# Confined Hog Farms in Pembina River Country



## Tom Fischer (Jan 22, 2003)

What are your thoughts on the confined hog operation proposed just north of the Canadian border. This operation is very close to the Pembina Gorge, a 40 mile long area that is home to all kind of outdoor recreation. Hunting(elk, moose,deer) and other activities (snowmobiling, hiking, horseback riding, fourwheeling, golf, skiing) . These activities are available within five - ten miles of Walhalla. My concerns are only about water quality in the Pembina River and air quality (odor) in the Gorge. This is a potential gold mine of outdoor activities for everyone to enjoy. So far


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I grew up in Martin County of Minnesota in prime corn and soybean country. Unfortunately, Martin County now has the honor of having more hogs per capita than any county in the entire U.S. The smell of hogs is absolutely enough to make a person gag. When I visit family in the summer, I have to drive around with my AC on "recirc" instead of pulling in air from the outside. Even the well-water has a bad smell.

A proposed hog farm just north of Walhalla is not good news. Residents and users of the area will have to live with the environmental impacts without any economic benefit.

There has also been talk of bring hog farms into parts of North Dakota as a means of economic development. True, hog farming can bring in money to an area. However, conversations with hog farmers suggest that most of the money to be made is not by them, but by the Canadian firms that actually own the hogs. The way I understand it, the farmer does not usually own the hogs, but only raises and sells them. Therefore, the farmer is getting paid for use of his labor and facility. The profits from the sale, however, go to a firm north of the border. If the money stayed local or even in the U.S., I'd feel better about it. Do we really want to sell out to benefit a foreign company?

The final say as to whether industrial hog farms will come to ND should really be left to the residents of a given area. However, I hope that they do not look at the dollar signs instead of thinking about the loss of clean air and clean water.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Tom, thanks for your first post. For those of you who don't know Tom, he's a very dear friend of the resident sportsperson.

On the subject of the post, there are many things promoted under the "sacred cow" (to some) of "economic development" that need to be scrutinized and carefully condsidered. Economic Development is great, but not when there are immediate and long-term economic and other negative consequences to most everyone other than the profiteers.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I can see (hope) :roll: things like this get brought up (as well as the ban on Canadian Beef) - when Canada objects to the Devils Lake outlet (politics is a weird way to get things done) :roll:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Mr. Fischer, I second Dan's opinion that we would like to clone you about fifty times for the next session.

I believe the Canadians pulled the application for the permit, and as a grain farmer, sportsman, and just general Nodaker, I am glad. Manatoba is playing hell with confined hog farms they have already approved.

The Cando area is getting 2 of these units, I believe, over strong local opposition. This is just upstream from the Devils Lake drainage. These animal confinement units are targeted to areas of low population. Each unit will churn 55,000 210 lb hogs per year. The pigs are received at 40 lbs. Someone can correct me on the feed conversion, but I think it is 4:1, meaning 4 lbs of feed for 1 lb of gain. That is 680 lbs of waste per animal, or 78,800,000 lbs of liquid waste each year. The finished animals are then shipped back to Canada for killing and resale into the US. Canada gets the $$$ and Nodak gets the waste.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Waste and odor are my concerns after living in Wi where both hog and dairy farms dotted the land scape. The solid waste runoff affected many wetland area's and also the watersupply adding nitrate levels to the point that many wells became unuseable even for livestock use. WI has a higher level of waste disposal than ND and even with those in place problems where still surfacing. Would there be insurance in place to offset contamination cleanup or will local and state tax payers be liable for this.

While a balance needs to be met I would hope the enviromental impact is not ignored even though our stands for disposal would be met. The old adage it is to late to shut the door once the horse is out of the barn really needs to be looked at hard with these operations. My next question would be how they fit into our current corporate farming law, and are the adjacent landowners being considered with increased or decreased land values and taxation.

This issue like many we see make benift a few but penalize others causing even more animosity and discord in our rural settings.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Posted on Fri, Nov. 07, 2003

AREA BUSINESS: Elite Swine withdraws hog farm application
By Xiao Zhang
Herald Staff Writer

An application for a 6,000-hog feeding operation in Manitoba, about half a mile north of the U.S.-Canada border and 10 miles from Walhalla, N.D., was withdrawn Thursday at the public hearing for the issue in Morden, Man.

Manitoba company Elite Swine Inc. withdrew the application after the council members of Rural Municipality of Stanley unanimously rejected its request to have the hearing adjourned, said Rick Klippenstein, chief administrative officer of the rural municipality.

About 200 people attended Thursday's hearing. An Elite Swine representative read a letter from the company requesting the postponement of the matter until April.

"There are significant differences between Canadian requirements for operation of a feeder barn as compared to U.S. requirements," reads a letter the company submitted to the council. "ESI would like an opportunity to ensure that there is enough time for all parties to study this unique application and complete additional due diligence."

About half a dozen opponents to the hog farm proposal, including North Dakota state Sen. Tom Trenbeath, R-Cavalier, spoke against delaying the hearing process, Klippenstein said.

Many northeast North Dakota opponents are worried about water quality, odor and what the operation could do the area's growing tourism industry.

The council voted unanimously to deny the request for adjournment. Elite Swine withdrew its application. In the company's letter to the council, it said the company will resubmit the application next year.

The hearing lasted half an hour. Twenty-three people had signed up to speak on the issue, Klippenstein said. The landowner who submitted the hog farm application with Elite Swine did not attend.

"People were basically cordial," Klippenstein said.

Dean Hildebrand, who farms in the Morden, Man., area, said he does not expect Elite Swine will make an effort to gain the support of area residents.

"They never came to visit with anybody in the area to see what our concerns were," he said. "We feel very strongly we do not want to see the operation in our area, and we don't want to go through this again."

N.D. 'victory'

North Dakota residents strongly opposed to the hog operation near the Pembina River Gorge, and who held informational town meetings on the issue and cooperated with Canadian farmers also against the proposal, felt Thursday's withdrawls was a victory for them.

"It's a tremendous victory," said Melanie Thornberg, executive director of the Walhalla (N.D.) Chamber of Commerce. "This is "taking back the land" for the people ... . We want to make sure (Elite Swine) know they are not welcome in the Pembina River Gorge."

About 25 people from North Dakota attended the hearing, with a few of them signed up to address the audience, she said. She had also collected more than 100 signatures on a petition against the hog operation.

Trenbeath said he is pleased with the result.

"Feeding hogs - or any animals - for market is an acceptable way to do business," he said. "Where you do it is the question."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When I think back to the corporate farming bill testimony in the legislature last session, the National Pork Producers testified in favor of expanding corporate farming ventures. Farm Bureau also worked hard for that bill which was defeated. Thanks to you sportsmen, ordinary folks, and the ND Farmers Union for the defeat of that bill. Makes you wonder if the expansion wasn't already in the works. DM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

I spend a good deal of time in IA with family where there are a lot of hog confinements and trust me...

You don't want ND to smell like IA. :lost:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Research what these type of hog operations have done to North Carolina, Smithfield farms has destroyed the water quality in areas of North Carolina. Its really bad and the local farmers and residents don't end up making the money but their communtiy becomes a cesspool!


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Bobm said:


> Research what these type of hog operations have done to North Carolina, Smithfield farms has destroyed the water quality in areas of North Carolina. Its really bad and the local farmers and residents don't end up making the money but their communtiy becomes a cesspool!


Bobm, once again you are so confused. You sounded a little liberal in your post.

What W and his cronies want to do about farm pollution:

EPA secretly considering amnesty for livestock farm polluters
May 05, 2003: Behind closed doors the Environmental Protection Agency has discussed giving industrial livestock farms amnesty from federal air quality and toxic waste cleanup laws. The agency and industry groups have confirmed the private negotiations, but insist that no final agreement has been reached. Under the tentative plan, the EPA would monitor pollution levels at 30 or so large hog and chicken operations -- through a planned $11 million research program -- rather than enforce the Clean Air Act and Superfund laws industry-wide. Many local environmental regulators balked at this sweet deal for industry and pulled out of the negotiations in protest last November. They pointed out that EPA already has the authority to order farms to monitor pollution. Environmental groups said this unprecedented scheme would let polluters off the hook by offering factory farms safe harbor from environmental law and give amnesty for any past violations.

"This backroom deal smells every bit as bad as the stench from these animal factories," said John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) Clean Air Program. "It is yet another example of the Bush administration trying to dismantle our bedrock environmental laws at the expense of public health."

EPA factory-farm rule favors polluters
December 15, 2002: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a final rule on controlling factory farm pollution that will allow agribusinesses to continue to foul the nation's waterways with animal waste. Large-scale animal factories, which raise thousands of animals and produce 220 billion gallons of manure annually, now dominate animal production across the country. These large-scale operations routinely over-apply liquid waste on land, which runs off into waterways, killing fish, spreading disease, and contaminating drinking water supplies. They also emit toxic fumes into the air.

Thirty years ago, Congress identified concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as point sources of water pollution to be regulated under the Clean Water Act's water pollution permitting program. However, the scale of animal production at individual operations has dramatically increased since then. As a result, the regulations that EPA developed in the 1970s are outdated and inadequate. In 1992, EPA was forced to finalize a new rule by December 15, 2002, under a judicial consent decree between NRDC and the agency.

Environmental groups had urged EPA to adopt a rule that would keep animal waste out of rivers and lakes, hold corporate owners responsible for spills, and guarantee adequate public participation. The Clinton EPA proposed a new rule featuring several initiatives that would have protected the environment, but the Bush administration stripped them from the final rule after agribusinesses complained. As a result, the new rule will:

legalize discharges of runoff contaminated with nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria and metals into already polluted rivers and streams; 
fail to update technology standards to tighten controls on water pollution, allowing factory farms to continue discharging raw waste; 
allow factory farms to write their own permit conditions; 
shield corporations that own the livestock from liability for the environmental damage they cause; 
create new loopholes in the law, shielding factory farms from liability for animal wastes running off the land into waterways.

"The Bush rule puts polluters first," said Melanie Shepherdson, an attorney with NRDC's Clean Water Project. "The EPA gave agribusiness increased protection from liability for polluting our waterways. It's a sweet deal for factory farm polluters, but it stinks for the rest of us."

This rule is yet another example of how contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign are getting what they paid for, Shepherdson added. She pointed out that during the 2000 election, the Bush-Cheney campaign received $2,636,625 from agribusiness, including $647,285 from the dairy, livestock, and poultry and egg industries. President Bush received more livestock industry contributions ($506,085) in the 2000 election campaign than any other federal candidate received between 1990 and 2000.

RC


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

When Bush and the republicans Start calling me for directions I'll ask for a raise! I told you I don't blindly support them but the war on terrorism is still number 1 on my list( and the Democrats are up to their necks in this type of thing as well ( the cesspool of Smithfield Farms in NC I speak of) occured during the Clinton administration . Now that the country is fighting terrorism and ithe residual economic effects of Sept. 11 should the government take further action to increase unemployment, I think not! This problem wasn't created overnight and it will take time to solve. IF the environmental movement hadn't been hijacked by such a bunch of extremists they would have the credibility to control this type of abuse. I freely critisize republicans when its deserved!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Nov. 11/03

N.D. HOG OPERATIONS : E-mail prompts ag department to plan meeting
Both sides will be invited to statewide informational session
By Xiao Zhang
Herald Staff Writer

Heated discussions on a proposed hog-feeding operation near the Pembina Gorge in southern Manitoba in the past month have prompted the North Dakota Department of Agriculture to plan a state-wide informational meeting on the issue.

The meeting, expected to take place in February or March, is in the preliminary planning stage, and a steering committee will be set up, said Jeff Weispfenning, deputy commissioner of the agriculture department.

The meeting will be strictly "fact-based," he said, and experts supporting and opposing large-scale livestock operations will be invited, Weispfenning said.

The proposed meeting is a direct response to a mass e-mail sent by Walhalla Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Melanie Thornberg. Reflecting on Elite Swine's decision last week to withdraw its application for a 6,000-hog feeding operation about 10 miles away from Walhalla, Thornberg suggested in her e-mail that the state set up "a moratorium, or a meeting, or a conference" to address the issue.

The Walhalla Chamber of Commerce has strongly opposed Elite Swine's proposal because of its proximity to the Pembina River Gorge, where local groups are trying to develop tourism.

Weispfenning forwarded the e-mail to the state's Ag Commissioner, Roger Johnson, and a decision was made on the meeting.

But a statewide moratorium on large-scale hog feeding operations seems out of the question for now, as "I'm not sure if anybody has the authority to," Weispfenning said. Local authorities generally decide on such applications, but applicants need to get a permit from the state health department.

"We think there are opportunities for livestock production in the state," Weispfenning said. He quickly added that such operations need to have the approval of local residents.

The fact-finding meeting will include the economic opportunities and potential environmental concerns on the issue.

Many communities across the country are debating whether to let in large livestock feeding operations. Just last week, Johnson attended a conference for Midwest agricultural officials addressing environmental issues concerning livestock operations, Weispfenning said.

In North Dakota, Ramsey County commissioners have put a hold on building new livestock feeding operations through the end of the year to allow more time to study zoning issues. Pressure from opposition also forced Elite Swine to abandon its plans to build a large hog farm in the Langdon, N.D., area in July.

Weispfenning said large livestock operations in the southwestern part of the state also have raised concerns.

The statewide meeting is likely to be in Fargo or Grand Forks because the eastern part of the state has more agricultural products to feed livestock, he said.

Besides the ag department, Cavalier County is organizing a training seminar for next year for township officers on zoning issues.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

High time too! DM


----------



## MTPheas (Oct 8, 2003)

http://www.themeatrix.com/


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

What a Great well done Infomercial :lol:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

As ND counties become depopulated, these mega corporate farms are going attempt to move into our state. ND Farm organizations and ND Sportsman organizations need to take a stand. Doubtless some of these issues will appear in the next legislative session and we need to be prepared.

Dave Metzger writes a farm issues column and this from his lastest issue:
"This is the good neighbor statement endorsed by the Coalition to Support 
Iowa's Farmers: It takes two to be a good neighbor. As a farmer, I will be 
mindful of. . .***All laws and regulations, using best management practices 
that can minimize odor, dust and noise, the environment when planning and 
conducting farming practices, providing the best possible care to the animals 
and livestock that I raise. **Motorists and avoid, whenever possible, driving 
farm equipment on high-traffic road.*** The need to explain what I do and why, 
helping consumers gain a greater appreciation for food production. ***My 
neighbors- assisting those in need and asking for help when I'm in need." 
How does their policy square with the following letter I received? "Dear 
David, I enjoy reading FARM NEWS and usually turn to your column first. I 
would like to expand a little on the topic of hog odors that was in the paper 
that came out two weeks ago. I counted up on my fingers the ten closest 
residents to our home. Yes, it is a Century Farm, my grandfather bought it in 
1883 paying $2,000 for the 160 acres. I often hear about town people moving to 
the country and building new houses next to hog facilities and complaining 
about the smell. Well, I have the newest house around here, but it is over 60 
years old. Three of my closest neighbors are farmers. One of the three has 
hogs. The other seven have bought acreages from farmers who have retired and 
moved to town, or have died and the widow sold the place and moved. 
"I don't think people should be required to put up with a foul-smelling 
environment just because their occupation is something other than farming. I 
mentioned one of my neighbors raises hogs. He is one of the very few left. We 
are surrounded by hogs owned by Smithfield Foods, Swine Graphics and others, 
including one from Canada. The one just 80 rods south of my house with a big 
open storage pit is owned by a man living in Fort Dodge. The hogs were 
formally Murphy's and now Smithfield Foods. Believe me, the odor is bad! Thank 
you for letting me get it off my mind." 
I've gotten others like it. They are often from long time rural residents 
who typically tell of someone who builds a new hog finishing setup at the end 
of their driveway, with absentee owners which live no where near the hogs 
being produced. 
The one criterion left out of the Coalition's Good Neighbor policy is that 
in order to be a good neighbor you have to live in the same proximity. Having 
hogs next to neighbors is not the same thing as living there yourself. Unless 
you live and breathe the same air, you just aren't neighbors. You can have a 
Century Farm, an absentee livestock producer can drop thousands of pigs at the 
end of your driveway and the Farm Bureau would defend them against you and you 
could have been a Farm Bureau member all your life. 
These aren't the kind of operations that the Coalition promotes in its 
public relations campaign. They talk about long time family farmers, young 
people trying to get a start in agriculture. They are struggling because of 
the backlash from those who could care less about anything but the corporate 
plan. The radical nature of the CCI is the result of physics. 
For every action there is a reaction. CCI's idea of a corporate farmer 
appears to be anyone with a modern livestock operation. The real question is 
whether the coalition will diffuse the rancor and animosity splitting rural 
residents or inflame it. The Register wrote, "When CCI marched to the home of 
the Farm Bureau's organizational director, Denny Presnall of Ankeny, to demand 
that the Farm Bureau stop supporting large-scale confinements, the farm 
coalition struck back. The farm group team said it planned to watch CCI and 
its members, 'track their sources of funding and evaluate the company they 
keep.' When necessary, we will alert Iowans about their destructive mission." 
That didn't sound like any peace keeping mission. It sounds like peace 
makers losing control of the coalition to those who want to wage war. We've 
already got too much of that.


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

I don't know a lot about the hog operations, but i do know they can pollute the water and river systems in the general area. They can literally make a 10-15 mile radius unliveable from what i have seen. The pollution these operations kick out is second to none. It't not like cattle. At least thier crap can fertilize the ground....a hogs......just sinks in and pollutes. NOT GOOD!!!!


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Tom,

I am confident that sportsmen will support what ever actions are necessary to prevent this problem. Unfortunately we are often slow to hear or understand the problems - Dick and others been trying to whip us into shape, but alas, we are still slow.

Given that this is international, is this another justification for keeping a strong 119th in Fargo?

M.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Just out of curiosity has anybody thought about an alternitive to the problem? Also has anyone thought about what would happen to the price of groceries if these operations where shut down. I am not condoning what they are doing!! It is wrong to stink out your neighbors as well as kill them off with nitrates and the like, but the human population in general are meat eaters not vegetarians. These operations exist because there is a demand for the product, the only thing I can think of is ship all of the pork and poultry in from Siberia, and even then you are still going to have problems. There is no simple solution to any of these problems, we all still have to eat not many of us can or are willing to raise our own food weather it be growing vegetables or raising some form of meat for slaughter. Just so everyone knows I am not a farmer of any nature, yes I do own a small amount of land (72 acres) however I try to manage it for wildlife habitat, deer, pheasants, ducks, geese, sandhills and the like. Where I live I don't have a farmer with in 1 1/2 miles of me that operates any kind of a live stock operation. The way of the family farm is becoming a thing of the past. Now you drive by a farm house some over paid yuppie has bought the house, buildings and land and is leveling the old house that has been standing there for over fifty years and putting up a $500,000 to 1 million dollar home. This is happening about every 40 acres or so. Where are the farmers going to farm? Where are we going to hunt? Soon there won't be any farms for miles by towns and no wildlife to enjoy or hunt. The great people of ND wonder why they have more NR's coming to hunt than ever before this is just a start. Hold onto your family farms keep doing the things you are doing don't let Corporate America invade your back yards or it won't be long and you will all have the same problem as most MN res have.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

jd (John Deere?), consolidation and vertical integration drive it. If these virtual monopolies can shave a few cents over the small producer, they are profitable. Add in the colusion of politicans that give unfair advantage to the big packers and the little guys are wiped out. Remember Tyson sp Chicken in Arkansas? Just a few years ago pigs were so cheap (driven down in price to bust the little guys) that farmers gave them away and then quit. I would far sooner pay a few cents more per lb and have the animal #s spread across many smaller units.

Denmark is far ahead of the US in this regard. They have limited the size of hog operations to fit family farms, moniter pollution closely, and formed national marketing ventures for Danish ham.

I would like to hear the views of the 2 candidates for ND State Ag Commissioner on this topic. Corporate farming and large animal production units go hand in hand and have a real effect on hunting and conservation.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I grew up in Pembina County so some of these items are near and dear to my heart. At one time there was talk of a new prison up in the Pembina Hills. Worst spot, too nice an area. Put something like a prison or hog farm about 8 miles west of the Red River and 3 or so miles south of Highway No.5. More outdoors people ie. hunters, fishermen etc.......... Need to get involved. Run for County Commission, Planning and Zoning Commisions and the like. You snooze.  You LOSE. :bop:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

This is very interesting. When a landowner wants to lease HIS land or a G/O wants to open a buisness the cry "IT'S HIS LAND, LET HIM DO AS HE WANTS". When a Hog farm wants to be built The cry is "WE DON'T WANT THEM HERE MAKE THEM STOP. Well it seems like a double standard to me. All you will have to do is breathe some stinky air. But by all means don't allow Fargo to implement a law to keep smokers from stinking up the air. OH I'm so CONFUSED. someone please help me understand the thinking here.


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

SWIFT>>>>>>SEE what has happened in north carolina and manitoba with these nasty pollution creating farms. It's not just the stink.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

One of the late June-early July issues of Agweek covered the mega hog farm situation in northern MN. It may have been a cover story. Absolute nightmare for the neighbors. Typically the owners-shareholders do not live in the area. Groundwater pollution. Dead animals. Flies. And yes stink. Enough to drop you on your knees. These operations are couched as "economic developement" and offer low paying jobs with high turn over. The reason we have zoning laws is to all protect property owners from individuals who do not care about others and have no regard for the property of others.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Swift-

If the state told the landowner he could not have hogs on his land because the state wants the public to be able to keep hogs on his land for free it would resemble the hunting land leasing situation.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Public wildlife = private hogs ???????????????????? :lame: Not.

Widg, you can still borrow my canoe, but now you have to rent the paddles.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Dick,

No, hogs (a legal item to buy and sell) = hunting access (a legal item to buy and sell).

The stink about landowners leasing their land to g/o is not because the g/os are ruining the environment, it is because some in society want the land access (a thing of value) open to the general public.

That would be like telling the hog farmer that he can't profit by having hogs on his land NOT because of the environmental impacts but because the state thinks society would benefit as a whole if everyone could have hogs on his land for free. I believe the landowner would have a problem with this proposal.

I know, these analogies are getting old. I feel like I'm reading thru a KAPLAN book...

And Dick, I do appreciate your offer. If I ever do take you up on it, I'll be sure to bring my own life jacket - we've disagreed on too many things for me to take that leap of faith unprepared...


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I don't see the difference. Between the to both have to do with landowner rights. I don't want a large hog operation in the Pembina hills either. And I think they should be stopped. I also don't want Outfitters leasing all the land in the state either. With the HOGS we look at what is best for everyone involved which says don't allow them to be built. With the Outfitters we should ask the same question and let the people of the state vote on whether they should be permitted to do buisness or not. It's the same thing HOG farms will desicrate the air and land and Outfitters desicrate tradition and values.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Good points swift -- I will try to explain where some (including myself) draw the line on the issue.

It can definitely be argued that hog farming hurts society. While the hogs are only on one person's property, their negative effects (effluent, stink, etc...) negatively effect other landowners in the area. The hog farmer has impacted land he doesn't own with the effects of his operations. The other landowners take a hit and are not compensated adequately for the damages.

On the other hand, a g/o's activities are largely limited to the landowner he has a contract with-- neigboring landowners are not negatively affected. If they (the neigbors) do feel like they are worse off because of the landowner leasing his land, it is because they lost the positive contributions the landowner made before to society by leaving his land open to hunting. But those positive effects (land access) are the property of the landowner and the landowner only. He has the right to do what he wants with his land access.

The hog farmer doesn't have the right to poison all the water for miles around (everyone pays, but only he collects).

The pig farmer is "charging" the landowners around him to help run his operation, while the g/o has "stopped payment" to the surrounding landowners who benefited from the free access.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Wig, your comment about g/o's is some what false in the sense that they desicrate the land around the leased property. Becasue if a g/o is hunting land that is a feeding area and the surrounding area is normally an area that the wildlife uses for resting they are then wiping out more than what is on one persons land they are hurting the population of the wildlife surrounding the area of the leased land as well. Hence they can do a significant amount of damage to one area in a short period of time by single handly wiping out certain types of wildlife in one area. So what was once a good hunting area will now take several years to re-populate. The land owner and the general public also lose as well all of the land owners neighbors. So please tell me how it is you think that a G/O is not the same as a massive hog operation.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

jd,

When following the game laws, wildlife extirpation is not an issue. Contrary to what some may say on this board, regulated hunting is not killing off all of the birds. To say that just to push your agenda is a disservice to all hunters.

As for the guides shooting up the roosts/feeding areas and making the area devoid of game?

If guides do that, they suck at their job. Guides, more than anyone else, depend on the birds remaining in the area. In Texas, they establish roosts on their land for snows and ducks that no-one goes near. It's called job security. No birds in the area, unhappy clients.

Shooting up roosts and feeding areas is much more likely on open (public) land. When no one has exclusive use of an area, all bets are off. Tragedy of the commons.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

If the state has authority, and it does, to regulate these animal operations for the public good, is that not the same as regulating wildlife laws for the public good? It would seem to me to be the same case--not social theroy but actual law as is now on the books.

One cannot go to the head of the line simply because he can afford to do so when the commodity in question is publicly owned.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

> Dick Monson said:
> 
> 
> > If the state has authority, and it does, to regulate these animal operations for the public good, is that not the same as regulating wildlife laws for the public good? It would seem to me to be the same case--not social theroy but actual law as is now on the books.


Dick, you are right in your thinking but there is an important difference in these two cases.

If the state wanted to limit g/o because they were damaging the natural resource, then I would be in support of the state. However, the state would like to limit g/o because the state wants to be able to hunt the land themselves.

The state has all of my support to manage the public resource (game animals). Season lengths, bag limits, and fair chase laws are just a few of the options the state has.

Hunting access on private land is a privately owned resource and comes with a diferent set of rules. Like other private property, this resource should be able to be bought and sold with as little government interference as possible.

If everyone agrees hog operations cost more than they benefit the society, then ban them by all means. The landowner will begin asking questions, however, when the state doesn't let *him* have hogs on *his* land because of "environmental reasons" then allows other citizens to put hogs on *his* land for free.

Anything is possible with laws it seems, I'm just trying to explain the difference I see between the two options.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> What are you going to support? Your from the Peoples Republic of Texas.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Wig, my post above went wrong. I was saying you say you will support our government if the situation was right in your mind. Your from another state and lucky for us we don't need your support.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Wig where is your head? I could guess and probably be right BUT I won't go there. I never in my post stated that following hunting laws was killing off all birds!! Nor would I would ever intentionally or unintentionally do any thing that would degrade hunting or hunters our fight for our rights as sportmen is to difficult already why would I fuel the enemy? Secondly I have seen guides hunting the same peice of land for several days in a row and they apparently were very proud of what they were doing because they made sure to park the named trailers next to the road so people could read the name of thier G/O business. In the cases that I am speaking of they were hunting feeding areas not resting areas however next to some of the areas they were hunting on there were resting areas that did not have any visible game on them. I am glad that you think G/O are important in Texas however what they have done to hunting in that state is the reason that you most others have to leave Texas in order to hunt because most of the land is locked up for fee hunting and the general populas can not afford to hunt on those peices of land. Hence the reason by buddy in Austin and his friends are coming to MN to deer hunt. They can fly up here, buy a NR lisc. hunt for 9 days and fly home including shipping the meat home for less than it would cost them to hunt in thier own back yard for 5 days. That's Pathetic!! You wonder why the great people of ND are trying to stop or limit the number of G/O's? You need not look any further than your own back yard so to speak. Wig I am not sure if you are purposely are trying act like you are less than intellegently or if you really are not very intellegent, however what ever it is you are trying to do is starting to wear very thin!! From now on try harder to speak or act more intellegently and your written words will carry more weight.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

jd,

it's difficult for me to read your long sentences but I'll try to do the best i can you see it's difficult to keep something you never owned in the first place like hunting rights because if the person who owns the hunting rights doesn't want you there there's nothing you can do about it all the laws in the book will never allow the public free access to a persons property for hunting if the property owner doesn't want hunting on his property and your buddies from Austin could find a place to hunt for less money than the roundtrip to minnessota because not all texas hunting is really expensive and i have never said i was intelligent just that i have strong opinons about this subject and it did seem like you were accusing the guides of overharvesting game.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

wow! you guys have some deep discusion going on and I think it is good. However, I do have a simple slant on the whole thing that has been mentioned before. If the game in the state belongs to the residents of the state (as it is written) Then how is it legal for a select few to profit from taking of this resource which is in fact owned by every resident? shouldn't all residents get a split of the profits. After all it is their "pig" too! just a thought!! :beer: I realize you guys are talking about pig farms and my topic is more to do with the proliferation of G&O's and the comercializeation of a public resource. I just thought it fit well with some of the examples you guys are putting out. As pig farms go. Nothing and I do mean nothing good can come from it. and I have spent many a summer in the Pembina Gorge hiking and just doing the nature thing. The people of Walhalla are a simple folk but don't confuse that with lack of intelligence. I think they are doing the right thing. More power to them. If you havn't seen that area you should really try to get up there in the fall when the leaves are turning. I believe it rivals lake Michigan's north shore drive. Carry on with the debate. you guys make very interesting and valid points. :2cents:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

The only good thing that comes from pigs is food... hams/bacon/sausage etc....I guess when we can live without food we will be in a perfect world.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Buckseye, If you are lucky enough to live in North Dakota you already live in a perfect world.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

:thumb: :jammin: bobm these last few days have felt like fall....high 40's for a night temp. Getting nipply on the scoots at night but what the heck summer is short.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Yep the season is only a few short weeks away, whoopee!!!!! I wish it was cool down here.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Dick Monson said:


> Mr. Fischer, I second Dan's opinion that we would like to clone you about fifty times for the next session.
> 
> 
> 
> > I believe the Canadians pulled the application for the permit, and as a grain farmer, sportsman, and just general Nodaker, I am glad. Manatoba is playing hell with confined hog farms they have already approved.


Monson has already admitted to not liking hog farms . Now tell me again that you guys are not going after the livestock industry. We landowners have to stick together for our rights.

Would someone please have the guts to answer some of my previous questions.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Apparently nobody likes to eat pork? 

Plus, modern hog confinement operations, when done right are a FAR cry from what they were just ten years ago. So you really cant compare a modern (properly operated) facility with any from down south that may be ten, twenty years old, or older.

Gee, no elk or deer farming, no pork, whats next? No beef and wheat?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

A blast from the past.....FETCH LIVES!!!!!


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I showed Monson's opinion to a local hog producer who has 2 full time employees and about 3 part time high school kids helping him. He also farms quite a bit and has some good cattle . His response POSTED! I don't have to do anything but print off what was said , show it to the people that it concerns and it's a done deal. You guys are doing the dirty work for me. Just as you are for peta.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

angus1,

What's with all of the threats? If you want to post your land go ahead that is your right, but why do you need to use it as a threat to get somebody to go along with you? Is that going to solve all of your problems?


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I'm not threating any one. The Hunters on ND are threating the livestock industry and I won't put up with my livelyhood being put on the line. I don't have to talk anyone into any thing I just simply show someone some crap that was said about a landowner or farmer and BAM! it's done. You guys are threating me and my fellow rural friends by trying to first take elk, deer and then JUST AS MONSON SAID HOGS. SO who's threating who.

By the way HUNTNFISHND I know who you are .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> By the way HUNTNFISHND I know who you are .


and where he lives? Threats of this nature will not be tolerated. PM sent angus.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I really don't like the threating phone calls in which I have received today . They knew me , and where my kids go to school, they know my parents. They threatened harm to all of them.

A message to the caller. I'm looking forward to the "severe a$$ kicking" you said I have coming.

This is angus 1 over and out.!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

angus 1 said:


> I really don't like the threating phone calls in which I have received today . They knew me , and where my kids go to school, they know my parents. They threatened harm to all of them.
> 
> A message to the caller. I'm looking forward to the "severe a$$ kicking" you said I have coming.
> 
> This is angus 1 over and out.!


I want you to PM me and tell me about this. I don't care if people agree with me or disagree, I don't want anyone threatening anyone. If your getting threatening phone calls I would suggest calling law enforcement. Please respond to the PM I sent you. I don't want you threatening people, and I don't want anyone hassling you because you disagree. Everyone, absolutely everyone has a right to voice their opinion.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

angus 1 said:


> By the way HUNTNFISHND I know who you are .


Good for you it's really no secret. My name is Scott Kenninger and I live near Harwood. How about you?

What I find interesting is after my post I got a PM from somebody named JohnDoe366. Is that you too?

Talk about some paranoid people on here, geesh! :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> angus 1 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way HUNTNFISHND I know who you are .
> ...


Forward that PM if possible would you. I would like the ip address off of it. Copy and past if it can't be forwarded. Maybe that will work.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

djleye said:


> A blast from the past.....FETCH LIVES!!!!!


I thought the same thing. Fetch has been reinstated with a full pardon!! :lol:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> I got a PM from somebody named JohnDoe366


I got the same one!!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

280 IM, An out of stater is the one that is John Doe.
Nice of him to be so concerned about ND issues.
I would guess his land isn't open to hunting anyway so I guess it doesn't matter if he threatans to post his land if a measure passes or not!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

angus 1 said:


> I really don't like the threating phone calls in which I have received today . They knew me , and where my kids go to school, they know my parents. They threatened harm to all of them.
> 
> A message to the caller. I'm looking forward to the "severe a$$ kicking" you said I have coming.
> 
> This is angus 1 over and out.!


I read this post again. In one sentence angus you voice concern about threats, and in the last paragraph you taunt violence. One sentence talks about family endangerment, and the last essentially says bring it on. This thread has gone from valuable discussion to contamination from the fair chase thread and a get even attitude. In that light I am locking it before things get any more out of hand.


----------

