# Field Tile Benefits North Dakota



## Dick Monson

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... p/Opinion/

There is a well crafted opinion article supporting drain tile in today's Fargo Forum. The list of supposed benefits is long. None of the drawbacks are mentioned. Like who gets the excess water? Or that South Dakota is considering increased restrictions on drain tile. Maybe the Forum would like to read your opinion in a letter.


----------



## deacon

Is this really a surprise. Forum supports a lot more liberals then conservatives. :******:


----------



## Dick Monson

A tip of the hat to Ron Gilmore for a good opinion column in today's Fargo Forum refuting the tiling bills before the ND legislature. :thumb:

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... p/Opinion/


----------



## mulefarm

Real good article, hope some legislaters read it.


----------



## gst

From the article. 
First is the claim that tiling does not contribute to flooding because it moves water away during nonflooding times to allow for water to be stored. This may be true during summer heavy rains, as tiling does help control water content in the soil. However, it doesn't help coming out of winter into spring. The depth of the tile is at levels that normally are frozen along with the ground. Thus, no benefit to tiled ground is captured during spring flooding. *Just the opposite actually occurs, especially during times of high moisture in the fall as we have seen in recent years*. Tiled water is dumped into either manmade drains or natural waterways. What happens when the water is artificially drawn off the land is that these waterways freeze up at levels they normally would not or, in many cases, the waterways would be void of water. A dry or normally running waterway allows for water to start flowing in the spring in a way nature intended.

When these waterways are subject to artificial drainage, they freeze up solid because most are not over 3 to 5 feet deep. This creates an ice block plugging the drain. Now water is prevented from moving slowly and normally to the rivers. Instead, what you get is backup and then a big bang when the water cuts through the ice jams.

As I have admitted in another thread, I am no expert so please help me understand this. Ron actually contradicts what plainsman was saying happens as a result of tiling in the summer monthes in that tiling DECREASES the likelyhood of flooding as it allows the soil to hold water. He also admits that most times here in ND frozen ground does not allow tile to move water into these drains and contribute to flooding. And yet if tile is suppose to move water AWAY down these drains into waterways, why is it there freezing in the first place? Perhaps the answer lies in the boldened statement.

Just perhaps because of agendas against wet areas being drained, tiling is being blamed and used as a scapegoat as causation far beyond what it really contributes more so than this period of high moisture, high water tables, high snow levels, rapid melts ect... and the consequences that happen from them is.

Debate tiling, but please be honest enough to admit that the NATURALY high levels of water we have lately that Ron refers to as a result of things beyond our control is the primary factor by far of flooding. And admit it is the disaapearance of habitat for hunting that has people upset rather than blaming the flooding of Fargo and GF and everyone "downstream" on agriculture as some on here have done.


----------



## southdakbearfan

There really isn't any debate to tiling. Every state that has extensively allowed tiling has terrible water quality, poor fishing and poor to no waterfowl opportunities.

There is a ton of marginal land that has been put back into production the past several years, especially low lying land, that never should have been tilled up in the first place.

Tiling allows water to get to the waterways faster. Water getting to the waterways faster = more flooding, it is that simple.

We are in a wet cycle, which we all know can change dramatically in a year.

We need to leave mother nature alone on this one.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, the 97 flood was caused by snow pack and early spring rains on the snow pack. The 09-10 and now to be determined 2011 floods are not as much about snow as about saturated grounds due to wet falls. This is not my opinion, but that of the COE and hydrologists who look at this data. One thing they point to is the high flows of rivers and feeder streams going into the fall. Almost everyone has pointed to the massive amount of extra ice that has to break up and flow north on the Red. That will be exasperated if we see increased tiling activity to levels like SD and SW MN have.

Fargo,Whap,West Fargo and other cities depend upon aquifers for water. How is increased tiling of the recharging areas going to affect them as well?

Miller either intentionally lied or was given poor advice and did not bother to check his facts.

In regards to things Plainsman has stated, you need to just look into the Pipestone area along the SD/MN border to find where Plainsman was coming from!


----------



## Plainsman

SDbearfan you will find this interesting. The only thing the guy missed is most of the nitrogen comes from agriculture fertilizers, not burnig fossil fuels.

Eutrophication is as deadly to wetlands as a drain. It's like a poison flowing in the veins of mother nature. A dry wetland from a large drain we see, but below the surface the water that is drained contains lethal contamination. Not just the chemicals, but the dissolved solids deposited by nature since the last glaciers. Nature would keep it there, but we human geniuses have a better idea.

One wildlife refuge in California is now a trap for waterfowl. It was purchased for waterfowl, but continuous agricultural water flow into it has brought the dissolved solid concentrations so high that when a duck lands it's landing in what could be considered the equivalent of the La Brea Tar Pits . Concentrations are so high that crystals begin to form on feathers. If a duck remains long it can not fly.



> .Nutrient over-enrichment of freshwater and coastal ecosystems, or eutrophication, is a rapidly growing environmental crisis. Worldwide, the number of coastal areas impacted by eutrophication stands at over 500. In coastal areas, occurrences of dead zones, which are caused by eutrophic conditions, have increased from 10 documented cases in 1960 to 405 documented cases in 2008. In addition, many of the world's freshwater lakes, streams, and reservoirs suffer from eutrophication; in the United States, eutrophication is thought to be the primary cause of freshwater impairment. Many of our largest freshwater lakes are entrophic, including Lake Erie (United States), Lake Victoria (Tanzania/Uganda/Kenya), and Tai Lake (China).
> 
> The increase in eutrophication is the result of human activities. Major sources of nutrients to freshwater and coastal ecosystems include wastewater, *agriculture*, and atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from burning fossil fuels. The drivers of eutrophication are expected to increase for the foreseeable future. Specifically:
> 
> •World population will continue to grow, reaching an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, which will increase pressures on the productive capacity of *agriculture *and industry.
> *•Intensive agriculture and land use conversion-for crops, livestock*, and aquaculture-will increase, especially in the developing world. In addition to population growth, intensifi cation is driven by changing dietary patterns. For example, over the period from 2002 to 2030, global meat consumption is expected to increase by 54 percent.
> •Energy consumption is expected to grow 50 percent from 2005 to 2030. Fossil fuels, which release nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the environment when burned, will continue to be the dominant fuel source in this century.
> As a result of these increasing global trends in population growth, energy use, and agricultural production, we expect that coastal and freshwater systems impacted by eutrophication and hypoxia will continue to increase, especially in the developing world


----------



## wurgs

Ron Gilmore said:


> .
> 
> Fargo,Whap,West Fargo and other cities depend upon aquifers for water. How is increased tiling of the recharging areas going to affect them as well?
> 
> Ron, Fargo actually gets its water from the Red River mainly with the Sheyenne River supplementing it during low water flows in the Red, not aquifers.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> gst, the 97 flood was caused by snow pack and early spring rains on the snow pack. The 09-10 and now to be determined 2011 floods are not as much about snow as about saturated grounds due to wet falls. This is not my opinion, but that of the COE and hydrologists who look at this data.


Ron, I am in agreement with you on this. What I'm trying to understand is if as was said in the other thread regarding tiling that tiling does move this water out of the soil and "somewhere" , why are the soils SATURATED? If there has been enough moisture in one form or another over a couple years time to keep tiled ground saturated, the streams and everything will have been full not from tiling but from moisture received which NO ONE has control over. So while people like plainsman and others simply want to blame flooding on ":greedy" agriculture, in reality Mother Nature plays the most significant role. Remember SATURATED SOILS as everyone seems to admit exists the last couple of years does not allow for water to move into the soil, and flooding will result from overland runoff. That is not my claim, but the very definition of saturated.

I'm sure this spring as the Red rises, saturated soils will not be considered a factor for some. it will simply be agricultures fault. Like I said if you wish to debate tiling and the affects on various things, fine, but to claim tiling or agriculture CAUSES flooding leaves a great deal of credibility in the wind.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

wurgs,Fargo does get some water from wells during periods of time when flows on the Red and Sheyenne are low on flow. Fargo also has water needs well above what wells can provide along with the rivers. It is one reason that there has been talk of a pipeline for water from Sak.WF, gets it water from three different wells. Then there is the rural water systems around the areas from east to west as well. These are all for the most part from ground sources.

gst, I do think that tiling has a place, it can help with ground that is salty or high in minerals from the high moisture due to hard pan. With the high water levels and more ground in crop vs grasslands salty soils have prompted a rise in interest. Guys back home have looked into it as well but drainage for the tiling has been the issue.
Also, timing of the melt is critical in spring flooding. We have had floods with low snow pack and deep frost even when it was not overly wet in the fall. Spring rains on frozen ground are similar to pouring water on ice when it is above freezing. Water pools and then runs.

Everyone wants to be able to blame flooding on something. I am a bit more realistic in that I look at a flood in what has been done that adds to the crest! Be it drained wetlands, graded fields to speed up water flow off of them,enhancement of natural drains to speed water or with tiling the removal of water late in the year creating conditions in the drains that will cause additional inches to the crest in the spring.

Being from the farm, many of the wetlands on our farm where drained with matching funds from the Fed Gov, then years later the same Gov created Swampbuster. I worked in an industry that sold land leveling equipment that sole purpose is to speed up the flow of water off of the fields. I hunt in areas that since 97 have had a lot of new drainage as well as enhancements of existing drains. So not all of the finger pointing is unwarranted. The simple fact is that when one person does something to speed the flow of water off of their land it goes to other lands. This water ends up in the natural drains like the Red that flows north or James River or Missouri that ends up in the Gulf. Now most of this water will get to these end points eventually. However gst, when you speed up how fast it gets to that point it creates down stream issues.

I am not advocating returning ND to pre-drainage landscape, but to not be willing to admit that farming practices do contribute to the crest levels on rivers and streams is inaccurate and false. In the same line of thought, people that built in know flood prone areas do not get a lot of sympathy from me. But just like with the issue of tiling permits, elected officials will cave to development. If the flood of 97 and now the last three years of flood fighting has any real positive affects. I think it will be in zoning of new areas. What is built is built, but the future building will be done with the memory of floods!


----------



## gst

Ron I don't disagree with much of what you said. It is comments such as this claim by plainsman as a "professional" that I take exception to.

Plainsman wrote:
Enduring flooding is another expense caused mostly by agriculture.

When people make claims such as this tied to a number of other comments using an outdated brush broadly painting ag as "greedy" and other choice descriptors in a clear bias, as was asked what good does it do conservation?

As I said some sort of balance needs to be maintained. That is going to require conservation to understand the increasing demands that will be placed on agricultural lands for increased production, and it will require agriculture to grow in a way that these increases in production do not come at the long term cost to ag and ultimately everyone. Rhetoric like what we saw on the other thread concerning tiling does little to acomplish this.


----------



## Plainsman

Ron I agree with you that everything that pushes water downstream contributes to a flood. If you notice I have used the term contribute, not cause, often. I don't find any reason to disagree with what you have said. 
I also agree with gst that there will be more food demand. However, that will have it's cost too. If you read the article on eutrophication that I posted you will understand that wildlife will loose at both ends. They will loose a wetland when it is drained, and they will loose the value of wetlands below the drains when they become so contaminated by soil chemical leeching that they provide little in aquatic macroinvertebrate food resources. When the food chain is destroyed at the lower end everything above it suffers.
Tiling being in the 1800's in Iowa. This isn't the 1800's and we need to use our technology more wisely. All of us, including agriculture, needs to look forward to the future so we do not destroy that. Currently we blaze ahead with blinders on not thinking about tomorrow. I simply think that like the rest of society agriculture has it's responsibilities too. 
Farmers will involve themselves with conservation when it benefits them. Some will say that is anti farmer, but I look at it as saying farmers are like everyone else. The guy that talks about how he has improved his habitat makes me ask why. Does he like hunting? Does he have a guide service? Is he being paid for it? We, which includes farmers, all have our priorities. We do things that benefit us. That's just reality if your honest with yourself. 
That's why I said I as a taxpayer and citizen I would be willing to pay for restored wetlands. I said we were going to be held up, but I was willing to pay the ransom. That was pointed out as anti farmer, but I look at it as realistic. Have you ever looked at someones piece of junk that they thought about throwing out only to have them ask a crazy price because of your interest? I sure have. 
I'll give you two examples: An old fellow I know had this old beat up bolt action shotgun that should have gone to the trash years ago. I thought it would be an interesting conversation piece. He had been ready to throw it out a couple years before, but as soon as I asked what he wanted for it he thought it was an antique worth $400. 
The second guy has rocks all over his field. He's getting to old to pick them for himself. I was building a pond out back and I needed about 12 ton of rock. When I told him about it and volunteered to pick the rock off his field he wanted $0.12 per pound. How he came up with that price I will never know. 
Bottom line is I don't expect landowners to foot the entire bill here. I know they are trying to make a living. I know water is a problem for them. However, many make that water someone else's problem. I think society should pay them to restore wetlands. There is a way they could get an extremely good price. Some don't want to listen because they still have that 1800's make your mark on the land mentality. This is 2001 the last I looked at my calendar.


----------



## Plainsman

I just talked to one farmer that did change my mind about one things. This one guy is the kind of guy who practices conservation on his land to his own financial loss. It's guys like him that make the collateral damage of not supporting agriculture unacceptable. I hope he does well on the rest of his land this summer. I hope he reads this and understands how much most of us appreciate him. :beer:


----------



## KurtR

Plainsman said:


> . This is 2001 the last I looked at my calendar.


I wish it was 2001 oh to be 22 and in college agin the good old days of no bills and little worrys :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

Did I mention I can't type?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Ron I agree with you that everything that pushes water downstream contributes to a flood. If you notice I have used the term contribute, not cause, often.
> 
> I by Plainsman » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:41 am Quote[
> 
> *Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. It worked for the high fence situation why will it not work for this situation. The only way to stop it is point out that it is not their right to flood their neighbor. Currently it would appear that the folks north of Devils Lake think it's their right to flood Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, and all the small communities in between. We are witnessing greed at it's darkest.*
> 
> When I speak of moisture deficit I mean we are in a climate that has a higher evaporation rate than rainfall. At first you may ask how that is possible. Well, the only reason we can raise crops is soil moisture. Moisture held below the surface doesn't evaporate, but put in drain tile and we have a disaster in the waiting. They can only survive by even more taxpayer support. Also, hydrology comes into play. Our wetlands function more often as wetland systems than individual wetlands. Some are hydrological recharge, some flow through, and others are hydrological discharge systems. People out draining without knowing what they are doing is like letting a three year old play with dynamite. More water from the hydrological recharge system goes into the aquifer than is discharged to the atmosphere, hence the term hydrological recharge wetland. *Tiles will cause surface flooding while at the same time cause aquifer depletion*.] end quote
> 
> Plainsman, recall your very first post on this issue? Amoungst the comments that would clearly make one think you are not anti agriculture  is the statement at the very end. Note the word "cause" being used twice. I'm glad to see that after 5 pages of being taken to task for your statements in the other thread, you appear to have "softened" your stance. :wink:
> but as they say about leopards, and their spots. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

For those who are interested here is some information on phosphorus. Some years tile contributes to flooding, some years it does not, and some years when the water is at your door step the extra water causes you to flood. However, the movement of chemicals from the soil to the wetlands always occurs. Siltation and nutrient flow is the reason some of our wetlands were totally choked with cattails back prior to the 1993 flooding. Years ago we had to prohibit DDT use, and I would guess there may be more restrictions on more chemicals and use in the future.



> Human interference
> 
> Nutrients are important to the growth and survival of living organisms, and hence, are essential for development and maintenance of healthy ecosystems. However, excessive amounts of nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, are detrimental to aquatic ecosystems. Natural eutrophication is a process by which lakes gradually age and become more productive and may take thousands of years to progress. Cultural or anthropogenic eutrophication, however, is water pollution caused by excessive plant nutrients, which results in excessive growth in algae population. Surface and subsurface runoff and erosion from high-P soils may be major contributing factors to fresh water eutrophication. The processes controlling soil P release to surface runoff and to subsurface flow are a complex interaction between the type of P input, soil type and management, and transport processes depending on hydrological conditions.[8][9]
> 
> Repeated application of liquid hog manure in excess to crop needs can have detrimental effects on soil P status. In poorly drained soils or in areas where snowmelt can cause periodical waterlogging, Fe-reducing conditions can be attained in 7-10 days. This causes a sharp increase in P concentration in solution and P can be leached. In addition, reduction of the soil causes a shift in phosphorus from resilient to more labile forms. This could eventually increase the potential for P loss. This is of particular concern for the environmentally sound management of such areas, where disposal of agricultural wastes has already become a problem. It is suggested that the water regime of soils that are to be used for organic wastes disposal is taken into account in the preparation of waste management regulations.[10]
> 
> Human interference in the phosphorus cycle occurs by overuse or careless use of phosphorus fertilizers. This results in increased amounts of phosphorus as pollutants in bodies of water resulting in eutrophication. Eutrophication devastates water ecosystems


----------



## Plainsman

Here is some information on nitrogen from fertilizers, drain ditches, and tile.



> Assessing the source of nitrate pollution in water using stable N and O isotopes
> 
> (Accepted 31 August 2006; published online 23 January 2007)
> 
> Abstract - We used the isotopic composition of nitrogen (15N) and oxygen (18O) in water nitrate (NO3-) to assess water pollution. 15N and 18O values in drainage water nitrate of a conventionally managed field and the adjacent surface waters were measured for 6 weeks during the main discharge period of the hydrological year 2003/2004. We hypothesized that this approach could provide more information about the impact of drainage water containing high nitrate loads on the following surface water bodies than common measurements of concentrations. The nitrate concentrations ranged between 686 and 2040 µM in the tile drain outlets and were positively correlated to the tile drain discharge. The low 18O-NO3- values, from 1.8 to 4.3°/°°, indicated that most of the nitrate derived from the nitrification process in the agricultural soils. The high 15N-NO3- values, from 8.5 to 15.0°/°°, reflected the long-term fertilizing practice which was carried out for several years with inorganic as well as organic fertilizers. In the adjacent ditch and the brook nitrate concentrations were lower but showed a similar development to the tile drain outlet. The 15N-NO3- values (7.2-12.1°/°°) and 18O-NO3- values (2.4-9.1°/°°) in the ditch and the brook indicated that the nitrate from tile drain discharge is the major N source for the adjacent surface water bodies.


----------



## gst

plainsman, I'm not suggesting your information is not correct, but if you wish as you claimed in an earlier post, (quote"My best advice of course is to look for peer reviewed scientific literature and skip the grey literature (popular articles by advocacy groups)."end quote,) pehaps you should include the source and link to where your information came from. I would assume there are "advocacy groups" on either side of an issue is there not?


----------



## Plainsman

I was watching Fargo news last night on channel 6 and they talked about the proposed outlet of Stump Lake. They are looking at using a pipeline rather than shoot it down the Tolna coulee. I guess they think the erosion posssibility is real. I have read some conflicting reports the past couple of days. Some say high erosion has occured in the past, some say little has. Some say the overflow has deposited in the Tolna coulee. Some say Devils Lake will never overflow, but that ignores the past. Some say there is seven feet of sediment, some say there is none. :homer:


----------



## Mark_ferguson77

Pretty cool.
I think all of you are going to have a lot of fun with it.


----------



## za000in

There have been some fantastic years recently in the agriculture industry here in North Dakota and throughout the United States. We have record prices, record yields, and new technologies that are increasing our profitability and promoting better farming and stewardship practices. As farmer, I am excited for the years ahead. We have hope, yet we have challenges.North Dakota has never been more important to world food production as it is today; however, nearly two decades of unrelenting rainfall has taken its toll on our soil. Ph levels in the soil are increasing due to saturated ground, cutting yields and creating environmental issues. The need for strong and quick movement on this issue is very important.


----------



## Plainsman

> The need for strong and quick movement on this issue is very important.


Why? We seen that with the health care bill. We teach out children to think things through and now we want quick movement? Why?

When you get into Minnesota and Iowa there are not that many ditches. Nearly all wetlands are drained with tile. If this bill passes there will be many more wetlands drained. There are two reasons some like tile. One, they have no ditch and farm right over it, and two no one sees illegal drains.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> If this bill passes there will be many more wetlands drained. There are two reasons some like tile. One, they have no ditch and farm right over it, and two no one sees illegal drains.
> 
> 
> 
> plainsman, have you ever farmed and "illegally" drained a wetland?
> 
> Do you realize what can be lost if you are caught "illegally" draining a wetland" ?
> 
> Remember all those "millions of dollars" you complain about farmers getting from the taxpayer?
> 
> Remember how you claim farmers can not survive without them? Why then would anyone risk that by "illegally" draining a wetland?
> 
> Do you understand that what most people think are "wetlands" are not, but rather temporary wet areas that can legally be drained?
> 
> Is there "illegal" draining happening, sure, but please do not try to make the insinuation that it is widespread and this bill will change things to where it happens more. This bill will simply make it quicker to go thru the PERMITING PROCESS which will likely add nothing to what you are suggesting regarding "illegal" drains. If you are going to "illegally" drain a wetland, why would anyone draw attention by going thru the PERMITTING PROCESS?
> 
> I was hoping after being taken to task for making assumptions and insinuations about why a 16 year old kid is raising pheasants as an FFA project, that you would have taken a little more time to think about what you are typing and insinuating before hitting the submit button.
Click to expand...


----------



## Plainsman

Remember those 12 inches of rain in two days that someone talked about? Remember I said the Wildlife Society warned of flooding if channel A went into Devils Lake? Hmmm, read this. Remember that we were in severe drought in 1992? Devils Lake was rising then, long before the heavy rains begin in the 1990's. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out why? Just questions, just questions? 



> Devils Lake in northeastern North Dakota is located in a 3,814 square-mile closed sub-basin of the Red River of the North Basin, which is part of the Hudson Bay Drainage Basin. The Sheyenne River passes eastward near the southern boundary of the basin before looping 400 miles south, east and then north again to join the Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota. The Red River of the North then flows north into Canada where it empties into Lake Winnipeg at Winnipeg, Manitoba.
> 
> The geologic record shows that, since Devils Lake was formed 10,000 years ago by the Wisconsin Glacier, its level has fluctuated widely over a range of some 65 feet, from dry at 1394 feet above mean sea level (msl) to overflowing to the Sheyenne River at 1459 feet. At elevation 1446.6 feet, Devils Lake overflows to the east through the Jerusalem Spillway to West Stump Lake and East Stump Lake before the combined lakes then rise to overflow from West Stump Lake to the Sheyenne River through the Tolna Coulee. At its overflow elevation of 1459 feet, Devils Lake has a surface area of approximately 300,000 acres.
> 
> The lake last was at its current elevation of 1447 feet at the time white settlers arrived in the area in the early 1800s. The lake supported a thriving commercial and sport northern pike fishery and a small side-wheel steamer, the Minnie H, operated between the town of Devils Lake and Churchs Ferry at the northwestern end of the lake. The ferry docked near a large rock that remains near current downtown Devils Lake. The lake had declined to elevation 1438 feet by the time its level first was officially recorded in 1867, and by 1889 the northern pike fishery disappeared when the lake dropped to 1424 feet. The lake continued to decline to its modern day low of 1401 feet in 1940, after which it began an erratic rise to elevation 1423 feet by 1992.


----------



## Plainsman

Google "illegally drained wetlands" and North Dakota keeps coming up. Many from the Devils Lake area. I think one of my parents friends in the legislature by the name of Berg was instrumental in getting people to drain even after signing easements. I don't understand why some people think they were tricked. They take the money for a wetland easement then a short time later they think they have the right to violate the contract because it's only the government. If that contract was with their neighbor Fred do you (anyone reading this) think they would have that right? If we look at theft is there that much difference between a guy in a bank with a gun and a guy with draining machinery in an easement wetland? To many think it's no big deal, it's just the government, but the government is us. 
In summary, why make it easier?



> BISMARCK, N.D. - Armed with a tractor or a backhoe, Alvin Peterson moves dirt to drain prairie potholes on his land, saying he's putting the land back to the way God intended.
> The 78-year-old retired farmer from Lawton, in northeastern North Dakota, has been in hot water with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over wetlands for more than 40 years. The agency had an easement contract with his father for the potholes to house and feed wildlife.
> 
> Federal authorities, after dealing for decades with Peterson's pothole-emptying antics, began cracking down on him. Last month -- and for the second time in four years -- Peterson was convicted of illegally emptying wetlands. Now he faces stiff fines and jail time.
> 
> Peterson remains unfazed.
> 
> "I didn't make the waterways, the good Lord did," Peterson said.
> 
> The Fish and Wildlife Service, along with hunting and conservation groups, view wetlands as an environmental oasis for waterfowl and other creatures. Peterson sees the potholes as a pain, swamping his land with water and weeds and preventing him from raising crops.
> 
> "Alvin Peterson is somewhat of a government protester," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Cameron Hayden, who has prosecuted Peterson. "He inherited the farm from his father and never liked the easement. He began a system of draining every prairie pothole he could find with his tractor."
> 
> Peterson claims his dying father was tricked by government officials into signing an easement in the mid-1960s. He said his father was given a one-time payment of about $4,700 that forever keeps dozens of acres on the farm free of crops and under government ownership.
> 
> "They've done this in a sneaky way -- you'd think you were living in Russia," Peterson said. "I've had trouble with them ever since they stole this land from my father."
> 
> Peterson was found guilty on Nov. 11 of two counts of improper drainage of wetlands, after a trial before U.S. Magistrate Judge Alice Senechal in Grand Forks.
> 
> A sentencing date has not been set. Peterson faces up to a year in prison and a $10,000 fine


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Remember those 12 inches of rain in two days that someone talked about? Remember I said the Wildlife Society warned of flooding if channel A went into Devils Lake? Hmmm, read this. Remember that we were in severe drought in 1992? Devils Lake was rising then, long before the heavy rains begin in the 1990's. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out why? Just questions, just questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devils Lake in northeastern North Dakota is located in a 3,814 square-mile closed sub-basin of the Red River of the North Basin, which is part of the Hudson Bay Drainage Basin. The Sheyenne River passes eastward near the southern boundary of the basin before looping 400 miles south, east and then north again to join the Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota. The Red River of the North then flows north into Canada where it empties into Lake Winnipeg at Winnipeg, Manitoba.
> 
> The geologic record shows that, since Devils Lake was formed 10,000 years ago by the Wisconsin Glacier, its level has fluctuated widely over a range of some 65 feet, from dry at 1394 feet above mean sea level (msl) to overflowing to the Sheyenne River at 1459 feet. At elevation 1446.6 feet, Devils Lake overflows to the east through the Jerusalem Spillway to West Stump Lake and East Stump Lake before the combined lakes then rise to overflow from West Stump Lake to the Sheyenne River through the Tolna Coulee. At its overflow elevation of 1459 feet, Devils Lake has a surface area of approximately 300,000 acres.
> 
> *The lake last was at its current elevation of 1447 feet at the time white settlers arrived in the area in the early 1800s.* The lake supported a thriving commercial and sport northern pike fishery and a small side-wheel steamer, the Minnie H, operated between the town of Devils Lake and Churchs Ferry at the northwestern end of the lake. The ferry docked near a large rock that remains near current downtown Devils Lake. The lake had declined to elevation 1438 feet by the time its level first was officially recorded in 1867, and by 1889 the northern pike fishery disappeared when the lake dropped to 1424 feet. The lake continued to decline to its modern day low of 1401 feet in 1940, after which it began an erratic rise to elevation 1423 feet by 1992.
Click to expand...

So plainsman what are you suggesting here. What you provide clearly states the lake was at it's current level at the time white settlers moved here. How much draining from agriculture was happening at this time? So what then was the CAUSE of this elavation of water in DL at this time frame prior to blaming it on agriculture???


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Google "illegally drained wetlands" and North Dakota keeps coming up.
> ]


plainsman I did as you directed, here is what came up. http://www.bing.com/search?q=illegally+ ... &FORM=PERE

Plainsman tell me this, of the links shown on here in the first 5 pages EXACTLY how many are related to ND as you claim? Exactly how many are related to agriculture and EXACTLY how many are related to developement not tied to production ag? Now EXACTLY how many ag producers are there in this state? How many are there that implement tile. And once again how many infractions did you find?

Are there records of agriculture based infractions, of course no one has ever denied that. But to insinuate they are as wide spread as you wish people to believe is simply not true.

So perhaps you can ponder this question at your next bible study,(I know how much you like questions, it might be because a question requires an answer rather than an insinuation). Is the intentional insinuation of a "mistruth" as much a sin as the intentional telling of a "mistruth" ?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Peterson claims his dying father was tricked by government officials into signing an easement in the mid-1960s. He said his father was given a one-time payment of about $4,700 that forever keeps dozens of acres on the farm free of crops and under government ownership.quote]
> 
> plainsman you earlier asked the question what it would cost to get someone to restore drained wetlands. You brought up the topic of dollars and greed. So lets do a little math. Lets look at an USF&W easement for 99 years. So for simple math lets take the $4700 and divide by 100. (close enough for me) My math says that is $47 dollars a year for dozens of acres of wetlands. Even figuring one dozen acres, that is by my math real close to $4 dollars an acre. Now in 1965, perhaps that was a "fair" amount particularily for someone possibly facing hard economic times) . But answer this, do you beleive that is a "fair" amount for someone of the next generation to receive in todays dollars for these wetlands???? Before you answer stop and think what $4 buys you today. Now if indeed this is a perpetual easement on "dozens" of acres of wetlands, exactly what value is being received?
> 
> So just who actually was the "greedy" party in the big picture regarding this agreement? I do not think it is out of line to think an agreement of this nature should be fair and equitable for all parties binded by it. So what value would you put on these acres in this easement for this next generation farmer to be fair and equitable to perhaps aleiviate him from being in violation???


----------



## Plainsman

You (the reader) will notice this is an area away from North Dakota, but the ideas behind it apply directly to us. Especially to Devils Lake which is about to start flowing naturally or through pipeline down the Sheyenne River to Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks and beyond. 
There are some wetlands left north of Devils Lake, but perhaps only because there are easements on them. Today many think they should be able to drain those wetlands because the land is worth more than when the easement was signed. Well either they signed the easement, or they knew it existed when they purchased the land. Try going to the bank that you signed a loan with and demand they lower the principle because the new diesel pickup you bought last year isn't worth as much this year. Or maybe you want to demand they lower the interest rate. Some people don't understand contracts. Sign it, take the money, and it's binding. If something is wrong doesn't mean anyone cheated you it means you were not that smart. That doesn't allow you to steal what is no longer yours to do with as you like.

Wikipedia:


> A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties with mutual obligations.





> Abstract
> Despite this nation's massive effort during the past 90 years to build levees throughout the upper Mississippi Basin, mean annual flood damage in the region has increased 140% during that time. These levees exacerbate the flood damage problem by increasing river stage and velocity. Thus, rather than continuing to rely on structural solutions for flood control, it is time to develop a comprehensive flood management strategy that includes using wetlands to intercept and hold precipitation where it falls and store flood waters where they occur. History testifies to the truth of this premise: it was the rampant drainage of wetlands in the nineteenth century that gave rise to many of today's water resources management problems. The 1993 flood verifies the need for additional wetlands: the amount of excess water that passed St. Louis during the 1993 flood would have covered a little more than 13 million acres -half of the wetland acreage drained since 1780 in the upper Mississippi Basin. By strategically placing at least 13 million acres of wetlands on hydric soils in the basin, we can solve the basin's flooding problems in an ecologically sound manner.


----------



## gst

Plainsman you never answered the question about what you posted showing in the early 1800's before agriculture was a part of the landscape DL was at the same level it is now. What CAUSED the water to be at that elavation then?

Predictably when asked wether you beleive $4 dollars an acre is a "fair" and equitable payment for maintaining wetlands you claim a contract is a contract and yet do not directly answer the question. And yes indeed you are correct that when one enters into a contract it should be binding. What you do not seem to realize is that many of these "contracts" are now so far removed from the original participants they were no part of the original agreement. And yes I understand it is part of the abstract that goes with the land. And yet the outdated values still remain, and people and conservation groups like you stand up and eagerly point out a contract is a contract and you should have known better. Rhetoric much like the following. Quote" Some people don't understand contracts. Sign it, take the money, and it's binding. If something is wrong doesn't mean anyone cheated you it means you were not that smart. That doesn't allow you to steal what is no longer yours to do with as you like"

At a recent USFWS meeting held in Minot regarding these perpetual easements, the very same attitude was demonstrated. Loyd Jones stated flat out that the reason they go perpetual instead of a renewable mutually benefitial contract that would reflect fair market values for everyone involved now and into the future is that the perpetual easement costs them FAR less. ( ie.. the math that translates to $4/acre in todays economy where they do not have to be fair and equitable.) So once again I ask who is the "greedy" party here?

So answer this just how does this type rhetoric and ideology contribute to people in production ag, (you know those greedy ones draining all those wetlands) wanting to take part in these programs? The typical people that sign these easements are retiring farmers, and those in significant economic hardships. So how does this " here is the contract, see your screwed" attitude to everyone else that then become involved in these lands benefit conservation. If I have one quarter I purchased and deal with these attitudes, how likely am I to sign up even more land in these conservation programs? But yet people like you and other fringe conservation advocates can't seem to figure this out and will push for and support perpetual easements for these wetlands where you can hold up a contract 50 years down the road and tell people and I quote you once again " you weren't that smart" . And for once I agree with you, entering into these types agreements is "not that smart".


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Abstract
> Despite this nation's massive effort during the past 90 years to build levees throughout the upper Mississippi Basin, mean annual flood damage in the region has increased 140% during that time. These levees exacerbate the flood damage problem by increasing river stage and velocity. Thus, rather than continuing to rely on structural solutions for flood control, it is time to develop a comprehensive flood management strategy that includes using wetlands to intercept and hold precipitation where it falls and store flood waters where they occur. History testifies to the truth of this premise: it was the rampant drainage of wetlands in the nineteenth century that gave rise to many of today's water resources management problems. The 1993 flood verifies the need for additional wetlands: the amount of excess water that passed St. Louis during the 1993 flood would have covered a little more than 13 million acres -half of the wetland acreage drained since 1780 in the upper Mississippi Basin. By strategically placing at least 13 million acres of wetlands on hydric soils in the basin, we can solve the basin's flooding problems in an ecologically sound manner.
Click to expand...

plainsman once again you do not include the source of your information so we can make sure it is not coming from an "advocacy group" :wink:

So according to the assumption being made in what you posted here once again insinuating agriculture is the causation of flooding, prior to 1780 when agriculture began draining the upper Mississippi basin the basin itself would not have flooded? "*we can solve the basin's flooding problems in an ecologically sound manner*"

If you are going to come to the debate about how agriculture can produce what it must in the coming years while still maintaining a committment to conservation, perhaps you should start to examine what you are insinuating and ask yourself what good am I doing in this debate by doing so. (you have already burnt a few bridges with your tirade against "greedy "ag with their hands in your pockets living in a welfare state, you know the "greed at it's darkest" kinda comments") :wink: Go back to the very first link I posted and read where the reference is made to conservation with "agenda" ultimately making it more difficult to move conservation forward in a cooperative manner. At the very least, inform yourself enough before commenting as a "professional" so that you know producers have been no till planting corn for well over a decade as agriculture changes and embraces conservation more and more in their production practices. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

To all those that have made refence in these threads towards the "greed" in ag, please answer a couple of questions.

1. Have agricultural production practices changed dramatically in the last 20 years towards much more conservation orientated methods?

2. How do you think it is best to continue moving agriculture in this direction into the future as it adapts to changing demands on production, forcing regulatory measures or developing cooperative conservation efforts that are mutually beneficial?

Please respond as I am curious to see the veiws you have.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

How is the tiling bill fit your second question!

2


> . How do you think it is best to continue moving agriculture in this direction into the future as it adapts to changing demands on production, forcing regulatory measures or developing cooperative conservation efforts that are mutually beneficial?
> estion?


----------



## gst

Ron they are simply questions regarding agriculture, conservation and people's opinions on it, not specifically tied directly to tiling. The several references to "greed" in agriculture in the two threads have not been tied soley to tiling. The questions are simply meant to see what the ideologies are of those who have chose to enter the debate and referenced those of us involved in agriculture as "greedy" and their opinions as to a couple of questions regarding ag and conservation in general.

I asked one question earlier of thee same people, how is conservation best served by the type of rhetoric ( I'm assuming by now everyone knows what I am talking about without copying it all once again) some people predicatably bring forth regarding topics like this involving agriculture and no one answered it. So I'm not expecting many direct answers to these questions either.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

In a national level there have been many programs that have benefited both Ag producers or landowners and conservation. Within our state there has been very little other than programs from the G&F. Easement restrictions,lack of drainage enforcement etc...

I think this is where some of the sentiment comes from gst! Like I stated before it took a whole heck of a lot of work and time and effort to correct issues we had. So there really has been no balance and the push has been to side with Ag on these issues and damn the long term. This causes all in Ag to be painted as greedy!

I will give you an example of what I am talking about. Landowner back home had marginal highly erodible land. It was in a 30 year Fed program that expired. Farm value of that land was minimal at best, grazing value not great either. Landowner is getting $70.00 per acre for the rest of his land and now wants to remove the trees,break up the sod on these 17 acres. Farmer renting the land said he did not want to break it up and offered to pay for those additional acres because he knew that if this land was farmed it would cause him issues with the other lower land from silting and potential plugged waterways. So when his contract expired the landowner hired a contractor to break it up and would not rent to the farmer for any amount of money.

I can see where the problem lays. But to most people not aware of the facts, the new renter and landowner are painted as greedy! The landowner on the other hand in his circle outside the community painted hunters and sportsman as being greedy by not supporting a program that would pay him what his land is worth to keep it idle! Again a painting of the sportsmen incorrectly!

So it cuts both ways, and the only place to really tone it down is the Leg with actions suited to fit both interests, but the interests have been to the Ag side. I am all for moving forward with a working partnership on these issues gst! Always have been! But the sportsman's voice is ignored more than it should be!

Let's apply your question to the tiling issue! Who is served by this bill? Who is supporting it? Are any of the real time concerns even going to be brought to the floor during the voting? Or will FB,FU and other farming interests rule the day?


----------



## gst

Ron while the NRCS is a national agency, they have any number of state oriented conservation programs that MANY producers are enrolled in. Many of these are producer driven. You must not be aware of our state Envioromental Sevices Program thru the NDSA that works directly with producers in the livestock industry to implement conservation as well as enviromentally sound practices in thier operations. Are you aware of what the Burliegh County NRCS and now others are doing in regards to conservation planting and cover crops? There are volantary programs thru DU as well regarding winter wheat acres, rotational grazing systems ect... The programs ARE out there and are being utilized, most sportsmen simply are not aware of them. To many sportsmen simply hear "ag is greedy" on sites like this.

You simply can not paint the entire ag society as greedy based on one or two "local" examples. To do so is rather close minded and shows a bit of a bias. It would be like me claiming all retired or active federal biologists are out of date with reality based of one local example or something that took place 30 years ago! :wink: ND's economy is unquestionably significantly agriculturally based, so of course ag is going to have a great deal of influence. But that does not mean it needs to be at the expense of conservation and in conjunction wildlife. And can one honestly look at the numbers of wildlife and the quality of outdoor oportunities in this state and claim agricultures growth has been at the expense of wildlife and or conservation?

What I think we need to understand and what I have mentioned more than once is that demands placed upon agriculture are going to continue to change as they have been at an even more accelerated pace in the future because of a variety of reasons. And the people involved in ag are cahnging as well. The challenge will be to continue to grow conservations role in agriculture at the same time. And as I asked and was also pointed out in the link I shared how does this my way or the hiway approach some conservation people and groups take ultimately help conservation. As was pointed out and agreed to, at some point society will overlook any priority on conservation. And if agriculture has not volantarily embedded itself in the actuality of sustainable, economically beneficial conservation practices who will keep conservation a priority? When society has reached this point, there will be NO "legislative actions suited" towards conservation, those in the legislature will listen to society and conservation be damned. So then what happens to conservation?

What we who are passionate about hunting tend to forget is that while it is what we beleive to be an essential part of our lives, it is when looked at truthfully a recreational activity not so much different than many other forms of recreational activities. Particularily in remembering that by itself those who engage in hunting are but a small part of society as a whole. Should this states emphasis be on developing recreational activities over those which contributes markedly much more to our economic well being? I am NOT suggesting hunting or conservation take a "back seat" to agriculture to it's detriment, I beleive they can BOTH be successful here in ND as they unquestionably are now. But please if you wish to continue in this debate being looked at as a person willing to look at both sides, please answer directly the three questions I asked and consider the possible cost to conservation and wildlife if ag's production begins to fall short of what is demanded of it.I am not suggesting this from some elitist postion as I'm sure some would suggest, but as someone that beleives in and is engaged in mutually beneficial conservation /agricultural practices that understands a simple fact of reality. If people are hungry or paying a significant portion of their disposable income for food, they will go to great lengths to have their food supply increased and or costs lowered and what will suffer in those instances?


----------



## Plainsman

gst I have a :wink: for you.

You keep posting things that are intellectually dishonest. Example: To clarify I have posted the type of farmer that I called greedy. You leave that out. I acknowledge there are more advanced and environmentally friendly ag practices and you leave that out. You tell me about your son who I have no idea how old he is about raising pheasants and I wonder if he is doing that for a pay hunting operation so I ask, but you leave all that out and accuse me of insulting your son. I think your one of those farmers I don't like that give all the rest a bad name as Ron addressed.

Like I said before you whine. No one feels more sorry for gst than gst. Grow some skin, man up,and post some honesty.

Tile will be used for much more than wet ground. It will go into wetlands. Oh, ya you missundertood that too, or pretended to misunderstand. When I said one advantage was farmers could farm right over it I meant over the tile not the wetland as you suggested I was saying. I think everyone else understood though so maybe if you were the only one that didn't understand it isn't important. The further south one travels the more tile is used to drain wetlands. In Iowa and southern Minnesota you see very few ditches. Almost all wetlands are drained with tile. There is always an open end in the wetland, and I have never seen one with the control structure some people talk about. 
My second point was I think it will lead to more violations. There are violations every year and they are picked up with aerial photography that reveals the ditches. Tile will hide those violations better. I'll bet there is some sweating going on knowing LiADAR will pick up those drains.

Why do you think they are going to pump through a line instead of let the water from Stump Lake run down Tolna Coulee?


----------



## gst

plainsman, I do apologize to you for that little jab in my last post. An example was needed, but using a reference to your posts was unnecessary, hopefully most people have read them themselves. But once again you will have to excuse me from responding to what clearly has become a personal issue with you. It most certainly is your perogative to beleive my advocating for those in conservation to work WITH ag instead of continueally spouting rhetoric is simply "whining". I will "man up" and "honestly" leave you with your own words.

plainsmans quote from his very first post on this issue. 
"Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. It worked for the high fence situation why will it not work for this situation. The only way to stop it is point out that it is not their right to flood their neighbor. Currently it would appear that the folks north of Devils Lake think it's their right to flood Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, and all the small communities in between. We are witnessing greed at it's darkest."
end quote. :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, I pointed to the national programs, did I not? The point is that you keep asking for a balance, my point is that for there to be a balance both sides need to move. One side right now needs to move a lot farther than the other side and that is the Ag equation. Most sportsman and non sportsman alike are willing to pay more in license fees, user fees on sporting goods etc... towards that middle ground. What is the Ag industry as a whole willing to do! Not individual farmers, but the leaders of the Ag industry! What have they brought forward in the state?

Like I pointed out in my post as well it is not all farmers either! But the unending legislation like the tiling bill gives people a jaded view!

I spoke with two farm area reps on the tiling bill! I got exactly what I expected in response. Wetlands cost us money!!!!!!!! I ask both because they run irrigation where they thought future water was going to come from to recharge those wells. The blank look I got made me laugh at them!!! Clueless and short sighted was their response as well. It was as if they had memorized the talking points from FB and FU respectively and had no idea that the aquifers depend on wetlands!!!!!!

How about those organizations putting forward a compromise program! You have the ear of one, tell us!!?


----------



## Plainsman

Ron I agree, and your post is very good. I also am willing to listen, and that isn't a smart a$$ comment either. I especially like your attitude about things being one sided. Also, I am against many things like wetland drains not because it benefits only city people, but benefits farmers downstream and often neighbors.

You are absolutely right about the aquifer. When you look at evaporation, then use long wave and short wave solar radiation to compute transpiration you still can not account for four feet of water loss in a wetland by mid July. So where did the rest of the water go? Into the aquifer. That's why I categorized wetlands into three hydrological classification, "hydrological recharge, hydrological flow through, and hydrological discharge. Many farmers like yourself understand this, and my hat is off to them.


----------



## gst

1. Have agricultural production practices changed dramatically in the last 20 years towards much more conservation orientated methods?

Ron please answer this one question and perhaps you will answer your own question as to what farmers have done themselves as a part of this "balance". Can you honestly look me in the eye and make the claim agriculture has not been actively involved in implementing conservation practices into production? If you are you do NOT know what is going on in agriculture. And if you do not know what is going on in agriculture how can you make informed statements regarding it. ie, "no one is notill planting corn." Tell me this, how much would it cost me to outfit myself in a 12 bottom plow, packer and drill versus a no till air seeder? Agriculture is investing huge amounts of dollars into conservation production. Lets see 0% organic matter soil cover versus 90% plus organic matter soil cover? Hmmm. NC ND where I live was the first area to widely implement no till or minimum till production practices that have now spread across the state We were minimum tilling back in the early 80's. So answer that one question and then tell us how little agriculture has done towards implementing conservation practices. Please realize national programs are effective conservation tools only if local farmers choose to enroll in them.

Ag leaders in this state are attempting to work proactively with conservation groups to develope renewable single generation conservation easements that would likely actually attract more participation rather than perpetual type easements, where do you stand on this issue? Do you beleive the value that was paid one time a generation ago on the wetlands in the article plainsman quoted are fair and equitable in todays dollars? Do you beleive agriculture is a substantial and vital part of this states economy? Please answer these questions directly?

The USF&WS held a series of meeting on a program they have out for perpetual easements for wetlands in the Couteau Region. They were held in Minot, Jamestown or VC and Aberdeen I beleive. Ag groups had representatives at each meeting suggesting that it would be more beneficial to go to single generation renewable conservation easements for both agriculture and conservation. They were dismissed each time. I personally attended the one in Minot and literally 90% of the people there were in support of conservation easements, but opposed to perpetual easements. It has been reported each of the subsequent meetings were roughly the same. This was a "public input" meeting, so do you actually think the USF&WS will listen and shape these programs around what 90% of the participants in their meetings suggested? If you do I have a "slightly" used pickup for sale that runs perfect :wink: :wink:

If you wish to engage in a debate, it requires you to answer questions directly that are asked so one can then continue to debate the answers rather than simply rehashing the same old points. So if you wish to continue this debate, please answer directly the questions that I have asked. Or it simply turns into the same old routine.


----------



## gst

On a side note to plainsmans comments regarding how a contaract once signed is binding. Not so with the upcoming program the USF&FS is enrolling acres in. Loyd Jones was asked the question at the Minot meeting I mentioned above what if 20 years down the road there is a food shortage and nationally food prices have risen 200% and these acres are needed for food production and now they are in a perpetual easement preventing that. His reply was the rules governing the easement can be changed thru an Act of Congress as it is ultimately this govt these easements are being entered into with. He was then asked what if we move the other way and 20 years down the road radical liberal enviromentalists demanding an end to coal production, ag production for animal feed or fuel ect... get into power. Can the regulations governing these easements be changed to a more restrictive nature thru the same Act of Congress? (please keep in mind how close we came to having a Congress willing to shut down a coal industry here in ND.) His answer was yes Congress can change them how ever they would wish. He was then asked what the land owners options would be. They would have to go to Federal court and file suit to determine if a "takings" had occured. He was asked how many dollars this takes and how many times has these ruling been in the favor of the landowner? There was no reply. There were a number of people there to hear this exchange. So explain to me once again how once entered into, these contracts are binding?


----------



## Plainsman

All contracts are binding, but I guess to a point. That's why it's important to pay attention to who is running for office, and what their philosophy/policy is on as many subjects as we can think of. I have noticed that it's usually more binding for government than for landowners. Look at "emergency haying" of CRP for example. This is what Ron was talking about when he said often things go in favor of landowners and not sportsmen. We wanted habitat, farmers wanted to go around their contract and have the hay. Farmers got the hay, sportsmen got the shaft. Those were not perpetual contracts either.

We are in a real mess. I say keep politics out of science. Data should be available to anyone who wants it. Unfortunately for research people to advance in government they must publish in professional outlets. I wish data was published more often in what the public reads. On the other hand maybe I should also say I wish the public was interested enough to purchase subscriptions in professional monthly publications. I know that professional standards of professional outlets screen out bias and popular literature is often skewed, but I wish the public had more access. The reason I advocated peer reviewed literature is because you just don't get much bull excrement past a half dozen editors. Those type of editors look for any reason to cut you down because it makes them look good. They think anyway.


----------



## gst

I am not about to rehash the CRP issue, even if people choose to make outlandish claims regarding it. 

But to simply get people to stop and think about comments that have been made in these threads, I will ask this question what is happening to the CRP programs and the acres that were enrolled in them and why do you suppose that is?


----------



## jrp267

You know gst as you go on constantly saying farming does not cause flooding I am wondering, how much water can native praire absorb with its 6 ft of root base compared to a corn field? I am just saying obviously we need to farm to eat but there is no doubt mans destruction to the land is what is causing the floods. Oh and red river valley Keep your boats close it's gonna warm up this week!!!


----------



## gst

So you are insinuating there were NO floods then before man was around??? I do maintain farming does not CAUSE flooding. Saturated soils, large amounts of moisture, rapid snow melts ect. CAUSE flooding. I would guess maybe there were a few that blamed the flood Noah rode out in the Ark on agriculture and farming as well :wink:

Please show me where I have EVER said some farming practices do not contribute to flooding as many other practices and events man does contribute.

BIG difference. If people wish to continue this debate please begin by answering the questions that have been asked. If not as I said it is merely rehashing the same old stuff.


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> plainsman you earlier asked the question what it would cost to get someone to restore drained wetlands. You brought up the topic of dollars and greed. So lets do a little math. Lets look at an USF&W easement for 99 years. So for simple math lets take the $4700 and divide by 100. (close enough for me) My math says that is $47 dollars a year for dozens of acres of wetlands. Even figuring one dozen acres, that is by my math real close to $4 dollars an acre. Now in 1965, perhaps that was a "fair" amount particularily for someone possibly facing hard economic times) . But answer this, do you beleive that is a "fair" amount for someone of the next generation to receive in todays dollars for these wetlands???? Before you answer stop and think what $4 buys you today. Now if indeed this is a perpetual easement on "dozens" of acres of wetlands, exactly what value is being received?
> So just who actually was the "greedy" party in the big picture regarding this agreement? I do not think it is out of line to think an agreement of this nature should be fair and equitable for all parties binded by it. So what value would you put on these acres in this easement for this next generation farmer to be fair and equitable to perhaps aleiviate him from being in violation???


Tell me you don't really buy that logic :rollin:

The only difference between perpetual easement contracts and a private land sale is that the landowner STILL MAINTAINS property rights after the easement payment!!! So, even after they have collected a fair sum for the land, they get to keep those acres for recreational value etc.
*According to your asinine philosophy above..........I should go back to my neighbor......... b/c 50 years ago, my grandfather sold him 80 acres for what was a fair price in 1960. But doesn't my neighbor realize that land values have gone up considerably in the last 50 years............and DAYUM I SHOULD BE COMPENSATED AS SUCH*

If the poor, downtrodden chap :eyeroll: in your above scenario had any wits about him, he would have taken the $4,700 from his easement payment and invested it in a quality farm that did not require wetland drainage to become tillable. How does your math work out then??? :thumb: 
In my neck of the woods, many farms were enrolled in WRP during the 1990's........why?? Because a LO could get more by enrolling in WRP & then selling the "residual" rights to the state(DNR) or county conservation board. In turn, they would take the sum of the *easement payment + residual value*, and go buy a different farm where they could turn a better profit. At the same time ridding themselves of the tax burden on their easement acres.

So spare us the sob story of the 2nd or 3rd generation producer who can't crop his Granddaddy's wetland easement oke:


----------



## gst

WRP, you seem to be *EMPHATICALLY* missing the point. The conversation was about fair and equitable payments for wetlands. I simply asked wether the payments in a perpetual easement signed years ago under these levels of payments are fair and equitable for the people that end up dealing with the restirctions mulit generations down the road. I didn't realize there was any "philosophy" in the statement you quoted wether "assinine" or not, merely a question as to wether the dollar amounts paid a generation ago are still "fair and equitable" in todays dollars given that the stipulations of the easement still carry over regulating what can be done on those acres. A direct simple question you never answered.

I beleive most can distinguish the difference between the land sale your Grandpa enagaged in and the perpetual easements we are discussing, One is a transfer of ownership while the other is a right or restriction of usage. Slight difference.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, both are a transfer of right of use! Thus more alike than different. There has also been a benefit to subsequent landowners as well in lower cost of purchase. Recently two quarters of land sold that are almost identical in makeup. Same classification of soils, equal amount within a half acre of tillable acres. Only difference was an 18.73 acre easement on a wetland. That quarter sold for about $25000.00 less or if you want to quantify it a bit more. That amounts to about $1400 an acre for those acres under easement!

I asked the former owner if he regretted putting it in, he laughed and said why should I! I paid $155.00 an acres for the whole quarter. Got paid about half of that quarter cost for those 18 acres over the years! Now the new owner basically is getting paid something for land in which he paid nothing for if you compare the sale prices!

So it cuts both ways and that $1400.00 is pretty close to current sale pricing in that area per acre! So explain why then the current buyer should not be burdened with the easement. What is behind the hate is that easement land gets watched more closely and it makes it harder to fudge.

To a farmer, it sounds unfair, but not when you strip away the BS! Over and over easement land sells for less than other land of equal quality and many times land of less quality sells for the same price or more as well. So the buyer is getting paid forward as they say for the act of the previous owner!!!!!!!


----------



## gst

Ron, lets "strip away the BS", a land SALE and a land usage agreement are two separate beasts and please do not try to insinuate they are not.

If you know any thing about land sales there are a variety of reasons that identical quarters may sell for significantly different prices. It happens all the time with no easements involved. If you wish I could list any number of reasons, but that would be somewhat pointless to this discussion. As is insinuating the sole cause of the difference in valuations in the example you gave was the easement without knowing the buyers reasons.

What if the land is not sold but simply passed down from generation to generation as in the example plainsman gave that I referenced when asking if it was a fair and equitable payment for those easements for the next generation and subsequent generations after that, as perpetual is forever and will buden every continueing generation with the same regulations that you have now suggested amounts to a detriment of $1400/ acre as per your example? Something that brought in $4/ acre now is a *"cost"*to the value of that land of $1400??? What was that plainsman said about not knowing what one was doing when they entered into these easements? Now in these instances is this a "fair and equitable" deal??? Please answer.

If you wish to continue this debate, please answer the questions that have been asked directly in this and other posts, or as I have said it begins to be the same old stuff which I'm sure most are tired of.


----------



## Plainsman

> What was that plainsman said about not knowing what one was doing when they entered into these easements?


I think you said they didn't know gst. If I said they didn't know what they were doing, I meant as in stupid. They got paid fair value when they took the easement. If land prices went up they went up. If they didn't see that in the future that's their fault. If a landowner pays full value knowing there is an easement how is that somehow not his own fault. If he didn't like it don't pay the price. Simple in my book. If it's complicated in yours that's your problem. Actually I think it's just more whining. Pay yesterday, pay today, pay tomorrow. No, they were paid once just like everyone else. What other profession can you sell what yo have, and still own it tomorrow?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, in the case I listed, I know the seller and the buyer and what went on at the auction. I also know that the easement on my wifes families land impacted the sale value as well in reducing it. That is a fact gst, no two ways about it.

Same with mineral rights, water rights etc.... You, I am sure, would not be in favor of making all water and mineral rights transfer on sale as well? Not really that much different!

I do find it funny though that there are a good number of people who would love to put long term protection in place on wetlands for future generations to enjoy the protection and value they provide in making sure we have clean water recharging the aquifers!


----------



## gst

Ron as I said there are MANY reasons land values are different in sales.

You did not answer the question asked yet once again.


gst said:


> . What if the land is not sold but simply passed down from generation to generation as in the example plainsman gave that I referenced when asking if it was a fair and equitable payment for those easements for the next generation and subsequent generations after that, as perpetual is forever and will buden every continueing generation with the same regulations that you have now suggested amounts to a detriment of $1400/ acre as per your example? Something that brought in $4/ acre now is a *"cost"*to the value of that land of $1400??? What was that plainsman said about not knowing what one was doing when they entered into these easements? Now in these instances is this a "fair and equitable" deal??? Please answer.
> 
> If you wish to continue this debate, please answer the questions that have been asked directly in this and other posts, or as I have said it begins to be the same old stuff which I'm sure most are tired of.


The vast majority of land in farming or ranching situations is transfered from one generation to the next in this manner. Please answer this question in the above post.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> What was that plainsman said about not knowing what one was doing when they entered into these easements?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you said they didn't know gst. If I said they didn't know what they were doing, I meant as in stupid. They got paid fair value when they took the easement. If land prices went up they went up. If they didn't see that in the future that's their fault. If a landowner pays full value knowing there is an easement how is that somehow not his own fault. If he didn't like it don't pay the price. Simple in my book. If it's complicated in yours that's your problem. Actually I think it's just more whining. Pay yesterday, pay today, pay tomorrow. No, they were paid once just like everyone else. What other profession can you sell what yo have, and still own it tomorrow?
Click to expand...

So then you beleive what the gentleman was paid in the example you gave(less than $4/acre to his Father) is a "fair and equitable price ?

Deal with the easement regulations yesterday,deal with them today, deal with them tommorrow, deal with them forever. What do you beleive is fair and equitable not quote"Sign it, take the money, and it's binding. If something is wrong doesn't mean anyone cheated you it means you were not that smart".

Oh wait, from the above statement it seems your are admitting something is likely "wrong" but hey they signed the contracts so tough ****. I guess that is what you consider "fair and equitable".

Once again, what is happening to CRP acres and why?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, it is fair. If it is passed on, then cost was not a factor in any way. You now had something of value you did not before. I inherited land,purchased property as well. Now if I pass that on to my kids, they receive the land I inherited and purchased at no cost. Not a bad deal regardless of the restriction upon the property!

There really is no justification for not allowing easements like other states do. The twisting of reasons not to or cries of unfair as in your example are simply petty excuses used to hide behind the fact that these wetlands cannot be drained! With future increases in water demands everyone should be excited about wetland protection for the future water quality they provide for our aquifers. Now now much value does that have?

Those that irrigate should be the most vocal in protection options, but FB and FU are both opposed because they cannot see the forest through the trees. If either of these groups would put forward the positives instead of these petty negative talking points, the easement issue would be resolved in the Leg instead of it being resolved in the future in the courts!


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I know you made that statement just to get me to talk to you. Complaining about easements is simply trying to double dip. It was a good deal when they got them, but now they want to have their cake and eat it too. The reason they are so whinny is because government often caves in or the judge lets them off when they get caught draining the easement.

gst, if you leased to your neighbor would you go out and try to plant that field he leased from you? Then why do you expect the government to do it? Because you know if you whine they may cave in, or the public will feel sorry for you and support you. Always whine, whine, whine. The more I listen to you the less support I have in my mind for agriculture. It's like bombing the Taliban, I can't support dropping all ag support without hurting some of my very good friends who farm. I should stop reading your constant whine while I still feel good about the average farmer.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Ron, lets "strip away the BS", a land SALE and a land usage agreement are two separate beasts and please do not try to insinuate they are not.
> 
> If you know any thing about land sales there are a variety of reasons that identical quarters may sell for significantly different prices. It happens all the time with no easements involved. If you wish I could list any number of reasons, but that would be somewhat pointless to this discussion. As is insinuating the sole cause of the difference in valuations in the example you gave was the easement without knowing the buyers reasons.
> 
> What if the land is not sold but simply passed down from generation to generation as in the example plainsman gave that I referenced when asking if it was a fair and equitable payment for those easements for the next generation and subsequent generations after that, as perpetual is forever and will buden every continueing generation with the same regulations that you have now suggested amounts to a detriment of $1400/ acre as per your example? Something that brought in $4/ acre now is a *"cost"*to the value of that land of $1400??? What was that plainsman said about not knowing what one was doing when they entered into these easements? Now in these instances is this a "fair and equitable" deal??? Please answer.
> 
> If you wish to continue this debate, please answer the questions that have been asked directly in this and other posts, or as I have said it begins to be the same old stuff which I'm sure most are tired of.


gst, please come back to the real world. Not everything in life is fair and ag shouldn't be treated any different than any other business. There are all types of encumbrances upon property and there always will be. This is no different than any utility easement, ingress/egress easement, etc..... The owner at the time got the payment and now the easement will impact following owners. For some reason you believe ag should be above any agreements or easements, but I guess it's ok for any other industry or person. So my not being in ag, should I be compensated for the easements on my property, or only ag. Did you and I not know what encumbrances, defects, interests, servitudes, and all other matters whatsoever of record impairing or adversely affecting the title to the property that was purchased or inherited. You are defining greed. Maybe if people learned to negotiate at the time of the agreement instead of just looking at the ckeck in front of them they wouldn't complain so much later. Probably not.

One last thing, "as perpetual is forever and will buden every continueing generation" (your words).

47-05-02.1. Requirements of easements, servitudes, or nonappurtenant
restrictions on the use of real property. Real property easements, servitudes, or any
nonappurtenant restrictions on the use of real property, which become binding after July 1, 1977, shall be subject to the requirements of this section. These requirements are deemed a part of any agreement for such interests in real property whether or not printed in a document of
agreement.

1. The area of land covered by the easement, servitude, or nonappurtenant restriction
on the use of real property shall be properly described and shall set out the area of
land covered by the interest in real property.

*2. The duration of the easement, servitude, or nonappurtenant restriction on the use of
real property must be specifically set out, and in no case may the duration of any
interest in real property regulated by this section exceed ninety-nine years. The
duration of an easement for a waterfowl production area acquired by the federal
government, and consented to by the governor or the appropriate state agency after
July 1, 1985, may not exceed fifty years. The duration of a wetlands reserve
program easement acquired by the federal government pursuant to the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 after July 1, 1991, may not exceed
thirty years. *

3. No increase in the area of real property subject to the easement, servitude, or
nonappurtenant restriction shall be made except by negotiation between the owner
of the easement, servitude, or nonappurtenant restriction and the owner of the
servient tenement.


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> WRP, you seem to be *EMPHATICALLY* missing the point. The conversation was about fair and equitable payments for wetlands. I simply asked wether the payments in a perpetual easement signed years ago under these levels of payments are fair and equitable for the people that end up dealing with the restirctions mulit generations down the road. I didn't realize there was any "philosophy" in the statement you quoted wether "assinine" or not, merely a question as to wether the dollar amounts paid a generation ago are still "fair and equitable" in todays dollars given that the stipulations of the easement still carry over regulating what can be done on those acres. A direct simple question you never answered.


To answer your question..........If a reasonable easement payment was agreed upon by both parties and signed into contract in 1965, THEN YES THAT IS A FAIR PAYMENT FOR WETLAND PROTECTION/LOSS OF CROPPING RIGHTS.
*Here's an epiphany*.........I bet Grandfather invested that $4,700 in other property/assets. Do you think the property value of his investment has also grown in value since 1965??? oke: I'm guessing his second and third generation inherited that property, along with the wetland acres under easement. So don't try telling us they are not getting anything out of the original easement payment :eyeroll:


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> I beleive most can distinguish the difference between the land sale your Grandpa enagaged in and the perpetual easements we are discussing, One is a transfer of ownership while the other is a right or restriction of usage. Slight difference.


Yes, most can distinguish the difference........I covered that in my initial post!!
After a LAND SALE, the seller gives up ALL property rights, and the deed is transferred to the buyer. *The seller receives a lump sum purchasing price, and NOTHING more.*
After an EASEMENT CONTRACT, the seller maintains ownership rights with land use restrictions. *So the seller ends up with a lump sum easement payment, AND ownership/trespassing rights of the easement acres.*

Moral of the story........if the easement payment is paid at "fair market value", the landowner ends up with MORE than he would have from a private land sale. As you say, there is definitely a "slight difference" :bop:

What the landowner or his benefactors choose to do with the resulting easement acres is up to them...........keep it for their own recreational use, lease the trespassing rights, or sell the acres to a conservation group for a "residual value".
Either way, they end up with an ADDITIONAL BENEFIT in recreation or income they would not have had following a private sale.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> I think this is where some of the sentiment comes from gst! Like I stated before it took a whole heck of a lot of work and time and effort to correct issues we had. So there really has been no balance and the push has been to side with Ag on these issues and damn the long term. This causes all in Ag to be painted as greedy!
> 
> So it cuts both ways, and the only place to really tone it down is the Leg with actions suited to fit both interests, but the interests have been to the Ag side. I am all for moving forward with a working partnership on these issues gst! Always have been! But the sportsman's voice is ignored more than it should be!


Okay so lets recap here for a moment. A "working partnership" as was suggested above. Hmm lets see. Numerous ag groups as well as myself in these threads have consistantly suggested a balance (working partnership) could be acheived between conservation and production agriculture by simply moving from perpetual easements to renewable, mutually beneficial, single generation conservation easements. NO ONE is calling for an end to conservation easements, but rather a system that might very well entice more producers to enroll more acres to protect wetlands. (Isn't that ultimately what is wanted here?)

And the response from the 3 conservation voices in this thread in responding to this attempt to reach this "balance" has been tough ****, it is our way (perpetual) or nothing. You don;t like it don;t sign up. It appears some peoples concept of a balance in a "working partnership" is somewhat lacking. .

And yet no one answers the CRP question. What is happening to acres in the *CONSERVATION* Reserve Programs and why. ( I imagine there will be a "greedy farmers" comment coming in an answer) Perhaps this question if looked at with an open mind would give you an answer that should suggest you stop and ask how effective is this all or nothing tough **** response to ags attempts to create practical, fair and equitable *BALANCED* conservations easements and in the long term how does it benefit conservation. People have commented on how some ag groups can not see the forrest for the trees??? Acres are being taken out of conservation programs for a multitude of reasons and some in conservation are unwilling to take an honest look at why, and refuse to accept their part in this. Talk about not seeing the forrest for the trees.

Stick your heads in the sand and continue to blame "greedy ag" as has been done on numerous occassions in these threads, that's a hell of a way to reach a "balance" :roll:

Enjoy the rest of the "debate" on your own as it is clear no "balance" is being sought and to continue to think anyone is, is pointless.


----------



## Plainsman

It depends on perspective I guess. To me balance doesn't mean ag always gets their way. Also, you were complaining about past easements and the past is the past. It's not like were are going to the Fish and Wildlife Service and say we think this is unfair when it is fair.

The thing about working partnerships is farmers will work with conservation groups when it benefits them.

As far as CRP people thought it was a good deal, and they were right. They said hey my land is highly erodible please let me have CRP. Corn went up and now the land isn't erodible? Ya, right. I don't think there should be any price support on crops grown on highly erodible land. We certainly should not subsidize ethanol which is habitat destructive and makes us more dependant on foreign oil. It takes more energy to produce than we get out of it and that technology that is supposed to change that hasn't occurred in the years we have debated the issue. So why is it we stick with ethanol? Just for the sake of agriculture I think, because it certainly can't be for the environment or energy dependence.

Oh, did you see that ad on TV about corn sweeteners. The add says sugar is sugar your body can't tell the difference. That is the biggest bunch of hooey they have tried tell us yet. There are many kinds of sugar, but none in corn. Corn starch must be changed using acid bath. By the time they are done they get a sugar, but there are many kinds of sugar. This one is not like the sugar from sugar cane or beets, it's much worse on our health. They push it because there is ag profit in it.

Those may not answer your questions gst, but it's things I waned people to know about. If you want to refute it show me your chemistry diploma, not a picture of your John Deer.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst there is a long list of people who want to enroll land already in the state. The hic up is that most conservation groups want more than a 30 easement because of the cost factor to restore wetlands. Right now other places receive those dollars instead of us. It was not as much an issue when the Feds where kicking in a portion, but like other programs this is going to face cuts as well.

So where is the movement from what we have today? The movement has been toward even more restrictive actions not less!! So save the cooperation crap!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It depends on perspective I guess. To me balance doesn't mean ag always gets their way. Also, you were complaining about past easements and the past is the past. It's not like were are going to the Fish and Wildlife Service and say we think this is unfair when it is fair. quote]
> 
> No one is complaining about past easements, nor have I suggested we go back and change them as you insinuate, they are simply being referenced in a discussion about how to develope new conservation easements for the future for PRODUCTION ag to reach a balance where conservation programs can be a part of it.
> 
> Most of the people wanting to sign up under these easements fall into two catagories, those either retireing form ag production or have retired, and those that need the easement payments for economic stability. Neither of these groups are looking towards either the long term interests of the needs of society from a production point of veiw, the ability of ag to meet them or even conservation for that matter, simply the dollar they can get here and now.
> 
> What is being discussed is a maintaining a balance between conservation and PRODUCTION ag as we move forward and face the demands ag will have placed on it from a PRODUCTION stand point in the future. I have suggested a RENEWABLE, MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL, FAIR and EQUITABLE program be used to enroll acres in conservation instead of perpetual type easements.
> 
> Please explain to me how that translates into "ag always getting their way" or "cooperation crap" as we search to find this "balance" ? That is a question looking for an answer by the way. :wink:
> 
> Consider the answer to this question as you maintain your "my way or the hiway" ideologies not wanting to move away from perpetual easements regarding conservation. What happens to societies consideration of conservation when food shortages or significantly higher prices occur? In these situations it will NOT be society supporting conservation so then if conservation has not worked directly with ag to develope programs PRODUCTION ag WANTS to participate in what hapens to conservation????? Please stop and think about that for a moment and you will realize I am coming from a perspective of wanting to develope programs for conservation that PRODUCTION ag actually wants to be involved in for a reason.
> 
> By the way Ron, the perpetual easement programs I refered to that the USFWS are looking to enroll land under have NO costs involved to restore wetlands.


----------



## Plainsman

You want it to benefit you, and I want conservation to benefit me. If the taxpayer pays you, but you want to be paid to hunt, then you and wildlife benefit, but not the taxpayer or the hunter.

With the way the economy is going, the longer I wait the better for me. If you have read anything by Obama's buddy Bill Ayers you will see they don't believe in private land ownership, or agriculture support prices. I think it's time to just kick back and let the future take it's course. Everything has been in your favor, but shortly your going to hurt. When that happens easements will become cheap. If you don't want to sign up, don't.
It isn't any different than you guys saying if you want to hunt jump through hoop A and B. A being support me, and B, that will be $100 a day per gun. With the cuts required after the mad spending spree your going to be on the chopping block gst. Guys like you have dumped on us for years. Lets hear the song you sing five years from now. Perhaps instead of seeing us as suckers you may appreciate us. We can only hope. I see it as a two way street, not I give you get.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You want it to benefit you, and I want conservation to benefit me. If the taxpayer pays you, but you want to be paid to hunt, then you and wildlife benefit, but not the taxpayer or the hunter.
> .


And finally the real agenda behind this ideology comes out. It is not about "conserving wetlands" it is about hunting and wildlife. In your comments following this statement in your last post you seems to think you will be best served by simply setting back and waiting instead of working with ag to find a balnace between produvtion and conservation. If indeed agriculture production begins to fall short into the future as some pretty smart people are suggesting it might, do you really think the bulk of society will care wether you have a duck to shoot or even if wetlands are being conserved???

The forrest for the trees. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You want it to benefit you, and I want conservation to benefit me. If the taxpayer pays you, but you want to be paid to hunt, then you and wildlife benefit, but not the taxpayer or the hunter.
> 
> With the way the economy is going, the longer I wait *the better for me*. If you have read anything by Obama's buddy Bill Ayers you will see they don't believe in private land ownership, or agriculture support prices. I think it's time to just kick back and let the future take it's course. Everything has been in your favor, but shortly *your going to hurt*. When that happens easements will become cheap. If you don't want to sign up, don't.
> It isn't any different than you guys saying if you want to hunt jump through hoop A and B. A being support me, and B, that will be $100 a day per gun. With the cuts required after the mad spending spree your going to be on the chopping block gst. * Guys like you have dumped on us for years.* Lets hear the song you sing five years from now. Perhaps instead of seeing us as suckers you may appreciate us. We can only hope. I see it as a two way street, not I give you get.


Actually this entire post pretty well sums it up, it is not about what is best for conservation or reaching a balance with ag for conservations future for people such as plainsman. Once again plainsman's own words spell it out quite clearly.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, just what is the balance of production vs conservation and protection of wetlands easements? To me your statement indicates that in the future we will need to farm those acres and we do not want any restrictions on doing so. Pretty blatant that you want the cake and want to eat it as well!

With the historic loss of wetlands in the US and in ND as well. What remain should not be subject to future farming period. On that there really is no bending or middle ground. While wildlife interest are the ones doing most of the work in preserving them. The big picture still remains the benefit overall that they provide.

The subject of easements vs conservation programs are really two separate issues in this debate. First most easements have been on wetlands or ground deemed to be native never tilled soils. Why should those lands be subject to farming requirements? 
Now in regards to conservation programs like CRP, I am fully aware of the reason that they where introduced. It was a move away from the old system of allotment acres for certain types of grain production. I farmed with a wheat allotment gst. I get it. The side benefits that CRP created was an increase in wildlife, from that sprung up side business ventures for farmers across this nation and in ND the market for commercialization of hunting. Take western ND for example and the region around DL. Thus a added value to land that otherwise would not have been.

So to remain on focus, tell me why again without the spin any existing wetland should be subject to future farming?


----------



## Plainsman

Hey, gst, I'm learning from you. You own land, but to treat it right you want us to pay you. Maybe I should ask the taxpayer to roof my house this summer. You also support pay hunting, and even high fence shooting, but you want us to pay you for proper management of your own land. 
Farms have grown much larger over the past 50 years. That means fewer people on the land, fewer farmers voting, and with fewer votes less political clout. Have you ever wondered why North Dakota votes in conservatives within the state, and sends liberals to Washington? Because they don't want to waste our money at home, but they think liberals in Washington means more government programs/support prices for agriculture. Well, you elected a guy who only values the inner-city and could care less about you. You have dumped on us for years, why should we not just sit back and watch you crash? It's not like were masochists who like your disrespect. Give me a good reason we should care and I will. The more you twist my words the less I care what happens. 
Your attitude about we pay you is what made me ask what was in it for you to raise pheasants. Logical right? Then I get the whine and sympathy pitch about what a bad guy I am for picking on your 16 year old son. Who was to know the age of you, your son, or your John Deer? I sometimes wonder if you even have a 16 year old son, or if the whole thing was a set up for sympathy PR. That's your MO gst. Remember the I'm in bed with HSUS pitch? After that I'm supposed to give you credibility? Please, fool me ounce shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. 
Do you know what symbiotic relationships are gst? When it works only one way, or even mostly one way it becomes parasitic. That's not my words look it up in your dictionary.
I think a nice big wall around your farm so you can't flood your neighbor would be a good idea. We will pass the money over the fence, you pass the bread out. That way it's fair and no one holds the other hostage.

I have been fighting to not get a bad attitude about these things gst, but your just to convincing. I can't help but wonder, which side are you on? I think it's time to leave you to your fellow landowner who have different priorities.


----------



## gst

Ron, To answer your question where the balance lies between production and conservation, ultimately neither you in conservation nor I in production will likely decide that. Society will dependent on their access to food and the price they have to pay for it. That is the point I am trying to make. As of right now, I beleive in as repeatedly said volantary, renewable mutually beneficial, fair and equitable, single generation conservation programs to protect these wetlands in conjunction with adapting conservation production practices being implemented in a profitable manner.

Now as I have answered your questions please do so to the following if you would please. 
1. Do you beleive the govt should be able to take or restrict usage of privately owned lands from any single individual without fair and equitable compensation to that individual?

2.In the future, where will the population growth of this country and the world stop?

3.Will technology and yield potential increases be enough to match production with demand?

4.If it comes to it somewhere down the road far in the future(remember perpetual covers this time frame) should these wetlands be farmed if current production ag can not keep up with demand and people are starving or this couontry is going broke importing high cost food stuffs?

Here is an example of directly answering a question.

1. No

2. I do not know the answer to this, but as it grows so does the required production to feed it.

3. Once again I do not know, tremendous strides have been made in yield technology, but at some point these gains will start to diminish and top out. Will this level be enough to feed the population on the current grounds in production at that time????? I don;t know. Until that time, what I am suggesting is that conservation would be best served by not maintaining an antagoinistic approach to PRODUCTION ag so that both may benefit.

4. In the future if it comes to a choice between farming wetlands and seeing this countries population starving or paying such a high percentage of their income for food it is economically ruining this country I would advocate for the farming of these wetlands with food producing commodities in a responsible manner. Until such time I will advocate for renewable, mutually benefitial, fair and equitabe conservation easements and programs to maintain a balance between production and conservation. 
And that is my answer to the question you posed what would require the farming of these wetlands in the future.

Ron your turn.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> .
> Your attitude about we pay you is what made me ask what was in it for you to raise pheasants. Logical right? Then I get the whine and sympathy pitch about what a bad guy I am for picking on your 16 year old son. Who was to know the age of you, your son, or your John Deer? I sometimes wonder if you even have a 16 year old son, or if the whole thing was a set up for sympathy PR. That's your MO gst. Remember the I'm in bed with HSUS pitch? After that I'm supposed to give you credibility? Please, fool me ounce shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
> .


Yet once again please show me where I ever stated you were in bed with or a member of HSUS. Let it go.

Now you are insinuating I am lying about having a 16 year old son???? Perhaps if you would have had the decency after learning that it was my 16 year old son that is raising pheasnts and releasing them into the wild because he loves hunting and wildlife, and he is doing this as an FFA project as well that developes responsibility, accountability and a variety of qualities that are a positive benefit in life, to apologize for making such an assinine statement that someone you have never once met is simply doing it for monetary gain rather than yet once again trying to justify this childish and petty accusation I would have a bit of respect for you. As it is I do not.


----------



## gst

Ron, you make it sound as if wetlands are being converted and farmed in huge numbers in todays production ag, you do know it is illegal to farm an actual deemed "wetland"without gaining permission do you not? Please share the requirements necessary for someone to drain and farm a actual "wetland". Please share the figures of wetlands that have been converted to farmland since the implementation of Swampbuster, and the No Net Loss Policies of both the State and Federal govts back in 1989 that require mitigation of other converted wetlands to drain a new one.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> *No one is complaining about past easements*, nor have I suggested we go back and change them as you insinuate, they are simply being referenced in a discussion about how to develope new conservation easements for the future for PRODUCTION ag to reach a balance where conservation programs can be a part of it.


but prior gst also stated:


> What if the land is not sold but simply passed down from generation to generation as in the example plainsman gave that I referenced when asking if it was a fair and equitable payment for those easements for the next generation and subsequent generations after





> generations after that, as perpetual is forever and will buden every continueing generation with the same regulations


You want to talk about future conservation but then whine about easements being "perpetual" when the NDCC states a maximum length, not a minimum.

How long of an easement duration would you believe to be fair? How long does it take for that wetland to reach its full potential? How long for the public taxpayer to get the benefit that has been paid for. You as always look at only the ag side. You want a short time limit for the easement before anyone would get any real benefit for it. How about instead of an easement it's a lease agreement, possibly with a yearly payment in accordance to what you would have gained from the acreage for that year? You could look at it like some areas of business with a 5 year adjustment/review, so if prices go up your yearly payment should go up. But if it goes down, it goes also, fair is fair. I like the 5 year adjustment/review as long as the wetland is visited and any violation (like draining) would bring swift and heavy fines.

Of course gst I'm sure as usual you will have all questions, but no answers.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst said:


> Ron, you make it sound as if wetlands are being converted and farmed in huge numbers in todays production ag, you do know it is illegal to farm an actual deemed "wetland"without gaining permission do you not? Please share the requirements necessary for someone to drain and farm a actual "wetland". Please share the figures of wetlands that have been converted to farmland since the implementation of Swampbuster, and the No Net Loss Policies of both the State and Federal govts back in 1989 that require mitigation of other converted wetlands to drain a new one.


On our land we have three wetlands totalling about 40 acres that are farmable under current law. That is a result of the drought period of the 80's establishing them as such. There are countless wetlands like this including many that where farmed during the drought that contiune to be planted year after year and losses occur. I am sure you understand this, but always fall back to it is illegal. The area in the Hankinson area is a great example of that! Simply look at a topo map from before 97 to now! I think that will speak for itself!


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> You want to talk about future conservation but then whine about easements being "perpetual" when the NDCC states a maximum length, not a minimum.
> 
> How long of an easement duration would you believe to be fair? How long does it take for that wetland to reach its full potential? How long for the public taxpayer to get the benefit that has been paid for. You as always look at only the ag side. You want a short time limit for the easement before anyone would get any real benefit for it. How about instead of an easement it's a lease agreement, possibly with a yearly payment in accordance to what you would have gained from the acreage for that year? You could look at it like some areas of business with a 5 year adjustment/review, so if prices go up your yearly payment should go up. But if it goes down, it goes also, fair is fair. I like the 5 year adjustment/review as long as the wetland is visited and any violation (like draining) would bring swift and heavy fines.
> 
> Of course gst I'm sure as usual you will have all questions, but no answers.


Longshot, Federal easements such as those by the USFWS are not subject to the states Century Codeand can indeed and are perpetual. I beleive we have had that conversation once before. As to your formula for a lease instead of an easement, that could indeed be one method of accomplishing a fair and equitable mutually beneficial program. As to what I have suggested regarding time frames I have been consistant in a duration period of one generation which could be up to say 20 or possibly even 40 years. I would beleive in such a time frame a wetland would reach it's full benefit in 20 years.


----------



## gst

Ron if you do not wish to answer the questions I have asked simply say so and the discussion can end. If you do wish to answer these questions here is one other, what is the definition and classification of wetlands under the current programs regarding the regulation of them??? And is it illegal or is it not to drain a wetlands of this classification under these definitions and regulations in the state of ND???


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Longshot, Federal easements such as those by the USFWS are not subject to the states Century Codeand can indeed and are perpetual. I beleive we have had that conversation once before.


First of all I find this interesting. Land laws are state rights on private property. The Feds are to follow state land laws. Myelf I believe a 30 year maximum would be a good timeframe since an easement or lease document has to have a duration stated.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

#1 NO!

#2&3 No way of knowing, however natural climate change may add to regions of the world ability to grow crops like corn and soybeans in places where currently they cannot. Other regions will then be able to double crop that currently are limited to one.

#4
No! Because we will still need a dependent clean water supply and wetlands are the recharging system period! There is not any sound reason now or a make believe one like you present that can justify stripping away this part of the water cycle. Where will the water come from to process the food, provide for the expanded population. This is exactly the reason why perpetual easements are needed to protect the future water quality from people who are as short sighted as you!

Thus underscoring my point that Ag is not in the mindset of cooperation, they are in the mindset of maximized production at all costs on the grand scheme!

Look at our current situation out west. Water is one of the biggest limiting factors. Look across the state at the rural water systems as well. For our population base we have an extensive water pipeline system that serves not only municipalities but rural settings. Yet we have been in a wet cycle. Even during the 30's our aquifers where at higher levels than today. What good will it be to raise food stocks if we do not have water to drink,process the food etc...


----------



## gst

Ron, thanks for answering those 4 questions, there are a few remaining from another post regarding the definitions of wetlands, and the No Net Loss policies developed by the Fed. and State govts that make it illegal to drain a wetlands here in ND. If you do not wish to answer them all, simply answer these couple of questions.

1. Is it illegal to drain a wetland here in ND?

2. How many acres of wetlands have been drained for agricultural purposes here in ND since the late 80's and the adoption of the No Net Loss policy?

In response to your answers from the last set of questions, by the time " however natural climate change may add to regions of the worlds ability to grow crops like corn and soybeans in places where currently they cannot. Other regions will then be able to double crop that currently are limited to one." this happens, what is the odds technologies will also have found a way to practically extract potable water from the oceans? What is the odds that as shown in my link from long ago technologies will allow for drought tolerant crops that will allow for less water usage by crops, what is the odds that conservation production methods will continue to develope to allow these aquifers to be reharged as they do thru wetland plants even while production takes place?

Short sighted is continueing to base your beleifs of what is happening in ag today and in the future on a couple of instances of what happened on your farm you no longer operate 30 years ago.

Now in response to this statement, 
Thus underscoring my point that Ag is not in the mindset of cooperation, they are in the mindset of maximized production at all costs on the grand scheme!

You never did answer the question I posed regarding agriculture and wether production practices have changed signifcantly in the last 2 decades to more conservation minded production methods. Yes or no? Why is that?

And most importantly based off your answer (NO!) to the number 1. question I asked regarding wther the Govt should be able to take or restrict privately owned lands from an individual without providing fair and equitable compensation to that individual, answer this, how is this possible with a perpetual easement that is transfered within a family operation (which vast amounts of lands are)generations down the road in the time frame you talk of when this climate change has happened?

The restrictions and lower value of that land( remember YOUR claim of less value in land sales) will still be encumbered on an individual 10 generations down the road thru a perpetual easement and yet where in these perpetual easements is the fair and equitable compensation given that individual at that point?

It seems based on what you claim as we move forward these privately owned wetlands will have an ever increasing value to society, how will that value then be placed in a fair and equitable manner to the people that own those wetlands at that time as you suggest should be the case in your answer to the #1 question thru these perpetual easements we now have as they are currently designed?

A few questions to answer Ron, so as I said before if you want to continue this debate from reverting back to the same old thing, please answer each of them.


----------



## Plainsman

Ron, thanks for that insight from an agricultural perspective. As you know he who controls the subject controls the debate. That's why we are seeing never ending questions. The important thing is I think we settled the tile debate, which is this would be a bad bill.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Ron, thanks for that insight from an agricultural perspective. As you know he who controls the subject controls the debate. That's why we are seeing never ending questions. The important thing is I think we settled the tile debate, which is this would be a bad bill.


Exactly what is Ron's expertise or involvement within agriculture to garner a valued insight or perspective from?

Plainsman, I happen to like questions, particularily asking them as most often that is how one learns, from the answers. Although I have begun to see why some on here do not like having to deal with questions and the corresponding knowledge that can be gained from them! :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, to answer your question regarding perpetual easements it is simple case law. Just as with mineral rights or other water rights, they have been separated by contract from the parcel. I am sure that what people paid for mineral rights in the 60's is different than today.


----------



## gst

Ron the question is not wether perpetual easements are binding, the question you have been dodging is wether for the fourth or fifth or tenth generation down the road that has had these lands transfered thru family operations are receiving a fair and equitable compensation from the govt for the encumberences placed by said govt on the lands they own thru these decades old perpetual easements?

Just as land sales and perpetual easements are different beasts for obvious reasons, so are mineral rights and perpetual easements. To suggest they are is either the "spin" you claim others dabble in or an attempt to yet again dodge directly answering a fairly simple question.

But lets take a moment to look at the differences in what you claim is the same between perpetual conservation easements and mineral rights. If my great grandpa sold mineral rights on acres we still own, and if the owners of those mineral rights use the property I own to gain the value of the agreement they made decades ago with my gandpa today, I am compensated in a fair and equitable manner based off todays values for the encumberances the benefit from this agreement to them places on the lands I own, These compensations are not based on the values at the time the agreement was originally entered into, but rather that which is fair and equitale at the time the benefit is being received. The valuation of these encumberences can also be readdressed at a future time to determine a fair and equitable value in most cases as they are not perpetual in nature. That is simply not the case with the perpetual easements we are discussing. As the value of the benefits garnered by these wetlands increases as you have elluded to, there is no change in the compensation to directly reflect this value in a fair and equitable manner to the current owner of these lands nor will there EVER be any to any future owner as well in these family transfer situations were lands are not sold. So as you see there is a distinct difference.

So in answering this question asked previously of fair and equitable compensation for the encumberances these easements place on those generations down the road that have had these lands transferred thru family operations directly please recall your answer to the question regarding govts taking or restricting of private properties without just commpesation to the owner of said properties and the claim you have made that these easements devalue the lands upon which they are placed.

Apparently you do not wish to answer the question wether draining wetlands here in ND is illegal?

Or the question how many wetland acres have been drained here in ND since the implementation ot the No Net Loss policies?

So once again because of an unwillingness to answer direct simple questions relating directly to the debate so the debate can move forward, you simply go back to chasing your tail.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gst, just the same with great grand dad who sold his mineral rights in the 30's but stayed on the land and now there is oil under it today! I know you are not dense, but come on!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gst, just the same with great grand dad who sold his mineral rights in the 30's but stayed on the land and now there is oil under it today! I know you are not dense, but come on!


If you are questioniong wether the person now owning the land Grandad entered into an agreement with should have to go back and readdress the agreement made with grand dad, of course not, but if there is a benefit being received by the encumberence these mineral owners receive placed on the current owner of those lands the current owner of the lands should be compesated in a fair and equitable manner for those encumberences he has as a result of someone receiving the benefits of those encumberences placed on his land today and in todays values. In the case of these easements it is society thru the govt that is receiving the benefit of the encumberences place on the lands (wetlands) the current owner is restricted by, yet there is no fair and equitable compensation granted by the govt for these restrictions to the current owner for the benefits that are a result of these encumerences. So once again Ron, should the Govt be able to restrict or take private property from an individual without fair and equitable compesation?

2 simple questions.

1. Is it illegal to drain a wetland here in ND?

2. How many acres of wetlands have been drained for agricultural purposes here in ND since the late 80's and the adoption of the No Net Loss policy?


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> Ron the question is not wether perpetual easements are binding, the question you have been dodging is wether for the fourth or fifth or tenth generation down the road that has had these lands transfered thru family operations are receiving a fair and equitable compensation from the govt for the encumberences placed by said govt on the lands they own thru these decades old perpetual easements?


Did you graduate high school?? If so, what don't u understand about the following..............

Along with the easement acres, these later generations would also inherit the assets that became of the original easement payment*(ie additional TILLABLE acres, an acreage, or rental properties in town). *Do you think the original agreement would have been signed if the payment sum was not worth investing elsewhere??? :bop:

As I pointed out before..........the benefactors not only receive the assets derived of the original easement contract, but they also inherit property rights of the easement that would allow them to SELL or LEASE the land for recreational use.......or keep it for their own enjoyment.........*WHAT AN AWFUL DEAL LMAO!!!*


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> 1. Is it illegal to drain a wetland here in ND?
> 
> 2. How many acres of wetlands have been drained for agricultural purposes here in ND since the late 80's and the adoption of the No Net Loss policy?


"Illegal" means a lot of things when it comes to wetland drainage. I would talk to your local NRCS field office for the answer to #2........they maintain a very tight watch on conservation compliance here in Iowa uke:

Are you still mad about those easement acres you can't crop b/c your granddaddy agreed to an unfair contract 60 years ago??? Must be rough moving all your equipment across the section, just to farm that paltry quarter of tillable that granddaddy purchased with the return from his easement payment on those wetlands.  
And then, come hunting season, you've exclusive rights to that honeyhole.......but man, what a chore keeping the trespassers away.


----------



## gst

WRP, so now you are basing your fair and equitable arguement on proper spending of easement payments??? What if granda spent all the easement payments on whiskey and women? Hard to inherit much from that? :beer: :roll:  
Perhaps the payments were spent on a new car long since rusted out and gone, ect.....

The purpose of discussing past easement agreements is to determine how future easements can be structured to create this "balance" that some people apparently disingenuously claim to want to maintain. You do not seem to realize what the importance of production agriculture has been and will likely be as populations increase at the pace they are projected too and how important it will be for conservation to play a proactive role rather than a restrictive role in this future for conservations sake. Examples such as what longshot brought forth are an example of actually suggesting ideas towards accomplishing something proactively, perhaps others could take note.



WRP said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still mad about those easement acres you can't crop b/c your granddaddy agreed to an unfair contract 60 years ago???
Click to expand...

If you wish to add anything of value to this debate please try to refrain from making assinine, childish, personal assumptions about people you have never met, we already have enough people doing that on here.

And for the record, the easements my Grandpa entered into are only 99 year easements and they allow farming practices to continue with limited restrictions.


----------



## gst

WRP said:


> Are you still mad about those easement acres you can't crop b/c your granddaddy agreed to an unfair contract 60 years ago??? Must be rough moving all your equipment across the section, just to farm that paltry quarter of tillable that granddaddy purchased with the return from his easement payment on those wetlands.
> *And then, come hunting season, you've exclusive rights to that honeyhole.......but man, what a chore keeping the trespassers away*.


And once again a mature well thought out diatribe that brings little value to the debate and yet lends a little insight into the driving force behind the comments themselves.


----------



## Plainsman

> Are you still mad about those easement acres you can't crop b/c your granddaddy agreed to an unfair contract 60 years ago???


WRP, it is wanting your cake and eating it too. Sort of like haying CRP because every year is an emergency. Another thing to think about WRP is that the wetland easement was a perpetual easement in payment of those encumbrances. Mineral rights are rights to the minerals and right to get at them. They are now being paid for "encumbrances", that were not paid for.

As for what they did with the money, can you imagine the ruckus if someone told them how to spend it? If they spent it wisely there will be something to inherit, but if they didn't is that somehow societies fault today? Some spent wisely and some were fools I suppose. There IQ is not your fault nor mine. People with no brains lose businesses like small town groceries, big town implement, mid size town hardware stores, but I guess for some odd reason it escapes most of us that landownership is different. I don't know about you, but to me they are all the same. If I buy a bolt for $2 from Tractor Supply today I don't have to worry that they will want another $1 in 2025.

They are just looking for more ways to rip of the government. People need to understand that the government is you and I and when someone gets a freebie you and I pay for it.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> If you are questioniong wether the person now owning the land Grandad entered into an agreement with should have to go back and readdress the agreement made with grand dad, of course not, but if there is a benefit being received by the encumberence these mineral owners receive placed on the current owner of those lands the current owner of the lands should be compesated in a fair and equitable manner for those encumberences he has as a result of someone receiving the benefits of those encumberences placed on his land today and in todays values. In the case of these easements it is society thru the govt that is receiving the benefit of the encumberences place on the lands (wetlands) the current owner is restricted by, yet there is no fair and equitable compensation granted by the govt for these restrictions to the current owner for the benefits that are a result of these encumerences. *So once again Ron, should the Govt be able to restrict or take private property from an individual without fair and equitable compesation?*


In the bold.....they did pay for that private property when the easement was established. They should not have to keep re-writing the contract until that said easement is up. Now when the property is transfered via sale or by gifting (like you keep saying passed down the generation lines) those easements are in place and people know what they are.

Think of it like this GST.... If the contract would have to be re-written each time land was transfered. What would keep a land owner from enrolling in WRP or any other easement program. Then next year deed the land to a child, wife, uncle, etc. Keep the money and then re-write another contract and get another payment. Makes no sense correct.

I understand what you are trying to get at that about a contract or easement was established in the 1950's for fair market value at that time is totally different than todays market value. But at the time people were compensated.


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> WRP, so now you are basing your fair and equitable arguement on proper spending of easement payments??? What if granda spent all the easement payments on whiskey and women? Hard to inherit much from that? :beer: :roll:
> Perhaps the payments were spent on a new car long since rusted out and gone, ect......


You are absolutely right, and this brings me back to an earlier point.............HOW IS THIS SCENARIO ANY DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF A PRIVATE LAND SALE???
IF the grandfather was a drunken whore-monger and pizzed away the capital gains from a *private sale*, the following generations would be out EVEN MORE than if he had enrolled those acres in a perpetual easement. At least they can still profit from the *recreational value* of the inherited easement.
How can u not digest that??? oke:


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> And for the record, the easements my Grandpa entered into are only 99 year easements and they allow farming practices to continue with limited restrictions.


So my childish assumption wasn't so far off after all huh???.............it must really yank your chain that those acres will never see the plow/pattern tile under your command.........at least your budding little pheasant-whisperer will have the opportunity to tend a crop on that easement if he sticks with the farm long enough :thumb:


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> The purpose of discussing past easement agreements is to determine how future easements can be structured to create this "balance" that some people apparently disingenuously claim to want to maintain. You do not seem to realize what the importance of production agriculture has been and will likely be as populations increase at the pace they are projected too and how important it will be for conservation to play a proactive role rather than a restrictive role in this future for conservations sake. Examples such as what longshot brought forth are an example of actually suggesting ideas towards accomplishing something proactively, perhaps others could take note.


*Spare me the "but we hafta feed the world" sob story* :iroll: :rollin:

I wonder if producers down here were thinking of "feeding the world" 10 years ago when our county had several large tracts of WRP enrolled. *Many of these WERE NOT the "retiring farmer/absentee landowner" type, but rather middle-age producers who swapped out a marginal & poorly-drained farm by using a 10-31 exchange* to invest their WRP easement payment in a better piece of tillable land. 
Funny how things work when commodities are low :wink:

How much of our corn crop goes to ethanol production?? And how much of that crop(or those acres devoted to the ethanol market) could be used for food production??

Like i said..........SPARE ME!!!


----------



## WRP

Is there a time when we may face a global food shortage............YES.........although neither you nor I can say when.

IF/WHEN that time comes...........do u really think tiling & farming the wetlands in the PPR is going to make a dadgum bit of difference on the global scale??

*I think it just makes u sick to think of a wetland easement on your land when corn hits $20/bushel* :beer:

Show me an ag producer who has a GENUINE concern for the starving pygmies in Africa who could be fed with his grain............and I'll show u 10,000 who just couldn't take a view of plush bulrush in their backyard when commodities really get out of control.

All I'm asking is that WE call ag producers what they are............*BUSINESSMEN*.......nothing less, nothing more.
To refer to your peers as "defenders of humanity" is way more than I should have to stomach.


----------



## WRP

gst said:


> And once again a mature well thought out diatribe that brings little value to the debate and yet lends a little insight into the driving force behind the comments themselves.


For the record...........

I've never hunted in ND, nor do I have any plans to do so.
I was raised on a grain farm.
My father draws his income from this farm.
I help out when I can, given I maintain a full-time job.
Someday I will inherit this farm.
Does my father give a red cent about "feeding the world"...........NOPE
Will I give a red cent about "feeding the world" when I take over..........NOPE

Did i mention.......PLEASE SPARE ME


----------



## Ron Gilmore

In the past 10 years roughly 29,000 acres of wetlands have been lost in ND. In large part to agriculture activity. Of that acreage about 80% of that is temporal which are some of the most critical for many wetland birds including non game species. The rest are sub temporal. These figures are from the USGS reports compiled and published in the 2009 USFWS report on wetlands.

So while it may be illegal to drain wetlands actions like tiling drain enhancements and yes illegal draining that has not been prosecuted because of the stripping of enforcement dollars from the Farm bill neutering Swampbuster legislation from 85-90!

So instead of hiding behind the statement illegal to drain add without permission or permit and who sits on these boards but farmers. Kind of like the always oppose any sale of land by FB or FU or Cattlemen to any conservation organization!

You are blowing a lot of smoke on this issue trying to justify tiling increases and even more restrictive easement legislation. Any real worth while questions have been answered and you can ask them again in a slightly different way, but the answer is the same!


----------



## WRP

Ron Gilmore said:


> In the past 10 years roughly 29,000 acres of wetlands have been lost in ND. In large part to agriculture activity. Of that acreage about 80% of that is temporal which are some of the most critical for many wetland birds including non game species. The rest are sub temporal. These figures are from the USGS reports compiled and published in the 2009 USFWS report on wetlands.


C'mon Ron.......have u no humanity???

Do you have any idea how many 3rd-world children would have literally starved to death if those 29,000 acres would not have been converted to ethanol production.......errr.....food grains???


----------



## gst

WRP said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, the easements my Grandpa entered into are only 99 year easements and they allow farming practices to continue with limited restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> So my childish assumption wasn't so far off after all huh???.............it must really yank your chain that those acres will never see the plow/pattern tile under your command.........at least your budding little pheasant-whisperer will have the opportunity to tend a crop on that easement if he sticks with the farm long enough :thumb:
Click to expand...

WRP The easement my Gandpa signed this land into allows it to be broken up and farmed using normal farming practices, It simply can not be drained or burnt. On one of the quarters the easement is on when it is dry we farm what we can and on another even when it is dry and the low areas could be farmed we leave them for wildlife. It gives the pheasants my son raises habitat. These easements have about 20 years left on them so it is possible I will see the time they expire. Tiling in the area in which we farm is impractical and is not done. So indeed not only your childish assumption was incorrect but your childish responses have added little to the debate rather than to provide an insight into the type person you are.

As usual these debates turn into childish personal attacks towards people someone has never met and this one is no different. If people choose to make these kinds of comments regarding myself over a disagreement in philosophy, I take no offense, but when the comments start down the road they have now regarding a fine young man these childish commentors have never met for contributing in a small way for raising a few pheasants, it only goes to show how petty, childish and useless their mind and comments regarding this debate are. Please do not expect me to continue in a dialogue with you as I no longer have the respect for you to feel obligated to answer your childish rants.

I.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> In the past 10 years roughly 29,000 acres of wetlands have been lost in ND. In large part to agriculture activity*. Of that acreage about 80% of that is temporal* which are some of the most critical for many wetland birds including non game species. The rest are sub temporal. These figures are from the USGS reports compiled and published in the 2009 USFWS report on wetlands.!


Ron, so now you are including TEMPORARY WETLANDS in this debate to prove a point you could not otherwise? Perhaps you do need to answer the question refering to the classification of a "wetland". From this post it appears that you are even of the opinion TEMPORARY WETLANDS should not be farmed and yet you claim you want to reach a "balance" with ag. You have a funny way of demonstrating that thru your posts.

The statement you shared does not reference these TEMPORARY WETLANDS being drained, simply that they have been lost thru "agricultural activity" so you have once again avoided answering these questions directly, That being:

1. Is it illegal to drain a wetland here in ND?

2. How many acres of wetlands have been drained for agricultural purposes here in ND since the late 80's and the adoption of the No Net Loss policy?

Anyone that is familiar with farming here in ND realizes these TEMPORARY WETLANDS being referenced are ones that typically dry up in the time frame that they can be farmed and as a result of a run of drier springs in large areas of ND in the last 10 years, these areas have indeed been farmed. I wonder if the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will come out this spring given the wet conditions that will likely prevent these TEMPORARY WETLANDS from being farmed and claim 29,000 arces have been returned to wetlands? Fair is fair right? :wink:

Ron, just for the record so we know where YOUR balance is regarding conservation and ag do you beleive ANY wetland, wether TEMPORARY or permanent should ever be farmed?


----------



## Plainsman

WRP I have been thinking about the wetland classification etc. First off I don't think many out there are qualified to define a temporary wetland from a hydrological/biological standpoint. Some see temporary as those that don't have walleye.

Remember me talking about paying farmers to restore wetlands at the rate of $100 tax dollars, plus $100 per acre (just throwing out a number since I can't get an answer) for mitigation from power companies? Well in the interest of fair, do you think it would be fair to let them farm those wetlands on dry years if they pay for the $200 an acre carbon release. That may sound like I am just being radical to oke: someone, but if they get paid that much for the environmental benefit then it follows that they should pay that much for the destruction and emissions right? I'm just following to a logical conclusion.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I was not going to engage you directly that often anymore, but lets make one thing clear.



> I take no offense, but when the comments start down the road they have now regarding a fine young man


I would venture there is no one here that doesn't respect your son. I realize I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly respect him. I tried to explain to you that when I asked what you were getting our of raising pheasants I had no idea the age of your son. What you don't understand is that we all think in the terms of our own lives. My oldest is nearly middle age ( sorry son, don't mean to burst your bubble if you read this  ). People are making these comments not out of disrespect for your son, but to push your buttons. However, I think you understand that and again your simply pushing the pity pedal to the metal.

You see gst people are not angry with your son, and in fact I am impressed. People push your buttons because they don't like your viewpoint. From where I look it's everything out of the taxpayers pocket and into gst's. This nation is already in debt and they can not afford to keep carrying agriculture. Watch and you will see some deep cuts. I don't like Obama either, and I think he will choose agriculture and defense to make his deepest cuts. This isn't a good time for you to shovel dung in your fellow American's face.

I don't make these comments simply to get you ticked. My first is to set the record straight about how people perceive your son, and that is in a very good light. The second is to give you some idea of taxpayer sentiment. You may be missing that because many kiss up for a place to hunt and you don't get the real world view. I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but the sooner you realize what is gong on the better you can plan for it. That way you will not spend all your money on whiskey and women. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, I was not going to engage you directly that often anymore, but lets make one thing clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take no offense, but when the comments start down the road they have now regarding a fine young man
Click to expand...




"Plainsman" said:


> I would venture there is no one here that doesn't respect your son. I realize I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly respect him. I tried to explain to you that when I asked what you were getting our of raising pheasants I had no idea the age of your son. What you don't understand is that we all think in the terms of our own lives. My oldest is nearly middle age ( sorry son, don't mean to burst your bubble if you read this  ). People are making these comments not out of disrespect for your son, but to push your buttons. However, I think you understand that and again your simply pushing the pity pedal to the metal.
> quote]
> 
> Plainsman, regardless of how much you backpedal and make excuses for your comments or those of others the fact remains that I have very little respect for a supposed adult that would make snide childish comments about any member of my family to "push my buttons" as you claim is being done. If you lack the mental capacity to engage in a debate without making petty unrelated comments about someones son or daughter regardless of their age, you have my sympathy but not my respect. Even after being told his age, rather than simply apologizing you attempted as you do yet again to justify your comments albeit in a softer tone. It does not carry much weight. *It is not a matter of seeking pity, but that of treating people with respect and courtesy,* sadly I do NOT beleive you understand that. . I may disagree with someone but I draw the line at making juvenile comments about their family members regardless of their ages simply to "push their buttons" . Apparently you and WRP do not.


----------



## Plainsman

No backpedaling, just an explanation. If you want to feel sorry for yourself I guess there is nothing I can do to help. Anytime I try to treat you better you think I am backpedaling. Nothing could be further from the truth because I don't feel guilty of what you think I am guilty of.

Just so people know your son was not disrespected these quotes from the thread we are talking about:



> (they provide nice cover for the couple hundred pheasants my sons raise and release each year)





> do your sons make money off those pheasants?


Son's is plural, but you want everyone to think I was picking on a 16 year old. I think the question was fair since I wanted to know the reason he was doing it. He could have done it for hunting, for relatives, for conservation, for the local wildlife club, or his dad could have been charging to hunt. Your simply making more of it than it is so you can demonize others.

Why don't we both drop the antagonizing. I know I antagonize you just to poke you after you make statements about how naughty I am.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

temporal wetlands are wetlands, changing the topographic makeup to prevent them from occurring affects the intermediate and permanent wetlands. Increased loss of temporal wetlands increases the speed of which water moves through a system to rivers and streams.

The point gst, is that those farmed wetlands refereed to as temporal actually are the most critical both in the life cycle of other wetlands as well as to wild that depend upon them and to those who are down stream!!!!!!!

Do you get it!!!!!! You act as if they have no value. Loss does not mean that in a dry year with no water they are not counted, loss means that they no longer exist.

So again your spin is is just that spin!


----------



## gst

Ron, You missed answering this question. ?

How many of these temporary or permanent wetlands are actually being drained after the implementation of the NNL policy as was claimed? No "spin" now.

Please answer wether you beleive in not allowing agriculture to farm low areas that hold water yet typically dry up in the spring of the year in time to allow them to be planted which is the definition of "temporal wetlands" ? A simple Yes or No answer without the "spin".

So if this is indeed the case which it seems, explain if you would how you suggest reaching this "balance" with ag from YOUR conservation ideology and perspective?


----------



## gst

As it was in another thread, here is the link if anyone is extremely bored and wishes to read in it's entirety the conversation plainsman references rather than little snippets. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=89313&start=200

Given the fact you have acused me several time in the HFH debate about making money off hunting and everytime you were told I have never made a dime off hunting in any way shape or form, it appears you then thought you would begin the same BS with my sons.

It really matters little, as what has came from it is merely a look into what type of person makes insinuations about someones family members in a debate with someone he disagrees with.


----------



## Plainsman

Questions are not insinuations gst. You stated yourself:


> Plainsman, I happen to like questions, particularily asking them as most often that is how one learns,


 For the guy who likes to play 20 questions you sure get upset when someone asks one. The reason I asked if there was money involved with raising pheasants is because I wanted to know the motivation. I wanted to know the motivation because I wanted to know something about your land practices and if they were conservation motivated or money motivated. Like you said above I wanted to learn. 
gst, please stop the whine and get back to the subject. Lets get back to the original one because this is just going in circles and becoming confusing. The original is tile and why it is good, or why it is not. All these other things have become distractions from the real question. For everyone's information I am not pointing fingers here, we are equally guilty here.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Questions are not insinuations gst. You stated yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, I happen to like questions, particularily asking them as most often that is how one learns,
> 
> 
> 
> For the guy who likes to play 20 questions you sure get upset when someone asks one. The reason I asked if there was money involved with raising pheasants is because I wanted to know the motivation. I wanted to know the motivation because I wanted to know something about your land practices and if they were conservation motivated or money motivated. Like you said above I wanted to learn.
> gst, please stop the whine and get back to the subject. Lets get back to the original one because this is just going in circles and becoming confusing. The original is tile and why it is good, or why it is not. All these other things have become distractions from the real question. For everyone's information I am not pointing fingers here, we are equally guilty here.
Click to expand...

If you already know the answer to the question, it is less about learning and becomes more about insinuating. Given the fact we have already had extensive conversations about my "land practices" thru multiple PM's when I first got on this site and you "learned" by them of my commitment to conservation. Given the fact you had already "learned" in the HFH debates every time you acused me of it that I do not receive any "Georges" from any form of hunting or wildlife, explain then if you wanted to stay on the topic of tile/wetlands/drainage would you question my sons or my motives for raising pheasants. But then again you question wether I even have a 16 year old son so perhaps this entire conversation is moot. :eyeroll:

Now if you wish to stay on subject, perhaps you can answer what has not been answered but rather "insinuated". Since the implementation of the No Net Loss policy from both the Federal and state levels as well as Swampbuster, how many acres of wetlands have been drained here in ND as a result of agriculture?

And do you beleive farming of temporary wetlands that dry up in the time frame they may be planted should be allowed to be used in agricultural production?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

With permit or without it does not change the fact that these wetlands are gone gst. In regards to illegally drained I know that in my area there are at least 35 wetland drainage under review that are the result of the digital mapping. In at least 15 of those there will be action taken for illegal drainage. The fact that criminal charges are not brought does not mean that the activity is not taking place. The key in all of this remains that now a complaint has to be filed where as before unless it was on land in CRP contract the FSA or other agencies could pursue illegal drainage. This thanks to farm state Sen and Rep who in authorizing enforcement dollars spelled this out in the Farm bill and other funding bills that affect implementation of the laws.

You want to argue semantics, I will continue to point out the actual losses regardless how they occurred. i am not advocating going back to 1870 wetland counts, but with over half of all wetlands regardless of classification being gone from the landscape the losses need to halt.

Thus any efforts that you claim are a meeting in the middle that increases the risk of more loss are not compromise. What it amounts to is losing the compression bandage on a punctured artery which means the chances of death increase!

You can continue to play 20 questions as I said before, but the fact is that we are continuing to lose wetlands at an alarming rate!


----------



## gst

Ron if you do not answer 2 simple questions how can we then determine where a "balance" between conservation and production agriculture exists?

If you do not provide links to the facts and figures you present, how can they be taken as such?

The following is an example of how to post a link.
http://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/Tr ... AD1026.pdf

From this link.

Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification
The following conditions of eligibility are required for persons to receive any USDA loans or other program
benefits that are subject to highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions, unless an exemption
has been granted by USDA.
By signing Form AD-1026, Item 13, the producer certifies receipt of this form, and unless an exemption has
been granted by USDA, agrees to the following on any farms in which such person has an interest.
NOT to plant or produce an agricultural commodity on highly erodible fields unless
actively applying an approved conservation plan or maintaining a fully applied
conservation system.
NOT to plant or produce an agricultural commodity on wetlands converted after
December 23, 1985.
NOT to convert wetlands by draining, dredging, filling, leveling, or any other means
that would allow the planting of any crop, pasture, agricultural commodity, or other
such crops.
NOT to use proceeds from any FSA farm loan, insured or guaranteed, received after
December 23, 1985, for a purpose that will contribute to the conversion of a wetland
to produce an agricultural commodity, or contribute to excessive erosion of highly
erodible land as determined by NRCS.

So Ron once again, how many wetland acres have been drained for agricultural purpose since the implementation of NNL and Swampbuster here in ND?


----------



## Plainsman

> So Ron once again, how many wetland acres have been drained for agricultural purpose since the implementation of NNL and Swampbuster here in ND?


That would take a lot of digging and perhaps request under the Freedom of Information Act since government agencies that know don't want to let that information out. They are afraid of anything controversial. I think you ask these questions because it will be a lot of work for an answer we perhaps can not find. I think you know that, and know you will not get an answer and that's why you ask it. Your hopes are people will think very few are lost, but thousands of wetlands have been lost. They are still draining north of Devils Lake because as I drove down the road I seen them doing it.

I had a group of college students on a tour one day. I stopped the bus so they could watch one of those new dandy ditch diggers behind a tractor. That thing threw dirt a couple hundred feet. The guy had another tractor with a digger right on his tail. Turns out he was trying to hide the illegal drain he was putting in. The kids were out photographing like crazy. The interesting thing was he was draining to a WPA.

Another aspect not often talked about with drainage. I and another fellow marveled at the production of this one wetland. We did a brood count and there were 62 broods on the lake. Two days later there were none and we walked the perimeter. They were all dead. We sent a half dozen to the National Health Lab that did brain tests looking for Parathion. Pesticides from runoff are a problem, but in this case it was believed to have occurred from an aerial applicator that failed to clean his tanks as prescribed by law. Well actually we went back for another brood count because I had seen a plane fly low over the lake late in the evening and somehow dump a lot of something. I don't know how those systems work. We never got a solid answer because the only way to identify parathion poisoning is to look for elevated brain chemicals. I don't remember off hand what that brain chemical is.

Drained wetlands cause a lot more problems than just floods. We loose ground water in the aquifer, we loose water cleansing before it gets into the ground or streams, we loose habitat, and it adds carbon to the atmosphere.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, it was not I claiming thousands of acres of wetlands have been drained here in ND. I am merely asking for the information and proof to be provided that this claim was made from.

So plainsman what did you do about the "illegal" drain you reference? Is there any record of the fact it was indeed illegal and the individual was not simply cleaning an existing drain after being granted permission? Surely if it was an illegal drainage you reported it and can show a copy of the action that was taken against this individual. Under the No Net Loss policies, Swamp Buster, and the Clean Water Act signed into law under Clinton there are any number of avenues you could deal with illegal activities under. You are aware of these regulations and policies are you not?

In an earlier post, plainsman references the Obama administration and the cutting of agricultural subsidies because of the political pressure to reduce the deficeit. If the American people begin to pay, 50% 70% 100% more for their food costs for what ever reasons, does anyone beleive they will continue to support the govt funding for conservation programs to continue either? They will demand their food costs be lowered how ever possible, and if that means more acres in production wetlands will be damned.

And who here thinks the politicians in DC will have the will to ignore what the populace is demanding in this regard? And if it gets to that even your perpetual easements thru an act of Congress will be changed. So as I have stated all along, it is ultimately in conservations best intrests to develope programs that actually work with agriculture and begin to change agricultures veiw of conservation as being mutually beneficial , fair and equitable and something they(ag) wants to continue their involvement in because they beleive in it.

That this is happening is evident in the dramatic changes production ag practics have undergone moving away from the black soil practices to that of notill, conservation plantings, residue management, participation in conservation programs ect....,. It is shown in the Nations Agriculture policy makers and Agriculture agencies (USDA) implementiong No Net Loss policies halting the rapid conversion of wetlands that have happened in the past.

These commitments will face even tougher demands as more and more people will require more and more food be produced. One only has to look at the largest contributor to wetlands destruction, urban developement to see where societies priorities lie. An antagonistic approach painting farmers as greedy and black hearted will do little to help conservation in the near or long term. A my way or the hiway in regards to easements or programs will likely not help either. The next 20 years will encompass more change in demands placed on agiculture than the previous 200. To move forward one can not base the necessary ideologies for the future of agriculture and conservation on what they were in the past if they are to be sucessful together.


----------



## Plainsman

> Surely if it was an illegal drainage you reported it and can show a copy of the action that was taken against this individual.


It sounds like you don't believe me. I'm hurt.  Fair is fair right? I'll look for that as soon as you send me a birth certificate for a 16 year old boy, a notarized copy of a sales receipt for those pheasants, and 20 signed and witnessed letters stating you have never charged for hunting. :rollin: I hope you have a sense of humor, and understand I am simply drawing a parallel between your request and what I could request. I would be interested to hear if others have observed things like I have experienced.

Tile/drainage is the subject. We have brought up illegal drains also. Here is an article from Agweek. You will notice how flagrant this violation is. It would appear there is no remorse, nor respect for a legal binding contract.



> Judge rejects appeal in N.D. drainage case
> A federal judge has rejected the latest appeal of Alvin Peterson, the retired Lawton, N.D., farmer, who has been fighting the federal government for years over his drainage of wetlands.
> By: Stephen J. Lee, Grand Forks Herald
> 
> In this July 10, 2007 photo provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife agent Brian Vose surveys an illegal wetlands drainage ditch on a federal easement at Alvin Peterson's farm in Lawton, N.D. Federal authorities, after dealing for decades with Peterson's pothole-emptying antics, began cracking down on him. This month _ and for the second time in four years _ Peterson was convicted of illegally emptying wetlands. Now he faces stiff fines and jail time. (AP Photo/U.S. Fish and Wildlife) A federal judge in Fargo has rejected the latest appeal of Alvin Peterson, the retired Lawton, N.D., farmer, who has been fighting the federal government for years over his drainage of wetlands.
> 
> U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson on Monday issued an affirmation of the ruling by Magistrate Judge Alice Senechal in November 2008 in Grand Forks federal court that found Peterson guilty of misdemeanor charges of improperly draining wetlands under easement to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
> 
> Peterson has refused to pay the $10,000 fine, which has put him in violation of the five years of probation that also are part of his sentence, said Cameron Hayden, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case.
> 
> So, Peterson's probation revocation case is before Senechal's court in Grand Forks now and could lead within weeks to more fines or a forced selling of Peterson's property to pay the federal government, Hayden said.
> 
> Peterson began farming the land in 1955 and contested an easement to the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2004, he was convicted of illegally draining wetlands. During his appeal of that case, the feds restored the wetlands. In 2007, after his appeal of that case to the circuit court failed, Peterson "pulled the plugs," on the wetlands, draining them again and was recharged in the case, Hayden said.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, in regards to your article what it seems to show is that much like every other rule, there is a small percentage of those that will break them. Have you ever driven over the posted speed limit twice in 4 years? :wink: It also seems to show there are consequences when this happens. So what is your point? Perhaps if these easements were based of a renewable mutually beneficial, fair and equitable agreement, this wouldn;t even be happening.

As to my sense of humor, I indeed have a great one. Those people that actually know me consider this one of my better traits. I also enjoy very much debating subjects and do so in a courteous, manner sticking to documented facts as much as I posssibly can. That is why On occassion I will provide links for those interested to read. Where I draw the line is when people begin to insinuate things they have no idea about nor provide proof to back them up. And when it involves my family members, my sense of humor dissapears rather quickly. Perhaps I should have never even mentioned my son and his raising of pheasants in a side note. I merely assumed the people on here would take it for what it was and not try to insinuate something more was involved.

As we go back thru this debate, you will have noticed I have provided several links to article directly related on the subject. What links have you provided tied to anything you have claimed in this debate, Oh right the old "how much do farmers make in govt payments" link. And this is realted to conservation, tiling, draining this debate how? Oh yeah to support your statements of greed that is production ag. Is there greed in production ag? Of course, there is greed in every aspect of life, business, ideologies, ect... Is it the driving force behind production ag, hardly, and if you beleive it is, it clearly shows your bias and lack of understanding of agriculture.

What you and others do not seem able to understand, is from the beginning in this debate,I have been an advocate of conservation in agriculture, (if you recall our very first conversations in PM's on this site regarding our conservation practices in our grazing programs you know this) and yet you and others would rather divert the debate to snide comments about my son and how many "Georges" he makes selling birds and how "greedy" ag is ( how many times have you made reference to this soley in this debate?)than understand what is being suggested is that as production ag and conservation move forward to deal with the challenges they will both face in the future, a mutaully beneficial, fair and equitable manner of cooperation between the two will ultimately serve conservation best.

In the long run, this blind short sighted attitude that would rather call agriculture greedy and point out websites of govt payments rather than actually proactively work towards a mutually benefitcial practices and programs that will accomplish something will be what keeps some in agriculture from accepting the idea that some in conservation actually want to work together to find a real balance that was spoke of at the beginning of this debate. A step in that direction would be to move forward with single genration renewable, fair and equitable conservation agreements rather than the perpetual ones of the past. I am sure most have read more than they wish in this back and forth, I know I have, so the floor is yours to make whatever comments you wish for people to draw their conclusions as to your ideals regarding this debate.


----------



## Plainsman

> Of course, there is greed in every aspect of life, business, ideologies, ect


Well that forms a basis for us anyway, because I agree with you. My only point is some farmers are very greedy, and I have pointed out that those are the ones I don't like. Every time I have given you even a slight complement (I would be proud of a son doing what yours does too) you say I am back peddling. No back peddling here.

When I was growing up on the farm I was aware of the surplus we as farmers were producing and how it hurt the market. I remember truck loads of potatoes and truck loads of milk being dumped when farmers were protesting the poor prices. I thought to myself as I worked the field at seven years old with an old U Minneapolis Molin (hand clutch because I could not reach a foot clutch) that when I grew up I would support conservation practices more than grain support prices. When our land came out of the soil bank and I seen the topsoil we had gained it reinforced those ideas in my young mind.

I see the payments as being made as fair now. What is it the government has to kick into the tax base of a (county or township I can't remember) for a Waterfowl Production Area (for example)? I think it's 70% but I may be thinking back 20 years like you have often pointed out. Anyway, that is more than fair because there are no people living on WPA's so no services required. No children in school, no roads needed for travel, no snow removal etc. I think that should be cut back to 25% to pay for things like maybe a farm to market road does run through it.

You often talk about the need to feed the world. gst, I put human life above all else, and if people were starving I would jump on a tractor and plow up Yellowstone Park myself. Production isn't the problem, and draining without understanding the hydrology may in fact often reduce over all production.

I"m not looking up a lot of things I am speaking from experience over 36 years. I don't have a library at my disposal as I did while I worked. I enjoy retirement to much to start looking for things to prove what I say. You will have to decide for yourself what value there is in what I say, but I'm not going to stop playing at my old age to prove anything. Life is to short, and I have more important things now than what my profession was.


----------



## gst

plainsman, I was going to be done on this thread, but I truly am curious about one thing. I ask you to go back to that first post you made on the other tiling thread and read it once again. When you reference "seeing greed at its darkest" and the other such comments you made, you were not referencing them to only a small pecentage of those in agriculture that fall under that catagorization much like every other profession.

So what do do you really beleive those comments do? Picture a farmer that has just paid over a hundred thousand dollars to upgrade his operation to a notill drill. He has implemented several other conservation practices on his operation over the years. He gets on this site in his spare time simply to see what it's about and he sees a reference to a tile bill that interest him. So he clicks on it and he reads what was in your first post, what good has that done? What impression of the people on sites like this will he take from it?

The beauty of posting things on sites like this is unlike saying things in the heat of the moment, you can actually reread what you have written befopre you hit the submit button. So given that fact, when posts are made like the one of yours I am referencing, one can make 1 of 2 assumptions, that you did not think to take the time to actually realize what you wrote, or those indeed are your true beleifs. So please explain which created those comments and what you hoped to accomplish by starting out your involvement in this issue with the following comments?

Plainsmans quote: "Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. It worked for the high fence situation why will it not work for this situation. The only way to stop it is point out that it is not their right to flood their neighbor. Currently it would appear that the folks north of Devils Lake think it's their right to flood Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, and all the small communities in between. We are witnessing greed at it's darkest."

What a hell of a way to get agriculture on your side regarding conservation.


----------



## Plainsman

gst what makes a person believe these things is the fact that everything goes for agriculture, and it appears nothing turns out for the non agriculture sportsmen and women of North Dakota. I think that is in part to do with our legislature. I have noticed that when it comes to landowners, grain farmers get a lot more breaks than cattlemen. I think that's because grain farmers or old retired geezers like me are the only ones with free winters to go to the legislature.

I don't remember the measure, maybe you will, but years ago I voted for a measure that let farmers purchase from stores like Tractor Supply and not pay sales tax. I thought that was good and still do, but have had some bitter experiences with it also. I think I have related this story in the past. I purchased some Tempo (mosquito spray) at Fleet Farm, and the lady at the register asked, "do you live in the country" and I said yes, why? She said "you don't need to pay tax on this". I asked why and she said fill out a form and farmers don't have to pay tax. I said I lived in the country, but I didn't farm. She said then you have to pay the tax. I thought that odd since it didn't appear to be a farming related item, but rather a home item. Later I find that the guy that farms next to me but lives in town buys that same item tax free. It's hard to understand why I pay tax on something in the county so my grandkids don't get bit, but he doesn't in town so his grandkids don't get bit. Just bugs me, no pun intended.

It is not only farmers the government is trying to make government dependent. As I have stated I don't like the term entitlements. Not just for farmers, but for anyone. I dislike seeing people take that government bait no matter their vocation. I do see that farmers are becoming to dependent. Many know it and don't like it themselves, but if they are to keep up financially with those excepting government programs they have to do it too. I worry about their future as independent small family farms.

I think Ron said it best when he said to often things go the way of agriculture and it's not meeting in the middle. Or something like that. To me it appears about 90/10 against sportsmen. If it was 90/10 for farmers it would not bother me as much as 90/10 against sportsmen. Also, it isn't just farmers, but to many people don't care about one another anymore. That's why I often am disappointed that people just send their problems downstream without thinking. It's also why I am willing to pay for wetland restoration. I don't expect the farmer to take the brunt of the bill when what he does benefits society.

When I debate with someone that is so pro agriculture and don't see the other side I do drop the whole ball on them don't I? I'm not against farming, but when they do take so many tax dollars then whine on top of it I have little patience. No whine and I can take it, but ------------. You know how it is when someone has twice as much as you then wants you to give them sympathy? I think those that whine need to stop and appreciate what they have. Don't dwell on the negative all the time, but stop and count your blessings once in a while and thank God for them. I try to make myself do that, and everyone needs to do that once in a while. I mean, make a purposeful effort to appreciate all the things we have.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, Can you honestly look me in the eye and claim here in ND the sportsman doesn;t have it pretty good????????

We have opportunities of far more wildlife than I had when I was my sons ages. We have access to more unposted private land than most any other state. With a little effort despite what some that "whine" may claim, one can access even much of what is posted. (without paying a dime). We have opportunities such as other states dream of. I say we as not only am I involved in ag, I am a sportsman as well.

So what exactly qualifies as "whining" in your eyes? Someone advocates for ag and it is "whining" and yet someone complains sportsmen are getting the shaft here in ND to the tune of 90/10 against them despite the opportunities that exist it is not veiwed as whining? 

Stop for a moment and consider this if you would, how do you think a young kid developes a sense to give back to the outdoors? Perhaps it is from watching his Dad who inturn learned it by watching his Father live it each day of his life while he made a living and a future for his family from agriculture all the while giving back. Yet people are so busy making accusations and snide comments they don;t stop to consider the possibilities.

You may look at this as whining, and if indeed you do, it is likely you will never understand the point I am trying to make. What exactly did you beleive you would accomplish with the comments you made in that original post?

Have things changed? Of course, everything does. But perhaps if one stops living in the past and opens their eyes to what we have surrounding us you will realize that yes indeed we are blessed with many opportunities. And just possibly those involved in ag have had a bit to do with it to a tune of slightly more than your 90/10 ratio. :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

See gst, you assume people like myself oppose the suggested modifications you think are middle ground because of hunting interests. To be very blunt, that is not the reason I oppose these changes. I oppose them based on water issues and those issues alone.

Yes we have it decent in ND in regards to wildlife and hunting opportunity. All that aside, it is not the driving force.


----------



## Plainsman

So what your saying is stay calm let the poison work? We do have it better than many other places. I want to see it stay that way for my grandkids. Since I was young it has constantly gone down hill. Sure we have it better than other states, but not nearly as good as when I was younger, and that's a shame. Some of the young (and I guess that includes you comparatively or you wouldn't think things are so great) will never see it as good as I have. We have more deer now, but we don't have the freedom now. That's occurring because it is becoming commercialized. 
We have it better if you consider we can kill more deer and more geese, but is that the reason we hunt, only to kill, or are we truly sportsmen? When I was young I never seen a posted sign. Now the children of city people look for unposted, permission, or pay. Pay hunting will result in less hunters, less hunters have less political clout, it's sort of like the guy who don't care because semi-auto's were outlawed and he hunted with a shotgun. Then he didn't care when they came after the handguns. Then he didn't care when they came after the rifles because he hunted with a shotgun. Then when they came for the shotguns there was no one to care about him. When they come to dump on the farmers gst, who will be left to care about you?

I complain gst, because when ten bills come up and most are a losing proposition for sportsmen they are often a financial boost to outfitters or farmers or both. When that happens the sportsmen have most often lost something, and they have lost it to the dollar. What we have lost most is the quality of life if you enjoy the outdoors as much as many of us. Many of us feel that the landowner is charging us for what is God's gift to free men. Given to us under the constitution of this great nation. I hope in a few short years I don't have to type, "once great nation". There are more things important than money gst, but your constant support of agriculture at any cost leads me to believe many don't understand that.

I seen my first posted sign in about 1959. I stood and looked in awe at it for a while, trying to understand. I was eleven years old and could not understand why someone would do something like that. I thought surely this man must hate all people. It's odd, but as you grow older sometimes you can remember 50 years ago better than you can remember last week. Even for a child that sign was foreboding. I wish my thoughts had been wrong.


----------



## Plainsman

Ron, thanks for getting us back on track, and what you point out is the most important issue. It's an issue that not only separates people of different vocations, but if they know what's going on there should be a separation within the agricultural community also. One group should not suffer so that another may see more profit. Also, one generation should not profit while the next suffers. I heard one old fellow put that into an interesting perspective. He said we didn't inherit this earth from our parents, we barrow it from our children. A little different angle, but interesting.


----------



## gst

Ron, I do not beleive I ever suggested it was about hunting in your circustance. But if you do not think it is for the majority of people posting on here you had better go back and re read the threads. Perhaps even the post that directly following yours.



Plainsman said:


> So what your saying is stay calm let the poison work? We do have it better than many other places. I want to see it stay that way for my grandkids. .


Plainsman, And you think you will accomplish this by posting crap like what you started off your comments on this issue with????? If you do you are a fool.



Plainsman said:


> . Pay hunting will result in less hunters, less hunters have less political clout, it's sort of like the guy who don't care because semi-auto's were outlawed and he hunted with a shotgun. Then he didn't care when they came after the handguns. Then he didn't care when they came after the rifles because he hunted with a shotgun. Then when they came for the shotguns there was no one to care about him. When they come to dump on the farmers gst, who will be left to care about you? quote]
> 
> Plainsman what you do not seem to understand is that if we ever get to a place where food is short or extremely expensive, "they" won;t give a rat's *** about conservation, hunting or preserving anything for your grandkids. So do you want to hasten that to happen by basing ag policy and regulations on combative past history, or work together with ag to develope new policy and production methods that address both needs? Your inflamatory rhetoric does little to accomplish that and you do not seem willing to realize or admit it.


----------



## gst

One example that has been discussed on this thread is the perpetual easement. Ag WANTS these conservation easements. They are NOT opposed to the conservation easement itself. Take note of that, it is an important part of the picture. All agriculture is suggesting is they move from being perpetual in nature to a renewable single generation, fair and equitable, MUTUALLY benefitial program and yet there are those drawing a line in the sand unrelenting in budging an inch. Longshot was the single person that came on here suggesting perhaps this compromise is not out of line. And yet with this unwavering attitude by others who are the most vocal it is expected that ag to come to the table beleiving anyone is interested in reaching a balance? That's a tough sell.


----------



## Plainsman

> What you do not seem to undersatnd is that if we ever get to a place where food is short or extremely expensive


That could be, but that's in the future and no excuse for raping the resource, depleting ground water, polluting, and flooding neighbors today.

The easements are fair, they just don't let you get paid today, tomorrow, next year, and 100 years down the road for the same thing. If you sell 40 acres to a neighbor and go back in ten years and tell him you need another $100 per acre because land prices went up he will laugh at you and slam the door in your face. Your simply looking for a sucker gst. You see people often think it's ok to rip off the government, but the government is the people. It's sort of like when you arrest a shoplifter and he thinks it's ok to rip of WalMart because it's no skin of our nose. It is skin of our nose because they have to raise the price to make a profit if half the people coming into the store are going to shoplift.

So when it comes to tile what is your defense for more drainage? Who pays the damages downstream? Will you volunteer for sandbagging this spring? I did a couple of years ago and hauled 18 pallet loads of sandbags in a small town se of Jamestown (semi trailer to flood site) with my family pickup. Even at 60 years old I unloaded all of them. Maybe the drainage advocates could make a run to Fargo this spring.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> One group should not suffer so that another may see more profit. *Also, one generation should not profit while the next suffers*. I heard one old fellow put that into an interesting perspective. He said we didn't inherit this earth from our parents, we barrow it from our children. A little different angle, but interesting.


Perhaps you are starting to see the point I have tried to make regarding perpetual easements! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> What you do not seem to undersatnd is that if we ever get to a place where food is short or extremely expensive
> 
> 
> 
> That could be, but that's in the future and no excuse for raping the resource, depleting ground water, polluting, and flooding neighbors today.
> 
> The easements are fair, they just don't let you get paid today, tomorrow, next year, and 100 years down the road for the same thing. If you sell 40 acres to a neighbor and go back in ten years and tell him you need another $100 per acre because land prices went up he will laugh at you and slam the door in your face. Your simply looking for a sucker gst. You see people often think it's ok to rip off the government, but the government is the people. It's sort of like when you arrest a shoplifter and he thinks it's ok to rip of WalMart because it's no skin of our nose. It is skin of our nose because they have to raise the price to make a profit if half the people coming into the store are going to shoplift.
> 
> So when it comes to tile what is your defense for more drainage? Who pays the damages downstream? Will you volunteer for sandbagging this spring. *I did a couple of years ago and hauled 18 pallet loads of sandbags to a small town se of Jamestown. Even at 60 years old I unloaded all of them.* Maybe the drainage advocates could make a run to Fargo this spring.
Click to expand...

Whining or sympathy? :wink:

So what you are saying is you are taking a short term antagonistic approach to this issue regardless of what the long term outcome may ultimately be?????? Your rhetoric surely supports that position.

And once again we are right back to going over the same old crap suggesting an ongoing perpetual usage restriction easement to a one time land sale is the same thing. :roll: Perhaps there is something to that saying about an old dog and new tricks. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

If you want drainage and fairness here is how you do it gst. Build a water treatment facility at the drainers expense. Treat water from those drain tiles until it meets EPA standards then inject 60% into the aquifer and let 40 percent drain slowly into the natural drainage system. Problem solved. :wink: Oh, and mitigate for the habitat destruction.  Since every other industry has to mitigate for destroyed habitat, pollution, etc what is the difference between one business and another? A business is a business right? I'm not suggesting this is realistic, I'm just trying to be fair. Doesn't an individual who causes problems owe society the same mitigation as a larger business? If an Exxon oil drilling salt slurry is spilled along a road in the badlands who pays for cleanup? If a farmer pushes just as much crud through four sections of drain tile who pays for the cleanup?

gst, what is realistic to me you find antagonistic because I don't agree with you.



> Whining or sympathy


Neither, I'm just saying to drain advocates put your effort where your mouth is. I'm not trying to be antagonist either, it's the only old cliche I could think of that fits.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Longshot was the single person that came on here suggesting perhaps this compromise is not out of line.


One thing to remember though is with a lease or easement with a sunset clause with renegotiation, the valuation is much less than the onetime fee paid for the long term easement. While I believe this may be a more "fair" alternative, I believe there will be many who will look at these payments as not being worth it. Too many look at the dollar figure at that moment in time. They want a bigger check, and then complain it's not fair later down the road because it's a burden on the property. Or they look at the lower yearly payment and complain that it's too little. So I guess it still comes down to the decision of the current land owner if he wants the big check right away or the series of smaller checks down the road. My guess is that many will want a long term easement valuation payment in a yearly payment. Now is that fair or greed? Of course there are always a few in every group.


----------



## gst

longshot, that only makes sense that an annual payment be less than the one time up front payment. There are opportunities for an individual to get the entire value (minus a percentage) of a yearly contract paid up front if that is what is needed. But the fact is wether the value is paid up front on a one time deal or on a yearly payment, there should indeed be an end time frame at which imes these agreements can be readdressed. Something like the 30 year time frame most certainly fits into the single generation aspect those in production ag support.

I was involved in a conference call with representatives of the USFWS earlier today. They emphasized that in talking with producers they found that the volantary aspect and equitable compensation need be a part of any of these programs. When I asked the question how a perpetual easement allowed future generations that have land transfered thru family operations to have that volantary aspect of the contract, I didn;t get an answer other than that this will likely continue to be a point of contention.So it appears the USFWS knows the perpetual part of these easements is an issue, but is not going work towards finding a balnace unless it is on their terms. Somewhat as we have seen on this site.


----------



## Longshot

gst,

From NDCC 47-05-02.1.2


> &#8230;.The duration of a wetlands reserve program easement acquired by the federal government pursuant to the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 after July 1, 1991, may not exceed thirty years.


You keep taking about the same thing that is already in act. You may think that the Feds. don't have to abide, but you would be wrong to think so. No need to sign if they can't abide by ND property law. It is not in their constitutional right to do otherwise. If it were me I would just tell them I wish to not participate in an illegal activity and that you would be willing if they would adhere to the appropriate ND law. In my view I think a 30 year maximum is a good number and I'm sure there are instances where as lesser time frame would be more appropriate. It all comes down to the negotiation and the benefite to both parties.  I would be more willing to see money spent on something like this that many other things being done right now.


----------



## gst

longshot, The law as you mention in ND is specific to certain programs, WRP can not exceed 30 years, WPA can not exceed 50 years and one would think that as it is written no servitude or easement could exceede 99 years. But the USFWS is acively pursueing a program where by they are going to sign up land under perpetual easements here in ND. I was at the meeting in Minot where it was thouroughly discussed and once again on the con. call yesterday.


----------



## Plainsman

The people along Jamestown Reservoir who have cabins on Core land I think have 99 year leases. I think 99 year leases are a good idea. There should be no problem because only people who are comfortable with 99 year leases will sign up. Those who don't like it will not sign up. Simple. For those who want an up front payment, then get paid every 20 or 30 years they are out of luck. I think the U.S. Fish and Wildlife simply reflects what the average Americans want. 
I would like to see the state plug up all those drains. It's private land, and private water. Let it puddle where it falls, and don't flush it downstream to become someone else's problem. It wasn't right to dam up streams and force your neighbor out in the old west cattle days, and it isn't right to drain and flood your neighbor out today. They may as well take those 99 year leases and get something.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, couple things all involved in stopping long term easements better remember is that if the US Gov decides to challenge this law, the state will lose. Just as other states have especially in regards to protection of endangered species. Not a threat by any means, just a valid observation. So instead of trying to find ways to break old easements, or hinder new easements in length longer than 30 years, I would suggest getting on board with opening up that time frame to at least a 50 year window with and option to the easement holder to then enter back into it with a new financial obligation on current values.

The future of this law and any new easement law and the Corp Farming law are going to be decided in court and the courts have not weighed in the favor of the state laws on this. They tend to side with the property owner having the rights to their land.


----------



## gst

Ron, so now in your attempt to reach this "balance" you are threatening lawsuits????  I'm sure ag producers will welcome the groups that push for these outcomes to the table with open arms. :roll: So from your "comments" at the end of your post can we then assume you beleive the Federal govt should be able to trump state rights and law in the case of private landownership in said state and would universally support such a concept??

longshot talked with a couple of people and found out this very issue was discussed in the Natural Resources Committee a short time ago. There are instances where Federal law indeed superceedes State law in these instances. Perhaps subsequent generations of these perpetual easements should go the route Ron suggests and go to court argueing that for the govt to place encumberances on private property without that current landowner having received fair and equitable compensation for said encumberences, a "takings" has occured. As Ron strongly beleives it is not the govt's right to do this as he answered the question regarding this earlier, I'm sure he would be in support of a lawsuit of this nature. :wink: It is unfortunate that all those involved realize that to file such a suit requires far more monies than will ever be received as a result of a settlement sothey rarely ifever happen.


----------



## Plainsman

Ron stated:


> Not a threat by any means,


gst responded with: 


> Ron, so now in your attempt to reach this "balance" you are threatening lawsuits


gst, what's the game here? Do you really think no one is going back and reading? Do you think the lazy will think "oh that nasty Ron he is threatening"?



> for said encumberences, a "takings" has occured


No one is taking anything if you sign the bottom line. I think you really want to get in on some of this, but you want your kid to be paid again, and your grandson again, and your geat grandson again ------------. Where would we stop, never? Talk about having your cake and eating it too. I hope they stick to the 99 years. With the country going broke I think the liberals will the military budget, and farm subsidies in their sights. I think those 99 year leases will look real good.  That's no threat either, just an observation in the direction I think things will go. Buckle up, it's going to be a rough ride for everyone.

You know I think I have part of the solution. Pay a premium for unposted wetland easements and CRP. For example if the want to post CRP pay about $30/acre, and if the don't post it pay about $50/acre. That way the guys that don't post get more money. Sounds good to me. Now, gst, don't pull your usual and try say I am taking away from the guys that post, because I'm not I am willing to pay more for the guys that do not post.


----------



## 58504451

Plainsman - Your idea about paying for posted CRP and non posted CRP is exactly why the program has fallen out of favor with landowners. Why do you think that the ag program budget should be used for opening land to hunting?? How many dollars are contributed from the USFWS or NWF contribute to the ag programs?? Why should they constantly have their nose in these decisions with no contribution??

I think it's time these groups step up to the table if they are benefiting from programs funded by other departments. Leave the programs and the rules to the ag department and not the lifetime professionals from other departments with their agendas.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Ron stated:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a threat by any means,
> 
> 
> 
> gst responded with:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, so now in your attempt to reach this "balance" you are threatening lawsuits
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gst, what's the game here? Do you really think no one is going back and reading? Do you think the lazy will think "oh that nasty Ron he is threatening"?
Click to expand...

Plainsman, I certainly hope they are going back and reading for if they are they most certainly will notice what you left off of my reply, notabley this icon (  ) Recall that sense of humor you hoped I had?


----------



## Plainsman

I look at it a little different. I look at it from the perspective of the individual citizen. Agriculture affects everyone, but further in some manner or other wildlife, habitat, flood control, affects every citizen also. That ag budget you speak of isn't automatic. Through our representation we have a voice in that ag budget. You evidently think that because your a farmer, landowner, or for all I know a banker, that somehow ag related people should have more of a voice. The people that should have the voice are the people who make their investment in America every April 15. 
I think those with a hunting priority, those with a flood control priority, those with a clean water priority, those whose priority is simply the outdoors, those with an ag priority, etc all have an equal voice. It isn't based on who the wetland belongs to, it's based on who is paying for it, and what we want out of it. The money isn't free just because they are farmers and it's an ag budget.



> Why do you think that the ag program budget should be used for opening land to hunting??


Why should a landowner not be given an extra incentive that will benefit someone other than him? The money does not belong to them until the American people through their representatives, and then their public employees gives it to them. Don't we citizens determine what we want out of that dollar? As a citizen that hunts I'm not for extra incentive because he drives a Allis instead of a John Deer, I'm not going to advocate extra incentive because he uses urea instead of dry fertilizer, I am not going to promote extra incentives to farmers who also raise horses instead of cows. I am going to advocate extra incentive for hunting access because that is what is important to this citizen. Do you have a problem with it benefiting anyone but the landowner? I could say that is selfish. I could also say your attitude is why some hunters no longer support agriculture. If you look back at my writing for years you will find I try to get landowners and hunters to appreciate each other because I believe we are going to need each other. For that to happen the hunter can not always be the giver.


----------



## Bad Dog

58504451 - by the tone of your post it seems that you may be sore at new farm programs, hunters, non-hunters, wildlife, payments to landowners, etc., etc.. The USFWS and USDA basically have the same money, money that comes from us, ALL OF US. So if WE would like to see a program to help pay landowners for opening their land up to hunting, etc., what should you care? All you have to do is NOT enroll in that program. The USDA is involved in many things that are not typical crop production, example: School Lunch Program.

The USFWS has many programs to pay land owners for conducting conservation practices. Some where mentioned in some of the earlier posts, easements. The USFWS also has other programs to help offset costs to landowners for conducting conservation practices, fencing, grazing, water development, grass seeding, and more. I don't know what programs the NWF may or may not have but other NGOs such as them also offer programs to landowners that wish to conduct conservations practices. Example DU has had a Spring wheat program, and a Carbon program (don't know if these still exist or not).

As with everything, remember 58504451 that it is YOUR CHOICE to enroll in a program or not.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> No one is taking anything if you sign the bottom line. I think you really want to get in on some of this, but you want your kid to be paid again, and your grandson again, and your geat grandson again ------------. Where would we stop, never? Talk about having your cake and eating it too. I hope they stick to the 99 years. With the country going broke I think the liberals will the military budget, and farm subsidies in their sights. I think those 99 year leases will look real good.  That's no threat either, just an observation in the direction I think things will go. Buckle up, it's going to be a rough ride for everyone.
> .


The USFWS said in the conference call yesterday it is important these program s are VOLANTARY. If one is going to beleive these programs should be volantary, should they not then be volantary for each subsequent generation?? Does the value of the wetlands the original signer is beingpaid for stop when he dies or the land is passed on to the next generation? Remember that generation did not "sign" anythingand yet they are held to the servoitudes placed on this land. If they did not receive this land as a result of a lower land sales cost, what fair and equitable continueing value have they received for these servitudes?

On a side note, in the conference call with the USFWS a Roger Rosthelt (spl) from the Devils Lake Watershed Area made a claim that directly contradicted one made by Ron in an earlier post regarding the decreased valuation of the land in sales of those with these easements on it. Roger claimed there was NO decrease in the sales value as a result of an easement being involved. Interesting that someone directly involved in these isues should make that claim.


----------



## Plainsman

> ( ) Recall that sense of humor you hoped I had?


 

I seen that and did wonder, but since many things have been twisted exactly like that I didn't know if it was humor or got you. Better luck next time for both of us.



> Does the value of the wetlands the original signer is beingpaid for stop when he dies or the land is passed on to the next generation?


Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Lets say I sell my favorite rifle to Ron. Do you think one of my kids should contact him after I croak and tell him he has to pay them to? Really??? Voluntary gst, voluntary, what is it you do not understand. If you don't like it don't sign the bottom line. If you want to buy land and it has a wetland with an easement you will have to decide what it's worth to you. If you don't like the lease don't buy the land. If you think you have to have the land buy it, but don't complain about the lease because you knew it was there.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> .You know I think I have part of the solution. Pay a premium for unposted wetland easements and CRP. For example if the want to post CRP pay about $30/acre, and if the don't post it pay about $50/acre. That way the guys that don't post get more money. Sounds good to me. Now, gst, don't pull your usual and try say I am taking away from the guys that post, because I'm not I am willing to pay more for the guys that do not post.


I thought this was about conservation not hunting access?


----------



## gst

plainsman just so you know, urea is a "dry fertilizer". Although notmuch of it is used when notill planting corn. :wink:

You do understand that the hunting segment of society is far out numbered by the grocery buying segment of society do you not?


----------



## Plainsman

Read the above post. It can be about whatever the American people want it to be about. I advocate wetlands for conservation, water retention, flood abatement, ground water restoration, the cleaning of chemicals from ag run off, habitat, hunting, and I am sure if I think a bit I can think of other reasons I am for wetlands and against draining. Adding incentive for one does not detract from another. The value of a wetland does not work like irreducible complexity.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Does the value of the wetlands the original signer is beingpaid for stop when he dies or the land is passed on to the next generation?
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Lets say I sell my favorite rifle to Ron. Do you think one of my kids should contact him after I croak and tell him he has to pay them to? Really??? Voluntary gst, voluntary, what is it you do not understand. If you don't like it don't sign the bottom line. If you want to buy land and it has a wetland with an easement you will have to decide what it's worth to you. If you don't like the lease don't buy the land. If you think you have to have the land buy it, but don't complain about the lease because you knew it was there.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You really have to begin to understand that the sale of something wether a quarter of land or a rifle is much different than a perpetual easement. If you can not understand that one simple thing, there really is no point in giving much weight to anything else you claim.

So please expl;ain to us how it is "volantary" for subesequent generation who have land transferred to them thru continueing family operations in being encumbered with the perpetual easements? Where do they have the opportunity make their choice wether to enter into these agreements? What exactly is your definition of volantary?


----------



## Longshot

> The USFWS said in the conference call yesterday it is important these program s are VOLANTARY. If one is going to beleive these programs should be volantary, *should they not then be volantary for each subsequent generation?? *Does the value of the wetlands the original signer is beingpaid for stop when he dies or the land is passed on to the next generation? Remember that generation did not "sign" anythingand yet they are held to the servoitudes placed on this land. If they did not receive this land as a result of a lower land sales cost, what fair and equitable continueing value have they received for these servitudes?


An easement is an easement gst and no it is only to be voluntary to the landowner at the time the easement is established. That goes for all easements being for wetlands or utilities or ingress/egress or servant/subservient. Dependent on the impact on the property it can affect the value of land. If a landowner signs off on the easement that is that. It doesn't make any difference if you are a farmer or own a house in town. I don't understand why you don't get it (see your text in bold). If you don't like it don't sign it. If someone before you signed an easement and you don't like it too bad. If you paid full value for the acreage that the easement impacts, well than that sounds like your own mistake/problem. The after the fact crying sounds like greed.



> should they not then be voluntary for each subsequent generation??


 No, not if the current land owner wants to sign an agreement for 99 years and want that payment. Shouldn't the current land owner agree to what he wants to that will impact HIS land? I thought you were for property rights. Or is it only for YOUR rights. That's what you make it sound like with the above.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman just so you know, urea is a "dry fertilizer". Although notmuch of it is used when notill planting corn. :wink: OK, no till corn I get as humor. We always plowed that stuff down to destroy the life cycle of corn worm. How do you guys handle that problem now?


Not the stuff I use on my lawn. Also, it is liquid until you spray it isn't it? I have not used it in a field, but I thought it was liquid in the tank, and gas when applied. Actually the name anhydrous ammonia skipped my mind I just could not think of it so I typed urea. I get liquid urea at Cenex and mix one gallon to ten gallons water to spray on my lawn. It is a heck of a lot easier than pushing one of those broadcasters. I run out last fall. Sure hope I can still get it, but your comment has me worried that maybe I can't.



> You do understand that the hunting segment of society is far out numbered by the grocery buying segment of society do you not?[


I understand that hunters are a minor segment of the grocery buying segment of society. On a world scale I hope you understand that a North Dakota farmer is only a small portion of the producing segment of society.


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> 58504451 - by the tone of your post it seems that you may be sore at new farm programs, hunters, non-hunters, wildlife, payments to landowners, etc., etc.. The USFWS and USDA basically have the same money, money that comes from us, ALL OF US. So if WE would like to see a program to help pay landowners for opening their land up to hunting, etc., what should you care? All you have to do is NOT enroll in that program. The USDA is involved in many things that are not typical crop production, example: School Lunch Program.
> 
> The USFWS has many programs to pay land owners for conducting conservation practices. Some where mentioned in some of the earlier posts, easements. The USFWS also has other programs to help offset costs to landowners for conducting conservation practices, fencing, grazing, water development, grass seeding, and more. I don't know what programs the NWF may or may not have but other NGOs such as them also offer programs to landowners that wish to conduct conservations practices. Example DU has had a Spring wheat program, and a Carbon program (don't know if these still exist or not).
> 
> As with everything, remember 58504451 that it is YOUR CHOICE to enroll in a program or not.


No one has suggested these conservation programs are not of a value. What is being suggested here is they be formulated so as you say everyone involved in them has the ability to make the "choice" to enroll in the program or not. Perpetual easements simply do not allow that. Single generation programs do.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You do understand that the hunting segment of society is far out numbered by the grocery buying segment of society do you not?[
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that hunters are a minor segment of the grocery buying segment of society. On a world scale I hope you understand that a North Dakota farmer is only a small portion of the producing segment of society.
Click to expand...

But it is the North Dakota farmer who produces what the grocery buying majority spend their dollars on. You don'tseem to want to accept that this majority will care less what values wetlands have to hunters or conservation in general if the shelves are empty.


----------



## Plainsman

I think the subject of tile and why it should not be easier should be discussed. gst, I think you bring up all these other things so you don't have to discuss the problems with tile. Maybe you should start an easement thread where you can cry. :wink: I promise I'll come play with you. :wink:


----------



## Bad Dog

One hears the wine that nothing should be allowed to carry on forever. There are groups out there that this is their mantra and they claim to be private property advocates. However, if one is a true private property advocate then one should believe that one should be able to do WHATEVER they wish with their property, even if they wish to sell a perpetual easement.

As for property values it depends. Looking from the crop farming aspect, the price for a tract that has an easement may actually be lower. Looking at it from a ranching aspect, a tract of land that has a grass easement may actually be higher. Looking at it from wither in-state or out-of-state conservation buyers, that piece of land with an easement and the wetlands and/or grasslands intact typically has brought top dollar.

Remember you too have a choice in whether you buy that piece of property or not.


----------



## gst

Okay, what people do not seem to be understanding here is that a large percentage ofagricultural lands are transfered thru family operations without any money changing hands or sales taking place.

Longshot mentioned a house in town. Lets put a different perspective on this for one minute. Lets say thru an estate you inherit your fathers house. You decide that you wish to raise your family in your hometown and you move back to live in your old home. One day as you are in your backyard, the next door neighbor comes over and begins setting up a barbeque for a party he is having in your backyard.You ask him what is going on and he tells you he entered into an agreement with your father that enables him and anyone that ever lives in his house tothe end of time to come over whenever he or they want to use the backyard for parties. He said your father never used the backyard and he paid your father a fair sum at the time and this agreement is perpetual in nature and that these parties benefit the whole neighborhood. Would you advocate having the ability to readdress this agreement as you were not a party to the original signing of it? Or would you just set back and say that silly old Dad wasn't very smart,but oh well. An honest answer here would be appreciated. It would be interesting to hear the amount of "whining" that would take place regarding an agreement of this nature  I know very few people that would not end up in court fighting to end this agreement. But hey maybe there are those that would take it simply for the benefit of the society of the neighborhood. party on dude! :beer:


----------



## 58504451

Bad Dog - I am not mad at any of the groups you mentioned. I aslo understand enrolling in any program is optional. My point is that anytime a farm bill or crp program comes up the wildlife professionals ( and please don't throw hunters into this group ) come up with their wish list with no funding from their department.

Yes USDA is involved in the school lunch program - I don't think it should be but that's where it's at. Have you ever looked at the USDA budget and looked at direct ag vs other programs such as you mentioned??

Would you support an additional $5, $10, maybe $15 per acre in a crp rental contract if the land is open to hunting and that additional funding coming from FWS budget?? Funding it from the USDA budget does nothing for agriculture. Yes - I am aware that it's funded by tax money.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Okay, what people do not seem to be understanding here is that a large percentage ofagricultural lands are transfered thru family operations without any money changing hands or sales taking place.
> 
> Longshot mentioned a house in town. Lets put a different perspective on this for one minute. Lets say thru an estate you inherit your fathers house. You decide that you wish to raise your family in your hometown and you move back to live in your old home. One day as you are in your backyard, the next door neighbor comes over and begins setting up a barbeque for a party he is having in your backyard.You ask him what is going on and he tells you he entered into an agreement with your father that enables him and anyone that ever lives in his house tothe end of time to come over whenever he or they want to use the backyard for parties. He said your father never used the backyard and he paid your father a fair sum at the time and this agreement is perpetual in nature and that these parties benefit the whole neighborhood. Would you advocate having the ability to readdress this agreement as you were not a party to the original signing of it? Or would you just set back and say that silly old Dad wasn't very smart,but oh well. An honest answer here would be appreciated. It would be interesting to hear the amount of "whining" that would take place regarding an agreement of this nature  I know very few people that would not end up in court fighting to end this agreement. But hey maybe there are those that would take it simply for the benefit of the society of the neighborhood. party on dude! :beer:


Ok, you want an honest answer. First I wouldn't be surprised because at the time of the title transfer I would have seen the encumbrances upon the property. It was my father's decision to make and his right as the property owner. Obviously he felt it was a good deal. He was generous enough to leave me the property so why should I second guess his decision. I think I can respect my father enough not to turn my nose up to his generosity. The payment benefited him or he would not have made the agreement. I have no right to question this agreement and have no legal standing to demand compensation for it. How can I? Do you think the neighbor should have to pay again for something that he already purchased? Property rights are intact to protect everyone no matter if you are the easement owner or the owner of the servient property. So now, was there something else that my father purchased with the money he received for the easement? Maybe now I am benefiting from that also or maybe he wasted it. Hopefully he got what he wanted from it and it's no right of mine to demand that I benefit from it also. So you inherit something (getting it free not taking into account any taxes) and now you want to complain about the generosity given to you because there is something you don't like?


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I sure would be disappointed, but then if old dad got a good sum and enjoyed it I guess he had more right to it than I did. I guess although I would not be happy I would have to put up with it. A contract is a contract. I don't have to like it, but dad got the bucks and I would be happy for him.  Hey, dad paid for the house, any benefits I get are all just that, benefits free and clear. The most likely scenario is dad goes to the nursing home, and the house is sold so he can pay for his care while the moochers let the government pay their way. We just went through that about six weeks ago.

Now, how about tile?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

OK very simple gst, in the 30's to save land my grandfather sold the mineral rights to some of the land he owned. He was unable to save the land and pay the taxes. The state ended up owning it, but they did not get the mineral rights as they where gone prior to the land going back for taxes.

Easements work in the same manner but with an expiration date down the road.

You keep wanting to for easements to end or be re-negotiated when you pass on your land to a son or grandson etc.. because you think down the road that easement would be worth more than it is today!

Those mineral rights are worth more today than in 1930 as well, but I have no say nor do the current owners of the land.

There are a number of things to consider that you seem to forget about an easement. The purpose is to maximize the investment which means protecting the most for the least. Not unlike a farmer putting on fertilizer or chemicals for weeds and fungus and insects. What you want or deem middle ground throws cost controls out the window, make it impossible to budget or protect lands as costs would be unknown!

You really think that is fair or middle ground?

I


----------



## gst

longshpot, plainsman, righhhhttt. I'm sue you would be telling yourself that the next day when you were cleaning up the beer cans. :wink:

Ron you need to realize the SALE ofsomething is a completely different beast than an easement



Ron Gilmore said:


> Easements work in the same manner but with an expiration date down the road.
> 
> There are a number of things to consider that you seem to forget about an easement. *The purpose is to maximize the investment which means protecting the most for the least.* Not unlike a farmer putting on fertilizer or chemicals for weeds and fungus and insects. What you want or deem middle ground throws cost controls out the window, make it impossible to budget or protect lands as costs would be unknown!
> 
> You really think that is fair or middle ground?
> 
> I


Ron perpetual easements do NOT have an "expiration date down the road". And here we have it these perpetual easements are soley about getting the most value for the dollar spent. NOT fair andequitable. "Greed at it's darkest" :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

I like that you keep this up gst so people can see how you guys try to sell something then get paid again. It is voluntary, no one puts a gun to your head to sign the contract. This whole thing is very simple for 99% of the people. The problem is you see ripping off the government as not hurting anyone. The government is all of us. Why should you sell something, then after one generation your kids get it back and get paid again, then their kids get paid again. That would be a great scam, but I don't think the public is dumb enough to go for it.



> longshpot, plainsman, righhhhttt. I'm sue you would be telling yourself that the next day when you were cleaning up the beer cans.


We didn't say we would be happy, but wasting money would just be throwing away good money. Maybe good old dad bought some rifles to leave me instead. Maybe he just paid for a pacemaker and I got another ten years with him. The bottom line was it was dad's house. The bottom line is those guys that sign the contract do so with full knowledge, and it's none of your business gst. If they want the payoff and sign on the bottom line it's none of my business, none of their neighbors, and none of yours. I think the Fish and Wildlife would be foolish to do it any other way when they have willing people now.

I'll bet the guy in town who owns a hardware store wishes he could get paid multiple times. I thought Ron's example was good. We all know selling something is different than an easement, but that doesn't take away at all from the example. Oh, other than you still have your land if you take an easement. For an outdoor guy like you what a deal.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Really gst? Not really! The easement is the sale of right of certain use of that land! On your world it is different, but in most everyone else who look at this without their eye on drainage it is as I stated! However with the easement you still retain some use options which is a pretty good deal. Heck you control who access it, can make money from leasing out hunting outings as well as other things. So ***** some more on how it is not fair.

In regards to future owners regardless how they come to own it, just like mineral rights they have to abide by previous owners choice! So keep trying to justify that so called middle ground!


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> longshpot, plainsman, righhhhttt. I'm sue you would be telling yourself that the next day when you were cleaning up the beer cans. :wink:


You wanted an honest answer and I gave it to you. But since it doesn't go along with your thinking I'm now a liar. It's too bad your self-centeredness blocks you from reality. You want to talk about greed. You are here stating the previous landowner doesn't have the right to enter into an easement agreement if that's what they want. You claim to be an advocate of land owner rights, but not if it could affect you somehow. An investment is made into that easement, but now that you own the land you think that payment should be made again. You do a good job of defining yourself as greedy.

So gst, oh wise one with no answers only questions, how many acres is the easement on your property that you want to be paid for? Why should someone or the government (the people) have to pay you again for something they already paid for to cover the next 99 years?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I like that you keep this up gst so people can see how you guys try to sell something then get paid again. It is voluntary, no one puts a gun to your head to sign the contract. This whole thing is very simple for 99% of the people. The problem is you see ripping off the government as not hurting anyone. The government is all of us. Why should you sell something, then after one generation your kids get it back and get paid again, then their kids get paid again. That would be a great scam, but I don't think the public is dumb enough to go for it.
> 
> .
> 
> I'll bet the guy in town who owns a hardware store wishes he could get paid multiple times. I thought Ron's example was good. We all know selling something is different than an easement, but that doesn't take away at all from the example. Oh, other than you still have your land if you take an easement. For an outdoor guy like you what a deal.


So plainsman if selling something is different than an easement, explain the comments in your first paragraph above?

Now you consider getting paid a fair and equitable compensation for something everyone says is so valueable to society is "ripping off the govt" ?


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Now you consider getting paid a fair and equitable compensation for something everyone says is so valueable to society is "ripping off the govt" ?


A fair and equitable compensation was made when the landowner was happy with it and signed the easement document. Come on gst, you can't be that dense. When you sign an easement you have sold an interest in your property, not ownership. They are different but also have similarities.

Still no answers from you gst? You want answers from everyone else, but can't answer any?



> how many acres is the easement on your property that you want to be paid for? Why should someone or the government (the people) have to pay you again for something they already paid for to cover the next 99 years?


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Really gst? Not really! The easement is the sale of right of certain use of that land! On your world it is different, but in most everyone else who look at this without their eye on drainage it is as I stated! However with the easement you still retain some use options which is a pretty good deal. Heck you control who access it, can make money from leasing out hunting outings as well as other things. So b#tch some more on how it is not fair.
> 
> In regards to future owners regardless how they come to own it, just like mineral rights they have to abide by previous owners choice! So keep trying to justify that so called middle ground!


Ron go into a court of law and ask the difference between the sale of property and a servitude placed on property.

In the case of perpetual easements, in essence the result is much like a sale in the fact that there is no end time frame as you suggested there is. That is why agriculture is advocating these perpetual type easements in the FUTURE be dropped and in these "usage" contracts such as you admit these conservation easementsare that they have an "expiration date" so to speak. It really is pretty simple to understand if one wants to.

You admitted once to the driving factor behind perpetual easements is that they get the most usage for the least amount of dollars spent, Loyd Jones admitted the same thing. I understand that but as in any deal both sides can advocate for what is best for them and in the case of these easements where there is an ongoing (and somewould claim increasing value, to these wetlands) agriculture simply beleives having a renewable contract of some sort would be most fair and equitable.


----------



## gst

jesh longshot, I can only type so fast. 

first of all I never called you a liar, but merely suggested while cleaning up the beer cans you would be telling yourself how fair and equitable this agreement was for you and any of your kids and grand kids and great grandkids and great great grandkids ect.... that would have to deal with it in perpetuity.

second you do not seem to realize NO ONE IS SUGGESTIN EXISTING EASEMENTS BE CHANGED , only that ones from here on out be structured differently. It was not too lnog ago that you also suggested Federal easements follow state law and perhaps even have an end time frame of 30 years.

As I said earlier we have a couple of quarters that have 99 year easements on that will be expiring in a few years that have not really limited too much our production. I have NEVER once suggested that in these 99 year easements that I should have been recompensated for the value of the easement. I have merely repeatedly stated from here forward these conservation easements should be based on single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial standards. If that is "greed at it's darkest" well it sheds a little light into where everyone is coming from :wink: .


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, I have no issue with a end date on an easement, I do however feel that 30 years is to short. In regards to existing perpetual easements in place, I do not believe in any manner that they should be modified now or in the future. Like the sale of mineral rights the horse is out of the barn. The people who entered into them did so with full knowledge and where compensated fairly for the current market value!


----------



## Longshot

Ok gst you aren't looking for existing easements to change (of course they shouldn't), but those are the type of examples you keep giving. Your examples all reference an existing easement. Now, do you believe a land owner should have the right to enter into an easement for whatever duration they want within the 99 years? Is that not your right as the current land owner?

My belief is that 30 years would be a good timeframe if it were my land. Of course I don't know how long it would take for that wetland to be there for the tax payer to benefit from it. The valuation then would be the question.


----------



## gst

Jesh you guys, the reference to existing perpetual easements is being used as an example of what currently exists that is being suggested change in the future. Not that hard to realize. Show where I have EVER stated existing easements should be changed.

Perhaps if everyone's panties weren;t in such a bunch wanting to accuse people of being greedy they would have caught that. :-?

And to directly answer langshots question yes I do beleive a landowner should be able to enter into conservation easements for WHATEVER period of timme they like. I am simply advocating that the perpetual aspect is not the best option for future generations.

Perhaps more than just meare of that ideology as the state has a law specifically mentioning it. But then again, maybe the state is simply greedy as well. :roll:


----------



## Longshot

gst, I don't think you understand. I don't care what the duration is for the easement. It's up to the landowner to decide and then the appropriate valuation attached. If you decide its ok and sign it it's binding now, in the past, and in the future. If 99 years is too long and someone doesn't like 30 years, it's your right to pass on it. It has to benefit both parties and if it doesn't the unhappy party has the right to walk away.



> And to directly answer langshots question yes I do beleive a landowner should be able to enter into conservation easements for WHATEVER period of timme they like. I am simply advocating that the perpetual aspect is not the best option for future generations.


Is the perpetual (99 year) aspect the best option? I don't know. If it were my property I would have to make that decision, but I cannot answer that for someone else's property.


----------



## gst

longshot,if you are not directly invovled in production ag I can see where you do not care what the duration of these easements are. Not only do many in ag care as we deal directly with the multiple generation consequences of perpetuals, the state does as well.

Perpetual is NOT 99 years. It is FOREVER, BIG difference. Just as most in ag oppose the sale and separation of hunting rights from the land because they have experieinced and learned from the separation of mineral rights, these perpetual easements raise many of the same concerns. I do not expect people not involved firsthand to fully understand, but when someone enters a debate regarding this issue, instead of instantly making assumptions and throwing accusations, read what is wrote and perhaps consider what is said with an open mind.

Show where I have ever opposed conservation practices or programs with ag all together. Show where I have ever said I neeed to be recompensated for previously signed agreements, show where I have ever said these already signed easments need to be changed. Show where I have EVER advocated against conservation. And yet people have bantered about accusations of being a greedy whiner simply because I advocate for single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually benefitial conservation programs for ag to participate in.

Please explain how that is either "greedy"or "whining" .


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> longshot,if you are not directly invovled in production ag I can see where you do not care what the duration of these easements are. Not only do many in ag care as we deal directly with the multiple generation consequences of perpetuals, the state does as well.
> 
> Perpetual is NOT 99 years. It is FOREVER, BIG difference. Just as most in ag oppose the sale and separation of hunting rights from the land because they have experieinced and learned from the separation of mineral rights, these perpetual easements raise many of the same concerns. I do not expect people not involved firsthand to fully understand, but when someone enters a debate regarding this issue, instead of instantly making assumptions and throwing accusations, read what is wrote and perhaps consider what is said with an open mind.
> 
> Show where I have ever opposed conservation practices or programs with ag all together. Show where I have ever said I neeed to be recompensated for previously signed agreements, show where I have ever said these already signed easments need to be changed. Show where I have EVER advocated against conservation. And yet people have bantered about accusations of being a greedy whiner simply because I advocate for single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually benefitial conservation programs for ag to participate in.
> 
> Please explain how that is either "greedy"or "whining" .


And now my opinion doesn't matter because you think I'm not directly involved in ag? Who's paying for these easements for conservation? The easements need to benefit the people as well as the farmer. Your bias is showing. Show me an easement that says forever (beyond 100 years that was signed) that was signed in the last couple years.

So why should you have a say as to how I deal with my own property. I have property that I enjoy, but don't gain a profit from. Why can't I sign into a 99 year easement that would give me enough money (the higher valuation) to purchase additional land or property that will give me a better net gain yet still enjoy that easement property? Who are you to tell me I can't and why do you think you have a right to do so?

"Perpetual is NOT 99 years. It is FOREVER"

Please show me where it is to be forever. I don't believe it. If someone is dumb enough to sign it I guess that is their problem. Show me where the Federal government has private property rights outside state law and how they don't have to abide by it. I'd be interested in some proof of these claims, not just because I think its BS, but I would be interested to know for my own personal reasons.


----------



## gst

For Christ sake longshot if you do not beleive me call up the USFWS and ask them if they have any programs here in ND that are targeting perpetual easements. Ask directly for Loyd Jones and learn for yourself. Contact any of the legislators on the Natural Resurces Committee and ask them about the Federal laws that allow for perpetul easements. Explain to me how you are directly involved in ag and I will certainly apologize for my assumption.

Oh by the way you forgot to answer the question I asked at the endof my last post.


----------



## Bad Dog

The only 99 year easements within the state of ND or purchased by ND DOT for their wetland mitigation banks. The USFWS easements (wetland and grassland) are perpetual, forever (as long as the US Government exists).


----------



## Longshot

gst and bad dog, were and are the easements being signed? Yes they are and have. Is it your right to tell another land owner that they can or can't sign an easement that deals with THEIR property? For some reason gst, you want to govern other land owners on what they can and can't do with their land when it comes to selling an interest. If you don't like it then don't sign how hard is that to understand?

If you are someone who thinks they should be paid again for an interest they already sold, then yes you are greedy. If you are not one of those people then it wouldn't pertain to you. But I guess gst isn't smart enough to understand that. When someone describes a greedy act, it describes someone in that act/belief. IF you fall into that category gst then I guess your greedy. If not why take such a defensive attitude?


----------



## Longshot

Bad Dog said:


> The only 99 year easements within the state of ND or purchased by ND DOT for their wetland mitigation banks. The USFWS easements (wetland and grassland) are perpetual, forever (as long as the US Government exists).


I still don't believe that to be correct. From what I have read in other states also is that some state easement laws and perpituity laws do limit the easement lengths in those states.

If you don't like what they are offering why sign? Why not sell it to them in fee? From what I understand, most resource agencies don't believe 99 years is anything for time to let nature take it's course. Like I said in the past, it has to benefit both parties. gst, I don't see you as someone who can come to a common agreement with anyone. From your posts here it's obvious it's your way or no way.


----------



## Bad Dog

Longshot - I hope that I didn't make it sound that I do not believe nor support conservation easements, because that most definetly is NOT the case. The USFWS easement and WPA program is the most incredible land conservation on a landscape scale that has ever been created.

You are correct in that it is still very popular with landowners waiting to get an offer. As I mentioned earlier, if you are a rancher or someone that runs livestock and that is your lively hood, it makes total sense to sign a perpetual wetland and grassland easement. That way your lively hood and heritage will be ensured to be passed on to future generations and not be ruined by a crop farmer looking to plow the grass and drain the wetlands to plant it to corn while the price is high.

Again Longshot, the only 99 year easements in ND are the ND DOT wetland bank easements. USDA has, I believe, 10 year and 30 year WRP leases (easements). In other states, USDA does offer a perpetual WRP lease (easement). ND state law limits easements to 99 years, hence the DOT's 99 years. But remember that is state law and not federal.


----------



## gst

longshot once again you wish to make it personal instead of taking the time and infoming yourself. One simple phone call would set you straight, but instead of taking the time to do something so simple you wish to ramble on proving your ignorance. Beleive whatever you wish. I have had as much patience with people as I am going to waste in this thread.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US ... 1-773.html

It took a wopping 1 minute to find this link online. From the link,the SCOTUS finding.

2. Since § 3 of the Loan Act does not permit North Dakota to revoke its consent outright, the State may not revoke its consent based on noncompliance with the conditions set forth in the 1977 legislation. And to the extent that such legislation authorizes landowners to drain after-expanded wetlands contrary to the terms of their easement agreements, it is hostile to federal interests and may not be applied. For the same reason, the statute limiting easements to a maximum term of 99 years may not be applied to wetlands acquired by the United States pursuant to previously given consents. Pp. 316-320.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html

Hee is an interesting read on conservatyion easements fom a nonbiased position. They list benefits of easements as well as the negatives including those of the perpetual easement. However I am sure they will simply be looked at as whiney and greedy as well.


----------



## Plainsman

> I have had as much patience with people as I am going to waste in this thread.


Now you beginning to understand. We don't want to do what you want and no matter how much crap you shovel we are not changing our minds. Your simply confused because normally your used to being pampered and kissed up to. You get paid every time you sneeze. The country is in a bind and I think your going to see the end of that. When everyone is asked to tighten their belt your looking for a new way into the taxpayers pocket. 
Now you can cry that my post is going to cause hard feelings, which is only your way of threatening. Your post has already caused bad feelings against landowners. Don't despair though I judge people individually and will not dump on landowners simply because of the few that think I owe them. 
Money is tight guys and I am sure that those easements will be helpful to people who would keep their wetlands anyway, but this way get some income from them. If your one of those farmers God Bless. 
I have a friend who is in a little bad shape this spring. Kind of busted up from accidents on the farm. It looks like I will be driving a little tractor this spring. It's been a while, so I may need a little training. Doesn't that blow your mind gst?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now you beginning to understand. We don't want to do what you want and no matter how much crap you shovel we are not changing our minds. Your simply confused because normally your used to being pampered and kissed up to. You get paid every time you sneeze.


plainsman, did you even take the time to read the last link I posted, or did you simply pass over it to post this kinda crap again?

For some reason your comments above conjures up a picture of a small child with a coonskin cap and buckskins on sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling la la la la at the top of his lungs. :wink:

Single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually benefitial conservation easements is the "crap" I'm shoveling. If you do not beleive that is reaching a "balance" between production ag and conservation, that is most certainly your choice.


----------



## Plainsman

It's been out of balance for years, with 90% of the federal budget going to agriculture, and in North Dakota most of the benefits going for agriculture.  Every year it gets better for you and worse for the resident hunter. Oh, and worse for the average Joe taxpayer. We are now up to our ears in debt and you want more money. You better brace yourself, because I think your in for a huge surprise. When people see the grocery prices they want call for draining wetlands just yet, they will call for more cheap imports first.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It's been out of balance for years, with 90% of the federal budget going to agriculture, and in North Dakota most of the benefits going for agriculture. Every year it gets better for you and worse for the resident hunter. Oh, and worse for the average Joe taxpayer. We are now up to our ears in debt and you want more money. You better brace yourself, because I think your in for a huge surprise. When people see the grocery prices they want call for draining wetlands just yet, they will call for more cheap imports first.


Christ almighty man what the hell are you smoking??? This is a perfect example of you pulling crap out of your ***. 90% of the Federal budget goes to agriculture????? .  :shake: :roll:

You really do not understand. If production drops below demand, there will be NO "cheap imports". It is a global market.

Volantary, single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation programs. Apparently you are not in favor of this.


----------



## Plainsman

90% when compared to ag and anything for the outdoorsman. Did you see 1407 this afternoon. We have a bunch of grain farmers in the legislature voting money into their pocket at the expense of resident hunters. There is no need to open those counties, and the only thing needed is for the posted signs to go down.

I did word that poorly didn't I. Ag and defense are the top two in the nation expenses for out nation. Together wildlife and ag don't make up 1/3 of the total budget, but if you added the two together the ag portion would be 90% and the wildlife 10%. Maybe the divide is even greater. In our state the only thing hunters get is what their license fees pay for. Then the agriculture and our legislature often try to rob us of that. Our state government spends more trying to sell wheat to Cuba than anything for wildlife.

gst, we have understood your point all along. We just don't agree with it. You want to meet in the middle you will have to start giving up a lot. I would like to meet in the middle that's for sure. What an improvement for hunters, or anyone who enjoys the outdoors.



> You really do not understand. If production drops below demand, there will be NO "cheap imports". It is a global market.


I understand that's your pay me or starve to death dream, but it isn't close yet. If it was you guys would not be trying to block Canadian wheat and milk from our next door neighbor Minnesota. You just close your little eyes now and let those dollars dance in your head. :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman, given that the majority of sportsmen that are not on this site whinning about how bad things are here in ND, would you classify your posts claiming they are as "whining"?

This has moved even farther into accomplishing nothing than what I thought it would. The people that can look at something from a perspective other than how "greedy" ag is have been given a few ideas to give some thought to. Those that can't, simply post the same old crap. Hopefully it has not been as much a waste of time as what it appears to have been.

Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation programs.

Plainsman you never did directly answer if you are in favor of such a thing?

As there will likely be no direct answer to that question, I will end my involvement in this debate. For real this time. :wink: Unless someone makes more childish personal comments again.


----------



## Plainsman

Voluntary - Yes in favor
renewable - absolutely not in favor
single generation - nope that's a rip off too
fair and equitable - Yes, that is why it should not be renewable or single generation
mutually beneficial conservation programs. - Yes that is the way it works now. The old cliche "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here.


----------



## gst

Okay, okay, okay, I know, but I never really expected to get a direct answer from plainsman.  Perhaps if he thought no one was going to hold him accountable for his answers he felt better about giving one :wink: Maybe since he is on a roll answering questions he will address the one I asked about wether complaining about how bad ND sportsmen have it is whining? 

Volantary, please explain how in the situations I have described of land being passed down generation to generation without being sold, the 5th or 10th or 20th generation has any sort of a volantary aspect attached to their participoation in these perpetual easements? I would really like to hear an answer to this because the fella from the USFWS couldn't.

renewable, I see you are willing to meet halfway on this. :-? If they are "mutually beneficial" as you claim you are in favor of, they will be renewed under "fair and equitable" terms which you claim to support as well :roll:

A single generation encompasses 20 to 40 years which is what MOST conservation easements are. What you have seen happen as was mentioned in some instances such as CRP, the values of what those lands are worth in production increased beyond what the program was paying (fair and equitable) so the lands were taken out. Also the increasing wildlife regulations tied to them where a factor as well.

So that in reality is why some people that are less concerned with "fair and equitable" and "mutually beneficial" (even though they disingenuously claim to be in favor of this part of the equation), want to have perpetual type easements. They do not have to concern themselves ever again with "fair and equitable" or "mutually beneficial". It is all about the dollar, (Loyd Jones admitted that in the meeting in Minot) not only are farm programs likely to be cut, but the funding for conservation is as well, (it was mentioned by the USFWS fella in the conf. call) So some in conservation realize this and are basically trying to get as much as they can for as little as they can. Yet when those in ag do this it is called "greedy" and "whining". :wink:

Apparently some actually beleive despite the opportunities we have here in ND the sportsman has been getting "screwed" here by agriculture so their idea of claiming to be willing to meet in the middle and acheive some sort of balance is to "screw" agriculture from here on out. Way to get people involved in ag on your side.


----------



## Bad Dog

gst-Just as a landowner may voluntarily sell their mineral rights to someone or some private corporation, the same landowner may sell the rights to either the wetlands or grasslands. It is voluntary because it is ultimately up to that landowner whether they want to sell or not.

Land that is given to someone must abide by any previously sold or agreed to rights. Here again if you are the 'giftee' you again have a choice to accept the gift or not. You can voluntarily accept the gift or not. Don't confuse this with a right because it is not.

In regards to easements, it is not about getting as much as they can for as little as they can. Because it is the tax payer's money, they do have to follow laws and policies that dictate it must be a marketable payment. Because they are purchasing a right and not the land in fee, the payment equates to around 50-70% of what the market value for the land would be if it was sold in fee. As a tax payer, I would not want my tax dollars to go to the purchase of a right for the same price as the land would go for fee if the market does not dictate that.


----------



## Plainsman

> Okay, okay, okay, I know


Ya, I knew that was bs before you did. :wink:



> Apparently some actually beleive despite the opportunities we have here in ND the sportsman has been getting "screwed" here by agriculture so their idea of claiming to be willing to meet in the middle and acheive some sort of balance is to "screw" agriculture from here on out. Way to get people involved in ag on your side.


One only has to look at bill 1407 and our senate passing it yesterday. Canada geese damage just sort of happened in one of the most commercialized wildlife areas of our state. They claim no one will come and shoot their geese, but they post their land. Sure you can find land to get on up there, but not the land with the geese. This wasn't about agriculture damage, this was about screwing the resident hunter because the non residents have more money and will pay. Then they go to the legislature and don't tell the truth. I guess when you make false claims you are willing to tell the public dollars are more valuable than integrity.

When a bill just passed yesterday that proves my point I can't believe anyone has the audacity to whine for agriculture. You may be chuckling to yourself today, but when the three stooges (your sugar daddies) are all out of office and conservatives need to cut the budget to save this nation we may need that drain tile to move the tears off the fields. I'm surprised your so willing to poke fellow North Dakotans in the eye with bills like 1407 when your gravy train is nearing the end of it's track. That and oil is fast becoming more important in North Dakota while agriculture is on the decline. Do you guys ever think about the future? More importantly do you ever think about an operation that can make it without subsidies? This nation is in the trouble it is because of junk like ethanol subsidies.

You should have watched John Stossel on Fox News last night. He had a one hour special on American Freeloaders. I missed most of it, but I'm waiting for it to be online. Agriculture was one of the things I did see in his presentation. It pointed out that those who keep voting for politicians that give them money (Dorgan, Conrad, Pomeroy)they have not increase their standard of living. You should look into your crystal ball before shoveling more of that bull dung like 1407. LIberals are for the poor, and have been in power most of the time over the past 50 years, but the poor are still poor. Hmmmm. I'll bet the next guy to run against Hoven will promise $10/bushel corn and ag will go for him.

Here is a short clip I found: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4607769/amer ... reeloaders


----------



## Plainsman

The real debate is perpetual easements vs. perpetual payments.

Now can anyone tell me how tile benefits North Dakota? I guess we got off that subject because 99% know it's bad.


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> gst-Just as a landowner may voluntarily sell their mineral rights to someone or some private corporation, the same landowner may sell the rights to either the wetlands or grasslands. It is voluntary because it is ultimately up to that landowner whether they want to sell or not. .


Bad dog, do you beleive a landowner should be able to separate hunting rights and sell them as well? People have looked at the separation and sale of mineral rights and the consequences that have arose and realize often times losing control of these "rights" is not always best for the long term. That is why orgs. like NDSA oppose the sale of huntingrights. The easement is not the "sale" of a right, but rather the"rental" of a right. And in the case of perpetual you can not argue the fact that the perpetual aspect ofthe easement will take away the volantary aspect of participating from any subsequent generation, so in fact the perpetual easement is only "volantary" once in it's lifetime which is forever.



Bad Dog said:


> In regards to easements, it is not about getting as much as they can for as little as they can. Because it is the tax payer's money, they do have to follow laws and policies that dictate it must be a marketable payment. Because they are purchasing a right and not the land in fee, the payment equates to around 50-70% of what the market value for the land would be if it was sold in fee. As a tax payer, I would not want my tax dollars to go to the purchase of a right for the same price as the land would go for fee if the market does not dictate that.


Bad dog, at the USFWS meeting held in Minot, Loyd Jones stated it was EXACTLY about getting as much for as little as possible. Leveraging the dollars avalible to them. Those were not my words but his when asked why they were not going with a renewable contract. It was referenced once again the other day in the conference call with the USFWS. So when ag advocates for renewable contracts it is "greed" but when the USFW advocates for perpetual easements it is proper use of taxpayer money. Where does fair and equitable come into the equation? It is not only ag that beleives there may indeed be negative consequences that outweigh the benefits of perpetual easements but the state itself thru it's laws does as well. It is unfortunate the Feds do not have to follow state law in these instances.


----------



## Plainsman

Here is some more recent reportrs on wetland drainage into Devils Lake. As you notice politicians fear addressing the real issue. When will we face the real problem? After we drown a few people?



> Current Status of Devils Lake and Outlet Plans that will Affect Downstream Sheyenne River.
> 
> 1/24/2011 Devils Lake elevation 1451.6 ft.





> Devils Lake continues to rise. Since 1993 Devils Lake rose about 29 feet, from 1423 feet above mean sea level to a height of 1452 feet above msl in the spring of 2010. The lake will have to rise over six feet more before it overflows into the Sheyenne River through the Tolna Coulee at 1458 feet. State outlet pumping plans do not include removing all the water but only plan to pump down to 1445'. Landowners hoping for return of land sold to them will be disappointed if they think otherwise.
> Plans for increased volume of Devils Lake outlet water pumped into the Sheyenne River. The State is moving ahead with plans for more outlets and higher pumping rates. The EPA will apparently allow North Dakota to use the Water Transfer Rule (WTR) to move water from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River. What this action does is bypass the need for any scientific studies. ND senator Conrad and former Senator Dorgan support this decision, but it is a political solution to an environmental problem. They and other outlet proponents have failed to take upper basin drainage into consideration as one of the main reasons for more water flowing into Devils Lake. By ignoring wetland drainage, outlet advocates have misled decision makers about one of the best ways to reduce water levels on the lake: By restoring upper basin wetlands. Increased pumping means more flooding incidents on the lower Sheyenne River and for its residents.Effects of Devils Lake water on the Sheyenne River water. On the above map, the salts and materials dissolved in each body of water is shown. It is the mixing of the Devils Lake waters with its higher amount of salts in it that will harm the river organisms and make it undrinkable for people, livestock, and communities that use wells recharged by river water. The ND state outlet pumps are also transferring water from one watershed to another watershed by manmade methods, transferring biota and salts which damages living systems receiving the water. Aquifers are porous places below ground that allow water to pass through- and pumping wells by residents and communities pull that water, in this case the Sheyenne River water, into and through the aquifer. The saltier river waters will become pulled into the aquifers lining the river. Valley City is building a water treatment addition to their drinking water system to remove the sulfates that are and will come from more Devils Lake water mixed in. Other communities and residents don't have this as an option.


----------



## gst

]


Plainsman said:


> When a bill just passed yesterday that proves my point I can't believe anyone has the audacity to whine for agriculture. You may be chuckling to yourself today, but when the three stooges (your sugar daddies) are all out of office and conservatives need to cut the budget to save this nation we may need that drain tile to move the tears off the fields. I'm surprised your so willing to poke fellow North Dakotans in the eye with bills like 1407 when your gravy train is nearing the end of it's track. That and oil is fast becoming more important in North Dakota while agriculture is on the decline. Do you guys ever think about the future? More importantly do you ever think about an operation that can make it without subsidies? This nation is in the trouble it is because of junk like ethanol subsidies


I actually would like to end this debate, but everytimeI try plainsman pulls somethingout of his *** once again that has no basis. :roll: Please show where I have supported, advocated for, or am in any way involved with 1407. Please realize that 
I never once voted for the "three stooges". And please save your juvenile, snide comments about tears on the feilds, they only serve to show your childish bias against ag. You really have no clue about this countries policies of food security.

Plainsman I kinda had an idea that the roll you were on answering any questions would come to a stop when you realized you would once again be held accountable for your statements.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Here is some more recent reportrs on wetland drainage into Devils Lake. As you notice politicians fear addressing the real issue. When will we face the real problem? After we drown a few people?


So now you are insinuating ag will be responsible for downing someonewhen DL over flows? :roll: You NEVER have once answered in all the times asked before when DL over flowed down the Tolna coulee and agriculture was not a part of the landscape and grasslands and wetlands where undisturbed, what was the cause of this flooding?

Once again you post things without providing a link to where you gain your information.


----------



## Plainsman

More infor: I keep finding no silt in Tolma Coulee, deep silt in Tolna Coulee, moderate silt in Tolna Coulee, etc. Anyone have more information on silt deposits?



> Level 1450 is only a few feet away from the lake's natural breakout from Stump lake on the east end of the vast lake chain. Devils Lake is pouring into Stump at a rate unprecedented in modern times. Stump is rising faster than anyone expected. It's a relatively small lake and will fill fast, match Devils Lake's elevation and then rise with the big lake. Next stop: breakout through the Tolna Coulee to the Sheyenne, maybe not this year, but who knows? Once Stump Lake achieves the big lake's level, it's only seven more feet to the natural spillover. And as the lake has demonstrated, a seven-foot rise over a short time is a realistic cannot be ruled out.
> 
> Furthermore, data from test borings and anecdotal historical evidence indicates the bottom of the natural outlet is several feet lower than 1457 because the channel has been plugged with silt during decades of dry years. Once high water begins to erode the silt, the rising lake's pressure could carve out a river-like channel of its own.


I see the county wants to buy land that is in the Tolna Coulee. Here in the Benson County Farmers Press they explain why.



> There's talk of the counties in the Devils Lake Basin purchasing land near Stump Lake where the natural outlet to Stump Lake (and Devils
> Lake) lies. The primary purpose of purchasing the land is to have the land in the ownership of the counties so the US Army Corps of Engineers can't construct a plug to keep water from flowing out of the lake naturally at an elevation of about 1459 feet above sea level. The present level of the lake is 1447.84, so the lake would have to rise 11 feet for that to happen. Secondly, the natural outlet of Stump Lake to the Tolna Coulee has filled with silt and the counties want to clean out this silt to allow water to flow to the coulee and then to the Sheyenne River.


----------



## Plainsman

This editorial was written a year ago. It hasn't gotten any better since that time. Anyway, it's a perspective from someone who is evidently very familiar with Devils Lake. Notice he mentions the water is coming into Devils Lake faster than it can be pumped out. Now where is that water coming in at? It couldn't be channel A could it? Naw, couldn't be, channel A carries drain water. Drain water doesn't contribute to flooding right?



> There's the old story of the farmer who meets a friend in town. "How's everything?" the friend asks.
> 
> The farmer replies, "If the crick don't rise, things will be fine."
> 
> Well, the crick's rising - has been for nearly 20 years. But it's Devils Lake in northeast North Dakota, the state's largest and getting-larger natural lake. And those "friends?" Empathy, but not much action.
> 
> Want more homespun wisdom? How about these: Fiddling while Rome burns. Whistling passed the graveyard. Roof don't leak when it ain't rainin'.
> 
> The latest waste of time for Devils Lake was last week's meeting (some had the gall to call it a "summit") of the Red River Basin Commission, politicians, city officials and others. At the conclusion of the session, the basin commission recommended - hold on to your outrage - a study. An international study this time. Oh, joy.
> 
> Another study while the lake rises. It's up 28 feet since 1993 and has tripled its surface area to 160,000 acres. The water is closing in on a modern-day record level.
> 
> Another study? Oh, c'mon. I know Devils Lake. I lived there for nearly 20 years. I go there frequently. I've been writing about the lake for 40 years. I've read dozens of studies, even participated in a few of them. Nearly all have come to similar conclusions: build dikes to protect the city; lower the water.
> 
> The former has been done at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Army Corps of Engineers intends to misspend millions more raising the dikes, thus allowing the lake rise to continue. More acres of farmland will go under. At least one more town will be drowned. More roads and the rail bed of the main line through the area could be lost to the lake.
> 
> The latter option - lower the water - is one of those North Dakota common-sense solutions that has eluded all those smart folks on commissions. A state outlet operates on the southwest shore of the lake, but far more water pours into the lake than can be let out by the limited-capacity outlet. The outlet can take off inches while the lake rises by feet. The water is only about 6 feet from the natural breakout at the Tolna Coulee on the east end of the lake. What few in officialdom want to talk about is that the breakout elevation might be lower because the coulee is plugged with silt and drift.
> If the lake breaks out uncontrolled into the coulee and connecting Sheyenne River, the crick could rise so high, so quickly that the Sheyenne flooding of 2009 would seem a trickle.
> 
> Can't happen? Oh, but it can.
> 
> More numbers seldom discussed indicate a "maximum event" on the lake, which is measured in acre feet flowing into the lake, happened in 2009. Given the wet cycle, it could happen again. Just a few days ago, the Pembina area a few miles from the Devils Lake Basin got pounded by torrential rains up to 4 inches. Flooding was severe. Had that deluge fallen in the lake drainage, the forecast for this year's record elevation would have been revised upward.
> 
> A couple of "maximum events" could bring the lake into breakout territory.
> 
> And what's the answer to a downstream threat that no longer is speculation? Another study that might take two years. Is it any wonder the people of the Devils Lake area are beyond anger? They've become cynical: resigned to the depressing evidence that no one, certainly not the let's-study-it-again Red River Basin Commission, gives a rip.


----------



## Plainsman

This is much more direct in identifying the problem Devils Lake is having.



> HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
> UNITED STATES SENATE
> ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
> 
> WETLAND DRAINAGE IN THE DEVILS LAKE BASIN
> The 1911-1912 Final Biennial Report of the North Dakota State Engineer pointed
> out that:
> ''The drainage area of Devils Lake is nearly 2,000 square miles [subsequently determined
> to be 3,814 square miles], but the land lies so nearly level, and there are
> so many marshes, meadows, small ponds and lakes which arrest the flow of water
> and from which it evaporates that it is not likely that the run-off from more than
> 700 square miles of the total area ever reaches the lake.''
> Data from the State of North Dakota show that 358,000 acres of the original
> 569,000 acres of wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin had been drained by 1998. A
> 1983 report co-authored by now-North Dakota State Engineer Dale Frink determined
> that natural wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin hold an average of 11.8
> inches of water in a 10 year run-off, 15.7 inches in a 50 year run-off, and 18.5 inches
> in a 100 year runoff. Because wetlands lose water by evaporation (which averages
> 30 inches per year in the Devils Lake Basin), evapo-transpiration and seepage,
> much of that storage capacity is renewed and available every year. Consequently,
> it is clear that much of the average 317,000 acre-feet of inflows to Devils Lake from
> 1993 to 2000 was the direct result of wetland drainage in the Devils Lake Basin.
> Despite the fact that a 1979 U.S. General Accounting Office report to the Congress
> cited the Devils Lake Basin as a specific example where wetland drainage resulted
> in severe flooding in lower portions of the watershed, not a single one of the
> invited witnesses at the March 25, 2008, field hearing even mentioned the rampant
> and unregulated wetland drainage that has occurred for decades-and continues to
> occur-in the Devils Lake Basin. Nor did any of them discuss how much past and
> future flooding and flood damages could have been prevented if some of the $500
> million of mostly U.S. taxpayer dollars had been used to restore drained wetlands
> in the Devils Lake Basin.
> The argument that wetland restoration would adversely affect the agricultural
> economy of the area is specious because many of those drained wetland basins cannot
> be farmed in wet years anyway. Besides, any adverse impact of wetland restoration
> on the agricultural economy has to be weighed against the adverse impacts of
> wetland drainage on other components of the economy, including U.S. taxpayers.


----------



## gst

plainsman what caused the lake to rise and flow through Tolna coulee before Channel A existed?


----------



## Bad Dog

gst wrote "Bad dog, do you beleive a landowner should be able to separate hunting rights and sell them as well? People have looked at the separation and sale of mineral rights and the consequences that have arose and realize often times losing control of these "rights" is not always best for the long term. That is why orgs. like NDSA oppose the sale of huntingrights. The easement is not the "sale" of a right, but rather the"rental" of a right. And in the case of perpetual you can not argue the fact that the perpetual aspect ofthe easement will take away the volantary aspect of participating from any subsequent generation, so in fact the perpetual easement is only "volantary" once in it's lifetime which is forever."
gst- If one truely believe in private property rights then one would believe that a landowner should have the right to sell hunting rights. You are incorrect in that the purchase of an USFWS easement is NOT a rental but is an actual SALE. To rent something usually means there are designated time period which one uses and pays for the item and the renter is not the actual owner. The USFWS easements are the purchasing of the right to drain, burn, level, and/or fill certain wetlands forever. Because these are forever, the landowner, who still owns the property, no longer owns those rights. Therefore it is a sale and not a rental.

gst wrote "Bad dog, at the USFWS meeting held in Minot, Loyd Jones stated it was EXACTLY about getting as much for as little as possible. Leveraging the dollars avalible to them. Those were not my words but his when asked why they were not going with a renewable contract. It was referenced once again the other day in the conference call with the USFWS. So when ag advocates for renewable contracts it is "greed" but when the USFW advocates for perpetual easements it is proper use of taxpayer money. Where does fair and equitable come into the equation? It is not only ag that beleives there may indeed be negative consequences that outweigh the benefits of perpetual easements but the state itself thru it's laws does as well. It is unfortunate the Feds do not have to follow state law in these instances."

gst- Fair and equitable is subjective and therefore means something different to everyone. You talk about many that believe perpetual easements are negetative. However, it is obvious that this is a minority as the USFWS has a waiting list of landowners looking sell. No, it is fortunate the the Federal Government is sovereign from State law or we would still have slavery.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> plainsman what caused the lake to rise and flow through Tolna coulee before Channel A existed?


Given that we are talking about thousands of years of unrecorded history including weather that is a dumb question. It's a simple attempt to mislead those who can not think. How is anyone supposed to take you serious? How much rain did they have during the last event? Neither you or I know that answer, but because they didn't have farmers and drainage we know it had to be a lot more than we are having now. That is without question. There is no other reasonable answer, key word reasonable (throw in intellectually honest and at least slightly intelligent).


----------



## gst

?


----------



## gst

bad dog, I know this thread has a lot of other crap to read thru, but I do beleive in responding to a comment Ron made I stated earlier that a perpetual easement in essence is the same as the sale of land as it is forever and has no end time frame. However other type easement do indeed have this end time frame and are as such comparable to renting more so than a sale.

Also, most understand property rights are not absolute, but that great care must be given and consequences weighed when infringing upon them. And please realize no one is advocating taking away the right of the landowner to put his land into conservation easements, it is just being advocated they should be on a renewable basis. You never did answer the question wether you beleive hunting rights should be sold separate from the land?

I understand fair and equitable is subjective and to those remaining in production ag it is often based upon the productive value of the land itself. In the case of these easements that must be weighed out against the value society places on the value of the conserved acres. Some have argued now more than ever that value of these wetlands has increased. So if this value to society continues to increase, to be fair andequitable should not the value paid for the easement gaining these benefits also increase? How is this able to be done in a perpetual easement?

The number of people wanting to sign up is NOT a majority of those involved in production ag as you suggest. A good portion of the people that are signing these easements are those no longer directly involved in production ag.


----------



## Plainsman

Hey gst, you and I got off subject on 1407, way off. Maybe we should get this one back on the track of tile and how it is good for North Dakota or how it damages North Dakota.


----------



## gst

plainsman I tell you what, do the math I gave you the figures and the links to verify as to how much of your tax dollar goes to "greedy" ag as you like to call it and post the answer here, refrain from pulling crap out of your *** without posting links to show where you get your info, take some time to study up on this countries food security policy, and realize that as a retired Federal employee whose salary was and pension is provided for by the US tax payer dollars you have very little room to whine about farming and ag subsidy programs and taxpayer dollars, and maybe we can have a debate about a given topic. Untill that time I would guess there will br little value to continue debating.


----------



## Plainsman

Well, just for fun I like to keep you going, but since you refuse to get back to the subject, and since if I keep this up everyone is going to think I am a nut job too, it's best to say adios.


----------



## gator_getter

Plainsman said:


> Well, just for fun I like to keep you going, but since you refuse to get back to the subject, and since if I keep this up everyone is going to think I am a nut job too, it's best to say adios.


Yes, Plainsman. In our local coffee shop, in a small ND town, we have some of your guys' comments posted for conversation. Alot of shaking heads, saying its no wonder the bad attitude farmers have towards some hunters, with the anti AG sentiment from the "urban sportsmen".


----------



## Longshot

gator_getter said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just for fun I like to keep you going, but since you refuse to get back to the subject, and since if I keep this up everyone is going to think I am a nut job too, it's best to say adios.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Plainsman. In our local coffee shop, in a small ND town, we have some of your guys' comments posted for conversation. Alot of shaking heads, saying its no wonder the bad attitude farmers have towards some hunters, with the anti AG sentiment from the "urban sportsmen".
Click to expand...

Where do you think that anti AG sentiment comes from? Do you think it just comes out of nowhere? There are many businessmen that would love to get bailed out every time they have a bad year. Gst's blind bias only helps set that thought in concrete. It's the "I'm always owed something" mentality that many in AG, not all and maybe not most, have. Just like when you look at the "urban sportsmen" as you call them. As with any group there are always bad apples and it's too bad it's the worst that stick in someone's mind. By the way gator-getter, how many of those "urban sportsmen", as you call them, also came from the farm?


----------



## gst

Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation programs. Or in longshots eyes "blind bias". :wink:

You guys really need to let go and get over the HF thing.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation programs. Or in longshots eyes "blind bias". :wink: You guys really need to let go and get over the HF thing.


Yes gst your bias. Most believe that anything under 99 years is a waist and that a true benefit is not reached with anything less. I can understand where you are coming from and have also said so, but unfortunately I have yet to see you acknowledge any but that which benefits ag. You claim land owner rights, but only if it benefits you.

Here is what I think would be fair. A 99 year lease where you get paid what you would have earned on the acreage the last year. This would have to be verified by the person's taxes from that year. Since we usually have to listen to many farmers complain about not making anything I guess the lease would be very cheap.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> gst,
> In my view I think a 30 year maximum is a good number and I'm sure there are instances where as lesser time frame would be more appropriate. It all comes down to the negotiation and the benefite to both parties. I would be more willing to see money spent on something like this that many other things being done right now.


I make my living in agriculture, of course I am biased towards agriculture. Biased yes, blindly no.

volantary, single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easements.

Please explain how that is different than what you suggested above that you beleived was right earlier and how advocating for these CONSERVATION agreements that are fair and equitable and MUTUALLY benefitial constitutes a "BLIND" bias towards ag?

If I was on here suggesting every wetland be drained and conservation programs are BS I could understand the comments some are making on here, but a handful of people can't seem to understand I am advocating FOR conservation agreements in a form that is more attractive to production ag and may actually end up with more acres enrolled. Maybe I'm wrong but as sportsmen, isn't that kinda what you want? Mutually beneficial.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> volantary, single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easements.


GST.....if the goverment did this for easements how would they have to deal with eminent domain? Goverment paid a fair market value for the easement when it was put in place by whom ever. So compensation was put in place. Those people who agreed to the contract were the ones who needed to think it through. 
1. volantary - it was by the person who put it in place
2. single generation - no way it would happen too much fraud could happen or cheating so to speak. Lets put it this way.... A grandfather who owns the land signs up for the easement and gets paid. Then next year he wills, gives, grants, sells the land for $1 to his son. Son either tils up the land or signs up again for the easement and gets paid....the following year wills, gives, grants, sell the land for $1 to his son....cycle repeats. You see the problem with that?
3. renewable.....some are some are not. Some are for ever. But again these were terms agreed upon by the parties when the legal contract was signed.
4. Fair and equitable.....Compensation was fair and equitable at the time of the contract between the parties was enforced.
5. Mutually beneficial....some where....Farmer got paid for acres that were at the time non-tillable or did not produce enough yield. The goverment came in paid for said acreage and now it has a conservation benefit.

Some of the stuff you are complaining about is like saying when the goverment came in and took by eminent domain land for a road, highway, state park, etc. How can 1-2-3-4 generations down the line complain for what their ancestor's did. Think about it. Their ancestors got paid. Typically got paid fair market value at that time. My father sold a home for $40,000 twenty years ago....now that home is worth $100,000.....I want my money. Sounds crazy correct?


----------



## gst

Chuck, emminant domain is the forced prchase of land, easements are an agreement on the usage of land, completely different beasts. Just as is the sale of your fathers home is just that, the SALE of property, title changes hands, transfers ownership, in easements they DO NOT. People need to understand this, you can not compare one to the other.

If you would please answer just a few questions.
Do you beleive all conservation easements should be entered into volantarily by everyone directly involved?

Do you beleive conservation easements should be fair and equitable for both parties involved?

Do you beleive conservation easements should be mutually beneficial for both parties involved?

Can you explain how perpetual easements allow those future generations that will be encumbered by these easements to have the ability to EVER volantarily decide if these easements are fair and equitable and mutually beneficial?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Do you beleive all conservation easements should be entered into volantarily by _*everyone *_directly involved? Yes or no

Define everyone gst?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Do you beleive all conservation easements should be entered into volantarily by everyone directly involved? Yes or no


Yes they should.... are they not? Is a gun pointed at the head of the land owner forcing them to sign the agreement? I think not. The land owner who signed the agreement is the only land owner directly involved. NOT FUTURE generations.....that one land owner is the ONLY one directly involved.



> Do you beleive conservation easements should be fair and equitable for both parties involved? Yes or no


Yes they should..... are they not? When the land owner signs the agreement at the time a fair market value is set and has to be agreed upon. That land owner got compensated correct! If not why sign the agreement.....correct!



> Do you beleive conservation easements should be mutually beneficial for both parties involved? Yes or no


Yes.... are they not? Land owner is getting paid so that is a benefit for the land owner. The conservation group or state is getting use out of the land.....correct. Both are getting mutual benefit. Correct? Compensation and use of land....benfits both parties....one gets cash other gets use of land.

Now if you are talking mutual benefit of the land....ie getting paid for the easement and then being able to work the land....nope....that is all one sided then. The farmer is getting paid for an easement and then can double dip by working the land.....all one sided and is not a mutual benefit. Now if the farmer would work the land for free or give the profit from the land easement back to the state....then that is a mutual benefit. Not one sided.



> Can you explain how perpetual easements allow those future generations that will be encumbered by these easements to have the ability to EVER volantarily decide if these easements are fair and equitable and mutually beneficial?


They should not be able to decide what is going on with that land. The legal contract was signed by generations ahead of time. Those people should have thought how it could impact the future generations. My examples of my father selling his house.....why should I not benefit from it....oh wait I had nothing to do with that contract. DING DING DING...... the people or parties involved in the contract have to accept the future benefits or consequences for future generations. I hope you get it. A legal binding contract was made between two parties. Why should a third party come in years down the line and have an influence. Do you agree with what I stated....



> 1. volantary - it was by the person who put it in place
> 
> 2. single generation - *no way it would happen too much fraud could happen or cheating so to speak. Lets put it this way.... A grandfather who owns the land signs up for the easement and gets paid. Then next year he wills, gives, grants, sells the land for $1 to his son. Son either tils up the land or signs up again for the easement and gets paid....the following year wills, gives, grants, sell the land for $1 to his son....cycle repeats. You see the problem with that?*
> 
> 3. renewable.....some are some are not. Some are for ever. But again these were terms agreed upon by the parties when the legal contract was signed.
> 
> 4. Fair and equitable.....Compensation was fair and equitable at the time of the contract between the parties was enforced.
> 
> 5. Mutually beneficial....some where....Farmer got paid for acres that were at the time non-tillable or did not produce enough yield. The goverment came in paid for said acreage and now it has a conservation benefit.


Especially read in the bold....this would happen. This is the problem with what you are talking about with the future generations.


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> Do you beleive all conservation easements should be entered into volantarily by everyone directly involved? Yes or no
Click to expand...

Yes they should.... are they not? Is a gun pointed at the head of the land owner forcing them to sign the agreement? I think not. The land owner who signed the agreement is the only land owner directly involved. NOT FUTURE generations.....that one land owner is the ONLY one directly involved.

Chuck if the end timeof the easement was withing the signers lifetime they would indeed be the only ones directly involved. In perpetual easements future generations that own this land will be "involved" until the end of time. This is simply a fact. Not volantarily as they NEVER will have that chance to make that determination for themselves. Do you understand this?


----------



## zogman

I have been reading this for some time now. Bear with me as I am a simple man

Ditching = A visible means of draining the Swamp.

Tiling = an invisible means of draining the Swamp

Thats all from me


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Chuck if the end timeof the easement was withing the signers lifetime they would indeed be the only ones directly involved. In perpetual easements future generations that own this land will be "involved" until the end of time. This is simply a fact. Not volantarily as they NEVER will have that chance to make that determination for themselves. Do you understand this?


I totally understand about the lifetime easements. But again future generations are not directly involved. They did not sign the contract. That is the thing you are not grasping. The parties that are only directly involved are the people who signed the contract. Not ten generations down the line. Those generations have to deal with what the easements are. That is just contract law and real estate law.

Any future generation or future person who is buying this land should know what they are getting into because it is in the deed or abstract. This easement is clearly written out. So they should negotiate a different price or terms for the future contract. Even if the land is getting willed or given to a son, grandson, great grandson (or daughters)... they all should know if they read the abstract or have legal representation look over any of the paperwork.


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> Do you beleive conservation easements should be fair and equitable for both parties involved? Yes or no
> 
> Yes they should..... are they not? When the land owner signs the agreement at the time a fair market value is set and has to be agreed upon. That land owner got compensated correct! If not why sign the agreement.....correct


Chuck in a perpetual easement over the period of time it encompasses do you beleive the value of the benefit will ever increase. or even on the flip side decrease? Without an end time frame the "fair and equitable" amount paid will exponentially decrease over the period of the easement which is for ever. ie, a 30 year contract is entered into for $300 dollars /acre, the "value" of that easement is $10/ acre. If a perpetual easement is entered into for $300/ acre, what is the fair and equitable value of that easment in year 100, 200 500 ? Does the value of the benefits (wetland conservation) still remain?o what is the fair and equitable value for them to the landowner 200 years later?

In a perpetual easement any future heirs in a family operation WILL be involved as they will be encumbered by these easements.

This is the exact point Loyd Jones from USFWS eluded to they are able to get way more for much less from a dollars spent standpoint. When asked how this is fair and equitable he didn't have an answer.


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> I totally understand about the lifetime easements. But again future generations are not directly involved. They did not sign the contract. That is the thing you are not grasping. The parties that are only directly involved are the people who signed the contract. Not ten generations down the line. Those generations have to deal with what the easements are. That is just contract law and real estate law.
> 
> Any future generation or future person who is buying this land should know what they are getting into because it is in the deed or abstract. This easement is clearly written out. So they should negotiate a different price or terms for the future contract. Even if the land is getting willed or given to a son, grandson, great grandson (or daughters)... they all should know if they read the abstract or have legal representation look over any of the paperwork.


Chuck how can you say future generations are not involved? Do the encumberences of the easement change when they take over ownership of the land? Every year till the end of time they will have to deal with these encumberences but will receive no direct fair and equitable compensation in any way shape or form for this. So how will this be mutually beneficial?

In the case of a land sale, yes the value can be reflected at the time if the parties so want, but as I said most agricultural lands are transferred within families without a sale where a change in value can be readdressed because of these easements so where is the opportunity for a fair and equitable or mutually beneficial call to be made at that time?


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> Can you explain how perpetual easements allow those future generations that will be encumbered by these easements to have the ability to EVER volantarily decide if these easements are fair and equitable and mutually beneficial?
> 
> They should not be able to decide what is going on with that land. The legal contract was signed by generations ahead of time. *Those people should have thought how it could impact the future generations*. My examples of my father selling his house.....why should I not benefit from it....oh wait I had nothing to do with that contract. DING DING DING...... the people or parties involved in the contract have to accept the future benefits or consequences for future generations. I hope you get it. A legal binding contract was made between two parties. Why should a third party come in years down the line and have an influence. Do you agree with what I stated....


Chuck the easement is not the same as the sale of property, you can not compare it to your father selling his house,land,car, guns ect... There is NO change in ownership or title in an easement. Do you understand this?

In the case of the easement, that future generation that has not bought that land does not have the ability to make the decision at ANY time wether these easements are at that time fair and equitable or mutually beneficial.

The emboldened "tough ****" part of your response suggests you realize that indeed for future generations this may not be as fair and equitable and mutually beneficial for future generations as it was for someone else that came before them. So if that is indeed the case you can not then make the claim you beleive these pepretual easements are fair and equitable and mutually beneficial for everyone that is eventually involved in them.


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> 2. single generation - no way it would happen too much fraud could happen or cheating so to speak. Lets put it this way.... A grandfather who owns the land signs up for the easement and gets paid. Then next year he wills, gives, grants, sells the land for $1 to his son. Son either tils up the land or signs up again for the easement and gets paid....the following year wills, gives, grants, sell the land for $1 to his son....cycle repeats. You see the problem with that?


Chuck single generation is merely refering to having an end time to the easement that would commonly occur in the amount of time a single generation is using the land. ie, 20 or 30 or 40 years.

It is not refering to a linear generational gandfather to father to son scenario such as you suggest.


----------



## gst

Apparently some on here ARE opposed to volantary. single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation agreements. :-?

Hopefully these are not the same people that claim they wish to create a "balance" between production ag and conservation. 

Once again, I really do not know what else can be said in this debate that has not been said. I need to start getting ready if the snow ever melts to get a crop in the ground. With all the moisture there should be plenty of wetlands tofarm around this spring!  Perhaps even with the wet conditions last fall and the melting snow runoff there will besome flooding in low lyhing areas that typicallly have always flooded for centuries. Hopefully the people that have chose to live in these areas are prepared and can deal with it. Good luck


----------



## shaug

Usually I avoid these boards because they are very addictive.

State law prohibits hunting rights from being severed from the land...... OK.

I was listening to a Minot FM radio station about a month ago and there was an ad about easements for something called Wildlife Land Trust.

http://www.wlt.org/sanctuaries.asp



> Since its founding in 1993, the Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust has worked with private landowners to create more than 100 permanent wildlife sanctuaries in 38 states and eight foreign countries. On these sanctuaries recreational and commercial hunting and trapping will always be prohibited.
> 
> The Wildlife Land Trust, alone or in collaboration with a variety of partners, has been involved in the protection of millions of acres of wildlife habitat. As a proud affiliate of the Humane Society of the United States, the WLT joins in campaigns to protect wildlife from cruel and indefensible practices such as poaching, steel-jawed leghold traps, Internet hunting and canned shoots.


Maybe it does not or cannot be applied to North Dakota but it kind of looks like buy an easement and shut down hunting.

Another thing. If Ag programs are cut than conservation will suffer the same cuts. They are both part of the Farm Program.
Something like 53% goes to food stamps and nutrition. Some goes to research. Can't recall where I read it but 17% goes to conservation and 15% goes directly to farmers. When the ax falls I don't believe the 53% to food programs to the needy are going to take the hit.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is in the news again. He wants to eliminate the PACE program part of the Working Lands Initiative. It is a $12 million program to provide grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation groups to purchase easements from farmers. The state would provide up to 50% of the money for the purchase and the local government and nonprofits would have to match state funds. Spokesmen for American Farmland Trust, Gathering Waters Conservancy and Tall Pines Conservancy are encouraging people to contact their lawmakers to save PACE.

Go Scott Walker.......... People need to get real jobs.


----------



## Chuck Smith

GST... the fact you are not willing to understand or listen or comprehend is that a legal agreement was put in place by two parties...goverment and landowner (persons whos name is on the deed at the time). Now any transfer of land or anything else this easement is listed. So anyone who is using, buying, working, etc knows that this easement is there. This easement can give value to this land or it can hurt the land depending on the easement and what the new person using the land wants to do with it. If a farmer wants to purchase the land, rent, work, etc the land this easement has no value. So when they purchase, rent, etc this land they should take this in factor when they sign a lease or purchase agreement. If a person who is not working the land...ie investment, or rec use. This easement could be considered beneficial and again negotiate.

You keep saying you want to be able to change a contract that was put in place by past landowners. I understand that. These contracts are in place. This should have been thought of the time of the contract. A person purchasing land with an easement should not be compensated at all if the easement is already in place. This is where negotiation of price vs benefit comes into play.

Here is an example I know you are talking about.... WRP. Wetland program. Once enrolled it is permenant. Well guess what anyone who is purchasing this land knows that this is here. So what does that due when a land owner is trying to sell his land....lowers or decreases his buyers. Farmers won't want the land because they can't work it. A person who wants to build in the country can build on this land....it is only purpose is rec land. So you limit your buyers. This will dictate price as well. A person knows what they are getting into. They should not beable do dictate what happens on this land because a contract has been him place....such a road easements, utility easements, etc. If a person after the fact can come in and dictate or demand compensation....then every person who owns land that has any easement running through it....utility, electric, water, conservation, etc will demand compensation. Any person who owns a lot in town can demand compensation because they did not agree for a road to be put in or utility lines to be dug, waterlines, etc. Do you see the problem?


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> *You keep saying you want to be able to change a contract that was put in place by past landowners*. I understand that. These contracts are in place. This should have been thought of the time of the contract. A person purchasing land with an easement should not be compensated at all if the easement is already in place. This is where negotiation of price vs benefit comes into play


Chuck this bolded statement is simply not true. If you look back a ways in this thread I have stated the exact opposite. I am NOT suggesting existing contracts be changed. Only moving forward from here am I suggesting conservation easements have an end time frame of a single generation so that each generation has the ability to decide for themselves if the agreement is fair and equitable and mutually beneficial.

Nor have I ever suggested that someone purchasing land with an easement in place have the ability to renegotiate the easement. Please read what has been stated before making assumptive statements.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> second you do not seem to realize NO ONE IS SUGGESTIN EXISTING EASEMENTS BE CHANGED , only that ones from here on out be structured differently.


 Chuck, from back a page. If I have EVER suggested existing contracts be changed please show me where.


----------



## swift

Chuck your wasting your time. The whole idea that future generations are adversely affected by perpetual easements is true in concept. What is not true is the fact that future generations are entitled to the previous generations lands with no contracts. It seems that if someones father felt ditch to ditch farming in the 30's to 80's was a mistake and wanted to make sure it NEVER happened again on their property they should have the right to perpetual easements for conservation. Since the big dogs in AG have already stripped them of their property rights to sell their land to whomever they choose this would be their only option.

People use to respect the wishes of their elders but now some want to have the ability to prevent their grandfather from making decisions because it might take a few bushels away from a generation that isn't even born yet. People should have the ability to leave a legacy if they wish as long as it falls within the law.

How about this... let people do with, what they paid for, as they see fit and if it doesn't work for the future generations let them buy their own land to do as they seem fit. This is nothing more than infringement on private property rights.

It would seem that contracts don't mean squat to some on here. Since they have learned that contracts are usually binding and they can't do as they want if one is in place, they attempt to remove the ability to make contracts.


----------



## gst

I was wondering how long it would take!  Plainsman AND swift, that's too much to handle! :wink:

Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easements. Apparently some are against them.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easements. Apparently some are against them.


Yes! gst, most are against it but people like you!


----------



## shaug

The days of perpetual easements are numbered. We will soon see more and more stories in the news such as this one below bringing needed exposure to this nefarious practice.

RIM program contains long-term issues, needs change
TYLER, Minn. - I am a 61 year old farmer near Tyler, Minn. I am writing on behalf of one my kids and another family who have purchased land with RIM parcels on it. 
By: Alan Roelofs,

In 1986, the state of Minnesota started the Reinvest in Minnesota program. It was started and currently is supported by conservation, environmental and farm groups and the state Board of Water and Soil Resources, and is administered locally by soil and water conservation districts.

A variety of land types are eligible: wetland restoration areas, riparian agricultural lands, marginal cropland, pastured hillsides and sensitive groundwater areas. Some very productive farmland also was enrolled, including land capable of raising 200-bushel corn, 55-bushel beans, or 6 tons of hay in a good year.

Farmers were paid up front to sign perpetual conservation easements on their property. A lot of the land was put into the program after farmers had suffered a period of financial stress in the 1980s. The RIM program was short-sighted. It only looked at how well it would work during the first 15 or 20 years of the program, when the original owner had the land and was receiving CRP payments. It did not take into account what would happen after the original owner died or sold the farm.

I think clean water is a worthy goal. I believe in using filter strips, erosion control and pollution control measures.

In severe weather, I feed the pheasants that live in our evergreens and choke cherry and plum thickets.

Program problems

However, I do not believe in the RIM program or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. On moral grounds, it doesn't make sense. How can a landowner, who only is the steward of the land for his or her lifetime, sign an agreement that is perpetual and completely limits forever what every new steward after him or her can do with the land?

How could the state offer the agreement in the first place? Looks a little crooked to me. After the CREP portion of the contract runs out, there is no compensation for the new owners. The first owner benefited. The new owner does not.

New owners are responsible for the maintenance of the land, keeping invasive species out and paying property tax in perpetuity. The new owner, in effect, is a partial slave to the state or special interest groups.

A special interest group is defined as a group that obtains an unfair advantage. The RIM program is a perfect example of what a coalition of special interest groups can accomplish.

Eventually, all land goes to new stewards. If the new steward is not an avid hunter, how much pride will he or she have in the conservation acres located on his or her property when there is no income potential from the property?

Conservation acres need to be maintained, and it costs money to maintain those acres. Just ask the Department of Natural Resources. Would you like to be the soil and water conservation district person that tells owners to maintain their conservation acres? This is a very problematic program.

Proposed changes

The State of Minnesota should allow the perpetual easements to be bought out at the time of sale of the land or at the time of death of the landowner. The state could place some restrictions on it, such as maintaining 16- to 32-foot filter strips along creek banks, which could be hayed after mid-July. This would help out nesting birds and keep sediment and pollutants out of the creek. Allowing perpetual easements to be bought out would help the state budget. It also would help the economy by letting productive acres be productive again.

This is a statewide issue. In my little local area, I know of five families affected by this issue. There has to be hundreds statewide.

Within the last year, we have witnessed agricultural shortfalls in various parts of the world with little reserve cushion.

The Minnesota beef cow herd has been cut from 751,000 cows on Jan. 1, 1976 to 380,000 cows on Jan. 1, 2010.

The Native Americans raised a superior meat animal - buffalo - on their conservation acres. The best we do is a few pheasants, ducks and deer. Conservation acres have gone up tremendously since 1965, when I was a kid.

Minnesota is the third-largest public land owner in the United States behind the federal government and the state of Alaska.

Allowing new landowners to buy back productive RIM acres would provide substantial revenue to the state. Some of the more productive land that was taken out of production is worth six or seven times as much as when it was put into RIM. The majority of Minnesotans would benefit by increased agricultural production. The overall rural economy would be improved.

Not legitimate

This is different than a windtower perpetual easement. Windtower owners pay a production tax and property tax and take care of their own roads, substations, towers, tower pads and equipment. I do not honor, respect or feel that RIM perpetual easements are legitimate.

Get in contact with your legislator. I see no reason why my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren need to be slaves to the state of Minnesota. Neither do yours. If there is no other way, I think a class-action lawsuit would be appropriate.

It is time to "Reinvest in Minnesota" and let productive land be productive while still maintaining filter strips.

Information: https://revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id103F.515.

Editor's Note: Roelofs is a farmer near Tyler, Minn.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easements. Apparently some are against them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! gst, most are against it but people like you!
Click to expand...

And the data and facts to make this statement exist where?

Comments such as "people like you" only serve to show the personal aspect of this debate. And as usual this is where this debate has gone.


----------



## swift

Exactly what did I say that was so offensive? I support a persons right to do with their land as they see fit. And you apparently do not. It's not surprising that a guy that complains about being held to a SHORT 10 year CRP contract would not want to have to abide by a lifetime contract.

I'm all for


> Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easements.
> 
> 
> 
> if that is what the landowner wants to sign. I am opposed to FORCED anything on landowners. The way it is now if you want to sign a Voluntary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easement you can. If you want to preserve the land forever you cannot. Who exactly is pushing their will on landowners in this case? Who in this case is infringing on a landowners right to run their land as they wish?
> 
> I like the way you dismiss my opinion as though it has no merit. Maybe we should decide that it's not in the best interest of future generations to remove shelterbelts from fields and pass a law that anyone that wants to remove a shelterbelt from their field get it approved by the govenor.
> 
> It seems unconstitutional to bring forth a law that keeps landowners from marketing their goods and property as they wish. Just because more acres of corn is your future vision others may have conservation as their vision. It would take an egotistical elitist to think they know whats best for everyone else.
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I'm all for
> 
> 
> 
> Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easements.
> 
> 
> 
> if that is what the landowner wants to sign. I am opposed to FORCED anything on landowners. *The way it is now if you want to sign a Voluntary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation easement you can. If you want to preserve the land forever you cannot*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

swift I do not recall stating you said anything offesive. Nor did I "dismiss your opinion". I was merely observing given the history of debates in which you or plainsman have been a part of and the "claims" that have been made without any references or links to back them up,it would simply be too much to handle! 

I'm glad to hear you are for these types of contracts I have been suggesting, however the boldened statement you make is not true. If one wants to enroll in a perpetual easement here in ND currently one can. And if someone wishes to forever preserve the land it can indeed be done thru a perpetual aspect of a will whereby the land will not change title but in turn be entered into a irrevocable trust if the wishes of the individual preserving it are not followed. As to wether this debate stays on the topic of the benefits or consequences of perpetual easements or sidetracks itself into personal BS yet once again, I'm sure others will decide on their own.

All suggestions of someone being an "egotistical elitist" not withstanding. :wink:


----------



## ShineRunner

gst said:


> As to wether this debate stays on the topic of the benefits or consequences of perpetual easements or sidetracks itself into personal BS yet once again, I'm sure others will decide on their own.


I am sure there are contracts in ND that would do exactly anything that anyone wanted to do with their land. Or one could be drafted.

Oh and by the way I have been a Real Estate broker in NC for over 20 years and have seen all kinds of deed restrictions, some making property not worth a lot and some making it worth more. I hear people saying things about what someone else is doing with their property and I just tell them, they own it and can do what they please as long as the property doesn't have restrictions!

And to get back on the real subject of this thread, I don't think the land should be drained just for a few bushels of grain. I was in SE ND the end of Nov. first Dec. and saw a lot of land that I had hunted had the trees pushed up and being pushed. Other areas that had standing water with edge cover before where cleared, lots of it with standing crop that couldn't be harvested and not much or any cover. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

[quote="ShineRunner"
I hear people saying things about what someone else is doing with their property and I just tell them, *they own it and can do what they please as long *as the property doesn't have restrictions!

And to get back on the real subject of this thread, I don't think the land should be drained just for a few bushels of grain. I was in SE ND the end of Nov. first Dec. and saw a lot of land that I had hunted had the trees pushed up and being pushed. Other areas that had standing water with edge cover before where cleared, lots of it with standing crop that couldn't be harvested and not much or any cover. :eyeroll:[/quote]

So which is it, if they own it should they be able to do what they please as you suggest and drain wetlands and push up trees or not? :-?


----------



## TEALMAN

Shaug,
Why would anyone feel sorry from this farmer from Tyler? He knew the property he bought had RIM easemants on it when he purchased it. Sounds like he just wants to make some quick cash by buying his way out of the easement and turn around and sell the land for profit.


----------



## swift

> As to wether this debate stays on the topic of the benefits or consequences of perpetual easements or sidetracks itself into personal BS yet once again, I'm sure others will decide on their own.


The topic is *Field Tile Benefits North Dakota*

Hard to stay on topic when you have already changed the topic. The topic has already changed to one of your personal agendas. Which is usually the case. Then when someone disagrees with you, you cry personal attack. You are an ardent property rights advocate unless someone wants to do something with their land you don't approve of. That appears to me to say, you know whats best for land all over the state regardless if you have ever laid eyes on that land or not. That seems to be the attitude of an elitist. You can disagree or not it doesn't matter but if you truely read your own posts with an open mind you would see that you continually try to dictate to other landowners what is best as you see it.

Question for GST,
1. Is it your intention/desire to limit the length of easements that can be put on lands in North Dakota?

2. If the answer is yes; then does that infringe on the property owners rights?

3. When is it okay to infringe on a property owners rights?


----------



## ShineRunner

gst said:


> So which is it, if they own it should they be able to do what they please as you suggest and drain wetlands and push up trees or not?


I don't have to like it but it is their land and they can do what they want as long as there are not restrictions that control what they do. Maybe restrictions by the previous owner, governmental etc. They have to abide by those restrictions and should know of them at the time the property is purchased or heired to! Some people have common sense and others don't.

Although lots of people think they can do better than mother nature, she is hard to beat at her own game!

Again I don't have to like it but it is not any of my business what others do with their property!


----------



## Plainsman

> The topic is Field Tile Benefits North Dakota


Your right Swift, and I have asked gst to start another post on length of easements, but he refuses. I don't think he wants to talk about tile, because there is no way to defend adding more water to a system that is flooding North Dakota cities now. Since he refuses I will start another thread where we can talk about tile, drainage, and flooding.
If you noticed I started a couple of threads in the members form to get away from hot topics. I think the one I started today was "hunting access in the future". or something like that.


----------



## gst

swift, if you wish to debate tiling, you most certainly are free to do so with anyone that wishes.This thread was side tracked at the very start when the mention of ag being the "CAUSE" of flooding because of "greed which was being witnessed at it's darkest" and the suggestion "farmers are soley welfare recipients with their hands in the taxpayers pocket" was mentioned . :wink:

I tell you what I will answer your 3 questions and at that point I will hopefully be at an end in this discussion as it is going down the path they all seem to of debating the person rather than the issue. And please do not make the false assumption I alone am "dictating" what policy here in ND regarding production ag should be. I am only one voice among many involved in ag here in the state. You may call it "being an elitist" in suggesting I am something more than I am, I merely call it voicing an opinion that is shared by many in ag.

1.Ag groups here in ND representing those involved in production ag beleive conservation agreements should be based on volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial parameters. I support that. Ag groups responsibilities are not just to those involved in agricuture now, but those generations to come as well.

2. This position possibly does infringe on what a property owner can do in regards to preserving lands in perpetuity thru the Federal govt, or perhaps it only limits their options. I am sure that would be up for debate.

3. I have ALWAYS maintained that property rights are not absolute, but that great consideration must be given when infringing upon them as to the consequences. That is what those involved in production agriculture are doing, weighing the cost of "infringing" upopn the right of the individual to enter into perpetual easements, against the "infringement" these perpetual easements place upon the "rights" of every single future generation to have the opportunity to make that very same choice till the end of time. In weighing the costs they beleive that while maintaining opportunities to be involved in conservation easements, this right should be given to each generation to decide as equally as the one that preceeded them. That is why agriculture is not coming out in opposition of conservation agreements, simply advocating that they are single generation in nature. If they are truly fair and equitable and mutually beneficial, they should then likely be entered into once again upon the expiration of the prior contract. If one beleives this is out of line, please then do not come on here suggesting you are interested in reaching any kind of a"balance" between conservation and production ag.


----------



## shaug

It's not that the Golden Goose is not producing enough or that we are taxed too little. The concern is too much spending.
Borrowing trillions from China is a bad idea. Look at the story below, $558 million to buy conservation easements. We have been told we need to preserve for the next generation. Good idea. Signing the next generations name to the Chicom loan is not.

http://www.policynd.org/index.php?/site ... or_a_duck/

The Dakota Grassland Conservation Area has been designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as part of its goal to conserve 12 million acres of privately held land in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana. Essentially what US Fish and Wildlife wants to do is purchase conservation easements from private landowners and then allow them to continue using the land for grazing. Development will be strictly limited.

Here's the kicker... the federal government is going to use $588 million to buy the easements!

At a time when the national debt has become the focus on many political leaders across the country, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to spend more than half of a billion dollars to allegedly save some ducks.

Let's do some simple math. There are approximately 8 million ducks in the so-called prairie pothole region each year. If we divide $588 million by 25 years, that equals roughly $23.5 million per year. Divide $23.5 million by 8 million ducks and we see that the cost of this program to US taxpayers will be roughly $3 per duck per year.

At this point, I'm not sure what's worse, the distortions this will cause to the land market, the sheer waste of taxpayer dollars at a time of historic debt levels, or the implications this will have on property rights.

Below this article, you'll see just how big of an area we're talking about.

This is yet another federal program that landowners are going to have to babysit for the next few decades. That's BS.


----------



## Plainsman

I'm all for it as long as there is still public access. If no public access, then cut the payments in half. When pay hunting reared it's ugly head those of us who enjoy the outdoors need to look at alternatives. This is a great alternative.

I also think we need to talk to our congress about grazing rights. It should be any one's right to bid on the grazing lands of the west and not have to be a rancher. I see grazing as a good management tool, but as I traveled Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota walking an average of about ten miles a day I noticed it often gets overgrazed. I would like to see grazing allotments rotated to no grazing every fourth year. Right now you can look down a fence line and see that private land is managed much better than federal land. That isn't the fault of the government agency managing the land, it's the grazer running more cattle than he has paid for on the land. Years back a Forest Service employee in Idaho had his house firebombed because he tried to enforce grazing pressure.

likewise we need other alternatives like outright land sales. Not only will this help the average Joe American, but it will reduce commodity surpluses which will result in better commodity prices.

We either do something about land access for all types of outdoor recreation now or we start loosing participants. What's the alternative sit and play computer games or cry in your beer at the local bar. Neither one appeals to me. I have a related post in the members form where we can talk about these things in a less heated manner.


----------



## swift

GST, Thanks for being honest in your answers. While I do not agree with you it's refreshing to hear that Ag is against a landowners right to preserve their land as they see fit. The Ag orgs have once again overstepped their boundaries in trying to keep land owners with no Ag interest from excercising their right to conserve land. Fortunately there are many voting non-ag North Dakotans to stand up to the big 3 ag orgs in the state. The idea that a landowner cannot set aside a legacy of conservation while receiving benefits from the govt for their stewardship of the land due to a group of Agriculture organizations is laughable. The Ag orgs should be fighting for landowners rights not against. Wasn't this the battle cry of HFH? That the whole premise was the rights of the landowners regardless of how their business reflected on the sportsman of the state? This is exactly the same arguement in reverse.


----------



## gst

swift, it is clear from past posts you have an issue with the groups that represent ag here in ND. What you don't seem to understand is there are MANY aspects that these AG groups should and do consider when creating policy and weighing the consequences not just for todays producers, but those of future generations as well. It is not that hard of a concept to understandd that AG groups will likely advocate for AG much like conservation groups advocate for conservation. Even these AG groups with as strong a property rights basis as they have, realize you can not simply have a blanket policy regarding them. As to the "boundries" you claim they overstep in regards to ag producers, what you do not seem to realize is it is the ag producers themselves thru grassroots involvement that develope and set these "boundries".

ANYONE that wishes to preserve their lands thru a perpetual leagacy of conservation can indeed do so thru trusts, ect... set up thru their own estates. What is being advocated here is simply limiting easements to a time frame where EACH generation has the ability determine for themselves if these agreements are fair and equitable and mutually benefitcial as they should be. An easement with an end time frame tends to insure they will be for every generation not just the one that enters into them if conservation wishes to continue enrolling these lands. NO ONE is advocating against conservation or conservation programs here. If people take a moment and get past the personal bias, they would realize that what is being advocated for would likely result in MORE lands being enrolled in conservation.



swift said:


> The idea that a landowner cannot set aside a legacy of conservation while receiving benefits from the govt for their stewardship of the land due to a group of Agriculture organizations is laughable


No ag group is advocating against this. It is actually the opposite. What some on here do not seem to be able to understand is that these groups with their policies merely beleive that EACH GENERATION should have the ability to make this choice thru volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation agreements.


----------



## swift

As I said in my first post, If a landowner wants to sign up of easements of only thiry years or less I support that completely. I also support a landowner that wants to sign up for a 100 year or 1000 year easement.

I do not have an issue with the ag orgs advocating for agriculture. I do have an issue when they decide to push their policy on non-ag groups or on individuals that have other ideas of manageing their land. Over the past several years the ag orgs have...

1. Accused ND sportsman of filing an injunction to stop illegal CRP haying. Contracts are pretty simple to read and understand.

2. Advocate for a posted ND, try through the legislature many times to change the current law in ND regarding trespass by falsely touting property rights. In fact those landowners that do not wish to be notified by hunters and are currently excercising their right to allow everyone to access their ground without the time or expense of putting up posters would be loosing thier property rights.

3. All three have blanket policy against land sales from private to public regardless of the circumstances.

4. Told sportsman that thier concern about the image of HFH was not as important as a landowners right to do what is within the law.

5. Now tell landowners they want to change a law regarding perpetual easements to remove another option that landowners have to manage their properties.

Why in Gods name would we not have the idea that the ND Ag orgs are as big a threat to the sportsman of ND than PETA, HSUS or ALF?

The end statement on nearly all these Ag org arguements is the threat that landowner/sportsman relations are failing because of sportsman not supporting Ag.

In My opinion landowner/sportsman relations are failing due to the venom that is spewed by the NDSA. NDFB and NDFU. There are many landowners that understand this as well.

The vast majority of citizens of ND are not involved in agriculture. While Ag is a large industry in ND it only employs about 6.5% of North Dakotans. The legislators are starting to understand that the other 93.5% of the employed citizens will decide if they stay in office or not. The push of the ag orgs will eventually cost them votes in the legislature especially with the hardline my way or the highway attitude that has eminated from the orgs the past 10 years or so.


----------



## shaug

I was listening to the news today and it was reported that the federal government will run out of operating funds in 7 days. The Republicans are asking everyone to stand behind them and giant cuts. The Democrats are saying the Republicans want to cut Social Security, Medicare (the usual fear) and when the people don't have services for a couple days the Republicans will suffer a backlash. Stay tuned.

I suppose to avoid a shut down the debt ceiling will have to be increased. More borrowing from China. The $588 million to fund the USFWS Dakota Grasslands easement buy was pushed through the lame duck session 2010.

There needs to be more public awareness on this easement buy. Put it on the table. Everywhere a person looked in December 2010 the same old conservation orgs were trotted out praising this and trying to convince us that there is concensus. Let's put it on the table now 2011. People are all for conserving resources for the next generation. But we are talking about making loans ($588 million) on income that is not yet earned by us, our children or our grand children. This country is broke. The General Treasurey is already 10 trillion in debt. Who is going to pay back the principal? Who is going to pay the interest? Is this even about ducks?

Because of things like this states need to take action to protect themseves.

http://legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-2011/do ... -02000.pdf

Swift,

If you dislike three Ag groups, here are some more people for you to dislike:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/massiv ... ing-bill/#

Listen to the podcast.

http://www.policynd.org/index.php?/site ... or_a_duck/


----------



## Plainsman

Political, I can't pass that up. The fact that the government has turned the ag program into a socialist experiment is one thing that bothers me. Like I have said a dozen times when I was young on the farm I decided when I was a tax paying adult I would rather pay for conservation that grain support prices. I say dump all the support price, especially the ethanol. Then start paying for conservation practices. I would like to see $40/acre for CRP again, and $60/acre if left open for public access. City people are turning into couch potatoes and there isn't enough government land. If you don't want the government spending money buying up land stop posting yours. It is that simple.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> I do not have an issue with the ag orgs advocating for agriculture


As long as it fits your non ag based beliefs. Anything else you simply refuse to try understanding ags reason for doing so. If you recall, you were invited to the NDSA convention just last Sept. so that you could perhaps get a better understanding why and how this groups policies are developed by their members in advocating for ag, and you declined the offer.



swift said:


> Why in Gods name would we not have the idea that the ND Ag orgs are as big a threat to the sportsman of ND than PETA, HSUS or ALF?


And after making statements such as this, you expect people to take what you say seriously?



swift said:


> In My opinion landowner/sportsman relations are failing due to the venom that is spewed by the NDSA. NDFB and NDFU.


And you try and claim you do not have a negative bias against the ag groups and as a result their grassroots members, (ag producers) here in ND??????. Ok then. The comments and threads about "greedy" ag that seem to pop on sites like this have nothing at all to do with landowner/sportsman relations. Even the above quoted comment regarding the grassroots groups representing thousands of ag producers as "spewing venom" and being compared to PETA surely contributes nothing but goodwill. :roll: Luckily most involved in ag realize these voices are a minority of sportsmen and so the opportunities that exist here in ND still do.

Take away the wildlife and opportunities provided by the ag producers whose voice is represented by these grass roots ag groups and what would be the impact on ND sportsmen? Certainly these groups are as much a threat to hunting as HSUS. :roll:

Take a look inthe mirror while "spewing these venomous" comments about the orgs reperesenting ND ag producers and the ag producers themselves who are these orgs and honestly answer what have I accomplished and what are the possible consequences? Somehow I doubt the people making these comments rarely stop to consider them.

Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation programs. 
"Venomous" ideologies indeed! :roll:


----------



## gst

shaug, the easements targeted in the program in the links you provide and the consequences of them will be around for alot longer than 2 or 3 decades. These easements are perpetual in nature. Some on here have made the mistaken claim contracts are binding, in fact in the meeting held in Minot regarding this very program and these perpetual easements, Loyd Jones and reps from the USFWS admitted that thru a Congressional Act, the parameters of these easements could indeed be changed to be even more restrictive at any time. That is fact. Recall how close we were to having a Congress willing to shut down a coal industry here in ND despite the consequences. And yet some can not see the risk these perpetual easements could pose.


----------



## swift

once again GST you choose to twist what I say and ignore the issues your groups have pushed against the greater good for the citizens. News Flash ND is not all agriculture. Agriculture is becoming a smaller population every year while the states population is growing, If I was a member of your grassroots organization I would be looking at how I could gain the support of non-ag groups in the state to help protect yourselves through voters. But you continually push for things that fly in the face of the non-producers. Keep up that adolecent argument of taking your ball and going home and pretty soon you will be the only one on the playground. Ag produces need the support of the city dwellers in the state, whether you admit it or not. You personally and your grassroots organizations are continuing to drive a wedge between what should be a very amicable and mutually respectful relationship. Other than the HFH initiative show me ONE legislative measure brought by sportsman that directly affects Agriculture. And for the record HFH initiative was not an ag issue as much as a property rights issue.

And thanks for the invite but I have better things to do in September. I'm sure the vast majority of members of the SA are not like you. Likely as in most orgs nobody wants to be elected to offices and the guys that think they are smarter than everyone else run unopposed. I have not heard one cattleman that I help through out the year convey the egocentric ideas that you always come up with.

I know we are in different professions but the vast majority of my business are farmers and ranchers. I talk with them on a daily basis. I have the benefit of visiting with them during the good times and the worse times. I know they are hard working folks that want to make a living and earn a reasonable living. Not ONE have brought up ANY of the topics like Perpetual easements, The two I visited with today while trapping muskrats said 'if you don't like perpetual easements dont sign up for them' Sounds like common sense to me.


----------



## gst

swift, even though MANY of my relatives and friends are involved in the medical profession and I have many conversations with people in the medical profession thoughout the year, I am not so mistakenly egotistically arrogant to beleive or suggest I know what is best for the medical field to advocate for their professions nor to insult personally the people or groups who do advocate for your profession based on a simple aquaintance with people involved in it. Please realize your friendships and patient relationships do not give you the basis and insight to qualify you to know what is best for ag or to critisize orgs. for how they advocate for ag. any more than my acquantanes qualify me to suggest I know what is best for the medical profession.To continue to do so suggests possibly you are one of those people you spoke of that beleive they are "smarter than everyone else". :wink:

As to how membership elects the people within these ag orgs to represent them, there is a nominating process where by several names are submitted and a nominating committee selects the best possible candidates for the membership to consider, if these candidates do not meet the approval of the membership, nominations can be made from the floor. In the case of the NDSA, we have an almost 80 year history of being one of the most respected ag groups here in the state, particularily in the legislative arena. The representatives of this org. work very hard to represent the memberships wishes as it is the membership that ultimately decides policy,not the board.

Ag groups such as the NDSA and others will rest assured their professional, direct, factual representation of the issues concerning a significant industry here in ND that has ties and impacts on many others than just those directly involved, will be looked at by those who are responsible for the future and the best interests of this state with the degree of open mindedness and vision of a bigger picture that is lacking in some on this site.

So continue to claim you have no problems with the grassroots ag groups here in ND advocating for ag interests and issues as you have, but most can see clearly enough your own words indicate otherwise with no twisting needed.

It appears this thread is ending the same as ones previously, where ag groups and individuals are being condemend for advocating for the policies the thousands of members of these orgs create by those with only passing connections to ag who beleive they know best. All in a manner that surely does nothing but foster goodwill. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> It appears this thread is ending the same as ones previously, where ag groups and individuals are being condemend for advocating for the policies the thousands of members of these orgs create. All in a manner that surely does nothing but foster goodwill.


You were once angry with me for saying that agriculture has turned into a profession that works the system rather than the land. One only needs to read this thread to see that has been your goal. Your goal is to be paid and paid, and paid again. Many today see nothing wrong with ripping off the government, but the government is us. At least it's those who pay taxes. Oh, and farmers too.  
You speak of bad will, and one person on here said they print and take these to coffee as a conversation piece. Well, I have shown some people these threads. They have wireless at the coffee shop I'm at. Some farmers are embarrassed, and non- farmers are just plain angry. Although I suspect at least one of those farmers would agree with you, he would not do so in public. That tells me he knows he is ripping off the taxpayer, but is embarrassed for anyone to know. 
gst, I understand what your saying about organizations promoting their agenda, they all do it. You often bring up Lloyd Jones. I don't know who he currently works for, but don't you think he is trying to not waste the money that his organization, or government agency has in their budget? Whoever he works for don't you think they have limited funds? There are more farmers right now who want to sign the perpetual easement than they have money to cover if he is working for the government again. Why on earth would he agree to pay you multiple times when there are so many that want the deal that's on the table now? The truth is your organizations want to stop those people from doing what they want with their land. Like Mr. Rogers would have said, "boys and girls can you spell hypocritical".

You may get our legislature to agree with you, but that's simply because they are the fox in the hen house. Mostly it's grain farmers who have the time to spend in Bismarck in the winter. Other than that gst, do you really have such hallucinations that you think your going to change some minds on this thread? All you accomplish is to verify what we already think.

Thanks :thumb:


----------



## gst

Volantary, single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation agreements.

I am not so foolish to beleive I am going to change the minds of anyone on this site that beleive this is "rippinng off the govt".



Plainsman said:


> Why on earth would he agree to pay you multiple times when there are so many that want the deal that's on the table now?


No one is suggesting I be paid multiple times. But for these easements to be fair and equitable and mutually beneficial for every generation they encumber should they not be considered for the value the restrictions on their management of these private lands continues to contribute to society?

If you do not beleive these conservation agreements should be fair and equitable or mutually beneficial for all parties ever involved, that's fine, but please do not then come on this site and acuse ag of being greedy as you so readily do.



Plainsman said:


> Like Mr. Rogers would have said, "boys and girls can you spell hypocritical


----------



## swift

GST, How about laying down the sword and answering my question. Name one legislative action brought on by sportsman that directly and negatively impacts Agriculture. You whole rebuttle to my post was crap pointed at me. Truth is you cannot admit that you and your org is advocating against landowner rights AGAIN. I don't know whats best for Ag, but I would also say a cattle rancher from Bottineau county doesn't know whats best for a Beet farmer in Grand Forks county or a flooded grain farmer in Ramsey county. You should stick with what you know, your little piece of paradise where you live.


----------



## gst

swift I'm not going down the road of blaming sportsmen groups in the manner you seem to consistantly blame ag groups. We have played that game to often in the past, and what good comes of it? Tell me honestly what good comes of you bashing ag groups and their members and plainsman bashing farmers as greedy, ect....??

What you do not seem to understand this is not about what I beleive, but that which the members of these grassroots ag orgs beleive in creating policy. And these orgs do have beet farmers from Grand Forks, flooded out grain farmers from Ramsey county, as well as ranchers from Bottineau county and thousands of others creating the policies you so often condemn without attempting to understand the reasons why they are created outside your own personal beleifs. I'm sure you would support ag groups advocating for ag if they did what you thought was best. :wink: But the reality is a medical professional from SD probably does not know what is best for ag here in ND as do the thousands of producers who are the members of the groups you critisize.


----------



## Plainsman

> Tell me honestly what good comes of you bashing ag groups and their members and plainsman bashing farmers as greedy, ect....??


Please remember I have not said all farmers and have actually described the ones I think are greedy. Evidently you must think non are, and I'm not going to agree that your all saints as you want to portray it. So please stop the whine already. 

I think what we have now is fair and equitable, and mutually beneficial. Evidently the farmers that sign on the bottom line agree with me. Those who buy the land after that know what there getting and have no excuse to whine. The only reason they whine is that they have learned that Uncle Sam (American Taxpayer) often comes and coddles them. You don't owe me anything, and I as a taxpayer certainly don't owe you a thing because you just happen to own land. You get to dictate here in North Dakota simply because our legislature is mostly farmers. However, I doubt your going to get to dictate to the nation how we give you money, or how often we give you money. We are in economic trouble my friend and the gravy train is chugging it's last.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> ? Tell me honestly what good comes of you bashing ag groups and their members and plainsman bashing farmers as greedy, ect....??


Plainsman you didn't answer this one simple question. Please do not try and backpedal from your statements regarding ag. 
One only has to go back to your very first post on this topic to see what they were.



Plainsman said:


> We are in economic trouble my friend and the gravy train is chugging it's last.
> 
> 
> 
> So what then do you beleive will become of the funding for conservation as well? Rmemember many are included in the ag budget. Shaug's comments on here likely mirror the beleifs of a gereat many Americans regarding the benefit of spending these dollars we do not have on conservation. So when the public hasto voice theiropinion wether dollars go to ag producers for conservation programs or for cheap food policy programs which doyou beleive they willchoose?
> 
> When these dollars for conservation dissappear along with the ones for ag programs it will be left to the producers who beleive in conservation to carry on these conservation practices on their own. This will be done because a segment of conservation has understood the need to work WITH production ag in developing mutually beneficial programs that work for ALL involved. And odds are the rhetoric of "greedy farmers" and "venomous ag orgs" will have done very little in helping accomplish this. So please answer the question, what have you accomplished with your comments regarding ag producers and the orgs they are members of and that are their voice?
> 
> I guess there is always the NR as well as G/o's to blame as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The only reason they whine is that they have learned that Uncle Sam (American Taxpayer) often comes and coddles them.


You really just can not help yourself can you. 

So have you even taken the time to use the figures that were given you from the links I provided to determine what percentage of the dollar you pay in taxes goes to ag producers? How about we bet a steak dinner that the percentage of that dollar paid in taxes that goes to pensions and benefits of retired federal employees such as yourself dwarfs the amount that goes to ag thru this countries food security policies? :wink:

So please once again, if there is one single question in this discussion you actually directly answer, please tell us what your comments about ag producers and the groups representing them accomplish?


----------



## Plainsman

The difference gst is those retired folks can't go whine and have their retirement increased in any way. Also, our retirement didn't come from tax dollars until Reagan robbed those funds to save your social security. I wish my retirement was still my private investment and not tax dollars. I would like to get away from tax dollars. Not to worry though, farmers will perhaps be government workers within out lifetime. Maybe you should shoot for that. :rollin:



> So please once again, if there is one single question in this discussion you actually directly answer, please tell us what your comments about ag producers and the groups representing them accomplish?


What it accomplishes is that it informs some uniformed people of the billions spent on agriculture. It informs some of those people that many farmers collect more in tax dollars than they do a salary. I have relatives that get more per year in tax dollars than a teacher, policeman, carpenter, mechanic etc. You guys never had it so good, but evidently you need more. You are not looking for fair wetland leases, while at the same time trying to stop your fellow farmers from signing fair, equitable, mutually beneficial leases.

Saying all that I refuse to let you make me have a bad attitude about all farmers. As a matter of fact it's whiners I dislike not farmers. I also would like everyone off the government boob. I don't like socialism, not only because it takes from someone and gives to others, but because it fosters dependency and robs freedom. What is it that makes some feel they are entitled?


----------



## shaug

I realize this is a long read and I could have just posted the link. But then some just skip over a great educational source and simply read the mud.

http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservi ... 060_CE.pdf

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
BY DAN BYFIELD
The IRS Code, Section 170(h) and numerous state tax codes, provide tax benefits to landowners who
create a conservation easement on their land. A conservation easement is used in various situations,
but mainly by private, non-profit land trusts as a way of preventing development on a particular tract
of land in return for income tax deductions, a reduction in estate tax and lower property taxes - all
lucrative enticements to landowners who are land rich and cash poor.

A CONSERVATION EASEMENT QUALIFIES AS A CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION IF:
1. Granted in perpetuity - one of the most remarkable attributes of a CE is that it does not
violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because the land trusts lobbied Congress and changed
the law. In Real Estate law, no action can be taken to "tie the hands of future owners" on
any real property, except for conservation easement.
2. Protects natural habitats of fish, wildlife or plants;
3. Preserves open space - including farms, ranches or forests; or
4. Preserves historically important land or certifi ed historic structures.

TO QUALIFY AS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THE FOLLOWING MUST OCCUR:
1. A signed conservation easement document or contract;
2. An inventory of the property's condition - i.e. man-made structures, water resources,
agricultural and ecological features;
3. A qualified appraisal no more than 60 days prior to the claiming of the deduction;
4. Title report, a copy of the deed and any mortgages;
5. A legal land survey;
6. A management plan that spells out any land-use practices and allows an agent of the land
trust to enter the property for annual inspections. A violation of that agreement revokes
the easement and the landowner loses his benefits and must pay all back taxes.
A landowner literally becomes the subservient owner and the land trust the dominant, managing
partner in the property. Also, the CE allows the land trust to convey the agreement to any other
government entity (Fish and Wildlife Service) and they then become the managing partner.

The value of the easement is generally the difference between the value of a property with the
restrictions and the same property's value without them. If the conservation easement meets IRS
criteria, the landowner may deduct the full value of the easement from his adjusted gross income up
to 30 percent of the landowner's income for the year of the gift. If the donation exceeds this amount,
he may deduct the excess balance for up to fi ve succeeding years.
Conservation Easements are enticing, but landowners should seek advice from their attorney and
accountant before ever binding themselves or their children forever.

American Land Foundation
P.O. BOX 1033 TAYLOR, TEXAS 76574 512-365-2699 512-365-7931 FAX
Review of a Conservation Easement

Prepared by the American Land Foundation and LandGuard
Make no mistake, conservation easements (CE) and Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs), as defined in
the IRS Code, are perpetual and virtually "non-negotiable."
In order to realize the full tax benefits described, CEs and the PDRs must in perpetuity and be put into place
for one of four specific conservation purposes, including public outdoor recreation and education, protection
of habitats or ecosystems, preservation of "historically important land areas" or preservation of open space that
will clearly yield a "public" benefit. Some CEs or PDRs may attempt to be for a term period of years, but the
landowner will not receive the same tax benefits as a perpetual easement.
The owner must convey specific rights to a non-governmental organization (NGO) or a government entity,
and it must be in perpetuity. The ultimate purpose of a CE and a PDR is to control the use of the land and,
some say, the eventual transfer of ownership of the land in part or whole to a third party. Both PDRs and
CEs will be referred to in this paper as a CE.
A conservation easement is conveyed by the owner of the land, known as the Grantor to a non-governmental
organization or a government entity (federal, state, local), who becomes the Grantee. The landowner or
Grantor becomes the subservient (lesser) owner while the Grantee becomes the controlling owner. Therefore,
the Grantee becomes the managing partner of your operation and your land. Jim Burling with Pacific Legal
Foundation calls it "serfship."

A management plan is created and applied to your land, in perpetuity, placing the Grantee in full control.
While the Grantor cannot alter or modify the management plan, the Grantee can, using the catch-all phrase,
"any methods not consistent with the terms of the easement."

The following restrictions, rights, obligations and requirements come directly from a "model"
conservation easement form supplied from a leading national land trust document:
1. A "baseline" report is created to describe the original condition of the property to assure any future
changes in the use of the property are consistent with the terms of the CE.
2. The CE is granted in perpetuity. You, nor your heirs or assigns, can alter the agreement. The grant
in perpetuity is what creates the tax benefit. It is the only real estate transaction that does not violate
the Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP). RAP is an interest in real property that when transferred, must
vest (be conveyed) within a specified time; twenty one years being a common length of time in which
an interest in land must vest. If it does not vest in the required length of time, the transaction is
void and a court can strike it down. RAP does not apply to CEs because they have been specifically
exempted in the law through efforts of powerful national land trusts.
3. CE's create negative easements by restricting the original landowner from performing specific acts.
Normal easements for roads, power lines, etc. are positive easements and don't restrict the use or stop
the landowner from using his land, constructing buildings, subdividing, putting up fences, etc.
4. Purpose Clause - to ensure the land will remain forever in its natural and scenic condition. The
purpose clause is the most important paragraph in the entire agreement. Here, the Grantor promises
never to perform any act "inconsistent with the purposes of the conservation easement." In other
words, the Grantee has the sole discretion regarding what is required of the landowner and the landowner
is bound to abide by any changes made to the purpose or the management obligations under
the CE.
5. Property Uses - Virtually none. "Any activity on or use of the property inconsistent with the
purposes of this CE is prohibited."

http://www.LandGuard.org
a. Property may not be subdivided.
b. No construction of structures or improvements is allowed, except those negotiated and
agreed upon when the CE is signed.
c. Normal repair and maintenance is allowed, but is closely monitored.
d. Limited mineral extraction allowed. No surface mining allowed. Must have limited and
localized impact on land and must not interfere with purposes of easement. All extraction
facilities must be concealed.
e. Grazing is allowed, but only on "existing fields" at the time the agreement is signed. Set aside
acreage might be considered an "existing fi eld." Cannot establish or maintain a commercial
feedlot on the property.
f. No timber harvest, except to provide firewood for residences on the property and for
maintaining structures like residences, barns, corrals, fences, etc. No other timber harvesting
for commercial purposes allowed.
g. Buffer areas along rivers and creeks will be required and no grazing will be allowed within a
specified distance from the water. This provision will be updated periodically to ensure soil
stability, water quality and "other conservation values" are protected.
h. Home business allowed as long as the business is located within the home.
i. Hunting is allowed, but no form of motorized transportation can be used.
j. No "ditching, draining, diking, filling, excavating, dredging, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, minerals, or other materials, mining, drilling, or removal of minerals, nor any building
of roads or change in the topography of the property or disturbance in the soil in any
manner" will be allowed. Those activities will not be allowed in river or creek beds either.
k. Grantor can cut and remove diseased or exotic trees, shrubs, or plants, but only with prior
approval and only if they are activities permitted under the easement. Firebreaks can be
cut without prior approval, but only in emergencies. No planting of any non-native trees,
shrubs, or plants will be allowed.
l. No use of fertilizers, plowing, introduction of non-native animals, or disturbance or change
in the natural habitat in any manner will be allowed, except to accommodate expressly
permitted activities of the easement.
m. Surface water - Other than wells to serve the activities of the easement, there can be
no alteration, depletion, or extraction of surface water, natural water courses, lakes,
ponds, marshes, subsurface water, or any other water bodies on the property.
n. No dams, impoundment structures or low water crossings are allowed.
o. No pesticides or biocides, including but not limited to insecticides, fungicides,
rodenticides, and herbicides can be used, except as approved.
p. No dumping of trash, garbage or other offensive material, hazardous substance, or
toxic waste, nor any placement of underground storage tanks, no land fi ll or dredging
spoils and no activity that causes erosion is allowed.
q. Predator control allowed, but no broadcast method such as poisoning is allowed and
only on an "as-needed" basis.
r. No commercial or industrial use of or activity on the property, other than those
related to agriculture, recreational, home businesses or mineral extraction is allowed.
Rights, Obligations Retained by the Landowner
1. Right to continue any existing activity or use at the time the easement is signed.
2. Right to transfer, sell, give, mortgage, lease, or otherwise convey the remaining interest
in the land. However, those rights will remain subject to the terms of the conservation
easement. Remember, the CE is forever.
3. Right to pay taxes on remainder of property.
4. Sole right to upkeep and maintain property.
http://www.LandGuard.org

Rights Retained by TNC or any other NGO
1. Right to Enforce -the right to protect and preserve the conservation values of the
property and enforce the terms of the CE. Any other person or NGO can bring a third
party action/lawsuit to enforce the terms of the agreement if they determine the original
grantee is not adhering to the original agreement.
2. Right of Entry - Right of staff, contractors and associated natural resource management
professionals to enter at least four times a year for the purpose of inspecting the property
to make sure landowner is complying with the covenants and purposes of the CE.
3. Monitor and research plant and wildlife populations.
4. Right to manage, control, or destroy exotic non-native species or invasive species of
plants and animals that threaten CE.
5. Legal Action to enforce the CE. Grantee shall give written notice of a violation and
within 60 days, Grantor must begin good faith efforts to correct any violation. Grantee
or third party has the right to go to court to obtain an injunction to force the Grantor
to abide by the conditions of the CE. The Court can order the Grantor to restore the
property to its original condition.
6. Right to Transfer. The Grantee shall have the right to transfer or assign the CE to
any private NGO or a land use government entity which means another NGO or
government entity like the US Fish and Wildlife Service, would be the managing partner
on your land.

Termination of the Easement occurs when:
1. Conditions on or surrounding the property have changed so much that it is impossible to
fulfi ll the purposes of the CE, a court may, at the joint request of the grantor and grantee,
terminate the CE.
2. Condemnation of part or all of the property by a public authority terminates the CE.
Interestingly, this action would then allow the government or its assigns to develop the
land previously restricted from development under the CE because once terminated, the
restrictions of the CE are lifted and whoever has title to the land can develop, subdivide,
or perform any action they desire. The original landowner has been paid a third of the
value of the land and has given up the opportunity to develop it in the future, which now
resides with the government or their assigns.

Grantee has immediate vested real property rights. A split estate is automatically created where
the Grantor becomes the subservient owner of his own property, while the Grantee becomes
the dominant owner with management powers. If the property is sold or taken for public
use (condemned), the Grantee shall be entitled to a percentage of the gross sale proceeds or
condemnation award equal to the ratio of the appraised value of the easement to the unrestricted fair
market value of the property as determined on the date the CE is executed.
It is imperative that landowners fully research and understand the long term consequences of signing
a Conservation Easement of any kind.
Note, seek competent legal and accounting advice before signing any agreement.
http://www.LandGuard.org


----------



## swift

It's typical of you GST to demand an answer to your question from Plainsman but ignore my question. Your silence is deafening. The fact is you know full well that sportsman have supported the Ag producers for generations. When the mutual respect between the two was more of the norm than the exception. Then the opportunity to make a buck on the wildlife became forefront and the respect dwindled by both sides. 
You continue to point out that I live in SD, my Mom and Dad live on a farm in Minnewaukan, My brothers live in Devils Lake I lived in Grand Forks, Devils Lake, Minot, Williston and Elgin over the time period of 22 years. I have lived in SD for a grand total of 4 years. I chose to move to ND when I was 22 years old. I suspect I have had more intimate relationships with a larger group of North Dakotans both farmer/ranchers and non farmers and ranchers than you have, sequestered on your postage stamp. Keep your attitude that non-agriculture populations have no business being involved in state policy and wait for the repercussions of the voters.



> swift I'm not going down the road of blaming sportsmen groups


This is a change your generally the first one to threaten to share posts with the local coffee shop as an attempt to block hunter access or facilitate hunter boycotts for not getting your way.

Gst you are a bully, and in the end the bully always loses.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote



> The only reason they whine is that they have learned that Uncle Sam (American Taxpayer) often comes and coddles them. You don't owe me anything, and I as a taxpayer certainly don't owe you a thing because you just happen to own land. You get to dictate here in North Dakota simply because our legislature is mostly farmers. However, I doubt your going to get to dictate to the nation how we give you money, or how often we give you money. We are in economic trouble my friend and the gravy train is chugging it's last.


These kind of statements really make me dig in my heels. Let's talk about dictating those taxpayer dollars. The $588 million for the Dakota Grassland easment buy came from LWCF.

http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/files/News ... 20Bill.pdf



> WASHINGTON, DC- Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced the America's Great Outdoors Act of 2010 and asked for its consideration before the close of the 111th Congress. Included in the act is the permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a landmark federal program that finances public protection of irreplaceable, at-risk natural, scenic, historic, and recreation lands.
> Since it was first authorized in 1964, LWCF has been the federal mainstay for purchasing threatened lands and waters, and providing public access and recreation opportunities, in America's national, state, and community parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other public resource areas. Funded by a portion of the fees paid into the Treasury each year by oil and gas companies drilling in federal coastal waters, this program does not rely on tax dollars. Instead, LWCF simply reinvests proceeds from the sale of one federal asset into the purchase of another for the benefit of all Americans. Of the more than $5 billion in offshore energy revenues typically received each year, LWCF receives an annual credit of $900 million that can be put toward public land conservation.
> America's Great Outdoors Act of 2010 will extend this vital program, which otherwise will expire in 2015. Reauthorizing LWCF will maintain the integrity of our public lands by continuing to provide landowners and communities with a public-benefit alternative to resource-damaging private sale and development of sensitive resource properties.
> LWCF has strong support in both chambers of Congress. A bipartisan group of 26 Senators has cosponsored legislation (S. 2747), introduced earlier this year by Senators Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
> and Max Baucus of Montana, that would permanently extend the program and safeguard its annual funding into the future. Recently, Republican Senators Richard Burr (NC), Judd Gregg (NH), Scott Brown (MA), and George Voinovich (OH) signed a letter urging that Congress secure a permanent, fully funded LWCF before it adjourns. On July 30th, the House of Representatives approved the CLEAR Act (H.R. 3534), which included a provision to authorize full and dedicated funding of LWCF and authorize the program through 2040. Recently, 95 House members -- led by Representatives Chris Murphy (CT), John Dingell (MI), G.K. Butterfield (NC), and Heath Shuler (NC) -- made a similar bipartisan appeal to legislate full, dedicated LWCF funding in the final days of this Congress.
> The legislation now being considered guarantees that LWCF will be available in the future while leaving specific decisions regarding funding levels and project needs to future Congresses. Despite the Senate's full legislative agenda and dwindling number of working days, America's Great Outdoors Act and the LWCF authorization it contains remain in play, and LWCF's many supporters in Capitol Hill and across the country will be working to secure the program's future before the last gavel falls on the 111th Congress.
> ###
> The Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition is an informal partnership of national, state and local conservation and recreation organizations working together to to support full and dedicated funding for LWCF. For more information, go to: http://www.lwcfcoalition.org


This lwcf needs to secure funding every year and these guys would like to 
make it almost "perpetual." The House passed this in July 30 2010. The Senate waited until just like the last sentence says, "LWCF's many supporters in Capitol Hill and across the country will be working to secure the program's future before the last gavel falls on the 111th Congress."

They change the number of these bills around so much it is hard to keep track and that is exactly what happened in late December of 2010. The people can thank Sen Harry Reid for ripping off the general treasury to the tune of $900 million a year. After the elections of Nov. 2, 2010 the mood in DC had completely changed there is no way this bill could have passed. The two links below are a must read. See how Sen. Harry Reid pulled it off.

http://www.americanstewards.us/news-pub ... %21content

http://www.americanstewards.us/news-pub ... -land-bill

I do have a question. Why did Lloyd Jones and the USFWS have meetings in December for this Dakota Grasslands easement thing
when Sen. Harry Reid had not even secured the funding as of that date?????

Anyway.........We have a new Congress in 2011. I visited with Rep. Rick Berg about these very funding fiascos in DC. I won't say here what he said but I can tell you I voted for him.

Now these freshman on Feb.19th 2011 have passed HR 1 to cut $68 billion from the budget. The Senate hasn't gone along with it yet. But guess what is in it? Right up front and center. Everything Dingy Harry rammed through at the last gavel in 2010 will be gutted.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/130 ... 85q2k8z7t4



> Hunters and Anglers Fear Cuts to Conservation Programs Will Threaten Recreation Opportunities
> HELENA, Mont.- Several national and Montana sportsmen groups are deeply concerned about proposed funding cuts to conservation and wildlife management programs that they feel threaten hunting and fishing access and opportunity.
> 
> Representatives from prominent sportsmen groups held a tele news conference Wednesday to answer reporters' questions and offer their unique perspective on the proposed budget cuts included in HR 1, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on February 19, 2011.
> 
> "Finding ways to reduce the massive federal deficit simply must be done. But in doing so, let's make sure to support those federal investments that pay for themselves several times over - and be critical of those that are truly wasteful," commented Dale Hall, CEO of Ducks Unlimited Inc. "Conservation has always, and continues to, pay for itself. Congress and the administration should approach the budget challenge with facts and analyses, not a meat cleaver."
> 
> Some of the programs slated for dramatic cuts or elimination include the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, Farm Bill conservation programs, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, the Clean Water Act, and more. These programs not only protect hunting and fishing access for sportsmen and women, but they are also foundational to fish and wildlife habitat conservation and stimulate local economies by creating jobs, particularly in rural communities.
> 
> "Sportsmen and women depend on having places to go to hunt and fish. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been instrumental in providing these opportunities and with reliable funding in the future could go even further to ensure access to existing public lands, making public lands public," said Ben Lamb of the Montana Wildlife Federation. "However the cut of nearly 90% of the program's funding as proposed in HR 1 will dismantle the program. It is critical to note that LWCF is not taxpayer funded but rather paid for as a conservation offset through a small portion of receipts collected from offshore oil and gas drilling in federal waters."
> 
> Congress returned to session this week and will attempt to negotiate the final budget before the most recent continuing resolution expires on April 8.
> 
> -30-
> 
> Additional quotes from Sportsmen's Organizations
> 
> "AFFTA sees these conservation programs as critical economic drivers for our businesses and customers. As small businesses fueling America's $42-billion fishing industry, conservation is critical to the economic activity generated by our industry." Randi Swisher, President, American Fly Fishing Trade Association
> 
> "What makes these budget cuts unfair is that many of the fishery and water conservation programs slated for cuts or elimination in H.R.1 are matched with state and local funding providing a significant return on federal dollar investment. In addition, many of these programs are supported by volunteers in communities across our Nation who give their time and expertise to ensure that our fisheries remain healthy and abundant so future generations can enjoy recreational fishing." Gordon Robertson, Vice President, American Sportfishing Association.
> 
> "Tens of thousands of species, more than 90 percent of our nation's fish and wildlife that is typically neither hunted nor fished, is put at risk without funding to conserve them on public and private lands. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program has been an important source of funds to help keep America's common species common and off the endangered species list by proactively conserving wildlife before they become too rare and costly to protect with last-ditch efforts." Mark Humpert, Director of Wildlife Policy and Science, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
> 
> "Theodore Roosevelt is rolling over in his grave at the prospects of the dismantling of our conservation framework, under the smokescreen of deficit reduction. This is clearly an end run at sensible fish and wildlife conservation." Jim Martin, Conservation Director, Berkley Conservation Institute.
> 
> "Sportsmen and women support wildlife management in the United States and pump nearly $200 billion a year into state and local economies, yet Congress is making wholesale cuts to conservation in a way that jeopardizes our opportunities in the field and the economies and management activities we support." Gaspar Perricone, Co-Director Bull Moose Sportsmen's Alliance
> 
> "Conservation funding by Congress is critical to funding on the ground projects. Many of the conservation budget cuts are in programs that are matched several times over by conservation groups, state and local agencies as well as private landowners." Miles Moretti, President & CEO, Mule Deer Foundation.
> 
> A hundred years ago pioneers crossed this country nourishing themselves on the millions of native grouse they encountered everywhere in their travels. Today, many are candidates for the Endangered Species Act and are extremely dependent on the lands administered and helped by these conservation programs. Eliminating or diminishing support for these lands will threaten this American cultural heritage as well as sportsmen's opportunities and the considerable dollars sportsmen bring to the table for conservation." Ralph Rogers, President North American Grouse Partnership
> 
> "During a time when Americans are increasingly losing access to traditional places to hunt and fish, the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund plays a critical role in securing lands that allow sportsmen to continue to follow our passions. The LWCF helps create more public lands by working with willing sellers of private lands - such as in Montana's Tenderfoot Creek Land Acquisition Project - thereby supporting the conservation of critical fish and wildlife habitat and increasing public access for hunting and fishing. The Tenderfoot Creek area was Identified in the TRCP Montana Sportsmen Value Mapping Project as a top priority 'bread and butter' hunting and fishing area for acquisition by sportsmen throughout Montana." Bill Geer, Climate Change Initiative Manager, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
> 
> "Sportsmen and women are willing to shoulder our share of budget cuts, but we will cry foul when faced with disproportionate cuts and ill-conceived legislative riders which should not be on appropriations bills. Congress has a duty to address our fiscal problems in a way that is worthy of the support of all Americans who love the outdoors." Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government Affairs, Trout Unlimited
> 
> "Invasive species are not waiting for Congress to approve a budget. They continue to multiply and wreak havoc on our lakes, streams and woods. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is restoring our country's largest freshwater lakes and protecting a fishing industry worth 7 billion dollars annually in jobs and tourism. The American people need jobs and want local accessible outdoor opportunities. We know our grandchildren should not be crushed by debt, but they also should not inherit a world where Mother Nature becomes barren because we took a break in stopping the spread of harmful invasive species." Douglas H. Grann, President & CEO, Wildlife Forever
> 
> "We all share their desire to reduce our national debt and balance our budget; however, the recent slash and burn approach to reducing the federal budget could not have occurred with careful consideration of which conservation programs work and which do not. Consider this, the cuts to these programs occurred in a portion of the federal budget related to water and land management which amounts to about one half of one percent of the entire federal budget. Their actions could not have taken into account the non-federal funds that are leveraged by these funds or the ecological services that these programs provide for the public. In each case, the return on the investment of federal dollars pays public dividends in excess of that original investment." Steve Williams, President, Wildlife Management Institute
> 
> A budget resolution is being negotiated in Congress and some proposals include significant cuts for fiscal year 2011 to several foundational conservation programs that benefit sportsmen and women. Final program decisions could be enacted as early as April 8.
> 
> Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
> 
> • House-passed HR 1 cuts $398 million from current levels, a nearly 90% cut and essentially eliminating the program, which is authorized to spend $900 million.
> 
> • LWCF generates $4 in economic value for every $1 invested.
> 
> • Does not use taxpayer dollars, but rather uses a small portion of revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling.
> 
> • Provides tool for conservation and recreational needs in every state in America, supports land conservation in our National Parks, Forests, Refuges and Bureau of Land Management areas; protects working forests and ranches through easements; partners with state and local entities to provide recreational opportunities for all Americans.
> 
> • Provides funding to ensure sportsmen's access to public lands and protection of additional places to hunt and fish.
> 
> • Vital to recreational activities that contribute $730 billion annually to the economy; supports 6.5 million jobs and stimulates 8% of all consumer spending
> 
> North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grant Program (NAWCA)
> 
> • Eliminates funding for the program - $47.6 million cut from FY2010 levels.
> 
> • Competitive grant program for the conservation of waterfowl and other wetland-associated migratory birds.
> 
> • For over 20 years, grants made available through NAWCA have helped thousands of public-private partnerships protect and improve the health of wetland and wetland-associated landscapes impacting more than 26 million acres through September 2010.
> 
> • NAWCA more than triples the legally required 1:1 match-to-grant ratio by partnering with private landowners, States, non-governmental conservation organizations, tribes, Federal agencies, trusts, and corporations. On average, the amount of non-federal matching funds exceeds the requested grant amount by more than 3:1.
> 
> State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program (STWG)
> 
> • Eliminates the full $90 million
> 
> • Established in 2002, STWG had worked to protect fish and wildlife in their habitat.
> 
> • Plans for FY 2011 funds included: restoring and enhancing 30,000 acres of grasslands in Kansas and improving the habitat on Ossabaw Island in Georgia for several bird species.
> 
> Agricultural Conservation Programs
> 
> Proposed cuts would cap the Wetlands Reserve Programenrollment at 202,218 acres, permanently reducing the program by 47,782 acres.The WRP helps farmers, ranchers and landowners restore and conserve wetlands on their properties while also focusing on improving habitat for waterfowl and fish and wildlife species. More than 1.9 million acres of wetlands are currently enrolled in the WRP.
> 
> More than $350 million would be cut from levels authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. EQIP provides technical assistance and payments for landowners to improve land management and farming practices, including fish and wildlife habitat enhancement.
> 
> Cuts overall discretionary funding for the USDA Farm Service Agency by more than $190 million diminishing the agency's ability to implement vital Farm Bill conservation programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program.
> 
> Cuts overall discretionary funding for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service by $170 million. This will result in less technical assistance to farmers, ranchers and landowners interested in implementing conservation efforts on their land. A lack of adequate technical assistance has been identified as one of the biggest barriers to participation in and effective implementation of these programs.
> 
> Clean Water Act riders
> 
> • The "Waters of the U.S." rider would stop efforts by the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA to partially restore Clean Water Act protection for some wetlands and streams which were curtailed by Supreme Court decisions. Taken together, these decisions and existing agency guidance have removed protections for at least 20 million acres of wetlands, especially prairie potholes and other seasonal wetlands that are essential to waterfowl populations throughout the country.
> 
> • HR 1 removes the EPA's ability to veto Army Corps authorized permits for the disposal of dredged and fill material, and to designate certain areas as off limits for disposal of dredge and fill material, under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. Section 404(c) authority has only been used 13 times, but it has saved great rivers such as the South Platte (CO), Ware Creek (VA), and the Big River (RI) from wasteful, fish habitat destroying project proposals.
> 
> • Eliminates federal funding for implementation of the EPA's Chesapeake Bay restoration program impacting efforts by landowners, state agencies, and federal agencies to restore water quality and habitat in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to meet the pollution reduction targets.


All this talk about greedy farmers, how ranchers and farmers are going to get their programs cut, just you wait and see, mark my words, or in your face is nothing but a bunch of silly talk. I'm not saying ha ha look at all the whining posted above or that "all" of this oil and gas lease money should be cut. But I can't help going back to that $900 million. It was diverted away from the general fund. It probably started in small bites. There are several organizations who want bites from the money pressureing our legislators not to cut their pet projects. Some of these people who make their living working for non-profits, non-governmental and governmental need to get real jobs and produce something, or at least get out of the way and let those of us who want to work do so.

$900 million, can't say it enough. This country is broke. A person can read it anywhere on here how outfitters are commercializing the public commons. Here is a question. Are people who steal from the public purse better than those accussed of stealing from the commons??????


----------



## Plainsman

> Anyway.........We have a new Congress in 2011. I visited with Rep. Rick Berg about these very funding fiascos in DC. I won't say here what he said but I can tell you I voted for him


Shaug, so did I.



> I do have a question. Why did Lloyd Jones and the USFWS have meetings in December for this Dakota Grasslands easement thing when Sen. Harry had not even secured the funding as of that date?????


Planning ahead I suppose, just in case. One has to be prepared. Who would the money eventually go to?



> Hunters and Anglers Fear Cuts to Conservation Programs Will Threaten Recreation Opportunities


 I think we will all have to give up some things. I think Obama has destroyed much of our standard of living. Harry and Nancy helped him too.



> This country is broke. A person can read it anywhere on here how outfitters are commercializing the public commons. Here is a question. Are people who steal from the public purse better than those accussed of stealing from the commons??????


Absolutely not.

You have good points and I have not even addressed all that I agree with. I can tell from your post your not one of those I would call greedy. It appears you understand that government has to stop spending, and we can't all feel entitled. I fear our children and grandchildren will not know the prosperity or the freedom we have. Since your come off as the independent sort I sincerely wish you the best of luck.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So please once again, if there is one single question in this discussion you actually directly answer, please tell us what your comments about ag producers and the groups representing them accomplish?
Click to expand...

What it accomplishes is that it informs some uniformed people of the billions spent on agriculture. It informs some of those people that many farmers collect more in tax dollars than they do a salary. I have relatives that get more per year in tax dollars than a teacher, policeman, carpenter, mechanic etc. You guys never had it so good, but evidently you need more. You are not looking for fair wetland leases, while at the same time trying to stop your fellow farmers from signing fair, equitable, mutually beneficial leases.quote]

Plainsman, But are they renewable and single generation or volantary for any other subsequent generation other than the one signing? Only the perpetual ones . 

So you are saying pulling dollar figures and "facts" out of your *** that are know where near factual or acurate "informs" the uninformed" ???  ie. 90% ofthe Federal budget goes to agriculture,the ag budget is second only to defense, 145 billion in farm payments/ year, agriculture CAUSES flooding ect....

Are your relatives "greedy" and "robbing the taxpayer" and "whining welfare receipients"?

If you want to "inform the uninformed" take the figures from the links I posted so you could see they were factually accurate and do the math and post what percent of the tax dollar people pay goes directly to agriculture and then post what percentage of their disposable income the average person spend on food in this country and ask these uninformed if they belive this countries food security program gives them a pretty good bang for their pennies. :wink:

Swift, I should have never bothered responding to your original post. I apologize. As usual this has become what it ALWAYS does on this site.


----------



## Plainsman

> As usual this has become what it ALWAYS does on this site.


That's what happens when you whizz on our leg and tell us it's raining. :wink:



> Are your relatives "greedy" and "robbing the taxpayer" and "whining welfare receipients"?


Now if I was like you I would run off crying. However, being a big boy, and totally realistic my relatives are like everyone else. A couple are like you describe above, some are extremely generous, most are in the middle. What, did you think I would actually shovel the same horse manure as "farmers are angels" that we get from some? I think farmers are like everyone, but when I run up against your attitude I am going to let you know about the bad ones I know. Some are greedy and think the world owes them. Some are not. I don't like those who think contracts are for the peons, and not the royal ruling class. Myself, I dislike arrogance and think all working people should be respected. I don't look down on those with low paying jobs, but I'm not going to kneel for you either.


----------



## swift

It goes in the the direction you always push it. I have to believe you are the exception in the stockman industry since there are many that frequent this site but none are as vocal as you are. Again I suspect you do not represent your fellow cattlemen as much as you embarass them.

Again when has a sportsmans organization ever initiated or sponsored a bill that directly adversely affected agriculture?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> As usual this has become what it ALWAYS does on this site.
> 
> That's what happens when you whizz on our leg and tell us it's raining.


Plainsman maybe it is just me, but I consider stating things such as agriculture is the CAUSE of flooding, Ag is the second largest budget amount behind defense in the Federal budget, 90%of the Federal budget goes to agriculture, posting inaccurate figures to support your inaccurate claims, claims such as because of ag you are "witnessing greed at it's darkest, farmers beleiveit is their right to flood out people down stream, there is no such thing as notill planting of corn, ect....and not providing any links to verify anything you claim as "whizzing on someone leg and telling us its raining" in your attempts to "inform the uninformed". Realize if you are going to pull stuff out of your *** to accomplish this in regards to ag, you will be called on it everytime.

So perhaps if you take the time to use the numbers and links I provided to determine what percentage of the tax dollar goes to Greedy ag as compared to what percentageof their earned dollar goes to purchasing food and post it here, no one will be "whizing down anyones leg." :wink:

Please post where I have everclaimed all involved in ag are "angels" . Please show were I have ever suggested anyolne "should kneel" for anyone. Please show where it has been suggested anyone "look down on those with low paying jobs".

And please show how making childish comments such as this "


Plainsman said:


> Now if I was like you I would run off crying


 is not a juvenile example of making the debate personal rather than debating the issue.

Perhaps if you are truly going to


Plainsman said:


> However, being a big boy, and totally realistic


 you should perhaps take a step back and look at who has been the one whizzing down peoples leg in this thread. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Greedy ag as compared to what percentageof their earned dollar goes to purchasing food


Who gets that? I know it's only a percentage, but that's your real product. That is where working the land comes in. Everything else is working the system. Many programs were created to benefit agriculture. No one fought harder for the school food program than agriculture. Someone has to eat the food surplus. However, one of our biggest health problems is obesity. We need to stop stuffing the little critters.

So on your favorite rip off I wouldn't care if you got paid every 30 years, just so it's fair. Since I don't know what the payment is on a perpetual easement you can fill in that blank. However, since they last forever as you say we will have to divide 30 by forever, and then if we are real generous how about one percent? We will have to negotiate because I would guess your thinking at least 50% which would be a real rip off. What you have to figure out is how to use the government to take our money and give it to you. Now to be realistic I think 30 years would be ok, but only with 20 percent tops of what the payment is now. That does mean that over time you will get paid many many times what you do now. Not you, but your great, great, great ------- grandchildren. If you really want to share with them you should agree to ten percent.

You wonder where my ideas come from. They come from you. It's our money, what makes you think you have the right to use the politicians like a gun to our head, take our money, and give it to you? What "entitles" you to that? Once you have that, what do you need next? Where does it stop, or does it ever? This is turning into old Europe where the surfs support the aristocrats.

Much of this attitude started with pay hunting. If I pay for my food at the market we are even. However, it doesn't end there. If I pay you for hunting I owe you nothing. Everyone wants all the money the guy on a salary makes. The doctors want it, the dentists want it, the oil companies want it, and the farmers want it. What do we do?

gst, I see your plan as simply an ag pyramid scheme. Pay me today, pay me tomorrow, pay me, pay me, pay me, and pay me again. Also, the attitude is don't you dare tell me what you think or I'll show it to my friends and we will post all of out land. That is why we need more public land in North Dakota. However, the North Dakota legislature I think violated the U S constitution when they say the U S gov needs county commissioner and governor permission to purchase. It's a good way to rip off widows when their farmer husband dies. Block a good bid from the gov. so you can buy it cheap.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> It goes in the the direction you always push it. I have to believe you are the exception in the stockman industry since there are many that frequent this site but none are as vocal as you are. Again I suspect you do not represent your fellow cattlemen as much as you embarass them.
> 
> Again when has a sportsmans organization ever initiated or sponsored a bill that directly adversely affected agriculture?


Swift I am quite comfortable the people involved in the ranching industry who have actually met and gotten a chance to know me will form their own opinion of me in regards to my involvement in the SA and other segments of our industry and the job I try my best at representing THEIR wishes as members of this respecrted grassroots org. Perhaps if you had taken the offer to attend our convention up last Sept. you would have had the chance to not only meet me, but some of these people, my peers, as well and actually gotten a better insight other simply your opinion.

As to answering this one question you have asked, take a moment to back up and look at this for a moment . You clearly have the exact opposite veiw regarding issues involving these ag orgs as what I do. The end result of any listing of examples will simply end up with you demonizing the ag org as "spewing venom" while only looking at the example from YOUR non ag perspective. A perfect example of this would have been the debate we had regarding CRP. You have your beleifs and base what you think is best for ag soley on them even though you have no direct involvement in production ag outside of a few aquaintances. You apparently refuse to beleive GRASSROOTS agricultural orgs with thousands of members are not voicing their ideologies of what is best for ag. You do not seem to realize that when legislators listen and support the positions of these GRASSROOT ag groups they are considering what is best for this state and all it's residents. I wonder if you really even understand the concept and how a GRASSROOTS org functions?

So why in the hell would I waste my time giving examples and entering into a debate that will go down that same path yet once again by answering this specific question?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Everything else is working the system. Many programs were created to benefit agriculture. No one fought harder for the school food program than agriculture. Someone has to eat the food surplus.


Please show something to back the above claim up.



Plainsman said:


> So on your favorite rip off I wouldn't care if you got paid every 30 years, just so it's fair.


Now you're starting to see the light.  Now the next step is to fairly evaluate what the value of having someone take that land out of productionn add in the value of the benefit of taking that land out of production and you will be on your way to determining a fair and equitable mutually beneficial, renewable single generation conservation program! I personally do not have a percentage in mind as you suggest. The reality is the higher the value placed on these acres for conservation, the more it affects the cost of other productive lands in the form of rent increases. It is what we saw happen with CRP. When the govt came out with payments that would attract land into these programs, rental rates had to match them or the land would have been put into CRP. So do not be so quick to assume I would advocate an exhorberent amount for these lands to be entered into these contracts.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You wonder where my ideas come from. They come from you. It's our money, what makes you think you have the right to use the politicians like a gun to our head, take our money, and give it to you? What "entitles" you to that? Once you have that, what do you need next? Where does it stop, or does it ever? This is turning into old Europe where the surfs support the aristocrats.


Plainsman outside of being compensated for taking privately owned lands out of production thru conservation programs in a fair and equitable, mutually beneficial manner, please show were I have ever claimed anyone is "entitiled" to "your" money any more so than you were "entitled" to 'our' money when you were a Federal employee?

Recall I have stated I never once voted for Conrad, Pomeroy, or Dorgan. So how have I ever used a politician as a "gun to your head" ?



Plainsman said:


> Much of this attitude started with pay hunting.* If I pay for my food at the market we are even. *However, it doesn't end there. If I pay you for hunting I owe you nothing. Everyone wants all the money the guy on a salary makes. The doctors want it, the dentists want it, the oil companies want it, and the farmers want it. What do we do?


So can we assume then you are going to reimburse the guy on a salary that paid your wages thru taxes for how many years? :wink:

I tell you what please remember the bolded statement you made above. And when production ag programs are cut as you suggest they should and will be, there should be NO whining when food costs rise to levels some pretty smart people are suggesting they will.


----------



## Plainsman

> Now the next step is to fairly evaluate what the value of having someone take that land out of productionn


Most of the time I hear farmers complain about wetlands because they produce nothing. I would say offer the perpetual at current rates, and offer the 30 year option at 10 or 15% of the perpetual option. That by the way is far more than fair since you and your offspring will be paid forever. What a deal. Just think your land is perhaps worth only $1000/acre in outright sale, but this way you will get many times that over and still own the land. How much better can you get than that. What else in this world besides prostitution do you get to sell what you have and still own it? As a matter of fact it's better because you have it forever and don't have to sorry about menopause. :wink:



> So can we assume then you are going to reimburse the guy on a salary that paid your wages thru taxes for how many years?


Hardly, I normally worked 1.2 to 1.3 hours for every hour salary I received. However, I am not complaining and am actually very thankful for the opportunity. You on the other hand have been paid for your products. All of the government money, which in most cases surpasses what an actual employee makes, has been frosting on the cake, but your looking for new ways to get into the tax payers pocket. The country is broke, near bankrupt, and I think federal employees will be cut, conservation practices will suffer, infrastructure will degrade, and you as a farmer want more ------at a time when we all need to tighten our belt???? Really?? Our retirement has already taken a hit, but I am not complaining, I have to sacrifice something. The government boob is drying up.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Also, the attitude is don't you dare tell me what you think or I'll show it to my friends and we will post all of out land. That is why we need more public land in North Dakota.


Plainsman, so are you actually admitting that comments you have made refering to "greedy ag" have an effect on opportunities for hunting private lands here in ND? :wink: Perhaps the govt would not have to spend less money they don;t have to provide hunting opportunities if some would simply watch what they spout off about? :wink:

Hey wait a minute that's right, weren't you advocating for the govt to pay more if it gave you the benefit of being able to hunt these conservation program lands? Why should the guy on a salary that doesn't hunt have to pay his tax dollars so that you can?

Why do you have your "hands in his pockets"? Perhaps we are "witnessing greed at it's darkest" Perhaps hunting has become a "welfare state" here in ND because of guys like you. 

Step up do your part and quit wanting "more" when we should all be making sacrafices. Apparently you think it is your "right" to force others to provide for your opportunities?

Apparently when you are advocating for more tax dollars being spent to provide you hunting opportunities it is alright. But when ag advocates for something it is "greed". :wink:

Perhaps there is a cheaper way for you to have this same opportunity by simply thinking about what you are accomplishing before you spout off about "greedy" ag. But then again didn't you once state in a different thread you had access to 50,000 acres of your relatives land to hunt? I guess you do not have to concern yourself with the consequences of the statements you make on sites like this. :eyeroll:


----------



## swift

> So why in the hell would I waste my time giving examples and entering into a debate that will go down that same path yet once again by answering this specific question?


You seem (as always) to waste more time dodging the question than it would take to answer it. I will help you. The answer to my question is NEVER. Sportsman and sportsman groups have always supported ag. The recent push of Ag related organizations against their own, and against conservation has many questioning if we should continue to support Ag since the Mutual benefit that transpired over generations has morphed into a one sided benefit.

I suspect you will give the same old song and dance of Ag looking out for Ag. If considerations toward the adverse effects of your policy were considered on the non-ag community were taken maybe support would continue to flow from us.

It seems that the new Mission statement regarding the ag orgs policy is WE GOT OURS TO HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE. 
It is demeaning and condescending to tell non-ag producers they shouldn't have any say in policy regarding land in the state. Especially when the policy is to impinge on the rights of landowners.


----------



## Plainsman

> Why do you have your "hands in his pockets"? Perhaps we are "witnessing greed at it's darkest" Perhaps hunting has become a "welfare state" here in ND because of guys like you.


Maybe your right, but I was not thinking of myself because as you noted below I have more land than I can get to in my lifetime. I have some very good friends with huge farms. Surprisingly they are also very generous people. Often those with so much are not generous, but they are. The one's oldest son hunts with me, and they live next to me. Very nice people. It's people like them that keep me from saying the rest can stuff it. Well, that guy and a couple dozen more right off the top of my head. Half the time I don't do to great hunting coyotes because I always see a good friend out feeding cows and I can't get past his place without stopping and visiting. There goes the day. Then there are a couple of my relatives who would give you the shirt off their back.

Swift voiced my feelings very well.

I'll give you another reason I'm not impressed with some farmers. Remember Gordon Kahl. He was the farmer who refused to pay taxes, but cashed every government check that came his way. He killed a couple of federal guys just west of me. Then he shot up a couple of my friends. After that some of his farm friends (Posse Comitatus) who didn't believe in taxes offered $50,000 to kill some of my friends. Ya, nice guys. One way street hypocrites is what they are. Now I completely understand that this doesn't reflect on everyone, and your attitude should not reflect on other farmers either. Your scheme to take advantage of your fellow Americans is yours, and I don't blame others. I guess you don't understand that I am telling you, and have been telling you to take the pyramid game your pushing and well ---stuff it, I'm not buying.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> You seem (as always) to waste more time dodging the question than it would take to answer it. I will help you. The answer to my question is NEVER. Sportsman and sportsman groups have always supported ag.


Okay I don't want to get a reputation of never answering questions asked of me like some on here  , but don"t say I didn't warn you. 

Following are a couple examples of "sportsman and sportsman groups ALWAYS supporting ag" as swift suggest they invariably do.

NWF lawsuit over EMERGENCY haying and grazing less than 1/3 of total acres of CRP. Strange way of "supporting" ag. 

NWF lawsuit limiting rotational haying and grazing of CRP from once every 3 years to once every 10 years and some cases not at all dispite other conservation orgs saying limited haying and grazing are beneficial. Once again, a rather strange way of "supporting" ag. :-?

NDH for FC measure 2 prohibiting an agriculture entepise clearly defined as such by state law in the ag section of the NDCC. Hmm, clearly more support of ag. :roll:

Threats by wildlife orgs and sportsmen to attempt to overturn the states anti corporate farming law despite the untold concequences to both ag and conservation. Support at its finest. :shake:

Swift do you suppport a depredation tag system and special seasons to lower deer numbers to alleviate deer depredation problems here in ND?

Do you support a bounty system put in place to help contol coyote numbers to alleviate livestock depredation issues?

These last 2 are current legislative issues widely supported by ag that garnered all sorts of opposition from sportsmen here in ND.
*
So apparently since sportsmen and sportsmens groups ALWAYS support ag, this entire thread "field tile benefits ND" is an example of what? * :eyeroll:

And then there is always "sportsmen" on sites like this suggesting ag orgs whose members are production ag here in ND are " spewing venomous ideologies" , or enagaing in "greed at it's darkest" when advocating for agriculture. Somehow that seems like a strange way of "always supporting ag" :-? I seem to recall a thread about #@!!##@!%# farmers and tree rows awhile back that CLEARLY supported ag. :roll: .

Swift please recall your claim sportsmen *"always support ag"* and please refrain from critisizing any of these important ag issues in YOUR support of ag. 

I will take this opportunity to appologize to everyone for opening this door.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Maybe your right, but I was not thinking of myself because as you noted below I have more land than I can get to in my lifetime.


So let me get this straight, you are coming on this site making negative comments about ag (recall your first post, it did not define who in ag was exercising "greed at it's darkest" or "causing flooding") that you have now admitted may indeed have an influence on private lands being closed to sportsmen because you are thinking of others ???? Well now I'm sure everyone that does not have access to 50,000 acres of their relatives land to hunt are all appreciative of your help? 

So if you are not advocating "robbing" the taxpayer for your hunting opportunities because you have land to hunt and will never use these dollars it is alright to do so for others?? Well that's good to know, because as my kids will never have to deal with the consequences of a perpetual easement and I am already implementing these conservation practices on my own without getting any tax payer monies I am "not thinking of myself" when advocating for these single generation conservation agreements? It appears I am simply dong the exact same thing you are, looking out for others. 

So plainsman, it is apparently greed in your eyes when ag advocates for taxpayer dollars for entering fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation agreements on privately owned lands, and yet it is not greed when sportsmen such as yourself advocate for tax payers dollars for hunting opportunities as part of these conservation agreements?

What was that saying you quoted from Mr. Rogers?



Plainsman said:


> Like Mr. Rogers would have said, "boys and girls can you spell hypocritical


And before this thread goes any further down the road it always does, I apologize for any role I have had by simply pointing out inconsisitancies and hypocracies in some peoples statements,


----------



## Plainsman

> So let me get this straight, you are coming on this site making negative comments about ag (recall your first post, it did not define who in ag was exercising "greed at it's darkest" or "causing flooding")


I cleared that up by identifying those among ag that I thought were greedy. You know some will not go back and look at those posts don't you? That's not entirely honest gst, and you have done that before. It gets personal when you try to mislead people. I hope you take that as constructive criticism.



> So if you are not advocating "robbing" the taxpayer for your hunting opportunities because you have land to hunt and will never use these dollars it is alright to do so for others?? Well that's good to know, because as my kids will never have to deal with the consequences of a perpetual easement and I am already implementing these conservation practices on my own without getting any tax payer monies I am "not thinking of myself" when advocating for these conservation agreements? It appears I am simply dong the exact same thing you are, looking out for others.


That is good that your doing that. Tip O the hat. As far as using taxpayer dollars for opportunities perhaps I should rethink that. The only people who would benefit would be hunters and farmers. Maybe that isn't fair.



> So plainsman, it is apparently greed in your eyes when ag advocates for taxpayer dollars for entering fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation agreements on privately owned lands,


Not at all, not when it's fair. I simply don't agree with your scheme to rip off the taxpayer. I suppose we could talk a thousand years and you would never get that.



> So plainsman, it is apparently greed in your eyes when ag advocates for taxpayer dollars for entering fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation agreements on privately owned lands,


As I said perhaps I should rethink that. The only benefits go to hunters and farmers. I hope that is the results you were looking for.

Swift was right about you being a bully. You can't have your way so you threaten. You constantly tell me how my words will hurt. Does that mean some will turn against sportsmen because of what I say? You did notice that I said I would not hold against farmers what you sat, right? I guess we think different.

What you don't know gst, is that there are a couple of landowners debating you that would just as soon you stop helping them.  I think they fear repercussions from groups like yours if they identify themselves. Isn't that sad?


----------



## gst

]


Plainsman said:


> It gets personal when you try to mislead people. I hope you take that as constructive criticism.


plainsman, one only has to go back to your very first statement in this thread and your own words are there in black and white.

So what exactly do you qualify as "misleading people"? Here are a few of your claims in this thread alone. 
"90% of the Federal budget goes to ag"
"Agriculture is second only to defense in Federal spending" 
"Agriculture has become a welfare state"
"Agriculture is "robbing" the taxpayer"
"Agriculture CAUSES flooding."

You are indeed right, it does become personal when one "misinforms the uninformed" by making misleading statments and insinuations. When people intentionally mislead others by making these false claims about the profession I am in I will ALWAYS point their "misleading statements" out.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Not at all, not when it's fair. I simply don't agree with your scheme to rip off the taxpayer. I suppose we could talk a thousand years and you would never get that


Okay, plainsman if there is one single question you answer directly please let it be this one.

Does the value and benefits of having these wetlands taken out of production in these perpetual easements EVER diminish to society(taxpayer)? 
Please answer this one question directly?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Swift was right about you being a bully. You can't have your way so you threaten. You constantly tell me how my words will hurt. Does that mean some will turn against sportsmen because of what I say? You did notice that I said I would not hold against farmers what you sat, right? I guess we think different.
> 
> What you don't know gst, is that there are a couple of landowners debating you that would just as soon you stop helping them.  I think they fear repercussions from groups like yours if they identify themselves. Isn't that sad?
Click to expand...

Please show an example of where I have threatened anyone. Plainsman you have made several insinuations of things that I have asked you to show specific examples of and yet you have not done so one single time. You suggest it becomes personal when someone misleads others and yet you have continueally made false statements you haven;t backed up. If it is being a bully to point out inconsistancies with the truth in what claims people make, then perhaps I am a "bully". So I tell you what, you start providing links to factual sources where you get what you post and make factual statements based on this shared information and I will stop holding you accountable for not doing so.

Otherwise I'm starting to beleive you would be Mr. Rogers best speller! :wink:

I'm sure there are landowners that have views different than mine, just as I'm sure there are sportsmen that have veiws different than yours. It is why we advocate for our views. If these couple of landowners you mention are farmers or ranchers, I would encourage them to join these grassroots ag groups and have their voices heard. Second hand complaining thru someone on a outdoors site will likely accomplish little. 

It is hard to make changes if you are not sitting at the table. If they would like to join the Stockmens, have them get in touch, we would most certainly welcome them and help them get signed up. And please realize, I do not beleive these ag groups have any enforcers dishing out "repercussions" to those that speak their own veiws, I can honestly say it is encouraged in the orgs I am a member of (speaking your own veiws that is). Perhaps someone is watching to many Al Capone or Jimmy Hoffa movies.


----------



## Plainsman

There is no way I can get you to be honest is there? Look at that 90% and read a few posts later and you will find an explanation. Again your in hopes no one goes back to look. As a matter of fact I would have to go back and see what it was I was talking about. If I can't remember I don't expect someone new to get it, but that's what your counting on.

Those of us who disagree with you look at your scheme as snake oil. Don't you get it, we don't want what you do. We do not support it. Get it, get it. That's all you need to understand. We don't owe you any further answers to anything. We don't like your plan. Most want perpetual easements. They are fair. If not no one will sign them. If you buy land with a perpetual easement that's your decision.

You tell us your a fellow hunter, but all you ever do is push ag. That's what your here for and nothing else that I have ever observed. I have had fun pushing your buttons because you only think ag, ag, ag, ag,. If someone is paying you as an advocate I would suggest they can spend their money better. You may have noticed this isn't an agriculture web site here to push your agenda. I know you think the world revolves around you, but the fact is it doesn't revolve around either of us. Surprise.

So gst if you don't like personal don't get personal. Your going to get nowhere so I really don't know why you think your going to talk someone into something. I keep poking you just to get you to expose your one sided ideas. Continue if you wish, but I expect it will be more misleading things that nasty Plainsman said. If you don't want it personal try some new information that none of us thought about. If you do I will stop saying things just to trip your trigger. You do know what a trigger is right? :rollin:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> There is no way I can get you to be honest is there? Look at that 90% and read a few posts later and you will find an explanation. Again your in hopes no one goes back to look. As a matter of fact I would have to go back and see what it was I was talking about. If I can't remember I don't expect someone new to get it, but that's what your counting on.


Apparently there is no way to get you to be honest the first time you choose to post something. It too late after the horse is out of the barn to clost the barn door! :wink: Do you really beleive 90% of the federal budget goes to ag like you originally claimed? Apparently you simply hope no one will catch you and end up making you give an "explanation" . Perhaps that is what you are "counting on".

Everyone makes a mistake now or then or is in a hurry and does not take the time to fully check out thigs before they post, I did this myself in regards to a comment concerning the percent of GDP ag contributes to our nations economy in this thread. And it was pointed out and I was held accountable for not taking the time to reserch something I posted as fact. . But you have seemed more than willing to consistantly pull crap out of your *** hoping no one would call you out and make you "explain". It is a simple concept, quit making false statements regarding the profession I am in (ag) and I will quit holding you accountable for making them.

Plainsman how many Mulligans do you get when you golf? I suppose it would be nice to make any claim you wish regardless of fact and then have the luxury of "explaining" it away later. :wink:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, not when it's fair. I simply don't agree with your scheme to rip off the taxpayer. I suppose we could talk a thousand years and you would never get that
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, plainsman if there is one single question you answer directly please let it be this one.
> 
> *Does the value and benefits of having these wetlands taken out of production in these perpetual easements EVER diminish to society(taxpayer)? *
> Please answer this one question directly?
Click to expand...

Plainsman, please answer directly and factually this one simple question asked above in bold. I'm not trying to "push your buttons" or "trip yout trigger", I'm just trying to get you to possibly think about something you may not have thought about before! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> You tell us your a fellow hunter, but all you ever do is push ag. That's what your here for and nothing else that I have ever observed. I have had fun pushing your buttons because you only think ag, ag, ag, ag,. If someone is paying you as an advocate I would suggest they can spend their money better. You may have noticed this isn't an agriculture web site here to push your agenda.


So when ag topics such as legislative issues tied directly to ag production pop up on this hunting website I guess you would simply rather those involved in ag stay out of the conversation? I would imagine it would be much easier for you to make your claims without being held accountable and forced to "explain" :wink:

And just as I told you in the HFH debate when you insinuated it there, I am not being "paid" by anyone.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, just think of it, now that swift is committed as a sportsman to *always supporting ag,* particularily in these threads, if you would just commit to not pulling statements out of your *** that are not true regarding agriculture that you later "explain" when held accountable for them, there would apparently be no reason for me to come on this site. Surely that is incentive enough for you and probably a few others as well!!!!  Lets see how well that works.

Anyway, I have to go look up what a "trigger" is, I always thought it was some level or something that caused farm program payments to kick in! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Example:

Plainsman posted: 
You keep posting things that are intellectually dishonest. Example: To clarify I have posted the type of farmer that I called greedy. You leave that out. I acknowledge there are more advanced and environmentally friendly ag practices and you leave that out.

gst responded: plainsman, I do apologize to you for that little jab in my last post. An example was needed, but using a reference to your posts was unnecessary.

I looked for the 90% and could not find it. Was that in this thread. I know I explained that it was 90% of a portion, but I can't find either post. My original, or your misleading.

Plainsman wrote: 


> We don't owe you any further answers to anything.


gst responded:


> Plainsman, please answer directly and factually this one simple question asked above in bold


What is it about english that you find so hard to understand. I'm no longer interested in answering your questions. They are no longer relevant to me. I'm simply telling you I don't like your plan. You want to get paid, your son get paid again, your grandson again, and so on forever. No thank you please keep your plan. I don't like it, and many others don't like it. End of story. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It's been out of balance for years, with 90% of the federal budget going to agriculture, and in North Dakota most of the benefits going for agriculture. Every year it gets better for you and worse for the resident hunter. Oh, and worse for the average Joe taxpayer. We are now up to our ears in debt and you want more money. You better brace yourself, because I think your in for a huge surprise. When people see the grocery prices they want call for draining wetlands just yet, they will call for more cheap imports first.


Plainsman's quote " My original, or your misleading"

Plainsman, page 5 this thread, the "original" full quote in it's entirety. It was in response to this post I made.

by gst » Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:01 am

Plainsman wrote:
I like that you keep this up gst so people can see how you guys try to sell something then get paid again. It is voluntary, no one puts a gun to your head to sign the contract. This whole thing is very simple for 99% of the people. The problem is you see ripping off the government as not hurting anyone. The government is all of us. Why should you sell something, then after one generation your kids get it back and get paid again, then their kids get paid again. That would be a great scam, but I don't think the public is dumb enough to go for it.

.

I'll bet the guy in town who owns a hardware store wishes he could get paid multiple times. I thought Ron's example was good. We all know selling something is different than an easement, but that doesn't take away at all from the example. Oh, other than you still have your land if you take an easement. For an outdoor guy like you what a deal.

gst"So plainsman if selling something is different than an easement, explain the comments in your first paragraph above?

Now you consider getting paid a fair and equitable compensation for something everyone says is so valueable to society is "ripping off the govt" ?


----------



## swift

> NWF lawsuit over emergency haying and grazing only 1/3 of total elgible acres of CRP.
> 
> NWF lawsuit limiting rotational haying and grazing of CRP from once every 3 years to once every 10 years and some cases not at all dispite other conservation orgs saying limited haying and grazing are beneficial.


I'm glad you brought these up. What was the NDWF's stance on these issues? Oh they supported Agriculture. Neither of these are legislative measures either. They are merely a National organization asking for the contracts that were signed be followed. I guess since your stance does not agree that contracts need to be followed as written and signed I would expect you to blame sportsman for the lawsuit *THAT UPHELD CONTRACTS AS WRITTEN*.

The Depredation and bounty legislative actions are examples of Ag orgs enacting policy with complete disregard to the NDG&F and the sportsman of ND. Trying to "manage" deer herds with an end around run against the NDG&F is another example of the disregard for the wildlife, conservation and the people of the state that would be directly negatively affected.

An apology is certainly warranted but not for opening this can of worms. More so for the complete disregard for anyone that will be affected by your policies.


----------



## gst

Yep apparently agriculture never was able to hay CRP in emergency situations nor did agriculture really want to *hay less than 1/3 of the total CRP acres *after being in 3 years of drought. :roll:

*Swift, remember from the previous go around over this topic, the lawsuit was not regarding wether the contracts were upheld, (the ability exists to grant these emergency declarations if certain criteria are met, which they were in this case) it was over wether the proper procedure allowing for public comments and the corresponding time alloted for them was followed. * Hardly understandig or supportive. If you recall the state NWF chapter actually took an opposing veiw supporting ags request (albeit late in the game after taking some heat) So even though the state org was supportive of ag on this occassion, the national was not, and they were ultimately successful in their lawsuit.

Hopefully the lid can be left on this can of worms as anyone that is interested in an intrigueing discussion swift and I had regarding it that is full of factual links to sites full of factual information can be found somewhere on this site. I guess it does take two to tango, and sense the dance on this topic happened once already perhaps it can be left to die. :-?

Swift said quote" An apology is certainly warranted but not for opening this can of worms. More so for the complete disregard for anyone that will be affected by your policies."end quote

That's not very supportive ya big bully!


----------



## swift

> Threats by wildlife orgs and sportsmen to attempt to overturn the states anti corporate farming law despite the untold concequences to both ag and conservation. Support at its finest.


I'm not aware of any attempt to overturn the anticorporate farming law. I suppose you could show a source for this information? Or misinformation as it may be.

If you don't grasp anything take hold of this concept and put it under your pillow.....

Sportsman are getting tired of being kicked aside by the Policies being pushed by the Ag orgs. For generations sportsman were the first to support Ag producers at the ballot box, with their checkbooks and with their telephones. Kick the nicest dog enough and he will bite you.


----------



## swift

> Yep apparently agriculture never was able to hay CRP in emergency situations nor did agriculture really want to hay less than 1/3 of the total CRP acres after being in 3 years of drought.


WHY DID THE LAWSUIT PREVAIL? BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THE CONTRACTS WERE WRITTEN. I just signed up for another 10 year CRP contract. I know what I can and can't do with the land because I read the contract. Just because some broke their contractin other years doesn't mean it's okay to do it whenever you like.


----------



## gst

oops, theres a few sneeking out from under the lid.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Threats by wildlife orgs and sportsmen to attempt to overturn the states anti corporate farming law despite the untold concequences to both ag and conservation. Support at its finest.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware of any attempt to overturn the anticorporate farming law. I suppose you could show a source for this information? Or misinformation as it may be.
> 
> If you don't grasp anything take hold of this concept and put it under your pillow.....
> 
> Sportsman are getting tired of being kicked aside by the Policies being pushed by the Ag orgs. For generations sportsman were the first to support Ag producers at the ballot box, with their checkbooks and with their telephones. Kick the nicest dog enough and he will bite you.
Click to expand...

Swift, if you wish, reference some of the threads on this site and others regarding the Natural Areas Land Aquisition Committee and you will see what is mentioned. Oh you do *always* support ag on these positions also right?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, page 5 this thread, the "original" full quote in it's entirety. It was in response to this post I made.


Thanks, I wish you had not missed the post just below it. You see I was comparing wildlife which you don't like to agriculture. Take those two from the budget and ag does get a whopping bunch more than wildlife.



> I did word that poorly didn't I. Ag and defense are the top two in the nation expenses for out nation. Together wildlife and ag don't make up 1/3 of the total budget, but if you added the two together the ag portion would be 90% and the wildlife 10%. Maybe the divide is even greater.


The original subject was tile, but since you don't want to talk about that, and you want to talk about some pet project of yours lets just forget the personal comments from both sides and address perpetual easements. 
I like perpetual easements. What you suggest is perpetual payments and the taxpayer will pay as long as this nation lasts. Since we are already in debt giving away the farm (no pun intended) to landowners is financially and socially irresponsible. I think your idea is a rip off. Yes, I think it's greedy to try take advantage of fellow Americans. Junk that idea. I hope that's clear. There is no personal attack, only an attack on an extremely poor idea.

Swift this advise you give is very good. I have often thought that many times in my lifetime, on more than one subject. 


> Kick the nicest dog enough and he will bite you.


----------



## gst

plainsman, backpedal and "explain" all you wish. That is only one of several examples of you "wording things poorly" to the point they are outright BS in this one thread. The beauty of these sites is it is so easy to google info on the same computer you are typing your reply on, type it into your reply, include the link from where you found the factual information and read it once again before you hit the submit button so it isn't "worded poorly. Most people that try to "inform the uninformed" as you suggested you were doing realize the importance of not just pulling crap out of their *** if the goal is to accurately and truthfully inform people. That is why I like actually providing the links where the information comes from.

But if one has a biased agenda, I can see where it is convinient to simply insinuate inaccurate "facts" "worded poorly" and hope no one holds you accountable for lying about their profession.

"Kick the nicest dog enough and he will bite you." So if I were to suggest this is also true in regards to ag producers being called greedy, arrogant, elitiest, whiney ect... and the groups representing them arrogant, venomous, ect... how long would it be before someone accused me of "threatening" someone and being a "bully" ?  Or maybe it would just simply be construed as whining. :wink:
But in this instance it is "good advise". :roll:

Mr Rogers would most certainly be proud of his top spellers! :wink: hypocritical, H Y P O C R I T I C A L hypocritical.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Thanks, I wish you had not missed the post just below it. You see I was comparing wildlife which you don't like to agriculture.


You really can not help yourself can you. Please show where I have EVER made the statement I do not "like" wildlife?
Do you recall a conversation about raising pheasants? 
Do you recall a conversation about leaving cattail sloughs even though we could farm them specifically for wildlife? 
Do you recall a conversation about planting several miles of trees over the years? 
It is time to put up or as they say shut up. You have been asked on a number of instances were you have made insinuations such as the one above to show an example or where I have said what you claimed, and you have yet to do so one single time.

I have stated before more than once the reason I got on this site was to provide an insight many in ag have on issues that is not too often shared on here. Hopefully in a factual direct manner which would cause people that wish to look at more than one side of a story to consider alternatives to what is so often posted on these sites regarding ag. Too often, such as in the case of this thread, I end up involved in these threads when someone makes an unfactual claim about agriculture or several of them. And invariably it becomes personal, because people do not like being told they have been disingenous in "informing the uninformed" or that "their" non ag based veiws of what is best for ag is not what the majority of ag and the groups they form representing ag beleives is best for ag. And once again that is where this thread as well ended up.

I do admit to having a bit of sacrcasm in pointing out hypocrasy or "facts" that need to be "explained" or just plain BS in some replies, and perhaps I should tone that down, but I have tried to refrain from making personal accusations about individuals I have never met unless they have directly said something to base it on. I have tried my best to carry on adult debates in which questions are asked and answers are given about the topic being debated. I have to admit, at times that is difficult. I beleive in this thread I have asked some simple direct questions relevant to the topic and it has been either disregarded by some or labeled as whining. The people that wish to look at things from more than just their own veiw point and consider things with an open mind will have already took from this debate what they will. And to continue on will likely only cause more "venom to be spewed" by those opposed to ag and the groups and individuals involved in it. And as it has been made perfectly clear in large bold letters no answers will be forthcoming in regards to questions I ask, I will simply end my involvement in this thread.

Unless the "venom" gets too personal or disingenuous! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Well, guys I guess that means we an talk about tile. Have you noticed the preparations taking place in Fargo? I would say making any sort of drainage easier is counterproductive. It would be interesting to run a poll in Fargo right now about making tile permits easier to get.



> liar
> liar
> lying


And gst, thanks for not making it personal. :wink:


----------



## gst

From Websters definition of lie.

Synonym Discussion of LIE
lie, prevaricate, equivocate, palter, fib mean to tell an untruth. *lie is the blunt term,* imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. *prevaricate softens the bluntness of lie by implying quibbling or confusing the issue* <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. *equivocate implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another* <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. *palter implies making unreliable statements of fact *or intention or insincere promises . fib applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>

No mention of "explaining" changing what the original statement was. :wink:

The entire reason I even posted anything in the original thread this one led to was, because of an untrue statement that "agriculture CAUSES flooding" along with other suggetions about ag as a whole that one can look at as untrue if they actually knew a little bit about agriculture. Time and again there were untrue statements made in this thread that were pointed out, some intentional some merely oversights. The intentional ones were pointed out by asking the person who made them to please show reference to where what he claimed was true. This was not done once in response to having made these untrue statements to show they were anything other. I readily admitted when someone intentionally makes untrue statements about my profession they will be called to task for making them. If that is making something personal so be it. Perhaps the person should have thought about that before making the untrue statement.


----------



## Plainsman

Agriculture contributes, and sometimes causes flooding. A few years ago I drove around Stutsman county and looked at the roads washing out. The culverts were plugged from field debris. Every time it was canola fields. I think it was canola. 

Odd how it turned into perpetual easements. However, now that you understand many people don't want it I hope you put the castle and moat on hold. 

Just so people understand that farmers are different I want them to know that there is one on this site that refused to drain a couple wetlands because of he damage they would do to a neighboring wetland. I sure hope there is something we can do to help great conservationists like that. I don't want to embarrass him so I will not mention names.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Agriculture contributes, and sometimes causes flooding. A few years ago I drove around Stutsman county and looked at the roads washing out. The culverts were plugged from field debris. Every time it was canola fields. I think it was canola.


And what do you beleive carried that field debris off the field where agriculture had left it to the culverts?

If the field "debris" had not been carried of the fields where ag deposited it by whatever strange phenomenum that carried it off the feilds, would the culverts have been plugged? Was it the filed debris that was deposited in the feilds by ag that washed out the roads or was it whatever that mysterious force that carried it off the field that washed out the road?

If you would take the time to honestly answer the first simple question perhaps you could realize what CAUSES flooding.

"prevaricate" :-? ie: see Websters def. Synonym Discussion of LIE
lie, prevaricate, equivocate, palter, fib mean to tell an untruth. lie is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. *prevaricate softens the bluntness of lie* by implying quibbling or confusing the issue


----------



## sndhillshntr

Rainfall, Is the answer rainfall...


----------



## gst

Maybe! just maybe that could be what CAUSES flooding.

Excessive rainfall, excessive snowfall amounts, rapid snow melts, saturated soils as a result of either of the two previous things.

Naw that can't be what CAUSES flooding, must be "greedy" ag living in their castles with the moats around them :wink: .

by Plainsman » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:41 am

I have worked on wetlands throughout the Prairie Pothole Region. I would estimate that 95% of the Prairie Pothole Region in Iowa is drained. Their waterfowl hunting is nearly destroyed. Only the very rich hunt. One farm I worked on had restored a 100 acre wetland. He leased it to three people for waterfowl hunting at $6000 each. Southern Minnesota is just as bad. As we move into the this region which is moisture deficit things will change. They will still drain the wetlands, and destroy waterfowl hunting, but they will cut their own throat also. Draining soil moisture in a moisture deficit climate will result in many more years of man made drought. *Then they will cry for more support.*

*Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. It worked for the high fence situation why will it not work for this situation. The only way to stop it is point out that it is not their right to flood their neighbor. Currently it would appear that the folks north of Devils Lake think it's their right to flood Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, and all the small communities in between. We are witnessing greed at it's darkest. *

When I speak of moisture deficit I mean we are in a climate that has a higher evaporation rate than rainfall. At first you may ask how that is possible. Well, the only reason we can raise crops is soil moisture. Moisture held below the surface doesn't evaporate, but put in drain tile and we have a disaster in the waiting. *They can only survive by even more taxpayer support*. Also, hydrology comes into play. Our wetlands function more often as wetland systems than individual wetlands. Some are hydrological recharge, some flow through, and others are hydrological discharge systems. People out draining without knowing what they are doing is like letting a three year old play with dynamite. More water from the hydrological recharge system goes into the aquifer than is discharged to the atmosphere, hence the term hydrological recharge wetland. *Tiles will cause surface flooding* while at the same time cause aquifer depletion.
End quote


----------



## Plainsman

It was just an example of floods that were ag related. Nothing more nothing less. Just an observation. I didn't make any claim that it was a drained wetland (Hmmmm might have been) that caused the flooding, only that ag run off and ag debris washed out the road. 
Now where did that little icon go that was a guy on his knees bowing again and again and again. I need that one. :rollin:

Yup, I have witnessed a lot of screwed up things. Iowa and Minnesota wetlands. Also, the overgrazed lands of the great plains. I listened to ranchers complain about government land that wasn't worth what they paid, but they would not let it go. Odd that it could be in the family for years, and they were the ones who overgrazed it, but they complained to me because ----- I don't know why. If the land was less productive than their private land separated only by a fence, and they grazed it for 30 years who's fault is it if it isn't productive? Oh, oh here we go.  That will be good for another ten pages, and 100 questions. 

Headline today:


> "Everybody has got to make some sacrifices, everybody's gotta take a haircut," President Obama said during a surprise visit to the WH briefing room on Tuesday.


The gravy train is reaching the end of the track. I think that means if you do something that damages the property of others you pay for it not the government. Individual responsibility. In this case fix the roads.


----------



## gst

plainsman, I referenced your original statement regarding this topic once again to show that when you started this debate commenting on the actual pros or cons of tiling, you spent as much time in this first post insinuating and stating outright that ag was greedy. You could not debate the affects of tiling itself without throwing in your ever recurring jabs towards agriculture that most time are not even factually correct and have to be "explained". And what exactly did you beleive you would accomplish with these comments?????? How in any way do they help people understand the actual affects of tiling???

I could give a **** if you accurately and factually debate the negative affects of tiling. There is a possiblility I might even agree with some of your points if that is what you limited your comments to. But you never can leave it at providing factual infromation thru links that show the side of the debate you wish others to see without taking a jab at agriculture. And in this thread you did so right out of the gate, and continue to do so right till the end.

Everyone knows that in every segment of society there are those that take advantage, screw the system ect. Federal employees and biologists are NO DIFFERENT than ag producers than carpenters, than doctors, than car salesmen, than ANY ONE ELSE. So why in a topic about the affects of tiling do you feel the need to continuealy comment about greedy ag? How does it add to what you wish people to know about the effects of tiling. You chastize me for taking this thread off topic, but in your very first post you took it off the topic of the affects of tiling and drove it down the road it went with your snide comments towards ag.

I asked way back in this thread, what do you beleive your comments about "greedy ag" in that first post you made would accomplish? Take a close look at what you wrote. How does it help you debate the affects of tiling? 10 pages an 100 questions later what have you accomplished?

The next time you are out driving around and you see a no hunting sign, stop for a moment and consider your comments directed towards ag in your very first post in this thread, ask yourself if the type comments in your first post help keep these signs from becoming more prevalent. Then stop and remember that "good advise" swift gave about only being able to kick a dog so many times before it bites you. So how will it be looked at then, a "threat" or "good advise"?


----------



## Bad Dog

gst - you are correct in that to have flooding, you do need precipitation. However, what turns a typically non-flooding precipitation event, into a flooding precipitation event is the landscape where it falls upon. Soil that is bare, does not have a diverse myriad of native prairie vegetation with long, strong root systems, will move water off that landscape more quickly and in greater volumes then would the same precipitation event that falls upon a landscape on native vegetation. "Tillage has greatly altered the surface hydrologic dynamics of wetland catchments; conventional tillage increases erosion rates and surface runoff relative to grassland landscapes (Gleason 1996; Euliss and Mushet 1996)."

When you compare the soil structure of soils that have been cultivate for 100's of years to those that have never been broke you will see that the cultivated soil is far more compacted and that compaction means far less precipitation moves through the soil and more precipitation is running over the soil.

The real issue comes into effect when you look at this on a landscape scale. Hence, some of problems we are now facing ( Devils Lake and Red River flooding, increase ag chemicles in our rivers, lakes and ground water, a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico at the junction with the Mississippi River, the list goes on and on). Current agricultural practices designed by the large ag corporations are designed for one thing and one thing only, immediant profits at any cost.


----------



## Plainsman

> Everyone knows that in every segment of society there are those that take advantage, screw the system ect. Federal employees and biologists are NO DIFFERENT than ag producers than carpenters, than doctors, than car salesmen, than ANY ONE ELSE


Actually I have pointed that out multiple times myself. This is not news to me.



> So why in a topic about the affects of tiling do you feel the need to continuealy comment about greedy ag?


Because some are. In another thread I just asked the question "why can't we get a legislature somewhere between socialism and worshiping business and the almighty dollar"? Seriously, perhaps our legislature is the greatest offender. They hide problems with oil out west, they think high fence hunting is ok, they think draining is ok and take steps to make it faster. Then there are the farmers north of Devils Lake still draining into Devils Lake. I think if they buy land with water on it keep it. I'm tired of sandbagging because they pass their problems on. I have stated that we should all be willing to pay them to shut those drains. I think we should be willing to pay a fair price, and even beyond, but I'm not willing to get robbed.

Now you will wonder why I say not willing to get robbed. You know those rocks they haul to Devils Lake to keep the waves from washing out roads. I know one farmer that is or close to becoming a millionaire selling his rocks. Great, I'm happy for him. He like many would like to get rid of water. He complained about dust. They sucked up some water and kept a truck spraying the road by his house. Guess what? Ya, I'll bet you know. He wants to be paid for the water he was trying to get rid of. I don't care if he is a farmer, banker, or catholic priest I think he deserves a kick in the behind not more money. So I'm not complaining because he is a farmer, I'm complaining that with all he has enough isn't enough, and he wants to charge someone who is doing him a favor.

Hey, I know I spell bad once in a while, but talk about the pot calling the kettle black. lol I about cracked up when you bought that up in a previous post. It made my afternoon. Or was it morning???? 



> 100 questions later what have you accomplished


 :rollin: Now who's falt is that? :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

My post started jumping so bad I couldn't type on that page anymore.



> The next time you are out driving around and you see a no hunting sign, stop for a moment and consider your comments directed towards ag in your very first post in this thread


There you go with surrender or we post again. Guess what happens every time I read one of your posts?

Now go read Bad Dogs post. He gave a very accurate, and polite post, and didn't tease you like I do. I know I shouldn't do it, but you make it so much fun.


----------



## gst

bad dog, NO ONE has made the claim some ag practices CONTRIBUTE to flooding issues. But please do not make the untrue claim that ag CAUSES flooding. Flooding has occurred from the beginning of time before agriculture was even a part of the landscape. So given that undeniable fact, how can one claim ag CAUSES flooding. If you wish to accept this as the truth, there should have been no flooding prior to ag enteriong the landscape.

Now if one wants to debate the affects of some ag practices without snide comments about greed and welfare and robbing the taxpayer there are indeed ag practices when done to excess or incorrectly that cause problems. But if we are going to look at the negative ag practices, many which have been changed or discontinued over the years, to be fair we also have to look at how conservation farming has evolved and the positive changes many in ag are implementing as well.

You would be hard pressed to honestly say ag has not changed and is not changing as we move forward. There are some very proactive conservation people that are working directly with ag producers to implement cutting edge conservation/production practices under what is refered to as sustainable ag. But does anyone ever post threads complimenting farmers and ranchers for being good stewards of the land or praise these conservation base production methods? ? When is the last time you saw one on this site? The vast majority of producers like myself beleive in conservation and practice conservation production ag, yet what is brought up in these threads, "greedy ag". And this by an "expert" that did not even know enough about the conservation oriented changes happening in ag to realize no till corn planting has been happening for many years.

So if you wish to debate the affects of agricultural practices, at least be informed enough about them to know what is happening in todays ag. And ask yourself what good is accomplished with the kind of snide rhetoric we have seen towards ag, ag producers, and the groups that represent them in this thread.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> The next time you are out driving around and you see a no hunting sign, stop for a moment and consider your comments directed towards ag in your very first post in this thread
Click to expand...

plainsmans quote"There you go with surrender or we post again. Guess what happens every time I read one of your posts? quote]

Explain if you would how swift suggesting the voter will respond against ag and cut off funding and oppose ag policy because a percentage of a percentage of these voters (sportsmen, then with in that sportsmen with a burr under their saddle) feel they have been maligned by ag is good advice because you can only kick a dog so many time before it will bite you. Apparently this is not "surrender" or we will cut off your ag programs and oppose your policy threats.

And yet someone suggesting that ag producers who are repeatedly refered to as "greedy" whiney" stupid" arrogant" elitist" ect become tired of getting kicked in this manner by "sportsmen" on sites like this and decide to close their land to the people making these comments is threatening or demanding surrender?

Please do not make me post the definition of HYPOCRITE for you.

The saddest part is you do not even realize it was not a "threat" merely just an attempt to get you to stop and consider the childish snide comments you continuealy make towards ag and the consequences they may have for others who do not have 50,000 acres of private land to hunt. :roll:

plainsman quote"Seriously, perhaps our legislature is the greatest offender. They hide problems with oil out west, they think high fence hunting is ok,"

Just so you recall not only did the legislature reject the HFH initiative so did a majority of the people working for a salary that are the ND voter thru the most democratic of actions the initiated measure. But apparently that does not matter to you as you seem to beleive you know what is best. And you give me a hard time about my castle with a moat! 

Maybe the legislature is simply doing what the people that elected them want them to do despite your elitist veiws other wise! :wink: Perhaps you would do better back in old Europe where regardless of what the "peasants" beleived you could demand and have your way. 

You know, this pushing buttons thing really isn't as fun as you make it out to be.


----------



## Plainsman

> Explain if you would how swift suggesting the voter will respond against ag and cut off funding and oppose ag policy because a percentage of a percentage of these voters (sportsmen, then with in that sportsmen with a burr under their saddle) feel they have been maligned by ag is good advice because you can only kick a dog so many time before it will bite you. Apparently this is not "surrender" or we will cut off your ag programs and oppose your policy threats.


Point well taken, but I didn't understand that you understood.



> You would be hard pressed to honestly say ag has not changed and is not changing as we move forward. There are some very proactive conservation people that are working directly with ag producers to implement cutting edge conservation/production practices under what is refered to as sustainable ag. But does anyone ever post threads complimenting farmers and ranchers for being good stewards of the land or praise these conservation base production methods?


Well, then let me be the first to do it. I'm most impressed with no till. I am also impressed with them taking advantage of CRP. I am not as impressed when they bulldoze shelter-belts. I think what happened in the 30's is not impossible again. The farmers and NRCS have made great strides. I'm also impressed with the rotational grazing systems they have implemented. The problems with drainage is not all the fault of farmers, the government was telling them to do it. I believe nature and farming can coexist, but some of the old geezers like me think nature must be beaten into submission. Remember the remark I made about "son you got to leave your mark on the land". I remembered that from old western movies, and that was the mentality. It's not quite dead yet. However, it's so much better than 1970 that it isn't even comparable.

I have to start another post I can't type with this thing jumping when it gets to the bottom.


----------



## Plainsman

> ad dog, NO ONE has made the claim some ag practices CONTRIBUTE to flooding issues. But please do not make the untrue claim that ag CAUSES flooding. Flooding has occurred from the beginning of time before agriculture was even a part of the landscape. So given that undeniable fact, how can one claim ag CAUSES flooding. If you wish to accept this as the truth, there should have been no flooding prior to ag enteriong the landscape.


I think I see where we are disagreeing. I thing ag contributes, and sometimes causes it, but I'll have to explain. Lets say a river floods at 20 ft. Some years it would be 22 ft which is flooding by two feet. Ag may have contributed a few inches, so it only contributed. It may have even contributed four feet, but it was still a contribution. OK, now lets say the river is down to 10 ft, and nature adds nine feet. Now we are at 19 ft and not flooding. If agriculture adds that same four feet it would be the cause of flooding that year. Nature contributed, but agriculture pushed it over the banks.

Please notice I have often said that as a child growing up I decided that I would rather see payments for conservation than support prices. I'm willing to listen to reasons that would not work. I simply want to move away from the socialist aspect of support prices. Sure we get it back in food, but I believe it's the surplus that keeps your natural market prices down. CRP was meant not only to reduce erosion on light soils, but to reduce the surplus. I remember PIK when farmers were paid not to plant. That year you guys shafted yourselves by breaking up and planting other land. It created a record production and held prices down.

If you go back in my posts (somewhere, it's not like I remember  ) you will find many times that I have said people are all the same. You will also find I don't stick up for biologists that I don't think do the right thing, or have the right perspective. I perhaps get on you because you have come off as if farmers are perfect. In some of your last posts you have said much the same as I have, so I have lost that attitude about your posts.

All that said I still get a bad attitude when I see those guys north of Devils Lake still draining into channel A. I don't know if they are doing it legally, or if I should have called someone. I had mixed emotions about it. I sort of felt sorry for, and angry with those people draining.


----------



## gst

plainsman what would be your impression of someone that uses notill and minimum till methods of farming? That uses cover crops to naturally add nutrients and organic matter back into the soil? That has their most HE soils in CRP? That plants miles of tree rows? That has much of the lighter soils in their operation into grass that they implement rotational once over grazing systems on.? That puts in alternative water supplies to keep cattle away from creeks? Someone that is instilling these conservation values into his kids just as they were instilled into him by his father? Someone who had the value instilled in him and is instilling the vlaue in his children that you leave something better than you found it. Someone who never once voted for politicians that are proud of "bringing home" more Federal dollars than this state pays out. Someone that volantarily is a member of an ag org advocating for the end of govt subsidies. Someone that belongs to and supports ag orgs that have this same belif in land stewardship and have programs and awards for this very thing. Someone who is an advocate for stewardship of the land they make a living from because they beleive in it.

Do you begin to see where someone like this could take offense when someone that does not know very much about the profession he is in, agriculture, begins to make unfactual statements about his profession and insinuates his profession is "greedy" and nothing more than a "welfare state"?

Well guess what, wether you choose to beleive it or not, there are a large number of people like what I posted above in ag and so if you would, answer this one simple question, what do you beleive your snide comments and jabs really accomplish? These people are not doing what they do for a pat on the back or accolades or even acknowledgement (most people in the public do not even realize what it is they are doing, maybe that is part of the problem, we are not proactive enough in telling our story). But they are also not going to sit back and let people make unaccurate statements about their profession either.

Agriculture will ALWAYS be a part of this states landscape and economy. It will likely always be a LARGE part of it. Ag like anything else changes and evolves. How do you beleive snide childish comments acusing people and groups representing it of being arrogant and "lords of the land you bow down to" will help ag evolve in the direction you would like to see? How do you beleive these comments will open MORE land than already is to the public? I really do not care if you have opposing veiws regarding ag policy than what I do, that is everyones choice. Simply that you stop and consider what good exactly do comments like what have beeen made in this thread accomplish. and that if you are going to post threads regarding ag that you provide accurate factual comments relating to the issue being debated. And realize that if you do not, someone involved in ag will likely point that out to you.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman what would be your impression of someone that uses notill and minimum till methods of farming? That uses cover crops to naturally add nutrients and organic matter back into the soil? That has their most HE soils in CRP? That plants miles of tree rows? That has much of the lighter soils in their operation into grass that they implement rotational once over grazing systems on.? That puts in alternative water supplies to keep cattle away from creeks? Someone that is instilling these conservation values into his kids just as they were instilled into him by his father? Someone who had the value instilled in him and is instilling the vlaue in his children that you leave something better than you found it. Someone who never once voted for politicians that are proud of "bringing home" more Federal dollars than this state pays out. Someone that volantarily is a member of an ag org advocating for the end of govt subsidies. Someone that belongs to and supports ag orgs that have this same belif in land stewardship and have programs and awards for this very thing. Someone who is an advocate for stewardship of the land they make a living from because they beleive in it.


I know your talking about yourself, and the above would be someone I would hold in the highest regard. I appreciate that type of person beyond the words I can find to express it. Still you and I argue. I guess it's because I see some that truly are greedy. However, they still are no different than many. I do see support prices as socialistic, but want them to make just as much money, but through the free market. I see those drains north of Devils Lake as submitting to money, but I also know they can't give up things their family needs to benefit those downstream. Still what they do damages downstream and those families don't deserve that. That is why we all need to step up to the plate and pay those people to restore wetlands. It will benefit us all, so they should not bear the whole burden.



> Do you begin to see where someone like this could take offense when someone that does not know very much about the profession he is in, agriculture, begins to make unfactual statements about his profession and insinuates his profession is "greedy" and nothing more than a "welfare state"?


Yes, I do understand that, and I don't make my statements to simply be cruel. I make them because I want them to see what others sometimes think. Above is my honest assessment of the situation we find ourselves in together.

I have to start a new page again. Can't see where I'm typing.


----------



## Plainsman

> Well guess what, wether you choose to beleive it or not, there are a large number of people like what I posted above in ag and so if you would, answer this one simple question, what do you beleive your snide comments and jabs really accomplish? These people are not doing what they do for a pat on the back or accolades or even acknowledgement (most people in the public do not even realize what it is they are doing, maybe that is part of the problem, we are not proactive enough in telling our story). But they are also not going to sit back and let people make unaccurate statements about their profession either.


First sentence, first part: Yes, I have always known that.
First sentence second part (your question) I didn't see my comments as snide I seen them as holding up a mirror for those who are as I described. I seen those comments as pushing some who I perceived as believing no farmer could do no wrong into seeing that some do. Some being the key word. It's those we all have to work on. 
Yes, you are not proactive enough, and you isolate yourselves. I would like to see you at some wildlife meetings. I would like to be taken serious at an agricultural meeting. 
Last sentence. I think my statements were accurate about a small portion of your profession. I wish my profession was perfect, but because it was government it has a lot of whiny a$$ liberal, socialist, bunny huggers. You would be surprised if you knew my attitudes about some things. 
Your last paragraph complaining about me. Well I'm a product of agriculture bad public relations. How would you feel hearing "if you aint a rancher you aint Sh!t"? Guys with mouths like that don't help you guys. How about your on public land and a guy says "I kind of like you guys, but my 30-06 don't"? That guy was a pure dumb a$$. I expect you would agree. It also doesn't help when some post public land. We all have a better job we could do at public relations. I thought a serious conversation was beyond hope with you. Perhaps not. Perhaps I should rethink that. The only thing that can destroy a serious conversation now is if you make a statement that I am back peddling. The ball is in your court.


----------



## gst

plainsman. I am not just talking about myself, but rather a GREAT many people in agriculture. Many whom I know personally thru these ag orgs some seem to slam every chance they get.

I agree wetlands have a value to society, and as long as they exist that value remains and society receives the benefits from these privately owned lands being managed to maintain the wetlands. All that is being suggested is that each generation that owns that land have the same opportunity as the one previously to be paid for the value of keeping these wetlands society receives rather than developing them to generate the same revenues.



Plainsman said:


> I see those drains north of Devils Lake as submitting to money, but I also know they can't give up things their family needs to benefit those downstream. Still what they do damages downstream and those families don't deserve that. That is why we all need to step up to the plate and pay those people to restore wetlands. It will benefit us all, so they should not bear the whole burden


This quote pretty well sums up my whole arguement. If it means a lower payment for the original signer, so be it. But just as each subsequent generation of society will receive the benefits of these wetlands for as long as they exist, perhaps they will need to "step up to the plate" as you suggest and pay those corresponding generations of people owning the wetland for its value society is continueing to receive.

Volantary, renewable, single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation agreements in which BOTH society and the current landowner now and in the future see the benefits.

If you wish to call that "ripping off the govt" or "robbing the taxpayer" so be it, many in ag look at it as "fair and equitable, and mutually beneficial.


----------



## swift

Plainsman, Quit trying to be the better person. We all know how GST operates. He attacks, then twists and turns things to fit his own agenda.

GST, for the record. I support Agriculture with their policies that take into account the ramifications of their actions on the non-agriculture population. I see that as "MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL". I pretty much do not support (you) nor do I think you are a viable voice for Agriculture. You do not have the ability to see both sides nor can you comprehend that people that do not agree with you are not evil.

If your intentions,through your constant attacks on non-agricultural residents, is to drive a wedge between sportsman and farmers I'd say you are very accomplished at your intentions. I believe you are too intelligent to simply miss this point so I truely believe your intentions are as stated above. I don't know your motive for this but your divide and conquer attitude is very evident.

I will no longer discuss any facts with you but I will continue to point out your antisportsman/landowner push that your parlay on a daily basis. You will not see another opinion about the NDSA from me that is based on you. That has been my problem I know the large majority of stockman are not egotisical jackasses that wake everyday with the goal to end hunting in ND. The majority are the folks I see in my office daily, good folks that care about community, and neighbors.


----------



## gst

palinsman what you need to realize is the very people you are holding that mirror up for already know they are and do not care. So what good for the rest of agricultures perception of sportsmen do your comments really do. I have said on this site before there are jackass landowners such as there are jackass sportsmen. But as I realize making generalized comments about jackass sportsmen will likely accomplish little I try to refrain from doing so on sites like this.

If you recall we had a conversation a while back about a Federal biologist that met with the NDSA about becoming part of developing a mutually beneficial grazing conservation program thru an Ag research station here in ND our org supports this and supports eviromental stewardship in many ways. We have a program in conjunction with the NDG&F where by ranching operations and families are nominated and the best is selected to move on to regional and national competition. ND has had the honor of haveing regional participant be selected to move on to the national level. We also encourage and make our members aware of the programs existing thru the NRCS to develope workable enviromental production practices.

Our cattlemans org, the, NDSA has a Enviromental Services Director position whose sole duty is to work with producers to develope enviromentally sound production operations and practices. He does an excellent job with MANY projects accomplished and more in the works. NDSA STRONGLY beleives in land and water stewardhip. Thru partnerships where the land stays in private ownership, producers are working with gorups like DU to develope rotational grazing systems and the expansion of fall seeded crops. We simply beleive this is best for our countries future when this is done with the land remainging in private ownership rather than that of the govt. or large entities wether they be conservation OR ag corps. Kind of what the people that founded this country beleived. So perhaps if people take a break from the "blind bias" as was mentioned long ago in this thread, and take the time to inform themselves about ag and the orgs representing them alot of the rhetoric could be avoided. And as suggested perhaps ag has to tell our story better. It is something we are working on. If you recall we have had this very discussion about the conservation partnerships this one ag group beleives in and promotes before.

As I have gotten older, I have more readily accepted that simply because a very small percentage of sportsmen may make stupid comments or leave gates open, shoot up stuff with their 30-06,throw trash around, ect.... It does not mean the bulk of sportsmen are like that. Lands still maybe posted to take the priviledge of hunting the private lands I own away from those specific people but it does not mean others do not get that opportunity simply by having the respect for someone to introduce yourself and carry on a small conversation. MOST of ag is like this as well. But ultimately all the comments and BS do is make it a little harder for the average guy who thinks this kinda stuf is BS as well to have the opportunities they still do here in this state.

So all I ask is to stop and consider what the comments you refer to as "holding up a mirror" REALLY accomplish.


----------



## gst

I tell you what swift, come on up to Antler and I'll cook you a Waygu steak over the grill up at the Shack at the crick ( a community building a few of us built) and you can actually get to know me abit before jumping to conclusions. Perhaps you can see some of the commitment to community and neighbors many of us have up here by looking at what we have built and the pictures on the walls of seeding, harvesting, hay, building bees we have held for neighbors and communities. I'll even introduce you to many of these people that I am blessed to call not only my neighbors and community, but my friends. Perhaps some of the kids that are always present will share stories of how they have developed a great deal of pride in community thru what we do up here in our little corner of heaven.

Here is a website to check out. http://antlernd.com/ (check out the music on this site, it is pretty neat) In this site you will find a title called Antler Outlaws, it is a little "community" org of "neighbors" that I am very proud to have been a small part of founding.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabe-Tho ... 0760219244
Face book "Antler Outlaws" and see some of the family and community events we have thru out the year. You will get a glimpse into a little bit about our community, my neighbors, friends and what we do. It tells the story of a "community and neighbors" that is too often lacking in todays society.

Perhaps once again instead of "having better things to do" you should take me up on my invite to the NDSA's convention this Sept. Perhaps you will see many of those same "good folks" you see in your office everyday that are concenred about community and their neighbors that are members of this repsected cattlemans group that develope the policies they beleive are best not only for our industry but ultimately this country as a whole as well, and realize it is less "venomous" than you beleive. .

So swift the invitation is open to actually get to know a little about the people and orgs you seem ready to malign if you wish. I can promise you the steak will be as good as you have ever had.


----------



## Plainsman

> So all I ask is to stop and consider what the comments you refer to as "holding up a mirror" REALLY accomplish.


I believe both sides need to get things off their chest, so to speak. Then if they really care, and have an open mind as some claim, they can then make some progress. Without that both sides dig in. Without that one side looses. Sportsmen often loose with the legislature. One only need look at the non resident opener on geese at Devils Lake. I am very aware, since I have relatives that live there (I did as a child) relatives that farm there, relatives that guide there. It's all a form of commercialization of wildlife. Fellow sportsmen who come on here and picture it otherwise have other connections they will not admit. 
Our legislature is so one sided that they create some of the hard feelings against agriculture. We look at the laws they pass, and we know that it is heavily offset with farmers. Grain farmers in particular because cattlemen and especially those poor guys raising dairy cattle can't get away. If ag and sportsmen relations are to get better it's going to have to start in our legislature. They dumped on sportsmen as if we were secondary citizens this year. It leaves us sour and with very little respect.

If you think about it we got an opener so that we citizens of this state had a week or two without crowds. We grew up in North Dakota and open spaces is what we like. Many non residents don't understand that and think we are anti non resident. The fact is I hope they all have a very good time when they come, and I hope I get to meet some. However after getting that small token the legislature started taking it away this year. They did it for a few bucks, but created a lot of hard feelings. They essentially told us we were not as valuable as farmers. No one likes being a second class citizen. This is where the animosity arises from.

If your serious about compromising gst then you and I have a job to do. However, I don't see compromise as dealing with a hungry bear and letting him eat my left leg today to save my life. Tomorrow he is back, and he is hungry again. In the end I would only loose everything. I hope that's not the compromise you speak of, because that is the only compromise sportsmen have realized from our legislature.


----------



## shaug

It would seem some here are misguided in their assault on AG producers and landowners. They are not a sportsmens enemy as much as the rot within.

Everything you guys argue about from

No.1 grazing on federal lands
No.2 wolves and other predators
No.3 Consevation Easements
No.4 Conservation Biology
No.5 Wildlands Corridors
No.6 Biodiversity
No.7 $5 Dollar Gasoline
No.8 Statewildlife Grants
No.9 Legislation and legislators
No.10 Access
No.11 subsidies

can be found at

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website ... 202010.pdf

It is a long read but once you start you won't stop. It is from Eastmans.

Like I said ealier, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced the America's Great Outdoors Act of 2010. It was a bill that should have never been passed. A $900 million dollar rip off of the general treasurey.

http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/files/News ... 20Bill.pdf

The State Wildlife Grants Program. How well is that working? Read about it in that idahoforwildlife website.

Sportsmen the taxpayers and everyone is getting ripped off in the name of hunting but no, some of you guys want to lay blame on legislators, ranchers and landowners. Maybe you are trying to divert attention away from the real agenda?

Put the $900 million back in the general treasurey. This isn't about hunting, access or wildlife. It's a land grab.


----------



## gst

In another thread, shaug makes an accurate, factual point that for some reason I completely spaced out in regards to where the monies for these perpetual easements we were debating actually comes from. It was alluded to in the USFWS meeting I attended in Minot by Loyd Jones and it simply slipped my mind until I read shaugs comments. *It is NOT the taxpayers pockets as has been repeatedly suggested that will be "robbed" *. In actuality it comes from guess who, Big Oil. A trust fund paid for drilling off shore in the continental shelf of the coast of this country. Guess that kinda throws a monkey wrench in the "hands in the taxpayers pocket" or "robbing the taxpayer" arguement against volantary, single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial conservation programs.


----------



## Plainsman

> In actuality it comes from guess who, Big Oil. A trust fund paid for drilling off shore in the continental shelf of the coast of this country.


Where did you get that information? Is it a form of mitigation for damage to one aquatic ecosystem by enhancing freshwater ecosystems? That doesn't appear to be true mitigation. I would have thought they would have put that money into estuary recovery. What's the story on money shifting across aquatic ecosystem mitigation?


----------



## Bad Dog

I don't know what other states are doing with the money, and I don't know all of what ND is doing. However, I do know about one project that was funded with State Wildlife Grant money. It involved seeding areas back to native vegetation. These areas were probably 500+ acres. That to me is money well spent.

As for money for easements. Gst, you are partly correct. The Dakota Grassland Initative is proposed to use oil revenue. The easements that are currently purchased are purchased with the majority from Duck Stamp monies and some oil revenue.

If you think of the oil revenues as monies that the Government gets from 'leasing' public lands to oil companies, and the public as the government, then it is taxpayer's monies. The question one may ask is that if you support duck hunting for instance and buy a duck stamp and that money goes to the purchase of land to not only raise ducks but also is land that you can publicly hunt. Then comes Haliburton and uses part of that land to put up an oil production site. The site takes ten acres of that 'duck' land and makes it unuseable for duck production and hunting, wouldn't one like to see part of that 'lease' money go to replacing the land that was lost?

Another way to look at it would be if one owned cropland and Haliburton approached you for a 'lease' to produce oil on ten acres of your cropland, you could certainly take part of that lease money and acquire ten additional acres to make up for your loss, couldn't you?


----------



## gst

http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content ... der_id=191
These are the funds being used to fund the perpetual easements I was referencing the USFWS is promoting, The Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area.

From the link.

What projects are eligible?

Under stateside, a project must fit into a state's recreation plan, furthering its goals on recreation and open space. Usually each state has a ranking system that determines how grant funds will be spent. With federal acquisition, a project generally should be located within or adjacent to an established or proposed federal unit - park, refuge, forest, or federally-managed area - and be considered a priority by the administering agency.
What projects are eligible?

For over thirty years, LWCF has done much to create and maintain our system of state, local and national parks -- from local baseball fields to Yellowstone National Park -- and ensure equal access to parklands for all Americans. Since its inception, LWCF has helped state agencies and local communities acquire nearly seven million acres of land; in addition, LWCF has underwritten the development of more than 37,000 state and local park and recreation projects. Federal LWCF project sites include such popular recreational areas as Harper's Ferry in West Virginia, California's Big Sur Coast, and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Montana. Stateside LWCF project sites include New York City's Central Park, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, and Custer State Park in South Dakota, as well as thousands of local playgrounds, soccer fields, and baseball diamonds. End quote

Given the fact these funds are used to develope playgrounds and baseball fields, would it still be looked at as "greedy" to beleive they could also be used to compensate each subsequent generation that own the land for the regulations and encumberances these easements place upon them in a fair and equitable manner?

Or perhaps more voters will take shaugs outlook on these funds and push for them to be used in other manners of deficiet reductions of balancing this countires budget not tied to conservation and baseball fields at all. Think of the popularity a candadite would have if they advocated taking monie from big oil and give it directly back to the voter in the form of a gas tax rebate instead of setting aside more land for waterfowl production!  Perhaps people should realize that working together with ag in regards to these conservation easements instead of accusations of greed is in the long run best for conservation all together. Hmmmm where have we heard that before? :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Given the fact these funds are used to develope playgrounds and baseball fields, would it still be looked at as "greedy" to beleive they could also be used to compensate each subsequent generation that own the land for the regulations and encumberances these easements place upon them in a fair and equitable manner?


I can't believe your going to ask that question again. You don't catch on very fast. The answer is yes. I say that because it's perpetual easement vs. perpetual payment. To get locked into that would mean we pay your decendants how many thousand years? Why would we pay you when there are more landowners waiting to sign up for perpetual easements than funds to pay them? You wouldn't try to stop the program so your fellow farmers can't sign up would you? Wow. :eyeroll:



> I don't see compromise as dealing with a hungry bear and letting him eat my left leg today to save my life. Tomorrow he is back, and he is hungry again. In the end I would only loose everything. I hope that's not the compromise you speak of


So you didn't make any comments about the above statement. You mention mutually beneficial, but you don't comment on the above????

Funding: 


> The United States' Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a Federal program that was established by Act of Congress in 1964 to provide monies and matching grants to federal, state and local governments for the acquisition of land and water, and easements on land and water, for the benefit of all Americans.[1] The main emphases of the fund are recreation and the protection of national natural treasures in the forms of parks and protected forest and wildlife areas. LWCF has a broad-based coalition of support and oversight, including the National Parks Conservation Association, The Wilderness Society, and the Land Trust Alliance. The primary source of income to the fund is fees paid by companies drilling offshore for oil and gas to Minerals Management Service, with additional minor sources including the sale of surplus federal real estate and taxes on motorboat fuel.[1]


----------



## gst

Boy plainsman now you are even suggesting ag is "greedy" with big oils monies! Remember now this is not a case of a farmer with his hands in YOUR pockets. These are not your taa dollars. If you look in this link there are plenty of monies avalible in this fund to be "fair and equitable". But instead of realizing by working with ag (even though ag AND conservation together is still a minority) you would just as soon revert to your veiws of ag as greedy while the rest of the majority of voters that are tired of paying more taxes eyes these conservation funds sitting there and elects those that would follow shaugs lead and take these funds to balance the budget.



Plainsman said:


> I don't see compromise as dealing with a hungry bear and letting him eat my left leg today to save my life. Tomorrow he is back, and he is hungry again. In the end I would only loose everything. I hope that's not the compromise you speak of
> 
> So you didn't make any comments about the above statement.


What you do not seem to realize is what you are claiming you will lose is not even yours to start with. It is monies paid into a trust by oil companies. Realize these dollars are just as much the persons with the wetlands as they are yours. Yet you are asking them and each generation there after to give something up (the right to use their lands,wetlands)that should be compensated for to be fair and equitable, and what are YOU giving up to gain this benefit? Let me answer for you NOTHING. You as a member of society are receiving a benefit you are giving nothing up to gain and yet you accuse those in ag advocating for single generation conservation agreements of being "greedy" :eyeroll:

Plainsman wrote:
That is why we all need to step up to the plate and pay those people to restore wetlands. It will benefit us all, so they should not bear the whole burden :end quote

Apparently that perspective did not last long!

So what do you beleive these funds are best used for, building soccer and baseball fields or saving wetlands???? And when these wetlands are "saved" is not society gaining a benefit that lasts as long as the wetland (perpetual)? It seems perhaps in the current situation of one time compensated perpetual easement, it is society that is the bear coming back generation after generation eating something else (benefits of wetlands)in your idea of compromise. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Yet you are asking them and each generation there after to give something up (the right to use their lands,wetlands)that should be compensated for to be fair and equitable, and what are YOU giving up to gain this benefit


They are not giving up anything if you don't sign up. For those that do sign up the following generations are not giving up something they never had. The generations that signed up are the ones that received the benefit. It's their land to do with as they please. 
What am I giving up you ask? Your right as an individual nothing, but society is.  They will have money for more wetlands if they don't pay your descendants forever.



> What you do not seem to realize is what you are claiming you will lose is not even yours to start with


 Show me where I said it was. It's societies, and should benefit as many people as possible, for as many years as possible.



> That is why we all need to step up to the plate and pay those people to restore wetlands. It will benefit us all, so they should not bear the whole burden :end quote
> 
> Apparently that perspective did not last long!


That's still my perspective, I just don't plan to pay them forever. I expect if society pays to restore a wetland that it will stay restored. I would guess you think they should be paid forever also.

We all understand gst, we just don't agree.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> They are not giving up anything if you don't sign up. For those that do sign up the following generations are not giving up something they never had. The generations that signed up are the ones that received the benefit. It's their land to do with as they please.
> *What am I giving up you ask? Your right as an individual nothing, but society is. They will have money for more wetlands if they don't pay your descendants forever.[/*quote]
> 
> Plainsman this statement smacks a little of "greed" rather than a concern for being "fair and equitable" !
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I said it was. It's societies, and should benefit as many people as possible, for as many years as possible
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps even those people who are part of"society" that own those wetlands being encumbered?
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's still my perspective, I just don't plan to pay them forever. I expect if society pays to restore a wetland that it will stay restored. I would guess you think they should be paid forever also
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So in other words as long as you get what you want, you have no concern over being fair and equitable. :wink: How long is that wetland staying restored for?, how long is the landowner being compensated for? Kind of a "greedy" way to go about things is it not?


----------



## Plainsman

> So in other words as long as you get what you want, you have no concern over being fair and equitable. How long is that wetland staying restored for?, how long is the landowner being compensated for? Kind of a "greedy" way to go about things is it not?gst
> guest


You still are not getting it. I consider perpetual easements fair and equitable. I consider paying every generation wasting money since there are people ready to sign up for perpetual easements. I would like to see most artificial drains plugged. If it fell on their land and nature didn't have a drainage there then they need to understand the problems they create with artificial drains. They are lucky there are people willing to pay them to plug it. If things get bad enough and society sees the real problem it may get plugged without a payment in the future.

Say no to payments forever.


----------



## shaug

I don't know who pays to lease the gas oil and minerals on the Atlantic Continental Shelf. Maybe Sunoco Oil or the Pew Family? 
It generates $5 billion that goes into the US General Fund. Conservation and preservation organizations want $900 million per year of that money to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) act of 1965.

The usual new greens are involved.

The Access Fund 
American Canoe Association 
American Forests 
American Hiking Society 
American Land Conservancy 
American Rivers 
American Whitewater 
Appalachian Mountain Club 
Appalachian Trail Conservancy 
California State Parks Foundation 
Choose Outdoors 
City Parks Alliance 
Civil War Preservation Trust 
The Conservation Fund 
Conservation Trust for North Carolina 
Defenders of Wildlife 
Eastern Forest Partnership 
The Forest Guild 
Greater Yellowstone Coalition 
Highlands Coalition 
International Mountain Bicycling Association 
Land Trust Alliance 
The Land Trust for Central North Carolina 
The Mountaineers 
National Association of State Park Directors 
National Audubon Society 
National Association of State Outdoor Recreation Liaison Officers 
National Park Trust 
National Parks Conservation Association 
National Recreation and Park Association 
National Wildlife Federation 
National Wildlife Refuge Association 
The Nature Conservancy 
New Mexico Wildlife Federation 
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic 
Preservation 
North Country Trail Association 
Northern Forest Alliance 
Northern Forest Center 
Northern Sierra Partnership 
Outdoor Alliance 
Outdoor Industry Association 
Outdoors America 
Pacific Crest Trail Association 
The Pacific Forest Trust 
Partnership for the National Trails System 
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 
Sierra Business Council 
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests 
Sonoran Institute 
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition 
Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy 
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association 
Tennessee Parks and Greenways Foundation 
Trout Unlimited 
Truckee Donner Land Trust 
The Trust for Public Land 
Virginia Association of Parks 
The Vital Ground Foundation
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 
The Wilderness Society 
Western Rivers Conservancy
WinterWildlandsAlliance World Wildlife Fund

They have been busy writing letters and emails begging the Senators to not defund the $900 million.

http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/in-the-news.html

That is a lot of pressure brought to bear on our representatives.

HR 1 passed by the House on Feb. 19th 2011 would have done that and defunded a lot more worthless Democrat giveaways of the public treasurey. Have only heard that last night instead of the $68 billion that the House was looking to cut only $38 billion is going to be cut. Has anybody heard if the $900 million dollar LWCF was cut? I have only heard that Planned Parenthood was defunded. Good ridance.

Plainsman said,



> Say no to payments forever.


Good idea. The new greens would like the $900 million dollar payment per year from the public treasurey to "theirs" to be forever.

This isn't about hunting, access, greedy ranchers or wildlife conservation. Listen to what the president of the Sierra Club has to say.

http://www.lwcfcoalition.org/files/Colu ... tomlands(2).mp3

It is simply about acquiring more land. I think GST said it a looooong time ago. How much land is enough?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So in other words as long as you get what you want, you have no concern over being fair and equitable. How long is that wetland staying restored for?, how long is the landowner being compensated for? Kind of a "greedy" way to go about things is it not?gst
> guest
> 
> 
> 
> You still are not getting it. I consider perpetual easements fair and equitable. I consider paying every generation wasting money since there are people ready to sign up for perpetual easements. I would like to see most artificial drains plugged. If it fell on their land and nature didn't have a drainage there then they need to understand the problems they create with artificial drains. They are lucky there are people willing to pay them to plug it. If things get bad enough and society sees the real problem it may get plugged without a payment in the future.
> 
> Say no to payments forever.
Click to expand...

Plainsman, I "get" your position, My personal opinion is that your position is every bit as "greedy" as you claim some in ag are. I could understand if to a degree if indeed these dollars were actually coming out of "your" pocket. But they are not. A case of the pot calling the kettle black instead of anyone trying to reach a balance in which both conservation and agriculture benefit. So please do not try to claim you are.


----------



## shaug

Bad Dog said,



> As for money for easements. Gst, you are partly correct. The Dakota Grassland Initative is proposed to use oil revenue. The easements that are currently purchased are purchased with the majority from Duck Stamp monies and some oil revenue.


Duck Stamp money?????? The Dakota Grasslands Iniative may have $588 million at its disposal to purchase easements. How many Ducks Stamps is that?


----------



## Plainsman

> My personal opinion is that is every bit as "greedy" as you claim some in ag are.


At last. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I think perpetual easements are just fine, and it would be silly to pay more when people are already accepting what is fair. If you think that's greedy I can live with that. I think wanting to be paid over and over, and over, is greedy. I guess you will have to learn to live with that.


----------



## gst

Okay, lets do a breif recap of the last 10 pages, I have been fairly consistantly advocating FOR consevation easements that are volantary, single generation, renewable, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial for ALL involved, ag, conservation, and society that may ultimately result in more acres enrolled in conservation programs. I have suggested that right from the begining that society may indeed look at the monies going to idle lands thru conservation and think there are indeed better uses for this money and conservation will suffer as a result. I have been classified as "greedy" "against conservation" against sportsmen, "against hunting" a " bully" ect...

We then have an individual (sorry shaug to focas the wrath of some against you, particularily when part of me agrees with your thought process involving these dollars) that suggests rather than spending these dollars on ANY conservation they should be taken and reduce the deficiet, conservation be damned, and not one single person speaks out against this ideology and yet this is a "nonpersonal" debate focasing soley on the issues. Right. So carry on with this "fact based" debate with it's clear history of accurate claims being made. Perhaps the uninformed will indeed be informed. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> Okay, lets do a breif recap of the last 10 pages


Lets, not bother. It's simply a money scam. I am for no perpetual payments. The subject however was supposed to be tile. I do have one question. Since perpetual payments was your pet why didn't you simply start a thread on that? We could have ignored that. Maybe. 
gst, I think you want to sign up real bad. However, you can't get the price you want. I'm afraid your solution is to try destroy what is in place so farmers who do want to sign perpetual easements can not. Not only does that cheat society that cheats your fellow farmers who want the perpetual easements. Even if you got a program going that paid each generation, I would hope no money was ear tagged for it because the money can all be used for perpetual easements that farmers want to sign.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think you want to sign up real bad.


plainsman I would like to sign up some of these lands into a conservation easement if it was a single generation, fair and equitable, mutually beneficial agreement for EVERY generation that will follow both in sociey AND agriculture. Hey because we beleive in conservation we are doing these things on some of our land already, may as well get paid for doing them right! :wink: But as I have alluded to the contracts avalible are NOT binding and can be changed thru and Act of Congress and I will not leave the consequences of my bad decisions for others to deal with. After all as it was said earlier, "the people that signed up for these type agreements were not very smart" .

I find it ironic that someone that is supposedly advocating for conservation is critisizing someone that is also advocating for conservation for being "greedy" and yet has nothing to say about someone elses plan to take monies avalible for conservation away from conservation.


----------



## shaug

gst said,



> We then have an individual (sorry shaug to focas the wrath of some against you, particularily when part of me agrees with your thought process involving these dollars) that suggests rather than spending these dollars on ANY conservation they should be taken and reduce the deficiet, conservation be damned, and not one single person speaks out against this ideology and yet this is a "nonpersonal" debate focasing soley on the issues. Right. So carry on with this "fact based" debate with it's clear history of accurate claims being made. Perhaps the uninformed will indeed be informed.


No problem, I can handle any wrath directed against me. I am one of the biggest of cheerleaders for conservation. My property is looking better now than when I purchased it. I support spending money through NRCS for trees rows etc. However, what I am against, is giving money to organizations of plainsmans ilk and mindset. Somewhere in here plainsman made a reference to Joseph Stalin. When Stalin turned his red hordes loose on the agrarian peoples of Russia, he had a name lumping ranchers, farmers, herders and peasants together. He called them the "greedy kuluks." Sound familiar.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, as ornery as you are about what you want I do admire your commitment to conservation. As strongly as I debate you I could find myself supporting you in other controversial matters. With that said:



> I find it ironic that someone that is supposedly advocating for conservation is critisizing someone that is also advocating for conservation for being "greedy" and yet has nothing to say about someone else's plan to take monies avalible for conservation away from conservation.


I don't want anything taken away, I want the most bang for the (not mine) buck. That would certainly not be paying multiple times for the same thing. When an agreement is made on a perpetual easement both parties gamble against the future. The farmer gambles that the worth of his property is not going up, and the conservation organization gambles that it is and the price they are offering will save them money in the long run. I would guess with the country broke subsidies will disappear. I don't think the future looks as good as the past for farm profit, following I think land prices will go down. With that in mind signing for a perpetual easement today will be in your benefit, we just don't know the magnitude of that benefit.

The next landowner isn't necessarily a looser either. He will enjoy sufficient ground water which will support wells, irrigation, surrounding crops longer soil moisture duration in the spring. Of course that will depend largely on the land contour. If fields are 100 feet above the wetland there will be little influence. If the topography is relatively flat and fields are close and only a few feet above the wetland that groundwater will influence soil moisture for a longer period in the spring. Maybe only a few days, maybe only a couple weeks, maybe a month. It is dependent on many variables.



> Somewhere in here plainsman made a reference to Joseph Stalin.


Yes I did and I can tell by the context you use it in that you didn't understand a thing I was saying. If your going to get ticked that's your right, but for goodness sake at least know what your ticked about. Your going to be ticked at the whole world if you don't understand what people say. What you describe is more along the writings of Obama's friend Bill Ayers.

gst, you know that off shore drilling money your talking about? It doesn't belong to me or you. It's purpose is to mitigate. The people in charge of distributing that money should distribute it in a manner that gets the most bang for the buck. That certainly would not include your plan. I'm not sure fair even plays into that. I would guess free market has more influence than the liberal/socialist idea of "fair".


----------



## shaug

Plainsman said,



> Yes I did and I can tell by the context you use it in that you didn't understand a thing I was saying. If your going to get ticked that's your right, but for goodness sake at least know what your ticked about. Your going to be ticked at the whole world if you don't understand what people say. What you describe is more along the writings of Obama's friend Bill Ayers.


I have been reading you long enough to understand. We would not even be having this conversation about perpetual easements if the funding dried up. And it should. We are borrowing trillions from the Chinese to cover the basic budget essentials to keep our country operating while at the same time siphoning off and diverting incoming monies to the general treasurey.

Plainsman said,



> gst, you know that off shore drilling money your talking about? It doesn't belong to me or you. It's purpose is to mitigate.


Huh?????????? This is all backwards. Let's put the oil and gas lease money into the general treasurey. Let's fund social security public education infastructure and all those sacred cows that the Democrats hold up in the air when it's time to get serious about cuts. When it comes time to borrow trillions from China let's ask the general public who among us wants to deficit spend and give $900 million to the USFWS and conservation orgs to buy perpetual easements on land to shut down economic development? 
Now that we have this context thing figured out how do you think the the people would vote?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, you know that off shore drilling money your talking about? It doesn't belong to me or you. It's purpose is to mitigate. The people in charge of distributing that money should distribute it in a manner that gets the most bang for the buck. That certainly would not include your plan. I'm not sure fair even plays into that. I would guess free market has more influence than the liberal/socialist idea of "fair".


So now I'm a liberal/socialist? 

plainsman, I think perhaps you are confused. A portion of these dollars are indeed set aside for mitigation of damages, but a portion are also earmarked for conservation projects. And a few ball diamonds and soccer fields as well! (Clearly a tremendous "bang for the buck" from a conservation standpoint. :-? And yet where is the outrage over these "greedy" soccer moms with their "hands in your pockets" "robbing the taxpayer" from all these conservtion dollars????  I wonder if any of these playing fields have drains in them that CAUSES flooding? :wink: ) Do you bother to take the time to actually read the links that are provided?


----------



## gst

shaug, I popsted this in another thread. 
http://www.fishingbuddy.com/a_crossroad ... nd_anglers

Here is the response of some of the folks you have mentioned when this very thing you are suggesting (which has pretty good merit) is in fact reality. Combine this with beating ag over the head with comments such as we have seen on here, and what is left of conservation?

If it gets to the point where society is wondering where the next dollar to buy food will come from, does anyone beleive they are going to keep electing people that will continue to put these millions of dollars and productive lands into easements wether they are perpetual or not? Tell me one politician that will stand up to a society that is demanding lower food costs and more production and say they beleive these lands should stay under these easements for conservations sake. These conservation easements and the dollars allocated for them will be sold down the road for votes so fast your head will spin. And then what is left. The decision of the producer/owner wether they will keep these lands in conservation at this time when there is no funding left will depend soley on the producers own committment to conservation. And surely ag producers that have been branded as "greedy" ect... and repeatedly hit over the head with threats of "we'll take your subsidies away if you don't do what is good for sportsmen" by people with no understanding of this countries food security policies, will be waiting to work hand in hand with the very people using this rhetoric at this time. And so what is left of conservation if the producer has a taste left in his mouth from the rhetoric we have seen in this thread? If this is the long range plan of looking out for conservation, someone may want to go back to the drawing board. Fortunately there are conservation depts such as NRCS and others in academia that are proactively and positively working with ag to develope mutually benefitial, sustainable production methods based on conservation principles. Hopefully in the long run, their positive efforts that many producers such as myself are a part of will outweigh the rhetoric of others. Otherwise years from now. with the direction this country and world is going we will likely be asking, what is left of conservation.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, Quit trying to be the better person. We all know how GST operates. He attacks, then twists and turns things to fit his own agenda.


Ya, I often say no good dead goes unpunished. Try to by sympathetic only gets you kicked in the teeth. Evidently you have noticed how twisted some things get.

Example: 
One person commented they went to a chem rep and asked about the safety of a chemical. Another responded with:


> As for going and asking a chemical rep if their product is safe that is similar to asking a used car salesman what kind of shape their vehicles are in.


I thought that was accurate and added:


> I was thinking it would be like asking Joseph Stalin if communism was ok.


On this thread it was portrayed that I had said:


> what I am against, is giving money to organizations of plainsmans ilk and mindset. Somewhere in here plainsman made a reference to Joseph Stalin. When Stalin turned his red hordes loose on the agrarian peoples of Russia, he had a name lumping ranchers, farmers, herders and peasants together. He called them the "greedy kuluks." Sound familiar.


Did I mention farmers on there? No, I just compared asking a chem rep about safe chemicals was like asking Stalin about communism. How do I debate people who can't understand English?

Also on another thread.


> You really think we can feed our country on organic (let alone have enough left over to export, ya, ag products, the only thing besides "ideas" the US exports anymore)?!?!?!





> Oh, I'm not an organic freek. Back when I went to college in the 1960's I didn't think there was anything dumber than the women that were the hippy sort and liked to say "it's Ooooooranic". Cyanide is organic too if I remember right.


Gst responded with:


> Now you piss off the organic farmers by refering to them as "freeks" Is there anyone involved in ag you don't have an agenda against???


Please noticed I was simply letting people know I was not extreme in my view of organic. I said organic freak, but went on to give an example of an organic freak. Did I mention organic farmer anywhere? No, of course not. What you need to understand is that when people twist things this much they do so because they can not have their way through logical reason. Swift is right, things are twisted and any sign of sympathy is also misinterpreted as weakness. Little wonder they can't understand why we don't want to pay them forever.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Gst responded with:
> 
> Now you piss off the organic farmers by refering to them as "freeks" Is there anyone involved in ag you don't have an agenda against???


plainsman, you forgot to include everything I responded with. Recall the  at the end. I thought with your earlier references to "poking fun" and having a "sense of humor" it would have been clear that this statement as posted with the smiley icon was simply an example of someone with a sense of humor poking a little fun.

quote "Man plainsman, first you piss off conventional farmers with your comments about "greed at it's darkest, ag being a welfare state, hands in the taxpayers pocket, lazy farmers sitting in the legislature", ect..... Now you piss off the organic farmers by refering to them as "freeks" Is there anyone involved in ag you don't have an agenda against???  "end quote

You aren't going to keep on "whining" about this now are you, cause I thought this thread was about tiling? 

You wouldn't be "backpedaling" once again to avoid pissing off the organic farmers too would you? 

(Please note the smiley icon behind the above two statements. It indicates a tongue in cheek, poking fun type response. !!!) :wink:

Apparently "poking fun" is only allowed by some on here and I'm the only one with a sense of humor! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Apparently "poking fun" is only allowed by some on here and I'm the only one with a sense of humor!


Oh, ya, it is, but I got conditioned like Pavlov's dog on the political form. A number of times, and on serious subjects some liberal will make a questionable comment followed by a smiley face as if that makes everything ok. I always took it as the guy was a coward to say it without the smiley, not as humor. Not an attitude that a little 2X4 therapy wouldn't help. I could be wrong.

When I am serious sometimes the humor escapes me. I look at it like this. A guy wants to say something demeaning, but wants everyone else to think they are funny. Like we really don't catch on.

I think your so conditioned to having ag's behind kissed that this thread is driving you nuts. Like I said I wish I could find the smiley that has the guy bowing down like a slave, and I would not use it as humor. Tile/drain causes problems for everyone else. Perpetual payments is a way for ag to enslave the taxpayer.

Now if you really want to talk tile tell me how it benefits those other than the individual farmer.


----------



## Bad Dog

In watching the local news tonight and see the large mass of water in the Red River Valley, I mean that thing is huge! I wonder how tiling would not only not contribute to that issue but would also alleviate flooding there (as reported by some who are tied to the tile industry and put on an old fashioned revival)?


----------



## shaug

Painsman said,



> I think your so conditioned to having ag's behind kissed that this thread is driving you nuts. Like I said I wish I could find the smiley that has the guy bowing down like a slave, and I would not use it as humor. Tile/drain causes problems for everyone else. Perpetual payments is a way for ag to enslave the taxpayer.
> 
> Now if you really want to talk tile tell me how it benefits those other than the individual farmer.


When an individual farmer takes out a loan to install tile he is betting on the future of agriculture, his own work ethic and mother nature to help him prosper and pay back that loan with interest. In the mix of all this the banker is going to want some collaterall, (land, equipment or something tangible) to back up this loan.

When our government borrows money at interest from China to purchase perpetual easements on land ($588 million), what is our government putting up for collaterall? Surely the Chinese are not accepting an IOU. Are we mortaging the future sweat of our childrens brow? Will our grandchildren have to labor to repay this loan and interest? Maybe the Chinese will own the perpetual easements someday when we default.

The government shutdown last friday night has turned into a big joke. The Republicans were able to cut $38 billion in spending and the debt ceiling was increased by $58 billion.

I read the article GST posted......http://www.fishingbuddy.com/a_crossroad ... nd_anglers

It is a good read. The usual whining. Please don't cut our subsidy. We do so much good. Even Planned Parenthood passed itself off as something good at one time and got $300 million. The trouble is all the letter writing and emailing pressureing our Congressmen to give us largesses from the general treasurey. We have 11 million people involved in manufactoring, farming, forestry etc. We have 22 million people in government. We have already exported most of our manufacturing jobs, what I would like to know is when can we begin to export some of these government jobs?


----------



## Plainsman

shaug, I share many of your political opinions. Here is a reality that I am not advocating, but some should think about. Government is not some fantasy organization, it is us. As such it would be impossible to replace them with Chinese. You don't have to prove your a citizen to be president I guess, but you do have to for government employment. Farm produce on the other hand is imported all of the time and more could be imported. It would be like the liberals to advocate the buffalo commons and import a lot more food. Remember now, this is not what I advocate, it's just a worse case scenario.



> When an individual farmer takes out a loan to install tile he is betting on the future of agriculture, his own work ethic and mother nature to help him prosper and pay back that loan with interest. In the mix of all this the banker is going to want some collaterall, (land, equipment or something tangible) to back up this loan.


I wish that independent thinking the best of luck. However, I hope they know what they are doing. I hope they know the depth to groundwater, the water chemistry and possibilities of surface stagnation points that could cause highly alkaline soil that cuts production and income. After all your not only making more money with more bushel per acre, but your saving fuel with higher bushel per acre. Less invested is as good as more earned.



> The government shutdown last friday night has turned into a big joke. The Republicans were able to cut $38 billion in spending and the debt ceiling was increased by $58 billion.


Well, yes and no. We should have reduced it by more, but since Boehner only wanted 32 billion and got 38.5 he didn't do real bad. The tea party wanted 60 billion and that would have been better. The bad thing about the Obama budget is it would have cut our defense way to much, and increased welfare. It would have been a huge increase in spending, and now Obama wants to claim credit for the cut. What a dishonest person Obama is.

Since you didn't get nasty after my correction on your post I hope you do understand that when I talk about some ag being greedy that I am not talking about all farmers, and sometimes not even farmers but groups who claim to represent them. Thank you for a thoughtful post that I could respond to without trying to defend myself.


----------



## gst

Bad Dog said:


> In watching the local news tonight and see the large mass of water in the Red River Valley, I mean that thing is huge! I wonder how tiling would not only not contribute to that issue but would also alleviate flooding there (as reported by some who are tied to the tile industry and put on an old fashioned revival)?


Bad Dog, It has been claimed that tiling depletes the water aquifers as well as the ability of soil to hold water. If that is indeed the case this spring, this water you are seeing in the RRV should have been able to be absorbed by the dried out soil and carried down to these depleted aquifers with the tiling that exists. Can anyone explain why this is not happening this spring? Surely it could not be that the soils are saturated, the aquifers are full or the frost has not yet left the ground allowing for soils to absorb this water and this water simply has no where to go but "downhill".


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Farm produce on the other hand is imported all of the time and more could be imported. It would be like the liberals to advocate the buffalo commons and import a lot more food. Remember now, this is not what I advocate, it's just a worse case scenario


If the plains area of this country was to be returned to a "buffalo commons" you could not afford the food this country would have to import. Take the ag production this area creates out of the supply chain and see what happens to the cost of food in this country.


----------

