# If #5 Fails



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

From the horses mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_LJgyoX ... e=youtu.be


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Who bought him off and for how much. Carlson is a sick puppy if he wants to give oil back more than measure five cost. Let me guess , I will bet he is against measure 5. What a fool. I don't ever want to hear another money worshiper say we can not afford measure 5.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I sure hope measure 5 fails. The pro group has not made a clear case for saying yes.

scams come to where the money is.

Who what when and where

Make your case.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

So far what I know as fact. My relative who moved to Oklahoma is getting vote yes on measure 5 from the democrats. So the 5% looks like it is for lobbying only you know scam.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Only North Dakota people vote on it. Does your relative somehow still have 701 prefix?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

People said:


> I sure hope measure 5 fails. The pro group has not made a clear case for saying yes.
> 
> scams come to where the money is.
> 
> ...


You are close to the NDGF office. Swing by and ask about the condition of habitat and wildlife numbers in ND if you haven't seen it for yourself.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Out-of-state Measure 5 supporters have spent more than $5 million
North Dakotans contribute less than 2 percent of total campaign

According to reports filed with the Secretary of State's office, out-of-state supporters of Measure 5 have contributed almost 99 percent of the funding for the campaign supporting the measure. In all, out-of-state contributions are $4.96 million.

"The funding behind the 'yes' campaign tells you exactly who Measure 5 is designed to benefit," said Jon Godfread, chairman of North Dakotans for Common Sense Conservation (NDCSC). NDCSC is a broad-based coalition of nearly 60 organizations that announced their opposition to Measure 5 back in March. "No matter how hard they try to paint this measure as driven by North Dakotans, the money doesn't lie."

Measure 5 is being promoted by national out-of-state environmental groups, including Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Pheasants Forever, and the Audobon Society, among others.

"We knew from the start of this campaign that the out-of-state groups driving Measure 5 were going to dump millions into this, but $5 million is more than even our high estimates," Godfread said. "It's clear that big investors are counting on a major return on their investment if Measure 5 passes."

Measure 5, a constitutional amendment that would funnel five percent of North Dakota's oil and gas extraction tax revenue into a conservation fund, would receive almost $5 billion over the next 25 years. That's $150 million every year, or about $3 million per week.

The main backer of Measure 5 is Ducks Unlimited, a Tennessee-based environmental group with 592,388 members nationwide. Only 7,400 DU members (about 1 percent) live in North Dakota. To date, Ducks Unlimited has spent $2.5 million on the Measure 5 campaign-more than three times what the North Dakota chapter raised last year, according to their 2013 Annual Report. Another major supporter is The Nature Conservancy ($1.73 million in contributions), based out of Arlington, Va. An additional $745,000 came from other out-of-state groups and environmentalists.

After a recent poll showing Measure 5 is losing support, Ducks Unlimited launched a smear campaign against Measure 5's opponents, claiming they are "surrogates" for the American Petroleum Institute (API). Ducks Unlimited has also attacked API for being an out-of-state group. The truth is that North Dakotans have spent more than $1.8 million fighting against the out-of-state groups behind Measure 5.

"This smear campaign is a petty attempt by these out-of-state groups to distract voters from the serious flaws with Measure 5. They are pretending that North Dakotans support this measure, but nothing could be further from the truth," Godfread said. "Measure 5 is really about North Dakotans standing against out-of-state special interests that are looking to us for a big payday."

The opposition to Measure 5 includes nearly 60 North Dakota organizations and associations, as well as more than 100 legislators, 31 North Dakota mayors, and all 52 counties and 300 cities.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

There are a couple of minor problems with the previous post. The claims that the counties and 300 cities are against measure 5 are barely true and not true in our county or city. I checked with my own county including all the minutes of the county commissioners meetings as well as contacting all county commissioners and it has never been discussed at meetings or voted upon and all the appropriate county officials were also contacted and none of them in their official capacity have ever taken a position on the issue. All of them said that as elected public officials, they could express their personal opinion but not make any pronouncement as representing their government. The North Dakota Association of Counties made that claim that all 53 (not 52) counties were against the measure and repeated attempts to determine why they made that public statement have been ignored. Second, neither have either my nearest town council or nearest large town council come out against it or voted on it. As to the mayor, the city council members I have approached have also taken the position that it should have been clear that the mayor was expressing her own opinion and it most definitely was not the position of the city (for the same reasons given by the county elected officials). I would advise those interested individuals to contact their respective city and county officials to determine if the city or county officially oppose the measure or if they were stating their own opinion.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

They have not had a 701 area code for a few months . Granted what should an area code have to do with it? one would think you would filter your list by state at the very minimum.

The game and fish screwed deer hunting so bad they should be ashamed of their actions. Yes I have been all over and the habitat did not look bad on the land where the owners practice good animal husbandry.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

People said:


> They have not had a 701 area code for a few months . Granted what should an area code have to do with it? one would think you would filter your list by state at the very minimum.
> 
> The game and fish screwed deer hunting so bad they should be ashamed of their actions. Yes I have been all over and the habitat did not look bad on the land where the owners practice good animal husbandry.


I was asking because I can't understand why they would care what people out of state think. They can't vote.

As far as the Game and Fish and deer, do you remember all the landowner complaints about deer? My bet is someone forced the Game and Fish to give out to many tags. Of course they can't defend themselves or the same people who put pressure on them would be gunning for their jobs.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Yes I do. I also remember seeing herds of 100 plus deer on land that never gets hunted. The standard "I have ... coming to hunt...". no one ever hunts that land. This guy just ne of Elgin has a rep for not letting anyone on his land. From where I can hunt I spent first and second weekend watching and not one person hunted any of his land. This land owner is also the first to cry about the deer eating his stuff. After blue tongue came through this landowner has very few deer left.

The game and fish seen a cash cow and took advantage of it fully. The next year they were screaming they lost almost one million in revenue. Lol. They did not loose it they just did not make it. A few simple changes could have changed how that plays out every 30 or so years.

The g&f has no plan to solve anything. Have they found the lost firearms yet?

I know I was thinking the same thing about an ok resident getting multiple vote yes on measure 5. I have read the proposed measure and it is 5% of revenue for the next 25 years not just the "existing" 1.6 billion. Yes the commercials are lying. Scammers go to the cash.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> As far as the Game and Fish and deer, do you remember all the landowner complaints about deer? My bet is *someone* forced the Game and Fish to give out to many tags.


That someone is better known as mother nature. Three hard winters from -08 to -11 took a lot of deer. The hardy survivors then hit a brick wall called EHD. Or Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease. It hits the hardest around August. No one is paying much attention to deer during that time frame and don't notice the losses occurring.

The biting midge that carries the virus hangs around mud. As water receeds in late summer the deer come in for a drink.

Is more and more habitat for deer the answer? Keep in mind a midge colony can breed in a pool of water the size of a deer hoof print.

Dry weather causes problems for ducks and wet weather causes problems for deer and nesting pheasants.

Too many retired federal agents joining non-profits can cause problems also.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)




----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

So Dick how many acres did you enroll? If farmers don't want to enroll land in CRP you can't force them to can you.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

About 200 acres. Around 15 different contracts. The last ones were under the Wetlands Pilot program in CP41 I think. It paid by soil productivity index instead of the old bid system. Too bad it had limited acres for ND. CWWP could do the same thing and there would be farmers signing up left and right.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick you are correct loss of CRP habitat is the number one reason our deer are gone. However I do think the Game and Fish gave out the license under pressure.


> Keep in mind a midge colony can breed in a pool of water the size of a deer hoof print.


Shaug save that bull for people that don't know better. There are many species of Chironomidae in North Dakota. Tell me which species spreads EHD and their habitat requirements to complete their life cycle. Don't give up your day job.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

g/o, The USDA data shows that roughly 2 of every 5 farmers who went to sign up their CRP could not sign it up. There are plenty of farmers that wanted to sign up their land in CRP and a state run CRP program (not federal) would fill their need.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Indsport does it boggle your mind as it does mine that the same people who see themselves as the champions of landowner rights are the first in line to restrict landowner rights? They want to control the federal programs or discourage even state programs that other landowners may want. They don't want CRP, they don't want perpetual easements, they don't want wildlife conservatio, they don't want competition etc etc etc. You can't sell your land to client A for $2000 per acre, but it's ok to sell to farmer B for $1000 per acre. When are landowners going to tell tbese people who think they represent them to take a hike?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains said,



> You can't sell your land to client A for $2000 per acre, but it's ok to sell to farmer B for $1000 per acre.


Did you just admit the purpose of this Con Amendment is to acquire land? Using Minnesota's Lessards-Sams Outdoor Hetitage Fund as an example, that is their mission. However, real property that is acquired needs management. The State contracts some of those duties out. DU gets the contracts and the taxpayer gets the bill.

http://www.lsohc.leg.mn/FY2014/accomp_p ... pprop.html

(a) Reinvest in Minnesota Wetlands Reserve Program Partnership - Phase V 
$13,390,000 in the first year is to the Board of Soil and Water Resources to acquire permanent conservation easements and restore wetlands and associated upland habitat in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture Wetlands Reserve Program and Ducks Unlimited, including $1,000,000 for an agreement with Ducks Unlimited to provide technical and bioengineering assistance. Up to $120,000 is for establishing a monitoring and enforcement fund, as approved in the accomplishment plan and subject to Minnesota Statutes, section 97A.056, subdivision 17. A list of permanent conservation easements must be provided as part of the final report.

Hmm, One million to DU for technical assistance and another $120 thousand for enforcement to make sure that the tenant farmer is complying with the terms. These contracts appear to be very lucrative.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Sklebar said,



> g/o, The USDA data shows that roughly 2 of every 5 farmers who went to sign up their CRP could not sign it up.


They couldn't sign up because the fed/gov is out of money. That is what happens when the gubment gives away money to anyone crying need. A democratic republic cannot survive when the population figures out that they can gift onto themselves largesse from the general treasury.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

"They couldn't sign up because the fed/gov is out of money." is incorrect as usual. Federal CRP is funded through the Farm Bill, which is already funded and appropriated.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Did you just admit the purpose of this Con Amendment is to acquire land?


No just pointing out your hypocricy. Your only for landowner rights that can benefit you. If they don't benefit you then you will turn on them as fast as a well trained quarter horse.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains said,



> Dick you are correct loss of CRP habitat is the number one reason our deer are gone.


Blue Tongue and EHD have killed a lot of deer. Everybody knows that. Well.... did you know Plainoccio is a poor inspirational speaker for deer management?

Thomas said,



> "They couldn't sign up because the fed/gov is out of money." is incorrect as usual. Federal CRP is funded through the Farm Bill, which is already funded and appropriated.


Really??????? Funded and appropriated??????? The fed/gov has a $17 trillion dollar deficit. Where do they get the money to fund or appropriate even more spending? I would really like you to answer that. H. Thomas, weren't you the treasurer or auditor for the wildlife society? You retired federal workers maybe have a different standard of banking/bookkeeping entries then the rest of us.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, after 25 years you can now say you have more CRP than I do. :beer:

indsport, Wrong again, the fact on CRP is last year one of your supporters allocated more money and acres ND was allowed. Therefore land qualified this year but no funding is available so people were not allowed to put it in. They could however if they had a 10 year contract extend it for a year. No one signing up could get in, now if you are in SD or MN not a problem. Also, where in measure 5 does it state you will be using the money for a state run CRP ? You guys are asking for a bunch of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and not saying where its going. Not the way to conduct business, sorry


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I saw a pro 5 commercial they wanted hockey rinks built with 5 cash. Yup that will help the land. I guess it will seal in the nutrients. How will that help?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

There have been farmers whose land was not accepted for CRP for multiple years prior to last year as well. It is a multiple year problem. Second, the farm bill is budgeted separately from the general budget because it is usually written to cover a 5 year period. Whether the money is actually there is a separate question. Ask Cramer, Hoeven and Heitkamp where the money will come from and report back.


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

So why not just have a state run crp program? Nd game and fish could offer extra money for having it in plots if they wanted to add extra dollars on top of a 5 or 10 year contract. But instead we will be paying 3 million dollars for a picnic table in the middle of nowhere cause they have extra money at the end of the year to spend. If you think it's hard to get on land now wait until this passes.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Bobdog, will you help if such a bill goes to the legislature? The estimate is about 75 - 100 million per year to meet the existing requests for farmers who want such a program (based on federal CRP payments). If we want to be able to offer CRP rates equal to about 80% of current land rental rates, we need about 200 million per year. That is for existing requests and could not add any new requests which would require more than 200 million per year.


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

Ok so we put in what we can. Use 80 million or 100 million but at least we know what the money is going towards. If other pet projects need funding they can go ask for the money from our state government. Let the people we elected do their job.


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

The only thing we know about measure 5 is that we will spend a lot of money. Has anyone ever said what the money will be spent on except conservation. That's like saying we need to pass this so we can see what's in the bill. We all know how that turned out. Someone please tell me how you vote for a bill that you have no idea what the money is going to be used for.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bobdog said:


> The only thing we know about measure 5 is that we will spend a lot of money. Has anyone ever said what the money will be spent on except conservation. That's like saying we need to pass this so we can see what's in the bill. We all know how that turned out. Someone please tell me how you vote for a bill that you have no idea what the money is going to be used for.


I know exactly where hunting in ND is going without measure 5. Farther down the chitter than it already is and that's quite far compared to what we had. If 5 passes there are going to be some soreheads that squawk and jump up and down, but access won't be worse because it couldn't get worse. Then they will shut up and sign up for the payments.

When the grassland reserve gets in place, and state CRP type program, and NDGF gets plenty of coin to pay landowners for PLOTS type access programs, land owners will be lined up out the door to sign up. Farmers, ranchers, and landowners have a long history of liking payments, this will be no different.

If we are going to save any remnant of the outdoors, it is now or never. Because there will nothing offered again if #5 fails.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Bobdog said:


> The only thing we know about measure 5 is that we will spend a lot of money. Has anyone ever said what the money will be spent on except conservation. That's like saying we need to pass this so we can see what's in the bill. We all know how that turned out. Someone please tell me how you vote for a bill that you have no idea what the money is going to be used for.


There will be a group appointed by the governor and two other people. This group will decide what the cash will be spent on. You know the good-old-boy network. Fargo needs hockey rinks (think parks). In the 25 years they get 5% with no real plan for what will amount to what quarter billion bucks to do what?

If you want this measure to pass think of the answer to this question then choose.

When has the government ever got involved with anything and made it better for the duration of the program?

I would give up a full billion if they had a plan. This is just like what pelosi said we need to pass it to find out is in it.

The facts are
Game will always be there. Probably not easy to hunt any more.
Landowners will need to make a call. Do I leave habitat or not
Water will get dirty and other bodies get clean. We have several fed agencies to work on clean water.
The state will not just crumble if 5 is not passed.

There is time to come up with a real plan. Knee jerk plans never work. The left loves them just think guns.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

The ND game and fish can mess up a wet dream. Their lack of deer management is proof of that. They saw the numbers and dollar signs flashed for them. Instead of making tough unpopular calls that would help they instead just sat back and cashed the checks. Then when the easy cash was gone they raised the fees. To make up for the cash they did not make, or lost if you ask them.


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

Great reply Dick. Where does it say we will have that grassland program? Oh that's right it's doesn't. Can ducks unlimited ask for grants from this? Maybe to add some more staff at their office. Build a new office. Lease up some easements and not pay taxes in the township. You have not told me one thing that this bill will do except spend 150 million a year for 25 years. Just talked with a farmer today that had a guy stop in his yard with a vote yes on 5 sticker on his vehicle. Guess who didn't get to hunt. I guess you have crp to hunt I will make sure to let him know he can send him your way.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The citizen accountability board has no power to spend any money. They only make recommendations. All the decisions to spend any money from the fund resides with the governor, attorney general and ag commissioner.

http://www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/ ... ojects.pdf


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

Who is the governor in 10 years? Who is on the board in 10 years. This isn't just about today you have to realize that this is here for 25 years.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

H. Thomas said,



> The citizen accountability board has no power to spend any money. They only make recommendations. All the decisions to spend any money from the fund resides with the governor, attorney general and ag commissioner.
> 
> http://www.cleanwaterwildlifeparks.org/ ... ojects.pdf


Mr. Sklebar, you want us to believe it is so simple. The panel finds ways to spend about $3 million dollars worth of proposals per week. The panel then makes recommendations on a large assortment of proposals to the industrial commission chaired by the Governor, Attorney General and Ag Commish. These three have nothing better to do than sift and sort through $3 million dollars worth of this stuff per week every week. The citizens accountability panel may not have the power to spend but this stacked panel does have the power to pick and choose the winners and losers. Trust us with $3 million per week. I don't think so.

Right now all decisions to spend money have to come forward in a Bill that must be started on the House side. You guys need to learn that you have to abide by the rules like everyone else. No earmarks. No dedicated funding that takes precedence over anyone else's needs or funding.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

How does making ice skating rinks help wildlife?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> How does making ice skating rinks help wildlife?


I think they would be foolish to do that. However you have to remember the radical mouth it comes from. Those who don't want it will try to convince others of foolish things it will be used for. It would be like someone against the ag bill saying it would pay 80% for farmers swimming pools.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > How does making ice skating rinks help wildlife?
> ...


 I saw that in a pro measure 5 commercial.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

BL and Plains... It is happening with the MN bill. Senators from the Metro are lobbying for the majority of the money to be spent in the metro... IE: dog parks, walking trails, biking trails, hockey rinks, softball fields, etc. But the sad thing that they are forgetting is those same people in the metro travel out of that area to do their "outdoor" activities.... ie: camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, four wheeling, snowmobiling, etc.

Shows you how smart elected officials are. When they see money they just want it.

So ND residents make sure you know where the money is going and don't let the greedy people use it for the wrong reasons. Look at our SS program at the federal level. If they would have left it alone and only used it for old people and handicap it would have more than enough funding in it! But that is another topic.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Bingo. Greed will set in. You have to love the good-old-boy network.

When has the government ever got involved in anything and made it better during the duration of the program?

No plan equals scam.

Why not vote on specific plans every two years?


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

Hey plains I see you don't understand what is included in the bill. You like alot of others think this is about wildlife but it really isnt. They figured if the put wildlife in here they would get the sportsman to go along with it. 25 years for funding a bunch of pork projects is all you are going to get. If measure 5 was a crp program only they would have 90 percent approval but how do they give kick backs to their friends when they do not decide who gets money and who doesnt? I encourage you to watch the debate on youtube. You will see all the projects they say this could fund. Not once was wildlife brought up in the hour long debate.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Some folks seem to have a disconnect between habitat and wildlife. Which is why wildlife numbers are tumbling. The dumbest comment I have heard is "how many ducks do we need?" Much of the wildlife we enjoy depends on those wetlands and cover they provide as well as upland cover that ducks need too.

A state sponsored CRP plan needs the money in place for at least 10 years. Nobody is going to get what they want on 2 year plan, same with PLOTS. If people took the time to read their NDGF ND Outdoors they would understand those connections. Or, maybe they wouldn't.

Here's your hunting future without 5. Bet the remaining cattails will be burned out pretty quick. You pick your future.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good point Dick when you speak about people not linking habitat and wildlife. I can't remember how many times I have read statements from waterfowl hunters equating water and ducks. They never understand the importance of good nesting habitat. Likewise I often hear people ask what good are those nuisance temporary wetlands. They don't understand that they are the first to warm and produce the aquatic macroinvertebrates that provide protein for egg formation. Further eggs are larger and more than double a ducklings chance of survival. So many armchair biologists that don't have the education or training yet think they have the answers. I don't know, maybe they spend more time at the casino than outdoors. Many don't sound like the young hunters I grew up with. Getting old I guess, but I dislike watching the new generation screw it up while I am still alive to watch.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman said,



> So many armchair biologists that don't have the education or training yet think they have the answers. I don't know, maybe they spend more time at the casino than outdoors.


I was going to vote yes, however because of your condescending attitude I'm now voting NO. :lol:


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

You 2 keep saying the same thing. I understand we need habitat, that's why I keep saying make the measure about habitat. Tell me Dick and Plains how much will go towards that. You can't because that is not what this is about!!!!!! Let everybody take their share and waste a bunch of money and end up with little to show for it. Please one of you give me a number of how much will go toward habitat.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plainsman said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well at least you have a sense of humor. Now tell me the percentage of people you think are qualified to manage habitat and wildlife on a professional scale. Am I condescending or are you arrogant?


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Dick Monson now you did it you came up with a vote-able plan. Your idea is great maybe we should have it set to 20 years instead of just 10 years. The next vote could be something like this.

Do you support a ??million amount to be set aside to pay for a ND based CRP program... This program will last 20 years...

A plan does not need to last 2 years it can be longer or shorter but it is our cash and we should have more control of it.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Projects that could be part of the North Dakota Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks Fund:

Protect our Lakes and Streams: Protecting and improving water quality in our streams and lakes requires technical assistance and cost sharing for a variety of agricultural and other practices. Landowner incentives for improved water quality practices in about 10 percent of the state would cost about $22 million per year.
Noxious Weed Control: Noxious weeds, such as toad flax and Canada thistle, pose real threats to quality rangeland. As more ground is disturbed with energy development, noxious weeds will colonize these disturbed areas. Funding for weed control across the state is lacking and not meeting needs of producers. Helping to increase county weed control by 25 percent a year, with a special emphasis on oil producing counties, would cost about $3.3 million per year
.
State Parks: 
The population of the state has reached historic levels. Census officials estimate our population likely exceeds 700,000 for the first time in the state's history. North Dakota has less acreage in state parks than 48 other states. We haven't added a new state park in 30 years. Adding four new state parks to the state park system could cost about $15 million.
Local Parks and Recreation Areas for Growing Cities : During the last 10 years, the Energy Development Impact Office has not funded any requests in oil producing counties for park facilities. As our cities grow with young adults and families, outdoor recreation and parks become an essential element of turning North Dakota into a permanent home for these new comers. A state cost - share of up to $250,000 for 25 city or county park projects would cost up to $6.3 million per year.
Floodplain Restoration: 
The extensive flooding across the state in 2011 left many communities and homeowners seeking options to avoid such catastrophic losses in the future. This program would provide cost share dollars to support willing homeowners to move out of floodplains and to establish parks and natural areas in their place. These parks and natural areas would be amenities to the communities and allow rivers to swell in the future without devastating people's homes and lives. The estimated average cost per community is $20 million.
Conservation Cover Program
: A conservation cover program tailored to North Dakota would pay current 
rental rates, require plantings well suited for our state and provide more flexibility for haying and grazing. It would continue North Dakota's wildlife legacy and help conserve soil and water resources. The estimated annual cost for 1.5 million acres is $75 million .
Sustainable Cropping Systems: This program would provide incentive payments to producers to incorporate winter wheat or other cover crops into their crop rotations to improve soil health, reduce run - off , and provide wildlife habitat. The estimated annual cost for 2 million acres in $20 million
.
Well Water Testing: 
About 53,000 households in North Dakota rely on individual wells for their drinking water. With the intensified land use in the western part of the state, we want to be sure our drinking water is safe. One hundred tests per county for the 22 counties in the Bakken, at an average cost of $2,000 per test, would be an approximate annual cost of $4.5 million.
Livestock Watering Systems: This program would provide funding to producers for testing their livestock water sources and developing new water systems such as small dams, wetland restorations or tank watering systems. The estimated annual cost is $10 million.
Invasive Pests: Invasive species, such as the emerald ash borer, zebra mussel and Asian carp, threaten fish and wildlife habitat in North Dakota. Controlling these species is important before they inflict widespread damage on our wood lands and waterways. Estimated annual costs to manage these pests top $150 million per year.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Please understand that the bill in MN is a good bill and is still being used for what it was intended for. They cleaned up boat ramps and landings, they are implementing invasive species education/control/etc, buying of land for habitat and public uses, maintaining trails, making trout stream improvements (some of the best trout fishing in the nation will be in SEMN... just look at spin doctors posts in the trout fishing section on this site), studies on wolf management (another topic in itself uke: ), water quality improvement, watershed projects, fixing up and maintaining state parks, etc.

So it was a great bill. Just now the money grab is happening. The elected officials see a pile of money and want it for "pet projects". The one senator said, " Since most of the sales tax money is coming from the metro area, it should be spent in the metro." Little does that idiot know that many of the dollars spent on hotels, shopping, entertainment, etc is coming from people out of the metro. Plus a lot of the "metro" people go out of the metro to enjoy the outdoors. Which this fund was set up for. It is just dumb politicians and greed.

So like I forgot to put in my first post. This is a good bill and will do great for the ND wildlife. But be ready to fight or make your voice heard when greedy politicians want to dive into the pool for that money.

Dick, You are 100% correct on what will be the future of ND and its outdoors. I remember when I first joined this site and all the NR bashing was happening and wanting caps on hunters. I made the comment that instead of caps people should be looking at saving habitat. Well it fell on a lot of deaf ears. Now look at it. During that time I also asked for assistance from some of the members here to help me to draft up letters so I could write to my senators to help push the MN bill through. I got some good help (Bob K.). The bill finally passed. So I wish all of you in ND the luck to get this thing passed.

With the drop/rise in corn prices is doing two things.... one it make farmers want to till up land or work up marginal ground. Once farmers saw the price increase they wanted to capitalize (which is fine it is their land and they should make money) and now... They need to work up marginal land because they need to pay bills because the prices dropped!! (again can't blame them for not wanting to go broke) So it was a double edge sword when you saw $7 corn. Some farmers went out and got bigger equipment, built buildings and bins, and expanded by getting more land via: renting or buying. So now they need to pay for all of this. So when corn price drops they need to work more land. So a State based CRP program would help out incredibly.


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

Great post chuck. Now you understand exactly why there are so many people against this measure. It's not that I don't want clean water, parks, habitat. But exactly like you pointed out that is exactly what happens when you have a broad bill. Everyone and their dog thinks this is a place to get free money. Look at indy's post and just about everything in there is exactly why you have reps in your district to go to bismarck and explain to them why they need the money. If the legislature thinks we need to put money into state parks and weed control pass some funding for it. If water quality is an issue pass a bill for funding testing. So what happens indy when you pay 75 to 100 million for crp and all the other projects are way over budget for the year? Where do you get the extra funding. What happens if the extraction tax coming in doesn't cover the cost of the crp funding? Do we increase the tax from 5% to 10%?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> What happens if the extraction tax coming in doesn't cover the cost of the crp funding? Do we increase the tax from 5% to 10%?


That is what people thought about the MN bill. But they are good with only budgeting. I know that sounds crazy about government. But in MN they have never gone over budget and needed extra money for the projects. They have been running a surplus. Now that is where others are sitting with hands out and is the issue I have. I am sure you do too with that.

It took MN 3 years, I think, to get something passed. I hope ND gets it done sooner than later.


----------



## FLOYD (Oct 3, 2003)

People said:


> Dick Monson now you did it you came up with a vote-able plan. Your idea is great maybe we should have it set to 20 years instead of just 10 years. The next vote could be something like this.
> 
> *Do you support a ??million amount to be set aside to pay for a ND based CRP program... This program will last 20 years...*
> 
> A plan does not need to last 2 years it can be longer or shorter but it is our cash and we should have more control of it.


There ya go! Get it on the ballot and it will be a landslide.

It's no coincidence all these measures are worded as ambiguously as possible. Gotta give all our bigtime friends a chance to get their hands on some of the money!!

It's ridiculous. Come up with a specific plan and it's a shoo-in.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

There are two problems. Just like Chuck points out, if you let the legislators get their hands on it, it is sure to be trouble. As to the question why we have not proposed similar projects to our legislators, i have spent over a decade trying to do just that. More money for weed control? More money for NDGF? More money to the ag dept to do more conservation on private lands? All turned down and ignored. Sorry, I have zero trust in my elected representatives to do anything for conservation.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but right here is a problem:



> There ya go! Get it on the ballot and it will be a landslide.


Because there is no next time. Nobody is going to try another version to fit other criteria if #5 fails. Who would try it? The fence sitters? The guys that got beat? The ND Conservation Orgs. that poured their sweat and treasurer into this effort? 
The Farm Orgs. maybe?

Draft the language of a measure.
Roundup 25 sponsors.
Get 500 people to gather signatures.
Collect a minimum of $2.5 million for a campaign.

And everybody that opposed # 5, will oppose #5A. Big Oil. ND Chamber. ND Farm Orgs. ND Politicans.

There is no second choice. No second chance. You are going to dance or go home alone. #5 is it.

The American Petroleum Institute wants this oil tax money back and they mean to get it.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson said:


> I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but right here is a problem:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


TRICK or TREAT


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

[quoteMore money for weed control? More money for NDGF? More money to the ag dept to do more conservation on private lands][/quote]

If you own land weed control is your responsibility not the states. Invest more money in conservation on private land plant more trees. Look at all the piles of trees in the country now they were paid for by conservation funding. A tree doesn't grow up over night and what is the next generation going to do with them? What are going to do put easements on conservation measures on private land? You know how well farmers love easements.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What is the next generation going to do with the trees etc? I would ask does this generation have the right to engage in a conservation plan with their land without interference from farm organizations. Why do other farmers think it's ok to dictate to old McDonald but joe blow has no right to speak?


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Dick and Plainsman, neither of you have answered me on how does building ice skating rinks help with clean water and wildlife.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

People have to read the measure, or even the ballot title:


> ...to be used to make grants to public and private groups to aid water quality, natural flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, parks and outdoor recreation areas, access for hunting and fishing, the acquisition of land for parks, and outdoor education for children.


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

Communities as well other entities have the same ability for application. Those applications go before the thirteen-member Citizen Accountability Board for approval and then up the chain.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Dick Monson said:


> People have to read the measure, or even the ballot title:
> 
> 
> > ...to be used to make grants to public and private groups to aid water quality, natural flood control, fish and wildlife habitat, parks and outdoor recreation areas, access for hunting and fishing, the acquisition of land for parks, and outdoor education for children.
> ...


So the money can be given people that are buddy buddy with the 13 member board. And possibly not even be spent on anything remotely close to what the measure is intended for. I know it far-fetch, but remember it is politics.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Dick and Plainsman, neither of you have answered me on how does building ice skating rinks help with clean water and wildlife.


blhunter3 you need to look at who is saying what. Some would like you to think it will build skating rinks. I would hope that doesn't have a chance because it doesn't mitigate for habitat destruction. It's just another one of those things to confuse people. Next they will tell you it pays for shuffle board at nursing homes. I shouldn't say that some will believe it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Dick and Plainsman, neither of you have answered me on how does building ice skating rinks help with clean water and wildlife.


It's hard to take serious bl. Some may say it's going to pay for shuffle board at nursing homes too. If something sounds to ridiculous to be true chances are it's not true.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Dick and Plainsman, neither of you have answered me on how does building ice skating rinks help with clean water and wildlife.
> ...


It was in a commercial endorsing Measure 5!


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Dick and Plainsman, neither of you have answered me on how does building ice skating rinks help with clean water and wildlife.
> ...







It is a YouTube link . Oshie is still young and STUPID.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NDCWWP/videos is all their propaganda.

Now 90+% you and I see eye to eye on most things. This is not one f them but you know the government is getting crazy. Four hundred dollar hammer, why not a shuffle board court at nursing homes?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

People I know you and I agree most of the time. One thing I like about nodak is people don't go bonkers and start name calling like they do on some other outdoor sites. It is evidently a more mature and respectful group of guys. On this one you and I will just have to agree to disagree. If it passes I know that once again we will agree on what it should be spent on.


----------



## mulefarm (Dec 7, 2009)

What are the chances it passes?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

mulefarm said:


> What are the chances it passes?


I think it's going to be so close I would not bet a wooden nickel.


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

Do you mean 80 to 20 close plains?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wow that wasn't even close. I thought number 1 and 7 had a chance too. Then there was six. Every voter who thought they were a man must have been whipped at home before they voted.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Wow, I was actually worried that measure 5 would pass. Maybe next the supports of 5 will actaully have a plan on how the money will be spent. Then it would be a decent measure.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I was watching the news this morning and one of the supporters was stating that they were going to focus on getting cash for the heritage fund. I had forgot about that fund.

http://www.nd.gov/ndic/outdoor-infopage.htm

Wow just wow. I am very disgusted in the scammers for measure 5. I guess they wanted to be in charge of a tone of cash. Why create more overhead?


----------



## Bobdog (Oct 28, 2014)

Did you think this measure was about conservation? This was only about who was going to be in charge of the money. Again I am 100% for conservation but we would have got very little out of that bill. Now is the time we as sportsmen need to speak with our reps and get something done for wildlife in nd.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Bobdog said:


> Did you think this measure was about conservation? This was only about who was going to be in charge of the money. Again I am 100% for conservation but we would have got very little out of that bill. Now is the time we as sportsmen need to speak with our reps and get something done for wildlife in nd.


And everyone saw that except some blind supporters.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

While North Dakota voted down measure 5, other states, including Florida did the opposite. The reelected Republican governor opposed the measure and Republicans have a supermajority in the House and a majority in the Senate and yet a majority of the same Republicans and an overwhelming majority of Democrats voted in favor of the measure. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The biggest winner on the ballot Tuesday wasn't one of the candidates. It was Amendment 1, the proposal to set aside some $10 billion in tax money over the next 20 years, to be used for purchasing environmentally sensitive land and protecting wildlife and water resources in Florida.

The measure passed with the support of 75 percent of voters, and in effect creates the largest state-based conservation initiative in U.S. history. Backers say the money could be spent to protect the state's ailing springs, to restore the Everglades or to preserve land that's important for a variety of species.

Backers want to make sure that lawmakers don't use the money for such things as paying to help homeowners with leaky septic tanks get hooked up to sewer systems, Draper said. They want to make sure the legislators "aren't looking at Amendment 1 as a cashbox to buy Florida out of its failure to regulate water pollution," he said.

Florida once led the nation with programs named Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever, both of which were financed using taxes on real estate transactions, known as documentary stamps or "doc stamps" for short.

Two months ago, as part of his re-election campaign, Scott unveiled a proposal to spend $150 million a year to revive Florida's popular. However, he did not say where he planned to get the money, and he did not endorse passage of Amendment 1, which then won far more votes than he did.

Amendment 1 was designed to put the doc stamp money back into Florida's conservation programs and guarantee it will stay directed to that cause, no matter what.

Backers of the amendment started building support more than a year ago, rounding up signatures to get it on the 2014 ballot. They needed at least 683,000 signatures from 14 of the state's 27 congressional districts.

By January they had collected 686,000 verified petition signatures from 15 of the districts, well beyond what was needed.

The next step was to short-circuit any opposition.

"We worked to build a broad coalition," ensuring it would be a nonpartisan issue, said Will Abberger of Florida's Water and Land Legacy, the consortium of groups that took the lead in pushing Amendment 1.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce and other business groups announced they opposed Amendment 1. But after backers of the measure met with them, "they ended up staying out of it," Draper said. "They never put any money into opposing it." 
Now that the amendment has passed by such a wide margin, its backers are hopeful that its tremendous popularity and bipartisan support will make it immune to any legislative double-dealing.

"Our state leaders, who have been busy starving and dismantling environmental programs for years at the behest of corporate polluters, should take notice of this very clear message from the public they are elected to serve," said David Guest of Earthjustice, a member of the coalition. "The public wants Florida's environment protected."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least Florida conservatives voted in favor of conservation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "Our state leaders, who have been busy starving and dismantling environmental programs for years at the behest of corporate polluters, should take notice of this very clear message from the public they are elected to serve," said David Guest of Earthjustice, a member of the coalition. "The public wants Florida's environment protected."


indsport you may remember me often saying drill baby drill, just like Sarah Palin. You know I'm all for drilling for oil, but unfortunately our state is a century behind controlling drilling to protect the environment. The measure 5 could have mitigated for the primitive mentality in our legislature. Drill, but with respect for the land and the people of our state. Farm, but with respect for the land, neighbors, and people downstream.


----------

