher education than anyone else. What is the deal is the whole country on the take? So who pays? I know one group that pays more than anyone, and that is the men and women working for a salary. So with no bias I say take away all of the subsidies and let those who can't survive work for those who can. After all isn't this country at least supposed to be capitalist?


The Farm Bill is going to take $23 billion in cuts. Next it is everyone elses turn to step up to the plate and do the right thing and take a cut in this time of extreme national debt. Do it for the country before we go the same route as Greece.

Everyone needs to make cuts. One program that was created about ten years ago was the states wildlife grants program. $350 million per year of federal money from offshore oil and gas leases. Let the money go to the US General Treasurey where it belongs. Plainsman, that is my idea of a cut. Do you have any others suggestions where wildlife conservation can help or make sacrifices in the name of saving this country some money?


----------



## shaug

Longshot wrote,



> The difference is that most "real jobs" don't get a free ticket when times get tough. They don't have the government hand over tax payer money if you can't keep your business in the black. Then again for farm subsidies its anytime.


Longshot, there are more subsidised businesses out there than you sir can comprehend.

http://americanvisionnews.com/1823/taxp ... d-out-230k


----------



## Longshot

shaug said:


> Longshot wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that most "real jobs" don't get a free ticket when times get tough. They don't have the government hand over tax payer money if you can't keep your business in the black. Then again for farm subsidies its anytime.
> 
> 
> 
> Longshot, there are more subsidised businesses out there than you sir can comprehend.
> 
> http://americanvisionnews.com/1823/taxp ... d-out-230k
Click to expand...

I agree shaug, there are a lot worse examples. The problem is that gst doesn't know the difference between subsidies and salaries (from anyone to anyone). He claims he does, and then tries to compare plainsman's salary to a subsidy. I guess it's a comprehension issue for him.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug I agree there are some crazy subsidies out there. Since your a official representative of the NDFB you may be able to straighten this out for me. Is it true they would like all subsidies gone? That's very bold of them. In a good way that is. Now I wish they would start on those regulations. I think regulations are often tied to those subsidies. You know if the taxpayer gives money they should have some control over how it's used. Sort of like going to McDonalds and ordering a Big Mac you don't want to get a fish sandwich.

Perhaps this is an area where we can get a positive dialogue going. I sure wish someone from FB would list some regulations they would like to abolish. I'll bet we could agree on 75% of them. Many of us in the urban setting fear what could happen with all of them gone. I hope there is some room for mutual agreement between farm and city folks.

I think we all agree that the FU proposal does nothing for the economy. Maybe we should start a new thread about regulations that are ready for the grave yard and let this one die.

Edit: This is a real opportunity. gst you often want something positive about agriculture. This is that opportunity. Tell us what regulations are not useful and should be discarded. Tell us how to help. I would not go to one of those meetings your speak of and talk about subsidies because I would have to be a masochist. I would go to one of those meetings and support the removal of some regulations. If you fellows are serious about getting alone on these things, which I like better than conflict by the way, then this is the time.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Longshot wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that most "real jobs" don't get a free ticket when times get tough. They don't have the government hand over tax payer money if you can't keep your business in the black. Then again for farm subsidies its anytime.
> 
> 
> 
> Longshot, there are more subsidised businesses out there than you sir can comprehend.
> 
> http://americanvisionnews.com/1823/taxp ... d-out-230k
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree shaug, there are a lot worse examples. The problem is that gst doesn't know the difference between subsidies and salaries (from anyone to anyone). He claims he does, and then tries to compare plainsman's salary to a subsidy. I guess it's a comprehension issue for him.
Click to expand...

Longshotit is YOUR comprehension that YOUR personal dislike is getting the better of. Once again, please show ehre I have eve stated subisides and salaries are one in the same.

In the case of plainsmans Federal salaries and Federal crop subsidy payments, they simply come from the same "wealth" pool, the taxpayers pockets.

That sir is a fact you can not deny.

And when plainsman condemns others for having their "hands in the taxpayers pockets" he must realize his are in the same pocket.

I do not know how much clearer I can make that for you.

So plainsamn, have you ever paid a dime in taxes that was not first collected from someone elses taxes and paid you?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> This is a real opportunity. gst you often want something positive about agriculture. This is that opportunity. Tell us what regulations are not useful and should be discarded. Tell us how to help. I would not go to one of those meetings your speak of and talk about subsidies because I would have to be a masochist. I would go to one of those meetings and support the removal of some regulations. If you fellows are serious about getting alone on these things, which I like better than conflict by the way, then this is the time.


plainsamn, if you or your gaggle of oligarchians had ever shown a desire to discuss the positive aspects of agriculture on this site, perhaps your invitation could be taken serioously.

Plainsamn can you show me one single positive thread about agriculture production or the orgs that represent it on this site?

If you can, that might be a place for you to start.

Plainsman, I am curious though, do you undersatnd the "takings" policies this country has?

Given this comment you made I am curious.

plainsman wrote.

_I think regulations are often tied to those subsidies. You know if the taxpayer gives money they should have some control over how it's used_

So plainsamn, if these subsidies are to disappear as you claim to want, should the govt have a say over how these private lands are used?


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Longshotit is YOUR comprehension that YOUR personal dislike is getting the better of. Once again, please show ehre I have eve stated subisides and salaries are one in the same.
> 
> In the case of plainsmans Federal salaries and Federal crop subsidy payments, they simply come from the same "wealth" pool, the taxpayers pockets.
> 
> That sir is a fact you can not deny.
> 
> And when plainsman condemns others for having their "hands in the taxpayers pockets" he must realize his are in the same pocket.
> 
> I do not know how much clearer I can make that for you.


So you still want to compare a salary that is worked for and a subsidy that you did nothing for. gst you are like talking to a 3 year old. Somehow showing something happening over here justifies your "it's owed me" attitude. You have nothing more than circular arguments and do nothing but make the rest of ag look bad.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsamn can you show me one single positive thread about agriculture production or the orgs that represent it on this site?


The ball is in your court. If you don't take advantage of it your simply a cry baby and were never serious. This will now tell us if you here defending agriculture or if you are here attacking those who may tip over your trough. My attitude depends on what you do next. You may not be the greedy landowner protecting your trough and really are good old Joe rancher. Your next move will tell us which.



> So plainsamn, if these subsidies are to disappear as you claim to want, should the govt have a say over how these private lands are used?


Are you once again supporting all regulations being abolished? Your freedom as a rancher doesn't go any further than any other citizen, and our freedoms only go to the point that they harm someone else. If your asking me if your free to drain and flood a neighbor I would say no. If your asking should you be free to spray your fields in 20 mph winds from an elevation of 100 feet I would say no. If your asking should you be free to dump all of your rockpiles on your neighbor I would say no. If your asking can you spray your neighbors pasture with roundup because you don't like the weeds he has I would say no. Now before you go and tell people this is what I have accused you of let me be the first to say these are hyperbole to give even the dullest wit a chance to understand that some regulations are still required to control those with no conscience.


----------



## swift

> Longshotit is YOUR comprehension that YOUR personal dislike is getting the better of. Once again, please show ehre I have eve stated subisides and salaries are one in the same.
> 
> In the case of plainsmans Federal salaries and Federal crop subsidy payments, they simply come from the same "wealth" pool, the taxpayers pockets.
> 
> That sir is a fact you can not deny.
> 
> And when plainsman condemns others for having their "hands in the taxpayers pockets" he must realize his are in the same pocket.
> 
> I do not know how much clearer I can make that for you.
> 
> So plainsamn, have you ever paid a dime in taxes that was not first collected from someone elses taxes and paid you?


Your not real bright are you. Since marijuana and corn both grow in the ground and you derive your income from the ground then you are the same as a drug dealer. That is some kind of logic there. Your losing it GST Your losing it.


----------



## Plainsman

The next few responses are going to tell us a lot about people and motives. I am guardedly optimistic, but unwilling to hold my breath.

After all of this it would be absolutely wonderful to get into a positive agricultural thread. I would actually like to complement gst on some of his conservation practices. I believe he does some positive things. gst, could you show us some pictures?

You know I once said ag conservation practices were not as good as nature and that was seen as negative. I don't know why because ag is always going to negatively impact wildlife, but new practices and conservation is always better than old practices and no conservation. I didn't intend for saying nature was better to be controversial. I don't think there is any argument that plowing a field isn't as good as native prairie, but no till is better than the old methods. This doesn't have to be gst responding I would appreciate anyone responding with something positive. I would like pictures from anyone.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> The next few responses are going to tell us a lot about people and motives. I am guardedly optimistic, but unwilling to hold my breath.


What about these persons and their motives? It would seem they want more of their ilk in the wildlife profession. We the people or we the taxpayers should be the ones deciding how many federal employees are needed to manage the affairs at BLM, USFWS, FS, or any department at EPA, USDA or DOI ect. It would seem these fed/gov employees think we need more fed/gov employees and less automoblie racing. Kinda like the tail wagging the dog. How many more fed/gov employees can free enterprize support?

Economic growth precludes wildlife conservation

By Mike Larson, Chair, TWS Working Group for the Steady State Economy
The fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation may be the greatest obstacle to achieving excellence in wildlife stewardship. Currently, economic growth enjoys unquestioned supremacy as a policy goal at all levels of government. However, TWS issued a technical review recognizing the fundamental conflict (Trauger et al. 2003) and during 2004 adopted a position on economic growth. This article is intended to provide a brief synopsis of the fundamental conflict, address a couple potential concerns about the steady state economy, and ask for your help in resolving the fundamental conflict.
Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. Nationally, Gross Domestic Product is an index of the size of the economy, which is a function of human population size and the per capita rate of resource consumption. All sectors of the economy require the consumption of finite natural resources. As more resources are allocated to the human economy, fewer remain in the economy of nature. Our economy grows, therefore, at the competitive exclusion of wildlife in the aggregate. Furthermore, the laws of physics dictate that perpetual economic growth is an oxymoron.

We cannot rely on technology to resolve the conflict. Technology, including substituting rare resources with more common ones, has the potential to mitigate the fundamental conflict but only to the extent that it increases the efficiency of resource use without contributing to increases in the rate of resource use. Unfortunately, new technology that makes it to the market, when coupled with the goal of economic growth, invariably serves to accelerate resource consumption (Czech 2003).
The only alternatives to economic growth are a declining economy (i.e., recession) and a steady state economy (SSE), which consists of mildly fluctuating human population size and per capita resource use that do not change in magnitude over the long term. Since the mid-1800s renowned economists from John Stuart Mill to Herman Daly have advocated a SSE, described how society would function under a SSE, and provided ideas about how to transition to a SSE. Under a SSE overall wealth and the size of economic markets (e.g., Nasdaq) would be constant but capitalism could still operate as people and business firms compete, resulting in relative economic winners and losers. For example, the wildlife profession could grow under a SSE but only at the expense of a less sustainable economic sector, such as automobile racing.
Please learn more about macroeconomics, the fundamental conflict, and the SSE. Discuss them with your colleagues and friends. Consider becoming a member of TWS's Working Group for the Steady State Economy (WGSSE), whose mission is to address the fundamental conflict by discussing it with peers, policy makers, and the general public and by promoting a SSE as a feasible and positive alternative to the growth paradigm. The WGSSE also advocates a stronger policy position on economic growth by TWS. You can find literature citations and additional information at our web site (http:www.wildlife.org/wg/steadystate

Plainsman, I attended the Republican Convention in Bismarck. A recurring theme. Let's rein in the EPA. I suggest they don't stop there. Check into the Wildlife Society too.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Your not real bright are you.


 

swift, longshot, please show whereI have claimed a salary and a subsidy are the same. You have been asked a few times now and have not done so,why is that! :-?

What has been claimed is they both cone from the same "wealth" pool and are simply "redistributed" to others not that they are one in the same. So to puyt it simply so perhaps you can understand , critisizing someone for accepting one form of "wealth redistirbution" while accepting another yourself is a bit of a hypocrasy.

Not that hard to understand if your personal "willie" is not in the way. :roll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Th_e next few responses are going to tell us a lot about people and motives. I am guardedly optimistic, but unwilling to hold my breath.
> 
> After all of this it would be absolutely wonderful to get into a positive agricultural thread_. quote]
> 
> It would indeed be a first would it not! :wink:
> 
> Tell you what plainsamn, why don;t you start one up and shaug and I will simply sit back and see how long it lasts, wonder if it will make it as long as this one did!!!
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97156
> 
> plainsamn, over the time frame I have been on this site I have given you a number of examples of individuals, orgs and practices and programs and links to them that are positive agriculture conservation/production examples.
> 
> Now it is your turn.
> 
> Seriously plainsamn, why don;t you list all the positive ag/conservation programs and practices and orgs that implement them you are familiar with and let us know how much time you have invested in understanding the positive aspects of agriculture thru giving us examples you know and understand firsthand?
> 
> It seems you have invested a bit of time finding websites and policy books to share what you beleive are negatives regarding agriculure, why don;t you take the lead and show us how much effort you have put into understanding the positives in agriculture as well.
> 
> Indeed the next few responses will tell us a lot about people and their motives. :wink:


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> swift, longshot, please show whereI have claimed a salary and a subsidy are the same. You have been asked a few times now and have not done so,why is that! :-?
> 
> What has been claimed is they both cone from the same "wealth" pool and are simply "redistributed" to others not that they are one in the same. So to puyt it simply so perhaps you can understand , *critisizing someone for accepting one form of "wealth redistirbution" while accepting another yourself is a bit of a hypocrasy*.
> 
> Not that hard to understand if your personal "willie" is not in the way. :roll:


I will have to agree with swift on this one. Watch out gst your bias is causing you to reach a bit far, but it does give me a laugh in the morning. Now in your own words you want to classify a federal salary as a redistribution of wealth. I take it this is what you think of our military men and women also.


----------



## gst

long shot isn't that what ANY salary is???

Have you ever paid a salary? I have.

The person paying the salary is taking their wealth and redistributing it to their employees are they not?????

Pretty simple concept to grasp. :-?

Remember it was plainsamn that wants to attach a stigma to the "redistribution of wealth", so nice try to make it look like I'm slighting our service men and women, but that simply will not fly. :roll:

So longshot I take it you are not going to post up anything to substantiate your claim I have said a salary and a subsidy are one and the same???? :roll:

Now longshot, you and palisnamn and swift are suppose to be creating a positive thread regarding agriculture so this site can at least have ONE on record ! :wink: 

Do you have anything positive to say regarding agriculture???


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> long shot isn't that what ANY salary is???
> NO
> 
> Have you ever paid a salary? I have.
> Yes
> 
> The person paying the salary is taking their wealth and redistributing it to their employees are they not?????
> You and your employee worked together to create that wealth. You are paying them their share. A very poor vision of business on your part if that's how you see your employees.
> 
> Pretty simple concept to grasp. :-?
> I guess not for you.
> 
> Remember it was plainsamn that wants to attach a stigma to the "redistribution of wealth", so nice try to make it look like I'm slighting our service men and women, but that simply will not fly. :roll:
> You already did that yourself, no one needs to do it for you.
> 
> So longshot I take it you are not going to post up anything to substantiate your claim I have said a salary and a subsidy are one and the same???? :roll:
> Everyone can see it but you I guess. Keep reaching gst. A salary is earned, a subsidy is given it's as simple as that. You can keep trying to compare the two all you want, but everyone can see through it.
> 
> Now longshot, you and palisnamn and swift are suppose to be creating a positive thread regarding agriculture so this site can at least have ONE on record ! :wink:
> Do you need another pat on the back this morning?
> 
> Do you have anything positive to say regarding agriculture???
> Most people in ag I like and do a good job, unfortunately you are the one here representing them.


----------



## Plainsman

> What about these persons and their motives? It would seem they want more of their ilk in the wildlife profession. We the people or we the taxpayers should be the ones deciding how many federal employees are needed to manage the affairs at BLM, USFWS, FS, or any department at EPA, USDA or DOI ect. It would seem these fed/gov employees think we need more fed/gov employees and less automoblie racing. Kinda like the tail wagging the dog. How many more fed/gov employees can free enterprize support?


I agree the taxpayer should be making those decisions. Unfortunately many have been voting for their wallet and not their country. You get what you vote for and now you complain. I agree with you. The EPA for example is a very good idea, but a good idea gone bad. They now have to much power and act like dictators and not servants. Unfortunately you people who have voted your wallet have created this problem. Those same people that lined your pockets gave that power to the EPA. I knew it before it happened, but my relatives who farm would not listen. Some still vote liberal and blame conservatives for the EPA. Can you believe that. I say they are in a state of denial.



> Now longshot, you and palisnamn and swift are suppose to be creating a positive thread regarding agriculture so this site can at least have ONE on record !


I don't think I have ever met a man who wants his behind kissed as bad as you do gst. I think we know all we need to know about you. Your simply going to continue to try push your will onto others. Longshot is right your the worst person possible to be here representing agriculture. Your not good old Joe rancher. Your the guy who thinks the world owes you. You must have been given everything you have because you don't come off to me as a man who has earned much of anything. I see little use in discussing anything with you. It's like wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but only the pig likes it.


----------



## leadfed

Longshot said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> long shot isn't that what ANY salary is???
> NO
> 
> Have you ever paid a salary? I have.
> Yes
> 
> The person paying the salary is taking their wealth and redistributing it to their employees are they not?????
> You and your employee worked together to create that wealth. You are paying them their share. A very poor vision of business on your part if that's how you see your employees.
> 
> Pretty simple concept to grasp. :-?
> I guess not for you.
> 
> Remember it was plainsamn that wants to attach a stigma to the "redistribution of wealth", so nice try to make it look like I'm slighting our service men and women, but that simply will not fly. :roll:
> You already did that yourself, no one needs to do it for you.
> 
> So longshot I take it you are not going to post up anything to substantiate your claim I have said a salary and a subsidy are one and the same???? :roll:
> Everyone can see it but you I guess. Keep reaching gst. A salary is earned, a subsidy is given it's as simple as that. You can keep trying to compare the two all you want, but everyone can see through it.
> 
> Now longshot, you and palisnamn and swift are suppose to be creating a positive thread regarding agriculture so this site can at least have ONE on record ! :wink:
> Do you need another pat on the back this morning?
> 
> Do you have anything positive to say regarding agriculture???
> Most people in ag I like and do a good job, unfortunately you are the one here representing them.
Click to expand...

 :thumb: Very good answers however way to simple and logical for gabe to grasp....poor fella.


----------



## shaug

Longshot wrote,



> I will have to agree with swift on this one. Watch out gst your bias is causing you to reach a bit far, but it does give me a laugh in the morning. Now in your own words you want to classify a federal salary as a redistribution of wealth.


I saw a satire cartoon about this very subject. A worker named Bill was down in a hole digging with a shovel. Around the top of the hole were five technical service providers dressed in white coats wearing goggles and blue hard hats with clip boards. The paleontologist, the archaeologist, the ecologist, the biologist and the salamander trapper.

The caption read, "DO TO GOVERNMENT CUT BACKS IN SPENDING THERE WILL BE LAYOFFS, SO BILL IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO"

Longshot, it is a really sad sign of the times but we the people sometimes poke fun with cartoons at our own stupidity. Bill was the only one actually working. How many technical services providers can free enterprize support? How many do we really need? In that piece I just posted by the wildlife society they are talking about growing the wildlife profession or growing government.

Here is the question, how many more technical service providers on the public payroll can free enterprize support? How many more regulations pushed by those technical servive providers can free enterprize support?

Plainsman, says Farm Bureau doesn't want any regulations. That is not true. Not true not true. What nobody wants to see is more government, more technical service providers, more unneccessary regulations pushed by bureaucratic technical service providers who need to justify their existance.

It is the tail wagging the dog syndrome. The people need to say enough. If we don't, then expect everytime you want to dig a simple hole in your backyard, five technical service providers standing there looking over your shoulder.


----------



## shaug

Leadfed wrote good answers longshot,

really.......do you think that. They were just short little retorts. Childish.



> leadfed » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:52 am
> 
> Longshot wrote:
> gst wrote:
> long shot isn't that what ANY salary is???
> NO
> 
> Have you ever paid a salary? I have.
> Yes
> 
> The person paying the salary is taking their wealth and redistributing it to their employees are they not?????
> You and your employee worked together to create that wealth. You are paying them their share. A very poor vision of business on your part if that's how you see your employees.
> 
> Pretty simple concept to grasp.
> I guess not for you.
> 
> Remember it was plainsamn that wants to attach a stigma to the "redistribution of wealth", so nice try to make it look like I'm slighting our service men and women, but that simply will not fly.
> You already did that yourself, no one needs to do it for you.
> 
> So longshot I take it you are not going to post up anything to substantiate your claim I have said a salary and a subsidy are one and the same????
> Everyone can see it but you I guess. Keep reaching gst. A salary is earned, a subsidy is given it's as simple as that. You can keep trying to compare the two all you want, but everyone can see through it.
> 
> Now longshot, you and palisnamn and swift are suppose to be creating a positive thread regarding agriculture so this site can at least have ONE on record !
> Do you need another pat on the back this morning?
> 
> Do you have anything positive to say regarding agriculture???
> Most people in ag I like and do a good job, unfortunately you are the one here representing them.
> 
> Very good answers however way to simple and logical for gabe to grasp....poor fella.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman, is this a resolution or groundwork for an action plan or.........



> Economic growth precludes wildlife conservation
> 
> By Mike Larson, Chair, TWS Working Group for the Steady State Economy
> The fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation may be the greatest obstacle to achieving excellence in wildlife stewardship. Currently, economic growth enjoys unquestioned supremacy as a policy goal at all levels of government. However, TWS issued a technical review recognizing the fundamental conflict (Trauger et al. 2003) and during 2004 adopted a position on economic growth. This article is intended to provide a brief synopsis of the fundamental conflict, address a couple potential concerns about the steady state economy, and ask for your help in resolving the fundamental conflict.
> Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. Nationally, Gross Domestic Product is an index of the size of the economy, which is a function of human population size and the per capita rate of resource consumption. All sectors of the economy require the consumption of finite natural resources. As more resources are allocated to the human economy, fewer remain in the economy of nature. Our economy grows, therefore, at the competitive exclusion of wildlife in the aggregate. Furthermore, the laws of physics dictate that perpetual economic growth is an oxymoron.
> 
> We cannot rely on technology to resolve the conflict. Technology, including substituting rare resources with more common ones, has the potential to mitigate the fundamental conflict but only to the extent that it increases the efficiency of resource use without contributing to increases in the rate of resource use. Unfortunately, new technology that makes it to the market, when coupled with the goal of economic growth, invariably serves to accelerate resource consumption (Czech 2003).
> The only alternatives to economic growth are a declining economy (i.e., recession) and a steady state economy (SSE), which consists of mildly fluctuating human population size and per capita resource use that do not change in magnitude over the long term. Since the mid-1800s renowned economists from John Stuart Mill to Herman Daly have advocated a SSE, described how society would function under a SSE, and provided ideas about how to transition to a SSE. Under a SSE overall wealth and the size of economic markets (e.g., Nasdaq) would be constant but capitalism could still operate as people and business firms compete, resulting in relative economic winners and losers. For example, the wildlife profession could grow under a SSE but only at the expense of a less sustainable economic sector, such as automobile racing.
> Please learn more about macroeconomics, the fundamental conflict, and the SSE. Discuss them with your colleagues and friends. Consider becoming a member of TWS's Working Group for the Steady State Economy (WGSSE), whose mission is to address the fundamental conflict by discussing it with peers, policy makers, and the general public and by promoting a SSE as a feasible and positive alternative to the growth paradigm. The WGSSE also advocates a stronger policy position on economic growth by TWS. You can find literature citations and additional information at our web site (http:www.wildlife.org/wg/steadystate


Care to comment?????????


----------



## Longshot

shaug, I agree with much of what you wrote but it has nothing to do with my quote in your post. Yes the federal government has gotten too big and the waste seems to grow every day. But there are many good employees in the federal system also, that work hard to EARN that salary. Do we really need to go from one extreme to another, I don't think so. The difference between the past and now is the amount of waste keeps growing. The amount of handouts has gotten out of hand. Handouts to include unneeded subsidies, welfare, and poor practices that tie the hands of employees to use common sense thanks to our federal politicians.


----------



## Longshot

shaug said:


> Leadfed wrote good answers longshot,
> 
> really.......do you think that. They were just short little retorts. Childish.


I guess you have a problem with short and to the point answers. Maybe I need to do more cut and paste like you. :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

First off shaug why is a simple "NO" a childish retort. In my book that's a consise answer that no one can twist. Perhaps there is wisdom in such response.



> Plainsman, is this a resolution or groundwork for an action plan or.........


Yes, I would like to comment. I don't think it's a resolution or groundwork, I think it's simply opinion again. There is no doubt that the faster the econoly grows and uses natural resources the less natural resources remain. It will be up to you, gst, Longshot, myself, and millions of other Americans to decide what our priorities are. You have heard me say before that I am a conservationist not a preservationist. You have read my words where I said if people begin to starve in this nation I would be for plowing Yellowstone itself. However, we have subsidies because we have surplus right now, so -------.

I have wondered for years why we build our economy on growth. Did you notice the Traugers reference to SSE (state stable economy)? We can't grow forever or we will be like a dumb mouse eating himself out of house and home. At some time we have to learn to balance out growth while stabilizing our economy. Economy through growth is for a new nation like we were 100 years ago. As our nation grows older, and our population more stable it's not wise to build houses that will not sell or automobiles people will not buy. Many of the things we produce now we improve so people think they need the latest and the greatest. Example: we went from reel to reel tape, to eight track, to cassette, to CD, to MP3 to Ipod etc. Many of these are developed years before we see them, but companies take these things one step at a time. If you had cassette you may want to run eight track for five years first. Then in five years you can sell everyone new technology.

This looked much like a lesson in economics and it's affect on natural resources. Did you have a point you were trying to make? Or did you need someone to explain it to you? :wink: Or were you grasping for some reason to knock wildlife that you hate? You should have given your comment first. This tactic looks like your just looking for conflict not conflict resolution. What is your agenda shaug? Do you want to come to some mutual understanding, or are you on a search and destroy mission. Posting an article without your own comment is just a set up. I thought I would answer anyway. So now you can complain right? Things like this simply make you guys look bad. How about a real discussion? I take it gst has no conservation photos or positive things to say, nor do you.


----------



## leadfed

Longshot said:


> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leadfed wrote good answers longshot,
> 
> really.......do you think that. They were just short little retorts. Childish.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have a problem with short and to the point answers. Maybe I need to do more cut and paste like you. :rollin:
Click to expand...

exactly what I was thinking. I think these guys have too damn much time to sit on the computer that they get ****** when they get short and to the point answers.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> long shot isn't that what ANY salary is???
> NO
> 
> Have you ever paid a salary? I have.
> Yes
> 
> The person paying the salary is taking their wealth and redistributing it to their employees are they not?????
> You and your employee worked together to create that wealth. You are paying them their share. A very poor vision of business on your part if that's how you see your employees.
> 
> Pretty simple concept to grasp. :-?
> I guess not for you.
> 
> Remember it was plainsamn that wants to attach a stigma to the "redistribution of wealth", so nice try to make it look like I'm slighting our service men and women, but that simply will not fly. :roll:
> You already did that yourself, no one needs to do it for you.
> 
> So longshot I take it you are not going to post up anything to substantiate your claim I have said a salary and a subsidy are one and the same???? :roll:
> Everyone can see it but you I guess. Keep reaching gst. A salary is earned, a subsidy is given it's as simple as that. You can keep trying to compare the two all you want, but everyone can see through it.
> 
> Now longshot, you and palisnamn and swift are suppose to be creating a positive thread regarding agriculture so this site can at least have ONE on record ! :wink:
> Do you need another pat on the back this morning?
> 
> Do you have anything positive to say regarding agriculture???
> Most people in ag I like and do a good job, unfortunately you are the one here representing them.
Click to expand...

longshot, indeed the employee has helped you generate the wealth, but whose wealth is it?

Does the employee pay the taxes on your wealth?

Only when you "redistribute" YOUR "wealth" to them.

Continue to argue that a salary is not a "redistribution" of one persons wealth to another. 
*
But please explain this how did the Federal employee help "create" the wealth from which the salary the Federal employee 
receives is generated*?????????????


----------



## Longshot

leadfed said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leadfed wrote good answers longshot,
> 
> really.......do you think that. They were just short little retorts. Childish.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you have a problem with short and to the point answers. Maybe I need to do more cut and paste like you. :rollin:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly what I was thinking. I think these guys have too damn much time to sit on the computer that they get ticked when they get short and to the point answers.
Click to expand...

They don't like short and to the point answers because it doesn't give them enough words to twist.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Th_e next few responses are going to tell us a lot about people and motives. I am guardedly optimistic, but unwilling to hold my breath.
> 
> After all of this it would be absolutely wonderful to get into a positive agricultural thread_. quote]
> 
> It would indeed be a first would it not! :wink:
> 
> Tell you what plainsamn, why don;t you start one up and shaug and I will simply sit back and see how long it lasts, wonder if it will make it as long as this one did!!!
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97156
> 
> plainsamn, over the time frame I have been on this site I have given you a number of examples of individuals, orgs and practices and programs and links to them that are positive agriculture conservation/production examples.
> 
> Now it is your turn.
> 
> Seriously plainsamn, why don;t you list all the positive ag/conservation programs and practices and orgs that implement them you are familiar with and let us know how much time you have invested in understanding the positive aspects of agriculture thru giving us examples you know and understand firsthand?
> 
> It seems you have invested a bit of time finding websites and policy books to share what you beleive are negatives regarding agriculure, why don;t you take the lead and show us how much effort you have put into understanding the positives in agriculture as well.
> 
> Indeed the next few responses will tell us a lot about people and their motives. :wink:
Click to expand...

Plainsamn, I would hate to be condemned for starting an ag based thread on this "hunting and fishing " website!  

So I will leave that up to you and yours, it seems you guys have no problem doing so, but it STILL remains to be seen if a positive one can exist on this site! . :-?

As to what we do up here Bruce, I have extended an invitation to actually come up and see directly firsthand for yourself what we do, it still stands.

You know with this internet deal how would you even know they were actual pictures of our operation???  Anyone can cut and paste anything any more!! :wink:


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> They don't like short and to the point answers because it doesn't give them enough words to twist.


longshot so how about you just offer up a "short" answer for the question below! :wink:



gst said:


> But please explain this, how did the Federal employee help "create" the wealth from which the salary the Federal employee receives is generated?????????????


longshot I AM curious to here even a short answer to this question if you would please. Perhaps led can help you! :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:



> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't like short and to the point answers because it doesn't give them enough words to twist.
> 
> 
> 
> longshot so how about you just offer up a "short" answer for the question below! :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> But please explain this, how did the Federal employee help "create" the wealth from which the salary the Federal employee receives is generated?????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> longshot I AM curious to here even a short answer to this question if you would please. Perhaps led can help you! :wink:
Click to expand...

You sure miss me don't ya gabe :wink: The bottom line is the federal employee "works" for his dollar rather than is gifted it like you. Simple enough? Maybe not....how about this. The federal employee pays income tax on the salary the said federal employee recieves. Do you pay income tax on your "gifted" subsidy gabe?


----------



## Plainsman

lead you have not been around for a while, but it's clear they want you back. The truth is brutal, but I think we have a couple of masochists on our hands. :wink: I don't like the conflict we have and they just had a very good opportunity only a few posts back to turn this a different direction. They want their behind chewed so they can point this to their friends and say "everyone is against us, you need me". They need shaug and gst representing them like they need a hole in their head.

I sincerely believe they agitate to try for answers that create conflict. They want to be needed by those they represent so if they can create conflict they can feel needed and convince others they need them. There is no other reason they passed up the opportunity they had. This is like picking a scab. They poke at you and I and others to get opposing responses. Political boys, playing political games. They go to their meetings and say look Bob what that nasty Plainsman said. They never show them why I said it. They don't understand my comments are in response to radical self serving prior comments. Perhaps we should stop feeding the trolls. It will get nasty because they will make every kind of accusation trying to get us to come back and defend ourselves in the dirty sandbox.


----------



## gst

led, I don't beleive you answered the question how the Federal employee creates the "wealth" that is "redistributed" to their salary?

As to your tax question I have to admit I would have to ask the professional that handles our tax preparation. I simply do not know the answer. (now how can a "no it all" give an answer like that? )

If you know wether grain subsidies are taxable, why not just state wether they are or not led?

plainsman perhaps you can take over representing agriculture!  Do you ever wonder why no one else bothers to come into your "sandbox" from agriculture? 

How about starting with several examples of programs and orgs that are proactively working to implements sound conservation/productions methods that you are a part of or even know anything about?

I mean hey if you are going to be on your site commenting on the negatives of agriculture, if you are serious about a "serious" discussion regarding agriculture shouldn;t you know a little about the positive sides of agriculture that you can share as well?

So plaisnamn lets see how well you do in starting a "serious" positive discussion regarding agriculture and see how long it lasts.

Hey as a "super moderator" on this site with the ability to lock threads, edit peoples posts, direct the tone of these threads, surely you should be able to start and maintain a positive thread regarding agriulture if you wish. So pick a topic, share with us what you know and see where it leads.

As this sites "super moderator" if you truly wish to have a "serious" positive thread regading agriculture it is in your power to do so.

Bruce, it is up to YOU to keep the sand box clean by example and action.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> As to your tax question I have to admit I would have to ask the professional that handles our tax preparation. I simply do not know the answer. (now how can a "no it all" give an answer like that? )


I believe that is a load of BS gst. I don't know a businessman who doesn't know. Of course they don't have anyone to bail them out nor were they given it to them in the first place.


----------



## Plainsman

Longshot said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to your tax question I have to admit I would have to ask the professional that handles our tax preparation. I simply do not know the answer. (now how can a "no it all" give an answer like that? )
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that is a load of BS gst. I don't know a businessman who doesn't know. Of course they don't have anyone to bail them out nor were they given it to them in the first place.
Click to expand...

He knows, but he doesn't want you to know. :wink:

I have been a sucker long enough. gst is clearly not here to defend agriculture. It is abundantly clear he is here to create conflict. You may ask yourself why he wants that. Well without conflict he would not be as valuable to NDSA. He creates it, points it out, then tells them how much they need him. There was an excellent opportunity for this to turn positive, and that was not only taken it was pushed back in our face with a kiss my behind attitude. I suckered, we all suckered. This guy is a politician playing political games for his own self importance.

Like I said it's going to get ugly. I don't know if I can ignore it without defending myself, but I will try. I would guess I will get accused of many things to get me back to defend myself. Somehow we need to stop suckering and break this chain. Perhaps some of us can duck this by going to the members only form. I apologize to some who may get left out, but I'm sick of this.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> longshot, indeed the employee has helped you generate the wealth, but whose wealth is it?
> 
> Does the employee pay the taxes on your wealth?
> 
> Only when you "redistribute" YOUR "wealth" to them.
> 
> Continue to argue that a salary is not a "redistribution" of one persons wealth to another.
> *
> But please explain this how did the Federal employee help "create" the wealth from which the salary the Federal employee
> receives is generated*?????????????


I need to go redistribute my wealth by buying groceries tonight also. The darn grocer is paid with tax payer money too then by your thought process. By your thought each time someone pays money it's a redistribution of wealth.

I would hate to be your employee since you obviously look down on them by redistributing "your" wealth to them. An employee invested their time in preforming a needed task in which you compensate them for and retained a profit for your wealth. Your statements are a good indicator of what you think of others and what kind of person you really are.

Well, I need to go to work and stop feeding the troll.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to your tax question I have to admit I would have to ask the professional that handles our tax preparation. I simply do not know the answer. (now how can a "no it all" give an answer like that? )
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that is a load of BS gst. I don't know a businessman who doesn't know. Of course they don't have anyone to bail them out nor were they given it to them in the first place.
Click to expand...

Beleive what you wish, I leave the tax concerns to the professional I "distribute"my wealth to.

Longshot I am simply asking a relatively simple question in response to a claim you made regarding the contributions of employees to the generation of wealth. Indeed in most cases the generation of wealth is directly tied to the comitment and dedication of the employees of the business. It is what for decades built this country as one of the greatest industrial manufacturing and economic powers of the world. I have the utmost respect for people working hard for a wage, I have done so myself.

But in the case of a Federal employee such as what plainsamn was, all that is being asked is how did he contribute to generating the wealth that his salary was distributed from ?

A relatively easy question to answer if you would like to.

palisnamn, to ask directly, in the years you were a Federal employee, did you generate any wealth for the govt to use to pay your wage as longshot suggests is the case ?

Plainsamn so how do YOU know what I know that I dont want others to know when I admitted I do not know so others would know I do not know when you don;t seem to even know what you claim you know when you are asked to substantiate some of the claims you make!!!  :wink: You know what I mean??? 

plainsamn wrote:
_After all of this it would be absolutely wonderful to get into a positive agricultural thread_

Bruce then are you saying you are not going to be the one that will start a positive thread about agriulture?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Th_e next few responses are going to tell us a lot about people and motives. I am guardedly optimistic, but unwilling to hold my breath.
> 
> After all of this it would be absolutely wonderful to get into a positive agricultural thread_. quote]
> 
> gst wrote:It would indeed be a first would it not! :wink:
> 
> Tell you what plainsamn, why don;t you start one up and shaug and I will simply sit back and see how long it lasts, wonder if it will make it as long as this one did!!!
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97156
> 
> plainsamn, over the time frame I have been on this site I have given you a number of examples of individuals, orgs and practices and programs and links to them that are positive agriculture conservation/production examples.
> 
> Now it is your turn.
> 
> Seriously plainsamn, why don;t you list all the positive ag/conservation programs and practices and orgs that implement them you are familiar with and let us know how much time you have invested in understanding the positive aspects of agriculture thru giving us examples you know and understand firsthand?
> 
> It seems you have invested a bit of time finding websites and policy books to share what you beleive are negatives regarding agriculure, why don;t you take the lead and show us how much effort you have put into understanding the positives in agriculture as well.
> 
> Indeed the next few responses will tell us a lot about people and their motives. :wink:
Click to expand...


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> led, I don't beleive you answered the question how the Federal employee creates the "wealth" that is "redistributed" to their salary?


Does every profession have to be self sufficient and "create" the dollars to pay for their own salary? The federal employee provides a service to the citizen of the united states. He/she then pays income tax on the money they make. I don't know what else you are looking for?


----------



## Plainsman

> I don't know what else you are looking for?


Divide and conquer lead, divide and conquer. The Marxist strategy like North/South Korea, North/South Vietnam, East/West Germany etc.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> led, I don't beleive you answered the question how the Federal employee creates the "wealth" that is "redistributed" to their salary?
> 
> 
> 
> *Does every profession have to be self sufficient and "create" the dollars to pay for their own salary? The federal employee provides a service to the citizen of the united states.* He/she then pays income tax on the money they make. I don't know what else you are looking for?
Click to expand...

So lead what about other industries or occupations that provide a "service to the citizen of the United States"?

Do you require them to be "self sufficient" ?

It seems suddenly you have developed a double standard Federal employees or other professions do not have to be "self sufficient" yet you demand that of agriculture? :-? :roll:

led do agriculture producers provide a "service to the citizens of the United States"?

Do the ag programs that are a part of this nations food security policy provide a "service to the citizens of the United States"?

I ask if you beleive agriculture provides a sevice to the citizens of the US for a reason as plainsamn has indicated the ag programs this country has maintained have provided NO benefits to the citizens of the US in a thread on FBO.

If you examining what programs are "self sufficient" in providing a "service to the citizens of the US" why don;t you do the math to the question I have repeatedly asked on here.

Take the monies in taxes the average "ciizen" pays that goes directly to this nations food security programs specifically the ag subsidies everyone loves to hate and then compare the difference in annual food costs that that same citizen would pay if the percent of their disposable income they spend on food rose to the level of thenext country in line above us.

I think you might find a little "self sufficiency" in these programs for the consumer and US citizen if you are not to biased to look.

Ad yet now you state not every profession has to be "self sufficient"?? 

Of course there is not one web site that provides that information for you like your farm subsidy one led, you will have to look a bit.

Somewhere back in time I provided the links and the dollars amounts and did the math on this very site. :wink:

To answer your question directly as to what am I looking for?

A simple answer to a question asked in response to a claim made. Like usual on here, people make claims so they are asked questions.

So now perhaps you can answer this one, does it count to pay taxes in plainsmans oligarchy in acheiving the "right" to vote if the taxes you paid are actually other people's taxes paid you?

It is really quite simple, if you do not like being asked questions, do not make claims that allow them to be asked.

As Ihave stated many times if a select few that continueally engage in posting ag topics on this "hunting and fiching website" would simply refrain from doing so andtalk about rifles, hunting, trapping ect... I wouldn;t have to be here asking questions based on these wild claims. :wink:

If plainsamn is not going to try and engage in a positive thread regarding agriculture so there is at least ONE on this site, at the very least perhaps people can refrain from posting negative ones for a while instead! :-?


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> led, I don't beleive you answered the question how the Federal employee creates the "wealth" that is "redistributed" to their salary?
> 
> 
> 
> *Does every profession have to be self sufficient and "create" the dollars to pay for their own salary? The federal employee provides a service to the citizen of the united states.* He/she then pays income tax on the money they make. I don't know what else you are looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So lead what about other industries or occupations that provide a "service to the citizen of the United States"?
> 
> Do you require them to be "self sufficient" ?
> 
> It seems suddenly you have developed a double standard Federal employees do not have to be "self sufficient" yet you demand that of agriculture?
> 
> I ask if you beleive agriculture provides a sevice to the citizens of the US for a reason as plainsamn has indicated the ag programs this country has maintained have provided NO be,efits to the citizens of the US in a thread on FBO.
> 
> To answer your question directly as to what am I looking for?
> 
> A simple answer to a question asked in response to a claim made. Like usual on here, people make claims so they are asked questions.
> 
> So now perhaps you can answer this one, does it count to pay taxes in plainsmans oligarchy in acheiving the "right" to vote if the taxes you paid are actually other people's taxes paid you?
Click to expand...

HUH?  Jeez, seems like you like to speak for me more than I like to speak for myself.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Th_e next few responses are going to tell us a lot about people and motives. I am guardedly optimistic, but unwilling to hold my breath.
> 
> After all of this it would be absolutely wonderful to get into a positive agricultural thread_. quote]
> 
> gst wrote:It would indeed be a first would it not! :wink:
> 
> Tell you what plainsamn, why don;t you start one up and shaug and I will simply sit back and see how long it lasts, wonder if it will make it as long as this one did!!!
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97156
> 
> plainsamn, over the time frame I have been on this site I have given you a number of examples of individuals, orgs and practices and programs and links to them that are positive agriculture conservation/production examples.
> 
> Now it is your turn.
> 
> Seriously plainsamn, why don;t you list all the positive ag/conservation programs and practices and orgs that implement them you are familiar with and let us know how much time you have invested in understanding the positive aspects of agriculture thru giving us examples you know and understand firsthand?
> 
> It seems you have invested a bit of time finding websites and policy books to share what you beleive are negatives regarding agriculure, why don;t you take the lead and show us how much effort you have put into understanding the positives in agriculture as well.
> 
> Indeed the next few responses will tell us a lot about people and their motives. :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

led you asked what I was looking for, I told you direct simple answers to questions asked in response to claims people like yourself make.

So perhaps you would simply like to answer some questions.

So lead what about other industries or occupations that provide a "service to the citizen of the United States"?

Do you require them to be "self sufficient" ?

Or perhaps plainsamn can answer one he avoided o FBO, Has teh food security policies this country has maintained over the years provided any "benefits "to the citizens of the US?


----------



## Plainsman

> Or perhaps plainsamn can answer one he avoided o FBO, Has teh food security policies this country has maintained over the years provided any "benefits "to the citizens of the US?


I think if we were really still capitalists the groceries would cost me a little more in the store. Today with the socialist subsidies in place I pay less at the grocery store, more in taxes, and more in total for my groceries. It wasn't designed to help the consummer or the producer as much as it was to make the producer dependent on liberal politicians.

So the answer is no the food would have been available anyway and I think cheaper.

So gst do you support all the ag subsidies? At times I have got the feeling you don't, but then when I don't like them it appears all of a sudden you like them. I know, I know, you will say show me. Well, you sure are defending them. Doesn't that mean you like the government dependence?

:eyeroll: I'm such a sucker. I am ticked at myself right now for talking to someone who wants conflict. Someone kick me. :thumb:


----------



## Longshot

You're confusing me gst, is farming a federal salary job or private enterprise? I take it you want the benefits of both.


----------



## gst

jeesh you guys, all I'm doing is trying to get what you guys are claiming straight?

Plainsamn claims you should not get to vote unless you pay $2000 in taxes.

I'm wondering if the dollars he uses to pay his taxes are actuallly other people taxes paid him if it counts? :roll:

longshot keps claiming an employee creates wealth

and I simply asked what wealth did a Federal employee like plainsamn create to pay his salary?

And led fed claims not every profession has to be self sufficient if it provides a service ,

and I merely asked led and plainsamn if they beleive agriculture and this countries ag policies provide a service or bnefit to the consumer.

Plainsamn says he beleives this countries food security programs have done nothing to benefit the consumer and that it is apparently just coincidence this country consumers for decades have spent the lowest percentage of their disposable income on food of any modern country.

I'm wondering plainsamn why did you not aswer this question when it was asked a couple of times of you on FBO?

Perhaps you know there are others on there that wouldhave called BS on your claims?

Any way Bruce if you are sick of this, why not cahnge directions and start this positive thread about agriculture you claimed to wish would happen.

I meangiven all theclaims and opinions and statementsyou make about what you beleive are the negatives about agriculture surely you have some understanding and information about hat you cosider the positive aspects of agricultue are don;tyou???

I mean you have told story after story about the fella whoose land you go and hunt coyotes on, ranchers in the badlands, rip rape and run, greed at it's darkest, surely you have SOMETHING good to say about agriculture don;tyou?

I mean there must be some conservation production programs and practices and people and orgs in agriculture that advocate for them you know aout and can share is there not?

Bruce wouldn;t it be nice to have at least ONE single positive thread regarding agriculture on this site you could hold up amoungst the many bashing ag orgs and policies and practices and say, "see here for a short while we hada "serious"ositive conversation about agriculture?

I mean it is kind of shocking that you as a super moderator can not point out onesingle thread on this site that talks about the positive aspects and practices and orgs involved in production agriculture. How amny threads on here have been dedicated to slamming the NDFB, yet not one about an ag org that is proactivly working with conservation orgs to develope practices that work and benefit everyone?

I mean the guys from the G&F at last nites advisory meetings had a fair bit of positives to say regarding agricultrue and conservation and sportsmenand hunting working together, why is it so hard for someone like you to start onesingkle simple thread and lead by example.

Bruce from what I can see not much has changed on tis site from 2007, (and remember that was a couple of years before shaug or I were on tis site) so why sudenly should we beleive it will change now???

So bruce if indeed you truly are "sick" of this, now's your chance. I have given you any number of examples you could draw from of positive conservation production practices and people and orgs you could talk about. Lets see if you are willing.


----------



## Plainsman

> I mean you have told story after story about the fella whoose land you go and hunt coyotes on,


You always jump to conclusions gst. I said my friends pasture. I never said he was the landowner. Your about to get egg on your face, but I'm not going to tell you yet who the landowner is. I'll let you complain a while yet.

Post something positive? I normally don't pay any attention until the do something stupid. You want something positive about Winchester? I can do that. You want something positive about Mathews bows? I can do that. You want something positive about Lund boats? I can do that. You want something positive about Berger bullets? I can do that. I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying.

I'll give you something positive about a another farmer work with. I never hear him complain. I asked him what a person would have to pay per year to restore wetlands and have a program comparable to CRP. He didn't shovel any bull at all. He had just finished some paper work and had his average for the past ten years. It was $60 net profit per acre on his crop land which he had 2800 acres. To bad the guy had to get cancer and now I am stuck with the complainer. So do I get 50/50 for that since I told you about one non complaining really nice guy and one like you? He's the one who's wife gets the new Cadillacs. I was going to get new tires for my pickup and he wanted to sell me some he had in his shop, ten years old, and he wanted $125 per tire. New ones at that time cost me $115. His were bias ply. He was ticked that I didn't buy them. I guess he thought I owed him. I'll bet he reads this too. 

Edit: Oh, ya the whiner blames Fish and Wildlife every time there is a rut within ten miles of his farm. He was complaining about me in the big blue one ton chevy. I nor anyone I ever worked for have a big blue one ton chevy. Starting to get the idea where my attitude turns sour?


----------



## Longshot

You want a positive post; I believe that the vast majority in agriculture are good people. I also believe these same people wouldn't have the audacity to come on a non-agriculture site and demand a positive thread for their own personal pat on the back. Bad practices and things one doesn't agree with get discussed more often than those that you don't mind. Just like shaug who can only post the negative about conservation and somehow thinks that one extreme justifies the other.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> I also believe these same people wouldn't have the audacity to come on a non-agriculture site and demand a positive thread for their own personal pat on the back


longshot you seem to be missing the point of the request. plainsamn stated it would be very nice to have a positive thread regarding agriculture, and I simply suggested it would be interesting given the history of never having one on this site anyone can point to as to wether enough positive posts regarding agriculture could be put together to actually form a thread that is positive about agriculture on this site.

I suggested he as moderator could indeed lead by example and set the tone and look how he has avoided taking the lead for something HE wished would happen.

No personal gratification needed or wanted, simply curiousity of the abilities of those posting on this site particularily in these "hot topics" given the history and nature of ag realted threads and those few that seem drawn to post in them.

But it appears we have our answer as plainsamn has now admitted he does not pay attention to the positives of agriculture but only complains when something bad happens. :-?

So this site will continue simply pointing out the "bad" things about agriculture as you admit happens here and then these same people will wonder why those in agriculture have a hard time supporting the policies they push and demand on agriculture.

plainsamn wrote a while ago:
_The next few responses are going to tell us a lot about people and motives_.

Indeed they did plainsman indeed they did. Right down to your admission you do not bother to take the time to learn anything about positives that are happening in agriculture but only complain about the bad.

I suppose given that admission, it would be difficult for you to start and maintain a positive thread about agriculture. :roll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Post something positive? b] I normally don't pay any attention until the do something stupid.[/b You want something positive about Winchester? I can do that. You want something positive about Mathews bows? I can do that. You want something positive about Lund boats? I can do that. You want something positive about Berger bullets? I can do that. *I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid*, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying


It is too bad you feel you need a reason to post something positive about agriculture or never take the time to find out about the positives regarding something that affects wildife as much as you claim it does Bruce.

One would think someone whose profession was so directly involved as you have mentioned previously would be a little more aware of positives so that he may encourage them and foster some good will by support rather than soley focasing on complaining about the negatives.

But hey that's just a thought, you guys feel free to continnue how you have been for quite some time now.

Maybe 5 years from now someone else in agriculture will STILL be wondering if there is even one single thread about positive ag practices benefiting wildlife andsportsmen and the orgs and idividuals implementing them on this site. 
:roll:


----------



## Plainsman

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97156

There was one, and it was serious until you crapped in your nest. People would have reacted much better if you hadn't been so thrilled to puff up your chest that it was apparent you nearly wet yourself. It's my opinion that those negative reactions came from people who have very much respect for farmers. Those negative reactions were not because of agriculture, they were because of you. That's what happens when confronted with arrogance so bad that someone comes on a site about apples and demands positive threads about oranges.


----------



## leadfed

Gabe if you want your ego stroked here are a couple address suggestions for you.

nodakfarmer.com

farmerbuddy.com

You continually ask question of me/us yet when we answer you re-answer for us the way you want it to sound. So tell me this gabe, why in sam hell would I try to answer your questions (of which most are so damn convoluted and twisted anyway)? Naaa, you can ask away gabe but don't expect much of an answer as you seem to be able to answer for me just fine.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=97156There was one, and it was serious until you crapped in your nest.


Serious palisnamn?????????, here is the very first sentence in the thread.

_Now we can say there is one._

Indeed truly genuinely "serious".

Plainsamn can you list the examples of positive innovative conservation based produvtion ag practices that were discussed in this "serious" thread??

Let me answer that for you , there were none.

You, longshot and led seem to be missing the point.

*NO ONE is looking for a thank you or pat on the back. *

It is not important to me that anyone on a site such as this thanks a farmer, what is important to me is that people actually inform themselves to the positive practices and actions happening in agriculture instead of just the negative actions.

Bruce do you recall the conversations and examples I gave you in PM's when I first got on this site about some of these practices and orgs and people developing these innovative ideologies in ag?

*Bruce over the time frame I have been on this site I have given you several examples of people, orgs, and practices and links to them that are truly innovative positive conservation orrientated in their agriculture operations and ideologies. Have you ever once taken those examples and discussed what are undeniably positive steps and actions in agriculture?????*

Instead Bruce what have you admitted doing when it comes to agiculture?

Plainsamn wrote:
_I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying._
end quote

*Bruce for just a moment put all the rhetoric and juvenile personal crap aside, is that truly fair to agriculture? *

Is coming on a site like this and only complaining about the negatives you perceive in agriculture accomplishing anything when you are unwiling to even once post something acknowledging the positive practices and the people and orgs that use them?

What do you beleive that really accomplishes Bruce?

If you truly are concerned about having more positive conservation minded practices, programs and people using them, why not be more vocal in supporting the ones that already exist and are implemented everyday by many producers and discussing them in a "serious" manner on here?

Can you point to one time that has been attempted on this site???

Once again, it is not about a "thank you" it is about acknowledging that while some aspect of agriculture can indeed be improved, there are MANY innovative people and practices out there being implemented that have.

So plainsman, if you truly are interested in fostering positive relaitonships and engageing in serious discussion about conservation programs that are innovative and mutually beneficial to everyone, perhaps it would be a little more genuine if you actually talked about some of the ones that already exist and are working as examples rather than just continueally making comments about "greed" and "rip rape and run."

If all you ever talk about on your "apples/hunting" site is the negatives of "oranges/agriculture", why are you surprised that someone that uses "oranges/agriculture" to make a living will come on your "apples/hunting" site to hold you accountable for the claims and accusations you make?

It really is quite simple plainsamn, if you do not wish "oranges" to be discussed on an "apples" site, don;t bring up "oranges" in the discussions on the "apples" site.

Bruce as a "super moderator" the ball is in your court, lets see what direction you wish to take it.


----------



## Plainsman

> Bruce for just a moment put all the rhetoric and juvenile personal crap aside, is that truly fair to agriculture?


Actually I have a life beyond this keyboard. Do you think I have time to search for positive things about police, carpenters, teachers, truck drivers, farmers, and all the other professions? How much time do you spend trying to find positive things about State Park employees, welders, etc? One could spend a lifetime and you would have to look at all of them to be fair. Why would I single out farmers as special compared to everyone else? In my book they are the same as everyone else. I talk with a welder and he tells me about his profession, but I'm not going to run over to my neighbor and ask him to spend a week telling me about welding.

The more I debate with you the more I realize the bad things about agriculture.

I know you make fun of me for going to Bible class or telling stories, but here goes anyway. I just got home from my Wednesday morning study and we are going verse by verse through 1 Corinthians. About half the class are farmers. Today the farmer to my left was supposed to give his ideas about 1 Corinthians 5: 11 and he started talking about what has happened since the CRP has gone away. He said neighbor is angry with neighbor because they have been swindling each other. They are buying and leasing land from under those who have had it in the past. They are gambling on prices and offering money they will never be able to pay and the banks will be stuck with it. Like the housing crisis in a few years we will have farmers walking away from land and leaving everyone else holding the bag. He talked about all of the greed he sees every day now.

So now you will be angry about the greed comment again. We all have problems with greed gst, and each of us personally has to fight the urge to make a buck when we see an easy buck to be made. There are those of us who will admit our weakness as human, and then there are liars. You take it as an affront when it's reality. That's why this NDFB amendment is so bad. The rest of us need protection from the few farmers who have little or no scruples. If you want to improve your image don't blow smoke up my rear because that's the disingenuous way to try solve the problem. The correct and only way to solve that problem is you as a farmer chastise those who are untrustworthy. Of course that's dangerous because the greedy will push you right off that pedestal you have yourself on. I'm not your problem gst. I'm not going to tell you how wonderful all farmers are because not all farmers are wonderful. Most are, but some are greedy jerks. The problem gst is within your profession so you take care of it.

If you really want to do that gst I'll send you a picture of a "Paid Hunting Only" on public land. If your really serious about solving these problems perhaps you and I should go together and tell this guy to take that sign down because it's bad public relations for all of the good ranchers out in the badlands. I have one I admire very much. I set up my 5th wheel where I thought I was on public land. Nope, I goofed and was off about 100 yards. He stopped and informed me and my wife. I apologized and felt very foolish. I told him it would take me about 20 minutes to move. He stepped back and looked around my camper. He asked how long I had been there. I told him two days. He said "ya I know", but it looks very clean around here so you may as well stay. That guy gave me a better feeling about ranchers than all others to date. Much better than the story you like to make fun of ----- about the four guys riding into our camp and telling us to sign their petition or we would never hunt there again either way the new Forest Service plan went.

So gst your our example of farmer/rancher on this site. We look at you and make our judgement. Make the most of it. Your big question will be, what is important to you. We want to like you and the farmers and ranchers you represent. So far you have not done a good job of that. You will have to ask yourself this question, "what's the best way to influence people". Is it being brutally honest and admitting our weaknesses are the same as everyone else, or is it denying the truth and painting a rosy picture so your fellow farmers and ranchers will pat you on the back? It's a tough decision that I am glad I don't have to make. I like people to like me, but I'll admit my weaknesses because I would rather have my integrity and seen as truthful rather than popular because of my kissing up.

I hope that gives you some insight into my line of thought. I am fully aware that 98% of you guys I would love to meet and have coffee with. I am 99% sure that if you and I had never had a conflict and met we would like each other. I am aware that agriculture although not as good as nature has improved many times over as compared to years ago. I don't know a lot of specifics, but I don't know that about all the other professions I mentioned either. I don't have time to check them all out. I prefer time with my wife, my grandchildren, my rifles, personal friends, and just standing on native prairie and looking off into the distance and dreaming about what it looked like 200 years ago. I know we have to eat, and I know we can never go back, and I know it's just a daydream, but I enjoy my daydreams. If your every in Jamestown I'll buy the coffee and pie.

Later.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Actually I have a life beyond this keyboard. Do you think I have time to search for positive things about police, carpenters, teachers, truck drivers, farmers, and all the other professions? How much time do you spend trying to find positive things about State Park employees, welders, etc? One could spend a lifetime and you would have to look at all of them to be fair. Why would I single out farmers as special compared to everyone else?


Because you seem more than willing to single them out in discussing what you veiw are the negatives of agriculture and positng about them on this site.

Bruce when is the last time you started a thread and made accusations and claims about welders and your neighbor in particular?

Carry on however you wish palsinamn, your own words clearly spell out what is behind the comments you make regarding agriculture on this site and it is NOT having a "serious" discussion.

Plainsamn wrote:
_I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying._
end quote


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I know you make fun of me for going to Bible class


Bruce I have never made fun of your attendance at a Bible study. Waht has been pointed out is your apparent wiling ness to make calims that simply are not true and in the next moment speak of things you learn at your Bible study.

Big difference.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So now you will be angry about the greed comment again. We all have problems with greed gst, and each of us personally has to fight the urge to make a buck when we see an easy buck to be made. There are those of us who will admit our weakness as human, and then there are liars. You take it as an affront when it's reality.


Plaisnamn I can point to any number of times I have stated that like in every profession/industry agriculture has those that wish to only take and give nothing back. I have stated that in agriculture just like any other profession/industry there are greedy people as well as dishonest people.

For you to insinuate I have not made these admissions is simply dishonest plainsamn.


----------



## Plainsman

> Bruce when is the last time you started a thread and made accusations and claims about welders and your neighbor in particular?


I never have, but then they don't want a constitutional amendment protecting them from any laws like using lead to solder all of my drinking water lines. They don't want government subsidies. They pay property tax on their houses. They don't destroy habitat. Most of all they don't do all these things and ask me to post positive things about them. They don't expect much of anything. My neighbor goes to work, comes home, mows his lawn, grills out back, treats me pleasantly, and never bad mouths me about not getting his fair share. He also works for a salary and has no tax shelters so he pays in full. Why would I post negative things about someone like that? If I did would you be happier? I respect everyone from the lowest incomes in society to the highest. I respect everyone from the lowest educated to the highest. I respect the working American. I respect those who respect my neighbor. I find it hard to respect those who demand it. My first thought is those who can not earn it demand it.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So gst your our example of farmer/rancher on this site. We look at you and make our judgement. Make the most of it


And plainsamn this site, the comments made on it and how it is moderated to allow these comments is an example of how some veiw sportsmen.

And this is the very position you as a moderator and cheif commentor on this site choose to take in regards to your comments on agriculture on this site.

Plainsamn wrote:
_I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying._
end quote

It is clear plaisnamn from YOUR own words the only comments you feel important enough to make regarding agriculture or knowledge you choose to learn about is is when you can say something negative regarding agriculture. You spelled it out very plainly.

*You have taken the time to check out websites and delveinto policies and list examples of these aspects you beleive to be negative, yet you have now said it is simply not worth your time to do likewise to find any positives in agriculture. *

The kicker here plaisnamn is you do not even need to take the time to find them on your own. I have provided them complete with links in both PM's and in these threads.

The opportunity was right there in front of you and what was your response?

Can you show one single positive "serious" discussion" that took place regarding any of these practices, ideologies individuals and orgs that were mentioned for you?

So plainsman tell whatever stories you wish, your own words and LACK of action speak quite clearly your position on agriculture on this site.

Complain about what you perceive as negative and igniore the realities of the positives.

Fortunately most in ag realize this site and the small gaggle of people posting within these hot topics is NOT an example of the majority of sportsmen out there. And as such for the majority of sportsmen and those involved in agriculture there exists a mutually beneficial, mutually respected cooperative spirit despite the comments made on sites like this by people that will not even bother to take the time to inform themselves on an industry they CHOOSE to complain about. :roll: .

plainsamn the only reason I have even bothered to stick around on this site was way back when I first got on it in PM's we had interesting conversations regarding the very thing we are now talking about, positive innovations in agriculture and the orgs that are involved with that. Recall those conversations plaisnman?????

I actually made the mistake of thinking perhaps here was an opportunity of a moderator of a sportsmens site willing to invest the time into finding out more about these orgs and ideologies and innovations and actually have "serious" discussions about them in an open sportsmans forum.

But it is clear from your own words Bruce I was mistaken.

*If you give me your permission plainsamn I can share some of these PM's showing the conversations we had about these things.*

But now Bruce your own words sum it up quite nicely in regards to your veiws on agriculture.

plainsamn wrote:
_ If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck_

I wish you had just told me that right from the start Bruce, I could have not wasted my time.

Indeed it is my mistake and perhaps I am playing with "half a deck " in beleiveing someone that is so critical of agriculture would take the time to see what the positives are and share them when they are provided for him on the very site he spends so much time critisizing on.


----------



## leadfed

If this site is so farmer negative why are you the only one on here *****ing about it gabe?


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you will be angry about the greed comment again. We all have problems with greed gst, and each of us personally has to fight the urge to make a buck when we see an easy buck to be made. There are those of us who will admit our weakness as human, and then there are liars. You take it as an affront when it's reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Plaisnamn I can point to any number of times I have stated that like in every profession/industry agriculture has those that wish to only take and give nothing back. I have stated that in agriculture just like any other profession/industry there are greedy people as well as dishonest people.
> 
> For you to insinuate I have not made these admissions is simply dishonest plainsamn.
Click to expand...

We evidently were both typing at the same time and crossed posts. If this is your opinion there is little for me to argue other than ag has some bad practices that we all need to look for better ways of doing things. Also, we who live on a small portion of the land, but are many people, must be protected from the few who live on the vast majority of the land. Our constitution is based on the importants of the individual and not on per acre that he or she owns.



> You have taken the time to check out websites and delveinto policies and list examples of these aspects you beleive to be negative, yet you have now said it is simply not worth your time to do likewise to find any positives in agriculture.


Just think how much more I would know if you had put your effort into educating me rather than trying to convince everyone I was a liar.



> plainsamn the only reason I have even bothered to stick around on this site was way back when I first got on it in PM's we had interesting conversations regarding the very thing we are now talking about, positive innovations in agriculture and the orgs that are involved with that. Recall those conversations plaisnman?????


Yes I do, and I miss that very much.


----------



## swift

leadfed said:


> If this site is so farmer negative why are you the only one on here b*tching about it gabe?


DING DING DING....We have a winner. One unhappy rancher/farmer does not make a majority. And why should we all strive to make that one happy when it's obvious he is "anhedonic". (look it up GST)


----------



## gst

led, given the tirade of rhetoric and personal crap people like you and the little gaggle of people that post in hot topics throw around on this site, why would anyone come on here and speak out??

The first thing that would happen is somebody would call them greedy, elitist lords of the land and post what they were paid in govt payments and slam them for being given a million dollar farm and having a silver spoon in their mouth and being hired/ delegated by some ag org and being a bunch of socialists only interested in "rip, rape and run" and have one claim they said or did something they did not made after another that are never substantiated right up until someone finally admits they simply hate them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. *even though the people making these comments and accusations had never once met that person.* :roll:

Did I miss anything??? :-? :roll:

Indeed, I wonder why there are not more ag producers coming on here and speaking out against the oligarchy. 

led there are simply not that many sadist ag producers out there! :wink:

led it seems to have been going on for a while on this site. Even way back before shaug and I got on this site!!! :wink:

Don't just take my word for it, from the good old "Farm Subsidies Gone Wrong" thread from 07:

ALLSUNND » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:53 am 
_WOW There are some moderators that will be biting the dust on this forum by Chris's new stricter rules. They spew just as much venom as anybody!!*Seriously I'm just an occasional reader and getting less as I see there is only one side that is always right on outdoors issues* !_


by ALLSUNND » Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:45 pm _
I read the threads of interest top to bottom so I do get the tone. 
Venom--------- defined as spiteful or malicious So some of the posts aimed at *farmers*, go's , game farms , people who use guides , people who pay to hunt or sometimes just differing opinions have had lots of venom or venomous spit their way by mods. Maybe not meant that way but thats how it reads. IMHO_

by dieseldog » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:49 pm 
_So if no one is allowed to attack others on here, why is Plainsman constantly allowed to come on here and attack every farmer on this site about our occupation. Yes we get gov payments from tax money if you don't like it that is fine just don't attack me for running my business the best that i can with the resources offered to me.
_

So I'll sit back and see what comes first on this site.

Someone actually interested in having a "serious" discussion about the postiive programs and ideologies and practices in agriculture or simply more of the same crap that has been going on for years.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> led, given the tirade of rhetoric and personal crap people like you and the little gaggle of people that post in hot topics throw around on this site, why would anyone come on here and speak out??
> 
> The first thing that would happen is somebody would call them greedy, elitist lords of the land and post what they were paid in govt payments and slam them for being given a million dollar farm and having a silver spoon in their mouth and being hired/ delegated by some ag org and being a bunch of socialists only interested in "rip, rape and run" and have one claim they said or did something they did not made after another that are never substantiated right up until someone finally admits they simply hate them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. *even though the people making these comments and accusations had never once met that person.* :roll:
> 
> Did I miss anything??? :-? :roll:
> 
> Lead said,
> 
> No gabe we more than likely wouldn't say that about the "average/majority" ag guy unless he deserved it :wink: You have brought every bit of what is said about you on yourself.....I wouldn't call them "accusations either :wink: If it looks like crap and smells like it then it probably is. Just sayin' :wink:
> 
> Oh and did you miss anything?....I could think of a few :wink:
> 
> You ask constantly why we don't discuss with you in a civil matter. I know you don't like short answers but it is the only way in this case......becasue you won't allow it! :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> ALLSUNND » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:53 am
> _WOW There are some moderators that will be biting the dust on this forum by Chris's new stricter rules. They spew just as much venom as anybody!!*Seriously I'm just an occasional reader and getting less as I see there is only one side that is always right on outdoors issues* !_
> 
> 
> by ALLSUNND » Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:45 pm _
> I read the threads of interest top to bottom so I do get the tone.
> Venom--------- defined as spiteful or malicious So some of the posts aimed at *farmers*, go's , game farms , people who use guides , people who pay to hunt or sometimes just differing opinions have had lots of venom or venomous spit their way by mods. Maybe not meant that way but thats how it reads. IMHO_
> 
> by dieseldog » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:49 pm
> _So if no one is allowed to attack others on here, why is Plainsman constantly allowed to come on here and attack every farmer on this site about our occupation. Yes we get gov payments from tax money if you don't like it that is fine just don't attack me for running my business the best that i can with the resources offered to me.
> _.


And why are you constantly bringing stuff up from 5 years ago.lol Better yet how in the hell do you find the time to go through all of the posts from 5 years ago to nit pick crap out to copy and paste? Do you copy and paste certain posts and keep a data base of them for easy access?....you must. I guess it is indeed a pretty easy calving season except for beating the yotes off :wink:


----------



## gst

led it took a whole 5 minutes to find a thread on here with the comments slamming agriculture.

In fact it took longer to decide which one to use than it did to find one. :wink:

It is simply a reference to show this is not something new that has happened on this site since shaug and I got on it as palsinamn once claimed.

It has been going on for years, and I guess given the admission no one wishes to take the time to learn anything positive regarding agriculture it will continune.

Some names will change, others will not as we see from this old thread.

Once you get a little older led, you may realize you can learn alot from the past.

Some people that do, change, some never do.

led you can claim anything you wish, on this site, but people are smarter than you think!


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> It has been going on for years, and I guess given the admission no one wishes to take the time to learn anything positive regarding agriculture it will continune.


Someone admited that they don't ever want to learn anything positive regarding agriculture? I don't know about that claim you make there gabe :wink: The problem is, is that you refer to "ag" and "yourself" as the same entity. When in all reality "you" are the furthest thing from the majority of those involved in "agriculture". I don't know why we even debate on the issue as it is pointless as I have said before. Your sense of self grandeur is way too massive to allow you to see both sides and discuss any ag issue.

Carry on super rancher :wink:


----------



## swift

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been going on for years, and I guess given the admission no one wishes to take the time to learn anything positive regarding agriculture it will continune.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone admited that they don't ever want to learn anything positive regarding agriculture? I don't know about that claim you make there gabe :wink: The problem is, is that you refer to "ag" and "yourself" as the same entity. When in all reality "you" are the furthest thing from the majority of those involved in "agriculture". I don't know why we even debate on the issue as it is pointless as I have said before. Your sense of self grandeur is way too massive to allow you to see both sides and discuss any ag issue.
> 
> Carry on super rancher :wink:
Click to expand...

Well said leadfed.


----------



## gst

Plainsamn wrote:
_*I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid*, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. *If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck*. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying_.
end quote

led, one question, can you find a positive thread regarding agriculture practices and policies from this site before Shaug and I go on it???


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsamn wrote:
> _*I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid*, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. *If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck*. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying_.
> end quote
> 
> led, one question, can you find a positive thread regarding agriculture practices and policies from this site before Shaug and I go on it???


hahahaha. Its a HUNTING and FISHING website gabe!!!!!!!!!!  Now I want you to show me a farming/ranching website (there has to be one you visit) where they praise the sportsman. I knew you have always been hankering (word?) for an ego stroke gabe. Come on gabe get over yourself.


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsamn wrote:
> _*I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid*, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. *If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck*. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying_.
> end quote
> 
> led, one question, can you find a positive thread regarding agriculture practices and policies from this site before Shaug and I go on it???
> 
> 
> 
> hahahaha.  Its a HUNTING and FISHING website gabe!!!!!!!!!!  Now I want you to show me a farming/ranching website (there has to be one you visit) where they praise the sportsman. I knew you have always been hankering (word?) for an ego stroke gabe. Come on gabe get over yourself.
Click to expand...

*So if it is a HUNTING and FISHING website led, why talk about farming/ranching at all *??????? 

I really am curious to hear your answer led.

led it appears you have admitted there are no conversations regarding the positive practices of agriculture on this site and are trying to excuse it?

Can you give an example of a farming/rancing website from here in Nodak that posts as much negatives about sportsmen as this "hunting and fishing " site does about agriculture? 

Perhaps one exists, I do not follow any state farming or ranching websites. If so led please post an example.

led if you wish I can give any number of examples of threads negative to agriculture from this site,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79433

 @&$%# farmers 

(indeed quite the invite to ag producers to come on this site!)


Can you give one single example of a thread of a positive nature towards agriculture from here?

One?


----------



## shaug

Have been gone for two days. Went to South Dakota to pick up a sunflower planter. Anything around here in decent condintion gets snapped up immediatly. The Canadians are buying like crazy. I have not been to south east SD for awhile and man have some things changed. Infrastructure like massive grain storage facilities are very new and modern. Economics of scale. Things intergrate up and the consumer dictates. They want it bigger faster and more cost efficiant. Hundred car unit trains.

The farm we stopped at had geese everywhere and pheasant. When I quized him a little, he smiled and said, best kept secret. Not much hunting pressure. The only negative that I can see is these big 640 acre corn or sunflower fields. How does a sportsmen get deer or pheasants out of there durring hunting season? I suppose they have to wait until everything is harvested. But then they harvest earlier than we do.

Leadfed wrote,



> hahahaha. Its a HUNTING and FISHING website gabe!!!!!!!!!! Now I want you to show me a farming/ranching website (there has to be one you visit) where they praise the sportsman. I knew you have always been hankering (word?) for an ego stroke gabe. Come on gabe get over yourself.


Led, if you are a follower, than follow Plainsmans lead. If you are a leader, than go to FBO and run with the big dogs.


----------



## swift

> So if it is a HUNTING and FISHING website led, why talk about farming/ranching at all ???????


Because the policies of the NDFB directly negatively affect hunting and fishing opportunities in this state. Many of those policies threaten game management practices and game populations. So they impact the hunter. Many of the draining efforts impact waterways across ND which negatively impacts fisherman. So the concerned hunters and fisherman have every right to discuss Ag practices on a hunting and fishing website. If you can find ONE policy, resolution or sportsman mediated law that negatively impacts agriculture post it up. It must be something you can touch and not some misconstrued wronging in your mind.

Fortunately, the majority of ag producers aren't like you. They don't see everyone and everything as either a threat or a payday. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. But in GST's case the oil drum is dry and the squeaks just keep coming.

Shaug your right, hunting can be tough when the corn harvest is late. But when it gets done December can be a real good time. The majority of the visiting hunters are gone and the birds are everywhere. Let me know if you want to experience sometime.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug that was interesting about South Dakota. I have not been down there myself for about three years. I noticed that businesses are starting up along the road as far out as 30 miles from Sioux Falls. I drove down to pick up a flatbed trailer about 20 miles north of Sioux Falls. Evidently the economy is good down there also. Of course in southern South Dakota they get nearly as heavy corn per acre as Iowa.

They are known for pheasant, but they have a pile of deer too. A friend of mine was doing his PhD in Brookings. A semi truck run in the ditch and turned over in front of him one Sunday evening as he was traveling back to college. He stopped and the trucker asked "do you guys have deer around here". My friend said yes, and the trucker said "ya ya that was it, it was a deer, a deer run in front of me, ya that was it".


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsamn wrote:
> _*I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid*, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc. *If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck*. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying_.
> end quote
> 
> led, one question, can you find a positive thread regarding agriculture practices and policies from this site before Shaug and I go on it???
> 
> 
> 
> hahahaha.  Its a HUNTING and FISHING website gabe!!!!!!!!!!  Now I want you to show me a farming/ranching website (there has to be one you visit) where they praise the sportsman. I knew you have always been hankering (word?) for an ego stroke gabe. Come on gabe get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *So if it is a HUNTING and FISHING website led, why talk about farming/ranching at all *???????
> 
> I really am curious to hear your answer led.
> 
> led it appears you have admitted there are no conversations regarding the positive practices of agriculture on this site and are trying to excuse it?
> 
> Can you give an example of a farming/rancing website from here in Nodak that posts as much negatives about sportsmen as this "hunting and fishing " site does about agriculture?
> 
> Perhaps one exists, I do not follow any state farming or ranching websites. If so led please post an example.
> 
> led if you wish I can give any number of examples of threads negative to agriculture from this site,
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79433
> 
> @&$%# farmers
> 
> (indeed quite the invite to ag producers to come on this site!)
> 
> 
> Can you give one single example of a thread of a positive nature towards agriculture from here?
> 
> One?
Click to expand...

Well gabe, this is the way it is. You can read swifts post above and have an AHA moment or you can just stay close minded and respond to it with 46 other questions to twist what he said. Gabe, until you came on here defending ag like a cornered badger there probably wasn't as many ag topics as there is now. I would say you are pretty much fully responsible for the majority of the ag topics that show up presently. The reason being, is that you are so arrogant and feel so entitled that it makes people sick. In turn, they develop a pattern of digging up ag movements that could negatively affect the ND sportsman. The second they do they know full well they are going to get a rise out of you and I have not seen one instance where they have failed.

I know you feel like the little nerd being picked on in grade school but sometimes that little nerd deserves everything he has coming to him. You have no idea how pro-ag I am. Just becasue I don't agree with 100 percent of your radical ag views doesn't mean I am the proverbial "ag-basher" (a term you coined by the way).

It's a hunting and fishing website gabe. ND ag polocies directly affect the ND sportsman.....simple as that.


----------



## leadfed

shaug said:


> Leadfed wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahahaha. Its a HUNTING and FISHING website gabe!!!!!!!!!! Now I want you to show me a farming/ranching website (there has to be one you visit) where they praise the sportsman. I knew you have always been hankering (word?) for an ego stroke gabe. Come on gabe get over yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Led, if you are a follower, than follow Plainsmans lead. If you are a leader, than go to FBO and run with the big dogs.
Click to expand...

Ditto shaug. I guess we could say the exact same thing about you following gabe with your nose up....er tripping on his feet. :wink:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> It's a hunting and fishing website gabe. ND ag polocies directly affect the ND sportsman.....simple as that.


'

led, I'm not going to bother responding to your childish personal comments.

As to your statement above that is quoted, indeed they are directly linked . BOTH the negatives as well as the positive practices agriculture employs.

And just as ND ag poplicies affect sportsmen, ND sportsmen policies affect agriculture.

So led, can you give ONE single example of a thread that discusses on of those positive ag practices on this site?

One single thread?

Just one?

So led should it surprise you that when the number of negative threads regarding agriculture are posted on here in the manner they are, someone from ag responds?

As to your claims of my "radical ag views", the word radical gets bantered around this site quite freely.

Can you please provide an example of such by directly quoting me presenting them?


----------



## Plainsman

> I know you feel like the little nerd being picked on in grade school but sometimes that little nerd deserves everything he has coming to him. You have no idea how pro-ag I am. Just becasue I don't agree with 100 percent of your radical ag views doesn't mean I am the proverbial "ag-basher"


Good for you leadfed. I hope the arrogance displayed by a few don't turn people against agriculture. These guys have shown such ignorance it's beyond belief. Simply because the place I worked for had the name wildlife in it they go off the deep end. The agency I worked for doesn't do enforcement or any management of any kind. They are strictly research, and work for many other agencies. What the ignorant don't understand is that much of our work was done for the department of agriculture. Much of my efforts after I left the Fish and Wildlife service were aimed at helping agriculture. I didn't know how much I should say about those things, and this is all I am going to say about it.

Some of my very best friends farm, and most of my relatives. I understand you farm also leadfed. My hats off to you. I can not find the words to tell you how much I appreciate your attitude towards those of us who hunt and care about our natural resources and agriculture. I have often told gst that his conservation efforts can't come close to nature and whatever he does he has still negatively impacted wildlife and habitat. That drives him up the wall even though I tell him that the conservation practices he implements are head and shoulders above the agriculture practices of ten years ago. Agriculture has made some great strides. They have not done it for wildlife, but good land management practices result in better conditions for wildlife no matter the intent or purpose. I know there are many farmers and ranchers who just quietly implement better and better land practices and we don't hear about it. Perhaps your one. :thumb:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> So if it is a HUNTING and FISHING website led, why talk about farming/ranching at all ???????
> 
> Swift wrote:
> Because the policies of the NDFB directly negatively affect hunting and fishing opportunities in this state. Many of those policies threaten game management practices and game populations. So they impact the hunter. Many of the draining efforts impact waterways across ND which negatively impacts fisherman*So the concerned hunters and fisherman have every right to discuss Ag practices on a hunting and fishing website. *. If you can find ONE policy, resolution or sportsman mediated law that negatively impacts agriculture post it up. It must be something you can touch and not some misconstrued wronging in your mind


Indeed they do have the"right" to discuss the practices and policeis of agriculture that affect the things you mention swift, *EVEN THE POSITIVE PRACTICES AND POLICIES. *

Can you show me one single example of such a thread discussing the positive impact ag practices have on wildlife and sportsmen from this site?????

As to the policies advocated by sportsmen that negatively impact agriculture, two come to mind I am sure you will dismiss.

1. The HFH measure

2. NWF CRP lawsuits


----------



## Plainsman

> NWF CRP lawsuits


You deserved that one. Every year is an emergency isn't it gst? People put land into CRP, then they can't stand to see that grass not go through their cow. So they contact their representative and cry a bucket load. It's simply a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. I'm surprised you would bring up farmers and ranchers trying to shaft the taxpayer and wildlife as sportsman negatively impacting agriculture. It was the other way around ------- again, but twisted in your mind.

Also, the HFH you should watch for a few years. It accelerates the pay to play attitude for one thing. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that in the next 20 years they will also be involved in disease issues. It's also interesting that you make this an ag issue. Who do they sell those animals to? Oh, ya, not sportsmen, but they do sell them to shooters. Shooters are sort of related to sportsmen you just have to leave the prefix "sport" out of it. Time will tell us who was right about this debate. Meanwhile watch the pay to play result in less and less hunters every year until we don't have the votes to protect ourselves. By then the HFH will have their bankroll so no problem right? How about that deer population this year? Great isn't it? The ethanol subsidy will vanish, and CRP will be asked for again. This time no posting should be added to it just like state habitat land, rather than being told you want our money but we don't want to see your face -----unless their is money in your hand.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I would guess there are many farmers and ranchers who just quietly implement better and better land practices and we don't hear about it.


plaisnamn I have said this all along.

But if you are going to make the effort to make sure everyone "hears" about what you perceive as the negative aspects of agriculture, shouldn;t you consider makiung just as much effort to ensure the same people hear about the positive practices in agriculture????? 

Perhaps if you could have shown an example of that being done just one single time on this site, it would not be looked at in the manner it is and people would indeed be more inclined to come on here and have a "serious" discussion regarding agriculture.

Plainsamn when I first got on this stie I was one of those people you referenced in your above quote. I thought perhaps it would be an opportunity to engage in a "serious" discussion regarding agriculture on an outdoors site with a person that was the moderator on it. You were given one example after another of people and orgs that are positively impacting ag prqactices in innovative ways and yet have you ever once mentioned or started any thread discussing these positive practices and ideologies ina agriculture?

Plaisnamn give me one single example of a thread commenting on these people, orgs or practices that not only impact agriculture in a positive manner, but wildlife and sportsmen as well.

One single thread.

Just one.

something to perhaps offset one's like this.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79433

@&$%# farmers


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> NWF CRP lawsuits
> 
> 
> 
> You deserved that one. Every year is an emergency isn't it gst? People put land into CRP, then they can't stand to see that grass not go through their cow. So they contact their representative and cry a bucket load. It's simply a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. I'm surprised you would bring up farmers and ranchers trying to shaft the taxpayer and wildlife as sportsman negatively impacting agriculture. It was the other way around ------- again, but twisted in your mind.
Click to expand...

plaisnamn, this is a perfect example of why this site will never have a "serious" discussion rarding agriculture or even be remotely considered fair and balanced in discussing anything related to agriculture. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> plaisnamn, this is a perfect example of why this site will never have a "serious" discussion rarding agriculture


Do you mean because you bring up a case of agriculture shafting the taxpayer and resource and twist it into sportsmen shafting farmers?

I have made enough offers myself gst. Most of us would be happy to hear about land management improvements over the past ten or twenty years. I really would. However life is busy, and to do it right would require a month of serious study. I don't have that time, and I doubt many people are willing to put that much time into it. That's why I would like to hear it from ----well now after that post blaming the CRP lawsuit on sportsmen it isn't you. We need a new ag face on here that will level with us and not blow smoke.

I hate ignorance, but I guess I'll have to live with it until someone wants to tell us about some positive ag practices that have been developed in the past few years. Don't start out telling us they did it for wildlife. We know you have to make a living and the new ag practices they have done for themselves, but that doesn't subtract from the fact conservation practices for self also help wildlife. I do have two good friends who actually set aside land for wildlife. I have an inlaw that has about 80 acres of native prairie that he and his family have never touched. I take it back. Some farmers are ever bit as much sportsmen as we are. These guys I mentioned are (which may include leadfed). They also think about conservation in an ag sense and a habitat sense. I wish all those guys the very best. The problem is radicals from both sides demand the rights to drive us apart. NDFB and HSUS?????

Shaug said:


> If you are a leader, than go to FBO and run with the big dogs


You mean where grown men call themselves "Fritz the Cat"? :wink:
Shaug I have been on FBO since 2003. The date on my membership changed when they went TON. I had not posted for many years until gst sort of in a left handed way challenged me to post on there where everyone agrees with him. So I guess that's what your sort of doing now right? I think that's what they call open mouth insert foot, or perhaps a rectal cranial inversion.


----------



## leadfed

Plainsman said:


> I understand you farm also leadfed. :
Click to expand...

Thanks plainsman but no I don't directly farm. I run some cows and have MANY friends/relatives that farm/ranch....goes with the territory. So I am the farthest thing there is from anti ag. In a few hours I will be out tagging calves and whatever else needs to be done. Do I not agree with subsidies?....yes. Do I think HFH is bull**** and a black eye for hunting in ND?....yes. Do I think the proposed ammendment by the NDFB is ludicrous?....yes. Because I think like that does that mean my head should automatically be put on the chopping block from gabe thompson and his cronies? He and his radical (yes I am using that word again gabe) pals....er pal, are so near sighted that they just can't possibly understand why some people want to view a topic in a different light than them.

Roughly 10,000 NDFB members right gabe? There are 2 that post on this site. Just sayin'.


----------



## swift

> ND sportsmen policies affect agriculture.


GST, Can you show ONE SINGLE ND sportsmen policy that affects agriculture?

Tit for Tat. Save your finger there aren't any. Even the dreaded NWF crp lawsuit had the NDWF on the side of Agriculture.


----------



## swift

> You mean where grown men call themselves "Fritz the Cat"?
> Shaug I have been on FBO since 2003. The date on my membership changed when they went TON. I had not posted for many years until gst sort of in a left handed way challenged me to post on there where everyone agrees with him. So I guess that's what your sort of doing now right? I think that's what they call open mouth insert foot, or perhaps a rectal cranial inversion.


Plainsman you mean use to agree with him. He and Fritz pretty much got their rearends handed to them on the last discussion. GST was so beaten down even his normal got yer back buddies abandoned him.


----------



## swift

> As to the policies advocated by sportsmen that negatively impact agriculture, two come to mind I am sure you will dismiss.
> 
> 1. The HFH measure
> 
> 2. NWF CRP lawsuits


What was the NDWF resolution regarding that lawsuit GST? The way I remember it NDWF opposed the NWF lawsuit. You know NDWF said "we got your back ag" Just to get a knife thrusted into it by the NDFB leaders. boycott boycott boycott. Thats the NDFB's way.


----------



## shaug

Swift wrote,



> Plainsman you mean use to agree with him. He and Fritz pretty much got their rearends handed to them on the last discussion. GST was so beaten down even his normal got yer back buddies abandoned him.


Don't know Fritz but saw an old sixties animated cartoon about a cool cat who participated in the flower power rock and roll revolution durring the sixties. Fritz liked sex drugs and rock and roll. He thought he was part of the revolution against the establishment. At the end of the movie he realized that the sixties revolution was controled from the top down by the establishment. If you find the movie, check it out. It's a hoot.

As far as me having my re-end handed to me........swift do you think you won anything on a dying web-forum. This hunting forum is supposed to be about hunting, not landowner FB/FU bashing. There is some pending legislation in DC that you guys should be talking about instead. Very important legislation concerning hunting, access, lead ammo etc.

More about that later. Right now I have to get back outside.

Oh and one more thing. Ya we all know NDWF was against the CRP court case when the federally funded NWF sued the federally funded NRCS over their idea of mismanagement of CRP. What a waste of taxpayers money. Where was the outcry on nodak. Nobody said sh#t against the mother org.


----------



## Plainsman

> Where was the outcry on nodak. Nobody said sh#t against the mother org.


Many are members of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation that took action by standing against the National organization. Then the NDFB double crosses sportsmen every chance they get. It's a one way street that many are getting tired of. When farmers have something against them more often than not sportsmen stand with them. Even in the high fence debate most of the sportsmen stood with farmers. My objection was "sport". 
So hunters have something against them. Not only does the NDFB not stand with the sportsmen, they are often against them. So shaug do you ever disagree with NDFB or do you just ask no questions and march in lockstep?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> ou deserved that one. Every year is an emergency isn't it gst? People put land into CRP, then they can't stand to see that grass not go through their cow. So they contact their representative and cry a bucket load. It's simply a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. I'm surprised you would bring up farmers and ranchers trying to shaft the taxpayer and wildlife as sportsman negatively impacting agriculture. It was the other way around ------- again, but twisted in your mind.





Plainsman said:


> I hate ignorance, but I guess I'll have to live with it


Indeed you will plainsamn, and your above quote is a fine example of it. :wink:

Plainsamn can you show one thread discussin positive practices in agriculture from this site or not?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> ND sportsmen policies affect agriculture.
> 
> 
> 
> GST, Can you show ONE SINGLE ND sportsmen policy that affects agriculture?
> 
> Tit for Tat. Save your finger there aren't any. Even the dreaded NWF crp lawsuit had the NDWF on the side of Agriculture.
Click to expand...

swift do ND sportsmen groups even form "policy" and go on record?

swift are ND DU sportsmen against tiling and draining wetlands?

Are ND PF sportsmen against the removal of tree rows?

Are ND PF sportsmen against the tillage of grasslands?

Do ND PF & DU sportsmen support perpetual easements?

swift do ND sportsmen orgs ever testify at the ND legislature on ag related bills?

swift, get real there are many "policies" that "ND" sportsmen "support" that affect agriculture,to claim there is not is simply "supid". :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> You mean where grown men call themselves "Fritz the Cat"?
> Shaug I have been on FBO since 2003. The date on my membership changed when they went TON. I had not posted for many years until gst sort of in a left handed way challenged me to post on there where everyone agrees with him. So I guess that's what your sort of doing now right? I think that's what they call open mouth insert foot, or perhaps a rectal cranial inversion.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman you mean use to agree with him. He and Fritz pretty much got their rearends handed to them on the last discussion. GST was so beaten down even his normal got yer back buddies abandoned him.
Click to expand...

Are you refering to the NDFB thread where espriongers stated that completely opposite of what plainsamn claimed on here that the NDFB measure as written would NOT prevent the state legislature from enacting alws to prevent feedlot from being built on river bottoms so sping floods would wash away the manure??

swift can you please post where anyone on FBO stated the claims made on this site were true?

plainsamn, where did you ever get the idea everyone on FBO agrees with me???

Haven;t you ever seen posts by a fella that calls himself westnodak? :wink:


----------



## gst

You guys do know there are any numbe of other ag orgs in ND otherthan NDFB don;t you?????? 

So even do some pretty positive conservation things that are really quite innovative and mutually beneficial to both agriculture and sportsmen and wildlife.

You know some of those we talked about in PM's plainsamn and shared in threads with links tothem on this site a number of times?

So swift, led, plainsman, can you show me one positive thread that actually talks about some of these "ag related" things?

Even from before when shaug and I became the "face of ag" on this site? 
:roll: 
I mean at some point someone had to be on here that you guys had to have had a positive conversation about agriculture with was there not???

One single thread that is positive about agriculture on this site fellas?

Just one little bitty short thread, doesn;t even have to be 2 pages.

Anyone, one single thread?

Just one?

I mean not all of them can be like this one are they?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79433

 @&$%# farmers 

Indeed a nice invite to welcome those in ag to participate in "serious" discussions. :roll: :eyeroll:


----------



## swift

Sportsmans orgs do not post public policy
That is my point. You made a claim they do, and now you make a claim they don't. So it's just you and circles again. Sportsmansorgs organizations don't feel the needto to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else. That is the difference.


----------



## gst

swift, once again.

swift are ND DU sportsmen against tiling and draining wetlands?

Are ND PF sportsmen against the removal of tree rows?

Are ND PF sportsmen against the tillage of grasslands?

Do ND PF & DU sportsmen support perpetual easements?

swift do ND sportsmen orgs ever testify at the ND legislature on ag related bills?

Do ND sportsmen groups support the national groups that indeed have policy that "affect" agriculture?

swift, get real there are many "policies" that "ND" sportsmen "support" that affect agriculture,to claim there is not is simply "supid". :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> *Sportsmansorgs organizations don't feel the needto to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else.[/*quote]
> 
> So swift, could you then explain the purpose behind the HFH measure sponsored by the ND "sportsman" org, ND Hunters for Fair Chase???????


----------



## swift

Show me one ND sportsman org policy against AG. Paste one.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> swift, once again.
> 
> swift are ND DU sportsmen against tiling and draining wetlands?
> 
> Are ND PF sportsmen against the removal of tree rows?
> 
> Are ND PF sportsmen against the tillage of grasslands?
> 
> Do ND PF & DU sportsmen support perpetual easements?
> 
> swift do ND sportsmen orgs ever testify at the ND legislature on ag related bills?
> 
> Do ND sportsmen groups support the national groups that indeed have policy that "affect" agriculture?
> 
> swift, get real there are many "policies" that "ND" sportsmen "support" that affect agriculture,to claim there is not is simply "supid". :wink:


So are you for all of these things mr. conservation? You evidently are since you evidently blame sportsmen for being against these things in your mind.

Face of agriculture? :eyeroll:


----------



## shaug

swift wrote,



> Show me one ND sportsman org policy against AG. Paste one.


I would but Roger Kaseman took his site down. Greedy farmers pasture killers. But then again, the orgs that endorsed it like the ndctws and ndwf aren't sportsmens orgs. They are controlled opposition groups. See:

http://www.ncconservationnetwork.org/cl ... mansletter



> Dear Senator/Representative,
> On behalf of the undersigned organizations and the millions of Americans who hunt and
> fish, we strongly encourage you to cosponsor climate change legislation that includes
> dedicated funding for fish and wildlife conservation and restoration through a 'cap and
> trade' system and achieves a 2% per year reduction in pollution from carbon dioxide
> and other greenhouse gases.
> Hunters and anglers have been, and remain today, the backbone of North America's
> monumental success in conservation and wildlife management in the last century. As
> hunters and anglers, we are concerned with climate change and its impacts on fish and
> wildlife. For example, trout populations are declining from increased water temperatures,
> wetlands critical to waterfowl populations are threatened due to increasing temperatures
> and sea level rise, and in some areas moose are disappearing due to hot summers.
> As a result of the known and predicted impacts to fish and wildlife from climate change,
> we ask that you cosponsor climate change legislation including a 'cap and trade' system
> that will reduce carbon dioxide pollution by 2% annually, or 80% by 2050, and channel
> new revenue to natural resource agencies for fish and wildlife conservation activities.





> Current federal efforts to conserve fish and wildlife are having dramatic results, but they
> fall far short of what is needed for helping wildlife survive climate change. A dedicated
> revenue stream will enable state fish and wildlife agencies and other key agencies to
> incorporate climate change science into their work and to conserve America's long and
> cherished heritage of hunting, fishing and wildlife conservation.
> We have used 'cap and trade' systems - and American ingenuity - successfully in the
> past to cut pollution. And, we can do it again to achieve an annual two percent reduction
> of greenhouse gases/carbon dioxide pollution through energy conservation, use of
> renewable and alternative energy, and development of new technologies. It can also
> help bring new growth industries to our cities and rural communities provide jobs and
> help bolster a stronger economy.
> We who hunt and fish believe we have a moral responsibility to confront climate change
> in order to protect our outdoor heritage and our children's future. Accordingly, we ask
> you to cosponsor legislation that reduces greenhouse gas pollution 2% annually through
> a cap and trade program and provides wildlife conservation funding to help wildlife
> survive climate change.


Swift notice below



> Kindred Wildlife Club
> Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club
> North Dakota Wildlife Federation
> Stutsman County Wildlife Federation


Swift, this climate change plea for money wasn't exactly against AG but it is against everybody. So let's see here. Our sportsmens orgs (question mark) wrote a letter pleading for some taxpayer money??? How many sportsmen even knew that letter was sent in their behalf??? So who wrote it or signed on to it representing ND? Well......Mike McEnroe, retired federal biologist and lobbyist for the wildlife society is the president of the Lewis and Clark Club and the NDWF. Also David Alan Brandt (president of the Stutsmans County wildlife federation) is a fed/gov biolgist for the US Geological Survey.

Swift, do you believe global warming is real and man made? How do you suppose Mike and David were going to spend the funds (extorted from the US General Treasurey and businesses through cap and tax) to save wildlife from too much sun? Those are some busy guys.

I belong to a real grassroots ND sportsmens org. Here are their resolutions.

http://www.unitedsportsmen-nd.org/Purpo ... tives.html

Swift, the North Dakota Wildlfe Federation used to have global warming on their website as an issue but since have removed it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, 501(c)3's such as NDWF only continue to get funding by defining problems. It seems the global warming cash cow is dry so they have decided to move on.

Now we have the ND 5% oil revenue rip off. Money money money One of these days we'll have to go through that list of sponsors.


----------



## gst

shaug, just as these sportsmen orgs that may not actually "create policy" write letters in other sportsmens names claiming to represent them, they also testify at legislative hearings as well doing the same thing.

Swift wishes to make it seem as these sportsmens orgs do nothing that impacts agriculture, indeed an example of the type of "serious" discusssions a few on this site wish others to beleive them willing to have.

There are any number of these types of "discussions" regarding agricultue on here that soley focas on what this small group of people beleive are the negatives of agriculture, but yet when asked to provide one single example of a "serious" discussion regarding agriculture that is of a positive nature discussing the positives of agricultrue they can not give one single example of a thread doing so from this site.

And yet they wih people to beleive they wish to engage in a "serious" discussion regardind agriculture?????

Apparently "serious" discussion about agriculture can only include claims of "greed, rip, rape and run, elitist lords of the land hands in the taxpayers pockets, socialsit welfare programs" ect....

And yet here is another example of their "serious discussions about agriculture.

Plainsamn wrote:

_You deserved that one. Every year is an emergency isn't it gst? People put land into CRP, then they can't stand to see that grass not go through their cow. So they contact their representative and cry a bucket load. It's simply a case of wanting your cake and eating it too. I'm surprised you would bring up farmers and ranchers trying to shaft the taxpayer and wildlife as sportsman negatively impacting agriculture. It was the other way around ------- again, but twisted in your mind.

Also, the HFH you should watch for a few years. It accelerates the pay to play attitude for one thing. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that in the next 20 years they will also be involved in disease issues. It's also interesting that you make this an ag issue. Who do they sell those animals to? Oh, ya, not sportsmen, but they do sell them to shooters. Shooters are sort of related to sportsmen you just have to leave the prefix "sport" out of it. Time will tell us who was right about this debate. Meanwhile watch the pay to play result in less and less hunters every year until we don't have the votes to protect ourselves. By then the HFH will have their bankroll so no problem right? *How about that deer population this year? Great isn't it?* The ethanol subsidy will vanish, and CRP will be asked for again. This time no posting should be added to it just like state habitat land, rather than being told you want our money but we don't want to see your face -----unless their is money in your hand._

Somehow now even insinuating the current level of deer populations is agricultures fault????

And led wonders why people in agriculture do not bother coming on this site. :roll:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Sportsmans orgs do not post public policy





swift said:


> What was the NDWF resolution regarding that lawsuit GST? The way I remember it NDWF opposed the NWF lawsuit.


swift is a resolution policy?

Can you paste this "resolution" ?



gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sportsmansorgs organizations don't feel the needto to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else.[/*quote]
> 
> So swift, could you then explain the purpose behind the HFH measure sponsored by the ND "sportsman" org, ND Hunters for Fair Chase???????
Click to expand...

swift would you care to answer this question?


----------



## gst

What it comes down to here is this, there are any number of examples of threads about what people beleive are negatives in agriculture that are presented in a very negative manner on this site, it has been going on for a number of years despite the various people from agriculture that have been involved thru out the years that have come and gone.

What has remained constant are two things, the names of the people making these claims and accusations regarding agriculture,and the fact they can not point out one single thread in the history of this site that is directly about any positive aspects or practices of people or orgs within agriculture.

And yet this same small group of people that are actively involved in these negative threads regarding agriculture wish others to beleive this site does NOT have an anti agriculture flavor to it. :-?

They chastise those in agriculture holding them accountable for their comments for coming on their "fishing and hunting" site and discussing agriculture yet they then demand the right to discuss agriculture because of it's impact on hunting and fishing on their "fishing and hunting" site! 

When asked if the discussion of agriculture ever includes any positive discussions regarding the positive impact agriculture has thru innovative conservation based practicves idividuals and ag groups are creating and implementing, this is the response given:

Plainsamn wrote:
_I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor ect.* If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck.*. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying._
end quote

All that has been asked if they wish to have people accept their claims there is not an anti agriculture bias to their site is to provide one single thread discussing any of the various examples of conservation based ag practices and orgs that positively impact wildlife of which examples of have been provided and links to the orgs and individuals using them given as a "reason" to jumpstart a positive discussion at various times over the last couple of years and yet no one can produce one single positive thread from this site.

And yet they STILL wish people to beleive there exists no anti agriculture bias on their site.

Even despite threads with the direct title:

@&$%# farmers

:roll:

Just one single thread fellas?


----------



## shaug

Topics that should discussed on a hunting and fishing forum:

Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012 (H.R. 4089) The "sportsmen's package" of bills was introduced by Congressmen Jeff Miller and Mike Ross, co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, along with several other Members serving as original co-sponsors. The package contains four bills:
1. H.R. 2834: The "Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act" is designed to protect and enhance access and opportunities on Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. The bill was reported from Committee November 18, 2011.
2. H.R. 3440: The "Recreational Shooting Protection Act" prevents the closure of national monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to recreational shooting. It will apply retroactively to all BLM monuments. A hearing was held January 24th in the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
3. H.R. 1558: The "Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act" amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to clarify the original intent of Congress to exclude lead ammunition from the provisions of the Act. The bill amends the Act to exclude lead fishing tackle from EPA jurisdiction.
4. H.R. 991: The "Polar Bear Conservation and Fairness Act of 2011" amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to issue importation permits to hunters for polar bear trophies legally taken in Canada prior to the listing of the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. The bill was reported from Committee October 5, 2011.

Now as anyone can see these bills are about protecting hunting and fishing. I am on board with that. It is a sad sign of the times when everything has to be written in stone or else some team of lawyers from an anti ban everything group is out there looking for loopholes in the law. Notice the date, November 18, 2011. Do we have twenty plus pages on nodak concerning this legislation? No!!!!! What we do have is twenty plus pages from the moderators and their hyenas on why farmers/ranchers shouldn't be extended the same protection from the ban everything crowd.


----------



## shaug

The Future of Hunting in North Dakota" will be the focus of a conference set for March 30-31 at the Doublewood Inn in Bismarck.

According to Mike McEnroe of Bismarck, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manager and president of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, the idea for the conference came up during the 2011 legislative session. Representatives of the state's four wildlife lobbying organizations meet weekly during the legislative session, McEnroe said, and during one of their meetings, it became apparent they represented only about 2,400 people out of more than 200,000 hunters, anglers and other wildlife enthusiasts in the state.

The conference is sponsored by the North Dakota Wildlife Federation and the North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society in coordination with the state Game and Fish Department.

"Frankly, the sportsmen aren't being represented or being heard on legislative issues that deal with game and fish and the outdoors," McEnroe said. "We thought, 'let's have this conference and alert the wildlife clubs and sportsmen's groups in the state to what's happening.'"

What's happening is significant, McEnroe said, and includes decreasing enrollment of private land in the Conservation Reserve Program, the state's booming energy industry and the increase of tile drainage and removal of shelterbelts to put more land into farm production.

The resulting loss of wildlife habitat stands to have a negative impact on hunting and outdoors opportunities North Dakota residents have come to expect in the past 20 years.

"There are just so many things going on here, and the sportsmen either aren't aware of the significance, or they just aren't speaking up," McEnroe said. "So, how can we get the sportsmen and women of the state conscious and aware?"

The upcoming conference, which begins at 1 p.m. March 30 and wraps at 2:30 p.m. March 31, includes presentations and panel discussions featuring state and federal wildlife officials, legislators, sportsmen's groups, landowners and representatives from the state's energy and guiding-outfitting industries.

"A number of people have gotten a hold of me saying, 'we don't want to hear from guides and outfitters and energy people or economic development people,'" McEnroe said. "Well, we're not going there to tell hunting stories to each other. This is the future and what's happening in the state.

"We don't want this to be a (gripe) session, we want it to be an awareness of where the state has been - hunting in particular - in the last 50-60 years" and where it's headed, he added. "We can't say that it's all bad or all good, but how do these pieces fit together and what do the participants out there want? What will they support and advocate?"

McEnroe, who began meeting in July with North Dakota Game and Fish Department director Terry Steinwand about the conference, said organizers have been meeting weekly since October setting the agenda and lining up speakers. He said organizers are hoping to draw 120 people, and so far, about 85 people have registered for the conference.

The registration fee is $10, which includes supper March 30 and lunch March 31; McEnroe said there'll be room for last-minute registrants, as well.

"If we could pull more than the usual cast of characters together and get somewhat of a unified feeling out of this, we think it would be a good thing," McEnroe said.

For more information on the conference, contact the Wildlife Federation at (888) 827-2557 or [email protected]; or McEnroe at [email protected].

Dokken reports on outdoors. Reach him at (701) 780-1148; (800) 477-6572, ext. 148; or send email to [email protected].

GST wrote,



> shaug, just as these sportsmen orgs that may not actually "create policy" write letters in other sportsmens names claiming to represent them, they also testify at legislative hearings as well doing the same thing.
> 
> Swift wishes to make it seem as these sportsmens orgs do nothing that impacts agriculture, indeed an example of the type of "serious" discusssions a few on this site wish others to beleive them willing to have.


Mike McEnroe claims to represent 2,400 sportsmen. I believe that number is inflated. On day one of this confederence only 70 people attended. Thirty-five of those were mandatory officials from USFWS and G/F. They had their 5% oil tax revenue rip off in the hallway gathering signatures. They could not have it in the room because the NDG/F were present. The NDG/F is to be neutral in such matters. On day two it became apparent why this future of hunting meeting was being held. Just like in the third grade a board was set up with squares discussing hot button items. Each attendee was given 5 stars. Put the stars up on the board with what is your percieved number one issue regarding wildlife. Most attendees put one star here and there. Then persons in the know walked up and put all five of their stars on just one square.

Guess which is the number one hot button issue to all the sportsmen of ND? You got it, the 5% oil tax revenue rip off. Mike McEnroe and David Alan Brandt are almost fun to watch. So predictable. They put out statements about tile drainage, loss of CRP or shelterbelt tree loss and it doesn't take long for their shills to begin echoing their statements.


----------



## Plainsman

> "We don't want this to be a (gripe) session, we want it to be an awareness of where the state has been - hunting in particular - in the last 50-60 years" and where it's headed, he added. "We can't say that it's all bad or all good, but how do these pieces fit together and what do the participants out there want? What will they support and advocate?"


That sounds reasonable, and I didn't hear anything about global warming.

Here is the problem with global warming and politics. I think science should have stable funding. If conservatives have a brain they would implement this. On the surface they had a good idea when money spent had to be linked to a project. What happened was then liberals became very generous with any proposal that had the words "global warming" in the project objectives. Following that to many scientists went for the dollar just like you farmers do. The going for the dollar isn't linked to biologists or farmers, it's linked to the human nature. So it does little good to blame professions.



> Somehow now even insinuating the current level of deer populations is agricultures fault????


The disappearance of CRP is one of the major factors the deer population is down, but it's short sighted to blame it all on farmers. Here is the full picture as I see it. You know those people you don't like that talk about global warming? Sure you do they are your friends. :wink: Here is how they are your friends. See they are looking for alternative "green" energy. They hate coal and oil. So it's wind, solar, and ethanol. So these global warming politicians offer lots of money to scientists to show us the problem with global warming. Then they convince the public for support. Then they put huge subsidies on ethanol. The price of corn goes up, the farmers are very happy, the CRP is nearly all plowed under, the deer population drops. GST you and shaug talk out of both sides of your mouth. You complain about global warming, but are happy as pigs in slop about the ethanol. It appears you fellows make money by playing both sides of the coin. What are you socialist pro global warming/ethanol or pro freedom capitalists? So far you have been playing it both ways, but it has taken many pages of debate to expose that to everone here.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> What are you socialist pro global warming/ethanol or pro freedom capitalists? So far you have been playing it both ways, but it has taken many pages of debate to expose that to everone


Bruce you do know how it says in the Bible "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"??

Before you get too carried away acusing others perhaps you could explain this socialist statement YOU made as you always seem to have an "explanation". 

by Plainsman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 am 
_I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it. I don't care if it only cost me a penny_

plainsamn, so you do not simply think it is merely another "claim" I am making, the next time you see Joel Hietkamp, ask him if he remembers a live broadcast he had up here in Antler a couple of years back and ask him what I and a couple of other ranchers told him about what we think if the ethanol subsidies in the discussison we held. There was a bit of a disagreement from is veiws regarding ethanlo subsidies! :wink:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> What it comes down to here is this, there are any number of examples of threads about what people beleive are negatives in agriculture that are presented in a very negative manner on this site, it has been going on for a number of years despite the various people from agriculture that have been involved thru out the years that have come and gone.
> 
> What has remained constant are two things, the names of the people making these claims and accusations regarding agriculture,and the fact they can not point out one single thread in the history of this site that is directly about any positive aspects or practices of people or orgs within agriculture.
> 
> And yet this same small group of people that are actively involved in these negative threads regarding agriculture wish others to beleive this site does NOT have an anti agriculture flavor to it. :-?
> 
> They chastise those in agriculture holding them accountable for their comments for coming on their "fishing and hunting" site and discussing agriculture yet they then demand the right to discuss agriculture because of it's impact on hunting and fishing on their "fishing and hunting" site!
> 
> When asked if the discussion of agriculture ever includes any positive discussions regarding the positive impact agriculture has thru innovative conservation based practicves idividuals and ag groups are creating and implementing, this is the response given:
> 
> Plainsamn wrote:
> _I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor ect.* If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck.*. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying._
> end quote
> 
> All that has been asked if they wish to have people accept their claims there is not an anti agriculture bias to their site is to provide one single thread discussing any of the various examples of conservation based ag practices and orgs that positively impact wildlife of which examples of have been provided and links to the orgs and individuals using them given as a "reason" to jumpstart a positive discussion at various times over the last couple of years and yet no one can produce one single positive thread from this site.
> 
> And yet they STILL wish people to beleive there exists no anti agriculture bias on their site.
> 
> Even despite threads with the direct title:
> 
> @&$%# farmers
> 
> :roll:
> 
> Just one single thread fellas?


shaug at the Future of Hunting conference, in talking about the effects agriculture has on the future of hunting, did Mike McEnroe mention anything about the positive practices agriculture is implementing that are tied to conservation that benefit wildlife and sportsmen?

I mean if you are going to talk abou the future of hunting and agricultue one would surely think you would take the time to discuss the positives being created in production agriculture to make people aware of them so they can be encouraged and talked about and supported and possibly even invite some of the orgs that are implementing these innovative ideas to speak for a few minutes to give people a "reason" to begin to understand what some in agriculture are doing.

Or perhaps that is simply a "radical" veiw and more is accomplished by focasing on the negatives. :-?


----------



## leadfed

My god are you a cry baby gabe.lol


----------



## Plainsman

> Bruce you do know how it says in the Bible "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"??


Yes I am familiar with that. I wouldn't be the first throwing stones that's for sure. I'm guilty, guilty, guilty. You were not comparing yourself to that Biblical hooker were you? :wink:

You did notice this didn't you?


> The going for the dollar isn't linked to biologists or farmers, it's linked to the human nature.


You do understand that the above statement says I do not blame farmers right? Right? Did you get that? Maybe you didn't want to. :wink:

As for the rest of it your back to that old whine again. I like Berger bullets so I post good things about them. You like farming, but you refuse to start a thread about good things in farming practices. Do you want us to kiss up or what? I would like to see some good things about farming, but I don't have time to research farming for you, teaching for teachers, metal lathe for a machinist, or fission for a nuclear physicist. You could post, but nooooooo you wouldn't have anyone following your orders then. Everyone is interested gst so have at it. No one is restricting your freedom.

I would seriously like to get up to speed on the latest improvements. It would be good news to our ears.

Edit: didn't notice this.


> Before you get too carried away acusing others perhaps you could explain this socialist statement YOU made as you always seem to have an "explanation".


So me saying I don't like redistribution of wealth is a socialist statement? I think you have your forms of government mixed up son.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Here is the problem with global warming and politics. I think science should have stable funding. If conservatives have a brain they would implement this. On the surface they had a good idea when money spent had to be linked to a project. What happened was then liberals became very generous with any proposal that had the words "global warming" in the project objectives. Following that to many scientists went for the dollar just like you farmers do. The going for the dollar isn't linked to biologists or farmers, it's linked to the human nature. So it does little good to blame professions.


Bruce, these guys may not be scientists but they know how to follow the money or create revenue streams to get it.

http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming.aspx

Swift asked to post a link about wildlife orgs and their policies that negatively impact agriculture. This NWF url negatively impacts us all. The NDWF used to have much of the same stuff on their website with pictures of Coal Creek Generating Station in the back ground. Maybe the NDWF would like to explain to people and sportsmen who work there why their jobs should be terminated.

GST wrote,



> shaug at the Future of Hunting conference, in talking about the effects agriculture has on the future of hunting, did Mike McEnroe mention anything about the positive practices agriculture is implementing that are tied to conservation that benefit wildlife and sportsmen?


Nope. Mostly the same old lament. Not enough CRP etc. Governor Jack Dalrymple addressed the group. He said CRp is going to make cut backs but the program is still going to be around, just less of it. Mike commented, I hope you are right. I was there on day one not two. Day one was mostly about where we have been. Mike was telling everyone we have to do something to save hunting. Mostly Mike wants to be your voice or your representative. Represent hunters. Hey, isn't he the same guy who accepted $150,000 dollars from HSUS to pay for the advertizing durring the HFI?

Mike McEnroe is a retired federal bilologist from the USFWS. He is currently president of the NDWF and the Lewis and Clark Club and is the lobbyist for the wildlife society. Busy guy.


----------



## Plainsman

shaug, you know years ago the Wildlife Federation was a good group, but looking at their home page they appear to be slipping politically left. I agree with you about the United Sportsmen. I like that group. I think my membership is up to date but I better check. I use the shooting range here at Jamestown and it's maintained by United Sportsmen. Everyone uses it, but I bet not ten percent pay dues to the organization that maintains it. It takes more time to pick up the old TV and computer screens than it does to put up new target backs.

I'll tell you what shaug you watch the Wildlife Federation and tell me about them, and I'll watch the NDFB and let you know where they screw up --------- deal????????? :wink: Anyway, as much as I throw NDFB stupidity in your face I'll also take the opportunity to say I hope all is going well and best of luck this growing season. I suppose calving is over, but hope they all make it through the year.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So me saying I don't like redistribution of wealth is a socialist statement? I think you have your forms of government mixed up son.


by Plainsman » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:44 am 
I don't like redistribution of wealth *when I get nothing out of it.* I don't care if it only cost me a penny

palsinamn you convieniently seem to overlook a portion of your statement, I enlarged it for you. :wink:

*Bruce all that is asked is if over the years you have found time to "research" and the numerous times you have taken it upon yourself to have "serious" discussions about what you beleive are the negatives of agriculture, why not take the time to find out about the positives of agriculture and have a "serious" discussion about them as well?*

'Perhaps this "fair and balanced" approach is indeed simply to "radical an idea. Indeed it is likely more effective to hammer on the negatives in the manner done on this site, than to even acknowledge the positives to implement change. :roll:

Bruce you can not deny I have given you one example after another regarding these positive practices and the orgs and individuals who are engaging in them since I have came in this site have I not???

BOTH in PM's as well as open threads, complete with links to the stories and people and practices right?

You have been given a "reason" to have a "serious" discussion about positive things in agriculture time and again.

*So can you point to one instance where you have taken this "reason" and opportunity and information and begin a "serious" discusssion about these innovative positive practices, people and orgs? 
*
One single thread of positive dialogue about the innovative conservation based practices many in agriculture are employing?

Call me all the names you wish, it matters little.

What does matter is this site simply can not provide one positive thread discussing agricultual practices that benefit production ag, wildlife and sportsmen.

It contains numerous ones going back years that are negative of agriculture, agriculture orgs and agriculture producers, and yeta small handful of the most vocal people involved in these threadds time and time again try to hide behind their claims of "supporting " agriculture.

People simply aren;t that "supid".

So show one single thread discussing the positive practicves in agriculture and the people and orgs creating and implementing them from this site.

One single thread.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> shaug, you know years ago the Wildlife Federation was a good group, but looking at their home page they appear to be slipping politically left. I agree with you about the United Sportsmen. I like that group. I think my membership is up to date but I better check. I use the shooting range here at Jamestown and it's maintained by United Sportsmen. Everyone uses it, but I bet not ten percent pay dues to the organization that maintains it. It takes more time to pick up the old TV and computer screens than it does to put up new target backs.
> 
> I'll tell you what shaug you watch the Wildlife Federation and tell me about them,* and I'll watch the NDFB and let you know where they screw up --------- deal*????????? :wink: Anyway, as much as I throw NDFB stupidity in your face I'll also take the opportunity to say I hope all is going well and best of luck this growing season. I suppose calving is over, but hope they all make it through the year.


plainsman just as shaug brought forth an acknowledgement of a sportsmens org that is doing positive things perhaps you could also take the time to "watch" one of the several ag orgs that are doing positive things and comment on them from time to time. At least then when asked, you would have ONE single thread to show that is of a positive nature regarding agriculture from your site. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> I don't like redistribution of wealth when I get nothing out of it. I don't care if it only cost me a penny





> palsinamn you convieniently seem to overlook a portion of your statement, I enlarged it for you.


gst, if I get something out of it then it isn't simply redistribution of wealth. I guess with the first part of my statement about redistribution of wealth it was redundant to say "when I get nothing out of it".

As for the positive thread stop begging for a butt kissing and do something. Or if your unable ask a friend. You must know someone who could represent agriculture without causing resentment in others.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I'll tell you what shaug you watch the Wildlife Federation and tell me about them, and I'll watch the NDFB and let you know where they screw up --------- deal?????????


No deal. When you say you will watch NDFB and let me know when they screw up that always leads to your bombastic statements. For instance, Farm Bureau wants to kipe money from NDGF to repair roads. Here is the story; at the Future of Hunting Conference a guy actually brought that up. (I thought of you Bruce) Terry Stienwand addressed it saying in so many words that will never happen. Bruce, you can double check or verify what I say by contacting your old co-worker David Brandt who was there. Farm Bureau had two lobbyists there and they didn't say a word to encourage that individual. I know them well and asked them after the meeting if the guy who brought up road repair with G/F funds was a member of Farm Bureau. They said they never saw him before and that road repair issue is a rather non issue.

It is a simple resolution wanted by a handful of people. Not the majority. So then swift, bad dog or whoever goes to the Farm Bureau resolutions page looking for some dirt. That is what surfaced and you have been trying to wield it like a club. It's a non-issue. A non screw up.

So, you may ask, what was Farm Bureau, Stockmens, Farmers Union doing at the Future of Hunting Conferance? Well.....there is expertise and input that comes into play at all levels.

Right now Conrad, Hoeven, Berg, Baucus, Goerhring are working on a RLAP Farm Bill. Revenue Loss Assistance and Crop Insurance Enhancement Act. Greg Link from ND Game and Fish is also involved. The old farm bill is going to take over $23 billion in cuts. Maybe America is looking at the Revenue Loss Assistance and Crop Insurance Enhancement Act as taking out an insurance policy? However Bruce, when the smoke is clear and the ink is dry, I really don't want to hear how Big AG screwed over the sportsmen and conservation. Greg Link from the NDG/F and other conservation experts were there.


----------



## Plainsman

> It is a simple resolution wanted by a handful of people. Not the majority. So then swift, bad dog or whoever goes to the Farm Bureau resolutions page looking for some dirt. That is what surfaced and you have been trying to wield it like a club. It's a non-issue. A non screw up.


How small of a group is this handful you speak of. If it's only a dozen people then your right it's a non issue. If it's a couple of hundred --- well it may or may not be an issue. Since it's in the resolutions it's an issue small or large. Is there anyway for the NDFB to rid themselves of this black eye? It would be good to see that removed. I know if any wildlife agency, any government agency screws up these guys would be all over them. Perhaps they need to remove things that shed a bad light on them.

I hope that if the new farm bill is less supportive that it also finds ways to untie your hands. That's why I have asked in the past what regulations you fellows would like to see removed. It's time for the farming community to start looking for that type of support. Giving the public good reasons for removing regulations would work a lot better than a few telling us were full of bull droppings when we complain about bad ag practices.


----------



## swift

So GST tells us the grassroots org NDFB votes on policy by members and majority vote become policy. And Shaug tells us a couple people in the minority can enact a policy without majority vote. I suspect GST is more correct in his assessment. Also to clear things up. I did not go looking for dirt. I was asked by GST to go there to see what the FB was about. Its then I found dirt, crap and inconsistacies within their own policies. The message anyone not involved in ag is not important but is a revenue source was loud and clear.

Shaug , youre simply tired of reading a bad policy your, "can do no wrong" org enacted pop up in text. So you try to placate it with a story. You sound like the guy with a dog saying he doesnt bite just before he tears into your leg.


----------



## Plainsman

Swift, thanks for the reminder.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, if I get something out of it then it isn't simply redistribution of wealth.[/quote]
> 
> 
> 
> I reallly don;t have to do much more than quote you guys.
> 
> So Bruce you have now stated as long as YOU get something out of it it is not "redistribution of wealth", but if a farmer gets something out of it it is????? :-? :roll: :eyeroll:
> 
> It seems you are really trying to excuse your socialist beleifs plainsman!
> 
> Any way lets just figure that the only reason there is no thread on this website discussing the positive practices in agriculture is simply because thepeople that post on this thread only wish to condemn and malign agriculture for what they beleive are the negatives.
> 
> Otherwise one would think there would be at least one single thread that is positive in nature about agriculture on this site.
> 
> Even just one single positive thread.
> 
> plainsamn think of it less as "butt kissing" and more along the lines of simply holding people accountable for the comments, claims and accusations they make. If that causes resentment in you perhaps you should simply stop and think abit before you spout off about agriculture on your "hunting and fishing" website.


----------



## gst

swift wrote:Sportsmansorgs organizations don't feel the needto to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else.[/quote]

gst wrote:So swift, could you then explain the purpose behind the HFH measure sponsored by the ND "sportsman" org, ND Hunters for Fair Chase???????

swift would you care to answer this question?


----------



## shaug

swift wrote,



> So GST tells us the grassroots org NDFB votes on policy by members and majority vote become policy. And Shaug tells us a couple people in the minority can enact a policy without majority vote.


It's not a policy.

Plainsman wrote,



> How small of a group is this handful you speak of. If it's only a dozen people then your right it's a non issue. If it's a couple of hundred --- well it may or may not be an issue. Since it's in the resolutions it's an issue small or large.


If a couple hundred hunters come out after a three soaker and start baja-ing through section lines turning them into a mess that could become an issue also. For the most part large or small we sportsmen have enough commonsense or should have.



> Is there anyway for the NDFB to rid themselves of this black eye? It would be good to see that removed.


Are you sure it is a black eye? If you want it removed I supposed it could easily be removed and then if there is a problem it can just as easily be re-enstated. Currently , it's not going anywhere. No traction.



> I hope that if the new farm bill is less supportive that it also finds ways to untie your hands. That's why I have asked in the past what regulations you fellows would like to see removed. It's time for the farming community to start looking for that type of support. Giving the public good reasons for removing regulations would work a lot better than a few telling us were full of bull droppings when we complain about bad ag practices.


I think there ought to be a law, for every new law that Congress creates they should have to remove one from the books. For every new regulation that is created an old one has to be removed. Mandatory. Wouldn't that be fun?


----------



## Plainsman

> So Bruce you have now stated as long as YOU get something out of it it is not "redistribution of wealth", but if a farmer gets something out of it it is?????


Oh, your getting something out of it alright. Many write off their expenses and pay no taxes, then get subsidies that are everyone else's money. Now if they drop property tax you will pay very little taxes of any kind. You don't pay taxes on farm related expenses now. You also don't pay taxes on your farm house. So that is redistribution of wealth. Since you twisted what I said, I figure I will give you something to smolder over. :wink:



> So swift, could you then explain the purpose behind the HFH measure sponsored by the ND "sportsman" org, ND Hunters for Fair Chase???????
> swift would you care to answer this question?


That's why I would rather it was a law controling hunters. Unless of course you don't believe in such civilized things. Speaking of civilized we now hunt for sport. We don't need to drive buffalo over a cliff, shoot passenger pigeons with four gauge, or use a spotlight. In this world of food stamps no one in this country should be starving as you sometimes claim. So today we hunt for sport. So we don't use four gauge, we don't spotlight, and I don't think we shoot penned animals.  Your only disagreement is because farmers were making money off guys who can't hunt. :wink: If farmers were not involved you wouldn't be able to care less. Remember pheasants were not included. :wink:

As for the number of NDFB members that want to rob the Game and Fish of license money I'll bet it's a lot more than the HSUS members in the state, but for some reason that bothers you. It bothers me too, because I'm not a hypocrite.



> I think there ought to be a law, for every new law that Congress creates they should have to remove one from the books. For every new regulation that is created an old one has to be removed. Mandatory. Wouldn't that be fun?


Sounds childishly simply to me. No idea what the future holds, but if they make a new law they remove an old one. How about we start with trespass laws first on the list for removal? :wink: On the surface it may be appealing to radicals if they don't think things through.. :wink: I know your not stupid, just frustrated.


----------



## shaug

Palinsman wrote,



> Remember pheasants were not included.


But they were included. It was Senate Bill 2254. It included all Non Traditional Livestock. On the day of the hearing Feb. 1st 2007 the bill was amended to not include anything other than farmed elk. Pheasants are non traditional livestock.



> So today we hunt for sport. So we don't use four gauge, we don't spotlight, and I don't think we shoot penned animals.


Yes we do shoot penned raised animals such as pheasant and elk. It is the law.


----------



## Plainsman

> Yes we do shoot penned raised animals such as pheasant and elk. It is the law.


Yes, I know that, and unfortunately that gives groups like HSUS all the excuse they need to point fingers at all of us. We have all been endangered for the dollar ------ again. That's an old but sad story throughout human history and I doubt it will stop in the future.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Yes, I know that, and unfortunately that gives groups like HSUS all the excuse they need to point fingers at all of us.


Mike McEnroe couldn't have said it any better. Just before he partnered with them and accepted the $150,000 to fund his HFI.


----------



## swift

Dwight the NDFB 2012 POLICY BOOK ID# 1419 says nothing about a resolution. Policy book ID#1419 believes NDGF LICENSE FUNDS shoul be used for township road repairs. Why would anyone not believe it to be a policy? You can claim what you wish. But resolutions dont belong in a policy book.

Keep grasping at straws. Man up and admit the NDFB got this one wrong.


----------



## gst

quote="swift"]Keep grasping at straws. Man up and admit the NDFB got this one wrong.[/quote]

*swift wrote:Sportsmansorgs organizations don't feel the needto to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else*.[/quote]

gst wrote:So swift, could you then explain the purpose behind the HFH measure sponsored by the ND "sportsman" org, ND Hunters for Fair Chase???????

swift, perhaps now would be a good time to "man up" and answer this question? :wink:

plainsman, I wonder if there really is a need to continue to point out your hypocritical stance of condemning others hand in the tax payers pockets when that is where your "wealth" was generated, others tax status when every dime you ever paid in taxes was first someone elses taxes paid you and your demanding it is only redistrivbution of wealth when YOU get nothing out of it.

As swift says perhaps it is time to "man up" and admit the bias you hold against agriculture when you condemn ag for these very things.

plainsamn wrote:
_Since you twisted what I said,_

would you please show where it is I have twisted what you said plainsamn, you stated it quite clearly.



Plainsman said:


> I don't like redistribution of wealth *when I get nothing out of it.* I don't care if it only cost me a penny





Plainsman said:


> gst,* if I get something out of it* then it isn't simply redistribution of wealth.[/quote]
> 
> Sounds like a socialist justification of their veiws on their receiving other peoples wealth. :wink:


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know that, and unfortunately that gives groups like HSUS all the excuse they need to point fingers at all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Mike McEnroe couldn't have said it any better. Just before he partnered with them and accepted the $150,000 to fund his HFI.
Click to expand...

Indeed shaug it is a bit curious that sportsmen on this site that like to condemn agriculture orgs seem to have no problem supporting a sportsmens org that elected a person who admitted holding hands with the nations largest and most succsseful antihunting org. as their president just because they felt " *the need to to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else*".

To me that would seem a bit more mportant to discuss on a "hunting and fishing website" than a policy suggesting a few dollars be used to repair road damages! :-?

Maybe we just missed that thread in amoungst all the ones bashing NDFB.  

Along with the thread were plainsamn identifies the Federal dollars from programs that "sportsmen are going to have to cut" in this "time of "extreme national debt" ! :wink:


----------



## shaug

swift wrote,



> Dwight the NDFB 2012 POLICY BOOK ID# 1419 says nothing about a resolution. Policy book ID#1419 believes NDGF LICENSE FUNDS shoul be used for township road repairs. Why would anyone not believe it to be a policy? You can claim what you wish. But resolutions dont belong in a policy book.
> 
> Keep grasping at straws. Man up and admit the NDFB got this one wrong.


Swift, call Terry Steinwand at the NDGF and he will tell he isn't worried about it because it has no traction. Next.
Who is Dwight?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> But resolutions dont belong in a policy book.


So swift, where do they belong?????

oops, perhaps you should answer this question first.

quote="swift"]Keep grasping at straws. Man up and admit the NDFB got this one wrong.[/quote]

swift wrote:*Sportsmansorgs organizations don't feel the needto to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else*.[/quote]

gst wrote:So swift, could you then explain the purpose behind the HFH measure sponsored by the ND "sportsman" org, ND Hunters for Fair Chase???????


----------



## shaug

GST said,



> Indeed shaug it is a bit curious that sportsmen on this site that like to condemn agriculture orgs seem to have no problem supporting a sportsmens org that elected a person who admitted holding hands with the nations largest and most succsseful antihunting org. as their president just because they felt " the need to to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else".


The ND Wildlife Federation has their annual meeting every January. In 2008 they elected David Alan Brandt as President. He used the federation as a vehicle to drive his and Mike McEnroes HFI. Now they vote in Mike McEnroe in 2012 so he can use the federation to drive his 5% oil revenue rip off. Last year or the year before a NDG/F guy from Devils Lake was president.

Maybe the NDWF should just be absorbed into the G/F or the USFWS. I mean, what is with all the duplicity?
She aint your grassroots sportsmens org.


----------



## swift

I will readily say I hold a bias against many policies of the Ndfb as you do the policies of the hsus. But I already made that statement once. As for the free thinking hard working ag producers across the country that live inspite of the elitist mouthpiecec like you Gst, I have only admiration. Give it up already you look like a fool always twisting and spinning and manipulating. For the last time I admire most ag producers as hard working caring members of their communities. Then their are those "radical advocates" that claim to be mainstream but are truly not. Much like the mainstream christians compared to the religious zealots like David Koresh.

The HFH group was not a sportsman org and they attacked a type of hunting, in their mind. Not an agriculture practice. Even you can take off the sunglasses and see that was the main arguement there. And once again sportsmen and women across the state had you back when they realized it was an assault on private property rights.


----------



## swift

So which policies should we worry about? Which should we believe? Should we believe the NDFB is opposed to all farm subsidies? Or should we believe their president that advocated for govt subsidies to have a "reasonable ceiling"? Is the policy stating farmers and ranchers should receive transferrable deer tags for depredation. Tags the farmers and ranchers are given to hand out to hunters they choose. Like the "depredation" elk hunt that turned into a private landowner trophy hunt. Or the opposition to Measure 2 but the policy that upholds farmsteads being exempt from property taxes? Which are we suppose to believe? The NDFB needs to clean up their act. They need to extend a hand to those that feed them instead of biting the hand that feeds them. You guys should realize as farms get bigger votes get less. When the disconnect from Fargo, Bismarck and Grand forks and the few ag producers left gets wide enough the me mentality the NDFB has pushed will swing the other way and the producers will not have the support they have in the past.


----------



## gst

swift wrote:*Sportsmansorgs organizations don't feel the needto to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else*.

swift you made a very specific statement here that is simply not ture.

Every group looks to "dictate" their ideas onto others when they move forward to further their positions, agendas, policies. resolutions, "opinions" whatever you wish to call them.

Sportsmen groups do it just as much as agricultural groups do it. To claim otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

Perhaps you should look to see where the raiding of captive cervids is defned and regulated under within the NDCC before you claim this would not have affected "agriculture" here in ND.

The point you seem to be missing here is, that no one has a problem with anyone taking a personal issue with a particular organization. Simply that when doing so one presents facts rather than claims such as you made concerning PAFB in an attempt to smear NDFB. :wink:

On a side note, swift it seems you are still having a difficulty accepting the premise that an agriculture based org will create and advocate policy that is benficial to agriculture . 

If you simply take a moment it is not that hard of a concept to understand.

Perhaps you just can not grasp how an agriculture organization will not put YOUR hunting opportunities and recreational wants at the forefront of their policy making desicions. :-? :roll:

Also what is being pointed out is that if posters on a site like this that we see in the "hot topics" forum are going to try and claim to "support" agriculture, it would be a little less disingenuous if they could at least point out on thread discussing the positives in agriculture amoungst the numerous threads bashing agriculture they have created.

Just one single thread.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, I wonder if there really is a need to continue to point out your hypocritical stance of condemning others hand in the tax payers pockets when that is where your "wealth" was generated, others tax status when every dime you ever paid in taxes was first someone elses taxes paid you and your demanding it is only redistrivbution of wealth when YOU get nothing out of it.


I see your still struggling with the difference between salary and handout. Are you struggling with the concept, or is it tough to face honest reality?

You are not the face of agriculture as you claimed in the past. So now you can go edit that.


----------



## gst

plainsman, no I do understand the difference between a salary and a subsidy quite clearly. As a matter of fact it is a clearly as I understand the hypocrasy behind you of all people making the "redistribution of wealth" comments you have now gone on record as stateing. :roll:



Plainsman said:


> You are not the face of agriculture as you claimed in the past. So now you can go edit that.


Please show where I have ever stated that or that by simply holding people accountable on a small outdoor site for their comments they make regading agriculture that I am a swift states a" mouth piece" for agriculture?

plaisnamn, just because you make up things that you claim I said does not mean that they were actually said and edited!!!!! :wink:

So please show where I said this or where you claim it was "edited" from.

Swift 


swift said:


> As for the free thinking hard working ag producers across the country that live inspite of the elitist mouthpiecec like you Gst,


Swift, 
Perhaps here is something you have not stopped to consider. That some in agriculture may veiw a person that* demands *agriculture orgs capitulate to creating the policies THEY beleive are best suited to provide THEM a better recreational opportunity, rather than creating policy designed to protect and enhance the opportuinities that their agriculture producer members determine are best for their livihoods is an arrogant elitist attitude and the people that make these demands on a wbsite such as this are nothing more than a "elitist mouthpeice" that beleive what affects them should take priority over producers beleifs. 

I know you will likely not stop to consider this as you seem to continnue to have a problem understanding why an ag org would advocate for issues their producer members think important rather than what YOU deem important for bettering your recreational pursuits, but then perhaps that sheds a little light onto just where you are coming from.

Anyway, it is ironic you spend so much time bashing an org you beleive does not improve your recreational endeavors, yet have failed to acknowledge any of the ones that do improve it thru the innovative practices and ideologes they create and implement.

Or perhaps a thread discussing these ag orgs and the practices they implement actually does exist on tis site and no one has bothered to simply post one single example of a thread that is positive regarding agriculture from this site. :-?

Just one simple little positive thread.

Just one.

plaisnamn, swift, just one example of a thread discussing these positive ideologies in agriculture??????

Can you provide just one single example?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I see your still struggling with the difference between salary and handout. Are you struggling with the concept, or is it tough to face honest reality?


plaisnamn I see you are still struggling with comprehending this nations food security policies.

Is it still your claim that the American people receive "no benefit" from these food security policies this govt maintained for decades?


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> So which policies should we worry about? Which should we believe? Should we believe the NDFB is opposed to all farm subsidies? Or should we believe their president that advocated for govt subsidies to have a "reasonable ceiling"? Is the policy stating farmers and ranchers should receive transferrable deer tags for depredation. Tags the farmers and ranchers are given to hand out to hunters they choose. Like the "depredation" elk hunt that turned into a private landowner trophy hunt. Or the opposition to Measure 2 but the policy that upholds farmsteads being exempt from property taxes? Which are we suppose to believe? The NDFB needs to clean up their act. They need to extend a hand to those that feed them instead of biting the hand that feeds them. You guys should realize as farms get bigger votes get less. When the disconnect from Fargo, Bismarck and Grand forks and the few ag producers left gets wide enough the me mentality the NDFB has pushed will swing the other way and the producers will not have the support they have in the past.


I could not agree more swift. I think you and I can do more for the future of farmers than those who claim to be the face of agriculture. Those that come to a table with an open mind will do better than (subsidies) comes strings. If I go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac they don't give me a fish sandwich. If farmers get money from the taxpayer the taxpayer has a right to attach strings.

gst, ya ya heard it all before. Same old whine.


----------



## shaug

swift wrote,



> Sportsmansorgs organizations don't feel the needto to dictate they're ideas on to everybody else.[/





> The HFH group was not a sportsman org and they attacked a type of hunting, in their mind. Not an agriculture practice. Even you can take off the sunglasses and see that was the main arguement there. And once again sportsmen and women across the state had you back when they realized it was an assault on private property rights.


It wasn't a sportsmens group??? Eleven of the sponsors came from nodak. Seven more of the twenty-five needed were fed/gov.

But then again swift you are correct. Two orgs endorsed the HFI. The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the ND Wildlife Federation, which are controlled opposition groups. Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug do you draw the line at any kind of farming? gst will wet his pants if I ask do you oppose the growing of poppies? :wink: That's the way I see high fence shooting. However, I differ in my view of how to control that. If I were to word an initiative it would say no one may hunt animals in a situation where they can not escape without a handicap permit. You see the NDFB proposed amendment can do nothing to stop that even if it passes.

Your right it was a sportsman's group and they should not have tried to control uncontrollable landowners. Where do their rights end? I'll bet they end fast with poppies. So what's sacred about high fence? Your rights will always have some controls. As soon as your spray comes across your boarder your in violation of the rights of others. As a matter of fact from a stricktly legal sense when you drain a wetland and it comes across your ownership line you are getting into others rights. I have a right not to flood, but legally you have no right to flood me. This will eventually come to a head at Devils Lake. There is nothing in the constitution that gives farmers at Starkweather the right to flood people in Devils Lake, Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, etc. A handful of people causing millions in damage to thousand of others.

I know they need to make a living, but not at the expense of others. Especially when they make a couple of thousand more, but cause a million dollars damage. I say pay them to hold the water. If they don't like it then they can hold it by court order for free. That is one of the things that has this nation in an economical mess. You could take the money spent on the dike at Devils Lake and pay those farmers $100/acre every year fo many years. I see it like the depression years. If a drought got them they folded like any other business would. If a flood gets them they should fold just like any other business. One fellow on here who will remain unnamed once posted he didn't care about people in Fargo dumb enough to build in a flood plain. So tell me why the people in Fargo should care about the farmers? I know they should, but not following that guys train of thought.

If you guys are the face of agriculture this nation is indeed a welfare state.


----------



## swift

> It wasn't a sportsmens group??? Eleven of the sponsors came from nodak. Seven more of the twenty-five needed were fed/gov.


To put it into terms you can understand. Hunters against high fence was no more a sportsmens organization than the Posse Comatatious was an ag organization. The posse was made up of farmers and ranchers as was Kasemans group made up of hunters. Neither one were representatives of their associated hobbies or occupations.

Can you now stop trying to argue guilt by association? And admit sportsman of the state have had Ag producers backs for centuries. But it was the ag org FB that came up with the swampbusters boycott wasn't it. Didn't the NDFB provide no hunting due to swampbuster act signs in the 80's? They cast the first stone to disrupt the homeostasis that was hunter and farmer relations. Admit it or not your Group is working to destroy farmer/hunter relations there by increasing pay to hunt and profit margins for the producers. Thankfully the mainstream ag producers do not live for the cash cow that is hunters.


----------



## Plainsman

> Admit it or not your Group is working to destroy farmer/hunter relations there by increasing pay to hunt and profit margins for the producers. Thankfully the mainstream ag producers do not live for the cash cow that is hunters.


Actually that was one of the reasons I supported the HFI. That and not sporting, disease, and the comercilization of wildlife. I supported it the first year for many reasons. Only one reason was from a sporting point of view and that was because they were fenced in. The disease issue was simply because I am concerned about our native herds. I would guess 90% of those in the High Fence industry are also concerned, but it's the 10% that I worry about. The kind that would sneak a diseased animal out of state. From my point of view that effort was a success even if it lost at the voting booth. It was a success because that bad 10% now know they are being watched, and they are being watched by their own more closely than they were before the HFI. Mission accomplished.

If gst likes to go back six and seven years you will find my big concern is hunter and landowner relations. I don't know how many times I have said if hunters pay for hunting then where does that leave the relationship. I think it leaves it strictly business.  So if there are ten parks in town to take your kids and the two that charge go broke who cares.

If you want to see what is damaging farmer pubic relations shaug and gst go look in a mirror.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I could not agree more swift. I think you and I can do more for the future of farmers than those who claim to be the face of agriculture.


 

:rollin:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Your right it was a sportsman's group and they should not have tried to control uncontrollable landowners. Where do their rights end? I'll bet they end fast with poppies.





swift said:


> To put it into terms you can understand. Hunters against high fence was no more a sportsmens organization than the Posse Comatatious was an ag organization.


So we have plainsamn claiming NDH for FC WAS a sportsmens group and we have swift claiming NDH for FC wasn;t a sportsmens group???? 

I think I'll just set this one out and let you guys decide! :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right it was a sportsman's group and they should not have tried to control uncontrollable landowners. Where do their rights end? I'll bet they end fast with poppies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> To put it into terms you can understand. Hunters against high fence was no more a sportsmens organization than the Posse Comatatious was an ag organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we have plainsamn claiming NDH for FC WAS a sportsmens group and we have swift claiming NDH for FC wasn;t a sportsmens group????
> 
> I think I'll just set this one out and let you guys decide! :wink:
Click to expand...

Then we have gabe thompson sportsman bashing worse than the peta director.


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> It wasn't a sportsmens group??? Eleven of the sponsors came from nodak. Seven more of the twenty-five needed were fed/gov.But then again swift you are correct. Two orgs endorsed the HFI. The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the ND Wildlife Federation, which are controlled opposition groups. Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.


Shaug, do you suppose these two will get their act straight as to wether the two orgs you mention are sportsmen orgs? :-?

I wonder if plainsamn appreciates swift claiming he is not a "sportsman"!!!!


----------



## leadfed

:rollin:


----------



## gst

led could you please post an example of where I have "bashed" sportsmen orgs in the manner that is readily done ag groups and producers on here?

You know the greedy, elitist ,lords of the land, rip, rape and run ect......comments so commonly bantered about by a small few on here?

I mean if we are going to accuse people of "bashing" something, lets at least set a standard we can measure off of okay?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Actually that was one of the reasons I supported the HFI. That and not sporting, disease, and the comercilization of wildlife. I supported it the first year for many reasons. Only one reason was from a sporting point of view and that was because they were fenced in


Supported it?????

more like.........

Sponsored it!!!!!!



swift said:


> _*To put it into terms you can understand. Hunters against high fence was no more a sportsmens organization than the Posse Comatatious was an ag organization. The posse was made up of farmers and ranchers as was Kasemans group made up of hunters.* *Neither one were representatives of their associated hobbies or occupations*_*.[/*quote]
> 
> Ouch!
> 
> So it would appear that even swift draws the line at comparing NDFB to the Posse Comitatus!!!!
> 
> I wonder how Bruce likes the comparison to Gordon Kahl now that the shoe is on theother foot?? :wink:


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Thankfully the mainstream ag producers do not live for the cash cow that is hunters.


And thankfully the mainstream sportsmen does not bother with the kind of rhetoric seen on this "hunting and fishing site" regarding agriculture. :wink:

One would think that given this is a "hunting and fishing" site if the veiws held by the small gaggle of people on here insinuating they represent sportsmens ideologies were actually the veiws of most sportsmen there would be more support on these issues other than the same few ???? 

I mean it is not like you are posting on an ag website where other ag producers are waiting to make juvenile childish personal comments about people they have never met!  :-? !


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> led could you please post an example of where I have "bashed" sportsmen orgs in the manner that is readily done ag groups and producers on here?
> 
> You know the greedy, elitist ,lords of the land, rip, rape and run ect......comments so commonly bantered about by a small few on here?
> 
> I mean if we are going to accuse people of "bashing" something, lets at least set a standard we can measure off of okay?


By you referring to me as an ag-basher that is bashing a sportsman.


----------



## eliptiabeht

How old are you guys?
:-?


----------



## gst

Old enough to know when people simply do not wish to be honest in the reasons they post only what they perceive to be negatives relating to agriculture on this "hunting and fishing" website.

If one is truly interested in positively influencing those in agriculture to embrace more conservation orrientated ideologies posting threads titled like the following and commenting in the manner some do on this site, probably is not the best way to do it.

*@&$%# farmers*

But hey that might just be another of those "radical" ideas.

One single positive thread as a part of a "serious" discussion about innovativeconservation based ag practices.

Can anyone show one from this site?

Just one single thread?


----------



## Plainsman

None of us started the thread you like to refer to. Did one of your friends start it?


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> *led could you please post an example *of where I have "bashed" sportsmen orgs in the manner that is readily done ag groups and producers on here?
> 
> You know the greedy, elitist ,lords of the land, rip, rape and run ect......comments so commonly bantered about by a small few on here?
> 
> I mean if we are going to accuse people of "bashing" something, lets at least set a standard we can measure off of okay?
> 
> 
> 
> By you referring to me as an ag-basher that is bashing a sportsman.
Click to expand...

led please note the emboldened section of the above statement. Could you please post the actual quote and thread it is from?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> None of us started the thread you like to refer to. Did one of your friends start it?


Plainsamn as a "super moderator on this site, do you have the ability to set the tone that you wish this site to be???


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of us started the thread you like to refer to. Did one of your friends start it?
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsamn as a "super moderator on this site, do you have the ability to set the tone that you wish this site to be???
Click to expand...

No. What others say is beyond my control. So the tone goes in a dozen different directions.

What is it you see yourself accomplishing gst? We carry on for pages yet you have changed no minds. Then you resort to whining about me again. What's that going to accomplish? I'm not going to change my mind because you kick up dust gst. That's just a childish bully. Sorry, not going to bite. Do we really need another ten pages going no where. Can you simply accept we don't agree with you. That's just the way it is and evidently it's going to stay that way. As a matter of fact I am more confident in my opinion as we speak.

I still wonder if you didn't have a buddy start that bad titled thread about farmers for the sympathy.


----------



## swift

GST I'm not suprised you don't understand how Plainsman and I can disagree on something. You see we both have our own ideas and opinions and don't just regurgitate what the leaders of an org tell us. I maintain the HFI group was no more a sportsman org than the Posse was an ag org. First of all the group that brought the HFI on did nothing else. They have not done conservation work, they ceased to exist when the election was over. It was a political action committee alone. Far from a Sportsmen org. Remember, I opposed the HFI and Plainsman didn't. Of course we may disagree. But we do it without the twist and spin you always have. We can disagree respectfully. You cannot show respect for anyone that disagrees with you. Pretty childish if you ask me.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of us started the thread you like to refer to. Did one of your friends start it?
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsamn as a "super moderator on this site, do you have the ability to set the tone that you wish this site to be???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. What others say is beyond my control. So the tone goes in a dozen different directions.
> 
> What is it you see yourself accomplishing gst? We carry on for pages yet you have changed no minds. Then you resort to whining about me again. What's that going to accomplish? I'm not going to change my mind because you kick up dust gst. That's just a childish bully. Sorry, not going to bite. Do we really need another ten pages going no where. Can you simply accept we don't agree with you. That's just the way it is and evidently it's going to stay that way. As a matter of fact I am more confident in my opinion as we speak.
> 
> I still wonder if you didn't have a buddy start that bad titled thread about farmers for the sympathy.
Click to expand...

  What????? As a super moderator you do not have the ability to lock a thread if you think the comments are inappropriate for tis site???

Can you not editother peoples posts to strike out comments or thread titles that are offensive in nature?

Can you not simply come into a thread and suggest that the person that started it change the title?

Plainsamn you simply do not do these things in this instance because you do not want to.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79433

So plainsamn, is everything a conspiracy for you??? :roll:

Plaisnamn, I do not expect to change your mind, simply allow your own words to show what is the driving factor behind the discussions relating to agriculture on your "hunitng and fihing" site. 
Plainsman wrote:

_*Post something positive? I normally don't pay any attention until the do something stupid.* You want something positive about Winchester? I can do that. You want something positive about Mathews bows? I can do that. You want something positive about Lund boats? I can do that. You want something positive about Berger bullets? I can do that. I don't pay much attention to agriculture until someone does something stupid, or I hear one that complains who's wife has a new Cadillac every other year (yup work with him) or they drain on a neighbor etc.* If you expect me to spend my time looking for something positive you have to be playing with half a deck*. It's not up to me to support you without reason. Give me a reason or stop crying._

plainsamn it is clear by your own admission you do not concern yourself with the ag groups and individuals that create and implement innovative conservation bvased production practices.

A number of them have been provided to you on this site both in PM's and in threads complete with links.

And what do you choose to focas on???

Well your own words above sum it up pretty well.

And as the "super moderator" on this site you in fact can and do set the tone of these "discussions" . *It is clear what you wish them to be. *

Perhaps 5 years from now someone else in agriculture will be pointing out the "venom" that moderators on this site use in these ag based threads just as it was 5 years past and is obvious yet today.

Indeed palsinamn you have not and will not change your mind or attitude and so it will continue.

One single thread about positive practices in agriculture?


----------



## gst

swift said:


> GST I'm not suprised you don't understand how Plainsman and I can disagree on something. You see we both have our own ideas and opinions and don't just regurgitate what the leaders of an org tell us. I maintain the HFI group was no more a sportsman org than the Posse was an ag org. First of all the group that brought the HFI on did nothing else. They have not done conservation work, they ceased to exist when the election was over. It was a political action committee alone. Far from a Sportsmen org. Remember, I opposed the HFI and Plainsman didn't. Of course we may disagree. But we do it without the twist and spin you always have. We can disagree respectfully. You cannot show respect for anyone that disagrees with you. Pretty childish if you ask me.


swift I can easily understand how you and plainsamn can disagree, you are both rather disagreeable types!! :wink:

I was merely curious how plaisnamn would react to your claim he is no sportsman for sponsoring the HFH initiated measure and comparing him to Gordon Kahl.

 

Swift disagree in a respectable manner and then come preach to me.

swift over on FBO have I ever "disagreed" with allen? 8) Yet he seems interested in actually sitting down and having a beer sometime up here in Antler.

I have even extended an offer to you in the past to come up and have a beer and actually meet the person you seem to love to hate. Swift the offer still stands. Perhaps there would be some value in actually meeting a person firsthand and seeing if they have the horns and tail you seem to wish others to think I have. :wink:

But then again perhaps you are like plainsman and simply do not wish to take the time or put forth the effort to learn anything positive!!!  :wink:


----------



## swift

gst said:


> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> GST I'm not suprised you don't understand how Plainsman and I can disagree on something. You see we both have our own ideas and opinions and don't just regurgitate what the leaders of an org tell us. I maintain the HFI group was no more a sportsman org than the Posse was an ag org. First of all the group that brought the HFI on did nothing else. They have not done conservation work, they ceased to exist when the election was over. It was a political action committee alone. Far from a Sportsmen org. Remember, I opposed the HFI and Plainsman didn't. Of course we may disagree. But we do it without the twist and spin you always have. We can disagree respectfully. You cannot show respect for anyone that disagrees with you. Pretty childish if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> swift I can easily understand how you and plainsamn can disagree, you are both rather disagreeable types!! :wink:
> 
> I was merely curious how plaisnamn would react to your claim he is no sportsman for sponsoring the HFH initiated measure and comparing him to Gordon Kahl.
Click to expand...

So the smiley faces do they mean that was a joke? Or was it another twist of words. Show me where I stated Plainsman is not a sportsman. Then where I compared him or anyone else to Gordon Kahl. You really are getting more and more pathetic with your remarks.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right it was a sportsman's group and they should not have tried to control uncontrollable landowners. Where do their rights end? I'll bet they end fast with poppies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> To put it into terms you can understand. Hunters against high fence was no more a sportsmens organization than the Posse Comatatious was an ag organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So we have plainsamn claiming NDH for FC WAS a sportsmens group and we have swift claiming NDH for FC wasn;t a sportsmens group????
> 
> I think I'll just set this one out and let you guys decide! :wink:
Click to expand...

 So swift were the sponsors of the hfh measure that created NDFH for FC sportsmen or not? If they were how can this not be a sportsmens group as you claim it was not? 

I mean if the org was NOT a sportsmens org, how can the members who claimed to represent thousands of sportsmen be sportsmen??

It isn;t what it is, but what it is it isn;t?????? 

Hey I'm just trying to keep your guys's "opinions"/claims/ accusations/insinuations straight, it's getting harder by the post!!!


----------



## swift

> So swift were the sponsors of the hfh measure that created NDFH for FC sportsmen or not? If they were how can this not be a sportsmens group as you claim it was not?


Was the Posse lead by Gordon Kahl an Ag org.? The members were farmers and ranchers so using your twisted logic they must have been. You may wish that to be the truth, but we all know the Posse was not an ag org representing everyday ag producers.

Are you dizzy yet GST? Keep spinning your true colors are showing.


----------



## gst

swift, not dizzy, merely curious to see what plainsmans response is to your beleif the group he was a part of that claimed to represent thousands of sportsmen was not actually a sportsmens org? 

If it was not, what was it?

Swift are the NWF and the Wildlife Society sportsmens orgs?


----------



## Plainsman

> Show me where I stated Plainsman is not a sportsman.


You didn't swift gst is simply like a child trying to drive a wedge between parents so they can have another cookie.

Although most of the people in the HFI were sportsmen I would say the organization wasn't formed as a sportsman's group. I guess that means you could look at it either way. From a political standpoint, or front the standpoint of individuals within the organizations. Anyway, that's over, but it keeps coming up because it's a useful boogie man. Like I told gst before I wish it was a hunting regulation much like the crossbow is today. I wish it said no one can shoot a captive animal without a disability permit. The NDFB constitutional amendment couldn't stop that.

gst you have to be the biggest hypocrite I have ever met. :wink: You about wet your pants when you found out I could edit posts when I did one accidentally and posted that I had. You and shaug had your big conspiracy theory all about that. Now you want me to edit things you don't like. First you demand that I post a thread kissing up to farmers, now I suppose you will demand I edit things you don't like. I'll give you three guesses what you can do.



> Swift are the NWF and the Wildlife Society sportsmens orgs?


I would like to also answer that. The Wildlife Federation is a sportsmen's group while you must be a professional to belong the the Wildlife Society. The Wildlife Society is in no way a sportsman's group. I will say that the Wildlife Federation has become more politically active than when they started as a grass roots organization.


----------



## gst

Re: ND Farmers Union supports caps on payments.

 by Plainsman » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:32 am 

_Although most of the people in the HFI were sportsmen I would say the organization wasn't formed as a sportsman's group._

Re: ND Farmers Union supports caps on payments.

 by Plainsman » Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:26 pm .

_Your right it was a sportsman's group and they should not have tried to control uncontrollable landowners. Where do their rights end? I'll bet they end fast with poppies. So what's sacred about high fence_

Was, wasn't, is. isn't?????? 

plainsamn it appears you will say pretty much anything! :-?

So which was it Bruce, was NDH for FC a sportsmens org or not? :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You about wet your pants when you found out I could edit posts *when I did one accidentally* and posted that I had.


*"ACCIDENTALY*" EDITED SOMEONE ELSES POST THEY MADE????????/ 

:eyeroll:

Exactly what prcess did you have to go thru in "accidently" editing someone elses post Bruce??? :roll:

What is being suggested plainsman is as a super moderator you have the ability to set the tone of the posts made on this site regarding not only agriculture but every other discussion.

What is rather obvious in the case of threads concerning agriculture you simply allow rhetoric, language and posts to go on that serve your ideologies.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40782

It has been going on long before shaug and I ever got on this site and as long as you continue as "super moderator" it will continune.

Yet once again plainsamn, "please show me" where I have ever demanded a thread "kissing up" to farmers be posted????

For once, actuallly post the quote to back up your claims plainsamn.

What has been repeatedly suggested that if you wish this site to have a reputation other than what it does a thread now and then discussing in a "serious" manner some positive innovative agriculture practices along with the orgs and individuals creating and using them be intermingled amoungst the numerous threads slamming agriculture, producers and producer orgs.

At least plaisnamn when someone asked if their exists one single thread on this site discussing these positive aspects of agriculture you could at least post one in response!

Have you had a chance to find one that exists on here plaisnamn?

One single thread about positive practices in agriculture?

One single thread?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Like I told gst before I wish it was a hunting regulation much like the crossbow is today. I wish it said no one can shoot a captive animal without a disability permit.


And like you were told repeatedly Bruce, if you did not like the way it was worded, you should not have signed on as a sponsor.

Make all the excuses you wish plainsamn your statements you made during the 4 years this was attempted supporting it belies what you claim now.


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman wrote:


> Although most of the people in the HFI were sportsmen I would say the organization wasn't formed as a sportsman's group. I guess that means you could look at it either way.


In the next post gt asks:


> Was, wasn't, is. isn't??????


Nice dishonest spin gst.



> Exactly what prcess did you have to go thru in "accidently" editing someone elses post Bruce???


Very easy. When you look in the upper right hand of a persons post what do you see? You see quote. Do you know what I see? I see a group of things and close to quote is edit. If I move up and click carelessly I get edit I get a window that looks just like a quote, but is actually edit. I made a complete post at the bottom of shaugs original post. So I made a remark on Shaugs, then copy and pasted mine into a new post with further explanation. Of course I don't owe you an explanation at all. I will no longer give you an explanation since you turn that into trying to make me look dishonest. I think that's very offensive if not dishonest gst.

I have a question to ask: Why does your language profile come up with at least two different personalities?


----------



## Plainsman

I have seriously considered some requests as of late. When things go on for ten pages with no hope of convincing others it often turns personal. Sometimes people who can't get their way then try to destroy the sandbox. I also don't like posts that start with a persons name and simply attack. So to start fresh and perhaps on another subject I will lock this thread. We no longer talk about the FU proposal and are going nowhere but down.


----------

